What should come first: the chicken or the egg?

Numerous definitions have been used for the term “welfare,” but most simply, welfare is “a state of complete mental and physical health, where the animal is in harmony with its environment”(1). To assess welfare, experts have used health, production, physiological, and behavioral-type indicators.
One livestock management practice that appears to raise welfare concerns is the housing of laying hens in so-called “battery cages.” It is estimated that 98% of all layer flocks in the U.S. are housed indoors and in cages. Currently, the United Egg Producers (UEP) suggests 48 square inches per bird, while the European Union (EU) requires 75 square inches per bird. Supporters argue that modern cage systems decrease disease and cannibalism, they are better for the environment because they reduce dust and require less land area, and they allow consumers to enjoy lower prices. Furthermore, the Scientific Advisory Committee for the UEP states that caged systems provide cleaner eggs and also keep the eggs safe from bacterial contamination. Caged housing provides protection of the hens from environmental extremes and predators, as well as facilitates optimal daily care and inspection of the birds (2). According to standard welfare assessments, it would appear that producers have taken into consideration health and production indicators.
However, supporters of cage free egg production argue that hens should be able to lie down, stretch their wings, and turn around, examples of basic ethological indicators of welfare; current housing requirements do not allow for this behavior. Furthermore, the inability to adequately groom and demonstrate “natural” behaviors increases stress in the birds. Animals under stress have been shown to have compromised immune systems which lead to an increased susceptibility to disease.
Non-caged systems would undoubtedly increase costs for the final egg product, as housing and labor requirements would rise. In addition, space requirements would exponentially increase. Some experts estimate that to meet the current U.S. egg needs with cage free hens, an area the size of Kansas would be required. In my opinion, there is no "perfect solution." To meet the requirements of American egg consumption, it seems to be necessary to require some degree of "condensed housing." I think most everyone would agree that the current standards of 48 square inches per bird is far too little. In fact, the UEP agrees too! In a recent assessment of the industry, the UEP consensus states that each hen should have 67 to 86 inches per bird. However, change takes time--the industry is allowing a 5-year phase-in period (2).
Californians have recently spoken up on the issue as well, passing Proposition 2 which will require that egg-laying hens have enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turn around freely. We as Americans have the ability to vote everyday with the loudest voice of all--our dollar. If we demand eggs that have been lain by hens that are able to turn around, the industry will undoubtedly respond by investing in new housing structures. Like all markets, agriculture resonds to consumer demand. Basically, don't go buying those $0.99 eggs if the thought of strictly confined hens makes you cringe.


(1) Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission. “Report on the welfare of layer hens.” 1996.
(2) United Egg Producers. “UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines.” Available online at http://www.uepcertified.com/program/guidelines/categories/housing-space-feed-water; 2009.