National Association of Egg Farmers Defend Caged Layers Before State Legislative Committee

Recently, National Association of Egg Farmers spent a day defending conventional cage systems before a committee assigned by the state legislature (name withheld) to consider a proposal by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in a bill to ban all caged layers in the state. 

The egg farmer, who is a member of NAEF, asked for support and to present the science behind conventional caged systems.  While the committee listened and watched the NAEF power point presentation, also in attendance were two members of ASPCA along with Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary, formerly with PETA.  You may recall that Bruce Friedrich wrote the Op-Ed article in this week’s LA Times that NAEF offered the rebuttal relating to California’s Prop 2 and the Missouri Attorney General’s lawsuit to the California egg law. 

The proposal by ASPCA, now a bill, calls for the prohibition of caged layers and the implementation of the UEP cage-free guidelines of 1-1.5 sq. ft of floor space per chicken. 

In the ASPCA presentation, they cited the UEP scientific committee recommendations along with the comments of researchers Dr. Bernard Rollin at Colorado State University and Dr. Ian Duncan at the University of Guelph.  Both scientists addressed the inability of chickens to perform particular behaviors such as perching and dust bathing, even stretching their limbs.  ASPCA hammered on the osteoporosis in spent hens as demonstrating the poor treatment given to them in caged facilities.  NAEF started the power point with quotations by animal activists including Bruce Friedrich showing their intentions are to eliminate meat, milk and eggs from consumers diets. 

NAEF countered ASPCA with more current research published at the time of the California egg law showing caged layers produced more eggs, more grade A eggs, larger eggs, better feed conversion, higher antibody levels to protect against diseases, and lower mortality levels, all indicators of better health and welfare.  “Certainly mortality should be a determining factor for welfare, and if the mortality is lower in conventional cages it signals better conditions for the layers” stated NAEF.   

Dr. Peter Holt, USDA/ARS Egg Safety and Quality Research Unit in Athens, GA was also cited by NAEF showing concern for greater microbial contamination in systems other than the conventional cage systems.  When the question arose if this applied to the enhanced colony cage, NAEF stated the exposure of eggs to manure in the colony cage system when they are laid in the scratch areas or nest boxes contaminated with fecal matter.  Furthermore, NAEF cited the initial study results from the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply showing an increased incidence of wing and leg fractures in the enhanced colony cage.  When asked how this could happen, NAEF suggested that the greater space meant more opportunity for piling of the chickens and perhaps running into the perches.  This is not the case in conventional cage systems.  NAEF spelled out the original 5 Freedoms in the Brambel Report dating back decades and how the modern cage system did respond to the welfare considerations of that welfare report.  NAEF also outlined the experience in the European Union with the implementation of their enhanced colony cage law on January 1, 2012 with the egg shortages and spikes in egg prices. 

The debate then moved onto the lawsuit filed by the Missouri Attorney General against the California egg law.  While the activists cited the rulings coming from California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the precedence they set, NAEF centered its position on the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 which clearly states Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and that Article X grants states’ rights not already delegated to the United States by the Constitution.  In other words, the Constitution addressed the commerce clause in the first article and states’ rights afterwards.

After 2 hours, the committee adjourned without making a decision on the ASPCA recommendations and asked for written statements from NAEF and ASPCA on the science they provided.  NAEF provided the documents immediately.

There are two takeaways from this experience; 1) National Association of Egg Farmers must be willing to speak up in defense of their production systems or else committees such as this will abide by the agenda of the animal activists, and 2) NAEF demonstrated an effective voice in defending caged layer systems, suggesting it’s better to fight for your rights than to compromise with activists that want to put you out of business altogether. 


National Association of Egg Farmers Offer Rebuttal in LA Times Article

This is in response to the Op-Ed February 10, 2014 in the LA Times by Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary, “Which Came First, Healthier Chickens or Cheaper Eggs?”  His explanations of today’s modern chicken farm are inaccurate, and his citations from the European Union’s new law provide only part of the story.  The readers of the LA Times deserve better than only part of the story.

It’s true that the Californians voted on November 4, 2008 in support of Proposition 2 that requires chickens producing eggs be able to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs with touching another chicken or the side of their enclosure.  It was followed by California law AB 1437 on July 6, 2010 requiring all eggs sold in California abide by state law.  Just reading Mr. Friedrich’s op-ed may sound like a good thing to consumers, but today’s modern chicken producing farm allows their chickens to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs in their modern, cage systems.  The same year that California’s Governor signed AB 1437 into law, Dr. Kenneth Anderson, NC State, published his research findings showing the modern, caged chickens are in healthier conditions as evidenced by 1) a greater number of eggs produced, 2) larger eggs, 3) more grade A eggs, 4) better feed conversion rates, 5) significantly lower mortality rates compared to chickens taken out of cages, 6) higher antibody levels protecting the chickens from poultry-related diseases. The California egg farmers with colony cages extol their virtues in hopes of convincing other egg farmers to make the investments up to $40 per chicken for the new cages, but the initial research from the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, a group of poultry scientists, noted these cages resulted in more leg and wing breakages.  Anyone observing these new colony cages can see why.  The birds race through the cage and run into the perches and injury themselves. Certainly Mr. Friedrich, professing a reverence for animal welfare, would not intentionally want to see more chickens with broken wings or broken legs. 

As to the European Union experience, that new law went into effect January 1, 2012 (Council Directive 1999/74/ED).  When this new law went into effect, European stores reported shortages of eggs up to 20% as a result of the new law with prices increasing a whopping 44%.

Dr. Atoussa Mazaheri, Company Veterinarian with Lohmann Tierzucht in Cuxhaven, Germany reported that the German egg farmers who installed the enriched colony cages in that country regretted it. Dr. Mazaheri stated publicly the animal rights activists were not satisfied and are pressing the retailers to go cage-free altogether. Those “good intentions” by the German Bungestag, reported Dr. Mazaheri, yielded more problems with the re-emergence of poultry diseases that had been previously eradicated since 1998. These included Erysipelas showing a drop in egg production upwards of 15% and mortality of 30%; Blackhead which can only be cured with penicillin, but not allowed in poultry in Germany; and Pox (Fowl Pox) which has a mortality ranging between 10-50%.  Certainly Mr. Friedrich would not want to see an increase in poultry diseases.

The same year of the California egg law, Dr. Impke de Boer, Wageningen University in Holland presented her research on greenhouse gas emissions at an international forum with the modern, conventional cage system at the lowest of any animal.  The chickens in modern systems produced 2.2 kg of carbon equivalent per kilo of eggs, 25% less than other forms of egg production.  

Lastly, Mr. Friedrich, should perhaps re-read his copy of the U.S. Constitution concerning his claims against the lawsuit filed by the Missouri Attorney General.  Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of that founding document clearly states the power to regulate commerce among the states lies with the Congress.  Some in California claim their state’s rights under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, however that amendment begins by stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”  In other words, claiming state rights cannot supercede what is already enumerated in Article 1.

Californians deserve to hear both sides of the debate concerning how eggs are produced and I appreciate the privilege to provide the other side.

Ken Klippen, with two degrees in Poultry Science and more than 30 years in the egg industry, is representing National Association of Egg Farmers.



National Association of Egg Farmers Offer Science-Based Production Guidelines

While many in the egg industry press forward in support of the enhanced colony cage, the science behind the amount of space offered each chicken is lacking.  National Association of Egg Farmers has science-based production guidelines available on a voluntary basis to its members.  Below are the science-based research articles behind the production guidelines:

  1. 1.Adams, A.W. and M.E. Jackson,Effect of cage size and bird density on performance of six commercial strains of layers.  Poultry Sci. 49:1712-1719.
  2. 2.Anderson, K.E. and A.W. Adams,Effects of rearing density and feeder and waterer spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers.  Poultry Sci. 71:53-58.
  3. 3.Anderson, K.E., A.W. Adams, and J.V. Craig, 1989. Behavioral adaptation of floor-reared White Leghorn pullets to different cage densities, cage shapes during the initial settling-inPoultry Sci. 68:70-78.
  4. 4.Anderson, K.E.,Welfare implications of cage density, population, and feeder space.  2001 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention, Touchstone EnergyâPlace at River Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 14-15, 2001, pp. 164-170
  5. 5.Anderson, K.E.Final Report of the Thirty-Fourth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test: Production Report.  North Carolina Extension, Raleigh, NC Vol. 34, No. 4. November 2002.
  6. 6.Anderson, K.E., G.S. Davis, P. Jenkins, and A.S. Carroll. 2004. Effects of bird age, density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains inPoult. Sci. 83:15-23.
  7. 7.Anderson, D.P., G.W. Beard, and R.P. Hanson,The adverse effects of ammonia on chickens, including resistance to infection with Newcastle Disease virus.  Avian Diseases 8:369-379.
  8. 8.Anderson, D.P., R.R. Wolfe, F.L. Cherms and W. E. Roper,Influence of dust and ammonia on the development of air sac lesions in turkeys.  Am. J. Vet. Res. 29(5):1049-1057.
  9. 9.Al-Rawi, B. and J.V. Craigt,Agonistic behavior of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird.  Applied Anim. Ethol. 2:69-80.
  10. 10.Appleby, M.C.,Life in a variable world: Behavior, welfare and environmental design.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:1-19.
  11. 11.Agriculture Canada. 1990. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of poultry from hatchery to processingAgriculture Canada Publication 1757/E.  Communications Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
  12. 12.American Veterinary Medical Association.2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J. AVMA 218:669-696.
  13. 13.Bell, D.D., and D.R. Kuney. 2004. Farm evaluation of alternative molting procedures. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:673-679.
  14. 14.Bell, D.D., and W.D. Weaver, Jr.Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. (5th Ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
  15. 15.Biggs, P.E., M.E. Persia, K.W. Koelkebeck, and C.M. Parsons. 2004. Further evaluation of non-feed removal methods for molting programs. Poul. Sci. 83:745-752.
  16. 16.Brannigan, P.G. and J.B. McQuitty,The influence of ventilation on distribution and dispersal of atmospheric gaseous contaminants.  Canadian Agricultural Engineering 13(2):69-75.
  17. 17.Burnett, W.E. 1969. Odor transport by particle matter in high density poultry houses. Poul. Sci. 48:182-185.
  18. 18.Carlile, F.S., 1981. Ammonia in poultry houses: A literature review. World’s Poul. Sci. 1:99-113.
  19. 19.Carpenter, G.A. 1986. Dust in livestock buildings-review of some aspects. J. Agric. Engng. Res. 33:227-241.
  20. 20.Craig, J.V. and A.M. Guhl, 1969. Territorial behavior and social interactions of pullets kept in large flocks. Poul. Sci. 48
  21. 21.Curtis, S.E. and J.G. Drummond, 1982. Air environment and animalIn CRC Handbook of Animal Productivity. Reichicigl, M. Ed. Vol. II, 107-118.
  22. 22.Consortium. 1999. Guidelines for poultry husbandry. In: Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. Federation of Animal Science Societies, Savoy, IL.
  23. 23.Denton, J.W., F.N. Reece, B.D. Lott. Effect of atmospheric ammonia on laying hen1982 Poul. Sci. 61:1815-1817.
  24. 24.Dearstyne, R.S., and P.H. Kime, 1943. Grazing crops for poultry. Extension Circular No. 239. NC Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, Raleigh, NC.
  25. 25.Feddes, J.J.R., J.J. Leonard, and J.B. McQuitty, 1982. Heat and moisture loads and air quality in commercial broiler barns in Alberta. Research Bulletin 82-2, Dept. of Ag. Eng., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G6, 82 pp.
  26. 26.Feddes, J.J.R., and J.B. McQuitty, 1983. Heat and moisture loads and air quality in commercial poultry laying houses in Alberta. Final Report for Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Contract File No. OSU81-00304. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 77 pp.
  27. 27.Jalal, M.A., S.E. Scheideler and D. Marx, 2006. Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolically energy level on production parameters in layingPoul. Sci. 85:306-311.
  28. 28.Janni, K.A., P.T. Redig, J. Newman, and J. Mulhausen, 1984. Respirable aerosol concentrations in turkey grower buildings. 1984 Winter Meeting, ASAE, Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 11-14, 1984. Paper No. 84-4522.
  29. 29.Jones, T.A., C.A. Donnelly, and M.S. Dawkins, 2005. Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poul. Sci. 1155-1165.
  30. 30.Jones, W., K. Morring, S. Olenchock, T. Williams, and J. Hickey. 1984. Environmental study of poultry confinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 45(11):760-766.
  31. 31.Jull, M.A., 1951. Poultry Husbandry, 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. NY, NY
  32. 32.Kinder, Q.B., A.B. Stephenson, 1962. Floor space requirements of S.C. White Leghorns. Poul. Sci. 41:1394-1400.
  33. 33.Kling, H.F., and C.L. Quarles, 1974. Effect of atmospheric ammonia and the stress of Infectious Bronchitis vaccination on Leghorn males. Poul. Sci. 53:1161-1167.
  34. 34.Koelkebeck, K.W., C.M. Parsons, P. Biggs, and P. Utterback. 2006. Non-withdrawal molting programs. J. Appl. Poul. Res. 15:483-491.
  35. 35.Kristensen, H.H., and C.M. Wathes. 2000. Ammonia and poultry review: A review. World Poul. Sci. J. 56:235-245.
  36. 36.Lee, C.L., 1949. Profitable Poultry Management, 1949 ed. The Beacon Milling Co., Inc. Cayuga, NY, pp 106-119.
  37. 37.Loomis, E.C., J.R. Anderson, and A.S. Deal, 1980. Identification of common flies associated with livestock and poultry. Leaflet 2506. Univ. of California Cooperative Extension.
  38. 38.NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (9th rev. ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Water consumption of poultry (US gal/day/1000 birds).
  39. 39.Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor - Permissible Exposure Level for Ammonia, 29 CFR Sec. 1910.1000 Table Z-1 Limits for air contaminants.
  40. 40.Scheideler, S.E., and M.M. Beck. 2002. Guidelines for a non-fasting feeding program for the molting of laying hens. Univ. of Nebraska Coop. Ext. Bull. G02-1482-A.
  41. 41.Sohail, S.S., M.M. Bryant, S.K. Rao, and D.A. Roland, 2001. Influence of cage density and prior dietary phosphorus level on phosphorus requirement of commercial Leghorns. Poul. Sci. 80:769-775.
  42. 42.Stadelman, W.J., V.M. Olsen, G.A. Shemwell, and S. Pasch, 1988. Egg and Poultry-Meat Processing. VCH Publishers. NY, NY.




<<  24 25 26 27 28 [2930 31 32 33  >>