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.





National Association of Egg Farmers File Comments on EPA Proposal for Ethanol

National Association of Egg Farmers, a coalition of farmers producing eggs from coast-to-coast, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA proposed the 2014 volume requirements and associated percentage standards for the RFS program. The proposed 2014 standard for corn ethanol is 13.1 billion gallons, a reduction of 1.4 billion and equal to the 2013 consumption.  While members of the egg industry have questioned the use of corn for fuel, we support cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel in the renewable fuel program. So this reduction in corn for ethanol production is supported by National Association of Egg Farmers.

National Association of Egg Farmers position on issues has consistently maintained that market forces are the best because they allow consumers to decide what goods and services they prefer instead of implementing federal regulations or new laws by Members of Congress.  Involvement in the market place by the federal government, although well-intentioned, can create a negative impact on certain businesses and the ethanol mandate is an example.  The U.S. ethanol mandate is responsible for claiming 37% of total corn production in the U.S. and 15% of total world corn production.  This is devastating to the end-users of corn in feeding animal agriculture including chickens producing eggs.  When any commodity is reduced, the corresponding effect on price catapults in the opposite direction.  When there was a small downward adjustment to the expected harvest in corn production, the corn prices jumped almost 18%.  The Federal law requires that fuel suppliers blend more and more ethanol into gasoline, until the annual total rises from 9 billion gallons of (ethanol) EtOH in 2008 to 36 billion in 2022.  Removing more corn from the commodity markets simply increases the price of corn, hurting consumers who buy animal products such as meat, milk and eggs which must be increased to offset the increased cost of production.  In the egg industry, the cost of feed is nearly 60% the cost of the egg produced with corn being the most widely used feed grain.  There is no other feed grain that provides the same quality nutrients needed by chickens in producing eggs to feed this nation.

Problems With Ethanol and Why EFA Opposes E15

* Ethanol costs 3.5 times as much as gasoline to produce, but contains only 65% as much energy per gallon as gasoline.

* The more ethanol there is in gasoline, the more often consumers have to fill up their tanks, the less value they get, and the more they must deal with repairs, replacements, lost earnings and productivity, and malfunctions that are inconvenient or even dangerous.

* Ethanol burns hotter than gasoline. It collects water and corrodes plastic, rubber and soft metal parts. Older engines and systems may not be able to handle E15 (15% ethanol) or even E12 (12% ethanol), which could also increase emissions and adversely affect engine, fuel pump and sensor durability.

* Corn growers will benefit from a higher ethanol use, however government mandates mean higher prices for corn.  Thus, eggs, beef, pork, poultry farmers must pay more for corn-based feed; grocery manufacturers face higher prices for grains, eggs, meat and corn syrup and overall grocery bills go higher.

Environmental Concerns

* Ethanol has only two-thirds the energy value of gasoline – and it takes 70% more energy to grow and harvest corn and turn it into EtOH than what it yields as a fuel. There is a “net energy loss.”

* Analysts also calculate that growing and processing corn into ethanol requires over 8,000 gallons of water per gallon of alcohol fuel.

* Ethanol blends do little to reduce smog, and in fact result in more pollutants evaporating from gas tanks, says the National Academy of Sciences.

Grow Grain for Food Not Fuel

Michigan State University scientists concluded, after examining 17 years’ worth of data, "It's 36 percent more efficient to grow grain for food than for fuel," said Dr. Ilya Gelfand, MSU.  "The ideal is to grow corn for food, then leave half the leftover stalks and leaves on the field for soil conservation and produce cellulosic ethanol with the other half." The results are published in the April 19, 2010 online issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

National Association of Egg Farmers appreciates this opportunity to comment urging EPA not to expand usage of a food to convert it into a fuel.   We oppose E15 for the damaging effect it will have on feed costs to animal agriculture and the damage it will do to older model engines and its effect on the environment. 



National Association of Egg Farmers Recount Victories

  1. NAEF members lobbied their Members of Congress and other Congressional Members providing a personal story on the impact of the EggThey defeated the Egg Bill in the 112th and 113th Congress (several animal agriculture groups opposed the Egg Bill, but having NAEF also actively lobbying against it ensured a full complement of animal industries opposing a measure that would certainly have ended many family farms producing eggs). 
  2. Lobbied in support of the King amendment by demonstrating how it upholds Article 1 in the U.S. Constitution enabling Congress to regulate commerce between the states.
  3. Demonstrated to Congress by references of state statutes that the King amendment did not nullify the many state laws suggested by HSUS and others advocating defeat of the amendment.
  4. Demonstrated to Congress that the King amendment would harm the SNAP recipients in California by detailing how the price of eggs will increase due to limited supplies. NAEF showed the parallel that occurred in the European Union under their mandate enforcing enriched colony cages on Jan. 1, Egg prices increased 55% soon after the law went into effect.
  5. Reproduced for Congress the claims of Drew Hutcheson, Alpha Portfolio, an investment broker showing how the largest egg farmer in the country would benefit by Prop 2 in California and buy up egg farms unable to covert to the new cages.
  6. Refuted the claims before Congress that the King amendment would allow substandard eggs to enter California by citing the regulations under FDA and USDA that are identical for all states.
  7. Reproduced for Congress a statement from Iowa Ag Secretary showing USDA Secretary’s comments about the King amendment is siding with HSUS and California.
  8. Reached out to California newspapers for stories showing why NAEF supported the King amendment.


<<  26 27 28 29 30 [3132 33 34 35  >>