Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:09:11.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laying hen welfare standards: a classic case of ‘power to the people’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

CJ Savory
CJ Savory*
Affiliation:
Avian Science Research Centre, Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, Scotland, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Legislation concerning laying hen welfare appears to be influenced more by public perceptions than by scientific and commercial evidence. This paper considers public understanding and power over the issue, and how welfare standards are structured. The usual objection to battery cages is that they do not provide enough space, but there seems to be ignorance of the fact that they were developed in order to improve the health of hens. Evidence is presented of more advantages than disadvantages with cage systems, and of the opposite with alternative (non-cage) housing. Why, then, does the public remain more concerned about just one of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's Five Freedoms — to display most normal patterns of behaviour — than about the other four? Arguably, the declared intent to ban battery cages in the EU in 2012 could not have been based justifiably on evidence in the European Commission Scientific Veterinary Committee's Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens. One therefore has to conclude that the decision to ban battery cages was taken for mainly political reasons, reflecting a belief that the majority of public opinion is against cages. Directive 99/74/EC will allow the use of ‘enriched cages’ after 2012, but, for political reasons, Germany intends to ban battery cages in 2007 and enriched cages in 2012. Following a recent public consultation on a possible similar ban on enriched cages in England, it was decided to defer a decision until after Directive 99/74/EC is reviewed in 2005. In one non-EU country, Switzerland, a national referendum led to a ban on battery cages in 1992. At present, there are ambiguities in minimum standards for different housing systems based on Directive 99/74/EC, which can be exploited by egg producers, sometimes at the expense of bird welfare. These concern stocking densities, the provision of claw-shortening devices, litter and perches, and the practice of beak trimming. They raise the question of the extent to which the structuring of welfare standards should represent a compromise between bird welfare, practicalities, public pressure and commercial interests.

Keywords

ambiguitiesanimal welfarelaying hen housing systemspublic powerpublic understandingstructuring of standards
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue S1: Science in the Service of Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium, Edinburgh, 2-4 April 2003 , February 2004 , pp. S153 - S158
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aerni, V, El-Lethey, H and Wechsler, B 2000 Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science 41: 16–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anon 2002 The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations (Statutory Instrument 2002, No. 1646). Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UK. Available at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021646.htm.Google Scholar
Briese, A, Sewerin, K and Knierim, U 2004 Laying hen welfare in the modified cage system Aviplus. Poster abstract. In: KirkWood. J K, Roberts E A and Vickery S (eds) Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Science in the Service of Animal Welfare’, Edinburgh, 2003. Animal Welfare 13: 5239.Google Scholar
Cordiner, L S and Savory, C J 2001 Use of perches and nest-boxes by laying hens in relation to social status, based on examination of consistency of ranking orders and frequency of interaction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 99/74/EC 1999 Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L203, p SS.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, G 2002 Claw shortening confusion continues. Poultry World Magazine June 2002.Google Scholar
DEFRA 2001 The Welfare of Hens in Free Range Systems. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
DEFRA 2002a Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Publications: London, UKGoogle Scholar
DEFRA 2002b Action plan agreed with stakeholders on beak-trimming of laying hens. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs News Release, 8th October 2002. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021008a.htm.Google Scholar
DEFRA 2003 Enriched cages — the way ahead. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs News Release, 18 March 2003. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2003/030318a.htm.Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H 2001 The pros and cons of cages. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Hughes, B O 1972 Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls. Animal Behaviour 20: 775–777CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC 1996 Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee Animal Welfare Section on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Elson, A 2002 Claw shortener monitoring exercise: interim results. Poultry World Magazine November 2002.Google Scholar
Engstrom, B and Schaller, G 1993 Experimental studies of the health of laying hens in relation to housing system. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 87–96. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 1992 The Five Freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council Press Notice 92/7, 7th October 1992.Google Scholar
FAWC 1997 Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK. Available at: http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htmGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines: the New Factory Farming Industry. Ballantine Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, A C and Nicol, C J 1997 Dustbathing in modified battery cages: is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, R and Lobsiger, C 1993 Health of laying hens in alternative systems in practice. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 81–86. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Norton, C C 1964 A survey of nematodes from the lower digestive tract of domestic fowls. Journal of Helminthology 38: 269–282CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osborne, S R 1977 The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: a review and analysis. Animal Learning and Behavior 5: 221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycott, T W and Steel, F 2001 Parasitic worms in commercial free-range poultry flocks in England and Wales. Veterinary Record 149: 428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randall, K 2003 Business: layers drop. Poultry World Magazine January 2003.Google Scholar
RSPCA 2002 Uncaged Egg Survey. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Horsham, UK. Available at: http://www.rspca.org.uk/campaigns.Google Scholar
RSPCA 2003a Egg-Laying Hens — Facts and Report. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Horsham, UK. Available at: http://www.rspca.org.uk/campaigns.Google Scholar
RSPCA 2003b Feathering Whose Nest? Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Horsham, UK. Available at: http://www.rspca.org.uk/campaigns.Google Scholar
Widdowson, J 2003 DEFRA says yes to perching on the floor. The Ranger (Magazine) June 2003 (p 5).Google Scholar
Wilson, J E 1960 Avian tuberculosis: an account of the disease in poultry, captive birds and wild birds. British Veterinary Journal 116: 380–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar