Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Chickens and eggs

By Katrina Sharman - posted Tuesday, 9 September 2008


While scientists and philosophers continue to debate the age-old dilemma of “which comes first, the chicken or the egg”, the answer for Australia’s ten million caged layer or “battery” hens is patently clear. Despite increasing community awareness about the plight of battery hens, the vast majority of Australia’s egg laying flock today spend their short lives warehoused with hundreds of thousands of others, confined in small cages in which they are unable to preen, nest, stretch their wings or exercise the bulk of their natural behaviours. Many layer hens also live in a permanent state of disfigurement (PDF 63KB), following the forced removal of part of their beak, being the sensory organ with which they make sense of their world.

In a time when Australia purports to be a “world leader in animal welfare”, the widespread acceptance of such practices highlights a failure on the part of lawmakers to keep pace with international animal law reforms aimed at phasing out the worst aspects of institutionalised animal abuse or “factory farming”.

Legislative framework for layer hen welfare

In Australia, as in many other industrialised nations, millions of chickens are bred each year specifically for the purpose of egg production. The law classifies these animals as property or “live stock”. This is often reflected in the way that they are marketed; as products with “favourable genetic characteristics” such as high output or producers of superior quality eggs. It is also reflected in the way they are treated; as egg-laying machines that need to be maintained with minimum levels of food, water, shelter and veterinary care.

Advertisement

Due to the focus on maximising egg production, many modern farming methods appear to disregard the fact that chickens are sentient beings with the capacity to suffer. However, there is ample research to demonstrate that chickens, like humans, experience physical sensations such as pain, and emotional responses such as fear, anxiety, pleasure and enjoyment. Studies have also shown that chickens are highly social animals with complex cognitive abilities. These factors must be borne in mind when considering the ability of Australia’s current legislative framework to meet their needs.

Australia has no federal law that applies to the raising or slaughter of poultry, including chickens. Consequently, it is left to each State or Territory to regulate their welfare. As each jurisdiction’s animal welfare law purports to apply to all animals, prima facie, chickens appear to be protected from cruelty. Despite this, any close examination of State and Territory animal welfare legislation reveals that chickens, like many other animals used for food production purposes, fall largely outside the reach of the law when it comes to the most meaningful of protections.

This is perhaps best illustrated at the commencement of an egg-laying chicken’s life, when chicks are sorted, sexed and vaccinated in hatcheries before being transported to egg production farms. At this point, male chicks who cannot lay eggs, are designated as an industry waste product and are “destroyed”; generally by gassing or maceration (disposal in a high-speed grinder).

For those chickens that remain, namely hens, the animal welfare statutes of each jurisdiction permit a series of encroachments on bodily liberty and bodily integrity in the interests of maximising egg production. These abuses are entrenched by the presence of the Federal Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (the Poultry Code), a document endorsed by Federal, State and Territory Primary Industries Ministers, which underpins the primary animal welfare law to different degrees in each jurisdiction. Some examples of practices which battery hens are lawfully subjected to are outlined below.

Permanent confinement

While free-ranging chickens were once a common feature of the Australian agricultural landscape, the corporatisation of animal production in recent decades has resulted in the concentration of egg production in giant facilities with up to 500,000 birds per farm. On these factory farms, hens are confined indoors in conventional or “battery cages”, which are stacked in tiers on top of each other. Each hen has between three and 20 cage mates. Hens in battery cages spend their lives in artificially lit surroundings designed to maximise laying activity. They are allocated the space equivalent of little more than an A4 sized piece of paper, which is insufficient room to exercise most natural behaviours such as preening, nesting, foraging and dust bathing.

As hens raised in battery cages spend their time continually standing on sloping wire floors designed to facilitate egg collection, many experience chronic pain from the development of lesions and other foot problems. Permanent confinement combined with the unnaturally high demands of egg production may also result in physical disabilities such as reduced bone strength and muscle weakness. Hens raised in barren battery cage environments generally live for about 12 months before being slaughtered due to reduced productivity. However, in some instances, to increase cost-efficiency, producers induce a process called forced moulting. This involves feeding hens a modified diet, intended to restore shell quality and productivity. It generally results in hens being kept alive, albeit in confinement, for a further year.

Advertisement

The legislation of most Australian jurisdictions expressly sanctions the permanent confinement of hens in battery cages by enshrining minimum floor space requirements of 550cm² per bird. In those jurisdictions where caged housing is not expressly provided for, such as Western Australia and the Northern Territory, there is implied acceptance due to endorsement of the Poultry Code. Practices such as moulting are not expressly provided for in animal welfare laws but are set out in the Poultry Code. Western Australia’s animal welfare laws also allow producers to claim that certain normal or accepted husbandry practices (such as battery hen farming and moulting) are defensible provided that they are carried out in a “humane manner”.

Mutilations or “surgical procedures”

Due to the suppression of many of their natural instincts and social interactions, chickens raised in battery cages often become frustrated. This may trigger the development of stereotypical behaviours (PDF 63KB) such as pecking, bullying and cannibalism. Producers consider these to be behavioural “vices” because they can lead hens to injure themselves or other birds. Consequently, chicks are routinely beak-trimmed or de-beaked, which involves the partial removal or burning off of the upper and lower beak through the application of an electrically heated blade. Those hens who are considered to be excessively aggressive may be beak trimmed again at eight to 12 weeks of age. Producers also consider beak trimming desirable as it increases profitability by improving feed conversion and reducing food wastage.

Despite the fact that de-beaking is known to cause acute (PDF 63KB) and chronic pain (particularly in older birds) due to tissue damage and nerve injury, no State or Territory law requires pain relief to be used in conjunction with the procedure. There is also no legal requirement for the procedure to be carried out by a veterinarian or a stockperson with specialised training. Although it may be argued that mutilations of this kind constitute acts of animal cruelty, or certainly would do so if a comparable level of pain was inflicted on a companion animal, they appear to be routinely carried out on the assumption that they constitute necessary, reasonable or justifiable cruelty, all of which is permitted under each jurisdiction’s animal welfare legislation. Furthermore, the Poultry Code does not expressly prohibit the practice of de-beaking and, in addition to this a number of Federal and State bodies actually provide best practice guidelines for how to carry out the procedure.

Alternatives

Although it is more profitable to raise hens in battery cages, increased consumer demand for cage-free eggs has led to the development of two alternative housing systems, namely the barn-laid system and the free-range system, which account for 5 per cent and 15 per cent of Australian egg production respectively. Certain jurisdiction’s animal welfare laws refer briefly to the keeping of hens raised in cage-free systems. These are supplemented by more detailed requirements (but not comprehensive), in the Poultry Code.

In brief, the Poultry Code requires that hens in barn-laid systems be housed in sheds in which they are free to roam. They may be provided with nest boxes and litter areas in which to dust bathe; however like battery hens, they are confined indoors for their entire lives and they may be warehoused with up to 5,000 others at any one time.http://www.rspca.org.au/campaign/choosewiselyfaq.asp

The Poultry Code requirements applicable to free-range systems also provide that hens should be housed within sheds, however, access must be provided to an outdoor area to enable hens to carry out their natural behaviours. While neither the barn-laid nor free-range housing systems allow hens to live a life free from human interference (in fact practices such as beak trimming may still be carried out in these systems), they go some way towards addressing the widespread suffering associated with the confinement of the battery cage.

Legislative attempts to ban the battery cage

While little interest has been demonstrated at a national level in banning battery cages, a number of attempts have been made to implement a state-wide ban over the last decade. The first of these, which took place in the ACT, involved the introduction of legislation by the ACT Greens, designed to ban the production and sale of battery eggs in that jurisdiction. The ACT Government passed this legislation in September 1997; however it was ultimately stymied by other Australian jurisdictions who relied on the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) to support their claim that the new law breached national competition policy principles.

While the ACT’s attempts to ban the battery cage in the late 1990s were unsuccessful, the campaign surrounding the legislation prompted significant debate about the pain and suffering that hens endure in battery cages. This led to the initiation of a national review of layer hen housing systems, which was carried out in 1999 by the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (now the Primary Industries Ministerial Council). The Review explored a range of issues relating to layer hen housing systems but ultimately failed to recommend a prohibition of battery cages. Its most notable recommendation, which was adopted by all States and Territories, was to increase the minimum floor space allocation per chicken from 450cm² to 550cm² for all cages commissioned after January 1, 2001. This incremental increase, which many animal protection groups have deemed vastly inadequate, is now in effect.

In light of ongoing controversy regarding the battery cage, in 2007 the ACT Greens introduced a further Bill designed to ban the battery cage. Unlike the 1997 Bill, the Animal Welfare (Amendment) Bill 2007 did not seek to prevent the import of battery eggs into the ACT but merely to close down battery hen farms in the ACT. In the lead up to parliament voting on the Bill, a survey found that 84.6 per cent of all respondents felt that it was cruel to keep hens in battery cages, and 73 per cent of all respondents felt that there should be a ban on the keeping of hens in battery cages. Despite the obvious community support, the Bill was adjourned because the ACT Government was of the view that in the absence of a nationwide ban, the 2007 Bill would simply shift production interstate. The “compromise” proposed was for government to offer $1 million in industry assistance to help local producers convert to barn facilities and to undertake to only provide cage-free eggs in its agencies; including hospitals, schools and canteens.

In March 2008, following the lead of the ACT Greens, the Tasmanian Greens introduced the Animal Welfare (Ban Battery Hens) Amendment Bill (the Tasmanian Bill) which seeks to impose a ban on battery cages in Tasmania. At the time of writing, the Tasmanian Bill has yet to be debated. Preliminary discussions about battery hen farming (which have taken place during debate concerning a review of the State’s Animal Welfare Act 1993) suggest that, although the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries is opposed to battery hen farming, he is likely to follow the ACT lead in demanding that any ban on battery cages involve a nationwide approach, overseen by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.

International legislative outlook for layer hens

The continuing refusal by Australian State and Territory Ministers to take a leadership position with respect to the banning of battery cages stands in stark contrast to developments overseas. For example, in the European Union, the phase out of battery cages is in progress following the passing of a Council Directive in 1999. Under the EU Directive, the installation of new battery cages has been prohibited since January 2003. Additionally, EU member countries are required to phase out all battery cages by 2012. Certain nations such as Sweden and Austria for example, have taken proactive steps to ban battery cages prior to the Directive taking effect. Under the Directive, battery cages are to be replaced with alternative systems known as “enriched” cages, barn, or free-range systems.

The “enriched” cage system provides each hen with 600cm² of usable space per hen, which is 50cm² more than the current Australian standard for battery cages. Enriched cages also differentiate from battery cages in that they can contain nesting boxes, litter to enable foraging, and perches. While these are important symbolic improvements, enriched cages still condemn hens to a life of confinement and fall short of meeting their behavioural needs.

Although it is important to acknowledge the legislative progress made for hens in the EU, the real victory to date lies in the support that consumers are demonstrating for alternatives to the battery cage system of egg production. Recently, sales of cage-free eggs have overtaken sales of battery eggs in the UK and Ireland. While cage-free egg sales in Australia are notably lower (at less than 30 per cent of total egg production), free-range and barn laid markets have expanded significantly in recent years. As more Australians continue to support cage-free production, they send a strong message to politicians to fall into line with popular expectations by ending the widespread abuse associated with battery cage production.

Australia continues to lag shamefully behind when it comes to providing meaningful improvements in hen welfare. In light of this, increasing retail support for cage-free eggs in domestic markets should be construed as a message to our legislators that Australians care about the treatment of animals and that the time has come to place the chicken before the egg.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal, Volume 1, Number 1, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Katrina Sharman is the Corporate Counsel for Voiceless, a non-profit organisation for animals in Australia. Voiceless is an animal protection think-tank established by Brian Sherman AM and Ondine Sherman.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Katrina Sharman

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy