Dr Michael Morris Animal welfare writer nzchas.canterbury

The draft Code of Welfare for layer hens is open for submissions until March 25. It is pleasing that the draft code recommends that barren battery cages be phased out. The barren ‘conventional' battery cage has drawn almost universal condemnation from animal welfare scientists because hens are unable to perform any of their normal patterns of behaviour.

Hens cannot walk, wing flap, dust bathe, peck and forage, perch or lay in a nest box. In addition, the lack of exercise means hens suffer from crippling osteoporosis and other physical disorders such as fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome.

However, the type of enclosures the industry want to replace these with are not much better. The industry is pushing for so-called ‘colony' or ‘furnished' cages. These provide slightly more room per hen than a barren cage, and have a place for nesting, perching and dust bathing. Unfortunately the cramped nature of the living quarters means that hens still cannot perform most of their normal behaviours most of the time. The perches are also too low off the ground for hens to be comfortable roosting on them. Low roosting hens lay themselves open to pecking from their cage mates on the ground.

The Austrian Parliament placed a permanent ban on all cages after a publicity campaign by activists that included photographs of dead and dying hens in colony cages. The US states of Michigan and California are also including colony cages in their overall ban of caged systems. It would make sense for New Zealand to do the same, especially given there are very few colony cages in New Zealand at present.

Another issue with the draft code is the length of the phase out time being considered. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee(NAWAC) are being very solicitous to the industry and may delay the final ban on cages until 2030 to allow the present cage systems to reach the end of their economic life.

However, there have been clear indications since at least 1994 that battery cages are unacceptable, when the forerunner of NAWAC highlighted their welfare disadvantages. The European Scientific Veterinary Committee came to the same conclusion in 1996, and in 1999 the European Commission announced a phase out of all cages from 2012. Following this announcement, scientists stepped up research effort on ways to improve productivity and welfare in non-cage systems, including better husbandry, and breeding new less aggressive strains more adaptable to non-cage systems. Even NAWAC, in the operative 2005 Code, expressed their discomfort with allowing battery cages to continue. The Regulations Review Committee in 2006 recommended a phase out of battery cages.

The industry have therefore already had ample time to consider warnings from public sensibilities, scientific bodies such as the European Scientific Veterinary Committee, animal welfare groups such as SAFE and the SPCA, and government agencies such as NAWAC and the Regulations Review Committee. It would be reasonable to expect the industry to start phasing out cages, conducting research into alternative systems, learning from European research already under way, and generally preparing themselves for a change in approach.

Instead the industry has been fighting rearguard actions to keep current systems in place, using aggressive lobbying and litigious threats to maintain the status quo. The most recent example of industry duplicity is a so-called ‘scientific' report paid for by the taxpayer through MAF funds, but approved by the industry. The study examined selected indicators of welfare to conclude that mortality was higher in free range than battery cages. Better free range producers were not included in the study, which restricted itself to battery farmers rearing some free range hens. These farmers were inexperienced in free range production and would still be thinking in the battery mindset. The researchers did not measure any indicators of boredom and frustration with barren conditions. Nor was there any mention of investigations into cage layer osteoporosis. In other words, the two main welfare issues in cage systems were quietly ignored.

The industry should certainly not be rewarded for their duplicity or lack of preparedness by a long phase out time, and ‘exceptional circumstances' as defined by the Animal Welfare Act should not apply in this case to justify a long phase out. The select committee that approved the Animal Welfare Act in 1999 made it clear that the ‘exceptional circumstances' clause should apply to circumstances that were genuinely exceptional. It cannot be used as a general opt out clauses to cover industry short sightedness, intransigence or greed.

In conclusion, I would urge members of the public to make a submission to NAWAC calling for a total ban on all cages within a very short time frame.