U.S. commercial egg producers are “letting science speak” as to the care and welfare of birds in numerous production systems, which is the right way to achieve what’s best for hens and producers, according to animal behavior and other scientists who sit on the animal welfare scientific advisory committee for the United Egg Producers (UEP).

Doing so represents egg producers’ extraordinary commitment to animal welfare, they said during interviews with Feedstuffs Food Link. UEP, which represents 90% of commercial egg production, adopted guidelines for hen welfare six years ago that the scientific advisory committee recommended (Feedstuffs, Oct. 18, 2000) and has modified them several times since then on the advice of the committee, which acts independently of producers.

The guidelines set standards for cage space, access to feed and water, beak trimming, housing environments, molting and other management practices, as well as handling, transportation and slaughter of spent hens. The standards are founded on extensive research and scientific soundness, and UEP members who subscribe to them undergo independent audits every year to verify compliance. About 85% of production is enrolled in the guidelines. Although about 95% of egg production in the U.S. is in cage production systems, UEP has asked the committee to develop guidelines for cage-free and other production systems.

Complex interaction In interviews, members of the committee discussed the concept of the committee itself, commending producers for not only their vision but willingness to put their husbandry practices in the hands of science.

Paul Thompson, a philosopher who holds the W.K. Kellogg Chair in Agriculture, Food & Community Ethics at Michigan State University, said he has “a lot of admiration” for the collaborative process in which the committee and producers have addressed both the economics surrounding the business side of their operations and the ethical issues surrounding the welfare of their birds. “It would be unreasonable” to expect the latter to be forced on producers without considering the economics in an industry in which producers compete with each other and with other protein suppliers, he said. The UEP process has been “a positive way to come to terms with how to be ethical … and focused on improving the quality of the lives of animals and still focused on markets,” he said.

The collaborative process may well be “anew way to think about ethics,” Thompson said.

The committee has been free to bring every issue to the table to create “an overlay” of factors to understand hen welfare from the industry’s perspective, “and we saw that it’s not ‘this or that’ but a complex interaction,” said Janice Swanson, who specializes in animal behavior issues at Kansas State University.

The right thing to do is the right thing for an animal’s welfare, she said, but it’s necessary “to start where the industry is (to improve animal well-being) with as little disruption as possible to the bottom line.”

Pointing to countries that have mandated poultry management and production schemes through bans and laws, she said the committee-UEP process has increased cage space “in half the time of the regulatory context.”

The process is phasing in better husbandry “without tipping the apple cart,” agreed Gail Golab, a veterinarian with the American Veterinary Medical Assn. in Schaumburg, Ill. “Adoption has to be practical.” The process relies on “real data,” on science rather than emotion and is working for birds and producers, added Scotti Hester, a poultry production specialist at Purdue University. For instance, science demonstrated that increasing cage space is in the best interests of hens and productivity, and producers are responding not only with more space but new caging and housing systems that are “night and day” in comparison, she said.

For example, UEP said it gathered and summarized 60-week performance data from 319 flocks of White Leghorn hens kept in cages under the UEP Certified guidelines. The comparison was based on performance results of flocks placed at 53 sq. in. or less and those place at 59-61 sq. in. Increasing space per layer provided the following results: 2.3 less mortality, 7.8 more eggs per hen housed and 0.06 lb. less feed per dozen.

UEP said it expects even greater performance improvements as it phases in placing hens at 67 sq. in. Science demonstrated that there are advantages and disadvantages to beak trimming — with more advantages than disadvantages — but the solution is to genetically select for less aggressive birds, a goal toward which the industry is now working, she said.

Science demonstrated that feed withdrawal to force molts is simply unethical, and producers, using UEP-funded research, are moving to non-fasting regimens, she said. Feeding space studies also are underway, she noted. All of this and more are being done on timelines “that are not disruptive to” industry economics, Hester said. “Producers are buying in.” The “highlight” of the process is taupe “is seeking out science and letting science speak,” Hester said.

Choice and questions UEP’s approach is unique to commodity groups, most of which have animal welfare platforms constructed internally by and for their memberships, members of the UEP scientific advisory committee said. (The pork sector’s Swine Welfare Assurance Program reflects practices recommended by a committee of scientists named by the National Pork Promotion& Research Board [Feedstuffs, Sept. 22, 2003].)

It’s “an excellent model,” and UEPshould be commended for being forward-looking and sticking with it despite continued criticism by activist groups and even some internal dissent, said JoyMench, an animal behavior and production specialist at the University of California at Davis.

It may, indeed, be too excellent of a model, added Thompson, who said sometimes having a producer speak up about the real world would be helpful. However, he said the committee’s independence should afford foodservice managers and supermarket dairy case managers — and, ultimately, consumers — confidence that the guidelines are credible and science based.

Consumers buying eggs — or other animal derived protein — at a restaurant or supermarket want to be confident that animals are treated with high levels of husbandry, and this “demand and pressure from the public will increase,” Thompson said.

People are often suspicious of the industry’s message because it’s considered to be slanted but are more receptive to a message of high welfare from independent interests, he said. Accordingly, producers “need to work with a broad group of constituencies to make sure they understand that the industry is doing the right thing,” he said.

Foodservice and supermarket managers need to ask questions, and consumers need to ask questions, especially if presented with arguments that one production system is more welfare oriented than another, Swanson said. Consumers are entitled to choices but also to the information on which to make those choices, she said.

For instance, Golab added, restaurant and store managers need to know the differences between production systems and labels promoting those systems so they can explain the differences to consumers.

With few exceptions — such as when foodservice managers at Notre Dame asked for information about cage free production systems and decided against buying cage-free eggs (Feedstuffs, Sept. 4) — they aren’t asking those questions. The problem is that “we scientists talk from three stories up,” and the industry’s message tends to be mistrusted, she said. Somehow, producers, scientists, merchandisers and consumers need to begin talking with each other, she said.

Producers also are entitled to choices, Swanson said, and while one choice could go in the cage-free direction, another could go to cages. The goal is to provide a high level of welfare for the birds, she said, which can mean that hens running free in a barn or on a range may not be as well cared for as more confined hens.

Animal care is not about production systems but how birds are managed in production systems, Golab said. Mench added that there is “disagreement over the ethical values of housing systems, but the hard thing” is to look at the trade-offs — the variables — that contribute to animal welfare and recognize that it’s management that balances these variables.

THE egg industry has developed a credible process for establishing scientific standards for the care and well-being of hens, and producers are making important progress toward improving the housing and management of their birds.

The process works because it provides for the interaction of economics and ethics.

Foodservice and supermarket managers should understand that hen welfare is dependent on management of layers and not on specific kinds of production systems and should ask questions of their egg suppliers about how eggs are produced and the science behind welfare standards when confronted with conflicting emotion-charged information. They should emphasize this message and science in consumer engagements and refer their customers to www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com.