Evaluating the sustainability of egg production in Turkey: A standardized data approach

Öz

This study aimed to evaluate egg production systems within the scope of sustainability criteria under Turkey conditions. A standardized data approach was used to measure sustainability and compare egg production systems. The study covered a one-year egg-laying cycle of 24 farms including conventional cage, organic, and free-range systems. Hens in conventional cages had higher egg production and lower feed intake compared to hens in organic and free-range systems. The highest mortality was found in the free-range hens while the lowest was in the conventional cage system. All hens were fully feathered in the organic egg production system, which was followed, by free-range and conventional cage. This result led to a better social sustainability score for non-cage systems. Economic issues of sustainability had higher scores in conventional cage and organic egg production than those in the free-range system. The hen number per m2 in the total farm area was lower in organic and free-range than those in conventional cage systems (P=0.003), nonetheless, the total land occupation area was found similar. The standardized data used in this study shows that management practices should be improved in free-range and organic egg production systems to achieve higher sustainability scores in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sustainability score
• standardized data
• egg production
• conventional cage
• organic
• free-range

Kaynakça

1. Referans1 Appleby M C and Hughes B O. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioral aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47:109–128.
2. Referans2 AssureWel. 2013. Laying hen welfare outcome assessment explanation of measures. http://www.assurewel.org/layinghens/featherloss (10 February 2020).
3. Referans3 Bilcik B and Keeling L J. 1999. Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 40(4):444-451.
4. Referans4 Blokhuis H J, Van Niekerk T F, Bessei W, Elson A, Guémené D, Kjaer J B, Maria Levrino G A, Nicol C J, Tauson R, Weeks C A and Van de Weerd H A. 2007. The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 63:101–114.
5. Referans 5 Castellini C, Boggia A, Cortina C, Dal Bosco A, Paolotti L, Novelli E, and Mugnai C. 2012. A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 37:192-201.
6. Referans6 Commission Implementing Regulation. 2017. Methods of production communicated according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EC-617/2008). European Commission (DG ESTAT, DG AGRI), 2017/1185.
7. Referans 7 de Boer J M and Cornelissen A M G. 2002. A method using sustainability Indicators to compare conventional and animal-friendly egg production systems. Poultry Science 81:173-181.
8. Referans8 Dekker S E M, de Boer I J M, Vermeij I, Aarnink A J A, & Groot Koerkamp P W G. 2011. Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg prodcution systems. Livestock Science 139:109-121.

9. Referans9 EFSA (The European Food Safety Authority). 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to the welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. EFSA Journal 197:1–23.
10. Referans10 FAO. 2017. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL (10 February 2020).
11. Referans11 Kalkan N. 2019. Sustainability of broiler meat and egg production systems. Master Thesis, Ege University (Unpublished), Turkey.
12. Referans 12 Leenstra F, Maurer V, Bestman M, van Sambeek F, Zeltner E, Reuvekamp B, Galea F, and van Niekerk T. 2012. Performance of commercial laying hen genotypes on free range and organic farms In Switzerland, France and The Netherlands. British Poultry Science 53:282-290.
13. Referans13 Leinonen I, Williams A G, and Kyriazakis I. 2014. The effects of welfare-enhancing system changes on the environmental impacts of broiler and egg production. Poultry Science 93:256–266.
14. Referans14 Matthews W A and Sumner D A. 2015. Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production. Poultry Science 94:552-557.
15. Referans15 Mench J A and Rodenburg T B. 2018. Sustainability of laying hen housing systems. In: Mench J (Ed.), Advances in poultry welfare Woodhead Publishing, pp.199-225.
16. Referans16 Mollenhorst H, Berentsen P B M, & de Boer I J M (2006). On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science 47(4):405-417.
17. Referans17 Mollenhorst H, Rodenburg T B, Bokkers E A M, Koene P, and de Boer I J M. 2005. On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environmental-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behavior Science 90:277-291.
18. Referans18 Regmi P, Smith N, Nelson N, Haut R C, Orth M W, and Karcher D M. 2016. Housing conditions alter properties of the tibia and humerus during the laying phase in Lohmann white Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 95(1):198–206.
19. Referans19 Sandilands V, Moinard C, and Sparks N H C. 2009. Providing laying hens with perches: fulfilling behavioral needs but causing injury? British Poultry Science 50:395-406.
20. Referans20 SAS INSTITUTE. 2002. JMP® User’s Guide: Statistics Version 5.0.1. edition, Cary, NC. SAS Institute.
21. Referans21 Shepherd T A, Zhao Y, Li H, Stinn J P, Hayes M D, and Xin H. 2015. Environmental assessment of three egg production systems- Part II. Ammonia, greenhouse gas, and particulate matter emissions. Poultry Science 94:534–543.
22. Referans22 Sumner D A, Gow H, Hayes D, Matthews W, Norwood B, Rosen-Molina J T and Thurman W. 2011. Economic and market issues on the sustainability of egg production in the United States: analysis of alternative production systems. Poultry Science 90:241–250.
23. Referans23 van Asselt E D, van Bussel L G J, van Horne P, van der Voet H, van der Heijden G W A M, and van der Fels-Klerx H J. 2015. Assessing the sustainability of egg production systems in The Netherlands. Poultry Science 94:1742–1750.
24. Referans24 Van Kernebeek H R J, Oosting S J, Van Ittersum M K, Bikker P and de Boer I J M. 2016. Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21:677–687.
25. Referans25 van Staaveren N, Decina C, Baes F C, Widowski T M, Berke O, and Harlander-Matauschek A. 2018. A description of laying hen husbandry and management practices in Canada. Animals 8:114.
26. Referans26 van Zanten B T, Zasada I, Koetse M J, Ungaro F, Häfner K, and Verburg P H. 2016. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services 17:87–98.
27. Referans27 Weeks C A, and Nicol C J. 2006. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:296-307.
28. Referans28 Weeks C A, Lambton S L, and Williams A G. 2016. Implications for welfare, productivity and sustainability of the variation in reported levels of mortality for laying hen flocks kept in different housing systems: a meta- analysis of ten studies. PLoS ONE 11(1):1-15.
29. Referans29 Whay H R, Main D C J, Green L E, Heaven G, Howell H, Morgan M, Pearson A, and Webster A J F. 2007. Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Veterinary Record 161:119-128.
30. Referans30 Xin H, Gates R S, Green A R, Mitloehner F M, Moore Jr. P A, and Wathes C M. 2011. Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science 90:263–277.
31. Referans31 Yum-Bir. 2018. https://www.yum-bir.org/Yumurta/id30-Istatistikler (10 February 2020).