The Rural Voice, 1980-02, Page 10Are egg
pro ducers
sunny-side up?
BY ADRIAN VOS
Seven years ago chicken farmers went broke because of low
egg prices. Today an egg producer with a flock of 20,000 hens
can maintain his family comfortably without worries about his
income being depressed by cheap imports.
Opponents of quota systems say that this security affects
efficiency, but Max Demaray, a committeeman for the egg board
in Huron County, said that since the quota is now on the number
of birds an egg producer is allowed to keep, instead of on dozens
of eggs, increased efficiency per bird is extra money in the
pocket.
Mr. Demaray, who has a modern barn filled with 10,000
chickens, said that just before quotas were put into effect, he
received 23 cents for a dozen eggs. Feedmills saved many egg
producers from going broke through feed and pullet contracts,
by absorbing much of the losses.
According to Mr. Demaray the criticism against the egg boards
and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (CEMA) when 28
million eggs spoiled six years ago was unwarranted, for while no
one should condone wasting food, the inexperience that led to
the loss was paid for by the egg producers and not by the
consuming public.
When several rail cars filled with eggs spoiled, the agency was
blamed initially for the loss, but when it turned out that the
railroad was responsible the hue and cry suddenly subsided.
With some understandable bitterness Max Demaray asked why
the marketing board of farmers get all the bad publicity while the
board of the railways were absolved.
Just as beef producers are concerned about a packing house
going bank rupt and producers losing the money due them, so
the egg producers are concerned that an egg grading station may
go broke. Some producers have anywhere from $3,000 to $8,000
in eggs delivered to the grader before their cheque comes
through.
The cost of production formula used to calculate the price the
egg grader has to pay the producer doesn't have any provision
either for the cost of quotas or for a profit. Both have to come
from a better than average efficiency, Mr. Demaray said.
MARKET DIVIDED
The market for eggs is divided among the provinces according
to the production that existed at the time quotas were
PO. ♦THE RURAL VOICE/ FEBRUARY 1980
established. For some reason the Ontario quota was based on the
number of eggs produced then and for the other provinces the
quota consisted of birds. Max Demaray said that this
immediately caused Ontario producers to be shortchanged on
quota something which is still felt in the industry.
In the agreement between provinces no provision is made
for adjustment of provincial quota unless all provinces agree to
change.
Up to the end of 1979, quotas were tied to the farm to which
they were issued and anyone wishing to enter egg production
had to buy the farm with the quota. Changes for 1980 are
anticipated at time of writing.
The marketing cost of a dozen eggs was five cent in 1975 and
has recently decreased to four cents.
Part of the marketing levy of four cents is used for promotion
of the product, and almost everyone is aware of the "Get
Cracking" ads on television. Results of the campaign are
beginning to be felt and consumption of eggs is slowly going up.
What worries egg producers in Ontario is that most of the
imported eggs are marketed in Ontario which tends to limit
expansion opportunities here.
The return on old hens is just enough to pay for the cost of
catching them and fluctuates from four to 20 cents a pound.
Disease is no big problem at the moment as long as some of
the more virulent exotic diseases can be kept out of the country.
But what does worry many egg producers is the constant
threat of "do-gooders" who equate the psyche of animals with
that of man.
EXTRA COST
A theory coming over from Europe says that to put four
chickens in one cage creates an unwarranted mental stress on
them. For years now some consumers in Europe have asked for
eggs from "scratch birds", or barnyard chickens. To their credit
they were and are willing to pay more for the eggs because they
realize that there is an extra cost involved.
The problem is that a return to the loose running concept or
even the closed henhouse, will almost certainly mean a return to
many of the old diseases that are now well-nigh non-existent. It
is not so long ago that infectious bronchitis, chicken pox,
diptheria, tuberculosis, coryza and cocciodosis were common
among Canadian chickens, while today they are practically gone.
Researchers have found that cannibalism among cage
chickens with three to five birds seldom happens, but among
loose running chickens it is quite common.
Nevetheless, the agriculture ministers of the European
Community have agreed to phase out the cage in the next seven
years and to enforce a larger cage for 20 chickens. However,
tests on this type of cage are not completed in the various
research institutes in Europe. All this confusion has left the
European producer with his hands in his hair.
On the one hand he doesn't know what to buy, cages for four
or the new cages. These new cages must be higher than the old
ones for they must have roosts and a bottom with shavings or
other bedding.
The proposed cages are one metre (40 in.) high and have
nestboxes. The roost is situated so that the bird can eat while
roosting.
The reason that the European ministers are going along with
the wishes of the activists is the support these people enjoy
among the consumers, and because an egg boycott could easily
ruin the egg industry.
Will there be similar pressure on the North American poultry
industry in the near future? That is a question that worries egg
producers like Max Demaray, for he is happy with the minimal
disease problems he is enjoying now.