It is reasonable to assert that farm animals destined to live short lives should live comfortably.
It’s tempting to set down conditions for animals — hens, we are discussing here — based on what we believe is instinctive: freedom to roam, roost and brood.
With this in mind, there is a movement in the animal welfare field to push farmers away from caged hens, even from enriched cages, to cage-free or free-range.
There are many issues with this, but two of them merit discussion. First, it’s not clear that cage-free or free-range hens are happier or healthier. We might believe so, but the evidence is inconclusive.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
And if farmers gravitate to the more capital- and labour-intensive practices that go along with free range or cage-free systems, it will increase the price of eggs, which can form the basis of inexpensive, healthy meals.
The movement away from conventional caged hens has been speedy. Or we should say, the announcements have been speedy. The actual move will take years.
Canadian egg farmers are pursuing a complete transition away from caged hens by 2036.
It’s estimated that most farms will complete the switch before then. The delayed implementation should give farms an opportunity to spread out over time the significant capital investment necessary to make the changeover.
In recent months, Wal-Mart and Loblaws said they will buy only cage-free eggs by 2025, while Tim Hortons, McDonald’s and other restaurants have announced similar goals.
This despite studies that seem to support what several poultry experts have been saying: there are downsides to every method of hen housing.
Caged hens may not have a lot of room, but they can still be healthier than their counterparts in other systems.
The death rate among cage-free hens ranges from 40 to 50 percent. Disease, feather pecking, cannibalism and foot sores significantly increase in cage-free housing.
Animal rights activists contend these problems can be addressed with better farm practices, which tend to involve more labour and, as a result, higher costs.
It must be acknowledged that chicken handling practices have improved significantly and continue to do so, thanks to better training on euthanasia, transportation and environmental procedures, as well as accredited food safety programs, controls on barn temperatures, air quality, cleanliness, egg collection, egg storage and disease testing.
These improvements could better serve the needs of the hens, rather than regulations that impose human principles.
A study by the University of California, Davis, found that it costs about 13 percent more to produce eggs in barns with enriched cage spaces (larger cages with perches and scratching and pecking areas) than it does in conventional cage operations.
Eggs from free-run facilities cost 36 percent more to produce.
Farmers cannot absorb all of the costs. Some will be passed on to consumers. Many of us might be willing to pay more for eggs, but what of lower income families who depend on eggs for inexpensive protein and vitamins? Has anyone asked them if they can pay more?
Most animal rights activists are earnest and genuine in their beliefs. But it may be possible that working with farmers to improve practices, rather than fighting to impose changes, would be best for animals, farmers and consumers.
