Scientific evidence against commercial battery cages for laying hens has caught up with public revulsion of them, and development of alternative systems has been gathering momentum in many European countries. In Sweden the start of a ten year phase out of battery cages coincides with the end of a similar phase out period in Switzerland. The European Commission is producing another report on the welfare of laying hens systems later this year and work has already started on revisions to the Battery Hens Directive (88/ 166/13C) which, it is hoped, will contain an appendix setting standards in alternative systems.

Reformers have always faced a classic dilemma. Is it better to be "pragmatic" and go for a series of minor changes hoping to improve things step by step, or to go for what they deem necessary? It is a dilemma that has never failed to divide the animal welfare movement. It is also a dilemma that can divide government committees. Such fundamental differences have led to three minority reports from Britain's Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and its predecessor during the last twenty-four years, the last of these being on the standards to be set for loose housed laying hens: "The Welfare of Laying Hens in Colony Systems." The majority approach on the Council was to seek moderate changes which industry could accommodate now and then to review the situation in five years' time with a view to making further changes. The minority approach was to seek the radical change that is only possible at the beginning of a new development and set more stringent but long-term goals. The Russian proverb "it is impossible to jump a river in two steps" epitomizes the differences in approach.

The step-by-step approach may have been politically feasible at a time when legislation could be more easily introduced nationally. but now that Britain is part of the European Community (EC), change is much more complicated and difficult to achieve. It takes years for all the member states to reach agreement and many more years to phase in regulations. This is the political reality of membership of the EC, and the political reality which persuaded the minority group on FAWC to go for more stringent standards to be phased in over a suitably long period. Not only was this more politically expedient but the group felt that setting long-term goals would offer more stability to the poultry industry than a series of short-term changes.

The report highlights space as being one of the most important welfare factors. The majority report then lays down 7 birds/m2 floor space (1425cm2/bird) in deep litterhouses, but when 55% of the birds can perch 15.5 hens/m2 of floor space. The report admits that "there is some evidence to suggest that hens would benefit from increased space allowance (possibly up to 2500 cm2/hen)" and recommends a review in five years' time. The minority report sets out the scientific evidence which shows that 1424cm2/bird lies within the range in which maximum aggression is likely to occur - and also stress and hysteria - and that 2500cm2/bird is nearer to what is needed.

This highlights another powerful reason for aiming directly at recommendations indicated by existing scientific evidence and giving producers time to phase them in. If the quality of the total environment - and of each of the components which go to make up that environment – are not good, then the problems which confront the industry at the present time – in particular feather pecking and cannibalism – will be bound to continue affecting the well-being of millions of laying hens for decades to come.

In spite of the Premiums which eggs from alternative systems command, work on the systems has been based on the premise that the new systems must yield a financial return comparable to that from battery cages, and this has led to a number of undesirable features detrimental to animal welfare.

The majority group on FAWC set standards which continue to rely on debeaking and a minimum light level of 10 lux in the house (although they recommend that "routine, non-therapeutic beaktrimming" [whatever that is] should be banned in 1996). The minority group were unable to accept any system which relies for its success on either debeaking or dim lighting. The choice of genetic strain, the stocking rate and the quality of the birds' environment should be such that these two major deprivations are unnecessary.

The Ministry's Agricultural and Development Advisory Service's costing of allowing more space to hens only add 30% to producers costs - going from cages (stocked at 450cm2/bird - EC standards for new cages now and existing cages in 1995) to the strawyard system (stocked at 3 birds/m). Space allowance in cages will undoubtedly be increased, reducing this extra cost to 20% or even less. It is most important to remember that this extra is in production costs and not in retail costs. Indeed the disproportionate premiums charged on non-battery eggs by retailers could easily absorb this increase without any greater cost to consumers.

One of the disadvantages of the timid, 'pragmatic' approach to change is that the science of animal welfare is advancing so rapidly " that recommendations can be out of date almost as soon as they are advanced. This has already happened with some of the recommendations in the majority report. It recommends a minimum lighting level of 10 lux throughout the house whereas it has been shown that dim lighting conditions (>30 lux) have been reported to result in more fear responses, particularly when group size was large (Hughes & Black 1974). Scientific evidence quoted in the minority report shows that hens keep lights on for 80% of the time when given the choice and that the adrenal glands were heavier of hens kept in dim light. Similarly, the majority report recommends 18cm perch space/ bird, but it has been found by Gregory (pers. communic.) studying perching behavior of birds using infra-red photography, that even 20cm/bird is not enough to prevent birds having difficulty in finding perch space and landing on it and this could be another cause of bone breakage.

We should not seek to test new systems to the point of scientific certainty - which in any case is impossible. There is enough evidence. if we axe prepared to give the hen the benefit of the doubt, to suggest that we can be more generous in our recommendations and not hold back relying, on further chances in the future. We are setting the scene for a very long time to come and the more we permit poor conditions to become entrenched the more difficult it will be to get even minor changes next time round.

References: Broom, D.M. (1992) The needs of laying hens and some indicators of poor welfare. (in press)

Farm Animal Welfare Council. (199 1). Report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems. Majority report. FAWC Secretariat, Room 2107A. Tolwort Tower, Surbriton, Surrey KT6 7DX.

Rott,M. (1978) Verhaltenstorungen in derGefluegelintensivhaltung - Ursache und Bedeutung der Hysterie. Mh. Vet. Med., 33 455- 458

Siegel, H.S. (1959) Egg production characteristics and adrenal function in white leghorns at different floorspace levels. Poultry Science, 38 893-898.

Ruth Harrison is the author of the ground-breaking Animal Machines published in 1964. She served on the British Governments Farm Animal Welfare Council from 1967 to 1991.

There are still some farmers who believe in treating their animals to natural surroundings, not only in order to raise healthier animals but for ethical values as well. On a small farm in the Shenandoah Valley near Swoope, Virginia, Joel Salatin is doing just that with his chickens.

"The long term benefits for society are greater because we are treating our animals better. But we don't do it for business reasons. We do it because it's right." Salatin explained.

Salatin has developed a portable "Eggmobile" contraption which houses 100 laying hens. These hens forage as far as 200 yards from their home during the day. They naturally come back to roost so no fences are necessary to keep them contained. Salatin explained that on the usual "factory farm" laying hens are kept under prolonged lighting to create the illusion of spring time. They are therefore always laying eggs. On the Salatin family farm the hens are well aware of what season it is and go through the natural winter rest period.

Salatin also raises about 6000 Cornish cross broilers a year. These chickens are kept in 2 foot tall mobile homes that are moved over fresh grass every morning. About 100 animals are kept in each house. A pen of the same size on a factory farm would contain some 1000 to 1500 birds.

Both hens and broilers have a diet that is substantially different from their unlucky relatives on factory farms. Because the hens are free-ranging they are able to choose their own food. Not only is this accomplished by natural foraging but Salatin gives them several different feeds to chose from as well. He believes, depending on each individual chicken's health and the time of year, these birds will choose the food that is healthiest for them. Since the broiler houses are moved to fresh grass every morning, the broilers also have the same opportunity to choose their own diet. Both hens and broilers obviously get plenty of green material, something that would be unusual on a factory farm and they are never given steroids or antibiotics which induce unnaturally rapid growth. One of the results, and also the reason why it is economically sensible to raise animals in such a manner, is that the lifespan of a laying hen on Joel Salatin's farm is generally three years compared to a normal factory farm lifespan of one year.