Best Practice Egg Production

The Instigation

“Nice looking eggs. How do you farm your hens?” asks a prospective purchaser at the local Farmers’ Market.

“Thanks. I farm using best practice methods by following [insert your favourite system] principles,” replies the producer.

“Wow! That must be excellent for the hens. Are you certified?”

“Yes, the girls love it. No, I don’t need any certification. I’m certified by my customers.”

Indeed! What does this mean? What is best practice and who decides? Which customers determine the level of animal and ecological standards that  different producers use? What are their credentials? If you buy a shirt from your favourite clothes shop, does that mean they sell the best shirts around, that they look after their employees, that they buy inventory ethically?

The History

Good, better best

Never let it rest,

Till your good is better

And your better best

This saying is attributed to Saint Jerome from around 400AD. Although St Jerome’s focus was encouraging people to improve their spiritual lives, it is also a great ode to encourage improvement in all your endeavours, to move from stasis through a comparative to a superlative paradigm! This verse was popularised in Australia when the J Furphy Foundry cast the words into the ends of their farm water carts.

These carts were used to supply water to the troops in the extensive camps outside Melbourne as the soldiers awaited deployment during WW1. Some Furphy water carts went with the soldiers to war and provided water on the battle fields. (https://www.furphystory.com.au/history/)

As the soldiers gathered to collect water, the carts became an informal meeting place, a respite, a place to hear the latest news and pass on exploits to others eager for information on current actions. The cart drivers traversed the wider battlefield area, filling and dispensing water. They garnered and dispensed information. This example presents as a precursor of the modern “water cooler discussions” that circulate news around modern offices.

As is want with oral communication, some stories would undergo variations, from subtle to outright exaggerated myths and gossip. Often, these changes were slight and so believable that they were considered fact, even by the narrators. The more often a story is repeated, the more probable it is accepted as truth without questioning the details, even more so if it emanates from a reliable source. Even the source can engender trust by putting themselves in the public eye on a regular basis. Repeated stories can become so ingrained that they feel like facts.

These tales played a significant role in uniting the soldiers and introducing some normalcy during their hardships, a way to promote camaraderie. They drew the soldiers together in a tight communal bond. In times of stress and uncertainty, many of these stories were believed as the soldiers sought some significance behind their disorientated and uncertain lives.

These tales became known as “Furphy tales” or just as a “Furphy”, which is how it has entered the Australian vernacular.

The Current Story

The good, better, best paradigm has been adopted within our food production circles. There are many beef farmers, vegetable growers, poultry producers, cropping farmers etc making claims to the worthiness of their production system. However, there are instances where one aspect has been changed, leading to the producer’s marketing blurb going straight to “best practice”! Human nature and ego tend to seek out the superlative to assuage our yearning to be at the peak. What is “Best Practice”? It is a term originated to assess systematic business function and the benchmarking movement in the mid-20^th century. Is it appropriate to use a term invented for the halls of business to evaluate an ecological farming process that has a vast range of parameters?

The “Christian” virtues of Saint Jerome assumed that people were at a “good” level and could move forward from there. Clergy and church goers reading his writings would already have a level of spiritual virtue and would be seeking guidance to enlightenment. I suggest a more rounded paradigm requires completion. The full extent is:

Worst, worse, bad, good, better best.

It takes a very honest, self-appraisal to be comfortable where you are on this paradigm. I know that I fall short in some areas. We all do. Where you place yourself along this paradigm is decided by where you start, where you want to end up, what changes you make, your own personal life philosophies and your level of understanding. Even, where you live. This article looks at common food production systems within South-Eastern Australia.

The Ecology

An example I can use is egg production. I look at this through an objective, broad, ecological lens and make no judgement nor cast aspersion on the multitude of hard-working poultry farmers and backyard producers. This article is aimed at encouraging producers to consider and question their food production systems and to reassess their thought processes and what is right for them. This exercise is not about what is profitable, convenient or easy. It addresses what is best for the animals and ecology. For the sake of this discussion, there are many considerations made, and no compulsory recipes are stipulated. It is considered that the more diversified a system is and, the further removed from a monoculture, then the more robust and resilient it will be. There is still much to be said about most of the production aspects identified below.

Under this definition, “Best” must offer the natural, ecological conditions for the hens. It allows the hens to fulfill their ecological niche unhindered by human interference. How could any restriction on the hens be included within “best” practice? Within our local food systems, best is difficult to achieve, both on a commercial scale and as a hobby. As we research and increase our ecological knowledge and understanding it becomes harder to grasp. The true goal is to aim high, challenge yourself and achieve your personal peak.

In their natural, tropical/sub-tropical environment, chickens are forest fringe dwellers. They are omnivores that help balance the seedbank and insect populations. They are social creatures, living in flocks comprising family groups with a dominant male, hens and juveniles. These natural flocks tend to have up to 7 hens per rooster as the backbone of their social structure. The rooster’s role is to mate with the hens and provide protection. Being taller than the hens, the rooster can see further over the grass and spot predators closing in. His guard call alarms the hens and sends them to shelter higher in the nearby trees.

Egg production tends to follow a seasonal pattern, with the hens’ fecundity governed by feed availability. This availability is driven by changes in daylength, rainfall and temperature. Longer days are accompanied by rainfall which increases vegetative growth and insect activity hence feed availability and quality. This increase of insects in their diet peaks certain amino acids essential for egg production, in particular methionine. It also gives their yolks a rich yellow/orange colour.

Hens are ground nesting birds that seek out a secluded, protected site to nest and hatch their chickens. It is common for them to use a dark hollow log, lined with vegetation where the hen lays 4 to 6 eggs. As the chickens become stronger the hen introduces them to the family flock. The hen cares for the chickens then she has a break before recommencing the egg laying cycle.

The Systems

There are two predominate production extremes. One focus on ecological design, low inputs with lower outputs and the other focuses on high production, high inputs.

The high input extreme of the paradigm is straightforward. It includes all the negative aspects of the current, Western culture of poultry production. This is not to say that all commodity producers employ all these aspects in their management strategy.

Single species

Single sex

Beak trimming

Slaughtering of day-old males

Ultra processed, monotonous feed

Feed based on commodity, monoculture production.

Feed produced with chemicals.

Medicated feed

Artificial yolk colouring

Caged housing

Unsanitary housing

Poor ventilation

Monotonous environment

High density flocks, prone to spread of disease.

Artificial lighting, light manipulation

No nest provision

Inadequate perch provisions

Short hen life

Selling spent hens to backyard enthusiasts

Large quantity of manure

High economic imperative

Induced moulting.

I consider this extensive list of negative attributes outlines the worst practice that modern consumers would repel against.

The Paradigms

To continue along the paradigm, you can look at each of these individual aspects to track their logical progression. The size of each cell indicates the relative value of the element in the paradigm with consideration to current management and future design, e.g. beak trimming starts very narrow, progresses through some short-term management options, until it ends up being eliminated

The Social Aspects

The predominant species is a commercial crossbred – a Hyline Brown or an Isa Brown. These propriety breeds have been developed to maximise egg production within a shorter time and feed conversion. Some producers break up the monotony by mixing their brown hens with Isa Blacks. This may be motivated by the desire to vary the intensity of the brown coloured eggs. Then you have the producers using multi species. These tend to be smaller producers interested in more variation in egg colour and improved aesthetics within their flock. Some enthusiasts look at breeding heritage breeds to maintain heritage genetics. These tend to be niche poultry breeders, with some marketing the novelty of 

multi-coloured eggs. At the end you have the natural system with jungle fowl. These have developed their natural characteristics over hundreds of years.

Single sex flocks maximise the feed conversion to egg production, with no feed being fed to males. From a social, animal welfare prospective, males need to be included in the flock. Wild flocks have a 1:6-7 rooster ratio. Modern, small producer style farms work on a 1:15 ratio. This is possible because of the reduced stress from the decline of predators and the plentiful supply of feed.

Beak trimming is carried out by some commercial producers. It affects the hens’ ability to forage, peck and groom itself. It is deemed necessary to reduce aggressive behaviour such as cannibalism and feather pecking. Cannibalism and feather pecking are correlated to confined housing intensity and associated stress factors. Reducing this stress eliminates

the need to trim beaks. Ways to reduce stress/boredom include providing perches, dust baths and offering pecking alternatives.

The Feed

Commercial pellets are the typical feed choice for commercial egg producers. They are high in embedded energy, and food miles, and their ingredients are sourced from commodity crops grown with the use of agrochemicals. The benefits are in cost scale, reduced wastage and more consistent nutrient profile for the birds. They can be tailored to suit a farm’s particular requirements of protein, fibre, energy, and colour agent. Loose mash, seed mix are the next prominent feed style. There is often increased wastage and they allow selective feeding according to taste. They have lower embedded energy because they are less processed, but their component seeds are still sourced from commodity growers. The choice between pellet or loose mash seems to be a personal preference among producers

There are two consequences for when a producer elects to use these commercial, commodity feeds. These feeds mask any claims for ecological and environmental benefits, as they overlook any of their suppliers’ ecological concerns, and, second, they validate chemical driven and dependent production systems with its inherent issues. The term GM and GMO is for Genetically Modified Organism and has been abbreviated to soften the term and make it more marketable. It removes the blunter term, Genetically Engineered, which has far less marketable attributes. The marketing term transitioned from Genetically Engineered Organism, to GE, Genetically Modified Organism, GMO to the present term GM (a much softer, forgetful term).

Certified organic feed can be pellets or loose grains but, with the added positive of sourcing ingredients not grown with chemicals. There is some movement among smaller growers to grow their own feed, harvest it, store, and feed out over time. The system with less embedded energy grows their own feed within the grazing mix and along the grazing pathway with tree/shrubs producing varied seeds and leaf for feed. This system requires complete design planning to include insect habitat and diverse flora within the poultry pathway.

Systems growing their own feed can be deficient in methionine once the insect season has finished. Without methionine there is a significant reduction in egg production. Methionine level is an important aspect of commercial feeds. A deficiency can have such a considerable impact on egg production that there can be an allowance in certified organic feed to allow the inclusion of artificial methionine. Some growers incorporate worm farms to provide methionine at these times. These worm farms require feed themselves and use water, which could be scarce during hot/dry seasons. Worm farms require constant labour.

Diet determines the nutrient status of eggs. Caged birds have a typical, standard nutrient profile. When hens have access to pasture and sunlight there can be an increase in Omega-3 fatty acids (and a better Omega3:Omega6 ratio), vitamin D, and certain antioxidants. This is affected by season and pasture composition, which is attributed to improved soil management. To make any assumptions on nutrient density, it is necessary to determine the ratio of pasture sourced feed to commercial sourced feed. The less commercial feed added to the system will produce eggs of higher nutrient status. High productivity systems average at 70-80% of the diet being commercial, commodity feed.

Some high producing, pasture poultry producers estimate their hens harvest about 10% of their feed requirements from the pasture. That equates to almost 90% coming out of a bag. These are very general concepts and to make any claim regarding higher nutrient density, the eggs need to undergo objective testing, and the claim needs to outline the comparative product. It is meaningless to say, “I can jump higher,” without saying than who, (a two-year-old, an Olympian, my next-door neighbour!)

The Housing

Confusion exists within the pastured poultry growers. Most certifying agencies measure the number of birds within the electro netting area, regardless of number of shifts. This presents a much higher stocking rate number than when the number of moves is included, even though the physical rate may be the same. Including the number of moves is a popular method because of the perception of a much lower stocking rate. This offers certain marketing advantages.

                Internal aspects of housing vary according to the growers’ philosophies. Many commercial growers, and some pastured systems incorporate artificial lighting to prolong the laying period. Organic standards in Australia, USA, EU, UK and Canada, do not permit this. They emphasise the importance of natural lighting in animal welfare and mimicking the hens’ natural environment. There are many pastured systems incorporating electronic door systems to lock the birds in and release them next morning.

diameter perches according to the size of their feet. The social makeup of the flock calls for perches at different heights to allow for dominant birds.

The Husbandry

There are some extra issues identified with common, industrialised, poultry management. Commercial layers peak their production at around 18 months. It has been easier to breed a hen that will ovulate more often, than breed a hen with more eggs within her ovary. Commercial producers choose to off-load these spent hens and introduce new pullets to enable them to maintain their production levels. They have fostered an ever more popular, domestic market selling these old hens to backyard producers. Their productivity is adequate for this market, and many people feel they are rescuing spent hens at the same time they are getting a good deal. It could be viewed as a way of validating commercial production methods and paying high prices for a valueless product from a commercial viewpoint.

Ethicists debate the practice of slaughtering day-old males. Is it more ethical to slaughter at day-old, or grow out and slaughter them when they reach processing size? The common slaughtering at day-olds is an economic decision. Under pressure from some consumers and certification bodies, some countries are developing regulations to limit or ban this practice. Any other alternative requires economic input, be it added management, direct costs, time, or resource construction. Breeding dual purpose birds would give an extra income stream. This would also provide an alternative for spent females.

One of the elephants in the room is poultry vaccination. This topic requires a complete article of its own! You can be confident that commercial producers will be vaccinating their birds. Some birds are vaccinated at day-old. This presents the possibility that birds purchased as day olds may have been vaccinated. Other vaccinations get planned as the hens age. Vaccinations can be applied via injection, oral within their water, or sprayed. There are some very serious, infectious diseases that the hens may succumb to. This increases when kept at high stocking rates. Government regulations can decree culling for infected flocks and flocks within proximity. The level of vaccination applied decreases as you move to small, niche producers, especially those breeding their own replacement birds and providing increased space.

The management of poultry manure presents a range of actions. Poultry manure is high in macronutrients, in particular Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. The nitrogen can often be detected by the smell. Ammonia is released through volatilization as the ammonium component is broken down. This results in significant loss of the nitrogen portion and the ammonia is detrimental to the birds’ respiratory system, harmful to the environment and human health. If the manure is composted, the carbon, moisture and air combine to provide the energy to allow the ammonium component to be captured and made available for plants to take up and so not lost as ammonia gas. Composted manure is far more stable, and the compost process also reduces a variety of harmful pathogens and antibiotic residues.

If the manure is composted and then returned to the farms supplying the feed ingredients, there would be a tighter nutrient cycle and reduction in the ecological footprint of feed production. This presents logistical difficulties. The manure has a commercial value and can be on sold to other commercial, commodity farmers as fertiliser. Ethicists debate that this practice can be validation of poor design and husbandry within the industry.

If the manure is left to fall through the poultry caravan floors it increases the localised fertility. This increase in fertility comes from the feed that has been brought into the system. The rest of the fertility is from nutrient cycling within the system. If the system has grown the feed and captured nitrogen in legumes, there will be a net increase in soil nitrogen. This manure dumped on the pasture also decreases the Carbon:Nitrogen ratio in the soil and can lead to nutrient imbalances. This may produce an abundance of lush grass when it rains but can cause a carbon draw down as the soil biology consumes the existing soil carbon to process the excess nitrogen. This can lead to future soil degradation and reduced, long-term pasture quality.

One way of maximising the manure is to have a solid floor in the chicken caravan that you add carbon as straw, wood shavings etc. to capture and retain the ammonium. This carbon source can come from cleaning out any nest boxes. You can then harvest this valuable nutrient source and compost it. The resultant compost could be broadcast over the farm. A more productive solution is to value add the compost by using it to grow vegetables. Excess vegetables and scrap vegetables can then be fed direct to the hens. Thus, completing the nutrient cycle.

The Corollary

Reflecting on our earlier ecological definition of “best practice”, these analyses highlight the many aspects of commercial poultry production that are far from “best practice”. In fact, they underline that there is often a long way to go for any producer to reach ecological best practice.

Every producer manages different constraints on their production system. They could be, topography, climate, market, isolation, access to feed and supplies, etc. It is incumbent for each producer to navigate these issues within their own personal and business philosophies. It is improper for outsiders to pass judgement on individuals.

By far, the major acknowledged blocker in moving along the paradigm, closer to best practice is economics.

When discussing these paradigms there are common responses:

“I could not afford that.”

“There’s no money in doing it that way.”

“It takes too long.”

“I’m not going to be told what to do.”

“It will never pay itself off.”

“I don’t want to.”

“Certifications don’t work.”

These comments can all be broken down to costs. This leads to another paradigm, on economics.

Producers must determine where their business sits along the economic paradigm. From large commercial producers through to small hobby farm producers, the necessity for profits varies. All costs need to be factored into the business.

Even a hobby level producer needs to assess the costs involved. Without analysing the costs, the hobby producer undervalues their egg price. This can result in detrimental competition with farmers producing their livelihood. Selling a few, seasonal, surplus cartons of eggs, often without industry compliance, against a farmer selling eggs at a Farmers’ Market throughout the year is imbalanced marketing.

Best practice can be re-interpreted as, “best practice for me”. Each producer assesses their system and determines their personal priorities. This can be shown in its own paradigm.

It is up to individuals to apply self-reflection and make an honest appraisal to allow them to elect where “now” is, and how far they wish to go. It is also important is to recognise that, for a multitude of reasons, they may never get to the “best for poultry”. But it is important for all producers to respect what it may be.

An insight of ecological best practice can function as a conscience sitting on a producer’s shoulder as they make design and management decisions.

The Role of Certifications

There are strong, varied convictions and much misinformation around the differing certification options. The current situation allows individual producers to decide how far along the paradigm they sit and if they consider they are operating at best practice. Many depend on feedback from their consumers. However, many consumers are unaware of the deeper concepts that can be questioned. Many consumers just know what they are told by the producers they support. It has been suggested that claiming certification from your customers carries as much clout as being certified by your Mum and Dad. Unless you are transparent and encourage open and public discussion about your weaknesses as much as your strengths.

Like being around the Furphy Water Cart, consumers prefer to validate the production system that their spending dollar supports. This develops a deep correlation between the consumer belief and the producer belief.

Certifications offer a third-party assessment of the production system. Like producers, each certification body can be placed in distinct positions along each paradigm, contingent upon their specific standard. This causes confusion for both producers and consumers. The method for determining stocking rate is a good example. Added to this is the different stocking rates calculations that each certifier requires.

So, a certification presents evidence that the producer meets the certifier’s particular standard. It does not tell the producer how to farm. It highlights production attributes to the producer and acknowledges the producer is farming within the standard they have signed up for. It allows consumers to do due diligence and confirm if that standard fits with their personal ethics. It offers a level of confidence in their purchase decisions.

The certifier does not impose rules to farm by. Farmers select a certifing body that aligns with their farming philosophy and they impose the rules on themselves and the auditor comes to inspect and verify that the farmer is abiding by those rules.

It is not always about attracting a premium price. Many farmers get certified as a way to demonstrate to the wider community the possibilities of ethical food production.

It must be acknowledged that certification systems can be/are rorted. This is inevitable when you have large national systems mapped against each other and all dependent on economic viability. However, it is also important to be watchful of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Is it acceptable to malign all certification systems because someone has violated their own integrity?

“Certifications don’t work! I know someone that does blah, blah, blah, and they get away with it and they’re still certified!” Negativity does not encourage positive outcomes. How often are these claims backed up with detail? What percentage of producers are employing this particular activity? A positive question is, “How many producers are going above and beyond the standard to ensure ethical production for their consumers?”

That is akin to abolishing all vehicle speed restrictions because someone has been caught speeding.

“Speed restrictions don’t work! I always speed and I never get caught and I’ve never had an accident.”

Certification systems give producers somewhere to start a specific conversation with consumers to explain their ethics. Producers can educate their consumers in how they plan to improve their practices or explain why they are remaining static. Without certification producers can start anywhere.

Perhaps an issue with certifications is their ability to highlight to producers where they need to improve their practices. This should not be an issue. Producers should be proud, eager and excited for a certification auditor to audit their farm to prove their compliance.

Participatory Guarantee Systems

There is one special form of certification that deserves clarification. Since 2004, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, IFOAM, has encouraged and supported Participatory Guarantee Systems, PGS. These PGS are oriented towards small organic farmers in developing countries selling locally and direct to consumers. They aim to achieve organic certification and gain  access to organic market sector. They are promoted as affordable alternatives to third party certifications, especially for lower income farmers.

They have a focus on local producers with local knowledge and can involve the whole market chain. There is much trust in active community participation where members combine to certify other participating members. A local advisory board determines the local process. Often more than one member will conduct the audit. The audit tends to be based on the IFOAM standards with local variations. This aims to improve the consistancy in audits and build a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange. The PGS allows increased access to organic products to local consumers by encouraging direct to consumer sales.

The Finish

After investigating this topic, it becomes obvious that there are many small/medium egg producers, operating a pastured egg system, which have scaled down the commercial, commodity paradigm and made changes such as including time for the birds to be on pasture. This is a great step forward for the birds and the farm ecosystem. But, can they step further?

From a psychological perspective, this investigation into the different paradigms within egg production systems demonstrates “Belief Perseverance.” This maintains an individual’s biased reaction to knowledge in order to preserve an existing belief or conception (Jelalian, E. and Miller, A. G. 2011). This can be based on their emotional investment in their current outlook and can result in critical viewpoints towards any conflicting information.

“Belief Perseverance” was evident as the soldiers gathered around the Furphy water carts and talked about how their actions were helping the war effort.

Many new producers show belief in the existing commercial production system. They are then guided by other, recent producers to meld and make enough system alterations to enable them to share their belief that they have proceeded along the paradigm. There develops a group of producers that share a persevered belief in their management systems. An upside of this is it allows new producers to leapfrog ahead in their systems. It eases their learning curve.

Social media presents as a broad platform to depict and support this belief. Social media also presents a platform to disseminate a myriad of anecdotal scenarios without any credible backstory.

“My grandmother’s neighbour’s nephew fed XYZ to their hens and egg production went up 300%.”

“Wow! I’m going to do that then!”

“But, that doesn’t make sense. XYZ contains HIJ and that is bad for hens”

“What would you know? You are just knocking it because you feed ABC and don’t have any XYZ. I’m going to use XYZ too.”

If we look at a Farmers’ Market example, the customer has an existing belief regarding the quality, production system, ethics of the producer. People that do not share concern for this belief do not attend Farmers’ Markets. That demographic tend to shop at the mass production supermarkets. The Farmers’ Market producers also share their customers’ convictions. The conversations between the consumer and the producer preserve their shared belief. As Jelalian and Miller point out, “people search for and recollect information that is consistent with an existing belief or impression.” It follows that there is no rigorous exploration to expand this belief, and all concerned remain content with the status quo, a case of intellectual inertia.

In the case of commercial, commodity production, the belief perseverance is demonstrated in the “strategic avoidance of diagnostic behaviours ………… and the negative effects of deception in research” (Jelalian, E. and Miller, A. G. 2011). Again, we have the situation of static development and contentment with the status quo.

The development of Farmers’ Markets initiated a forward-thinking momentum, and many people moved their rationale towards ethical production. Over time, the pendulum has slowed and swung less from the mean. It takes another source of energy to excite this equilibrium position and renew the momentum. This energy will emanate from either the consumer or the producer initiating deeper questions and explanations of how to move closer to the concept of “best practice.” I have seen this energy excite customers as they walk away from our market stall ready to pass on their new knowledge to their friends and family sitting at their dinner table, sharing our food and our story.

So, when a producer tells you they follow best practice, is that their best practice, best practice via a certification system, ecological best practice, or does it have any meaning at all? Are they promoting a new normalcy and camaraderie with the building of communal bonds? Are they reducing the buyers’ stress of making uncertain, ethical purchases and providing some significance to the purchase? Are they standing around a water cart? With utmost sincerity, they may be telling you a Furphy!