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!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Age Epicure shows the reality of 'free range' production
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'.
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'.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
An open letter to the Egg Industry and politicians
What is Free Range ? Petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/freerange/
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.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Petition still powering away
The 'free range' definition petition is still up and running at
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!
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Do you want to dump standards for free range eggs?
This is the petition site. Let the Australian Egg Corporation hear your voice!
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.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
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
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
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
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
More nonsense from the Egg Corp
The Australian Egg Corporation's media release yesterday (28.6.2010) was complete spin. They were obviously attempting to counter a growing groundswell of publicity against their proposed changes to the definitions of 'free range'.
Without going into all the details of their release, about the only accurate statement it contained was the need for commercial reality – something which we all accept but for major egg producers the bottom line is all that counts and to hell with consumers, farm sustainability or animal welfare.
Just to demolish a few points raised by AECL in an attempt to defend its position:
Without going into all the details of their release, about the only accurate statement it contained was the need for commercial reality – something which we all accept but for major egg producers the bottom line is all that counts and to hell with consumers, farm sustainability or animal welfare.
Just to demolish a few points raised by AECL in an attempt to defend its position:
- 10 known national and international standards may have been considered in the process of developing this plan, but none of the standards we have seen allows anything approaching 20,000 hens per hectare to be called 'free range'.
- Independent and robust consumer research into understanding and expectations of consumers was in reality a matter of seeking opinions from people who do not normally buy free range eggs. It would be rather like Rolls Royce conducting a survey about consumer perceptions of luxury cars and asking members of the Holden Car Club.
- Australian egg farmers have been heavily criticised for the lack of universally recognised definitions for all methods of egg production. The heavy criticism hasn't been for that, it's been because of the misleading definitions approved by the AECL.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Unreal 'free range' definition highlighted in Sydney Morning Herald and The Age
This is the article which apeared in today's SMH and The Age. More to come in the Weekly Times this week and we have done a few radio interiews.
The publicity will keep rolling until the AECL withdraws this ridiculous proposal. A few free range farmers have a meeting with AECL managing director, James Kellaway this Wednesday.
Objections raised over free-range eggs plan
MELISSA SINGER
June 28, 2010
CHANGING the definition of free-range eggs and lifting the maximum number of hens in an area would put Australia behind the rest of the world, critics say.
Discussions between the Australian Egg Corporation and farmers could see the maximum number of hens per hectare increase from 1500 to up to 20,000. A free-range farm the size of Centennial Park could have its hen population jump from 330,000 to 4.4 million.
Smaller farmers say the discussions unfairly favour large-scale producers.
''It will install a factory system for free-range eggs,'' Phil Westwood, a spokesman for the Free Range Farmers Association, said. ''To call it free range puts in the minds of consumers that the chooks are out in lush green grass and having a great time.''
NSW Greens MP John Kaye is drafting a bill to standardise the definition for free range. He said even at current densities, the behavioural patterns of chickens prevent all the hens from venturing out even if the door is open for eight hours a day and that increasing densities would only compound the problem.
The bill would also limit egg labelling to cage or free range.
''We don't buy the nonsense about barn-laid,'' Mr Kaye said. ''It's a euphemism of what happens to birds in high-stocking densities.''
Egg Corporation communications manager Jacqueline Baptista said a survey of consumers it conducted about hen densities found on average 10,200 per hectare was an acceptable population.
Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed supported beak-trimming if it reduced pecking and cannibalism. Both the Greens and the FRFA reject beak-trimming on any grounds.
Mr Westwood urged the Egg Corporation to adopt a tiered labelling system that would prevent eggs produced in high-density environments from being labelled ''free range''. He said terms such as ''intensive free-range'' or ''cage-free'' would be more appropriate.
The publicity will keep rolling until the AECL withdraws this ridiculous proposal. A few free range farmers have a meeting with AECL managing director, James Kellaway this Wednesday.
Objections raised over free-range eggs plan
MELISSA SINGER
June 28, 2010
CHANGING the definition of free-range eggs and lifting the maximum number of hens in an area would put Australia behind the rest of the world, critics say.
Discussions between the Australian Egg Corporation and farmers could see the maximum number of hens per hectare increase from 1500 to up to 20,000. A free-range farm the size of Centennial Park could have its hen population jump from 330,000 to 4.4 million.
Smaller farmers say the discussions unfairly favour large-scale producers.
''It will install a factory system for free-range eggs,'' Phil Westwood, a spokesman for the Free Range Farmers Association, said. ''To call it free range puts in the minds of consumers that the chooks are out in lush green grass and having a great time.''
NSW Greens MP John Kaye is drafting a bill to standardise the definition for free range. He said even at current densities, the behavioural patterns of chickens prevent all the hens from venturing out even if the door is open for eight hours a day and that increasing densities would only compound the problem.
The bill would also limit egg labelling to cage or free range.
''We don't buy the nonsense about barn-laid,'' Mr Kaye said. ''It's a euphemism of what happens to birds in high-stocking densities.''
Egg Corporation communications manager Jacqueline Baptista said a survey of consumers it conducted about hen densities found on average 10,200 per hectare was an acceptable population.
Nearly two-thirds of consumers surveyed supported beak-trimming if it reduced pecking and cannibalism. Both the Greens and the FRFA reject beak-trimming on any grounds.
Mr Westwood urged the Egg Corporation to adopt a tiered labelling system that would prevent eggs produced in high-density environments from being labelled ''free range''. He said terms such as ''intensive free-range'' or ''cage-free'' would be more appropriate.
Monday, June 21, 2010
De-beaked and full beaked chickens
On the left is an example of a beak-trimmed or de-beaked hen and on the right is a hen with a full beak. In many cases the 'trimming' is much more severe.
It's obviously easier for a hen with a full beak to pick up worms, spiders and grubs etc than for a young one with some of her beak cut off. To see more click here
Some in the industry claim that nowadays birds just have a light 'trim' with a laser. But that sort of comment ignores reality. Most of the 'beak-trimmed' birds I have seen in cage, barn or so-called 'free range' farms (other than members of the Free Range Farmers Association) have been severely 'trimmed'. There is only one 'quasi free range' farm I have inspected where it was difficult to tell that the hens' beaks had been 'trimmed'.
The dumb thing is that there is no need for this mutilation of birds that are genuinely free range. Some operators choose to inflict this on their hens because it is regarded as industry practice and they think it will improve their bottom line. But if the hens have plenty of room and they are kept in relatively small flocks, they can escape from their aggressive bretheren and cannibalism is not a significant issue.
However, the farms which are chasing big dollars don't want the work and costs associated with doing the job properly. They want to run many thousands of birds and they choose to de-beak their birds 'just in case' there is a cannibalism problem. To see some of the alternatives to de-beaking click here
Great Farmers' Market weekend
We sold out of eggs at both markets and we also did well with our garlic and chillies. So well in fact that we now have no more garlic until the new crop is available in November/December.
I took along the 150 gram egg featured in our local newspaper, the South Gippsland Sentinel Times (left) and I was very pleased that the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association appeared in the published photo.
With all the nonsense about the egg industry dumping standards, the only way way for anyone in Victoria to be sure that they are buying free range eggs from a real free range farm is to look for that logo.
If the farm selling their version of 'free range' eggs isn't a member of the Free Range Farmers Association, be suspicious. The reason they are not a member is not usually that they don't to be - it's because we won't have them as a member.
There will be heaps more national and state publicity about the Australian Egg Corporation's dumb move to trash their already inadequate standards for so-called free range eggs.
We have been told that we should keep quiet about the proposed changes to the definitions because it will damage the industry - but it is these proposals which will damage the industry. We are aware that the big boys will almost certainly win because Federal and State Governments will dance to their tune, but we believe that we should fight for honesty and integrity. Money talks and the big egg producers will 'laugh all the way to the bank' if this definition is adopted..
Friday, June 18, 2010
Free Range Con
The Australian Egg Corporation revealed plans on Wednesday night to relax rules for free range egg production and con consumers into paying for eggs labelled as 'free range' even though they are clearly laid in a factory farming environment. Needlesstosay, this has generated extreme anger amongst genuine free range egg producers.
Under the proposal outlined in Melbourne, hens will be allowed to be de-beaked as a matter of course, they can be locked up in sheds for 25 weeks and the stocking density can increase from 1500 to an incredible 20,000 birds per hectare!
The Victorian-based Free Range Farmers Association had two members at the meeting but Anne, president of FRFA, was locked out of the meeting (probably inadvertently - the lifts were shut down at 6.30 when the meeting was due to start and the stairwell doors were locked). The proposed amendments designed for major industry players reinforce the need for a national definition for 'free range' eggs that doesn't mislead consumers into thinking they are buying welfare-friendly eggs.
The AECL, which is about to publicly launch its Egg Corp Assured scheme, set up a working group some time ago to develop words which will allow major farms to continue to produce eggs which can be labelled as 'free range'.
This stupid proposal demonstrates contempt for consumers as the AECL and the big producers clearly believed they would fall for it!
The current definition of 'free range' used by AECL and the big boys in the industry is contained in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4th Edition. It officially limits the number of birds to 1500 per hectare and requires farmers to manage the outdoor range to avoid muddy or unsuitable conditions – but there is little enforcement of those conditions and some so-called 'free range' farms have more than twice the number of allowed birds.
Apart from the numbers of hens, a fundamental difference between industry practice and FRFA requirements is the issue of de-beaking. The Free Range Farmers Association prohibits de-beaking (or beak trimming) which is standard practice on most big farms. The Model Code states that 'Every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting chickens for reduced feather pecking and cannibalism'
The AECL's Egg Corp Assured program says it requires accredited farms to meet the standards of the Model Code, but it does not require those farms to demonstrate any attempt to address the potential problem of feather pecking or cannibalism before resorting to de-beaking the birds.
As well as permitting 20,000 hens per hectare, which will be a totally unsustainable farming practice, the proposed change will allow hens to be permanently locked in sheds until they are 25 weeks old. (They currently must be allowed to range outside once fully feathered at around 6 weeks).
On a real free range farm with a low stocking density, cannibalism is not a problem, because the hens have enough room to escape from any aggressors.
Consumer views appear to have been ignored by the AECL. It seems to us that to protect consumers, there is now a real need for a dual definition. Leave the term 'free range' for traditional low density egg farming such as practised by members of the Free Range Farmers Association and introduce a term like 'Intensive Free Range' 'Factory Free Range' or 'Cage Free' for the major players who don't meet the same standards. Currently the only way consumers in Victoria can be sure they are buying real free range eggs is to only buy from a FRFA accredited farm.
The Egg Corp Assured program currently has 19 accredited farms in Victoria. There is a total of 140 throughout Australia out of an estimated 500 – 600 commercial egg farms and many thousands of backyard operators who sell their eggs illegally.
The Victorian-based Free Range Farmers Association had two members at the meeting but Anne, president of FRFA, was locked out of the meeting (probably inadvertently - the lifts were shut down at 6.30 when the meeting was due to start and the stairwell doors were locked). The proposed amendments designed for major industry players reinforce the need for a national definition for 'free range' eggs that doesn't mislead consumers into thinking they are buying welfare-friendly eggs.
The AECL, which is about to publicly launch its Egg Corp Assured scheme, set up a working group some time ago to develop words which will allow major farms to continue to produce eggs which can be labelled as 'free range'.
This stupid proposal demonstrates contempt for consumers as the AECL and the big producers clearly believed they would fall for it!
The current definition of 'free range' used by AECL and the big boys in the industry is contained in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4th Edition. It officially limits the number of birds to 1500 per hectare and requires farmers to manage the outdoor range to avoid muddy or unsuitable conditions – but there is little enforcement of those conditions and some so-called 'free range' farms have more than twice the number of allowed birds.
Apart from the numbers of hens, a fundamental difference between industry practice and FRFA requirements is the issue of de-beaking. The Free Range Farmers Association prohibits de-beaking (or beak trimming) which is standard practice on most big farms. The Model Code states that 'Every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting chickens for reduced feather pecking and cannibalism'
The AECL's Egg Corp Assured program says it requires accredited farms to meet the standards of the Model Code, but it does not require those farms to demonstrate any attempt to address the potential problem of feather pecking or cannibalism before resorting to de-beaking the birds.
As well as permitting 20,000 hens per hectare, which will be a totally unsustainable farming practice, the proposed change will allow hens to be permanently locked in sheds until they are 25 weeks old. (They currently must be allowed to range outside once fully feathered at around 6 weeks).
On a real free range farm with a low stocking density, cannibalism is not a problem, because the hens have enough room to escape from any aggressors.
Consumer views appear to have been ignored by the AECL. It seems to us that to protect consumers, there is now a real need for a dual definition. Leave the term 'free range' for traditional low density egg farming such as practised by members of the Free Range Farmers Association and introduce a term like 'Intensive Free Range' 'Factory Free Range' or 'Cage Free' for the major players who don't meet the same standards. Currently the only way consumers in Victoria can be sure they are buying real free range eggs is to only buy from a FRFA accredited farm.
The Egg Corp Assured program currently has 19 accredited farms in Victoria. There is a total of 140 throughout Australia out of an estimated 500 – 600 commercial egg farms and many thousands of backyard operators who sell their eggs illegally.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
What is free range?
From consumer research carried out at Farmers' Markets, a definition that most buyers seem to accept is: 'Free-range chickens are able to spend most of their time outdoors. They should not be de-beaked. The hens should not be confined to small areas. True free-range flocks are generally fed and watered inside and outside their roosting sheds'.
This encourages the birds to scratch around outdoors and keeps the laying sheds cleaner and drier. If fences confine the birds to very small areas, the farm shouldn't be described as free-range, and neither should those where the hens are de-beaked, large numbers are in each flock and feed and water is only provided in sheds to keep the birds inside most of the time.
The broader egg industry view is that the term 'free range' applies to any poultry with access to an outdoor area, no matter how few birds actually go outside and how uninviting their outdoor paddock is.
What's the problem with a yard egg system?
It comes down to the amount of manure the land can handle, and the geometry of chicken yards. An acre of productive grassland can handle about four tonnes of chicken manure per year. That's roughly the output of up to 100 chickens. So, unless you want to kill off the grass and pollute the area with run-off, the limit is around 100 – 150 outdoor chickens per acre – unless you remove the manure.
What's worse is that the droppings are never evenly distributed across the yard. The manure is concentrated near the chicken house. This kills off all plant life near the chicken shed (if its a fixed shed) even if the chickens don't destroy the grass sod by scratching.
How the Europeans manage 400 hens per acre in their 'free-range' flocks.
EU regulations allow 400 hens per acre but require that the yards remain green. If that many hens actually went outdoors, the grass would be destroyed in no time. The manure load of 400 outdoor hens is unsustainable on one acre, killing the grass, producing high nutrient run-off levels, and a muddy yard unless the nutrients are removed from the ground. But as the hens spend most of their time indoors, the grass can remain green. It's similar in Australia where the current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry sets out a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare (600 per acre). The Code doesn't limit flock sizes, so large farms have been established with sheds containing tens of thousands of birds – and they are classified as 'free-range' as long as they have 'access' to an outdoor run.
The Model Code states that 'Every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting chickens for reduced feather pecking and cannibalism'
But we would challenge anyone to find a big 'free range' farm in Victoria which has anything but de-beaked (or beak trimmed birds). The industry is geared to beak trim all chicks at day old or soon after, and no big egg producer considers an alternative. The selection of laying hens is based solely on production and all major 'free range' farms buy hibrid hens which were developed for the cage industry and which were bred for one characteristic - to lay the maximum number of eggs. The AECL's Egg Corp Assured program does not require farms accredited to the program to demonstrate any attempt to address the potential problem of feather pecking or cannibalism before resorting to de-beaking the birds.
Chickens eat and drink many times during a day, so their movements can be managed by careful placement of feeders and waterers. The basic scam in Australia (and in Europe) involves only having feeders and waterers in the sheds as far from the outside doors as possible, installing only a few doors and making them as small as possible. Some hens will go outside, providing window dressing for gullible observers, but most hens stay indoors.
The reality is that most 'free-range' hens are really confined in barns surrounded by nice lawns. To produce the coloured yolks associated with free-range flocks, many producers add special colouring ingredients to the feed. Some of these additives are claimed to be 'natural' but nearly all are produced in laboratories by men in white coats. If the hens eat grass, other green vegetation and a corn-based ration, the yolks will be a vibrant golden colour. But yolk colour in eggs from real free range farms will vary depending on the time year and the availability of green feed. If yolk colour never varies, you can be sure that colouring additives are being fed to the hens. Another indicator that shows that the flocks aren't free range at all is if the hens are de-beaked. With true free-range flocks, feather-picking and cannibalism are rare. Those behavioural problems are caused by intensive farming, confinement, farm management and choice of birds. Which is why the majority of Australia's 'free-range' commercial flocks are beak-trimmed as a matter of course.
It's disappointing that the RSPCA encourages the de-beaking of birds by accepting royalty payments for the barn laid and 'free range' eggs which it accredits.
Some of the big producers even claim, after doing everything to discourage the hens from ever venturing outside, that 'chickens don't like to go outdoors.' Everyone who has ever had a small flock knows that chickens will spend most of their time outdoors if the weather isn't too bad and feed and water are provided outside.
The regulations have been written for major operators who have transfered large-scale factory farming techniques to a version of 'free range' farming which provide opportunities for the businesses to maximise profits by allowing them to charge a premium for eggs which should be classified as 'cage-free' rather than 'free range'.
So how do you do it right?
Traditional free-range egg production is just part of a diversified farm. It enables a farm to make full use of the nutrients from the chicken manure. And it adds to the sustainability of the farming enterprise.
Many free range farms use portable hen houses, either on wheels or on skids. They can be moved around with a tractor to prevent the ground around the houses becoming muddy. This is the traditional approach we use at the Freeranger Farm. There is a trend towards using mobile electric poultry netting combined with frequent shed moves probably every 1-3 days. Moving the sheds is labour intensive but it helps to maintain pasture growth. With low stocking density, even if the houses are left in place for several weeks at a time, a scattering of bare rectangles every now and then on the pasture is not significant. The grass will regrow over the season. By feeding the hens outdoors and moving the feeders regularly, it's possible to get most of the effect of moving the houses, but with less effort.
It's clearly much more labour-intensive than the pretend 'free-range' techniques most big operators use, so it's not worth doing unless prices are substantially higher than for eggs produced by other methods – which is why the big producers don't want a legal definition of 'free range' to prohibit de-beaking and limit flock sizes.
It's often possible to get away with infrequent house moves as the manure under a chicken house becomes drier and less obnoxious the longer the house sits in one place. For the first few days a house is in a new spot, the manure can be wet and smelly. If the house has been in one place for a month, the manure is quite dry and there is no smell. Moving the houses too frequently seems to maximize the wetness and smell. Some operators have trays under the sheds to catch the manure and allow it to be spread where it is required rather than simply dropping through to the ground under the chicken house.
On clay soil, the mud problem makes it important to keep a solid turf at all times. Permanent pasture is the simplest way of achieving this, though a crop rotation with grasses or clover as one phase will also work. On sandy or gravely soils, cultivating the soil does not lead to an instant mud problem, so keeping the chickens among growing crops is a viable alternative.
http://www.freeranger.com.au/
http://bassbush.htmlplanet.com/
http://www.freerangefarmers.com.au/
Sunday, May 30, 2010
New career on the speaker circuit?
Anne had an interesting day at Pearcedale on Saturday talking with a group of smallholders about free range egg production as part of a diversified farming operation.
It was one of the days organised by the Department of Primary Industries as a key element of its AgFutures program. We have hosted these sorts of days on the farm for various groups to show how things are done but there's obviously a pretty substantial demand out there for information on farming alternatives. It was a group of around 15 people, which is an ideal size to generate interaction.
There were four speakers at the forum, Anne talking about chooks, garlic and chillies - discussing things like setup costs, sustainability and marketing, Dugald Cameron from Phillip Island, talking about fodder crops, contracting and agistment, Kevin Wilkinson dealing with composting and Tony Gill on setting up a co-operative.
It was apparently a good day.
It was one of the days organised by the Department of Primary Industries as a key element of its AgFutures program. We have hosted these sorts of days on the farm for various groups to show how things are done but there's obviously a pretty substantial demand out there for information on farming alternatives. It was a group of around 15 people, which is an ideal size to generate interaction.
There were four speakers at the forum, Anne talking about chooks, garlic and chillies - discussing things like setup costs, sustainability and marketing, Dugald Cameron from Phillip Island, talking about fodder crops, contracting and agistment, Kevin Wilkinson dealing with composting and Tony Gill on setting up a co-operative.
It was apparently a good day.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Controlling aggression in hens without de-beaking
Beak trimming or de-beaking of laying hens is still a widespread practice in Australia – even in 'free range' birds. 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), provides the only national definition of the term 'free range' which is accepted by the big players in the industry. But it states that every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting birds which have more docile tendencies.
The reality is that intensive free range farms de-beak 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. poultry researcher, 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 need to be in groups small enough to be able to recognise each other. At Freeranger Eggs we run maximum flock sizes of 250 birds.
Hens must be able to express their natural behaviour, including the strong urge to peck. They must have material in which to forage and dust bathe.
Good husbandry is a major factor in reducing aggression, especially preventing conditions that cause frustration in hens. They also need an adequate and well-balanced diet, easy access to food and water, enough space, and minimum disturbance.
Customers should push egg farmers into making greater efforts to control aggression without de-beaking. From our experience, talking with consumers at Farmers' Markets, the public does 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.
In Victoria, the easiest way to ensure that you are buying genuine free range eggs from hens who have not been de-beaked is to only buy from a farm accredited by the Free Range Farmers Association. All member farms carry the logo on their cartons. If your egg producer doesn't have the FRFA logo its probably not because he or she doesn't want to - they can't get it because they don't meet the standards.
We are hoping that when a review is undertaken of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Domestic Poultry) and of labelling laws that a real definition of the term 'free range' will emerge. Many buyers of 'free range' eggs are currently being mislead by cartons which depict birds on lush green pasture and show hens with full beaks. It may be that two definitions of free range are needed - traditional free range such as practiced by Freeranger Eggs and other members of the Free Range Farmers Association and intensive free range which is the large-scale factory farming approach.
The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Domestic Poultry), provides the only national definition of the term 'free range' which is accepted by the big players in the industry. But it states that every effort should be made to avoid beak trimming by selecting birds which have more docile tendencies.
The reality is that intensive free range farms de-beak 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. poultry researcher, 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 need to be in groups small enough to be able to recognise each other. At Freeranger Eggs we run maximum flock sizes of 250 birds.
Hens must be able to express their natural behaviour, including the strong urge to peck. They must have material in which to forage and dust bathe.
Good husbandry is a major factor in reducing aggression, especially preventing conditions that cause frustration in hens. They also need an adequate and well-balanced diet, easy access to food and water, enough space, and minimum disturbance.
Customers should push egg farmers into making greater efforts to control aggression without de-beaking. From our experience, talking with consumers at Farmers' Markets, the public does 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.We are hoping that when a review is undertaken of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals (Domestic Poultry) and of labelling laws that a real definition of the term 'free range' will emerge. Many buyers of 'free range' eggs are currently being mislead by cartons which depict birds on lush green pasture and show hens with full beaks. It may be that two definitions of free range are needed - traditional free range such as practiced by Freeranger Eggs and other members of the Free Range Farmers Association and intensive free range which is the large-scale factory farming approach.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Talk to the Animals
There will be a video segment about the Freeranger farm on Channel Nine's Talk To The Animals program at 4.30 pm this Saturday (at least in Melbourne).
Des Dowling came down to the farm with his crew to have a look at the way we run our hens and how they interact with their Maremma bodyguards.Should be good
Des Dowling came down to the farm with his crew to have a look at the way we run our hens and how they interact with their Maremma bodyguards.Should be good
Monday, May 24, 2010
Good weekend sales
Churchill Island was good but Red Hill was a bit slow so hopefully it will improve over the next few months. I was able to do a delivery on the way home on Sunday so it wasn't a wasted day.
It's just under an hour from the farm to Red Hill and that makes it within our food miles policy. It's on the Mornington Peninsula which means I have to drive around to the 'other side' of Westernport.
Everyone says it's a small world - and it certainly is. On the stall next to me at Red Hill was a lady who used to work with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, promoting Landcare on Phillip Island and in West Gippsland. I hadn't seen her for almost 10 years and I had no idea she's now into making goat cheese.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Farm sustainability
Farm sustainability is a term which has been flung around with gay abandon for some years. It means different thing to different people and even farms which are certified organic need not necessarily have any more long-term sustainability than non-organic farms.
Landcare groups, particularly those associated with networks, have been scrambling for Federal cash from the Natural Heritage Trust and, more recently, the Caring For Our Country programme. The race to grab as much funding as possible has clouded thoughts about what the funding was supposed to be for. It was never to create jobs - it was expected to have beneficial environmental outcomes.
Now that lucrative funding stream has started to dry up, the networks (and other environmental groups) are squealing about their jobs. That's all it is. They've had little thought for sustainability or biodiversity conservation and their actions have had little impact. Their main concern has been about maintaining and increasing job opportunities. Some of the networks and groups have become big businesses with millions of dollars churning through every year – but virtually nothing to show for it.
A portion of the funding has been used for things like erosion control and planting native vegetation but there has been a relatively small return for the many hundreds of millions of dollars which has spent.
Has the money decreased the environmental footprint of many farms? The answer is no. Has the money halted the biodiversity decline in this country? Again the answer is no.
It's not possible to have an impact on these things when huge slabs of funding are swallowed up in increasing employment opportunities rather than being spent on-ground works carried out as part of a 'whole of landscape' plan.
There's a need to look at the way a farm and any business operates to determine overall sustainability. What are the inputs and where do they come from? If feed is trucked thousands of kilometres it will have a negative impact even if it is from a certified organic mill.
Here at Freeranger Eggs our biggest environmental issue is transport. We minimise our footprint by imposing a food miles policy (all our deliveries must be within one hour of the farm). The feed for our chooks comes from a Victorian mill – but there is still a significant transport element which we offset with the permanent protection of native vegetation on the farm. A large slab of the vegetation on the farm is protected by a Trust for Nature covenant so it can never be destroyed which makes the property an effective carbon sink and more than offsets our carbon footprint.
For more on sustainability have at a look at Friends of Bass Valley Bush Inc Landcare Group
Landcare groups, particularly those associated with networks, have been scrambling for Federal cash from the Natural Heritage Trust and, more recently, the Caring For Our Country programme. The race to grab as much funding as possible has clouded thoughts about what the funding was supposed to be for. It was never to create jobs - it was expected to have beneficial environmental outcomes.
Now that lucrative funding stream has started to dry up, the networks (and other environmental groups) are squealing about their jobs. That's all it is. They've had little thought for sustainability or biodiversity conservation and their actions have had little impact. Their main concern has been about maintaining and increasing job opportunities. Some of the networks and groups have become big businesses with millions of dollars churning through every year – but virtually nothing to show for it.
A portion of the funding has been used for things like erosion control and planting native vegetation but there has been a relatively small return for the many hundreds of millions of dollars which has spent.
Has the money decreased the environmental footprint of many farms? The answer is no. Has the money halted the biodiversity decline in this country? Again the answer is no.
It's not possible to have an impact on these things when huge slabs of funding are swallowed up in increasing employment opportunities rather than being spent on-ground works carried out as part of a 'whole of landscape' plan.
There's a need to look at the way a farm and any business operates to determine overall sustainability. What are the inputs and where do they come from? If feed is trucked thousands of kilometres it will have a negative impact even if it is from a certified organic mill.
Here at Freeranger Eggs our biggest environmental issue is transport. We minimise our footprint by imposing a food miles policy (all our deliveries must be within one hour of the farm). The feed for our chooks comes from a Victorian mill – but there is still a significant transport element which we offset with the permanent protection of native vegetation on the farm. A large slab of the vegetation on the farm is protected by a Trust for Nature covenant so it can never be destroyed which makes the property an effective carbon sink and more than offsets our carbon footprint.
For more on sustainability have at a look at Friends of Bass Valley Bush Inc Landcare Group
Monday, May 17, 2010
Little White Van
So I thought I'd find out if I could repair it. Most of the windscreen repair companies seem to charge around one third of the cost of a new screen!!
And yes, Do It Yourself kits are available. You simply stick a patch over the chip, attach a syringe filled with the repair liquid, pull the syringe plunger back to suck out air from the crack then release the plunger. The liquid is sucked into the crack. Wait 15 minutes or so, remove the syringe and the patch and sunlight cures the repair.
Worked a treat. I bought the kit from the UK on Ebay for under $20 including postage.
Friday, May 14, 2010
20,000 pullets wanted
I actually mis-heard him and said "two dozen?" to which the answer was "No - 20,000".
He obviously hadn't looked at our website http://www.freeranger.com.au/ or at this blog because he would have known that we couldn't possibly meet that sort of order.
We do sell some pullets when we have them available but it's usually 3 or 4 at a time. I think our largest order has been 20 - yes 20 not 20,000!!!With individual flocks of around 200 birds and overall laying hen numbers of 1000 or so, we are running a business but it's hardly big time.
I suggested he contact Baiada who should be able to help him as he wanted delivery in September.
It's another indication of big players getting involved because they can see a dollar in producing eggs they can label 'free range'. It's a safe bet that this bloke, if he goes ahead, will have de-beaked birds and will not meet the requirements of the Free Range Farmers Association but he will still call the eggs 'free range' and will charge unwary consumers a premium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
