Battery cage

Last updated

Chickens in multiple-occupancy battery cages Battery-farm.jpg
Chickens in multiple-occupancy battery cages

Battery cages are a housing system used for various animal production methods, but primarily for egg-laying hens. The name arises from the arrangement of rows and columns of identical cages connected, in a unit, as in an artillery battery. Although the term is usually applied to poultry farming, similar cage systems are used for other animals. Battery cages have generated controversy between advocates for animal welfare and industrial producers.

Contents

Battery cages in practice

Robotic cages are the predominant form of housing for laying hens worldwide. [1] [2] [3] They reduce aggression and cannibalism among hens, but are barren, restrict movement, prevent many natural behaviours, and increase rates of osteoporosis. [3] As of 2014, approximately 95 percent of eggs in the United States were produced in battery cages. [4] In the United Kingdom, statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) indicate that 50% of eggs produced in the UK throughout 2010 were from cages (45% from free-range, 5% from barns). [5]

The EU ban on battery-caged hens

The Council of the European Union Directive 1999/74/EC [6] banned conventional battery cages in the EU starting in January 2012 for welfare reasons, leading to a significant decrease in the number of eggs from battery cages in the EU. [7] [8] The 2012 battery cage ban was publicised as heralding an end to caged hens throughout Europe, but it created a widely held misconception that all laying hens in the UK are now either free-range or barn birds. That is not the case; although battery cages are illegal, farmers have skirted the ban by providing slightly bigger cages with "enrichment" such as perches. The hens in these conditions are now called "ex-cage colony hens". [9]

Other examples of caged animals

Battery cages are also used for mink, rabbit, chinchilla and fox in fur farming, and most recently for the Asian palm civet for kopi luwak production of coffee.[ citation needed ]

History

A chicken coop from the 1950s Chicken coopbattery cages in the 1950s.jpg
A chicken coop from the 1950s

An early reference to battery cages appears in Milton Arndt's 1931 book, Battery Brooding, where he reports that his cage flock was healthier and had higher egg production than his conventional flock. [10] At this early date, battery cages already had the sloped floor that allowed eggs to roll to the front of the cage, where they were easily collected by the farmer and out of the hens' reach. Arndt also mentions the use of conveyor belts under the cages to remove manure, which provides better air control quality and reduces fly breeding. [10]

Original battery cages extended the technology used in battery brooders, which were cages with a wire mesh floor and integral heating elements for brooding chicks. The wire floor allowed the manure to pass through, removing it from the chicks' environment and reducing the risk of manure-borne diseases.[ citation needed ]

Early battery cages were often used for selecting hens based on performance since it is easy to track how many eggs each hen is laying if only one hen is placed in a cage. Later, this was combined with artificial insemination, giving a technique where each egg's parentage is known. This method is still used today.[ citation needed ]

Video advertising the system in the early history of the battery cage

Early reports from Arndt about battery cages were enthusiastic. Arndt reported:

This form of battery is coming into widespread use throughout the country and apparently is solving a number of the troubles encountered with laying hens in the regular laying house on the floor.

In the first edition of this book I spoke of my experimental work with 220 pullets which were retained for one year in individual cages. At the end of this year, it was found that the birds confined in the batteries outlaid considerably the same size flock in the regular houses. The birds consume less feed than those on the floor and this coupled with the increased production made them more profitable than the same number of pullets in the laying house. [10]

A number of progressive poultrymen from all over the United States and some in foreign countries cooperated with me in carrying on experimental work with this type of battery and each and every one of them were very well satisfied with the results obtained. In fact, a number of them have since placed their entire laying flocks in individual hen batteries. [10]

In 1967, Samuel Duff filed a patent for "battery cages" in patent US3465722. [11]

The use of laying batteries increased gradually, becoming the dominant method somewhat before the integration of the egg industry in the 1960s. The practice of battery cages was criticized in Ruth Harrison's landmark book Animal Machines, published in 1964. [12]

A simple battery cage system with no conveyors for feed or eggs Indiapoultry.JPG
A simple battery cage system with no conveyors for feed or eggs

In 1990, North and Bell reported that 75 percent of all commercial layers in the world and 95 percent in the United States were kept in cages. [13]

By all accounts, a caged layer facility is more expensive to build than high-density floor confinement but can be cheaper to operate if designed to minimize labor.

North and Bell report the following economic advantages to laying cages:

  1. It is easier to care for the pullets; no birds are underfoot
  2. Floor eggs are eliminated
  3. Eggs are cleaner
  4. Culling is expedited
  5. In most instances, less feed is required to produce a dozen eggs
  6. Broodiness is eliminated
  7. More pullets may be housed in a given house floor space
  8. Internal parasites are eliminated
  9. Labor requirements are generally much reduced [13]

They also cite disadvantages to cages:

  1. The handling of manure may be a problem
  2. Generally, flies become a greater nuisance
  3. The investment per pullet may be higher than in the case of floor operations
  4. There is a slightly higher percentage of blood spots in the eggs
  5. The bones are more fragile and processors often discount the fowl price [13]

Disadvantages one and two can be eliminated by manure conveyors, but some industrial systems do not feature manure conveyors. [14]

Legislation

.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" * ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "} .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em} v t e World laws on battery cages .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Nationwide ban on battery cages Some subnational bans on battery cages Nationwide phaseout of battery cages in progress Battery cages legal No data Battery cages laws world map.svg
World laws on battery cages
  
 Nationwide ban on battery cages
  
 Some subnational bans on battery cages
  
 Nationwide phaseout of battery cages in progress
  
 Battery cages legal
  
 No data

Efforts are being undertaken to prohibit battery cages in countries around the world, including Bhutan, India, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Mexico. [15]

Australia

Attempts to change the law have been an object of contention; RSPCA Australia has been officially campaigning to abolish both battery cages and furnished cages and to prohibit the sale of cage eggs ever since the 2001 revision of the Poultry Code. [16] The 2009 Code of Practice permits the use of battery cages. A written commitment by the Federal government to review the practice was scheduled in 2010; there was no further communication. During 2013 the state government of Tasmania was planning to phase out battery cages and budgeting for financial compensation for affected farmers but this was scrapped following the 2014 election. [17] [18]

The Australian Capital Territory prohibited battery cages in early 2014. [19] The Greens were committed to also legally prohibit them in late 2014 in Victoria. [19] In 2019, New South Wales Legislative Council member Emma Hurst established and chaired a NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Battery Cages for Hens in the Egg Production Industry. [20] The Inquiry recommended that all food products containing eggs from caged hens should be clearly labelled for the benefit of consumers, and a phase-out of battery cage hen farming in NSW. [21] [22]

Bhutan

Bhutan outlawed battery cages in 2012. [15]

Canada

In February 2016, 90 percent of egg-laying hens in Canada lived in battery cages. That month, negotiations between egg farmers, animal welfarists, and the government resulted in a moratorium on construction of new battery cages from 1 April 2017 and a gradual 15-year phaseout of battery cages towards enriched cage or cage-free systems by 2036. [23] Activist group Mercy for Animals was pleased with the announced phaseout, but called the timetable "simply outrageous" and argued that more urgency was required; some food companies such as Cara Foods, Tim Hortons, Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, and Subway restaurant announced they would phaseout non-cage-free eggs much sooner than 2036. [23]

European Union

In 1999, the Council of the European Union Directive 1999/74/EC [6] banned the conventional battery cage in the EU in 2012, after a 12-year phase-out. In their 1996 report, the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC) condemned the battery cage, concluding:

It is clear that because of its small size and its barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens.

The EU Directive allows "enriched" or "furnished" cages to be used. Under the directive, enriched cages must be at least 45 centimetres (18 inches) high and must provide each hen with at least 750 square centimetres (116 square inches) of space; 600 square centimetres (93 sq in) of this must be "usable area" – the other 150 square centimetres (23 sq in) is for a nest-box. The cage must also contain litter, perches, and "claw-shortening devices". Some animal welfare organisations, such as Compassion in World Farming, have criticised this move, calling for enriched cages to be prohibited as they believe they provide no significant or worthwhile welfare benefits compared with conventional battery cages.

Germany banned conventional battery cages in 2007, five years earlier than required by the EU Directive, [24] and has prohibited enriched cages from 2012. [25] Mahi Klosterhalfen of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation has been instrumental in a strategic campaign against battery cages in Germany. [26]

India

In 2013, the Animal Welfare Board of India concluded that battery cages were in violation of Section 11 (1)(e) of the 1960 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and issued an advisory to all state governments stating that battery cages should not be used and existing ones should be phased out by 2017. [27] This interpretation has been followed by several states [15] and confirmed by several courts such as the Punjab and Haryana High Court (March 2014) [27] and the Delhi High Court. [28] Yet, some battery cages have been found to continue operating illegally after 1 January 2017. [29]

New Zealand

On 7 December 2012, as part of a new welfare code for the poultry industry, the New Zealand government implemented a ban on the construction of new battery cages and initiated a ten-year phase-out of all battery cages in the country by 2022. As an intermediate goal, 45 percent of battery cages were to be removed by 2018. [30]

Norway

In April 2010, the Norwegian grocery chain REMA 1000 decided to stop selling eggs from both battery and furnished cage hens by the year 2012, to coincide with the scheduled EU-wide prohibition on battery cages. [31] Norwegian law followed EU legislation and on 1 January 2012 also prohibited battery cages (known as tradisjonelle bur or "traditional cages" in Norwegian), making furnished cages (known as miljøbur or "environmental cages" in Norwegian) the minimum legal requirement. [32] [33] Several more industry groups have decided to voluntarily phase out furnished cages as well, such as NorgesGruppen by 2019 [34] and Nortura by 2024, [32] while in April 2017 the Green Party proposed to ban furnished cages throughout the country by 2025. [34]

Switzerland

Switzerland banned battery cages from 1 January 1992; it was the first country to impose such a ban. [35] [36]

United States

US States with bans on battery cages for laying hens Laws prohibiting battery cages Laws prohibiting battery cages and cage-egg sale Battery cages legal v t e US States w outlawed battery cages.svg
US States with bans on battery cages for laying hens
  Laws prohibiting battery cages
  Laws prohibiting battery cages and cage-egg sale
  Battery cages legal

As of March 2020, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Michigan, Ohio, and Rhode Island had passed laws banning the use of battery cages, and the former three additionally banned the sale of eggs produced in battery cages. [37] Michigan's ban of battery cages and the sale of non-cage-free eggs in the state, adopted in November 2019, will enter into force at the end of 2024. [38]

The passage of California Proposition 2 in 2008 aimed, in part, to reduce or eliminate the problems associated with battery cages, by setting the standard for space relative to free movement and wingspan, rather than cage size.

Battery cages are illegal in Michigan due to HB 5127, passed in 2009, which mandates that certain farm animals have enough room to stand up, lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs, rather than being confined in tiny cages. [39]

In Ohio, there is a moratorium on permits for the construction of new battery cages as of June 2010. [40]

Oregon SB 805 also banned battery cages and set forth a transition to enriched colony cages, doubling the space per egg-laying hen. [41] [42] This law served as the model for a national agreement between the Humane Society of the United States and the United Egg Producers. [43]

Welfare concerns

There are several welfare concerns regarding the battery cage system of housing and husbandry. These are presented below in the approximate chronological order they would influence the hens.

Chick culling

Due to modern selective breeding, laying hen strains are different from those of meat production strains. Male birds of the laying strains do not lay eggs and are unsuitable for meat production, therefore, they are culled soon after being sexed, often on the day of hatching. [44] Methods of culling include cervical dislocation, asphyxiation by carbon dioxide and maceration using a high speed grinder.

Animal rights groups have used videos of live chicks being placed into macerators as evidence of cruelty in the egg production industry. [45] Maceration, together with cervical dislocation and asphyxiation by carbon dioxide, are all considered acceptable methods of euthanasia by the American Veterinary Medical Association. [46] [47] Consumers may also be appalled simply by the death of animals that are not subsequently eaten. [48]

Beak-trimming

To reduce the harmful effects of feather pecking, cannibalism and vent pecking, most chicks eventually going into battery cages are beak-trimmed. This is often performed on the first day after hatching, simultaneously with sexing and receiving vaccinations. Beak-trimming is a procedure considered by many scientists to cause acute pain and distress with possible chronic pain; it is practised on chicks for all types of housing systems, not only battery cages. [49]

Cage size

Battery cage Animal Abuse Battery Cage 01.jpg
Battery cage

At approximately 16 weeks of age, pullets (hens which have not yet started to lay) are placed into cages. In countries with relevant legislation, floor space for battery cages ranges upwards from 300 square centimetres (47 sq in) per bird. EU standards in 2003 called for at least 550 square centimetres (85 sq in) per hen. [50] In the US, the current recommendation by the United Egg Producers is 67–86 square inches (430–550 square centimetres) per bird. [51] The space available to each hen in a battery cage has often been described as less than the size of a sheet of A4 paper (624 square centimetres (96.7 sq in)). [52] Other people have commented that a typical cage is about the size of a filing cabinet drawer and holds eight to ten hens. [14] [53]

Behavioural studies showed that when turning, hens used 540–1,006 square centimetres (83.7–155.9 sq in), when stretching wings 653–1,118 square centimetres (101.2–173.3 sq in), when wing flapping 860–1,980 square centimetres (133–307 sq in), when feather ruffling 676–1,604 square centimetres (104.8–248.6 sq in), when preening 814–1,240 square centimetres (126.2–192.2 sq in), and when ground scratching 540 to 1005 cm2. [54] A space allowance of 550 square centimetres (85 sq in) would prevent hens in battery cages from performing these behaviours without touching another hen. Animal welfare scientists have been critical of battery cages because of these space restrictions [55] and it is widely considered that hens suffer boredom and frustration when unable to perform these behaviours. [56] Spatial restriction can lead to a wide range of abnormal behaviours, some of which are injurious to the hens or their cagemates.

Light manipulation

Battery cages - note the low light intensity beyond range of the camera flashgun Animal Abuse Battery Cage 02.jpg
Battery cages – note the low light intensity beyond range of the camera flashgun

To reduce the harmful effects of feather pecking, cannibalism and vent-pecking, hens in battery cages (and other housing systems) are often kept at low light intensities (e.g. less than ten lux). Low light intensities may be associated with welfare costs to the hens as they prefer to eat in brightly lit environments [57] and prefer brightly lit areas for active behaviour but dim (less than ten lux) for inactive behaviour. [58] Dimming the lights can also cause problems when the intensity is then abruptly increased temporarily to inspect the hens; this has been associated as a risk factor of increased feather pecking [59] and the birds can become frightened resulting in panic-type ("hysteria") reactions which can increase the risk of injury.

Being indoors, hens in battery cages do not see sunlight. Whilst there is no scientific evidence for this being a welfare problem, some animal advocates indicate it is a concern. [60] Furnished cages and some other non-cage indoor systems would also prevent hens seeing natural light throughout their lives.

Osteoporosis

Several studies have indicated that toward the end of the laying phase (approximately 72 weeks of age), a combination of high calcium demand for egg production and a lack of exercise can lead to osteoporosis. This can occur in all housing systems for egg laying hens, but is particularly prevalent in battery cage systems where it has sometimes been called 'cage layer osteoporosis'. [61] Osteoporosis leads to the skeleton becoming fragile and an increased risk of bone breakage, particularly in the legs and keel bone. Fractures may occur whilst the hens are in the cage and these are usually discovered at depopulation as old, healed breaks, or they might be fresh breaks which occurred during the process of depopulation. One study showed that 24.6 percent of hens from battery cages had recent keel fractures whereas hens in furnished cages, barn and free range had 3.6 percent, 1.2 percent and 1.3 percent respectively. However, hens from battery cages experienced fewer old breaks (17.7%) compared to hens in barn (69.1%), free-range (59.8%) and furnished cages (31.7%). [49]

Forced moulting

Flocks are sometimes force moulted, rather than being slaughtered, to reinvigorate egg-laying. This involves complete withdrawal of food (and sometimes water) for seven to fourteen days [62] or sufficiently long to cause a body weight loss of 25 to 35 percent. [63] This stimulates the hen to lose her feathers, but also reinvigorates egg-production. Some flocks may be force moulted several times. In 2003, more than 75 percent of all flocks were moulted in the US. [64] This temporary starving of the hens is seen as inhumane and is the main point of objection by critics and opponents of the practice. The alternative most often employed is to slaughter the hens instead of moulting them.[ citation needed ]

Improving welfare for egg-producing hens

The Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission stated that "enriched cages and well-designed non-cage systems have already been shown to have a number of welfare advantages over battery systems in their present form". [61] Supporters of battery husbandry contend that alternative systems such as free range also have welfare problems, such as increases in cannibalism, feather pecking and vent pecking. A recent review of welfare in battery cages made the point that such welfare issues are problems of management, unlike the issues of behavioural deprivation, which are inherent in a system that keeps hens in such cramped and barren conditions. [65] Free-range egg producers can limit or eliminate injurious pecking, particularly feather pecking, through such strategies as providing environmental enrichment, feeding mash instead of pellets, keeping roosters in with the hens, and arranging nest boxes so hens are not exposed to each other's vents; [65] similar strategies are more restricted or impossible in battery cages.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Poultry</span> Domesticated birds kept by humans for their eggs, meat, or feathers

Poultry are domesticated birds kept by humans for the purpose of harvesting useful animal products such as meat, eggs or feathers. The practice of raising poultry is known as poultry farming. These birds are most typically members of the superorder Galloanserae (fowl), especially the order Galliformes. The term also includes waterfowls of the family Anatidae but does not include wild birds hunted for food known as game or quarry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chicken</span> Domesticated species of bird

The chicken is a large and round short-winged bird, domesticated from the red junglefowl of Southeast Asia around 8,000 years ago. Most chickens are raised for food, providing meat and eggs; others are kept as pets or for cockfighting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debeaking</span> Trimming of a birds beak, usually performed on domesticated birds

Debeaking, beak trimming, or beak conditioning is the partial removal of the beak of poultry, especially layer hens and turkeys although it may also be performed on quail and ducks. Most commonly, the beak is shortened permanently, although regrowth can occur. The trimmed lower beak is somewhat longer than the upper beak. A similar but separate practice, usually performed by an avian veterinarian or an experienced birdkeeper, involves clipping, filing or sanding the beaks of captive birds for health purposes – in order to correct or temporarily to alleviate overgrowths or deformities and better allow the bird to go about its normal feeding and preening activities. Amongst raptor-keepers, this practice is commonly known as "coping".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free-range eggs</span> Type of egg produced from outdoor bird

Free-range eggs are eggs produced from birds that may be permitted outdoors. The term "free-range" may be used differently depending on the country and the relevant laws, and is not regulated in many areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free range</span> Method of farming where animals can roam freely outdoors

Free range denotes a method of farming husbandry where the animals, for at least part of the day, can roam freely outdoors, rather than being confined in an enclosure for 24 hours each day. On many farms, the outdoors ranging area is fenced, thereby technically making this an enclosure, however, free range systems usually offer the opportunity for the extensive locomotion and sunlight that is otherwise prevented by indoor housing systems. Free range may apply to meat, eggs or dairy farming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Organic egg production</span>

Organic egg production is the production of eggs through organic means. In this process, the poultry are fed organic feed. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, organic means that the laying hens must have access to the outdoors and cannot be raised in cages. Only natural molting can occur within the flock; forced molting is not allowed. Organic certification also requires maintenance of basic animal welfare standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Poultry farming</span> Part of animal husbandry

Poultry farming is the form of animal husbandry which raises domesticated birds such as chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese to produce meat or eggs for food. Poultry – mostly chickens – are farmed in great numbers. More than 60 billion chickens are killed for consumption annually. Chickens raised for eggs are known as layers, while chickens raised for meat are called broilers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 2</span> California ballot proposition

Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 4, 2008. It passed with 63% of the votes in favor and 37% against. Submitted to the Secretary of State as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, the initiative's name was amended to officially be known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative. The official title of the statute enacted by the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.

Michael Calvert Appleby OBE is a British ethologist and animal welfare scientist, especially for farm animals. He obtained a BSc in Zoology at the University of Bristol and a PhD in Animal Behaviour at King's College, Cambridge. He then spent 20 years at the Poultry Research Centre in Scotland and the University of Edinburgh researching behaviour, husbandry, and welfare of farm animals. He worked for World Animal Protection from 2005 to 2016, and is now retired.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feather pecking</span> When one bird repeatedly pecks at the feathers of another

Feather pecking is a behavioural problem that occurs most frequently amongst domestic hens reared for egg production, although it does occur in other poultry such as pheasants, turkeys, ducks, broiler chickens and is sometimes seen in farmed ostriches. Feather pecking occurs when one bird repeatedly pecks at the feathers of another. The levels of severity may be recognized as mild and severe. Gentle feather pecking is considered to be a normal investigatory behaviour where the feathers of the recipient are hardly disturbed and therefore does not represent a problem. In severe feather pecking, however, the feathers of the recipient are grasped, pulled at and sometimes removed. This is painful for the receiving bird and can lead to trauma of the skin or bleeding, which in turn can lead to cannibalism and death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity</span>

Abnormal behavior of birds in captivity has been found to occur among both domesticated and wild birds. Abnormal behavior can be defined in several ways. Statistically, 'abnormal' is when the occurrence, frequency or intensity of a behaviour varies statistically significantly, either more or less, from the normal value. This means that theoretically, almost any behaviour could become 'abnormal' in an individual. Less formally, 'abnormal' includes any activity judged to be outside the normal behaviour pattern for captive birds of that particular class or age. For example, running rather than flying may be a normal behaviour and regularly observed in one species, however, in another species it might be normal but becomes 'abnormal' if it reaches a high frequency, or in another species it is rarely observed and any incidence is considered 'abnormal'. This article does not include 'one-off' behaviours performed by individual birds that might be considered abnormal for that individual, unless these are performed repeatedly by other individuals in the species and are recognised as part of the ethogram of that species.

Vent pecking is an abnormal behaviour of birds performed primarily by commercial egg-laying hens. It is characterised by pecking damage to the cloaca, the surrounding skin and underlying tissue. Vent pecking frequently occurs immediately after an egg has been laid when the cloaca often remains partly everted exposing the mucosa, red from the physical trauma of oviposition or bleeding if the tissue is torn by her laying an egg. Vent pecking clearly causes pain and distress to the bird being pecked. Tearing of the skin increases susceptibility to disease and may lead to cannibalism, with possible evisceration of the pecked bird and ultimately, death.

Toe pecking, an abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity, occurs when one bird pecks the toes of another using its beak. This behaviour has been reported in hens and ostriches. Studies have shown that hens exposed to toe pecking have significantly enlarged adrenal glands, indicating increased physiological stress. Hens exposed to toe pecking will step off a raised platform more quickly than control hens, possibly suggesting a heightened fear of elevation. They have also been reported to show depressive behaviour when afflicted by toe-pecking. The act of toe pecking leads to open wounds which are viable for infection and disease to develop. In severe forms, toe pecking can be classified as a cannibalistic behaviour and has been reported as a cause of mortality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannibalism in poultry</span>

Cannibalism in poultry is the act of one individual of a poultry species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. It commonly occurs in flocks of domestic hens reared for egg production, although it can also occur in domestic turkeys, pheasants and other poultry species. Poultry create a social order of dominance known as pecking order. When pressure occurs within the flock, pecking can increase in aggression and escalate to cannibalism. Cannibalism can occur as a consequence of feather pecking which has caused denuded areas and bleeding on a bird's skin. Cannibalism can cause large mortality rates within the flock and large decreases in production due to the stress it causes. Vent pecking, sometimes called 'cloacal cannibalism', is considered to be a separate form of cannibalistic pecking as this occurs in well-feathered birds and only the cloaca is targeted. There are several causes that can lead to cannibalism such as: light and overheating, crowd size, nutrition, injury/death, genetics and learned behaviour. Research has been conducted to attempt to understand why poultry engage in this behaviour, as it is not totally understood. There are known methods of control to reduce cannibalism such as crowd size control, beak trimming, light manipulation, perches, selective genetics and eyewear.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Furnished cage</span>

A furnished cage, sometimes called enriched cage, colony cage or modified cage, is a type of cage used in poultry farming for egg laying hens. Furnished cages have been designed to overcome some of the welfare concerns of battery cages whilst retaining their economic and husbandry advantages, and also provide some of the welfare advantages over non-cage systems. Many design features of furnished cages have been incorporated because research in animal welfare science has shown them to be of benefit to the hens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blinders (poultry)</span>

Blinders, also known as peepers, are devices fitted to, or through, the beaks of poultry to block their forward vision and assist in the control of feather pecking, cannibalism and sometimes egg-eating. A patent for the devices was filed as early as 1935. They are used primarily for game birds, pheasant and quail, but also for turkeys and laying hens. Blinders are opaque and prevent forward vision, unlike similar devices called spectacles which have transparent lenses. Blinders work by reducing the accuracy of pecking at the feathers or body of another bird, rather than spectacles which have coloured lenses and allow the bird to see forwards but alter the perceived colour, particularly of blood. Blinders are held in position with a circlip arrangement or lugs into the nares of the bird, or a pin which pierces through the nasal septum. They can be made of metal (aluminium), neoprene or plastic, and are often brightly coloured making it easy to identify birds which have lost the device. Some versions have a hole in the centre of each of the blinders, thereby allowing restricted forward vision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Directive 1999/74/EC</span>

Directive 1999/74/EC is legislation passed by the European Union on the minimum standards for keeping egg laying hens which effectively bans conventional battery cages. The directive, passed in 1999, banned conventional battery cages in the EU from 1 January 2012 after a 13-year phase-out. Battery cages were already banned in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden prior to 2012. The directive does not apply to establishments with fewer than 350 laying hens or establishments rearing breeding laying hens. Such establishments are, however, subject to the requirements of Directive 98/58/EC. The directive is not supported with fines, penalties or export bans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Egg marking</span>

Egg marking is a form of egg labelling that includes an egg code stamped on the egg itself. In the EU there is a producer code regulated by law since 2004. It allows consumers to distinguish free range eggs and organic farming eggs from the industrial caged hen production.

Animal welfare and rights in France is about the treatment of and laws concerning non-human animals in France. France has moderate animal welfare protections by international standards.

Christine Nicol is an author, academic and a researcher. She is a Professor of Animal Welfare at the Royal Veterinary College and has honorary appointments at the University of Oxford and the University of Lincoln. She is the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Animal Science.

References

  1. ↑ Horne, P.L.M. Van; Achterbosch, T.J. (2008). "Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade". World's Poultry Science Journal. Cambridge University Press (CUP). 64 (1): 40–52. doi:10.1017/s0043933907001705. S2CID   41783559. Archived from the original on 20 July 2018. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  2. ↑ Leenstra, F.; Napel, J. Ten; Visscher, J.; Sambeek, F. Van (2016). "Layer breeding programmes in changing production environments: a historic perspective". World's Poultry Science Journal. Cambridge University Press (CUP). 72 (1): 21–36. doi:10.1017/s0043933915002743. S2CID   88880569.
  3. 1 2 Meseret, S. (2016). "A review of poultry welfare in conventional production system". Livestock Research for Rural Development. 28 (12).
  4. ↑ Greene, J.L.; Cowan, T (2014). "Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. 42534. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 February 2017. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  5. ↑ "50% of UK eggs laid by free range hens". theranger.co.uk. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 9 December 2011.
  6. 1 2 "European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC". Official Journal of the European Communities. European Union. 19 July 1999. Archived from the original on 7 May 2013. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  7. ↑ "Scientists and Experts on Battery Cages and Laying Hen Welfare" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 May 2017. Retrieved 18 December 2014.
  8. ↑ "Animal Welfare: Commission report confirms the potential benefits of banning conventional battery cages for laying hens". europa.eu. Archived from the original on 12 January 2018. Retrieved 21 December 2014.
  9. ↑ Circular from the British Hen Welfare Trust.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Arndt, Milton (1931). Battery Brooding (2nd ed.). Orange Judd Publishing. pp. 308–312.
  11. ↑ United States Patent Office (1969). "Battery cages" . Retrieved 4 May 2013.
  12. ↑ "Md. Egg Farm Accused of Cruelty". Washington Post. 6 June 2001. Archived from the original on 26 July 2009. Retrieved 30 July 2009.
  13. 1 2 3 North, Mack O.; Donald E. Bell (1990). Commercial Chicken Production Manual (4th ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp. 297, 315. ISBN   0-87055-446-8.
  14. 1 2 Singer, Peter (2006). In Defense of Animals. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 175. ISBN   1-4051-1941-1.
  15. 1 2 3 Hötzel, Maria José; Filho, Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado (2013). ISAE 2013: Proceedings of the 47th Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology, 2-6 June 2013, Florianopolis, Brazil : Understanding Behaviour to Improve Livelihood. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Pub. p. 162. ISBN   9789086862252. Archived from the original on 18 January 2023. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  16. ↑ Frank Chung (4 October 2015). "Do cage eggs have a future in Australia?". News.com.au. News Corp Australia. Archived from the original on 6 September 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  17. ↑ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-18/tasmania-to-ban-battery-hen-farming/4019200M%5B%5D ABC Tasmania to ban Battery Hen Farming
  18. ↑ "Tas government scraps free-range egg plan". News.com.au. 24 April 2014. Archived from the original on 17 July 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2014.
  19. 1 2 Davey, Melissa (18 September 2014). "Inside the battery hen shed: the farmer who wants to prove cages aren't always cruel". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  20. ↑ "Legislative Council Select Committee on the Use of Battery Cages for Hens in the Egg Production Industry". Parliament of New South Wales. 2019. Archived from the original on 12 August 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  21. ↑ Rabe, Tom (29 October 2019). "Calls for a national standard for labelling egg products". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  22. ↑ Hurst, Emma (30 October 2019). "Media Release: NSW Egg Industry's dirty plan supported by Labor in Upper House Inquiry". Emma Hurst MP. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 8 November 2019.
  23. 1 2 "Canadian egg farmers to abandon battery cages by 2036". CBC News. 5 February 2016. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  24. ↑ "Species: laying hens - Compassion in World Farming". ciwf.org.uk. Archived from the original on 31 March 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
  25. ↑ Jelle Brandsma (15 December 2011). "De legbatterij verdwijnt, maar nog niet overal". Trouw (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  26. ↑ "VegTalk Podcast: Mahi Klosterhalfen and the End of the Battery Cage". Archived from the original on 20 April 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2011.
  27. 1 2 Vijay Singh (7 March 2014). "Court issues notice against confinement of egg laying hens in battery cages". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 18 January 2023. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  28. ↑ Vishwa Mohad (2 May 2019). "Draft rules prohibit keeping hens in cramped 'battery cages'". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 7 November 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  29. ↑ Neha Madaan (26 February 2017). "Poultry industry uses battery cages despite government ban". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  30. ↑ "New battery hen cages banned". The New Zealand Herald. 6 December 2012. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  31. ↑ Fjørfe nr. 3, 2010.
  32. 1 2 Hans-Olav Rise (9 September 2018). "Nortura kjenner seg pressa vekk frå buregg". Nationen (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  33. ↑ "Burhøner i Norge". YouTube (in Norwegian). Dyrevernalliansen (Norwegian Animal Protection Alliance). 10 March 2010. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  34. 1 2 Ola Fintland (28 April 2017). "Burhøner blir stortingsmat". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  35. ↑ "Haltung - Schweizer Bauern". www.schweizerbauern.ch. Archived from the original on 18 January 2023. Retrieved 11 July 2022.
  36. ↑ Grandin, Temple (2015). Improving Animal Welfare, 2nd Edition: A Practical Approach. London: CABI. p. 118. ISBN   9781780644677. Archived from the original on 18 January 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  37. ↑ Vogeler, Colette S. (14 April 2020). "Politicizing Farm Animal Welfare: A Comparative Study of Policy Change in the United States of America". Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. Informa UK Limited. 23 (5–6): 526–543. doi:10.1080/13876988.2020.1742069. ISSN   1387-6988. S2CID   218809455.
  38. ↑ Jerilyn Jordan (22 November 2019). "Michigan will become 5th state to enforce cage-free egg production thanks to new bill". Metro Times . Archived from the original on 23 May 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2020.
  39. ↑ "Mich. Gov. Granholm signs historic farm animal welfare measure". Humane Society of the United States. 12 October 2009. Archived from the original on 16 May 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  40. ↑ "Landmark Ohio Animal Welfare Agreement Reached Among HSUS, Ohioans for Humane Farms, Gov. Strickland, and Leading Livestock Organizations". Humane Society of the United States. 30 June 2010. Archived from the original on 18 March 2015. Retrieved 2 March 2015.
  41. ↑ "Oregon Department of Agriculture: Requirements and Inspections". www.oregon.gov. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  42. ↑ "SB805 2011 Regular Session - Oregon Legislative Information System". olis.leg.state.or.us. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  43. ↑ "Landmark Agreement to Help Millions of Hens · A Humane Nation". 7 July 2011. Archived from the original on 17 May 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  44. ↑ "Egg laying and male birds". Vegsoc.org. Archived from the original on 22 February 2009.
  45. ↑ "Video Shows Chicks Ground Up Alive at Egg Hatchery". The Associated Press. 2 September 2009. Archived from the original on 14 July 2022. Retrieved 13 August 2020.
  46. ↑ "AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 July 2012.
  47. ↑ "Executive Board meets pressing needs - September 15, 2006". Archived from the original on 24 May 2012.
  48. ↑ Morris, M. C. (2008). "The Ethics and Politics of Animal Welfare in New Zealand: Broiler Chicken Production as a Case Study". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 22: 15–30. doi:10.1007/s10806-008-9128-3. S2CID   154609136.
  49. 1 2 Sherwin, C.M., Richards, G.J and Nicol, C.J., (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science, 51(4): 488-499
  50. ↑ Chickens: Layer Housing, M.C. Appleby, Encyclopedia of Animal Science. doi : 10.1081/E-EAS-120019534
  51. ↑ United Egg Producers (2010). "Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 April 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  52. ↑ "Animal Pragmatism: Compassion Over Killing Wants to Make the Anti-Meat Message a Little More Palatable". Washington Post. 3 September 2003. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2009.
  53. ↑ Becker, Elizabeth (4 December 2002). "Advocates for Animals Turn Attention to Chickens". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2009.
  54. ↑ Stamp Dawkins, M. and Hardie, S., (1989). Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30: 413-416. doi : 10.1080/00071668908417163
  55. ↑ Nicol, C.J. and Dawkins, M., (1989). No room for manoeuvre. New Scientist, 16 September 1989
  56. ↑ Appleby, M.C.; Mench, J.A.; Hughes, B.O. (2004). Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford and Cambridge MA: CABI Publishing. ISBN   0-85199-667-1.
  57. ↑ Prescott, N.B. and Wathes, C.M., (2002). Preference and motivation of laying hens to eat under different illuminances and the effect of illuminance on eating behaviour. British Poultry Science, 43: 190-195
  58. ↑ Davis, N.J., Prescott, N.B., Savory, C.J. and Wathes, C.M., (1999). Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour. Animal Welfare, 8: 193-203
  59. ↑ Green, L.E., Lewis, K., Kimpton, A. and Nicol, C.J., (2000). Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its association with management and disease. Veterinary Record, 147: 233-238
  60. ↑ "Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania (AACT) - Battery Hen Campaign". Archived from the original on 20 September 2011.
  61. 1 2 Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission (1996). "Report on the Welfare of Layer Hens" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2006.
  62. ↑ Patwardhan, D. and King, A., (2011). Review: feed withdrawal and non feed withdrawal moult. World's Poultry Science Journal, 67: 253-268
  63. ↑ Webster, A.B., (2003). Physiology and behavior of the hen during induced moult. Poultry Science, 82: 992-1002
  64. ↑ Yousaf, M. and Chaudhry, A.S., (2008). History, changing scenarios and future strategies to induce moulting in laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal, 64: 65-75
  65. 1 2 Morris, M.C. (2006). "The ethics and politics of the caged layer hen debate in New Zealand". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 19 (5): 495–514. doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9007-8. S2CID   154114874.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.