As for the welfare of the bird, there are benefits and drawbacks for both cage and cage-free production systems, but in many situations, hens in modern cage housing are better off, especially if the housing is managed according to the guidelines of the United Egg Producers’ (UEP) animal welfare program, according to a noted animal welfare scientist. Dr. Joy Mench, in a letter to an executive of one supermarket company, responded to several issues, or statements, raised by an animal activist urging the company to cease merchandising eggs from caged hens. The executive, rather than accepting the activist’s points without question, asked UEP for help, and UEP turned to Mench.

Mench is a member of the scientific advisory committee that established — and keeps updated — the guidelines of the UEP program (nearby story), as well as a member of the scientific advisory committee that oversees another organization’s standards for cage-free egg production. Mench also is director of the center for animal welfare and teaches classes in the ethics of animal use at the University of California-Davis.

The following is a summation of the activist’s statements and Mench’s responses. (The first part was reported in the Oct. 1 Feedstuffs FoodLink.)

CONNECTING FARM TO FORK ANIMAL activists campaigning against cage egg production systems overlook an important truth: Cage systems are not as bad as activists paint them to be, non cage systems are not as good as they paint them to be and no one system — based on reviews by scientists all over the world — is clearly superior to another in terms of the care, health and well-being of the hens housed in them.

Activist groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), both of which actually seek a vegetarian society, tend to focus on hen space and say hens in cages have no more room than they would on a sheet of paper. This not only ignores scientifically valid conclusions that cages offer sufficient space for hens to express most of their physical and social behaviors, but it overlooks the fact that cages are healthy and safe environments, often more so than non-cage environments, as reported on the Feedstuffs Food Link pages last week and this week.

HSUS and PETA do not tell people this but, rather, condemn a housing system that’s a high-welfare system that, at the same time, produces the most abundant and affordable egg supply in the world. Good management leads to good welfare, as does management enrolled in the animal welfare program of the United Egg Producers. HSUS and PETA do not tell people this. People should understand that the HSUS and PETA message is not as clear as they make it out to be and is, in reality, quite cloudy. The egg industry should make sure people make decisions based on the facts and not the clouds and can do so in promoting their animal welfare program and in referring foodservice and retail store managers to www.FeedstuffsFoodLink.com.

The issue of hen welfare is complicated and not as clear as one kind of housing over another.

Hens in cage environments are “debeaked” to prevent destructive pecking.

Mench: Pecking is a combination of cannibalistic and feather pecking and can cause injury — life threatening injury in the case of cannibalism — to the birds being pecked. However, this behavior occurs in all kinds of production systems, and in fact, cannibalism is “much more common” in non-cage systems and is one of the most — if not the most — significant welfare problems associated with non-cage systems.

To prevent damage from pecking, both cage and non-cage producers “trim” hens’ beaks, removing one-third to one-half of the upper beak, and UEP guidelines specify how and when beaks should be trimmed. Hens are not “debeaked.”

Hens are molted by with holding water for up to three days and feed for up to 10 days.

Mench: Molting is a natural process whereby birds replace worn feathers; when females molt, they also cease laying eggs, and once the molt is over, they resume laying eggs but at a higher level than before the molt.

Molts once were induced in both cage and non-cage systems by withdrawing feed and water, but this is no longer true for hens covered in the “UEP Certified” program. Certified producers stopped withholding water in 2002 and stopped withholding feed in 2006.

Hens have behavioral tendencies that they are completely prohibited from expressing in cage systems.

Mench: Hens housed in cage systems cannot dust bathe, flap their wings, fly or use a nest box or perch. However, they can groom, lie down, stand, stretch, turn around and engage in other behaviors.

There is no question that conventional cages do restrict bird movement, and this is considered their main welfare disadvantage compared to non-cage systems, although cage systems also have advantages compared to other systems, primarily related to better hen health.

In recent years, European producers have started to use new, non-conventional cages called “furnished” cages in which larger cages offer areas for dust bathing, nesting and perching. Many poultry welfare specialists, including myself, consider these cages “very promising,” but they are more expensive to install and manage and result in higher egg prices to consumers. It is uncertain if U.S. consumers are willing to pay such a premium for eggs from such cages.

In response to other statements, Mench said the UEP program has scientifically valid standards — including a training video — for removing hens from cages at the end of their laying life to ensure compassionate handling and to minimize bone breakage and for crating them into trucks for transport to fowl plants. She also noted that as only

HEN HOUSING: Hens in cage egg production systems have access to enough space to express most behaviors, drink and eat and are housed so they can be managed for health and safety.

KNOWING that producers have a responsibility to house and manage their animals at the highest levels of husbandry and welfare, the United Egg Producers(UEP) adopted guidelines for hen welfare seven years ago(Feedstuffs, Oct. 18, 2000). The guidelines were developed through an independent advisory committee of animal behaviorists and other poultry scientists and were based on extensive literature review and discussion of the ethics of animal care.

The guidelines set standards for cage space, access to feed and water, beak trimming, bird comfort levels and housing environments, molting and other management practices, as well as handling, transportation and disposal of spent hens. The guidelines are modified based on new research and other considerations. Egg producers enrolled in the program must demonstrate compliance through annual third-party audits, and producers who pass their audits receive certification status. UEP’s membership covers 90% of the U.S. egg industry, and about 85% of all egg production in the U.S. is enrolled in the program. The group’s program has been adopted by the International Egg Commission as the model for hen welfare guidelines worldwide.

UEP program is worldwide model 25-30% of hens are sent to processing plants (due to limited demand for fowl meat), the program also includes standards for humane, on-farm euthanasia methods. She said the UEP scientific committee and UEP are currently discussing other aspects of disposal, including the actual trucking activity, which affects all hens, not just hens in cage housing.

Editor’s Note The UEP scientific committee has been developing animal welfare guidelines for cage free production systems, and UEP is expected to adopt those guidelines for its producers with cage-free divisions at its annual meeting next week or at its January meeting.