ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

The latest report from the government’s Farm Animal Welfare Council,
The Welfare of Laying Hens in Colony Housing Systems, comes at a crucial
time. The European Commission is now poised to set new standards for the
housing of laying hens kept in ‘colonies’ rather than battery cages, and
tougher regulations could improve the welfare of millions of birds across
Europe. As the report was being written, members of the FAWC disagreed over
fundamental issues. The majority felt that the report should recommend only
those improvements that would require no major changes by producers. As
one of the minority who dissented from this approach, I describe here the
key points of disagreement, and the background to the debate.

Battery cages were introduced into Britain on a commercial scale after
the derationing of feeding stuffs in 1953. At first one bird was put into
a cage, measuring 30 centimetres wide. But stocking densities increased
steadily over the years, and today five birds are put into each 50-centimetre-wide
cage – giving each bird just 432 square centimetres. Cages are ranked three,
four, five or even six tiers high, in long buildings, often over a deep
pit into which the birds’ droppings fall. So restricted have conditions
for the hen become that a report published by the FAWC in 1986 commented:
‘We do not approve of the cage systems in their present commercial form
on welfare grounds . . . the extreme confinement denies or seriously restricts
the birds’ freedom to express patterns of behaviour. The birds may be subject
to chronic discomfort.’

In 1986 the European Commission’s Battery Hens Directive (EC 86/113)
set minimum standards for battery cages, among which was a minimum stocking
rate of 450 square centimetres per bird, to come into force in 1988 for
new cages and 1995 for existing cages. Work on revising the directive started
in 1989 and is supposed to be completed in 1992. This directive is expected
to give a marginal increase in the space allowance for the birds, once more
phased in over many years. But this time the directive may add an appendix
setting standards for hens in alternative systems – in so-called ‘free-range’
and ‘barn’ housing – and here the recommendations of the FAWC may be particularly
influential.

A small percentage of producers have never used cages, but public demand
for ‘free-range’ eggs led to a gradual increase in the number. In 1990,
the famous comment by Edwina Currie, then health minister, that most egg
production was infected with salmonella, brought pictures of hens in battery
cages onto television screens night after night for weeks on end and brought
home to the public the degree of confinement and discomfort experienced
by the birds. Demand for ‘free-range’ eggs escalated and has now reached
over 15 per cent of the market. Producers of ‘barn’ eggs are hoping to capture
some of the ‘free-range’ egg market.

The public perception is that ‘free-range’ eggs come from hens which
actually spend their days ranging freely over pasture, and that ‘barn’ eggs
come from hens in light, spacious and strawed barns in which the birds can
move around freely as they wish. Is this view accurate? Not exactly! Because
in 1985 the Commission’s marketing division drew up criteria for labelling
eggs on sale without consulting husbandry experts. The resulting criteria
simply accommodate the poor husbandry practices of the most extreme systems
in the European Community. Retailers then took these criteria as their basic
husbandry standards for marketing ‘free-range’ and ‘barn’ eggs.

The ‘barn’ eggs can be from a dimly lit, windowless building, with no
litter in which the hens could scratch or have dustbaths, and with each
bird allocated only 400 square centimetres. The ‘free-range’ eggs could
come from similar buildings, albeit with ‘continuous daytime access to open-air
runs’. In practice, this often means a continuation of the practice of providing
only one pop-hole for hundreds of hens, so that few ever go outside or probably
even realise that such access exists.

Many of the existing alternatives are unsatisfactory for three reasons.
Egg producers attempt to get the same profit from the building as they did
from cages, to cram as many birds into a building as there had been when
the birds were in cages, and to use the body heat of the birds to keep the
ambient temperature high enough to maintain litter and air quality. (Cold,
damp conditions cause the litter to compact, promoting disease.)

Government-funded research has also concentrated on maintaining profits.
Use has been made of vertical space within the house, and elaborate designs
of tiers and perches over either a slatted, wire or strawed floor have been
tried out in ever more complex combinations. Stocking densities are now
based on complicated tables of birds per square metre against temperature
and ventilation rates. More than ever the poultry farmer has also to be
a technician and mathematician.

Any changes imposed on an industry take time to achieve. Ministers are
quick to use the FAWC as a shield in the House of Commons against awkward
questions. But they are far less quick to respond to the council’s recommendations
for change, however urgent the FAWC considers such change to be. This is
not entirely the ministers’ fault, since any change, be it to welfare codes
or to legislation, is a relatively lengthy procedure. The recommendations
have to be sent out for consultation to interested parties, many of whom
have in turn to consult their branches. Replies then have to be sifted and
analysed before ministers decide on their own response, upon which a second
consultation is made. Agreed changes then have to be drafted and sent to
ministry lawyers, who confer with parliamentary lawyers. Then they come
back to the department to see if the drafting has achieved what was intended.
If the subject is controversial the department may feel it wise to go out
for consultation again on the draft laws and will in any case probably go
back to the lawyers for further change.

Finally, both changes to codes and to legislation have to go for approval
by both houses of Parliament, for which time has to be found in otherwise
full parliamentary programmes. It was 1991 before some of the legislation
asked for in the FAWC Slaughter Report of 1984 was introduced. The delay
can be prolonged when primary legislation has to be introduced or changed
and session after session of parliamentary time goes by without time being
found for the changes – especially if measures do not rank high on the Cabinet’s
list of priorities. When change requires harmonisation at Community level,
with officials from the governments of 12 member states trying to reach
agreement, and the subject having in turn to be high on the list of a president’s
priorities, delays can be interminable.

Even when all these hurdles have been crossed, further delay is written
into all legislation to give producers time to comply. An example of this
at national level is The Welfare of Pigs Regulations (1991) which only come
into effect in 1999. And at Community level the Battery Hens Directive gives
farmers nine years to increase stocking rates in existing units.

It is against the backcloth of such political realism that one has to
consider the FAWC report. A fundamental difference in philosophy emerged
as members of the FAWC began writing the report. So basic was this difference
that the two viewpoints could not be reconciled. The original idea was to
recognise these differences by publishing the report in two parts – as majority
and minority reports. But the majority later decided that the minority view
should not be allowed such prominence and decided to publish only the majority
report with a brief note at the end indicating that there is a minority
report.

The main points of difference between the two groups are:

Whether it is better to set standards which are moderate enough to accommodate
industry and then to review these at a later date, or to set more stringent,
long-term goals to be phased in over a suitable period of time.

The time scale it takes to achieve change either in welfare codes or
through legislation.

Whether the quality of each of the components which go to make up the
the hen’s total environment has been given sufficient attention in setting
out the quantitative requirements.

Whether the standards chosen are the best achievable to meet the needs
of the hen.

The FAWC felt under pressure to produce improved standards that retailers
could adopt immediately without waiting for major changes by producers.
If this had been the FAWC’s only aim, the Council might have reached agreement.
But most of the standards put forward were to be written in a form which
would be difficult to change for a great many years – in the form either
of regulations or of changes to the welfare code – which, moreover, would
be recommended to the European Commission as a basis for its own regulations.
This put an entirely different complexion on things.

Recognising that it takes years rather than months to get changes either
to codes or to legislation, and even more years to allow producers to adapt,
is it wiser to go for a series of short-term moderate changes, or to go
straight to more profound changes with a much longer phase-in period? The
authors of the minority report favour the latter approach as giving producers
more stability and, in the long run, less cost.

Equally important is the fact that producers are still experimenting
with new systems. So they need to know now what, in the light of available
scientific evidence, is best for the animal. Given a long phase-in period,
they can then adapt to the new conditions at their own pace.

The FAWC lays down the quantity of space, litter, perches and nestboxes
to be provided for birds. The FAWC has also set a figure of 2000 as a maximum
group size for the birds. The minority group recognises the severe problems
that can arise in large groups of hens, but, in view of the lack of evidence,
suggests only that group size be kept as low as possible. This is an area
of research that has become urgent as flock sizes are now measured in thousands
or even tens of thousands and continue to increase. Productivity per bird
in these large flocks may be lower, but overall returns compensate for this,
so productivity per se cannot be used as a measure of optimum flock size.
This research should be given maximum priority.

A welcome advance in the report is the explosion of the myth that a
temperature of 21 °C is a welfare measure rather than a purely commercial
one. The report’s recommendations for regulations would also improve on
the Commission’s Egg Marketing Regulations by stipulating some litter for
all housed birds, and for free-range birds ‘sufficient’ pop-holes to give
all birds access to pasture, and a restriction of no more than 375 birds
per hectare when no rotational system is used.

The report states that ‘the following recommendations for welfare standards
are based on the best available information and evidence in 1990/91′. Unfortunately,
since references to this information are not included, it is impossible
to evaluate the validity of the report’s conclusions.

Within buildings, the report recommends a space allocation of 1425 square
centimetres of usable space for each bird – seven birds per square metre.
But the authors note that they are aware of financial and management advantages
of high stocking rates and note that it is possible to increase the numbers
in the house by providing overhead perches or platforms. The report states
that: ‘Behavioural research indicates that up to 55 per cent of the flock
will be found on overhead perches/platforms during the day. This would allow
stocking rates to be increased to 15.5 hens per square metre of floor plan
²¹°ù±ð²¹.’

The crux of the argument on this halving of the floor space depends
upon this ‘behavioural research’, but the report does not give details.
Who did the research? Where and when was it published? What was the stocking
density when this measurement was taken? What was the type of floor? Is
55 per cent an average figure or, as the text implies, a maximum value?
These are all valid questions that the report leaves unanswered. But they
should be answered, because, as the authors state: ‘We believe that space
allocation is one of the most important determinants of hen welfare in colony
²õ²â²õ³Ù±ð³¾²õ.’

Further, the authors’ comments on the value to the bird of the space
allocation of 1425 square centimetres are confused. In the foreword, they
say: ‘We are concerned to ensure that such systems meet the needs of the
animal and to specify the criteria (such as allowances of space for the
full range of normal activities).’ In paragraph 30 the report states that:
‘hens should be given sufficient space to ensure that none of their essential
behaviours is inhibited by overcrowding’, whereas paragraph 75 (3) states
that: ‘the allocation of 1425 square centimetres per bird is currently accepted
as sufficient for the performance of the normal range of static behaviour
patterns’. Which is it to be? Of the static behaviour patterns, wing flapping
takes more than the space allocated so it is designated as an activity for
which space has to be shared.

On the question of beak-trimming, the report accepts that ‘beak-trimming
is a serious welfare insult to the hen and can result in chronic pain for
long periods after the operation’. The authors recommend the banning of
‘routine, non-therapeutic’ beak-trimming after 1996, but ‘concede allowing
(it) when, in the opinion of an attending veterinary surgeon, there is a
genuine risk of cannibalism’. A recommended code provision is that ‘where
it is considered necessary as a preventive measure it should be carried
out when the birds are less than 10 days of age’. A recommended regulation
would make it an offence for ‘the despatch by hatcheries to producers of
badly beak-trimmed birds’ at day-old. Beak-trimming at the hatchery is necessarily
routine. So what, in practice, will change?

In 1979 the newly formed FAWC set out the ‘five freedoms’ it wished
to see provided for farm animals: ‘freedom from thirst, hunger or malnutrition;
appropriate comfort and shelter; prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment,
of injury and disease; freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour;
freedom from fear’.

The new FAWC report insists that dim lighting and debeaking must be
permitted to allow for the smooth running of systems for laying hens, but
routine debeaking only for another five years. The authors of the minority
report, however, regard reliance on these two major deprivations as totally
unacceptable and an indication of the inadequacy of the recommendations
put forward. They go on to question whether any system that relies on debeaking,
heavy stocking and dim lighting can be said to provide three of the five
freedoms outlined above: appropriate comfort to the birds, freedom to exercise
most normal patterns of behaviour or freedom from fear.

So what is best for the birds? This, as the foreword points out, is
not easy to define. But that does not mean that no attempt should be made
to do so.

Researchers have emphasised that trouble occurs within flocks of hens
when the quality of the total environment is inadequate. The report would
have been far more valuable if this factor had been taken more seriously.
And it is not only the quality of the individual components but the relationship
between those components that is important.

Take litter, for example. No one disputes that birds need litter, but
it is not only how much litter is provided that is important, but the type
and quality of the litter. The minority report gives evidence to show that
the type of litter and depth of litter, as well as quantity of litter, have
a vital part to play in reducing feather pecking and encouraging adequate
scratching and dustbathing behaviour, and even in keeping the birds warm
in winter. Wood shavings are the most commonly used litter in alternative
systems today, but they are also the least satisfactory because they adhere
to the outer feathers and do not penetrate to the skin to assist in removal
of excess oil and ensure that the plumage remains in good condition. Recommended
alternatives are peat, chopped straw and sand.

The FAWC report also stresses that the litter should always be friable,
but to maintain friability it must be worked by the birds. Recent work by
Glarita Martin at the University of Stuttgart shows that hens in bright
light (500 lux) will work litter far more than hens in low light (50 lux),
keeping it friable rather than compacted and damp – conditions that allow
a build-up of microorganisms in the litter, making the birds more vulnerable
to disease.

Anyone who has travelled in a crowded underground train can appreciate
what is meant by the term ‘personal space’. The need for such space extends
to other species. Aggression in hens is influenced by how much space and
light the birds have, but the relationship is not a straightforward linear
one. At both extremely high and very low densities, aggression is low, but
it increases at intermediate densities. The densities being recommended
by the FAWC are in this band of increased aggression. Similarly, we know
that feather pecking and cannibalism can be controlled by keeping the birds
in very dim light, but Martin has confirmed earlier work done in Switzerland
and shown that increasing light levels also works. So the severe feather
pecking that she observed at 50 lux disappeared when she increased the level
to 500 lux. Conventional commercial wisdom faced with severe feather pecking
at 50 lux would have been to reduce the level to near darkness.

The FAWC report says that space allocation is the single most important
factor in improving the hen’s welfare, but then offers only enough space
for some of its static behaviours. How much would increasing space for the
bird increase the price of producing eggs? There is some information on
this. Arnold Elson of ADAS, the government agricultural advisory service,
has estimated that increasing space per bird from battery cages (stocked
at 450 square centimetres) to semi-intensive systems (which account for
most eggs sold as ‘free range’ in shops) adds 35 per cent to producers’
costs. The National Farmers Union quotes production costs of 51.5p per dozen
for battery eggs in United Kingdom Egg Producers Association News (26 July
1991). Thirty-five per cent of the NFU figures of 51.5p would give a production
cost for ‘free-range’ eggs of 70p per dozen (rounded up).

The Figure shows what retailers actually charged for battery eggs and
for free-range eggs on 26 July 1991 and what they would have charged for
free-range eggs with a 35 per cent increase over the retail cost of battery
eggs.

It would seem from these charges that there is considerable room for
manoeuvre for retailers to sell a higher proportion of ‘free-range’ eggs
at lower cost to the consumer. It would appear also that they are making
disproportionate profits out of eggs at the expense of both producers and
consumers. This is another area in which the Office of Fair Trading could
usefully take an interest.

The FAWC’s report misses a golden opportunity to make a real contribution
to the welfare of these much abused birds. An enormous amount of scientific
evidence exists and, even though some of it is conflicting, clear patterns
are beginning to emerge. If existing scientific and technical evidence had
been collated and clearly presented, this report would have been invaluable
for the industry, for government, and at international level, even if agreement
could not be reached on ultimate recommendations. If producers do not take
the lead, significant improvement could be delayed by decades. The animals
deserve better from the FAWC.

Ruth Harrison was a member of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Her book
Animal Machines, published in 1964, detailed the plight of animals in the
growing factory farm industry. This led directly to the government’s Brambell
Committee and the FAWC. She has served on these committees for 24 years
and continues to write and campaign for farm animals throughout the world.

Further reading Arnold Elson, ‘Production costs in different poultry
systems’, Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (1985), Celle. DW
van Liere and N. Siard, ‘Towards an understanding of litter bathing quality
in hens’, Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and Future (1991), Universities
Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, Herts. G. Martin, ‘Ecological
aspects of chicken husbandry interactions between environmental conditions,
behavioural activity of hens and quality of deep litter’, Alternatives in
Animal Husbandry (1991), University of Kassel. Witzenhausen.

Copies of the main report and the full minority report can be obtained
from either: The Farm Animal Welfare Council, Block B, Government Buildings,
Hook Rise South, Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7NF or from Ruth Harrison,
34 Holland Park Road, London W14 8LZ.