11.07.2015 Views

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

2120 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS TO KEEP LAYING HENSTable A1.27: Packer concentration and egg sales by production system, 1990-20021990 1995 2000 2001 2002Packing activity 1284 649 594 561 542More than 50mn eggsNumber of packers 47 61 71 70 71% of packers 57 61 70 71 72Consumption eggs sales (‘000eggs)10.7 11.2 11.5 11.4 11.6Organic 4.0% 4.4% 4.3%Free range 9.2% 10.6% 10.7%Barn 1.2% 1.1% 1.6%Cages 85.6% 83.8% 83.7%Source: ITAVIA1.5.2.3. Main production systemsDuring the 1980s in response to growing demand for eggs produced in alternative systems withoutdoor access, two new systems emerge. These were “plein air” (2.5 m 2 per hen or 4,000 hens perhectare) and “libre parcours” – or free range (10m 2 per hen or 1,000 hens per hectare). In 2002 thesetwo production systems were merged in the “plein air” system. Recently, the organic system and the“label rouge” 75 (at least 5 m 2 per hen) system have also been developing. The latter is similar to “pleinair”, but with feed constraints similar to those of organic.In 2002, the total number of hens kept in alternative systems was estimated at 7.8-7.9 mn, of which1.327 mn came from organic production, 1.235 mn in the “label rouge” system, 4.570 million in thestandard “plein air” system and 800,000 in the deep litter system 76 . Assuming a total flock of 61.4 mnhens the total number of hens kept in alternative systems would corresponded to 12.7% of the Frenchflock in 2002.75 A quality assurance mark.76 The source for the 2002 numbers in text is ITAVI. These numbers do not fully correspond with those from Eurostat167

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!