Page Content
The Review of Layer Hen Housing
Background
Definitions
Current Situation and How it Developed
Animal Welfare Issues
Comparison of Layer Hen Housing Systems
Industry Considerations
Conclusions
Background
Any evaluation of layer hen housing quickly leads to the realisation that this is a complex matter. It embraces a range of diverse issues including hen welfare (which includes hen health), production costs, food safety, occupational health and safety and environmental issues.
In evaluating the acceptability of different types of layer hen housing systems, different people place different emphasis on the relative importance of the aspects listed above. Trying to identify a middle ground on these issues is difficult and there is no easy way forward.
Definitions
The first necessary step in considering the issue is to make sure that everyone is speaking the same language. What exactly are the different systems of production to choose between? Several systems can be defined but it should be noted that in Australia there are only three systems currently in general use - conventional cages (often referred to as battery cages – a term which is both imprecise and opposed by industry), barns and free-range. For completeness, three other systems (furnished/enriched cages, aviaries/perches and organic) are also described, although these are not currently in general use in Australia.
It is also important to distinguish between the housing system within the poultry shed building and the poultry shed building itself. Since most housing systems can be constructed and managed within most types of building, the two issues have been kept separate.
The AEIA distinguishes between producers with cage based farms as follows:
- those using partly or fully controlled environment sheds, built in the last decade, and providing a more consistent and biosecure bird environment.
- those using "conventional" sheds providing little environmental control.
The former are characterised as the future, the latter as not a viable investment in the long term."
This report deals with the housing system within a building and the effects that the systems themselves have on bird welfare, food safety etc.
It might thus be most useful for decision makers to consider those future housing options in terms of different systems which may be contained within a partly or fully controlled environment shed.
Conventional Cages
Typical cages as specified in the current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry 1995 - ie they are required to provide a minimum of 450cm2 of floor space per bird which may be calculated including the space under the baffle. (Recently manufactured cages measure 50cm X 50cm and house five hens which allows 500cm2 unrestricted floor space per hen if there is no baffle and down to 400cm2 unrestricted floor space per bird if the cage has a 10cm baffle).
Conventional cages do not provide hens with nest boxes, litter for foraging or dust bathing, or perches.
Barns
Birds are on the ground and free to move about with access to litter as specified in
the Model Code of Practice for "deep litter" systems. RSPCA accredited barns must meet a higher standard, with reduced stocking density and limited flock size.
Nest boxes are provided in barns.
Free Range
Birds range outdoors and have indoor shelter for night or poor weather. Stocking densities are as specified in the Model Code of Practice for "range" systems.
Other Systems
Furnished / enriched cages
These cages provide perches, a nest, some litter, and more space per bird than conventional cages.
Aviaries and Percheries
These are similar to barns, but have multi-tiered platforms (aviaries) or perches (percheries), nests and feeders to make use of the height of the shed. There are none in Australia.
Organic
This describes a production philosophy rather than a housing system. It utilises a free-range production system with a reliance on management practices for the control of pests and diseases rather than a reliance on substances. Refer to National Standard for Organic and Bio-dynamic Produce.
Current Situation and How it Developed
The industry estimates that 91 per cent of the national commercial flock is housed in cages, with 3.5 per cent in barns and 5.5 per cent free-range. This is similar to the situation worldwide.
The caging of commercial laying hens was developed in the USA in the 1930s. Cages had, and still have, the advantage of greatly reducing the incidence of parasitic infections such as coccodiosis and round worms that are transmitted by manure. The first cages housed one bird per cage which allowed poor layers to be culled. Current conventional cages generally house five birds.
Since the 1930s there has been a phenomenal increase in knowledge about how environmental and nutritional factors influence different aspects of egg production in caged birds. For instance, the interactions between temperature, feed consumption, feather cover and egg production are well understood. So too are the relationships between the ratios and requirements for various amino acids in the diet and the interaction between egg number and egg size.
While production levels from caged layers continued to improve, questions were also asked about the impact of traditional caged systems on the welfare of the birds. Questions were raised about the effects on the birds of 365 days or more of confinement in a wire cage with a sloping floor at a density which resulted in continuous physical contact with other birds and the cage walls and often of a size not large enough to accommodate a single bird’s wing span. The impact on the welfare of hens in the absence of the environmental features that occupy the time of birds housed on the ground, i.e. nest sites, friable material for foraging and dust bathing, were also questioned.
Beginning with the British Government’s Brambell Report into "The Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandy Conditions" in 1965, the level of scientific investigation into how housing systems affect a broad range of layer hen welfare aspects accelerated.
Animal Welfare Issues
Conventional Cages
There were different views among the Working Group on the extent to which there are (or are not) serious inadequacies for bird welfare caused by conventional cages and the quality of the supporting evidence.
Some members of the Working Group believe that there is now a large amount of scientific evidence to demonstrate that conventional cages have major problems for layer hen welfare. This evidence is discussed in the RSPCA and Animals Australia Submissions to the Working Group and in the 1996 EC Report which formed the basis of the EU Directive. These Working Group members agree with the findings of these documents that the most serious of these welfare problems are:
- lack of suitable nest site, and
- lack of opportunity to forage and scratch in litter.
They believe these deficiencies result in severe behavioural frustration which has been shown to be extremely aversive to hens, i.e. hens experience suffering because cages do not have nests and litter. Since the lack of a nest and litter are inherent features of conventional cages it follows that these welfare shortcomings cannot be overcome by "good" management. On the above grounds alone many scientists, many non-scientists and some of the Working Group members believe that it is ethically unacceptable to keep laying hens in conventional cages.
Alternatively some other members of the working group agree that welfare should be assessed by measuring how much has to be done by the animal to cope with its environment and the extent to which its coping attempts are succeeding. Attempts to cope include the functioning of body repair systems, immunological defences, physiological stress response and a variety of behavioural responses. Accordingly some members of the working group believe that current scientific evidence does not support the contention that conventional cages have inherent welfare problems that outweigh the welfare benefits of cages. There is also concern about the nature and quality of the scientific evidence presented in reports such as that of the EC.
Some Working Group members accept that there is behavioural evidence that laying hens can experience emotions or feelings which result in mental suffering.
Other members agree with this basic premise but also acknowledge that such emotional consequences can be measured to assist in assessing welfare. They disagree on the magnitude of emotional responses that result in adverse welfare. A demonstrable adverse effect on welfare would be accompanied by a decrease in "fitness" as shown by, for example, a reduction in growth rate, egg production or health, or by immunosuppression or an increase in injuries.
Other welfare problems with conventional cages have been identified and are generally agreed upon. These may be overcome with relatively minor changes to cage design and stocking density including:
- appropriate perches in appropriate locations (in cages with sufficient height)
- claw shortening devices
- fully opening cage doors
- sufficient space to allow birds to move freely, scratch etc
- designing and constructing cages without entrapment points
Alternative Housing Systems
The most serious welfare problem with barns and free range has been the higher mortality, often related to feather pecking, cannibalism and parasitic disease. Formal research and field experience have shown that feather pecking and cannibalism are not caused by these systems per se and can therefore be overcome. A potential problem is that unstable social groups can occur because of large numbers of birds. Producers are currently developing the "right" combination of bird strain, rearing management and layer house design and management to minimise these problems in large flocks.
There is an urgent need to investigate the methods used by successful producers with alternative systems so that these methods can be more widely adopted.
Furnished cages – which keep the management ease and bird health benefits of conventional cages – but also provide nests and litter, also need further investigation and development in Australia.
Beak Trimming
Beak trimming is practised on birds irrespective of their housing system. Skill is required since poor procedure can have long-term consequences for welfare.
Although the "Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry" specifies current procedures and appropriate training, these recommendations are not always followed. Included in the code are age limitations for beak trimming.
The Working Group therefore recommends that national uniform legislation should be introduced requiring mandatory accreditation under a national program for anyone performing beak trimming of poultry.
Comparison of Layer Hen Housing Systems
It must be noted that that there is no ideal system – they all have their strengths and weaknesses with respect to welfare of hens (including their health), food safety for consumers, requirements for labour and husbandry skills, occupational health and safety for operators and environmental protection. A brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of various systems in use in Australia is provided in the table below.
All Working Group members agree that an assessment of welfare requires consideration of health, production, physiological and ethological (behavioural) indicators. The relative weighting and interaction of these factors goes directly to the technical complexity of assessing animal welfare in egg production.
Welfare and Management
"Poor" management will almost certainly result in some aspect of "poor" welfare in any layer hen housing system. Therefore steps need to be taken to make poor management standards unacceptable.
"Good" management can enhance some welfare aspects in all housing systems. However for those who accept the view that the lack of a nest and litter in conventional cages results in major animal welfare problems it follows that even the "best" management of conventional cages cannot result in acceptable welfare for the birds.
Australian Layer Hen Welfare Reports and Recommendations
Senate Report 1990
The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare published a 320 page report on "Intensive Livestock Production" in 1990.
Amongst the recommendations for laying hens were:
- "a floor space allowance of 600 cm2 per caged bird where three or more hens are kept in a cage", and
- "the banning of laying cages be considered when it can be demonstrated that viable alternative systems can be developed suitable to Australian conditions and that these alternative systems have positive welfare advantages".
Since 1994 the minimum floor space allowance was increased to 450 cm2 including the space under the baffle. There is evidence from reviews of the literature that there may be welfare benefits to increasing space within the range of 300 to 650 cm2 per hen.
Viable alternative systems which allow hens to nest, to forage, to dust bathe, to perch and to move freely are operating successfully in Australia.
Housing Review 1994
The 1994 Layer Hen Housing Review was Australia’s most recent review of the subject and led to a number of recommendations, only some of which have been fully implemented. The recommendations included:
- A minimum floor space allocation of 450cm2 (including the area under the baffle) has been legislated under most state Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Acts.
- Limited research into alternative systems, field observations, extension etc has been carried out, but not to the extent intended.
- Description of production systems for the sale of free-range eggs has not occurred.
- Audited self-regulation, using Animal Care Statements, has been adopted by some 40% of producers covering 80 per cent of birds.
- Competency-based training for good stock handling has been initiated.
Progress and outcomes of the 1994 review have disappointed the animal welfare lobby, some animal welfare scientists and some State and Territory Governments. Animals Australia was concerned by the review process and withdrew their membership of the working group.
ACT Legislation and Productivity Commission Report
In September 1997, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed legislation to:
- Ban the production and sale in the ACT of eggs produced by hens housed in battery cages; and
- Require the labelling of egg cartons sold in the Act to indicate the production system used to produce the eggs.
However the legislation was not able to be implemented essentially because other states and territories would not agree to a ban to marketing for consumption in the ACT, of eggs from their state produced in cages. This highlights the importance of a national approach to this issue in particular to a defining of standards across states and territories and rules for the marketing and labelling across each state and territory.
The following quotes have been taken from the Summary of:
Productivity Commission 1998, Battery Eggs Sale and Production in the ACT,
Research Report, Ausinfo, Canberra provides a further explanation of this important issue.
"One effect of the legislation would be to restrict competition in the supply of eggs to the ACT. This triggers the Competition Principles Agreement, which requires governments to undertake public benefit tests of legislation which restricts competition, to assess whether the community benefits associated with the restrictions outweigh the costs."
"The framework for undertaking public benefit tests requires that all relevant factors – not just economic benefits and costs – be taken into account. This is important because the proposed ACT ban on battery eggs involves consideration of ethical issues associated with the welfare of layer hens."
"In assessing hen welfare, the Commission has drawn on international and Australian studies and on information provided by participants in this study. This evidence suggests that, on balance, a move away from the use of battery cage systems would lead to some improvement in hen welfare, particularly in the longer term (chapter 4). This mainly reflects the fact that alternative systems allow greater expression of behaviours which experts in the field agree are important to hens – such as dust bathing, nesting and perching."
"While the available information suggests that, on balance, the ban would make some improvement to hen welfare, the Commission cannot reliably assess in quantitative terms the extent of the associated community benefits. If the benefits are to outweigh the costs, they would need to exceed the cost associated with an annual perpetuity of around $940,000. The Government of the ACT – the residents of which will bear most of the costs stemming from the ban – will have to judge whether the benefits outweigh these costs."
The PC report provides an objective analysis of this complex issue and suggests that the ultimate decision on how laying hens may be kept in Australia will be an ethical one.
Development of Alternative Systems
There has been little public sector research into alternative housing systems for laying hens since the 1994 Review. However individual producers have made a lot of progress – particularly in Victoria and NSW. Both barn and free range eggs are being produced on a commercial scale, without feather pecking or cannibalisation problems, and are being sold at premium prices. In order to have a scientific basis to identify and implement further improvements in hen welfare, there is a need to allocate the necessary funding to key areas for research.
Pressure Against Conventional Cages
While the key animal welfare organisations accept that some form of intensive production is required to produce eggs on a commercial scale, all the welfare organisations oppose the conventional cage systems, arguing that they are totally unacceptable on welfare grounds.
Both RSPCA Australia and Animals Australia have current major campaigns aimed at banning the use of conventional cages for laying hens and argue that the scientific evidence supports their call for a ban.
A further development has been the RSPCA linkage with the barn production system and its endorsement of certain enterprises, which meet RSPCA criteria. This endorsement has been used extensively in the promotion of these eggs.
Some organisations argue that the industry, if it was required to adopt welfare-friendly production systems, should then be protected from cheap imports from countries still using cage systems. However this would need to be considered in the context of Australia’s trade obligations.
COMPARISON OF LAYER HEN HOUSING SYSTEMS
| Strengths | Weaknesses | |
|---|---|---|
| CONVENTIONAL CAGES |
|
|
| BARNS |
|
|
| FREE RANGE |
|
|
The above table gives a snapshot of the many aspects involved in comparing housing systems. It does not rank them in any overall order in terms of animal welfare or any other characteristic. Trying to weigh up all these different strengths and weaknesses against each other is inherently very difficult.
Whatever the system, it is crucial to understand that good management is vital to good animal welfare. There are examples of good and bad management in all systems. The Working Group agrees that poor management of any system will result in a poor outcome, and therefore steps need to be taken to make poor management standards unacceptable.
The impossibility of getting agreement on "the best" layer hen housing system was established in a landmark German study in the late 1970s. Similar studies today would reinforce this finding but still not solve the problem.
It is recommended that Australia’s future commercial egg industry should:
- Provide a standard of bird welfare acceptable to the majority of the Australian community.
- Have potential long term viability for industry.
- Provide eggs at a ‘reasonable’ cost to consumers i.e. in line with other basic/essential food items.
- Provide eggs to the retail chain which meet agreed standards of safety and quality.
- Provide workers with known risks and preventative methods to reduce those risks to agreed acceptable levels.
- Be internationally acclaimed as "clean, green and animal welfare friendly".
- Be able to use its animal welfare practices as a competitive advantage for world trade.
A united approach to developing layer hen housing system(s) which meet these criteria would be a productive way forward and would enhance public confidence in layer hen systems.
Industry Considerations
Investment in new poultry production facilities is expensive. (The Productivity Commission in 1998 estimated new capital investment in barn production to cost $32 per bird).
For this reason, industry requires as much certainty as possible in the policy set by government. Continued uncertainty about the long-term acceptability of cages will discourage industry and financial institutions from investing in new systems. This is especially the case given that many farms are operating 30-year old (or older) sheds and equipment which now effectively represents zero capital investment.
Secondly, the fastest growing but most cost-sensitive segment of the market is the industrial, as opposed to retail, sale of eggs and product. These eggs used in the food service and processed food industries, and sold either in shell form or processed into liquid, frozen or dried egg product, account for 32 per cent of production (a statistic supplied by the egg industry). Unlike the retail sector, it is primarily price-driven and could be open to competition from imported products produced in systems with no animal welfare considerations and from egg substitutes. Industry argues that a move to phase out cages would lead to cost increases and would have a significant impact on profitability, viability and employment in regional Australia.
Conclusions
-
There is a large amount of scientific literature on the welfare of laying hens, dating back to the mid 1960s. Based in part on this literature, the Australian Senate recommended in 1990 a consideration of the banning of laying cages once viable alternatives with welfare advantages were developed.
Some Working Group members agree that the scientific literature identifies major problems with conventional cages, in particular the lack of suitable nest sites and foraging material to meet the birds’ behavioural needs as key indicators that an end date for the use of conventional cages in Australia should be set now. These members believe that this proposed end date should be independent of European Union developments.
An opposite view was expressed by other Working Group members on the basis that welfare should be assessed by measuring how much has to be done by an animal to cope with its environment. Evidence from studies based on this assessment approach do not currently support an end to the use of conventional cages.
All Working Group members agree that an assessment of welfare requires consideration of health, production, physiological and ethological (behavioural) indicators. The relative weighting and interaction of these factors goes directly to the technical complexity of assessing animal welfare in egg production.
-
With regard to the appropriate floor space for hens in conventional cages, reviews of the literature suggest there may be welfare benefits to increasing space within the range of 300 to 650 cm2 per hen. In 1990 the Australian Senate Report recommended 600 cm2 per bird. It is timely that a decision on future space allowances be made, keeping in mind the long term viability of the Australian egg industry.
-
To improve the welfare of all laying hens, a new regulation should be introduced in all States and Territories requiring that beak trimming may be performed only by accredited beak trimmers and using approved methods. Current beak trimming standards around the country are highly variable and often unsatisfactory.
-
There is general industry and welfare lobby agreement on the need to eliminate poor management standards, which affect not only hen welfare, but also food safety and biosecurity (with potential risk from major diseases such as Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease).
-
Some producers are already successfully running commercial flocks in barn or free range systems. There is an urgent requirement to identify the successful principles of managing these systems and extending these principles in the industry thus facilitating successful adoption of these alternative systems.
-
Research and development of a variety of alternatives to conventional cages, including furnished cages, should be funded with an emphasis on developing systems suitable for a range of Australian environmental conditions.
-
The Model Code of practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry (3rd edition) needs updating to set appropriate standards to take account of advances in the understanding of animal physiology and behaviour, changes in animal husbandry and their relationship to the welfare of laying hens. For example, the Code needs to set clear standards for all systems of production including the incorporation of research findings from alternative systems. The existing section on "Housing" needs to be expanded to define more clearly those cage design and operational features which are and are not acceptable (irrespective of the age of the cage).
-
Identification of the management and welfare aspects of alternate housing systems for laying birds and other alternate systems needs urgent attention. Having documented standards in place to protect the welfare of the birds involved is also a high priority. Once these standards in the Code have been defined this will promote consideration of a more rapid move from conventional cage systems to alternative systems ensuring commercial viability and assurance of acceptable bird welfare standards.
-
There is industry support for a national quality assurance program to raise management standards and thereby deliver better animal welfare, food safety and biosecurity outcomes as well as implement a uniform, Australia-wide system of labelling of eggs by production system. Either incorporation in the Trade Practices Act or legislation in each State and Territory is required to underpin a revised Code of Practice and a national quality assurance system.
-
The first draft of a national quality assurance program should be developed within twelve months and the program fully implemented within the following eighteen months. While prime responsibility for development and implementation rests with industry, Commonwealth and State/Territory governments should examine ways it can facilitate the development.
-
Independent third party audit should be a feature of the program.
Go to the next page: Analysis of the Economic Impacts of Banning Conventional Cage Egg Production