The Op-Ed by Mark Bittman in The New York Times [“Hens Unbounded, Dec. 31] misleads readers into thinking the new California egg law is good for chickens as well as Californians. Speaking on behalf of the National Association of Egg Farmers and farmers outside of California providing the majority of the eggs consumed in California, the “wake-up call” for consumers on January 1^st has already left them scrambling for explanations.  Egg prices have risen more than 100% in California between January and December 2014 in anticipation of this new law. This will continue as it did in Europe when they enacted their new law January 1, 2012.  Where Mr. Bittman is mistaken, is thinking this will lead to better welfare for the hens.  The incidence of bones broken in the colony cages [proposed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture] have been noted by scientists were greater than conventional systems.  This is because of the larger running areas coupled with the additional features in the cages (nest boxes, scratch pads, perches) where chickens can be injured when frightened. Added to this is the increased incidence of pecking that will take place when more chickens are in larger groupings.  Hardly welfare enhancements when bones are broken or chickens pecked.  The food safety component is also a mistaken thought.  The colony cages have been shown to have higher levels of pathogenic bacterial. This was reported in the journal Food Control of this year “Microbiological Contamination of Shell Eggs Produced in Conventional and Free-Range Systems.”  This scientific report noted that chickens in conventional cages on wire slats allow feces to fall through to the floor below whereas free-range with nest boxes [also available in the California-style of cage] have fecal matter in them contaminating the egg shells with bacteria.   While we do not expect any of this to sway Mr. Bittman nor Paul Shapiro, HSUS, quoted in the article, we are hopeful that readers will consider these explanations for conventional production methods in egg production today in producing a safe, wholesome egg while caring for the needs of the chicken based on available science.

On August 3^rd NAEF responded to the Washington Post article about “Happier Chickens”. The WaPo author concluded erroneously that chickens are “happier” when they no longer in cages, but NAEF felt it must strive to correct her misconception about the way eggs should be produced.

I enjoyed reading the article in the July 31st issue of the Washington Post “Are Chickens Happier When They’re Cage-Free – It’s Hard to Tell.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/are-chickens-happier-when-theyre-cage-free-its-hard-to-tell-for-sure/2016/07/29/46bdf1d4-4878-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html

It’s true there are trade-offs in any production system.  Perhaps a few facts from the recent study conducted by the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply will help.  The co-director, Dr. Joy Mench from University of California-Davis, reported the following from that study at the International Poultry Production and Processing Exposition in Atlanta, GA on January 26, 2016:

1. 1.Total accumulated mortality was highest in the aviary (cage-free) system (11.5 percent), due to aggressive pecking and cannibalism. It was 4.7 percent in conventional cages.
2. 2.Bone strength was lowest in conventional cages due to lack of exercise.
3. 3.Using conventional production as a baseline, aviary production was 36 percent higher inof the eggs.
4. 4.The aviary system had dust levels 8-10 times higher than other systems.
5. 5.The aviary system resulted in high worker exposure to endotoxin dust particles and reduced lung function by the end of a shift.
6. 6.The aviary system also presented ergonomic challenges; hens laying in litter resulted in a lot of crawling around for employees and potential respiratory and infection hazards.
7. 7.Keel bone breakage was highest in the aviary system.

One of the comments addressed food safety. Eggs laid on the ground where manure is also located have an increased likelihood of bacterial contamination.   Below are two scientific journals substantiating these findings:

The Journal Poultry Science in 2011 [90, pp. 1586-1593] published “Comparison of shell bacteria from unwashed and washed table eggs harvested from caged laying hens and cage-free floor-housed laying hens.”  This study found that the numbers of bacteria on eggs was lower in housing systems that separated hens from manure and shavings.

Conventional cages allow the feces to drop through the screen floor whereas in cage-free systems, the eggs are laid in the same general area for manure.  The potential for contamination is increased.

These results were confirmed in the Journal Food Control published a study June 17, 2014 entitled “Microbiological Contamination of Shell Eggs Produced in Conventional and Free-Range Housing Systems”  The conclusions state “Battery caged hens (conventional cages) are standing on wire slats that allow feces to fall to a manure collection system beneath the hens.  Conversely, free-range hens (cage-free) laid their eggs in nest boxes on shavings and the eggs remained in contact with hens, shavings and fecal material until they are collected. 

 The longer contact time with free-range hens, shavings and feces would explain the higher enterobacteriaceae counts (pathogenic bacteria) on free-range eggs as compared to battery caged eggs.”

When considering all the trade-offs including cannibalism, diseases, and food safety, I’m happy that today’s modern egg farmer has learned to produce a safe, wholesome egg in a modern cage system.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2016/10/10/farmings-cage-free-future/#5901c2ec62d4

While you anticipate that cage-free egg farming is the future, the facts show it is a reverting to the past. More than five decades ago, egg farming transitioned to cages to improve the lives of the chickens (reduced mortality in half), improved the quality of eggs (by removing the likelihood of the eggs coming in contact with manure) and improved the working conditions of the farmer (less dust from the chickens scratching in the shavings). Even the most recent investigation into the best production systems as investigated by scientists in the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply dispute your conclusions. McDonald’s was one of a list of contributors to this investigation. Those scientists reported to McDonald’s and others that cage-free systems lead to more death loss among chicken due to their establishing a pecking order. Penn State researchers recently published the results of a 6-month study testing 6,000 eggs and concluded backyard flocks of cage-free were more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella. Farmers today know how to produce a safe and wholesome egg while caring for the chickens. Those food companies will also learn that cage-free is not the consumers’ choice. Check out the stores selling both today and find which ones the consumers are buying. The extended future of egg production will be right back to chickens in cages after the food companies learn the lessons that farmers learned five decades ago.

Ken Klippen, National Association of Egg Farmers