Free range eggs: Not so clean and green
Free-range egg production is not as clean and green as many consumers would like to think, according to Australia’s avian experts.
FREE-RANGE egg farmers use more antibiotics and lose more birds to disease, parasites, cannibalism and smothering than caged-egg producers.
That is according to Australia’s leading animal welfare researcher and our top avian veterinarian, who say their research and experience show there is no perfect system for egg production.
“Both systems (caged and free-range) have their pros and cons,” Scolexia avian vet Peter Scott said. “In cages there’s no way you can resolve behavioural conditions.”
But when it comes to disease, Dr Scott said “for every gram of antibiotic I use in caged systems, I would use 100 grams in alternative systems”.
University of Melbourne Animal Welfare Science Centre professor Paul Hemsworth said while caged hens movements were restricted and they could not perch or nest, their stress levels were lower than free-range hens.
“Caged hens’ corticosterone (stress hormone) levels are lower and their immune response is greater,” Professor Hemsworth said. “But they have less behavioural freedom.”
Dr Scott said there were also concerns with free-range hen housing.
“There are quality free-range barns with cooling and protection for the birds,” he said. “(But) there are thousands of free-range caravans that are tin sheds that offer little room, and often the feed and water are outside.”
In contrast, he said, caged-hen sheds were usually temperature controlled and the birds were not exposed to climatic extremes and predation.
Dr Scott said free-range birds were also more vulnerable to disease, parasitic worms and mites, given they grazed where other birds had defecated.
Both men said mortality rates in caged systems were 1-4 per cent, while in free range it was 7-15 per cent.
Professor Hemsworth said the risk of cannibalism and smothering were also higher in free-range systems.
“In some situations we’ve seen 30-40 per cent of the mortality is from smothering,” he said.
“At the end of the day it’s not just the design of the system that matters, but the stock person’s management that affects welfare just as much,” Professor Hemsworth said.
Dr Scott said it was also clear caged systems had a smaller footprint, used less feed per bird and were more efficient.
