The choice for a free range production system does not automatically lead to a better welfare situation for laying hens. This is the conclusion of David Burch, Octagon Services when writing about management in the Veterinary Record Journal.

According to Burch, research shows that the highest hen mortality was found in free-range and organic flocks, closely followed by barns; almost double that of caged flocks. The mortality of hens in cages over a 52-week laying period was 5.39% and the mortality in free-range hens was 9.52%, 77%.

The variability in flock mortality or standard deviation (sd) was also higher, with cages at 3.05% and free range at 7.41%, a 143% increase.

This comes as no surprise, free range hens come in to contact with more potential disease sources. Outdoor risks include a variety of bacteria, such as Salmonella, Clostridium and Brachyspira species, protozoa such as Eimeria species and helminth eggs. Free-range hens have a propensity to drink from potentially contaminated puddles, continues Burch, aiding the transmission of infections.

In a recent survey in Great Britain (Burch and others 2009), free-range flocks developed Brachyspira species infections, the cause of avian intestinal spirochaetosis, as early as 22 weeks of age, soon after point of lay at 20 weeks of age. Caged flocks became infected with Brachyspira species much later, at 36 weeks of age. Free-range flocks were also statistically significantly associated with poor performance (less than 285 eggs per hen housed) in comparison with caged flocks.

Not all free-range flocks are bad, concludes Burch. All systems, if they are well managed and remain disease free, can have low mortality. However, those systems that have outdoor access have additional management difficulties, such as the weather, predators, lack of biosecurity and direct contact with faecal material, which makes the responsibilities of management even greater and more necessary, if they truly want to be considered more ‘welfare friendly’.

by World Poultry Mar 26, 2013

On the final day of the Midwest Poultry Federation Convention in St. Paul, MN, 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 repeated that statement during her presentation saying the animal rights activists were not satisfied and are pressing the retailers to go cage-free altogether. Germany is an important barometer for the failure of enriched colony cages as that country implemented the installation in 2009 before the EU-wide law (EU Council Directive 1999/74/EC) went into effect January 2012. Those “good intentions” by the German Bungestag 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%. Dr. Mazaheri stated privately she was not trying to engage in a political discussion on the subject of enriched cages, but to simply state the experience in Germany.

On July 20th NAEF was in the office of the USDA General Counsel Stephen Vaden asking for better reporting and data collection by the State Veterinary Disease Laboratories.  In trying to evaluate how effective the Egg Rule has been [21 CFR part 118 Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Transportation, and Storage (74 FR 33030)] it was discovered that the labs do not report the egg pool samples as coming from eggs being tested. Instead the information is lumped into one general category “poultry”.  How can the government assess the effectiveness of the testing being done and paid for by the individual egg farmer when the reporting is so vague?   That was the question posed to the USDA General Counsel, and he agreed and followed with a promise to consult with Kevin Shea, the Administrator of the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, that very day.  USDA’s Chief Veterinarian Dr. Jack Shere telephoned days later to say adjustments would be made in the reporting forms to accurately reflect sample results. 

Furthermore, Sec. 118.7 (a) of the Egg Rule requires environmental tests of each poultry house.  If any environmental sample tests positive, Sec. 118.8 requires four 1,000 egg samples tested at 2-week intervals for a total 4,000 eggs. NAEF showed the General Counsel the results from the Iowa State University VDL showing that Salmonella- positive environmental samples do not necessarily translate into contaminated eggs. After testing over 685,000 shell eggs from the summer of 2010 until March of 2016, ISU VDL has found only one positive egg pool, which was during the 2010 national recall. 

NAEF informed USDA that it had urged Congress in meetings on July 19-20 to test pooled samples from environmental drag swabs instead of the individual swabs currently required by FDA.   Pooled samples would reduce the financial burden on egg farmers. This is consistent with the 2015 research article (published in Avian Diseases 59:548-553) entitled “Validation of Single and Pooled Manure Drag Swabs for the Detection of Salmonella Serovar Enteritids in Commercial Poultry Houses” by Dr. H. Kinde et.al., California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System, School of Veterinary Medicine, San Bernardino, CA. This study showed there is no significant difference between the sensitivity of environmental sampling of four-swab pooled together using the National Poultry Improvement Plan culture method compared to the single swabs analyzed by FDA’s method, but the costs are significantly less.  NAEF has not yet heard back from FDA on this suggested improvement and cost-reducing measure to save testing expenses for the nation’s egg farmers.On July 20th NAEF was in the office of the USDA General Counsel Stephen Vaden asking for better reporting and data collection by the State Veterinary Disease Laboratories.  In trying to evaluate how effective the Egg Rule has been [21 CFR part 118 Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Transportation, and Storage (74 FR 33030)] it was discovered that the labs do not report the egg pool samples as coming from eggs being tested. Instead the information is lumped into one general category “poultry”.  How can the government assess the effectiveness of the testing being done and paid for by the individual egg farmer when the reporting is so vague?   That was the question posed to the USDA General Counsel, and he agreed and followed with a promise to consult with Kevin Shea, the Administrator of the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, that very day.  USDA’s Chief Veterinarian Dr. Jack Shere telephoned days later to say adjustments would be made in the reporting forms to accurately reflect sample results. 

Furthermore, Sec. 118.7 (a) of the Egg Rule requires environmental tests of each poultry house.  If any environmental sample tests positive, Sec. 118.8 requires four 1,000 egg samples tested at 2-week intervals for a total 4,000 eggs. NAEF showed the General Counsel the results from the Iowa State University VDL showing that Salmonella- positive environmental samples do not necessarily translate into contaminated eggs. After testing over 685,000 shell eggs from the summer of 2010 until March of 2016, ISU VDL has found only one positive egg pool, which was during the 2010 national recall. 

NAEF informed USDA that it had urged Congress in meetings on July 19-20 to test pooled samples from environmental drag swabs instead of the individual swabs currently required by FDA.   Pooled samples would reduce the financial burden on egg farmers. This is consistent with the 2015 research article (published in Avian Diseases 59:548-553) entitled “Validation of Single and Pooled Manure Drag Swabs for the Detection of Salmonella Serovar Enteritids in Commercial Poultry Houses” by Dr. H. Kinde et.al., California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System, School of Veterinary Medicine, San Bernardino, CA. This study showed there is no significant difference between the sensitivity of environmental sampling of four-swab pooled together using the National Poultry Improvement Plan culture method compared to the single swabs analyzed by FDA’s method, but the costs are significantly less.  NAEF has not yet heard back from FDA on this suggested improvement and cost-reducing measure to save testing expenses for the nation’s egg farmers.