Executive Summary
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.
Since the mid 1960s there have been concerns about the impact of the restricted and barren environment of conventional cages on some aspects of the welfare of laying hens and a large amount of scientific research has been conducted to investigate these concerns. Some scientists believe that there is now clear scientific evidence which demonstrates that conventional cages have major and inherent animal welfare problems because they restrict the hens’ ability to express natural behaviour traits and therefore should be banned. Other scientists believe that welfare should be assessed by measuring how much has to be done by an animal to cope with its environment. Accordingly, they believe there is inadequate data to support the contention that it has been scientifically demonstrated that conventional cages have major and inherent animal welfare problems.
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.
In deciding which housing systems for laying hens are most appropriate, different people give different values to aspects such as bird welfare, economics, food safety, occupational health and safety etc.
Major animal welfare organisations have long opposed conventional laying cages on animal welfare grounds. Based on correspondence to Ministers, an increasing proportion of the general community shares this view. Public and political expectation for change exists. Governments need to take clear decisions as to what changes, if any, are to be made.
Given the large capital outlays required for modern controlled environment sheds with contemporary fittings (either cage or barn), the egg production industry seeks some certainty as to government policy on layer hen housing systems.
The vision in this report is quality assured health and welfare of fowls in a commercially viable, competitive and environmentally friendly egg industry producing a regular, reliable and affordable supply of eggs allowing for informed choice by consumers and according to contemporary standards for food safety and occupational health.
Quality assurance refers to a demonstrable and comprehensive system for maintaining desired levels of health, food safety and hen welfare in egg production systems through careful planning, the application of sound scientific knowledge, the use of proper equipment and procedures, continued inspection at critical points and corrective action where required. Demonstrability requires third party audit.
A uniform, Australia-wide system of labelling eggs by production system is seen as desirable to ensure that consumer preferences are fully satisfied. The preferred option to achieve such a system is the development and incorporation of relevant standards in a National Egg Production and Labelling Quality Assurance program. The program could be declared as either voluntary or mandatory under the Trade Practices Act 1974.
Given the 12 year implementation period of European Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, the Directive has attracted little attention by policy makers outside the European Union (EU). Policy makers generally do not, at this stage, see a need to do more than monitor developments within the EU. Australia and New Zealand are exceptions and have conducted reviews of the Directive and its implications. The Directive requires a review of all egg production systems to be finalised by 1 January 2005, however there are differing opinions on whether or not the Directive will be changed.
An initial step in evaluating alternative layer hen housing systems is to define these alternative systems. Each system has inherent strengths and weaknesses from an animal welfare perspective (particularly as animal welfare includes animal health) as well as from biosecurity, food safety and other perspectives.
Good management is essential for good animal welfare. Poor management in any egg production system will result in poor animal welfare outcomes. Both industry and animal welfare groups recognise this fundamental point.
The Working Group agreed that national uniform legislation needs to be introduced to increase floor space, introduce beak trimming accreditation and phase out cages with unacceptable features.
The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry (3rd edition) needs to be revised and expanded to encompass alternative egg production systems. It should then be referenced in a new national Egg Production Quality Assurance Program. Elements in this program should include food safety, animal health and labelling by production system as well as animal welfare. The program in turn must be underpinned by legislation to ensure that agreed standards are enforced.