Below is the website in Nation’s Restaurant News where HSUS is showing how the egg industry is in step with their views.  The National Association of Egg Farmers submitted our exceptions to this view, showing a segment of egg farmers who do not support siding with HSUS.

http://nrn.com/opinions/finding-common-ground-animal-welfare

We take exception to the premise by Mr. Matthew Prescott that the egg industry is in step with HSUS.  It’s only the marketing cooperative, UEP, that linked itself with HSUS.  The National Association of Egg Farmers (formerly Egg Farmers of America) actively worked with the other national animal industry groups including the National Pork Producers Council to defeat the national legislation supported by the egg industry’s marketing cooperative and HSUS. 

We opposed the legislation for the lack of science in establishing the guidelines coupled with the fact that one national federal standard would actually have led to the smaller egg farmers throughout the country actually going out of business. Certainly the nation’s restaurants would prefer a healthy, vibrant list of egg suppliers competing for sales to restaurants instead of the consolidation resulting from federal law establishing one national standard. 

Mr. Prescott stated the egg producers had 6 years to make the transition to the larger cages but chose to challenge the law in the courts.  This reflects a simplistic view of complex capital investments.   The larger egg complexes could gradually make the transition Mr. Prescott suggested, but the smaller egg farmers would not be able to because of the egg processing capabilities on those smaller farms. Those smaller egg farmers would be forced to make the conversion in one step leading to an economic disadvantage during the transition years leading to insolvency for them. 

The Humane Society of the U.S. claims better welfare with their enriched cages in one national standard, however consider the facts.  The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2010 released a report on the welfare implications of various kinds of housing. (www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/cage_noncage_systems.asp) The report concluded consumers need to balance the hen’s freedom against exposure to potential hazards such as disease vectors and the cannibalism caused by pecking. Certainly cannibalism and pecking are welfare issues, and in conventional cages where the number of chickens is minimized, these concerns are also reduced compared to other systems. Furthermore, Dr. Kenneth Anderson, NC State University, presented his research findings to delegates at the 2010 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention March 16-18, 2010 where he noted that chickens reared in conventional cages had significantly greater numbers of Grade A eggs, significantly greater numbers of total eggs produced, and significantly better feed conversion rates (meaning a lower carbon footprint), and a better immune response (meaning better able to resist disease).  Certainly these are indicators of a healthier chicken and thus better welfare.

The National Association of Egg Farmers is a nationwide association representing all sized egg farms and is working to keep those farmers in the business of providing eggs to restaurants and the nation’s consumers.

The European parliament recently decided it was time to ban all cages for laying hens.  They were bowing to the pressures from the animal activists, in particular Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). Last week National Egg Farmers reminded us that Ken Klippen addressed the concerns about caging layers with the leaders at CIWF who could not withstand the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting conventional cages.  CIWF stopped pressuring egg farmers to switch to cage-free and switched to pressuring lawmakers. 

Two and one-half years ago, Dr. Vincent Guyonnet an international poultry consultant explained in an article featured in WATTAgNet that consumer beliefs that cage-free egg production automatically leads to higher layer welfare do not stand up to scrutiny. So, why are certain egg farmers in the U.S. and their associations siding with HSUS in pushing legislation for cage-free eggs?

Today, more alternative cage-free systems are being used and these allow hens more opportunities to express natural behaviors such as nests, perches and a scratching area, yet these alternatives are not without welfare, and other, issues.

Dr. Guyonnet noted that dominant hens can easily prevent other birds from accessing perches or nests, and aggressive behaviors are more common. Bone fractures, especially of the keel bone, are more frequent when birds misjudge the distance between perches or to the floor. In a study in Canada, the incidence of fracture of the keel bone was twice as high in cage-free systems than in conventional cages. 

He stated the quality of the air, in terms of dust particles and ammonia levels, is also more variable in cage-free systems. In the U.S., a field study showed that cumulative mortality at 78 weeks in an aviary system was more than double that in either conventional or enriched cages. Mortality in free-range systems was also higher than in any other housing systems. 

One of the basic principles of welfare, stated Dr. Guyonnet, is the close relationship between welfare and good health. If consumers imagine cage-free systems as a few hens casually walking through green pastures, the reality is quite different. 

A meta-analysis of 14 studies with free-range hens showed less than 50 percent of the flock going outside, and instances were recorded of less than 10 percent of the birds outside. In addition, the distribution of the birds outside is not uniform and most birds stay near the barns. 

This causes a more intensive use of the range near the barns, increasing the risks for parasites and the accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorus in soils. The use of the range depends also on the climatic conditions, with fewer birds outside if windy, rainy or warm (temperature above 17 C). 

Access to the range also increases the risks of parasites, such as coccidia, roundworms and red mites. Finally, wildlife predators greatly impact on the welfare of free-range birds. A study conducted last year at the University of California-Davis showed that the main causes of mortality for free-range hens were predation (52 percent), feather pecking and cannibalism (20 percent) and diseases (16 percent).   

We have now more experience with alternative housing systems (furnished cages, aviary and free-range) in Europe and North America, in experimental and field studies said Dr. Guyonnet. He said we know that different housing systems have the potential to impact differently the four aspects of animal welfare. 

What we don’t know is why aren’t these facts showing caged layers improves welfare, health, and reduces climate change resonating with lawmakers and consumers asked Ken Klippen? National Egg Farmers continues to “shout out loud” that conventional cages are the preferred method of producing eggs, but certain egg farmers and their associations are negating that effort. How long before only a few egg farmers with the needed capital capture the remaining egg market for cage-free eggs only?

https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/35828-is-it-time-to-reconsider-caging-laying-hens

While some in the egg industry continue to press for enhanced colony cages, this research shown below gives those pause for thought.  Imagine if the national egg bill had passed and the amount of space nearly doubled for each hen WITH MINIMAL WELFARE BENEFIT?  Does anyone honestly believe the animal activists would have left the egg industry alone if the national egg bill had passed?  When the European Union enacted their law on January 1, 2012, it didn’t stop the animal activists from seeking more reforms.  The goal of the activists isn’t a “touchdown” but just “moving the ball a few yards further down the field”.  Will the egg industry finally wake up to these goals?

USPOULTRY and the USPOULTRY Foundation announced on June 6th the completion of a funded research project at Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI, which examined the impact of stocking density on enriched colony cages. This study shows a minimal impact on welfare in a comparison between 72 sq. in. per bird and 144 sq. in. per bird.  A complete report, may be obtained by going to USPOULTRY’s website, www.uspoultry.org.

Project #670: Enriched Colony Cages: Stocking Density on Laying Hen Well-being

(Dr. Darrin Karcher and Dr. Maja Makagon, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.)

Dr. Darrin Karcher and Dr. Maja Makagon at Michigan State University studied the impact of stocking density on egg production and the well-being of laying hens in enriched colony cages. The researchers found minimal differences in measures of production and well-being at the various stocking densities, from 464 cm2 (72 sq. in)  to 929 cm2 (144 sq. in.) per bird during the period of 17 to 69 weeks of age, and suggest that future research should focus to determine at which point stocking density provides a significant impact on feathering.