Shame on you Australian Egg Corporation

"This is outrageous and should never be allowed. I thought this type of mentality was on it's way out. It's a sad day when this amount of chickens could be termed 'free range'. Shame on you Australian Egg Corporation."

This is just one of the comments by the more than 3000 respondents to our consumer survey following the Egg Corporation's draft standards designed to allow a massive increase in the number of chickens on 'free range' farms.

The AECL wants to approve an increase from 1500 birds per hectare to 20,000.

The Free Range Farmers Association has approached the Federal Minister for Agriculture and the Shadow Minister seeking a commitment to properly define the term 'free range' once a new Government has been elected.

The only response so far has been from the Greens who support a clear national definition and truth in labelling legislation.

Frosts cutting production

We've had a few frosty nights and mornings recently and the chooks don't seem to like it. Our egg production has dipped to around 84% in the last few days and feed intake has gone up.
The hens obviously need to eat more to boost their energy levels and keep warm!
We are still able to keep up with most of the demand although we can't take on the new enquries which come in almost every day.
It also means we don't have quite as many eggs as usual to take to our Farmers' Markets so some of the late customers there miss out,
We will have a new flock of pullets arriving in a couple of weeks and they should be in full production by the end of Auust.
Before they arrive I hope to have a couple of new sheds in place too!

The Age Epicure shows the reality of 'free range' production

Petition: What Does Free Range Mean?

This week The Age in Melbourne published an excellent article in Epicure about the way chickens should be kept on real 'free range' farms. The key question for anyone to ask if they want to know if the birds really are 'free range' is to find out if the hens are de-beaked (or beak trimmed is the industry's preferred term because they think it sounds more acceptable).
There is absolutely no need for hens to be debeaked if they are truly free range - it's only when they are kept in intensive conditions that they become aggressive and attack each other.
The timing of this article was perfect as it reinforces the current fight by genuine free range farmers with the Australian Egg Corporation over its outrageous proposal to redefine standards for stocking rates to allow massive factory farms to call their eggs 'free range'. Part of that new standard also allows de-beaking as a normal practice.
If you buy eggs from any producer who is not a member of the Free Range Farmers Association (or is a certified organic producer) - the hens who laid those eggs have probably been de-beaked.
The Epicure article listed the differing standards of various accreditation bodies and the Free Range Farmers Association Inc and the organic certification bodies are the only organisaisations which prohibit debeaking.
The Australian Egg Corporation's Egg Corp Assured program, the RSPCA and Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd allow de-beaking in their versions of 'free range'.

An open letter to the Egg Industry and politicians

What is Free Range ?  Petition  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freerange/

The issue of farm stocking densities is essentially an agricultural matter, but proposals by the Australian Egg Corporation to increase chicken stocking densities to 20,000 birds per hectare and still allow the farm to be classified as 'free range' also has serious implications for animal welfare and consumer expectations. At a time when most countries are tightening their farm animal welfare standards, here, the Australian Egg Corporation is floating ideas for new standards for free range egg production which will allow de-beaking or beak trimming of hens as a matter of course, stocking densities on farms to increase from 1500 hens per hectare to a massive 20,000 and hens to be kept locked in sheds for up to 25 weeks.


Understandably, the free range industry and consumers are in turmoil. We agree with the Egg Corporation that the current standards for free range egg production need to be changed - but they need to be tightened up to ensure that consumers are not misled. The changes proposed by the Australian Egg Corporation will allow large producers to charge customers a premium for branding their eggs as 'free range' without incurring the additional costs of genuine free range production methods. The proposed AECL stocking density equates to a DSE (Dry Sheep Equivalent) of 400 per hectare which would be a totally unsustainable land use.

Impacts on adjoining landholders and on our waterways are likely to be huge if the proposed stocking densities are implemented. Quite apart from environmental damage and animal welfare issues, these proposals will mislead consumers about what they are buying and will further alienate them, making them even more suspicious of the egg industry.
We are getting some terrific responses on the on-line petition and they clearly demonstrate that the Australian Egg Corporation talks nonsense when it says animal welfare is a minor issue in a buyers' decision to purchase eggs. The egg corporation's consumer research deliberately targetted buyers who had no interest in, and therefore no understanding of free range standards. The research was clearly flawed and was designed to provide a pre-determined result.

Petition still powering away

The 'free range' definition petition is still up and running at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freerange/

Help us show the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd and The Hon Tony Burke, Minister for Agriculture what consumers really think free range standards should be!

On a lighter note, how about participating in a competition being run by the on-line newsletter Green Times designed to help raise awareness of environmental issues and promote Australian green businesses.

All you have to is click on
http://www.greentimes.com.au/competitionGreenTimes.html
and “In 25 words or less tell us what would you give up today to be greener and why?”
First prize is a trip with an eco friendly car, 2 nights in an Eco-lodge, a wine hamper, organic chocolate gift basket.

Runners up receive: Organic wine, waterless carwash packs!

Do you want to dump standards for free range eggs?

This is the petition site. Let the Australian Egg Corporation hear your voice!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freerange/

At a time when most countries are tightening their farm animal welfare standards, here, the Australian Egg Corporation has launched plans for new standards for free range egg production which will allow de-beaking or beak trimming of hens as a matter of course, stocking densities on farms to increase from 1500 hens per hectare to a massive 20,000 and hens to be kept locked in sheds for up to 25 weeks.

Understandably, the free range industry and consumers are in turmoil over this proposal. We agree with the Egg Corporation that the current standards for free range egg production need to be changed - but they need to be tightened up to ensure that consumers are not misled. The changes proposed by the Australian Egg Corporation will allow large producers to charge customers a premium for branding their eggs as 'free range' without incurring the additional costs of genuine free range production methods.

The proposed stocking rate equates to 400 DSE per hectare - totally unsustainable.

Information about beak-trimmingBeak trimming or de-beaking of laying hens is still a widespread practice in Australia – even in 'free range' flocks of birds with the currentstandards approved by the Australian Egg Corporation. The majority of so-called free range farms are intensive production systems with flocks of many thousands of hens.

The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Domestic Poultry),which provides the only widely accepted national definition of the term 'free range' states that every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting birds which have more docile tendencies.

But the reality is that intensive free range farms beak trim their birds as a matter of course because they want to run large numbers and they chose to use high producing hens developed for the cage industry. These hens have been selectively cross bred for only two traits – maximum egg production and minimum feed intake. This often means they are aggressive and cannibalistic.

It is important to select a strain of bird that is less aggressive, and to get breeders to breed birds that are more docile. Research has shown that breeding for low aggression can have a marked effect in only 4 or 5 generations. Dr Mike Gentle, a U.S. researcher in this area, has concluded:

" In the long term, beak trimming should be phased out and undesirable behaviour controlled by environmental means and by increased effort being devoted to the genetic selection of commercial stocks which do not engage in damaging pecking, either in cages or when floor-housed in large flocks. "

Hens must be kept in groups small enough to be able to recognise each other.
Beak trimming

•Beak-trimming involves cutting off around a third of a chick’s beak with a red-hot blade or an infra-red beam. Scientific studies show that this is a painful mutilation which results in acute pain and may also lead to prolonged pain.

•Scientific research and practical experience also show that the correct way to prevent feather-pecking is not to beak-trim birds, but to keep them in good conditions – in particular by providing opportunities for them to forage and perch – and to select for birds that are less prone to feather-pecking.

•Australian farmers should learn from the experiences of Switzerland and Sweden, where beak-trimming has been banned for many years and Austria,where beak trimming has been phased out. If farmers in these countries do not find it necessary to beak-trim, Australian farmers must also be able to manage without using this mutilation.

Egg farmers need to make a much greater effort to control aggression without de-beaking. From our experience talking with consumers at Farmers' Markets, they do not believe that 'free range' production should involve the de-beaking of birds. Aggression and cannibalism is a behavioural problem which is easily solved by effective poultry management and selection of birds.

Current plans of the Australian Egg Corporation to allow a huge increase in the stocking density on 'free range' farms will make the problem even worse.

What Does 'Free Range' Mean

As a result of the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd's decision to try to introduce new standards for 'free range' egg production, we have set up a petition at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freerange/

If you know anyone who thinks that free range hens should not be de-beaked (or beak trimmed), that a stocking density of 20,000 hens per hectare is ridiculous, and that free range hens should not be locked in sheds until they are 25 weeks old - please ask them to sign the petition.
We will send it to the Australian Egg Corporation and to the Federal Minister for Agriculture, the Hon Tony Burke.

Good hearing from the Australian Egg Corporation

Seven free range egg farmers met with James Kellaway, managing director of the Australian Egg Corporation on Wednesday and we had a good hearing.
There was very strong discussion about the AECL's new draft standards for free range egg production and vocal concern that the proposed stocking density was not based on any scientific assessment. Mr Kellaway was unable to demonstrate that any standards anywhere in the world allowed a stocking density of 20,000 or even 10,000 birds per hectare. This proposal was seen as an example of the reasons for a high level of mistrust of the egg industry amongst consumers.
To put it in perspective, the proposed stocking rate would allow as many as 2000 hens on an average quarter acre suburban block.

Mr Kellaway took away with him our views that

• The maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 birds per hectare even though we all believe that density is already too high. (The Free Range Farmers Association stocking density is 750 birds per hectare)
• A stocking density of 20,000 birds per hectare is unsustainable and is likely to cause severe erosion and contamination problems
• Hens should have access to an outdoor range once they are six weeks old (not locked in sheds until they are are 25 weeks old as in the AECL proposal)
• No beak trimming of birds designated as free range
• If the AECL adopts the draft standards they should not use the term 'free range' – they should use the existing terminology of 'Barn Laid' or adopt a term such as 'Lot Fed' or 'Cage Free'.
• The AECL's consumer research was not qualitative and the proposed definition of free range production does not reflect the views of people who actually buy free range eggs.

The meeting lasted almost three hours and James Kellaway undertook to ensure that our concerns were discussed prior to any decision being taken to adopt new standards. That still did not give us a great deal of confidence in the outcome because the AECL's voting system is based on the number of birds owned by each member. So the big operators always get through what they want and the new proposed standards will enable major producers to mislead consumers by legally labelling their eggs as 'free range' and charging a premium even though they do not bear the additional costs of genuine free range production methods. Even if a 'one vote per farm' was allowed the big operators would still have the numbers because some own 20 or 30 farms or even more.

Stocking densities:
750 birds per hectare equals a Dry Sheep Equivalent of 15.
1,500 birds per hectare equals a DSE of 30
20,000 birds per hectare equals a DSE of 400