The Egg of Columbus

Germany wants to be a pioneer in animal welfare, has stricter requirements than most other countries in the world. An important milestone was the abolition of cages for laying hens. But is everything all right now? All the farming systems currently in use have serious weaknesses, and there is still no way in sight to overcome them.

In order to develop a path to a better future, the Thünen Institute has carried out a comparative study of current husbandry systems. The table shows that none of the current husbandry systems is entirely convincing.

* Animal welfare label of the German Animal Welfare Association Premium level.
** nSGF=net floor space; for >9 animals: Aviary housing with several floors
*** Marketable eggs (quality class A) per initial hen and year
Source: Own estimates based on farm evaluations, supported by Christina Gaio (KTBL) and Henning Pieper (Lower Saxony Chamber of Agriculture).

Floor housing allows for extremely low production costs (7.5 ct./egg), but the animals lack space and outdoor climate contact. The addition of a cold scratch room can help, but interferes with the ventilation system.

With free-range systems, the animals get fresh air but stay close to the house to avoid birds of prey. This leads to high nitrogen emissions, as well as infection risks. And if free-range husbandry has to be temporarily banned because of the threat of bird flu, there is the same confinement in the barn as with floor husbandry.

In principle, this problem also arises with mobile housing. Here, the damage caused by predators is even more serious, and in winter and during continuous rain it can be difficult to ensure the mobility of the stalls and thus sufficient nutrient distribution. Production costs are more than twice as high as with floor husbandry, mainly because of the high labour input.

The weaknesses of the current husbandry systems give reason for industry, politics and science to work together towards a better target for poultry husbandry. This should provide both good figures and good pictures. This is not only about housing concepts, but also about breeding lines, feeding systems, hygiene measures and nutrient retention - a Herculean task that can only be mastered if the departure for new horizons is politically desired, long-term oriented and sufficiently financed.

Digitalisation opens up many new solution options. However, a future-proof husbandry system will not emerge by itself, but only if many individual activities are orchestrated. To this end, it would have to be clarified above all who should steer the joint development process and bear the responsibility for success or failure. The business community should be closely involved from the beginning, ideally within the framework of a Germany-wide European Innovation Partnership (EIP). EIP funds could be used to set up trial stables on numerous practical farms and accompany them scientifically.

The scientific part of the large-scale project would require technological, animal-related and business management expertise. In order for the objectives to have a chance of social acceptance later on, unavoidable conflicts of objectives (e.g. between resource efficiency and animal welfare) should be addressed at an early stage, well balanced and professionally communicated. The joint project "SocialLab" led by the Thünen Institute could contribute to this.

Whatever the socially acceptable targets will look like: Egg production at full costs of 7.5 ct./egg seems out of the question. It can be assumed that production costs will be at least 30% higher.

Now 3 or even 5 cents more per egg would not actually be much, but the market ticks differently. The new product line could only achieve a higher price if it becomes recognisable to consumers, and this would require a change in the husbandry labelling (or a new label). It is difficult enough to implement this. But as long as consumers then continue to have a choice, the new product line will  will only be a market segment among others. Even if the food trade bans all eggs that come from less animal friendly farming systems, eggs for processed products will continue to be produced as before. If the state tries to prevent this through animal welfare regulations, production will be shifted abroad. Only as much is produced domestically as can be sold at high prices.

This raises the fundamental question: Do we want to make the voluntary daily purchasing decisions of consumers determine how well we achieve the state's goal of animal welfare? If not, a different financing concept would have to be chosen: It would then make sense to use a state animal welfare premium to enable all livestock farmers in Germany to implement the new target. To finance this, the state could ask consumers to pay an animal welfare levy. It could also simply refrain from making food from animal production extra cheaper through the reduced VAT rate.