Battery cages

For the band, see Battery Cage (band).

File:56.000 kippen leggen 40.000 eieren per dag.ogv In poultry farming, battery cages are an industrial agricultural confinement system used primarily for egg-laying hens. The name comes from the lines of similar cages connected together, sharing common divider walls. Although the term is usually applied to poultry farming, similar cage systems are used for mink, rabbit, chinchilla and foxes in fur farming, and most recently for the Asian palm civet for kopi luwak production of coffee. The battery cage has generated controversy among advocates for animal welfare, animal rights and industrial producers.

It was estimated that over 60% of the world’s eggs were produced in industrial systems, mostly using battery cages, including over two thirds in the EU.[1] In the UK, statistics from the Department for the 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).[2] However, introduction of the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC[3] which banned conventional battery cages in the EU from January 2012 for welfare reasons, means the number of eggs from battery cages in the EU states is rapidly decreasing.

Examples

Examples of battery cages used for animal production purposes

History

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.[4] 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 eliminates fly breeding.[4]

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.

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.

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.[4]
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."[4]

In 1966, Samuel Duff filed a patent for "battery cages" in patent US3465722.[5]

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.[6]

In 1990, North and Bell reported that 75% of all commercial layers in the world and 95% in the United States were kept in cages.[7]

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 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[7]

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.[7]

Disadvantages 1 and 2 can be eliminated by manure conveyors, but some industrial systems do not feature manure conveyors.[8]

Legislation

European Union

In 1999, the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC[3] banned the conventional battery cage in the EU from 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 cm high and must provide each hen with at least 750 cm² of space; 600 cm² of this must be "usable area" – the other 150 cm² 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

Germany banned conventional battery cages from 2007, five years earlier than required by the EU Directive,[9] and has prohibited enriched cages from 2012. Mahi Klosterhalfen of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation has been instrumental in a strategic campaign against battery cages in Germany.[10]

Switzerland

Battery cages were banned in Switzerland from January 1, 1992. It was the first country to do so.[11]

United States

The passage of California Proposition 2 (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.

Australia

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. As of 2013, the state Government of Tasmania is planning to phase out battery cages and budgeting for financial compensation for affected farmers.[12]

A recent national survey showed that 86% of Australians believe that battery cages are cruel.[13]

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

Main article: Chick culling

In an industrial egg-producing facility, about half of the newly hatched chicks will be male and would grow up to be roosters, which do not lay eggs and therefore provide no incentive for the breeder to preserve. Most of the male chicks are usually killed shortly after being sexed. 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 fed into grinders as evidence of cruelty in the egg industry.[14] Maceration, together with cervical dislocation and asphyxiation by carbon dioxide are all considered acceptable humane methods of killing by the American Veterinary Medical Association.[15][16] Consumers may also be appalled simply by the death of animals that are not subsequently eaten.[17]

Beak-trimming

Main article: Debeaking

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.[18]

Cage size

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 cm2 per bird. EU standards in 2003 called for at least 550 cm2 per hen.[19] In the US, the current recommendation by the United Egg Producers is 67 to 86 in2 (430 to 560 cm2) per bird.[20] 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.[21] Others have commented that a typical cage is about the size of a filing cabinet drawer and holds eight to 10 hens.[8][22]

Behavioural studies showed that when turning, hens used 540 to 1006 cm2, when stretching wings 653 to 1118 cm2, when wing flapping 860 to 1980 cm2, when feather ruffling 676 to 1604 cm2, when preening 814 to sup> and when ground scratching 540 to 1005 cm2.[23] A space allowance of 550 cm2 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[24] and it is widely considered that hens suffer boredom and frustration when unable to perform these behaviours.[25] Spatial restriction can lead to a wide range of abnormal behaviours, some of which are injurious to the hens or their cagemates.

Light manipulation

Further information: Feather pecking § Light manipulations

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 10 lux). Low light intensites may be associated with welfare costs to the hens as they prefer to eat in brightly lit environments[26] and prefer brightly lit areas for active behaviour but dim (less than 10 lux) for inactive behaviour.[27] 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[28] 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.[29][30] 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'.[31] 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% of hens from battery cages had recent keel fractures whereas hens in furnished cages, barn and free-range had 3.6%, 1.2% and 1.3% 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%).[18]

Forced moulting

Main article: Forced molting

Flocks are sometimes force moulted, rather than being slaughtered, to reinvigorate egg-laying. This involves complete withdrawal of food (and sometimes water) for 7 to 14 days[32] or sufficiently long to cause a body weight loss of 25 to 35%.[33] 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% of all flocks were moulted in the US.[34] 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 molting them.

Improving welfare in battery cages

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".[31] Supporters of battery farming 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.[35] 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;[35] similar strategies are more restricted or impossible in battery cages.

References in popular culture

The English band Hawkwind mentions a battery hen in the song "Spirit of the Age" from the 1977 album Quark, Strangeness and Charm. English rock band Radiohead makes a poetical use of the term "battery hen" in , titled "Life in a Glasshouse", the eleventh and final track of its 2001 album Amnesiac. Together with the allusion to "frozen food" in the same verse of the song, the term suggests the similarity between mass production of food and animal mistreatment on the one hand and human contemporary alienation on the other hand.

References

External links

  • The Battery Hen Welfare Trust
  • Compassion in World Farming - Egg laying hens
  • ISBN 0-9658942-7-4
  • FreeBetty.com - Public Awareness Campaign to End the Suffering of Battery Hens (Animals Australia)
  • Ex-Battery Hens Forum
  • EU battery cage ban
  • The real cost of cage eggs
  • No caged eggs!
  • Hens deserve better!
  • It's time to ban the battery cage!
  • Campaign to ban eggs from battery farms
  • Tell Coles & Woolies to can the cage!
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.