BATTERY CAGES BAN IN INDIA & EGG PRODUCTION IN FURNISHED CAGES

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, India is the third largest producer of eggs in the world producing more than 78 billion eggs. The industry in India has evolved from Backyard Poultry farming in 1950-60‘s, high platform cages in 1995 to high capacity farms with low compartmentalization, automated feeding techniques and environmentally controlled housing by 2011. This evolution in layer farming techniques has led to varied layers of farming across the country. The poultry industry has turned lucrative and highly competitive. The economic factors of the industry demand higher production at lower costs without compromising the consumer quality standards. The scale and intensity of production is substantially higher in the commercial and industrial sectors than in backyard farming. Advantages are derived by the poultry industry from economies of large scale production which provides for specialisation and division of labour at different stages in the production process, leading to automation of operations and labour-cost savings. In contrast, backyard poultry farming in rural areas still follow the traditional way of farming methods. This makes the production ineffective as it exposes the birds to predators and renders them prone to diseases Further, lack of constant optimal environment leads to low hatchability among the birds. Thus, the housing conditions in poultry farming have a significant impact over the production. In order to achieve the maximum production, low cost caging techniques even at the cost of consumer quality standards are rampantly in use. The present trend in the market indicates that small houses are being discarded for larger and more mechanised houses for egg production. The birds are maintained in hen houses without any contact with other flocks and other wildlife. Consequently, it reduces the immunity of the birds making bio-security a critical factor in egg production. The hens used for the production of eggs in the egg industry are reared in small, barren wire cages called ―battery cages‖, a name given due to the arrangement of cages placed side by side. The battery cages are so small that the animals are unable to stand up straight or spread their wings without touching the sides of the cage or other hens or turning in a complete circle without any impediment. The floor space available to each hen is approximately 623.7 cm2 which is almost the area of a sheet of A4 size paper. The most common cages hold 5-10 birds. A typical egg farm in our country contains thousands of cages with tens of thousands of birds, stacked multiple tiers high, lined in multiple rows This method of stocking the hens, leads to sore feet, minor and major abrasions, broken bones and other bodily injuries to the birds. It also increases the risk of diseases in the flock. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has forwarded information on the conditions of poultry in India and has addressed various issues relating thereto. The Commission has taken into consideration the same while formulating the ‗Draft Rules‘. In addition, climatic conditions such as temperature and humidity play an important role in attaining maximum production. Higher temperatures would lead to low productivity therefore the birds are usually kept at constant temperatures in poultry farms in India. The downside to this is that the birds would be more susceptible to diseases even with small changes in climatic conditions, affecting the chances of their survival. Consequently, they are fed antibiotics to boost immunity. With a view to curtail the cruel practices of confining birds in battery cages, it is necessary to have a distinction between the produce obtained from healthy farming of hens in cage free environment and the produce obtained from battery cage farming. Towards this end, certification by the Animal Husbandry Departments of the States, recognising that the poultry farms follow the practice of cage free egg farming, is desirable. This would enable the consumer to select the produce obtained from healthy farming and will result in discouraging battery cage farming. It is also important that the feed used must be nutrient rich and devoid of antibiotics as it affects the consumer food quality standard which is required to be maintained across countries. There are no statutory regulations, at present to prescribe the standard, quality and quantity of food for poultry in India which leads to rampant use of antibiotics in the poultry feed.

The Animal Welfare Board of India, vide letter dated 16.02.2012, explained/clarified that confining hens in battery cages violates provisions of section 11(1)(e) of PCA Act. The relevant part of the letter reads:

“Considering the issue of well-being of egg laying birds as well as food safety, you may be aware that the EU has decided to phase out battery cages for egg laying hens with effect from 1 January, 2012. These directives apply to all 27 EU member states; however, some European countries have preferred to adopt even stricter guidelines for farm animal protection. For instance in Switzerland, battery cages have been prohibited since 1992. The AWBI advises the Government of India and the State Governments to issue suitable directions to poultry farmers to prohibit the use of battery cages in egg production, so that poultry farms keeping egg laying hens adhere to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960 and not confine birds in cages. The existing cage facilities be phased out within the next 5 years i.e.2017. Central and State Governments must encourage animal welfare and environment sustainability within the Indian food sector by promoting production systems that adhere to modern standards for animal welfare (as enshrined by the Five Freedoms) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act 1960‖

i. Europe: All member countries of the European Union (EU) have phased out the use of battery cages. ii. United States of America: States of California, Michigan, Ohio, Oregan and Washington have adopted the policy of prohibiting or phasing out battery cages for egg laying hens. iii. Bhutan: In 2013, Bhutan declared itself a cage – free country

Regulations on Layer Hens:——-

While perusing the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Egg Laying Hens) Rules, 2012, the Law Commission found that the same can be improved upon by few modifications. Such modifications are to be carried out by detailing environmental provisions that meet the basic needs of these animals. The revised draft rules delineate space requirements for feeders, drinking spaces and floor area and other key resources to ensure good management of the system. Other important animal welfare provisions including when and how to carry out euthanasia of sick or injured animals are incorporated in the revised draft rules. ii. The modified rules are recommended keeping in view the constitutional provisions and the object of PCA Act. The revised draft rules are annexed as Annexure- I.

In the European Union, conventional (or battery) cages for laying hens has been Baned at the beginning of 2012.This change in hens’ housing systems is probably one of the biggest challenges the egg-producing industry will meet in our time. The rationale behind this change is a public concern over animal welfare in egg production. As alternatives to conventional cages, the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC (Commission of the European Communities 1999) allows non-cage systems and enriched (furnished) cages. According to this directive, an en- riched cage must contain a nest, a 15-cm perch for each hen, and litter for pecking and scratching. Such cages must have a total area of at least 2000 cm2, offering each hen an area of 750 cm2.

Cages – pros and cons——

In developed countries, barn and free-range systems were commonly replaced with cages between the 1950s and the

1970s (Appleby 2003). There were several reasons for this change. The most prevailing motives were probably economic,but some of the cages’ advantages benefit both producer and hen. Production in cages proved to be more profitable due to increased unit size and stocking density, automation, and less labor required, but also because of better health and lower mortality of birds. Better hygiene in cages results in fewer disease outbreaks, and en doparasites are practically absent in cages (Fossum et al. 2009, Savory 2004). Cannibalism tends to be less frequent in cages, and when it does occur it involves fewer birds than in non-cage systems (e.g. Appleby 2003, Rodenburg et al. 2008, Fossum et al. 2009). Group size is probably one factor in this, as mortality due to cannibalism is reported to be higher in systems with large group sizes (Shimmura et al. 2010). Egg eating is mostly prevented in cages, and there are no “floor eggs” in  cages to be collected manually. Effective manure removal systems and absence of

litter in cages enhances air quality, resulting in lower air dust and ammonia levels (Rodenburg et al. 2008, Nimmermark et al. 2009). Overall, cages give the producer more control over the hens and the pro-

duction process (Savory 2004).

However, many welfare problems exist in

conventional cages for laying hens. Re-

stricted behavior and a barren environment

are often identified as the most important

threats to hen welfare (Appleby 2003, Sa-

vory 2004). Lack of exercise exposes hens

to disuse osteoporosis, lack of nesting fa-

cilities leads to frustrated prelaying behav-

ior, and deprivation of other dust-bathing

substrates manifests itself as sham dust-

bathing on a wire mesh floor with feed.

In cage confinement, hens are incapable

of evading antagonistic cage mates (Savo-

ry 2004). The development of furnished

cages has tried to overcome these defects,

while simultaneously retaining the advan-

tages of cages.

Development of furnished cages———

Domestic fowl is a descendant of jungle

fowl and tends to exhibit behavior similar

to its ancestor (e.g. Duncan 1998). Behav-

iors that have become fixed in evolution

have had survival value and have remained

unaltered during domestication and artifi-

cial selection. In evolution, the actual cau-

sation of behavior is often separated from

the original function of the behavior. For

example, nesting behavior is mainly caused

by hormonal and neural stimuli, while its

function is to increase the chances of suc-

cessful hatching of eggs (Duncan 1998).

Even when the function of behavior is ful-

filled artificially, the behavior may still be

stimulated or caused (Duncan 1998). Of-

ten, behavior can be separated into two el-

ements: an appetitive phase and a consum-

matory phase (Hughes and Duncan 1988).

For instance, foraging and feed searching

are appetitive, while eating is consumma-

tory. Motivation to perform appetitive be-

havior may not be decreased even when

the consummatory behavior is satisfied

(Hughes and Duncan 1988). Behavioral

needs or priorities have been assessed by

studying the motivational strength of hens

to engage in various behaviors using con-

sumer demand techniques (e.g. Cooper

and Appleby 2003, Olsson et al. 2002).

Nest searching (Freire et al. 1997) and

nest building (Cooper and Appleby 2003)

have both been identified as behavioral

priorities. Hens are also highly motivat-

ed to perch, especially at night (Olsson

and Keeling 2000, Olsson and Keeling

2002). Hens can use litter for pecking and

scratching. Allowing these activities may

be important to satisfy the motivation to

forage. Hens with access to litter perform

less feather pecking than birds without litter

. Litter also serves as a dustbathing substrate. Hens are motivat-

ed to dustbathe and are willing to work to

gain access to litter (Widowski and Dun-

can 2000, de Jong et al. 2005). Olsson et

al. (2002) found no evidence that sham

dustbathing would reduce the motivation

to dustbathe in litter, and Colson et al.

(2007) reported a higher motivation to

dustbathe in litter in caged hens without

access to litter than in birds housed in avi-

aries with litter. Tus, sham dustbathing

may not be an adequate substitute for dust-

bathing in litter.

To overcome the restrictions of behav-

ior in cages, furnished cages were devel-

oped. Early designs of cages furnished

with perches, nest, and litter bath were

so-called Get-Away-Cages (Bareham 1976,

Elson 1976, Wegner 1990) for groups of

15-25 hens, and the smaller Edinburgh

Modified Cage (EMC) for groups of 4 or

5 hens (e.g. Appleby and Hughes 1995). A

small-group furnished cage was preferred

by some researchers because it proved to

be more stable regarding production and

mortality, produced better egg quality, of-

fered better inspection possibilities, and

was easier to depopulate (e.g. Abraham-

son et al. 1995). However, to diminish in-

vestment costs per bird, a bigger group

size is beneficial, and therefore, groups of

up to 8 hens were studied in a cage de-

sign based on EMC (Abrahamsson and

Tauson 1997). After successful experi-

ments, the first commercially applied fur-

nished cages housed 8 hens. Group sizes

have subsequently been increased to up to

60 birds (e.g. Vits et al. 2005). Increasing

group size in furnished cages is associated

with poorer plumage (Appleby et al. 2002,

Hetland et al. 2003b, Weitzenbürger et al.

2006), higher mortality (Weitzenbürger

et al. 2005), and higher feed consumption

(Vits et al. 2005). Beak trimming can al-

leviate these problems, and it is used in

most European countries. However, beak

trimming itself can be seen as a welfare is-

sue, and thus, it is prohibited in Finland,

Norway, and Sweden. To obviate welfare problems, group size in furnished cages is restricted to 16 birds in Sweden and to 10 birds in Denmark.

Along with group size, nest and dustbaths

have evolved. To prevent dustbathing in

the nest, laying in the litter box, and soil-

ing of these facilities, automatic doors were

introduced (Smith et al. 1993). Later on,

the restriction of nest use was widely aban-

doned, while restricted access to litter is

still considered necessary in cages with a

separate litter box from which eggs will not

roll out to the egg cradle. Another practi-

cal problem with this type of dustbaths is

that automation of adding the dustbath-

ing substrate is difficult. Other designs of

litter area have been introduced, the lat-

est of these being an artificial turf matt

placed on the cage floor (e.g. Weitzenbürg-

er et al. 2005). In this design, eggs laid in

the litter area will roll out, and thus, are

not a problem as such. However, eggs laid

on the litter area may be at higher risk of

getting dirty.

Furnished cages————-

Layer performance, behavior, and welfare

in differently sized furnished cages have

been studied quite widely in recent dec-

ades. Production, feed conversion, and

mortality results comparable with conven-

tional cages are reported in furnished cag-

es (Abrahamsson et al. 1995, Abrahamsson

and Tauson 1997, Appleby et al. 2002,

Guesdon and Faure 2004). Often a bigger

proportion of cracked eggs or dirty eggs or

both has been reported in furnished than

in conventional cages (Abrahamsson et al.

1995, Appleby et al. 2002, Guesdon and

Faure 2004, Guesdon et al. 2006, Tacta-

can et al. 2009). In furnished cages, most

eggs are laid in the nest, and thus, they

accumulate in a narrower part of the egg

cradle than in conventional cages. Tis in-

creases the risk of collisions between eggs,

and consequently, the incidence of cracks.

On the other hand, Guesdon et al. (2006)

reported that eggs laid in the other parts of

the cage were at greater risk of being bro-

ken than eggs laid in nests. In addition,

some authors have attributed the great-

er risk of cracked eggs to perches (Apple-

by et al. 2002). Possible explanations for

greater incidence of dirty eggs are laying in

the dustbathing area (Appleby et al. 2002,

Tactacan et al. 2009) and nest linings be-

coming soiled, especially if nests are used

widely for purposes other than laying (Vits

et al. 2005).

Perches and nest are used extensively in

furnished cages (Appleby and Hugh-

es 1995, Abrahamsson et al. 1996, Ab-

rahamsson and Tauson 1997). Te litter

bath is, however, used rather infrequent-

ly and sham dustbathing is common even

in furnished cages in the presence of litter

(Abrahamsson et al. 1996, Lindberg and

Nicol 1997, Olsson and Keeling 2002).

Several reasons for the restricted use of

the dustbath have been suggested: litter

in the dustbath may be quickly depleted,

dustbaths may be empty most of the time

(Lindberg and Nicol 1997), and competi-

tion may occur for the limited dustbathing

area (Abrahamsson et al. 1996, Shimmura

et al. 2007a). Ease of access and earlier ex-

perience may also be of importance for the

use of the litter area (Olsson and Keeling

2002, Olsson et al. 2002). Conflicting re-

sults have been published on plumage cov-

er in studies comparing furnished and con-

ventional cages (Abrahamsson and Tauson

1997, Hetland et al. 2004). Pododermati-

tis (bumble foot) and keel bone deforma-

tions have been related to the presence of

a perch (Appleby et al. 1993, Tauson and

Abrahamsson 1994, Abrahamsson et al.

1996). Te shape and material of the perch

have an impact on both pododermatitis

and keel bone lesion incidences, and some

research has been done to identify the op-

timal perch design (Abrahamsson 1996).

Nutrition of hens in furnished cages has

received less attention in the literature.

Only a limited number of reports include

replicated measurement of feed consump-

tion in furnished cages in comparison with

conventional cages (Appleby et al. 2002;

Hetland et al. 2003b, 2004; Shimmura

et al. 2007b, 2007c, 2009, 2010), and nu-

tritional treatments in these reports are

even scarcer (Hetland et al. 2003b, 2004).

Lower feed intake has been noted in hens

housed in cages with perches (Tauson and

Jansson 1988, Braastad 1990, Glatz and

Barnett 1996). Tis was hypothesized

to be a result of less locomotor activity

observed in birds with access to perches

(Braastad 1990) and clogging of birds on

the perch, leading to less heat losses (Tau-

son and Jansson 1988). Provision of perch-

es and litter material may diminish feath-

er damage (Braastad 1990, Abrahamsson

and Tauson 1997), and feather cover af-

fects a bird’s energy requirements and feed

intake (Tauson and Svensson 1980, Peguri

and Coon 1993). Birds are known to ingest

litter, and this may lead to higher satiety,

as coarse particles need to be ground in the

gizzard before they move on to the small

intestine (Hetland et al. 2003b). Birds with

access to wood shavings have higher empty

gizzard weight and weight of gizzard con-

tents than birds without access to litter

(Hetland et al. 2003a, Hetland and Svihus

2007). A well-functioning gizzard enhanc-

es nutrient digestibility (Hetland and Svi-

hus 2007). Tese results suggest that hens

in furnished cages may consume less feed

than hens in conventional cages. Conflict-

ing results have, however, been reported in

studies comparing conventional and fur-

nished cages (e.g. Hetland et al. 2003b,

2004). In practice, switching egg produc-

tion from conventional to furnished cages

will result in larger group sizes. Increased

group size and bird density in cages lead

to lower egg production and feed use (Ad-

ams and Craig 1985, Sohail et al. 2001,

2004). However, in experiments with con-

stant space allowance and feeder space per

hen, Carey et al. (1995) and Abrahamsson

and Tauson (1997) reported no effects of

increased group size on hen performance

Increased group size may negatively affect

plumage condition (Appleby et al. 2002,

Hetland et al. 2003b, Weitzenbürger et al.

2006). When increased group size is associ-

ated with increased total area, bird activity

tends to increase (Carey et al. 1995). Group

size may therefore be one of the factors af-

fecting the results in studies comparing con-

ventional and furnished cages

Feed intake and feed formulation———

Feed costs typically comprise a major part

of the total costs of commercial egg produc-

tion. Thus, the efficient use of feeds and feed

stuffs is essential for the profitability of egg production.

To be able to formulate a diet that offers a

specific daily nutrient intake, a prediction

of daily feed intake is needed (Gous 1986).

Knowledge of factors that affect feed intake

is also critical in diet formulation. Feed in-

take is affected by multiple factors, such as

the bird’s live weight, egg production, activi-

ty, plumage cover, ambient temperature, and

feed characteristics (McDonald 1978, Tau-

son and Svensson 1980, Rose 1997).

Generally, hens adjust their feed intake ac-

cording to their energy requirements and di-

etary energy (McDonald 1978). If a change

in production system has an effect on feed

intake, the change in daily nutrient intake

can be corrected by a change in feed nutri-

ent content. However, if similar daily nu-

trient intakes produce different production

responses or efficiencies in different produc-

tion systems, a change in nutrient require-

ments is assumed (NRC 1981).

1. Production performance compara-

ble with conventional cages can be

achieved in furnished cages. Tere was

no evidence supporting a change in

nutrient requirements for laying hens

when conventional cages are replaced

with small-group furnished cages. Te

results from nutritional experiments

conducted in conventional cages can

be applied to small-group furnished

cage systems.

2. The daily requirements of protein and

amino acids for egg weight and feed

conversion ratio seem to be higher

than the NRC (1994) requirements

for Leghorn-type laying hens.

3. Hens respond to low-energy diets by

increasing their feed intake. Low-en-

ergy diets may restrict laying rate, but

do not affect energy efficiency.

4. Increased dietary limestone did not

restore egg shell breaking strength

in furnished cages. Tis implies that

the weaker shells observed in fur-

nished cages are not caused by a high-

er amount of calcium being retained in bones.

5. Measures to encourage laying in

nests may diminish the proportion of

cracked eggs. Measures to encourage roosting on perches during nighttime will decrease the proportion of hens spending the night in nests.

6. Hens accept a variety of raised struc-

tures as perches and quickly learn to

use perches even without prior expe-

rience. The incidence of pododerma-

titis is greater with plastic than with wooden perches.

7. All of the advantages of cages for bird

welfare are sustained in the small-

group furnished cages. In addition,

there are other benefits for bird wel-

fare in these cages. Frequent use of

perches and nests imply a wider be-

havioral repertoire in furnished cages

than in conventional cages, and this

can be perceived as a welfare bene-

fit. Moreover, the increase in bone-

breaking strength may improve bird

welfare. However, the available area is

still rather restricted.

8. These results cannot be generalized to

furnished cages housing large groups

of hens. Thus, further research is need-

ed with large-group furnished cages.

Another restriction for generalization

is the use of only one hybrid in the

present work. Hybrids may differ in

their responses to diet and environ-

ment. These differences should be in-

vestigated. The effects of different pul-

let rearing environments also warrant

continued research, as prior experience

may affect behavior later in life. An

important practical problem requiring

elucidation is the proportion of dirty

and cracked eggs in FC. Based on the

present work, egg shells are weaker

in furnished cages than convention-

al cages, but the reason for this re-

mains unclear.

Reference-on request