1. In its 1997 Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens, FAWC expressed serious concern over the restricted space and barrenness of the conventional wire cage as an environment for the laying hen. It therefore welcomes the decision in the EU Directive that such cages are to be phased out in commercial egg production systems and prohibited from 2012. The FAWC Report suggested that cage enrichment offered the possibility of improved welfare provided that acceptable systems could be introduced practically. We still hold that view, but would wish to add a number of important qualifications.

2. The characteristics necessary to make a cage environment acceptable in welfare terms deserve very careful consideration, and it cannot be presumed that simply augmenting, or developing modified versions of, existing cages would be sufficient. FAWC believes that substantial further research into the parameters of enrichment which would provide satisfactory welfare standards, and into the design and development of enriched cages, will be necessary before any final judgement could be made about their acceptability.

3. The elements of such a research agenda were set out in FAWC's 1997 Report and relate to the nature of the nesting environment, the availability and position of perching space, the form in which scratching/dust-bathing/pecking needs can be satisfied, the minimum space available per bird and the overall group size within the cage.

4. Some research of this nature is being conducted at ADAS Gleadthorpe and is not due to be completed until 2004; however, it is rather restricted in scope and is being conducted within the context of current cage designs. Other research into elements of bird welfare where cage enrichment is provided has been undertaken but, while demonstrating some welfare advantages of enrichment, does not yield an integrated picture of the overall welfare outcomes - especially in comparison with other commercial egg production systems. In these circumstances it is impossible to come to any research-based conclusion on egg production in enriched cages. Furthermore, any assessment is not independent of the issue of beak trimming/tipping, which is also currently under review; this has become standard practice in cage systems (and in alternative systems) in order to minimise the problems of feather pecking/cannibalism under the conditions of close confinement.

5. While looking for guidance from welfare science, however, FAWC is not convinced that research which simply looks at different components of welfare on a piecemeal basis will provide the answers needed. What is required is information which relates to the overall welfare outcomes of egg laying systems, both in cage and non-cage environments. Without a framework for assessing the trade-offs between different welfare parameters and a methodology for producing an overall 'welfare index', a judgement on the overall acceptability or otherwise of a particular production system cannot be made on a scientific basis. Conclusions will therefore tend to be drawn on the basis of perceptions and subjective assessments, often focussing on specific aspects of the bird's environment.

6. To avoid this FAWC has always referred to the established 'Five Freedoms' in considering the welfare aspects of production systems, and this provides the starting point in forming its views on the acceptability of enriched cages for laying hens. It would seem possible to cater for freedom from hunger and thirst, and from pain, injury and disease, as well as or better in a cage environment than in other commercial production systems. Similarly, in appropriately designed cages the majority of hens might be considered to enjoy more freedom from fear and distress than is the case for many birds in other (particularly free range) systems. The hard wire structures of a cage environment seem to be less good at providing freedom from discomfort, but some aspects of enrichment (e.g. perch provision and claw shortening facilities) may ameliorate this. It is in providing the freedom to exercise normal behaviour that the cage is so clearly deficient, and research shows that predisposition to some behaviours is so strongly innate that their prevention represents an extremely severe challenge to bird welfare. This is certainly the case in relation to nesting, activities like pecking and scratching, an array of movements such as stretching and wing flapping, and - to a lesser extent, it seems - dustbathing. It is the frustration of such behaviours in the confined environment of the cage that underlies the incidence of poor bone strength and the problems of aggression, feather pecking and apparent stress often observed among birds.

7. Based on the trials we have seen, the research on enrichment that has been conducted over past years has not led to any designs of cage that are fully convincing, or that relieve our concerns over the welfare impacts of restricting the hens' natural behaviour patterns. Providing perching space in a cage is in principle relatively easy, but we have seen designs (specifically when perches meet or cross) which technically meet the Directive's requirement of 15cm per bird while clearly not satisfactorily providing this amount of useable perch length. Adding a separated nesting compartment is also relatively easy, but a nesting medium that is both practical and appropriate to meet welfare needs remains problematical; choice experiments are required to assess whether the plastic textured floor ('astroturf') commonly used actually does provide a satisfactory nest medium. Similarly, the facilities for pecking and scratching in current enriched cage designs appear restricted and very rudimentary and it is not clear how adequately they fulfil minimum behavioural needs. Dust bathing is not a requirement in the EU Directive, but from the way birds frequently behave on even a rudimentary surface this is a not unimportant activity for the hen and ideally should be provided for. Finally, as stated in FAWC's 1997 Report, the need for birds to "have sufficient space to walk from one resource to another, investigate their surroundings and flap their wings" must be a major consideration in the design of enriched cages; from the limited experimentation that has been conducted this requirement seems scarcely satisfied (and for some activities not at all) in the 750 cm2 minimum specified in the Directive.

8. Taken together, the above considerations have a number of important implications:

a) Depending on their design, enriched cages for laying hens could meet the requirements for acceptable standards of welfare throughout the birds' productive life;
b) Current available designs of enriched cages are still far from ideal in terms of provision for welfare needs;
c) The appropriate design of cages to adequately meet the required standards of hen welfare can only be resolved with further applied research in welfare science;
d) Until the findings of such research are available there is no unequivocal basis on which the Minister could dismiss the concept of enriched cages - other than on a fundamental belief that a 'cage' is by definition an unacceptable environment for laying hens;
e) The acceptability of enriched cages has ultimately to be considered in the context of the welfare characteristics of alternative commercial egg production methods, such as the various colony and free range systems; to be dependable such assessments must be rooted as far as possible in careful science-based measurements of welfare;
f) The inability to pronounce definitively on the acceptability of enrichment leaves the UK egg production industry with considerable uncertainty. From January 2003 no new investment in conventional cages is permitted, and there is obviously a commercial risk that enriched cages of current (or any other) design may subsequently be declared unacceptable, thereby threatening the profitability of any such investments made now;
g) Paradoxically, the possibility that cages of any type might ultimately be prohibited could act as a deterrent to the pursuit of practical research into the design of welfare-acceptable cage systems. As a counter to this the industry should be encouraged to become actively engaged in the process, sponsoring research into bird welfare in enriched cages and into the design of systems which are viable commercially while satisfying the required welfare criteria; and
h) If the UK were to ban the use of modified cages without also banning the consumption of eggs produced in caged systems, this would create inequality between domestic and external producers, whether from the EU or overseas. This might well represent a worthy act of principle, but it could merely result in 'exporting' the welfare problems and do little or nothing to allay UK public concerns over the welfare of laying hens. A unified EU policy approach, at least, must be the objective. FAWC's approach is based on the principle that, to be consistent and meaningful, welfare standards defined as acceptable have to be applied to all livestock-derived food products consumed in this country - from wherever they are sourced.

Farm Animal Welfare Council
December 2002