Laying hen welfare

Concern for animal welfare has evolved concomitantly with the philosophical, ethical and economical progress of the human population. Although several definitions exist (e.g. Brambell, Reference BRAMBELL1965; Lorz, Reference LORZ1973; Wiepkema, Reference WIEPKEMA1982; Broom, Reference BROOM1986; Duncan and Petherick, Reference DUNCAN and PETHERICK1989; Dawkins, Reference DAWKINS1990; McGlone, Reference MCGLONE1993; Moberg, Reference MOBERG1993; Spruijt et al., Reference SPRUIJT, VAN DEN BOS and PIJLMAN2001), no consensus has been achieved. However, there is general agreement about what represents good animal welfare, as it was expressed in the ‘Five Freedoms’ (Farm Animal Welfare Council, Reference FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL1991):

1. 1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.

2. 2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.

3. 3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.

4. 4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.

5. 5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

In acknowledging these freedoms in poultry production systems, those who have care of laying hens’ welfare status should practise (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, UK, 2002):

• • caring and responsible planning and management

• • skilled, knowledgeable and conscientious stockmanship

• • appropriate environmental design (e.g. of the husbandry system)

• • considerate handling and transport

• • humane slaughter

Laying hen welfare is increasingly included as part of assurance schemes required by food retailers and used by farmers, transporters and slaughter houses, showing that it is often important for market access. Recently, the LayWel study developed risk analysis by using the ‘traffic light’ approach to compare welfare outcomes and risks to good welfare across egg production systems. This was a simplification of benchmarking as a means of assessing welfare (LayWel, 2006). It was originally used by Bristol University for on-farm evaluation of the welfare of free-range hens (Webster, Reference WEBSTER2005).

A balanced welfare assessment system should satisfy public, industry, political and scientific concerns before it can be widely accepted. It should also be based on sound scientific principles e.g. using recognised poultry welfare indicators. There is a clear need for harmonised, comprehensive and reliable welfare assessment and product information systems. Moreover, scientists studying animal welfare generally agree that the best approach to assessing welfare is to integrate information across disciplines, using several different methodologies. A holistic approach to evaluating welfare, using all the available science, results in a more complete assessment.

The term ‘welfare friendly’ is now often used to describe systems that appeal to animal welfare groups and consumers (EC Special Eurobarometer, Reference EC SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER2005). However, this term appeals to the layman rather than the scientist and is often based on feelings and perception rather than good evidence. An example of this is the increasing demand on perceived welfare grounds for non-cage (NC) eggs, especially free range ones, whilst ignoring the facts that:

1. a. most commercially housed free range hens never go outside,

2. b. the welfare risks to those that do greatly increase due to parasitic infestations, enteric diseases, predation, smothering and cannibalism (Elson, Reference ELSON2008) and

3. c. morbidity and mortality are generally highest in free range systems (Elson and Croxall, Reference ELSON and CROXALL2006; Hegelund et al., Reference HEGELUND, SORENSEN and HERMANSEN2006) [whereas the EFSA report recommended that “efforts should be made to minimise mortality and morbidity …. in order to reduce the risk of poor welfare. Only those systems, in which there is expected to be low mortality, should be used” (EFSA, Reference EFSA2005)].

Egg quality

Webster's dictionary defines quality as ‘the degree of excellence which a thing possesses’. One popular definition comes from a USDA Marketing Workshop Report cited by Gould (Reference GOULD1977). It reads ‘the combination of attributes or characteristics of a product that have significance in determining the degree of acceptability of the product to a user’. To be valid, food quality must be judged by consumers of the product (Cardello, Reference CARDELLO1995).

Quality perception is affected by different types of attributes that can be defined as intrinsic or extrinsic (Luning et al., Reference LUNING, MARCELLS and JONGEN2002). Caswell taxonomy (Caswell, Reference CASWELL1998) lists four broad groups of food quality attributes:

1. 1. packaging

2. 2. value

3. 3. price and process

4. 4. safety and nutrition attributes

Furthermore, the concept of quality in the EU as an intrinsic element of food safety comprises two aspects:

1. 1. the non-negotiable quality in terms of the safety of the food we eat and minimum requirements for protecting the environment and animal and plant species

2. 2. the relative or subjective quality, making a foodstuff truly unique as a result of taste, appearance, flavour, production methods and ease of use (Ramantanis, Reference RAMANTANIS2004).

In the case of eggs, a formal inspection must be undertaken so that each egg can be allocated to a particular Quality Class. These Classes are defined in the EU Egg Marketing Regulations which are enforced throughout all European Union (EU) countries. There are three quality classes for eggs intended for human consumption. In brief, these are:

• • Class A (‘fresh eggs’). These may further be sold as ‘Extra’ Fresh if the air space is less than 4mm in height at the time of candling and throughout its marketable seven days following packing.

• • Class B (‘certain second quality or preserved eggs’).

• • Class C (‘non graded eggs intended for the manufacture of foodstuffs for human consumption’).

The relationship ‘laying hen welfare – egg quality’

The recently developed EC ‘farm to fork’ approach recognizes that consumer perception of food safety and quality is not only determined by the overall nature and safety of the food but also by welfare status of the animal from which it was produced (Sossidou et al., Reference SOSSIDOU, VALERO and EGIZABAL2003). Therefore, animal welfare is part of an overall ‘food safety and quality concept’.

In addition, food quality can only be assured on farm by a holistic farm approach to managing animal well-being (Sossidou, Reference SOSSIDOU2002). This approach requires multidisciplinary inputs in order to be successful since it involves many aspects of veterinary and animal production science (Korver and Van Arendonck, 1988). The adoption of a holistic approach to food safety is required that encompasses the whole food chain and adheres to the FAO definition of a food chain approach in which responsibility for the production of safe food is shared along the entire food chain. The development of practical and reliable welfare measures for health and nutrition, breeding and reproduction, housing and environment on farm are therefore also required (Sossidou and Ramantanis, Reference SOSSIDOU and RAMANTANIS2004). Transparency of the product quality chain requires visibility of production processes and an understanding of how they affect animal welfare; the key is to link husbandry practices to informed animal product consumption. This demands reliable on-farm welfare monitoring systems enabling the assessment of welfare status and standardised conversion of welfare measures into accessible and understandable information, thereby addressing consumer concerns and allowing clear marketing and profiling of products.

Little scientific data are available on egg production and quality traits in relation to laying hen welfare. Most have been provided by recent trials and surveys from different European countries:

In Sweden, Tauson and Holm (Reference TAUSON and HOLM2001) compared two parallel flocks in single level NC systems and furnished cages (FCs) and found 3% lower egg mass and 4% higher feed conversion rate in the NC system. In Germany, Leyendecker et al. (Reference LEYENDECKER, HAMANN, HARTUNG, WEBER, GLÜNDER, NOGOSSEK, NEUMANN, KAMPHUES and DISTI2002) compared the performance of hens reared together, housed during the laying period in conventional cages (CCs), FCs and an aviary. Eggs collected were highest in the FCs and lowest in the aviary. Feed conversion ratio was better in cages than in the aviary. In France, Michel and Huonnic (Reference MICHEL and HUONNIC2003) compared CCs with aviaries. More eggs were collected from the caged hens than from those in the aviary, and the former had a superior feed conversion ratio. In the UK, ADAS reported through LayWel project that the highest total egg mass output was seen in CCs followed by large furnished cages (FCLs) and that the output for NCs was lowest (LayWel, Reference LAYWEL2004). Also in a large scale study in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, Croxall and Elson (Reference CROXALL and ELSON2007) compared performance and welfare in commercial laying flocks in CCs, FCLs and various NCs – single and multi-tier aviaries, conventional and organic free range. They found superior egg output and feed conversion in CCs and FCLs; the lowest mortality was in FCLs and the highest in free range. In Belgium, De Reu et al. (Reference DE REU, GRIJSPEERD, HEYNDRICKS, ZOONS, DE BAERE, UYTTENDALE, DEBEVERE and HERMAN2005) found that the contamination with total aerobic flora was higher on eggs from an NC (aviary) compared to CCs and FCs. This was influenced by higher bacterial air contamination due to higher dust levels in the non-cages system studied (aviary). There were no systematic differences between CCs and FCs.

It has been showed that stressors may influence egg shell quality (Mills et al., Reference MILLS, MARCHE and FAURE1987). Moreover, the impact of different housing systems on some egg quality traits (egg mass, egg, albumen and yolk weight, yolk colour, shell deformation and thickness, Haugh index and egg specific gravity) has been also the aim of several studies (e.g. Abrahamson and Tauson, 1995; Castellini et al., Reference CASTELLINI, PERELLA, MUGNAI and BOSCO2006; Barbosa et al., Reference BARBOSA, SILVA, SILVA and COELHO2006; Kosmidou et al., Reference KOSMIDOU, FORTOMARIS, SOSSIDOU, YANNAKOPOULOS and TSERVENI-GOUSSI2007; Kosmidou et al., Reference KOSMIDOU, FORTOMARIS, SOSSIDOU, SAMOURIS and TSERVENI-GOUSSI2008). Generally, the space per hen and group size is of relevance. In cages (both CC and FC) structural and design features such as wire mesh size, thickness and quality, floor slope, presence and design of egg baffles and the space per bird (Elson, Reference ELSON1990; Brake and Peebles Reference BRAKE and PEEBLES1992; Alvey and Tucker, Reference ALVEY and TUCKER1993; Carey et al., Reference CAREY, KUO and ANDERSON1995), have been shown to influence egg quality. Early designs of FC included features that allowed sub-optimal egg quality and reported higher numbers of cracked or dirty eggs (e.g. Alvey et al., Reference ALVEY, LINDBERG and TUCKER1996 and Van Niekerk and Reuvekamp, 1997; 1999). Several improvements to FC designs have been studied and measures such as egg saver wires, longer nest curtains and complete nest lining with mats such as Astroturf were effective in reducing the number of dirty and/or cracked eggs (Wall and Tauson, Reference WALL and TAUSON2002). FC designs are still being further improved (Appleby et al., Reference APPLEBY, WALKER, NICOL, LINDBERG, FREIRE, HUGHES and ELSON2002; Cooper and Albentosa, Reference COOPER and ALBENTOSA2003; Tauson, Reference TAUSON2003; Elson, Reference ELSON2004).

Hazards for food safety in relation to egg production systems have been reviewed thoroughly in Chapter 10 of the EFSA report (EFSA, Reference EFSA2005). The link between animal welfare, animal health and food safety has also been recognised internationally (OIE, Reference OIE2005).

Public concern to improve laying hen welfare and egg quality

Recent food scares in Europe have increased public concern about what people eat and how it has been produced. This is especially the case for the intensive methods of farming, such as the production of eggs in cages. Such concern comes from the increasing demand for food products which are perceived by consumers to be more ‘animal welfare friendly’, for example free-range eggs.

Growing consumer demand both for quality food products and more ethical food production means that farm animal welfare is emerging as an area of potential added value for producers, retailers, processors, manufacturers, producer cooperatives. Many different stakeholders should be encouraged to participate in laying hen welfare matters and transparent egg quality (Welfare Quality, Reference WELFARE QUALITY2007):

Farmers and industry: because these are the people who actually deal with hens and their products and because they must balance productivity, cost, consumer, and animal welfare considerations. High husbandry standards can not only improve animal welfare but contribute to the generation of higher commodity prices. Also, poor welfare conditions are costly through harmful effects on the hens’ health, productivity and product quality;

Consumers: because their behaviour when purchasing eggs is critical to hen welfare policy. There is a growing interest amongst consumers for environmental sustainability, animal welfare and ‘ethical quality’ of poultry products;

Environmental groups and ‘consumers of the environment’, because agricultural practices have an environmental impact;

Animal welfare organisations, because they claim to represent the animals, and their voice can contribute to shaping societal concerns, and because the public trusts them; and

Retailers and caterers. Retailers increasingly recognise animal welfare as a quality aspect of animal products and a relevant factor in consumer acceptance of the animal product. Thus, supermarkets translate the worries of the consumer into specifications for animal housing and management (including transport). It seems a more general trend that supermarkets want to label and market their products as ’animal friendly’.

There may be differing ethical considerations that motivate concern over farm animal welfare. For many people, moral decisions are based on religious doctrine (Szücs et al., Reference SZÜCS, JEZIERSKI, KALETA, ÁBRAHÁM, POIKALAINEN, SOSSIDOU and PRAKS2006; Sossidou and Szücs, Reference SOSSIDOU and SZÜCS2007).

Public concern is also closely linked to the notion that happy animals are healthy animals and that proper care of farm animals leads to safer, better quality meat, eggs and dairy products. Is this true? What are the real welfare requirements of farm animals? How do scientifically based animal welfare measures affect the competitiveness of EU products? Would consumers be willing to pay considerably more for foods produced under genuine 'animal welfare friendly' conditions?

Bennett and Larson (Reference BENNETT and LARSON1996) conducted a contingent valuation survey of 2000 people in Great Britain to determine the magnitude of people's willingness to pay for legislation to ban laying cages. Although consumers expressed a willingness to pay more for animal welfare friendly products, their purchasing behaviour seemed to be driven more often by other considerations, such as value for money. It is also significant that many consumers in several countries buy both cheap CC and premium NC eggs; this hardly indicates a strong conscience regarding perceived animal welfare! In a survey of a US animal sciences faculty (Harper and Henson, Reference HARPER and HENSON2001), when the respondents were asked to rank food producing species, the greatest concerns were directed at poultry production, despite the popular and dismissive characterisation of chickens as ‘bird brained’. Only 51% of the respondents felt that the predominant production methods used to produce eggs provided appropriate levels of animal welfare, and only 58% found practices in broiler production acceptable. The concept of animal welfare rests on self-evident notions such as ‘natural’ and ‘humane’. When asked to rate production methods by product on an ‘acceptability scale’, veal and poultry production were rated lowest while milk and lamb production came in highest. It was concluded that lack of information is the biggest barrier to buying and eating animal welfare friendly products. Others include lack of availability, the tendency to disassociate the product from the animal, the belief that consumers do not have the power to change the system, and price premiums.

In a more recent survey (EC Special Eurobarometer, Reference EC SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER2005), the welfare and protection of farmed animals was judged differently for each species, with the conditions of laying hens being judged to be poorer compared to pigs and dairy cows. The analysis of results by country highlights the differences in opinion across the European Union. In a clear majority of Member States, most respondents gave a negative opinion about the welfare of laying hens. The Dutch and the Danish (77%), followed by the Germans and Belgians (73%), were the most critical in this respect. In these same countries, a significant proportion of respondents, close to or over 30%, also had a very negative opinion of the welfare of laying hens. Furthermore, laying hens and chickens kept for meat production (broilers) were the species for which respondents wanted most to improve current levels of welfare and protection. In spite of this awareness of animal welfare, a slight majority of citizens do not seem to take account of animal welfare when buying food. It was also observed that although people seem willing to accept a price increase for eggs sourced from an animal welfare friendly system, this increase is naturally limited, especially when the price premium amounts to 25% or more.

Legal requirements

Legislation has been the commonest way of protecting farm animal welfare. Animal welfare has been taken into consideration within the European Union for many years with a growing body of legislation accruing on this issue since the 1970s. Since 1999, the Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals of the Amsterdam Treaty has set out new fundamental principles concerning European Union action in this area.

In addition, within recent decades, several comprehensive pieces of animal welfare legislation have been introduced in Europe, many of them constraining the intensive confinement of farm animals. In view of the fact that most laying hens are kept in CCs, the EU Council Directive (1999) requires minimum standards to protect them in this system. These standards will be maintained until 2012 when all CCs will be banned. Foreseeing this event, alternative systems i.e. FCs and NCs that improve animal welfare have been developed. Organic egg production is one of the options, due to the more extensive conditions it provides for hens. In this case, egg characteristics should also be of concern due to the strict controls required in each stage of the productive phase, the ban of pharmacological treatments, the higher space allowance and the presence of vegetation e.g. grass (EC Council Regulation No 1804/99).

The WTO is concerned with the rules of trade between nations and does not deal with food information as such. The main international forum that has relevance to international food trade is the Codex Alimentarius Commission, created in 1963 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation / World Health Organisation to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts (codes of practice). Codex has produced a wide range of food standards which are used in the WTO's disputes procedures. Codex has recognised the importance of taking into account ‘other legitimate factors’ (OLFs) relevant to the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair practices in the food trade but these are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Legal basis for labelling

Market segmentation of egg quality on the basis of laying hens’ welfare status operates in two, often related, ways:

• • through the use of labels on product

• • through the inclusion of welfare standards within supply chain assurance schemes

There are presently no statutory requirements relating to the welfare provenance of animal-based food products. In respect of food labelling this is currently within the competence of the European Commission and any new food related legislation is a matter for discussion between Member States. Statements that are perceived to be linked to animal welfare such as ‘free range’, and ‘outdoor reared are appearing on a large number of poultry products. However, there are very few dedicated animal welfare labelling schemes. The use of dedicated stand-alone welfare labelling is not widely supported. Egg labels need to be improved and animal welfare concerns should be considered.

The main practical problem of supplying information (including labelling) relates to the ability to provide sound and scientifically based information on the welfare status of animals used to supply particular products. This relates to the whole issue of welfare measurement and the importance of welfare outcomes. Unless we can measure welfare in some reasonably valid way it will not be possible to communicate meaningfully to consumers. For example, information about a production system (e.g. free range) does not necessarily equate to good, better or poor welfare. To give a valid rating to a product would require traceability and welfare audit/measurement of the animals concerned throughout their lives (Farm Animal Welfare Council, Reference FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL2006). The need for the development of better methods of assessing animal welfare that are consistent with the nature and time constraints of farm inspections is also central to the question of welfare labelling. Research on practical scientifically based welfare assessment is still at an early stage of development with much of the research still in the process of collecting data.

Because constitutional issues and uncertainties about factual information can delay legislation and make laws difficult to amend with new knowledge, it is imperative that the animal production industries move toward self-regulating their policies and practices in keeping with the new social ethic of compassionate animal farming (Croney and Millman, Reference CRONEY and MILLMAN2007). For example, United Egg Producers in the US is one commodity group that has taken a proactive stance by commissioning an independent scientific review of their production practices in terms of existing knowledge about poultry welfare. They then developed an action plan to identify areas for which action is warranted and where research funds should be directed (Mench, Reference MENCH2003; Fraser, Reference FRASER2006).

Achievements and future prospects

Laying hen welfare should be part of an overall ‘egg safety and quality’ concept. The opportunity remains to find a premium market for these eggs produced to high scientifically based animal welfare standards.

The realities of modern animal production need to be communicated in ways that take into account the role of various stakeholders – producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, exporters and consumers – and address their respective roles in animal welfare standards.

The future of laying hen welfare and egg quality will undoubtedly be based on a mutual development of research, legislative and market forces. In Europe, animal welfare labels should be subject to EU legal definitions. Producers and retailers should provide animal welfare information on labels. This information should be clear, accurate and credible so as to avoid consumer confusion (e.g. over ‘farm fresh’ eggs). These definitions, and measures for inspection and enforcement, should be a significant part of the public information campaign.

Policies should encourage consumers to acknowledge their role in current animal welfare standards and ways in which they can assist in improving standards.

Policies devised to address increased costs need to take into account the fact that although many consumers say they are willing to pay a premium, frequently they do not. The cost of improved hen welfare may need to be viewed as the cost of a public good which, although paid for by the taxpayer, is subsumed under general agricultural financial support rather than differentiated product prices. This would require redefinition of EU agricultural policy to provide incentives and rewards for farmers to convert to higher standards of genuine laying hen welfare without passing on direct costs to consumers, which may serve as barriers to purchase.