The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is inviting comment on an application from the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd for a new high density standard for free range egg production.

The Australian Egg Corp. has made an application to register a certification trade mark. The application includes amendments to the Farm Standards for Egg Producers.

Among the things being considered by the ACCC are that:
the  new standard would not be to the detriment of the public (the pubic detriment test); and
would be satisfactory having regard to the principles relating to restrictive trade practices in Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the principles relating to unconscionable conduct (Part2-2), unfair practices (Part 3-1), and safety of consumer goods and product related services (Part 3-3) in Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) of the Competition and  Consumer Act 2010 (the trade practices test)

Submissions are required by 20th June 2012 and can be lodged by email to adjudication@accc.gov.au
We urge anyone who is interested to send a submission to the ACCC.

This is an interesting action by the ACCC. It deals with olive oil wrongly labelled as 'extra virgin' but it could be great precedent for us in the egg industry.
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1053067/fromItemId/142
 
If it was deceptive to label the oil as 'extra virgin' surely it is just as deceptive to label intensively produced eggs as 'free range'. The ACCC acknowledges that there is no legislated definition of the  term 'extra virgin' but there was a consumer expectation. Seems to us to be  the  same issue !!!

In the latest Egg Corp Eggstra Eggstra magazine, James Kellaway says in his Managing Director's Report that egg inventory levels  have 'blown out' to 4 - 5 days supply rather than the 'more  comfortable' 2 - 3 days. This has created downward pressure on prices. He said  "Some suppliers have increased their production by more than 20% on average each  year .... any egg supplier who has grown their egg production by more than 5%  each year over the last three years has contributed to this problem and needs to act by bringing their production back into line with market  demand.

Some in the industry are likely to take a dim view  of Kellaway telling them what to do. And anyway if there is an oversupply, what's all his nonsense about having to import eggs if the Egg Corp doesn't manage to push through its intensive stocking standard.

Kellaway also claims that the Egg Corp will seek  international accreditation for its new Egg Standards Australia QA program,  which elsewhere in the publication is said to be 'edging closer'. AECL has  missed every deadline it has set for introducing the new standard and there is no reason to suspect that it will be able to do so any time soon.  
 
We note that as part of a producer profile in the  latest AECL issue of the Eggstra Eggstra  magazine, Steven Pavlides of Golden  Free Range Eggs in Acton Park, Tasmania (10,000 hens) says that their biggest challenge is "competing against the increase in cheap free range eggs produced  from free range farms that are supported by cage farm systems that are able to  produce their eggs cheaper."

"From an environmental point of view, we think AECL  should encourage producers to minimise food miles, as from our knowlege, eggs  are going interstate from both directions. Customers should be encouraged to support their local farmers and especially those that use one type of production  system," he said.
As an Association representing genuine free range farmers we fully support those views and we repeat that AECL has no interest in supporting or representing the free range sector of the egg indstry. Its sole focus is on the corporate sector which controls the direction and operation of the Egg Corporation.

The latest research on stocking densities on free range egg farms by Phil Glatz and Tanya Nagle, confirms the knowledge of free range farmers across Australia that low stocking densities, good pasture and adequate shelter are pre-requisites for a well managed farm.
Here are some of their findings:

 Free range paddocks that are provided with a large variety of enrichment facilities appear to encourage more frequent use of  these facilities. Hens prefer ranging in areas with trees and will either stay close to the house, or seek tree cover. This supports the current findings where  a greater number of birds ranged outside when provided with shade or shelter  belts.

Free range farmers are encouraged to  provide  pasture, shaded areas and shelterbelts to attract birds into the free range.

On typical free range eggs farms with well managed pastures, adequate trees and shrubs for shelter and stocking densities which meet the established standard of  less than the 1500 hens per hectare, hens range widely, often hundreds of metres from their shed and there is little, if  any, aggression which is a result of overcrowding on intensive operations.   Consequently it is unnecessary for hens on free range farms to be beak trimmed.

The full  paper can seen here

In its latest Budget, the Tasmanian Govrnment has announced that no new cage egg farms will be allowed in the State, and it is reviewing standards for free range production.

The Australian ran a story today on opposition by RSPCA to the Egg Corporation's high density proposal. It acceptsan increase in stocking density frm 1500 to 2500 per hectare - stupid move, but that's the RSPCA !
The article includes a photo of FRFA member Vesa Luketic on her Myrniong farm and some comments.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/rspca-steps-into-free-range-egg-row/story-e6frg6nf-1226356715868

If you are looking for a feed mixer and hammermill, Home on The Range Free Range Eggs at Myrniong  have a New Holland 353 Mixall and hammer mill in good condition. Price is $10.500.  Full details at:   http://www.farmmachinerysales.com.au/buy/details.aspx?R=12437619

The latest article in the Sydney Morning Herald and other Fairfax newspapers shows just how desperate the AECL has become. It doesn't deny that it falely claimed that Scottish research supported its high density 'free range' stocking levels (even though that research was conducted in pens in a windowless room) but it says that research was only one part of the material it used to come up with its plans.
OK James Kellaway, tell us all what other research supports your proposal - is it just as shonky as your Scottish claims?
The issues will now be raised in Federal Parliament and it's about time that Minister Joe Ludwig took some action to stop this nonsense which threatens family farms across Australia. 
Details: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/scare-tactics-greens-hit-out-over-free-range-eggs-plan-20120505-1y5ff.html

The Scottish Agricultural College has denied claims by the Australian Egg Corporation that its research backs Egg Corp plans for free range stocking densities to be lifted to 20,000 hens per hectare.
Dr Victoria Sandilands, head of the SAC's Avian Science Research Centre says: “If AECL think that 20,000 hens/hectare is acceptable outdoors, then it would be too far a stretch to say this is based on our work. This alteration would need considerable research on what is acceptable outdoors to back it up. 
You can read the full research paper here.

Members of the Free Range Egg & Poultry Assocation of Australia have commented on most of the points raised by the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd in its so called 'FACT SHEET' on free range egg production. Have a look at the comments here: 

South Australian free range egg producers don't want to accept the stocking density standards proposed by the Australian Egg Corporation. They have demanded different free range egg definitions for different density farms.

The South Australian Farmers Federation poultry committee wants free range eggs to be defined as eggs produced on a farm with 1500 chooks
per hectare or less.

But it says farms with between 1500 and 5000 chooks per hectare should have to market eggs as medium density free range and producers
with between 5000 and 10,000 chooks per hectare should be required to market their eggs as high density free range.

If adopted, this will complicate labelling for consumers. It would have been better if the SA egg farmers had voted to back the Bill presented to Parliament by Michael Pengilly, limiting the 'free range' tag to eggs produced on farms with a maximum stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare. Now, the SA Government will probably vote down the Pengilly Bill and then do nothing - which is what the Egg Corp wants. 

Chairman John Rohde says the committee will lobby the South Australian State Government and the Egg Corporation.

An article in Brisbane's Courier Mail pulls the Egg Corporation's aguments apart. It points out that Queensland has regulated a 1500 hens per hectare stocking density for years - and it hasn't hurt Queensland producers or increased egg prices for consumers.
Read it all at:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/cagey-labelling-is-egg-in-our-face/story-e6frerdf-1226332053641

Here's an article published by Ausfoodnews, which demonstrates what they think about the Australian Egg Corporation:
Almost a third of eggs labelled as “free range” in Australia are produced in conditions that breach the egg industry’s own regulations, according to new figures published by the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL).

A media statement published on the AECL’s website states that 29 per cent of free range egg production in Australia is sourced from farms that stock free
range hens at densities greater than two birds per square metre (20,000 per hectare).

However, the current Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals only allows for a maximum of 1,500 hens per hectare (but states “any higher bird 
density is acceptable only where regular rotation of birds onto fresh range areas occurs and close management is undertaken which provides some continuing fodder cover”).

The AECL said it does not consider this to be appropriate and that it wishes to draw a ‘line in the sand’ at a “responsible and transparent maximum outdoor
or range density”.

The AECL believes the free range outdoor stocking density cap should be lifted 20,000 hens per hectare to meet growing consumer demand.

When the current version of the Code was approved by the Primary Industries  Ministerial Council in 2002, it was scheduled for review in 2010.

The AECL’s statement said, “AECL believes there is no economic, scientific or consumer research supporting or justifying the suggested density of 1,500 hens per hectare. This figure was created in 2001 at a time when the free range egg  market was in its infancy (8 per cent market share in 2001) compared to the growth it is experiencing today (25 per cent market share in 2011) and therefore does not represent the reality of the market today and into the future.”

Free Range Farmers criticise AECL plea to lift cap

The AECL’s call to lift the cap on stocking densities has been met with criticism from the Free Range Farmers Association (FRFA), a not-for-profit group
of commercial egg farmers operating in the State of Victoria.

The FRFA promotes a stocking density limit of 750 hens per hectare for eggs to qualify as “free range”.

A statement from the FRFA said, “The FRFA believes that it is essential for the free range sector of the egg industry to ensure that the AECL is not
successful with its plans for intensive production standards to be adopted in place of the extensive requirements of the current code.”

This got the free range message across on ABC TV, and the story was run on ABC Newsradio and other ABC services. We had follow-up interviews as a result in NSW, Canberra, Brisbane and Darwin. Parts of it were run the followng morning when James Kellaway, the Egg Corp's Managing Director tried to hose the problem down with his usual spin.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-16/free-range-definition-to-rise/3952190

Brian Ahmed, President of the VFF Egg Group and Tim Drew, the group's Treasurer, both feature in an article in today's Weekly Times.  Have a good read at: 
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/04/11/467871_latest-news.html

The fight is looking pretty good in South Australia. State Agriculture Minister, Gail Gago has said that a stocking  density of 20,000 chickens per hectare is “out of touch wth public expectations”. 

Here's the full report from the Adelaide Advertiser: 
Egg producers will only be able to claim their product is "free range" if their farm keeps no more than 1500 hens per hectare, under proposed South Australian legislation.

Greens MP Tammy Franks and Liberal MP Michael Pengilly have joined forces to introduce the law which would lower the number of chickens per hectare to the accepted RSPCA standard.

"The intention of this Bill is to crack down on shonky egg producers that defraud or mislead consumers by incorrectly labelling eggs that are not free range," Ms Franks said. -The Australian Egg Corporation currently sets an industry standard for freerange farms of up to 20,000 hens per hectare.

Ms Franks said farming at such density meant chickens were unable to behave naturally or spread their wings and often fought each other.

Agriculture Minister Gail Gago labelled 20,000 hens per hectare "out of touch with public expectations".

"Most members of the public  baulk at that, the thought of 20,000 hens per hectare being considered free range," she said.

While her preference would be for a better industry standard, Ms Gago said the Government would consider "what might be the best model" without disadvantaging SA markets.

Early last month the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission began legal action in the Federal Court against the owner of Rosie’s Free Range Eggs for allegedly selling cage eggs.

The eggs had been supplied to retail outlets. bakeries. cafes and restaurants. However, the ACCC’s allegations do not relate to free-range eggs that were supplied by Ms Bruhn at the farmgate or at the Adelaide Showgrounds  Farmers Market.

Rhode’s Free Range Eggs farmer and SA Farmers Federation poultry spokesman John Rhode said he farmed about 40,000 birds, letting them roam at the 1500 per hectare standard. -He said the public was being "conned" by  producers farming at much higher densities but still charging for a "free-range"  product. "It’s the consumer who’s being taken for a ride." he said.

 Go Adelaide!!!!!

A review of the Code is overdue. When the current version was approved by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council and printed in 2002, it was scheduled for review in 2010. It was a development of the earlier Model Code.Given that there are now moves for a review to be undertaken, it is essential for the free range sector of the egg industry to ensure that the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd. is not successful with its plans for intensive production standards to be adopted in place of the extensive requirements of the current code.

There has been no scientific review of production processes which demontrates that the standards contained within the current Model Code are no
longer applicable to the industry. The stocking rate of 1500 hens per hectare was developed by applying some well established principles of agronomy.The issue of the upper limit on the long term stocking rate was debated strongly and there was pressure from local Councils and the EPA about how some farms were operating.

The experience of people who had farmed free range layers in the 1950’s and 60's, when egg production was based on free range hens mainly run under citrus trees, was that the stocking rate had to be low-less than 300 birds/acre (750/hectare). It was agreed that system should be regarded as Free Range egg production and the hens were to have access to the range during daylight hours. There was some dispute by the new entrants to the industry who believed that they could design pasture rotation systems around their sheds that would allow higher rates.

So it was decided to take an empirical approach and work out what the maximum stocking rate could be to avoid the measurable negative impacts of nutrient runoff and soil degradation and still be theortically possible to maintain pasture cover and avoid the issue of dust.

The dairy industry was very big then and the local agronomists had data on the effects of applying very high rates of poultry manure on irrigated pasture. The agronomists supplied the data on the maximum nutrient up take a well maintained irrigated pasture could support and also avoid the problems of salinity build up observed in the dairy pastures.The stocking rate was calculated and a stocking density at about 500 birds per acre was regarded as the maximum possible for long term sustainability.

Some may try to argue that if the birds are locked in for part of the day or the shed design is such that only a portion of the hens go on to the range the impact is less. Those systems are not regarded as free range and at the time everyone accepted that to maintain consumer credibility, visitors or passers-by
had to see the birds out and about.
There is no valid management need to lock in the layers in the morning or during inclement  weather and that was accepted at the time.

A campaign to put an end to battery-hen egg production in Australia begins today, with Animals Australia targeting supermarkets and asking consumers
to boycott non free range eggs.
A series of radio advertisements, voiced by the singer Missy Higgins, pointsout that all 27 member countries of the European Union have outlawed
practices that are still the norm in Australia.
The only problem with this plan (if it works) is that the major egg producers will simply re-label their intensively produced eggs as 'free range'.
Here's the article by Ben Cubby which appearsin today's Age, SMH and other Fairfax newspapers:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/campaign-to-ban-eggs-from-battery-farms-20120401-1w6im.html
and here'sthe link to the commercial:
https://animalsaustralia.qnetau.com/radio/make-the-battery-cage-history/

Liberal MP Michael Pengilly introduced a Bill to the South Australian Parliament this week to limit the stocking density of hens on free range farms to a maximum of 1500 hens per hectare.
If the Bill is passed, it will put an end to AECL's plans for intensive production systems to be labelled as 'free range'. No doubt the lobbying and bullying has already started !!
Queensland already has regulations in place limiting stocking density to 1500 hens per hectare.
Read the Bill at:
http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/B/CURRENT/FOOD%20(LABELLING%20OF%20FREE-RANGE%20EGGS)%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202012_MICHAEL%20PENGILLY%20MP/B_AS%20INTRODUCED%20IN%20HA/FOOD%20EGGS%20AMENDMENT%20BILL%202012.UN.PDF

Here is the line we will be taking at the Australian Egg Corporation's forum in Sydney next Wednesday into re-writing the Model Code:
The 4th Edition of The Model Code continues to provide an excellent framework for management practices within the egg industry.
We believe that key elements of the Model Code - no beak trimming of hens (except when other methods of eliminating problems of aggression
and cannibalism within flocks have been tried and failed), and a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare are clearly established as acceptable benchmarks for the commercial production of eggs to be labelled as 'free range'.
No scientific evidence has been produced to demonstrate that any change is required to the provisions of The Model Code which were produced by consensus between the industry, regulators and animal welfare groups, based on best practice within the egg industry.
It is disturbing that AECL has chosen to damage the integrity of the industry and bring the reputation of egg producers into disrepute by promoting a sham production system.

More info from FRFA 

Here;s the latest on ABC radio about what's happening in Western Australia:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2012/s3464134.htm

A new study has cast doubt over whether free-range hens are happier and more stress-free than their caged counterparts.

Research funded by the Australian Egg Corporation has looked at the stress  hormone levels in eggs produced at a dozen farms.

But the Free Range industry group has criticised the study, saying it is part of a push to change the classification of free range.

Dr Jeff Downing, from the University of Sydney, tested eggs from different farms across New South Wales over 12 weeks.

"What I found is that there was no difference between the different production systems," he said.

"But the interesting thing is there is a great deal of variation between individual farms using any particular production system.

"So it indicates to me that the challenges and the environment the hens are in on a particular farm probably has more influence on the stress levels they
experience, rather than the type of production system they are in."

Dr Downing says stress levels were elevated in several situations across all three types of farms.

"This hormone is triggered by neural triggers, so the hen is challenged and the neural triggers are things like fear, anxiety, pain, and they trigger this
hormone. So as these challenges increase, then the levels of this hormone increase," he said.

He says his research makes it a little more complicated for consumers to pick eggs at the supermarket.

"As a consumer, and I go and select eggs based on the production system, I don't think that gives me any guarantee that those hens have experienced less
stress than those in another production system," he said.

 "It's really what's happening on the individual farm that's probably more influential on the stress levels that they experience."

'Poor measure'

However RSPCA scientific officer Melina Tensen says the method used to test  whether hens were stressed is flawed.

"Corticosterone is a poor measure of animal welfare. It sort of goes up and down during the day and it really depends on all sorts of things in the bird's
environment," she said.

"You could see corticosterone as a level of excitement, either positive or negative, and if it's positive excitement, obviously the bird could be having
fun, and if it's negative excitement, then obviously the bird is stressed.

"The overwhelming research looking at the welfare of birds in cages suggests that the hens definitely suffer in a caged environment."

The Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia's president, Phil  Westwood, has also cast doubts on the study.

He says the so-called free-range farms visited in Dr Downing's study were in  fact not a true classification of free range.

"I don't disagree that probably the farm management has more importance than the actual production type; a well-managed farm is likely to have lower stress levels in the chooks," he said.

"But what this research doesn't show is that almost certainly the free range farms that were selected to take part in this study were actually intensive
farms, so they wouldn't be farms that most consumers would regard as actually free range.

"They're running birds of maybe 20,000-30,000 birds per hectare. That is not a free range farm.

Mr Westwood says a free-range farm that meets the model code requirement has 1,500 birds per hectare.

"That allows the birds to display their normal behaviour practices. They can  do the things that a chook normally does and they're not de-beaked or beak
trimmed," he said.

Mr Westwood says the Egg Corporation is trying to change standards to allow 20,000 birds per hectare to be classified as free range.

Nobody from the Egg Corporation was available to talk to The World Today, however, a spokesman said the research is solid and it is unfortunate some are
trying to politicise it.

A University of Sydney statement confirms Dr Downing's research received funding from the Australian Egg Corporation.

But it says he carried out his research independently and the report was reviewed by independent, external  referees.

Last week Humane Choice represented free range producers as a member of the Egg Labelling Forum facilitated by the NSW Food Authority on behalf of the NSW Minister of Agriculture, Katrina Hodgkinson.

The purpose of the Forum  is to attempt to resolve long standing difficulties with egg labelling," in  particular the inconsistent use of terms on eggs to which a premium is  applied."

The forum is to provide advice to the Minister to determine whether a non-regulatory approached is feasible.

The scope of discussion is Truth in Labelling but animal welfare, the environment and food safety or  production systems are NOT  within the scope of this discussion.

With all our important issues excluded from the discussions, what exactly are we left with that will enable us to provide truth in labelling to the  consumer?

We already have in place an industry QA system that does not work and has demonstrated that it does not support the true free range producer.  Industry seems incapable of self regulation when it comes to labelling issues.

Are we in support of a proposal of QA systems that are able to make any claims as long as there is a 3rd party auditing system in place?  That do not address animal welfare or the environment to our current codes of practice and guidelines?

Do we support the Egg Labelling Bill that will see the code of practice enforced instead?

I am looking for your input.  I would like to hear from you well before our next meeting of the  Forum to ensure we are all heading in the same direction.
Lee McCosker
humanechoice@bigpond.com   or  call  0265627318 

Here's an example of more research by the industry designed to show that there is no difference between egg production systems.
 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/freerange-no-winner-over-inside-scramble-20120322-1vmx9.html

LEADING animal rights group Animals Australia is set to launch a massive new campaign targeting the "cruel" intensive farming of pigs and chickens.

It wants all battery farming of caged chickens outlawed and the intensive farming of pigs confined in small pens on "factory farms" banned.
    
Consumers will be encouraged to reduce their meat consumption or switch to free-range eggs, chicken, pork, ham and bacon.   
Animals Australia revealed yesterday that after the success of its campaign last year highlighting the cruelty involved in live cattle exports to Indonesia, it was preparing "its most ambitious campaign ever undertaken". The six-month media campaign leading up to Christmas will bombard consumers with shocking images of pigs and chickens kept in large indoor sheds and cages.   
"Our investigation in Indonesia last year proved that Australians are appalled by animal cruelty and that’s why we believe that when they are informed about the cruelty of factory farming, they will have a similar response," Animals Australia said yesterday.
    
About 60 per cent of all eggs eaten in Australia are laid by caged or battery-farmed birds, while 35 per cent are sold as freerange eggs. Most chicken
meat and almost all pork and bacon products come from intensive or so-called  factory farms.   
Animals Australia campaign director Lyn White said Australians should be eating less meat, both for their health and because of animal welfare concerns. She said she hoped the campaign would end Australians’  ignorance of how their daily food was produced.

She also hoped battery or caged farming of chickens would be banned in Australia, as it had been in all 27 European countries since January.

 "When people realise cheaper equals crueller and that it is animals that are paying the price, we are confident they will be prepared to pay more, choose free-range products, reduce their meat consumption or even become vegetarians," she said.

But Victorian egg farmer Brian Ahmed said Animals Australia had it wrong. Mr Ahmed said egg-laying chickens kept in his intensive sheds on his Werribee farm were healthier and safer, and their eggs cleaner and safer to eat, than when his family had a free-range egg farm.

 "It really concerns me this type of tactic will threaten people’s livelihoods and businesses as well as the availability of more affordable eggs for the consumer," Mr Ahmed said. 

The big issue here is that most of the eggs on supermarket shelves which are labelled as 'free range' don't meet consumer expections for free range standards.  And that will get even worse if the Australian Egg Corporation succeeds in pushing through its new intensive standard for free range egg production which will allow stocking rates of up to 20,000 hens per hectare and the beak trimming of birds.   

A group of UK free-range egg producers have raised concerns about the declining state of the British egg industry.
According to awareness group ‘Egg Producers Together’, the recent reported shortage of UK egg supply continues to cause concerns amongst key decision makers in the food industry and had led to a great deal of frustration from retail egg buyers.
Ian Chisholm, a free-range  egg farmer and spokesman for Egg Producers Together, representing a number of UK  egg producers says their concerns feature on the advertising campaign by the British Egg Industry emphasising the legality of UK egg production with the run up to the ban on the battery cage eggs that was supposed to be implemented across EU states from January 1, 2012.
Mr Chisholm says: ‘The Lion advertising campaign focused on the fact that buying British egg was the only assurance of being legal, ethical and safe. Buyers have subsequently concentrated on sourcing British Lion egg only to find that there is an acute shortage and that Lion supply has not geared itself for the corresponding demand. By not acting responsibly, buyers accuse the Lion suppliers of failing to meet the requirements of the British food industry and letting customers down’.
Egg Producers Together says that this criticism has been compounded by the fact that the food industry may now need to import product to meet demand
and that there are reports of egg being imported from the USA where welfare standards are very different to those in the EU with egg being produced in
systems that would be considered by many animal welfare groups as wholly unacceptable.
Mr Ian Chisholm continues: ‘This situation is totally unacceptable, and we feel that the management of the British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) have yet again let the industry down, by failing to plan effectively and work with UK producers to help promote British Lion Egg. In doing this, they have undermined our position, caused a great deal of mistrust with our buyers and damaged our route to market and how we sell our product. UK buyers will be forced to look elsewhere for supply from those with lower welfare standards and cheap production costs and British producers will lose out on adding any value as we miss potential sales and better prices. In our view the BEIC has failed the British Egg Producer and has only succeeded in protecting the interests of the few bigger packers helping them to secure their existing customer base at the expense of a wider UK market. In effect they have succeeded in doing the very thing they would have us believe they were working against, the import of inferior, illegal cheap eggs, while many British Egg Producers are still facing the daily threat of bankruptcy ‘.
Egg Producers Together have launched an online forum to protest against current threats to the UK egg  industry at www.eggproducerstogether.co.uk
Here, the Australian Egg Corporation has been working against the interests of the free ramge sector of the egg industry, and playing into the hands of the major supermarkets whose agenda is to depress returns to producers.

Here's a link to a grader if anyone is interested.  Only problem is that it's in NSW !!
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140726553553&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:AU:1123

Sun City News, Page: 10
Thursday, 15 March 2012

In response to Katy Dillion’s letter about free range eggs - Will she be willing to pay $10 per dozen for her free range eggs? Take a farm that has 20,000 egg layers, you  would need at least 400 hectares with roof covered. 2.2 high fence, otherwise pastures would be denuded, crows taking eggs, eagles taking chooks, not to mention foxes, snakes, racehorse goannas. etc - The smell from this would be offensive, Twelve months and the lot would need to be relocated and this would have 10 to 20cm of chook manure over the 400 hectares.
The eggs would have Ecoli, chooks would die with no grass to eat. It would take 30-40 people to collect the eggs as 20,000 chooks free range on 400 hectares laying their eggs wherever.

Does this person, and all the other animal liberators and greenies, who think they know what’s best for animals and poultry think this is
a favourable situation? My history is such that I grew up on a small mixed farm with one brother and four sisters.

We had ten acres with a dam in the centre and we reared a number of pigs, feeding them in the open on a big flat rock any aged animals that died got fed to the pigs.

These measures were taken because there were no front end loaders to dig holes.

It was necessary to put a ring in their nose to stop them digging in the ground.

The problems with free range chooks, pigs, etc are mange, lice, sunburn, Stickfast fleas, these have to be sprayed with chemicals, not
available today.

Do you want to go back to the good old days’ or do you agree that the best thing for animals and chooks is to have them in environmental sheds where their welfare is considered of importance.
   
Cec Campbell, Wanerie.
This is the mentality of the clowns we are dealing with - God help us.

The NSW Food Authority proposes that QA systems be registered with and approved by them. They will then be promoted on their website and literature sent out to all licensed food outlets.
While the Food Authority will endorse QA systems and inspect farms, they don’t intend to make QA mandatory at this point.

If the NSW Food Authority will allow any standard as long as it has an audit process, it will be relatively meaningless for consumers –just the same as now.

It is not known if they propose that allegg sellers will be covered or is there a cut off point which will allow some to slip through the compliance net.

Consumers will still be seriously misled unless the various  standards accepted as relating to free range production are underpinned by the Model Code as the over-riding basis for those standards.

But the Food Authority believes that the code of practice is “inappropriate as a regulatory tool”.

Basically, anyone can come up with a standard.  As long as it can be audited and verified as meeting the requirements of that standard and it meets food
safety regs – the Food Authority will endorse it but they won’t make QA mandatory at this point.

 What is any different to the system we already have?

The decision by NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson to arrange a forum to discuss problems with egg labelling, is a great indication that the Government believes that consumers are being conned

At a forum being held in Sydney today, the NSW Food Authority is hearing from eggs producers, Australian Egg Corporation staff, and retailers. One of the topics on the agenda is ‘Truth in Labelling’.

The Australian Egg Corporation has acknowledged that currently some eggs producers who label their eggs as ‘free range’ are intensive farms with outdoor stocking densities of 40,000 hens per hectare.

Its answer to that problem is to introduce a new standard which allows a stocking density of up to 20,000 birds per hectare when the current level accepted by free range farmers across Australia is a maximum stocking rate of 1500 birds per hectare.

Clearly, the Australian Egg Corporation has turned its back on free range farmers despite its claims to represent all industry sectors.

The Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australia, will again urge the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Joe Ludwig, to amend funding arrangements for the Egg Corporation to allow levy monies paid by free range producers to be used for the promotion of free range eggs. Currently all monies raised by levies on replacement chicks is handed over to the Australian Egg Corporation.

The NSWstate government has weighed into the debate on the inconsistent definition of freerange eggs and has convened a meeting of egg producers tomorrow in an attempt to resolve the long-running dispute over how eggs should be labelled.

It comes as theAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission launched Federal Court action against a South Australian producer who was selling her eggs as free range, despite most of the eggs being laid by caged hens.

The Australian Egg Corporation, which represents most commercial egg producers, has angered free-range producers and animal welfare groups with its proposed standard to allow a free-range egg farm to run20,000 chickens per hectare.

The present code, which is not legally enforceable, allows 1500 chickens per hectare.

A spokeswoman for the NSW FoodAuthority, which organised the meeting at the request of the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, said it had concerns about "truth in labelling" and inconsistent terms.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/plan-hatched-to-crack-row-over-egg-labelling-20120311-1usdz.html

NORTHERN Ireland is already showing signs of an egg shortage as a result of the EU’s Welfare of Laying Hens Directive, the Ulster Farmers’ Union has
warned. 
UFU poultry chairman John McLenaghan said up to 15 per cent of producers had been forced out of business by the ban on conventional cages. The resulting shortage of eggs needed to be matched by a further increase in egg prices, he said.  

“While we welcome the improvements in welfare, the Directive which placed an overnight ban on traditional hen colonies as of January 1, 2012 has meant that in order to stay in business many egg producers had to invest heavily in the new enriched colonies,” he said.  

“Unfortunately, the cost of complying with the Directive and the way in which it was implemented forced an estimated 10 to 15 per cent  of our producers out
of business. This has resulted in a tightening of egg supplies and a rise in the price of eggs.”

He said the current rise in price was a reflection of this change in the market and stressed that producers have been operating below the cost of
production for a number of years.

“In the past 30 years, the increase in price paid to producers has come no where near matching the rate of inflation nor the steady rise of input costs.
The UFU is encouraging all players in the supply chain to be strong sellers to help recoup the losses of recent years,” he said.

He added that supermarkets needed to be ‘prepared to pay a fair price if they want to maintain their supply base of quality eggs produced to the highest
welfare standards in the world they must’.He added that countries across the EU are in short supply of shelled eggs.
“Ultimately, this means that supermarkets, the catering industry, and processors will find it increasingly difficult to look elsewhere to source the high
quality, welfare friendly eggs consumers’ demand,” he said.

“The reality is that egg producers need a sustained period of strong market prices to offset the huge investment that they have made to comply with the EU’s
Directive on welfare standards.”

Earlier this week, NFU poultry board chairman Charles Bourns has called on the supply chain to recognise the ‘seismic shift’ that is taking place right now
in the egg market and to ensure that the British free range egg industry retains its ability to invest in the future.

“British egg producers have made genuine financial and professional commitments to delivering what consumers want in terms of higher welfare egg
production. Now is the time to see those commitments repaid by the rest of the supply chain,” he said.

“Retailers in particular need to think about the long term security and future supply of British free range eggs and avoid the risk of irreparable
damage being done to the free range egg supply base by not getting the market signals right now.”

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Ms Rosemary Bruhn, who trades as Rosie's Free Range  Eggs.

The ACCC alleges that from March 2007 to October 2010, Ms Bruhn represented that eggs she supplied to business customers including 117 customers in South  Australia such as retail outlets, bakeries, cafes and restaurants, were free range eggs when a substantial proportion of the eggs were not free range but cage eggs.

The ACCC alleges that such conduct contravened section 55 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (now known as the Competition and Consumer Act  2010).

 The ACCC is seeking:

• a declaration that Ms Bruhn contravened the Trade Practices Act
  
• an injunction in relation to engaging in similar conduct in the future
  
• an order for a corrective notice
  
• an order for Ms Bruhn to write to affected customers advising them of the
    outcome of the proceedings
  
• an order for Ms Bruhn to attend compliance training
  
• penalties, and
  
• costs. 

The proceedings do not relate to eggs supplied by Ms Bruhn at the farm gate or the Adelaide Showgrounds Farmers Market.

 A directions hearing is listed for Wednesday 28 March at 9 A.M. before Justice Finn.

WA
http://www.inmycommunity.com.au/news-and-views/local-news/Poultry-farmer/7615626/
The scale of this operation appears to  suggest that it is not what consumers would regard as genuinely free range.
It  operates a cage farm as well as intensive free range and is approved by AECL under its Egg Corp Assured program - but a condition of Egg Corp Assured is that  all farms must comply with permit conditions and all State and local regulations. Clearly this farm has not complied and ECA accreditation should be withdrawn.

Warnings of an egg shortage have been posted  in France where it is clamed cake and brioche manufacturers may soon be forced  to shut down. 
The alarm was sounded by the National Union of  Egg Industries and Professionals, which said France is now suffering a shortfall  of 21 million eggs a week or 10per cent of overall production.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110252/We-shelling-buy-eggs-Cost-dozen-set-increase-20p.html#ixzz1oE2oWQ44

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/6517871/Egg-producers-peck-away-at-meaning-of-free-range 

In an effort to reduce the numbers of male chicks which hatch, CSIRO has done some work to identify the key gene responsible for male sex determination in chickens. They are using new technology called RNA interference to switch this gene off in male embryos to allow them to develop as females. The ongoing work now is to see if these female hens actually lay eggs.

AECL is holding a forum in Sydney on April 4 into research needed to allow the Model Code of Pratice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry to be amended.Presumably this is on the agenda to allow the Egg Corp to introduce its new intensive 'free range' standard.
Here's part of the arguments we will use against the proposal:
The 4th Edition of The Model Code continues to provide an excellent framework for management practices within the Free Range Sector of the egg industry.
We believe that key elements of the Model Code -no beak trimming of hens (except when other methods of eliminating problems of aggression and cannibalism within flocks have been tried and failed), and a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare are clearly established as acceptable benchmarks for the commercial production of eggs to be labelled as 'free range'.
No scientific evidence has been produced to demonstrate that any change is required to the provisions of The Model Code which were produced by consensus between the industry and regulators, based on best practice within the egg industry.

 

There are major problems facing British Free Range egg producers.
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Association-warns-of-national-egg-shortages-and-farmers-on-brink-of-bankruptcy_22897.html

Consumers reckon that the egg industry is pretty crook here in Australia, but we haven't been hit with this .... YET!
http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/industry-wide-conspiracy-claimed-ontario-egg-lawsuit-5043

We all agree that there needs to be science behind proposals and decisions which affect our industry (and many other things in life).  But this latest piece of crud from the Poultry CRC appears to be designed to reinforce the AECL's position that 'free range' birds don't utilise the range area. It's just an attempt to justify high stocking densities.  Look for yourself at:
http://www.poultryhub.org/echook-news/new-ways-to-gauge-welfare-in-free-range-hens/

There's a great article on the chicken meat industry in The Age and other Fairfax newspapers today. The problems are very similar in the egg industry with control in the hand of very few big businesses.  It's likely that Ben Butler will do a similar story once the ACCC launches its investigation of the industry.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/secrecy-rules-the-roost-20120217-1teo3.html

More stories were published today in Rural Press publications across Australia pushing the AECL line on the egg oversupply situation.  James Kellaway suggests that the problem has been caused by the mild summer increasing the lay rate - hardly a credible argument given that in Australia most eggs are still layed by hens kept in airconditioned sheds.
Couldn't be that major producers have too many hens and that consumers are dubious about their labelling????
 http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/egg-production-overcooked/2448560.aspx?storypage=2

Changes designed to water down the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals, Domestic Poultry are now being planned by the Australian Egg Corporation. It has arranged a forum to discuss the issues in Sydney on April 4 and it is vital for real  Free Range farmers across Australia to have their say.
James Kellaway, AECL Managing Director, always claims that the organisation represents every industry sector when AECL actions make it clear that the Egg Corp only cares about the big operators and takes no notice of the free range sector (unless it's the intensive 'free range' version).
Help us to make your voice heard by telling us what you think about watering down the Model Code which establishes clear guidelines for the free range industry. The fundamentals of the Model Code are stocking density and beak trimming. The current Code is crystal clear on beak trimming - it must only be a last resort when other methods of controlling feather picking and cannibalism have been tried and failed. But the Egg Corporation accredits farms to it Egg Corp Assured programme when they have beak trimmed or de-beaked their birds at day old or soon after - completely contravening the Code which the Egg Corp still claims is a mandatory requirement of its accreditation scheme.
The issue of stocking density was clear to all in the industry until a couple of years ago. It stipulates a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare. But then some of the 'smart' operators felt they could exploit what they saw as a loophole and use a clause in the appendix to the Code which allows higher stocking densities for meat birds.
They claim (now supported by AECL) that this permits an unlimited number of birds and some farms are running up to 50,000 hens per hectare - all with the blessing of AECL. The Egg Corporations says it plans to close this 'loophole' by introducing its new standard (which it wants to call Egg Standards Australia) which will impose a ceiling of 20,000 hens per hectare, remove all restrictions on beak trimming and allow birds to be locked up in sheds for 25 weeks.
If you want your voice to be heard at the Egg Corp forum on the Model Code, please contact FRFA with your thoughts.  

It seems that the Australian Egg Corporation is continuining to ignore the free range sector of the industry and is ploughing ahead with the introduction of its new intensive standard. Workshops around Australia did not wholeheartedly support the Egg Corp plans. There clearly was a great deal of dissent at the Melbourne workshop (around 20%) and we understand that was the case at workshops around Australia.
Here is a short piece from the latest AECL newsletter:
 
ECA ICC/ TAC meeting

The Egg Corp Assured (ECA) ICC and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on 18 January 2012 in Sydney to review the Farm Quality Assurance (QA) Standard for  egg producers. This followed industry consultation forums held in Queensland,  Western Australia, Sydney, Melbourne, South Australia and Tasmania.
AECL had  also received submissions on the topic since the previous draft version of the document in 2011.

The outcome was that the Farm QA Standard be adopted by the Australian egg  industry.  This received a unanimous vote by all attending to consider the Farm  QA Standard. 

The Farm Standard is now before the AECL Board for final approval and the  anticipated launch to the egg industry will be in the first quarter of 2012. 

Here's an example of the latest publicity about the egg industry on the Sustainable Table website:
http://www.sustainabletable.org.au/TableTalk/tabid/53/EntryId/36/The-Free-Range-Controversy.aspx
On another point, AECL's 'summit' about the looming oversupply of eggs and plans for action, will be held in Sydney next Wednesday.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201201/s3418596.htm

Frank Pace was awarded an AM in the General Division of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day honours.
The award was for service to business through executive roles with national and international organisations involved in the egg production industry, and to the community.
Mr Pace has been managing director of Pace Farm since 1978 and is the current president of the International Egg Commission.
He is also onthe AECL Board, vice-president of the Australian Egg Industry Association, chairman of the Livestock and Grain  Producers Association and a member of the Egg Committee, NSW Farmers Association.
Mr Pace is also president of the Rotary Club of Mount Druitt and a supporter of the Variety Club.

It is latest publicity push, the Australian Egg Coroporation has revealed that up to 12% of eggs produced in Australia are from backyard flocks.  That's probably right, because a growing number of people simply don't trust labels on the eggs they buy at supermarkets.  They know that the majority of eggs labelled as 'free range' are actually from intensive farms.
As we keep telling customers at farmers markets, the only way they can be sure that they are buying real free range eggs is to look for cartons carrying the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association. Alternativvely, they can keep their own chooks.

In reasons for his judgment handed down on Monday, Federal Court judge Richard Tracey said stock levels for La lonica chickens were so high that "the chickens have severe restrictions placed on their capacity to roam, if indeed, any such capacity exists".

It must be a jolt for the Australian Egg Corporation to realise that they are likely to receive similar treatment in court for misleading the publc.

The average stocking density for chickens up to 1.7 kilograms in weight was 18.19 birds a square metre, while larger chickens of up to 2.4kg were stocked at 12.12 birds a square metre.

La lonica has agreed to a range of sanctions, including a $100,000 penalty, a three-year ban on claiming its barn-raised chickens are "free roaming", as well as publishing an advertisement in the Herald Sun newspaper, and introducing legal compliance training for staff.

Justice Tracey said the $100,000 penalty agreed by the parties was "towards the lower end of the proper range", but added "it is, however, within the permissible range and I would not depart from the proposed amount simply because I might have been minded to impose a higher figure".

The UK Government says it will act against about 30 British egg farms which are still using old style barren battery cages which were banned by the EU from January 1.  Up to half a million hens are believed to be still in the banned cages.
Details:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/UK-fails-to-meet-cage-ban-deadline_22540.html

By Will Ockenden
Tuesday, 10/01/2012

 Animal welfare groups are celebrating a decision by the Federal Court over a label used in chicken advertising.

The Federal Court found that chicken meat company La Ionica engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct by using the term "free-to-roam".

The company was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine, remove the ad from shops, and publish an ad admitting liability in a Melbourne newspaper.

Lawyers for Animals was one of groups who made the initial complaint to the consumer watchdog the ACCC which is fighting the matter in court.

The group's president Nichola Donovan says the ACCC has done a good job. "I think as the truth begins to emerge with this admission, it will be 
potentially harder to continue to maintain that chickens have sufficient room to  move around freely in these barn systems," she says.

La Ionica declined an interview request, saying other groups are still  arguing the matter in court.

Other meat companies, and the Chicken Meat Federation, are fighting the ACCC  over the "free-to-roam" label. The case is scheduled for a three day trial March.

Here's a reasoned response to the arguments peddled by the AECL's James Kellaway and Kai Iansson claiming that there is no need for legislation to ensure Truth in Labelling. It broadly follows the nonsense of Kai's presentation in Tassie.
The history of agriculture dates back thousands of years and has been defined by different cultures and climates and in more recent times, technology. Modern society and agriculture have grown together and brought about community, human values and a respect for natural resources.
Over the past century large scale agriculture has spread rapidly throughout the developed world with the introduction of machine driven farming equipment and the development of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.  These large scale farms are based on monocultures and now dominate the modern farming system.  Organised society has come a long way from our original hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Yet 70% of the world’s population is still fed by peasants. We were all called peasants once but some may now more readily recognize themselves as smallholders.
Agriculture, distinct from today’s intensive agriculture, has definitely played a key role in the development of human civilization.  However, concerns have been raised over the sustainability of landless or feedlot systems and monocultures typical of intensive farming practices.  Intensive farming systems are now often independent of local and natural resources, the very foundation on which modern agriculture was founded.  
 Where have our historic human values gone?   Has intensive agriculture gone too far? These concerns have driven the demand for food produced under organic or free range systems. There is a ‘back to basics’ movement growing in our rural communities and in the minds of concerned consumers.
Making a conscious choice to purchase food for the family table that has been grown under more natural, welfare friendly and sustainable methods is not done in a bid to bring an end to industrialized agriculture.  It is a personal choice and one that we all have the right to make.  It is not a conflict between ‘green’, ‘media’ or ‘welfare’ groups and mainstream agriculture yet peak industry  groups such as Australian Egg Corporation are intent on shouting down those that have not  heeded their industry contrived propaganda.  The claim by AECL that we will be  “destroying what we know as civilization”should we spurn intensive animal production is  simply outrageous, unfounded and an offense to the thinking consumer.  It signifies a desperate bid by industrialized producers to hang on to their market share at any cost.
The Context
The argument about feeding the world and that a plethora of radical groups are trying to put an end to intensive farming is all just smoke and mirrors.
What we are talking about here is the use of the term free range.  Labelling of Free Range eggs has nothing at all to do with feeding the world but has everything to do with lining the pockets of the major players in the egg industry.
Whether we like it or not, whether we agree or disagree, there will always be a place for intensive agriculture in food production.   The real issue here is that the Australian Egg Corporation wants to sell us production line eggs as free range.  AECL want to enable some of its members to continue to label eggs as free range when the actual production systems employed to produce them don’t meet consumer expectations of what free range is or meet the guidelines of the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals.
Simply, to put this into context, AECL want the consumer to believe that if there are restrictions on who can label their eggs as free range it will mean that we will no longer be able to feed the world enough eggs.  In reality, we will still produce the same number of eggs, they will just have to be labelled correctly.
Truth In Labelling
In 2010, the NSW Greens instigated the Truth In Labelling Bill.  This was a brave initiative brought about by John Kaye after consultation with genuine free range producers and many ‘minority’ members of the Australian egg industry.  The mum and dad type producers, the smallholders, large free range farms and the industry associations supporting and promoting them.
The original Bill included stocking densities of 750 birds per hectare for free range hens along with other conditions that would have been in the best interest of the birds, and the consumer.  In effect, the Greens had promoted an ideal for egg production but had left room for discussion, debate and compromise .
Low Blows
While the Bill was being discussed in Parliament and in the media, AECL made its move to secure the free range industry for its large, industrialized producers.  AECL has attempted to raise the stocking densities for free range layer hens to 20,000 birds per hectare.  They have chosen to ignore the Code of Practice and their own certification guidelines for Egg Corp Assured in doing so.  AECL tried to rewrite the National Code of  Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Poultry with their erroneous interpretation of the requirements for stocking densities for layer hens within this code.  Amid confusion over the development of an Australian Egg Standard, AECL slipped in discussion about their own Egg Standard Australia and attempted to have it endorsed without full industry consultation.
Market Research
AECL base their proposed increased stocking density of 20,000 birds per hectare on consumer research yet this research has not been made available to the public or to egg producers.
Beak Treatment
More smoke and mirrors.   No matter what system is employed to cut the beaks of day old chicks the fact is that these birds are being subjected to this practice in breach of the Code of Practice. The Code only allows beak trimming as a last resort.   The code first requires that environmental factors be examined and that remedies such as reducing stocking densities be attempted first.  Only after all measures to control  a feather pecking or cannibalism outbreak have failed should a producer then consult with an animal welfare expert before beak trimming. 
Chicks hatched for Australian egg farms are debeaked at one day of age. There is not  enough time to follow the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice.
High Politics
The vote came …. and the Shooters and Fishers joined the ALP in support of the Green’s Truth in Labelling Bill.The ALP had made amendments to the Bill which the Greens did not oppose.  The Bill now reiterates the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals –Domestic Poultry which caps the stocking density for free range hens at 1500 birds per hectare.
The Code of Practice has been ignored for too long.  In its current state it is only a set of guidelines.  Guidelines that have been manipulated or ignored on the whim of industry.  The Australian Egg Industry has unfortunately proven that it is incapable of self regulation.
Legislating the Code of Practice is the best outcome for the entire industry and a very fair way of addressing current problems.  After all,  the code is the
industry accepted way of doing business isn’t it?
Again we are at the mercy of AECL and their game of smoke and mirrors.  There is so much more at play here. Talk about High Politics!
The key is a few simple words –industry accepted practice. All Codes of Practice are eventually to be enshrined in law.  It has already happened in the pork industry.  The poultry code is not due for review for a couple years yet and what AECL plan to do in the mean time is have stocking densities of 20,000 birds per hectare seen as the standard or industry accepted practice by the time that review date rolls around.  AECL had hoped to have their Egg Standards Australia in place that allowed for such stocking densities to be able to prove that 20,000 birds per hectare is indeed industry accepted practice and therefore should be included in the new legislation.  In debate over the Truth in Labelling Bill, there will no doubt be a strong argument to wait until the review process happens around 2014 for this very reason.
The challenge for us now is to let our government know that we want our businesses and our rights as consumers protected. We need to engage more with customers, the media and our local members of parliament.  We need to dissolve the hysteria about feeding the world that Australian Egg Corporation is fostering and promote our true free range farming systems for the viable, sustainable systems that they are. Farms that promote community, human values,  a balance between natural,social and human resources and farming practices and respect for the land and livestock that produce our wholesome food.  A way of farming that can be sustained for generations. 
Lee McCosker
HumaneChoice 

Free range egg farmers in the UK are considering leaving the industry because of the changes caused by the new rules in Europe which have totally changed the playing field. A similar situation could happen here if the Aust Egg Corporation gets its way and introduces a new intensive standard for free range production.
In the UK a decade ago, free-range was a niche market with good returns farmers – but it now makes up half the sector and returns have diminished. The volume growth has played into the hand of the supermarkets who can keep payment to farmers low, as supply outstrips demand.
Free-range producers have been hit by feed prices almost doubling in four years, and by the abolition of battery farming. Many customers are now happy to
buy eggs laid in "enriched colonies", where hens have more space and facilities to scratch and nest. Consumers are also opting for the cheapest product because of financial pressures.
Read the full info at:
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/Farmers-threaten-quit-egg-trade-low-prices/story-14354531-detail/story.html

Here's a presentation made by AECL Communications Manager, Kai Ianssen at an industry workshop in Tasmania and now published in the Egg Corporation's latest newsletter. How dare they pontificate about 'Low Blows' and deception - they are the masters of both!

THIRTEEN member states have been warned they face legal action because of their failure to comply with the imminent EU barren battery cage ban.
EU Health Commissioner John Dali has told Members of the European Parliament that letters  have already been sent to those member states that have made ‘little or no  effort’ to conform to the new laws, informing them they will be taken to court.
Mr Dalli also confirmed that Commission inspection teams are  ready to go ‘all out’ from January 1, when then the ban on conventional cages  comes in, to collect the evidence of non compliance to back up prosecutions when  they go to court.
The 13 member states already found to be in breach of new rules are: Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the Netherlands.
The European Commission has been heavily criticised for its own failure to take firmer action to force member states to comply with the ban  and to prevent trade in illegally produced eggs between member states after January 1.
However, Scottish Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon welcomed  comments by the Commissioner at a recent meeting with a delegation of the ALDE  group of MEPs.
Mr Lyon said Mr Dalli had given him a guarantee that there  would be no extension of the January 1 deadline, no derogations and ‘no escape route for those who have failed to comply’.
“I was pleased to hear that infringement procedures have already been started against member states that have chosen to flout the law and  that EU inspectors are poised ready to gather evidence against them from the  start of 2012,” he said.
“I hope the tough action he is taking will send a message to  those countries who think that they can get off the hook by turning a blind eye  that they better think again and get their hen houses in  order.”
The UK Government has also been criticised for not doing more to protect domestic producers from illegally produced egg imports. Farming  Minister Jim Paice said earlier this month that the UK could not enforce a  unilateral ban due to be ‘very significant legal and practical implications’ and  practical difficulties in implementing it.
Instead the UK will be relying largely on a voluntary food  industry ban to keep illegally produced out of the country, or at least, force  them into the lower value processing sector.  
Mr Lyon urged the Commission ‘back to the hilt’ countries like the UK who he said are using ‘every means at their disposal to try and ban  illegally produced eggs from entering their markets’.
“If that type of action is taken by all countries that are  compliant it should hit hard at the pockets of illegal producers and force them  to get out or upgrade,” he said.
NFU Scotland vice president of John Picken was unimpressed by the Commission’s belated actions of ‘sending letters and preparing teams to go out for inspection after the deadline has passed’. He called on the Commission and the UK Governmentto take a ‘stronger stance’ on enforcement of  the regulations.
“We are days away from Scottish producers finding themselves  at a competitive disadvantage as a result of complying with standards set by  Europe.  And once again the deeply disappointing message to industry is that  Commission deadlines, and threats of infringement proceedings, are largely  ineffectual,” he said.
“Scottish farmers who have complied in good faith ahead of  the deadline face a competitive disadvantage, having borne the significant cost  of moving to an enriched cage, barn or free range  system.”

Organic egg production in Germany !!!!  Have a look at this:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/24334/new-poultry-house-for-organic-egg-production

The Free Range Farmers Association agrees with the Australian Egg Corporation that eggs have a lower carbon footprint than any other source of protein, but points out the inaccuracy of assertions that cage egg production is more carbon friendly than free range production. 

Grain consumption, energy inputs and transport costs are recognised as the main contributors to the carbon footprint of the egg industry.

The Australian Egg Corporation claims that data prepared for it by consultants, using figures from three unnamed cage egg producerswith a combined total of one million hens and one unidentified 'free range' producer, shows that free range egg production has a higher carbon footprint that cage production – but it does not have the facts to back up this assertion.

It has not revealed any information about the carbon footprint of the infrastructure on intensive farms – the hundreds of cubic metres of concrete, massive shedding etc., and the transport costs of sending eggs all over Australia wasspecifically excluded from the desk-top study.

It has has based its claims on a review of just one selected 'free range' egg farm in an effort to discredit the free range egg industry. 

However, a two year sustainability study of five free range egg farms in the Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority area of Victoria showed clearly that feed input costs decreased with lower stocking densities.

One outcome from the nutrient balance figures obtained in that study was that feed consumption increased with stock density. This implied that reliance upon pasture as a feed source decreased as stock density increased. 

With a stocking rate of 9 DSE (Dry Sheep Equivalent), feed input was just 26kg a year per hen - about 70 grams of feed a day. With a stocking rate of 75 DSE, feed input almost doubled to 48 kg – about 130 grams per day.

The Australian Egg Corporation allows stocking densities on its accredited 'free range' farms of over 300 DSE.

The study was conducted by an independent agronomist for the Free Range Farmers Association and was funded by the Federal Government's Envirofund program.

There is no doubt that eggs are a cheap source of protein. With many cage eggs now selling in supermarkets at $2 a dozen, consumers on strict budgets can buy-up big and prepare many low-cost and appetizing meals. That's the market the Australian Egg Corporation needs to focus on - not trying to mislead consumers by attacking the free range sector at every opportunity.

The AECL claims that new research suggests that egg production has the lowest carbon footprint of all the main protein foods. Egg Corp  Managing Director, James Kellaway, said the research was another good reason for consumers to include eggs as part of their daily diet. 
“This study has highlighted some surprising results, including suggesting that the humble egg is now the highest quality protein food with the lowest emissions.
But the research also highlighted that there is still scope for refinements to current practices in egg production to allow further reductions in emissions.
AECL wishes to conduct further studies on this important topic,” Mr Kellaway said.
“With greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions front of mind for many, this research provides consumers with the information they need to help reduce their carbon footprints when buying foods,” he said. 
The research project, conducted by Steve Wiedemann and Eugene McGahan (and commissioned by AECL), used Life Cycle Assessment to study the GHG emissions from three egg farms over one year.
The researchers also found that:

•  Cage production delivered a lower carbon footprint than free range egg production 
   
• Greenhouse gas emissions from cage egg production was 1.3kg of CO2-e per kg of eggs  (carbon dioxide equivalence, including methane and nitrous oxide)
   
• Emissions from free range egg production was found to be 1.6kg of CO2-e per kg of eggs 
  
• Australian egg production had a lower carbon footprint than several European egg studies  (mainly due to the more efficient grain production in Australia) 
  
• The largest carbon impacts in the supply chain were: feed grain production, then manure management and energy use at the layer farm
   
• Free range egg production’s carbon footprint was found to be about 20% higher than caged production due to the fact that it uses more feed per kilogram of eggs produced compared to the feed efficiencies of cage egg production.
  
  
  

For a copy of the research, please contact AECL Communications Manager, Kai Ianssen, on (02) 9409 6909 or kai@aecl.org.
This was a desk-top review of existing data and did not involve any new research. Previous findings have demonstrated clearly that grain feed consumption increases significantly as stocking density increases. So of course highly intensive farms - which are almost certainly the type selected for this 'research' will have demonstrated a high carbon footprint. The intensive farms are more likely to bring feed in from interstate, and will also transport their eggs over vast distances - increasing their emissions compared with traditional free range farms which are more likely to utilise local feed supplies and distribute their eggs within the local region.

Here's a link to The Economic Times - the Sunday supplement of The Times of India.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11063496.cms

Those egg producers who have received  a copy of the workshop report following the meeting  in Tassie last month will have noted the following details – but for those who haven't received a copy it makes interesting reading.
Apparently, many participants at the workshop agreed that industry credibility was the highest  strategic priority for the Egg Corporation – which makes many producers wonder why the Egg Corp. is trying to undermine confidence in the free range sector with its determination to adopt a new standard with no science behind it.
Some of the key points in the report which may make a few of you smile (or want to throw things) are:
AECL Action
A credible egg industry will be delivered through the development, adoption and enforcement of Egg Standards Australia ( ESA).  ESA must have integrity, it must be a national standard, third party audited and established and enforced at 'arms length' from the egg industry.. Key ESA requirements (hen welfare and food safety) should be supported by independent science (eg maximums for birds per hectare in free range systems and enforced). Development of ESA will be an ongoing and iterative process, The QA program's status and requirements must be communicated by AECL through the state farmers organisations and in local meetings with egg producers. 

AECL must work  with the egg industry to deliver traceability truth-in-labelling and drive substitution out of the the system. 
Elimination of  substitution might be one KPI (Key Performance Indicator) for the next strategic plan. Achieving a single customer and producer agreed QA system might be another.
 
Industry Cohesion and Unity
We require an  industry that is internally and externally conhesive and united, one that  develops appropriate partnerships and nurtures its members. 
An internally cohesive industry is one where there is unity on policy positions, there are  agreed standards and egg producers adhere to them.
The egg industry needs to appropriately position itself in the animal welfare debate. It must 'get stuck in' be proactive and form relationships with advocacy groups so that collaboration informs elements of the welfare, code and standards debates and target debates that are relevant and winnable. Egg producers need an industry and an AECL that understands commercial reality, the benefits and costs of entering policy debates, what influences consumers and what does not and has the wisdom to stay away from internally divisive and unproductive issues.

Here's a link to an article on the Poultry Site:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/24228/standard-for-responsible-egg-farming-set

Here's a link to an article about the pressures on free range producers and the industry as a whole in Britain:
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/24197/uk-poultry-industry-downbeat

According to the latest letter from the Australian Government's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (dated 24th November 2011), the Department accepts the bluster from the Australian Egg Corporation that the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry does not specify an upper limit on stocking densities for free range hens. In reality, the Model Code makes it clear that 1500 birds per hectare is the maximum density for free range egg laying hens, but higher densities may be permitted for meat birds if continuing fodder cover can be maintained.  The Code is perfectly clear. A maximum density of 1500 birds per hectare was used as the standard for many years - even by the AECL for its Egg Corp Assured program. 
But the issue may be resolved by the Ausralian Competition and Consumer Commission. Formal complaints have been lodged by a number of organisations, including the Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australa, and various individual egg farmers about the interpretation of the Model Code and the Egg Corp plans to allow increased stocking densities.

Feelings are running high in the UK over the probability of illegal eggs from Europe being dumped after the new cage regulations are supposed to come into force on Janu

There is an interesting post on The Arab News which demonstrates that the quality of eggs and production methods is a discussion point all over the world:
http://arabnews.com/lifestyle/food_health/article537333.ece;jsessionid=007CFB56069FE21525C0CE529748F2CE?comment=submitted&postingId=538005

Until the NSW Government passes the Truth in Labelling Bill in the Lower House, it'simportant to keep the pressure on MP's  lie this:
http://themilkmoustache.wordpress.com/politics/not-eggsactly-free-range/

NSW Green's MP, John Kaye was in Wodonga this weekend, urging consumers to contact their local State MP to support the Truth in Labelling Bill when it goes before the lower house of Parliament next year.
details at:
http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/greens-take-bill-to-market/2356388.aspx?src=rss

The Egg Corporation's workshop, forum and agm at the Tasmanian Country Club in Launceston from November 22 to 24 looks like it should be pretty lively.
As well as a strategic planning workshop, designed to work out where the Egg Corp is going, there's a session by Kai Ianssen the AECL's  Communications manager entitled 'High Politics and Low Blows in New South Wales' (presumably complaining about the Green's 'Truth In Labelling' success in the NSW Upper House).
There's also a session by the Hen Welfare Advisory Group and a  keynote address on 'Consumer trust in food production systems' by Charlie Arnot, CEO of the US Center for Food Integrity. The Egg Corp needs to learn some lessons about consumer trust.

The NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, has asked for Truth in Labelling to be discussed at the December COAG meeting (Council of Australian Governments). It will be tremendous if all States and the Federal Government agree to implement Australia-wide legislation to protect the industry and consumers from unscrupulous operators.
We have sent this email to Minister Hodgkinson and a similar one to the Prime Minister:
Dear Minister,
Free Range egg farmers across Australia welcome your decision to table 'Truth in Labelling' as an  issue for discussion at the December COAG meeting. We hope that family farms are  protected by a decision to legislate the provisions of the Model Code of  Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry.
The Australian Egg  Corporation has been misleading in its references to stocking densities and its  proposals for intensive production systems to be designated as 'free range'.
If the Model Code is enshrined in legislation, it  will greatly assist all in the industry, as well as increasing consumer confidence. One of the major problems at present is that the Model Code is a voluntary document. Even though the Australian Egg Corporation says that compliance with the Code is a requirement of its Egg Corp Assured program it does not enforce any of the provisions it contains.

There are plenty of egg farmers in France who are not ready for the new cage regulationswhich cme into force next year. Have a look at this article
http://www.worldpoultry.net/background/crisis-causes-uncertainty-among-french-egg-producers-9589.html

An article in the New Lawyer by Ruth Hatten is worth reading:
http://www.thenewlawyer.com.au/article/the-truth-about-eggs-hens-and-pens/532417.aspx

There's an item on the Australian Egg Corporation's agenda for the annual meeting in Tassie this month which demonstrates the muddle-headed thinking of some egg producers.
There is a motion: "That the Board take action in reducing the number of academics on all sub-committees; that the Board will replace all non-levy payer producers on the committee; that the Board will increase the number of producers on all sub-committees and must all be levy payers." 
The agenda item has been proposed by a pair of well known clowns, Joe Sacca from WA and Brian Ahmed from Victoria.
Obviously egg farmers must be adequately represented on all committees - but to exclude outside expertise on every committee or sub-committee would be a ludicrous move.
Doesn't seem likely that such a pathetic motion will succeed - but you never know !!!!!

THE new chief executive of Woolworths, Grant O’Brien (brought in from the UK's Tesco chain) is planning to double Woolies sale of home brand products, bringing it closer to supermarkets in Britain and the US, where the category dominates shelves and generates massive earnings.
The battle with Coles for market dominance will see many manufacturers and producers (including egg farmers) facing tigher margins as the two retail giants screw down prices.
And the Australian Egg Corporation is playing their game by trying to introduce a standard which will help the supermarkets cut the margins of all their egg suppliers - which is likely to have a flow-on effect throughout the industry.
It is thought that Mr O’Brien, who has only been in the top job at Woolworths for a month, has targeted an increase in space allocated to home brand goods to eventually capture about 35 per cent of total sales - and more than 50% for staples such as eggs, milk and bread.
And the Egg Corp claims to represent the interests off all egg producers!!!!  

Farm sustainability and unfair competition were key issues which were not addressed by the Australian Egg Corporation during its series of industry workshops held throughout Australia  over the past couple of weeks to discuss the proposed  new stocking density for free range egg farms. 

The Egg Corp had been unable to provide any scientific evidence to support its proposal to increase stocking densities from 1500 hens per hectare to 20,000. 

Certainly in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, there was no attempt to provide any data which justified such a stocking  density.

The Egg Corporation was unable to point to any standards anywhere in the world which even approached the stocking density they have proposed.

 Of great interest to many is the revalatation that a figure of 20,000 hens per hectare equals about 420 DSE (Dry Sheep Equivalent) which  makes a mockery of any claims by the Egg Corporation that it has any interest in farm sustainability. 
 
Allowing such a vast increase in stocking densities is designed to drive down prices – so the Egg Corp is actually doing the bidding of the supermarket giants and the repercussions will flow on to all producers. As the price of eggs labelled as 'free range' falls – so will the price of cage eggs.

Dan Green, of Real Free Range Eggs at Currajung, South Gippsland, has done a great job preparing a video clip on free range egg production on his property.  The Free Range Farmers Association has posted the clip on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr0FVtIBTnw

This was sent today to Fiona Simon, President of the NSW Farmers Association
Hi Fiona,

We hope that the NSW Farmers Association will stand  up for family farms and urge the State Government to support legislation designed to maintain the integrity of free range egg farming.
 
The Australian Egg Corporation seems to believe that the NSW Government is in its pocket when it says that the Government will not support the Truth in Labelling (Free Range Eggs) Bill.
  
The Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. represents free range egg farmers in New South Wales, as well most other States. We ask you to consider the implications for farmers of changes in stocking densities proposed by AECL.

Family farms throughout Australia are at risk if  the Australian Egg Corporation succeeds with its plans to allow intensive production systems to be labelled as 'free range'. There is no science behind the AECL's proposal to permit up to 20,000 hens per hectare on 'free range' egg farms. Nowhere in the world is such an intensive stocking density allowed - and if it happens here, the livelihoods of family farmers will be decimated.
  
The assets of many family farms will be at risk from the unfair competition which will be generated by industrial scale production designed to drive down prices to meet the supermarket push to cash in  on the growing demand for free range eggs. Changing the standards will simply allow eggs produced in intensive systems to be labelled as 'free range'  -  without actually meeting consumer or industry expectations.
  
This is purely a price-driven issue to enable supermarkets to dictate prices - and the flow on effect will hit the bottom  lines of cage farmers.

Regards

Phil Westwood
President
Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australia Inc
Spokesman
Free Range Farmers  Association Inc
http://freerangefarmers.com.au

James Kellaway now says that the Greens were misleading and manipulative with their Truth in Labelling Bill.  Talk about pots and kettles!
Here's the latest blast on Skynews from 'the dark side'.
 http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=676607&vId=

Here's the latest nonsense from the Egg Corporation:
 Re: NSW Greens Bill (Amended)

Dear Egg Producers,
Today, the NSW Legislative Council (Upper House) passed an  amended Bill initiated by the NSW Greens.  The amended Bill will now be  considered by the NSW Legislative Assembly (Lower House) at some stage in the  near future.  
The NSW Greens were a lone voice in support of the original  Bill with no other party or member supporting it.  However, the government  opposition proposed an amendment to the Bill which was supported by the Greens  and other minor parties.  The NSW government did not support the Bill in its  original or amended form and did not have the numbers to see it defeated in the Upper House.  
The amended Bill results in no change to the current operating environment for egg producers in NSW but does impress on the need for such issues to be in line with a national approach with all other state governments.  As a result, and if passed in the Lower House, any regulations  enforced by the NSW Government will automatically default to the provisions of  the nationally agreed 4th edition of the Model  Code of Practice for  the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry endorsed by industry, government and  the RSPCA in 2002 or any other Model Code that may be developed from time to  time.  
At this stage, the NSW government has no intention of supporting the amended Bill in the Lower House where the government has the overwhelming numbers to see this amended Bill defeated.
AECL has been working closely with the NSW Farmers' Association Egg Committee on this issue and will continue to do so for the benefit of all egg producers.

 Please click on this link to see the AECL media release
  distributed to NSW media today.
To see the original Bill, please click on the link below.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/0136971F01EC3935CA257886002A0FEF

 The amendment can be viewed by  clicking here.

For further information please call me on (02) 9409 6906
or james@aecl.org by e-mail.
Sincerely, 
James Kellaway
Managing Director

James clearly thinks that the O'Farrell Government is in his pocket. Let's wait and see !!

The Greens Truth in Labelling Free-Range Eggs bill has passed through all significant stages in the Upper House today signalling a victory for the protection of free-range farmers and consumers, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.
Dr Kaye said: "The Greens bill will see a standard definition of free-range eggs implemented with labelling requirements to ensure consumers get what they pay for. 

"The successful passage of the legislation through the NSW Upper House demonstrates that the majority of members support the rights of ethical consumers.

"While the Greens originally called for a free-range stocking density of 750 chickens per hectare Labor's amendments to  the bill would see free-range defined as 1,500 birds per hectare. 

"Labor's amendments are a compromise but they are far better than the alternative which would see the Egg Corporation raise free-range stocking densities to 20,000 chickens per hectare.

"The Greens acknowledge the Shooters and Fishers party's support for the bill  which continues their track record of backing small producers and farmers.

"The success of the bill can be accredited to thetireless efforts of free-range farmers, consumers and non-government organisations who want the rights of ethical consumers to be enshrined in legislation.

"The bill still has a way to go. It needs to be passed through the Lower House with the support of the government.

"The Government must not squander this historical opportunity to protect the rights of ethical consumers and farmers. 

"Premier Barry O'Farrell needs to stand up to the Egg Corporation and the industrial caged egg producers to stop them increasing free-range stocking densities to a massive 20,000 birds per hectare," Dr Kaye said. 

It now looks almost certain that the Truth in Labelling - Free Range Eggs Bill will get up in the NSW Upper House.
 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/parties-unite-on-freerange-eggs-bill-20111018-1lypc.html

Here are links to three short films about 'state of the art' chook farming in the good old days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22KP21aEhm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRq2-kyxaB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPEcJHsWTvs

The Greens Bill in the NSW upper house was debated on Friday. The Labour Party introduced a number of amendments which effectively  bring the requirements back to the Model Code.
Time ran out for a vote, but that is now expected  by the middle of next week and as the Greens say they will accept the amendments, it is likely to pass. Then it will go to the Lower House where debate will start again.
James Kellaway and the President of the NSW Farmers  Federation were in Parliament for the debate.

It's looking good at this stage. Other States are looking at including an egg labelling policy in their platforms for the next  election and we are still pushing for clear, national laws - so the Egg Corp will have  an uphill battle.

The workshop in Melbourne went as expected on Wednesday night. James Kellaway told us all what a great step forward the new standard was and that the Egg Corp wanted feedback.
There was a high level of antagonism towards our suggestions that the free range standard should follow the Model Code requirements regarding beak trimming and limiting stocking density to 1500 per hectare. James reiterated that a stocking density of 1500 was not commercial reality which is a total insult to all existing free range farmers who maintain a stocking density below 1500 per hectare and who run fully beaked birds. We have never been able to get an explanation from James about what the AECL definition is for 'commercial production'. Does AECL think you must have 1 milliion birds before it considers a farm is commercial?
There was some support in the room that 20,000 per hectare was too high a density and that perhaps it should be 10,000.
One 'free range' producer who is accredited to the current Egg Corp Assured program, was adamant that the stocking density proposed was OK and that birds could be beak trimmed at day old as his currently are. He also was vocal about there being no need to maintain fodder cover - he admitted that in summer he had no grass. He, and the AECL conveniently ignore a condition of Egg Corp Assured that all accredited producers must abide by the Model Code. As the Model Code requires fodder cover to be maitained and does not allow beak trimming as a first resort to combat potential feather picking problems or cannibalism, his farm (and probably more than 95% of all other Egg Corp accredited free range farms) are in breach  of their own regulations. But the Australian Egg Corporation still endorses them.
I doubt that AECL will change much (unless they are  forced to by the ACCC, Standards Australia or politicians.
We couldn't get a straight answer from James  about  how it was proposed for this to be a national standard as Queensland had regulated the 1500 birds per hectare limit for free range farms. His only comment was that the Government was 'reviewing that figure'.

Here's a link about a suggestion in the UK to stop the importing of eggs from Europe if countries do meet the ban on cage egg production.
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2509-good-eggs-uk-campaign-launch

Here's the link to the 7.30 piece about Truth in Labelling which was screened in NSW on Friday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-07/truth-in-labelling-bill-ruffles-feathers/3352920

Members of the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. are concerned that details about the AECL's consumer research (on which the
stocking density proposals contained in the ESA draft document are based) have not been released despite an undertaking by James Kellaway that full details would be disclosed.
At a meeting with Victorian egg farmers in June 2010, Mr Kellaway agreed to provide details of the methodology used in the
Corporation's consumer survey so its validity could be assessed.
The results of the survey were contrary to other survey results which demonstrated clearly that consumers who actually purchased
free range eggs believed that a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare and that free range birds should not be beak trimmed, were prime factors in their purchasing decisions.
As AECL has chosen to hide the methodology used in its survey, we can only conclude that AECL acknowledges that its survey was
flawed and was designed purely to support a position for a new intensive 'free range' production system– such as has now emerged as Egg Standards
Australia.
This document, and the consequent publicity surrounding it has seriously damaged the reputation of the industry and of the
Egg Corporation. Consumers now know that they cannot trust labels on eggs. This is completely the fault of the Australian Egg Corporation for ploughing ahead  with this proposal to endorse intensive production methods despite clear opposition from free range producers.
It seems that AECL has lost what remaining credibility it had.
We will confine our main comments to free range aspects of this draft proposal – but we must point out that the recommendation
at 3.17 should be changed to a mandatory  requirement. If national legislation is in place it is a matter of compliance – it is not an option.
There should also be an additional dot point in either 3.10 or 3.16 detailing a requirement for cleaning and sanitising sheds
after each batch. There is a reference at 3.21 to cleaning manure deposits outside pop holes – but not in the sheds.
This document does not refer to the beak trimming of birds. Our Association believes that beak trimming should be prohibited on
free range farms. Without full beaks, the birds are unable to forage properly and their diet is therefore identical to that of cage birds or those kept in
barns. However, we are prepared to accept the provisions in the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4thedition. The Code specifies actions to be taken to reduce the incidence of feather picking or cannibalism, such as reducing stocking density, light intensity, temperature, removing injured birds and removing birds seen to be instigating pecking. 
That follows a requirement for egg farmers to investigate the purchase of appropriate strains of birds with more docile tendencies. These are all
actions which should be taken prior to considering beak trimming but they are ignored by most intensive producers. The required actions are not enforced by
AECL's current Egg Corp Assured Program even though compliance with the Model Code is supposed to be a mandatory condition of accreditation according to ECA documentation. 
3.19 The  Land
a) Outdoor stocking density maximum of 2 birds per square metre.
The maximum outdoor stocking density should be 1 bird per 6.7square metres to reflect the provisions of the Model Code – 1500
birds per hectare. This should be set as an absolute maximum for free range production. Any higher density should be classified as some other production
system such as Cage Free, Barn or whatever the Egg Corporation chooses.
In many regions a maximum density of 1500 birds per hectare is unsustainable and the Standard needs to clearly require that stocking
  rates must linked to the maintenance of ground cover.
b) Access to the range must occur no later than 5 weeks from start of lay.
Access to the range must be allowed from 6 weeks of age when the chicks are fully feathered (as required in the Model Code).
e) The birds must have unrestricted access to an outdoor range ... during daylight hours ... ‘except under adverse weather conditions' 
Remove the clause 'except under adverse weather conditions'. 
No matter what weather conditions are being experienced, the hens must have access to the range if the eggs are to be marketed as free range. (The only
exception to this may be in a flood situation, but even then the hens would probably drown in the sheds anyway so letting them out poses no additional
risk).
i) No other livestock must be allowed onto the range
Remove this point.
Many well run and sustainable farms through Australia cross graze and rotationally graze with a variety of animals to maintain excellent fodder cover. They are well established practices with clear benefits for farm productivity.
3.20 Free Range Shed Construction
a) The surrounds of the shed or the ground surrounding the pop-holes must be laid in
gravel, concrete, or alternative surfaces
This cannot apply to mobile sheds which are moved frequently to maintain flock health, ensure desirable nutrient loads on the
soil, maintain pasture growth and limit the possibility of muddy conditions around the sheds.

AECL's latest performance review, which is a requirement every three years under the Statutory Funding Agreement (SFA) with the Federal Government, is available on the AECL website. It found that overall the Egg Corp performed well (surprise, surprise) but there was some criticism of the Board structure and the attempts to redefine 'free range' production. A very interesting figure in the report is that in 2010 AECL had only 141 members - less than half the figure it says is the number of 'known' egg producers in Australia. The real number of egg farmers throughout the country is well over 500. So much for its claims to represent the whole industry.
Here's a short example from the review:
Free Range Standards
Over the course of the current SFA, AECL policy service effort has been dominated by the attempt to resolve the definition of free range production and   establish free range production standards for the industry’s QA program. To this  end AECL has taken a market driven and industry consultation approach to
resolve  this question. It has commissioned research on consumer expectations when  purchasing free range eggs and worked with industry through an exhaustive series  of workshops to achieve resolution. Resolution has been hampered by philosophical differences in what constitutes ‘true’ free range and 
industry investment in diverse free range systems that cannot easily be accommodated by a single standard. 
Throughout this process AECL has delivered two types of service – the first being provision of independent research and the second being the attempt to  broker a consensus on the way forward. In hindsight perhaps it would have been better if a truly independent AEIA had delivered this second function, keeping  AECL’s ‘nose clean’ as a whole of industry provider of impartial science, research and market strategy. 
Nevertheless, those consulted during this review believe that while resolution has not yet been reached and the issue has created some industry division, addressing free range standards was a priority for the modern consumer  focussed food industry that Australian egg businesses are well on the way to  becoming. 
Recommendations Arising from the Review 
The AECL Board might like to consider the following recommendations when the new SFA and Strategic Plan are developed. 
1. Commission an external review of the AECL Board consistent with what other  RDCs do and ASX recommendations  
 2. AECL step back from roles that might be perceived as advocacy and either leave this function to others or make use of a revitalised AEIA with improved
governance arrangements. AEIA governance arrangements need to provide DAFF and others with confidence that AEIA is separate from AECL 
3. The content and duration of the current SFA should guide a new statutory funding agreement. 
4. Establish more transparent AECL policies and procedures for the separate reporting of R&D and marketing programs as part of a continuous improvement
process and to help AECL demonstrate ongoing performance improvement. 
5. AECL adopt the ‘Outcomes and Programs Framework for the 2009-10 Portfolio Budget Statements’ as the template for its new Strategic Plan and work with DAFF to ensure that cost of compliance with the new SFA is manageable for a small autonomous RDC like AECL. 
6. The new AECL Strategic Plan give consideration to ensuring greater uptake and understanding of the importance of supply chain investments. Industry
consultation revealed a low level of understanding of AECL activity in this space. 
7. AECL work with the AECL Extension Officer to identify a replacement in advance of the incumbent’s retirement. 
8. AECL give consideration to the framework used by the red meat industry for strategic planning. This framework includes an industry plan (MISP) that
articulate a broad set of aspirational goals under which the Industry Services Body (MLA) plan sits. 
9. Build risk management policies and processes into compliance audits to help ensure that risk is actively managed. Give consideration to reporting risk
analysis results, in summary form, in the Company’s annual report. 
10. Build fraud risk management review into compliance audits to help ensure that fraud control is actively managed. Ensure any new key staff (marketing,
R&D, finance, communications, Managing Director, etc) receive fraud detection training as part of their induction. 
11. Update the IP Management Plan to ensure that IP is best managed for the benefit of the industry.  
12. Given the importance of the ‘Freebairn Model’ to the objective measurement of AECL’s performance and that the model is now seven years old, it
is appropriate that it be revisited by a suitably qualified academic economist, or similar, during the life of the next SFA to ensure the tool remains an accurate and up to date gauge of Company success. 
13. AECL respond to emerging policy issues through the new strategic plan including difficulties in compliance with the 4th Edition of the Model Code in peri-urban areas. 
14. That the external review of the Board include precautionary succession planning for the Managing Director, that consideration be given to additional
resources to support the current project manager and that the Managing Director consider use of tools such as 360° feedback reviews to facilitate staff
retention. 
15. A review of AECL’s web strategy be completed by its new Communications Manager. The review should give consideration to the current practice of
reporting animal welfare initiatives through a separate site. 
16. The Layer and Egg Supply Forecasting Report funded by AECL is valued by industry and consideration should be given to its expansion to include demand analysis. 
17. QA was revealed as an issue during consultation – cost, complexity, duplication and support for the staff managing the system were all issues of
concern for levy payers and require management attention. 
If you are a member of AECL you can download the whole report from their website. If you are not, but you'd like to read it in full, just contact us and we can send you a pdf.

This is taken from the Facebook page of Eco Eggs, a group of three farms in New South Wales accredited by the Australian Egg Corporation to its Egg Corp Assured program. The farm website boasts a stocking density of 'less than 4 birds per hectare' (40,000 birds) but their Facebok page reveals that the truth is even worse.
Questions were asked by a number of readers including this one:
How can you say you are freerange when you say on your  website "maximum of 4 hens or less per square metre range area" this is 40,000 per hectare! Twice as crowded as the suggestion by the Egg Board who are recommending 20,000 per hectare that has been horrifying consumers. If this is  incorrect, you should update your website.
September 16 at 3:03pm
 Their response was:
 

• Our flock sizes are around 8,000 hens not 40,000! Our range density is from around 2.5 to 5.3 hens per square meter, but considering the hens actually choose to go in and out all day in practice the average range density would be more like ...2 hens per square meter. It is our intention in 2012 to increase our pasture rotation which will in effect reduce the range densities even further.
  With our ChookCam the farms are right there for all to see. Our hens engage in natural behaviours, foraging, dust bathing and so on. We also have photos of all of the farms on our farms page. We offer a level of transparency that is unseen among other medium to large scale producers. We are not trying to compete with much smaller farms like your own.

Here is the submission to the Australian Egg Corporation by the Free Range Egg & Poultry Association of Australia:
Members of the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. welcome AECL's belated call to “enshrine production standards in legislation”.
However we do not accept that the definitions contained in the draft Egg Standards Australia document should be the basis for any legislation. 
We believe that the draft ESA is broadly acceptable as a voluntary standard for members of the Australian Egg Corporation in relation to its definitions of cage and barn production systems. It may be acceptable in its entirety if appropriate terms are used in the description of  'Free Range Production System'.
We would support this AECL proposal for use by AECL members if amendments contained in this submission are adopted. We believe that the free range standard needs a more accurate description. Terms such as  'Cage Free'  or 'Lot Fed' should be substituted for 'free range' in the draft standards, but even if those terms are adopted, we will not support it being legislated as a mandatory requirement for all producers, as appears to be AECL's aim.
In its current form, it falls well short of industry and consumer expectations of the definition for free range egg production. There are more honest and ethical standards already in place which meet those expectations.
In our view, any new standard for free range production, whether it is for internal use by AECL members, or for the industry generally, must build on the requirements of the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry Edition 4.
Commercial free range egg farms across Australia have demonstrated for years that a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare is viable and
sustainable. Many farms are operating successfully with a stocking rate of 750 birds per hectare which was the mandated standard in Victoria prior to the
deregulation of the industry.
These farms also demonstrate that the practice of beak trimming is not necessary in a free range environment – as long as the stocking density is no
greater than 1500 chickens per hectare. 
Dealing with particular items in the Draft Standards:
3.19 The Land
a) Outdoor stocking density maximum of 2 birds per square metre.
This should read
a) Outdoor stocking density is a maximum 1 bird per 6.7 square metres (ie 1500 birds per hectare)
Where is the evidence that any farm which implemented the AECL proposed stocking density could  be sustainable – unless the majority of hens are kept in sheds and never venture outside? In that case, to describe the eggs produced as 'free range' would be misleading, fraudulent and deceptive.
The recommendation about regular rotation to maintain fodder cover, must be a requirement, not a recommendation. The maintenance of fodder cover is a critical issue and is a major factor in determining actual stocking capacity onindividual farms. Regional climatic and soil conditions also impact on stocking
rates. In many areas of Australia, 1500 birds per hectare would be grossly overstocked.
We invite AECL to point to a standard anywhere in the world which permits a 'free range' stocking density of 20,000 chickens per hectare. Or 10,000 per hectare. Or even 5000 per hectare.
b) Access to the range must occur no later than 5 weeks from start of lay.
Eggs collected from hens locked in a shed are clearly not free range & AECL should not endorse those eggs being sold as free range.  Again, this could be
seen    as misleading, fraudulent and deceptive conduct which would be likely to be referred to the ACCC.
Hens destined for free range production must be allowed to range outside once fully feathered ie 6 weeks old (as required by the Model Code). Keeping them locked in sheds until 25 or 26 weeks of age is a plan designed to 'condition' them to stay in the sheds. By that time they will have established eating, drinking and laying habits to ensure they have no knowledge of an outdoor environment. 
e) The birds must have unrestricted access to an outdoor range... during daylight hours ... ‘except under adverse weather conditions' 
Remove the clause ‘except under adverse weather conditions’. Such a clause provides  wide loopholes for unscrupulous egg producers. Birds must be allowed unrestricted access to outdoor range during daylight hours. 
i)No other livestock must be allowed onto the range
Remove this clause.
Many farms currently successfully use cross grazing with other animals as an important pasture management tool. AECL must provide meaningful scientific data to support such a change which is contrary to good farm management practices.
3.20 Free Range Shed Construction
a) The surrounds of the shed or the ground surrounding the pop-holes must be laid in gravel, concrete, or alternative surfaces
This can only apply to fixed sheds for intensive production systems.Concrete and/or gravel cannot be installed around the doors of mobile sheds.
Beak trimming
Egg Standards Australia should include a clause prohibiting the beak trimming of birds which are designated as 'free range'. The practice is only
applicable to intensive production systems where birds are closely confined. 
The Model Code requires producers to investigate various options if feather picking or cannibalism occurs, or seems likely to occur. It specifies that reducing stocking density, light intensity, temperature, removing injured birds and removing birds seen to be instigating pecking are steps which should be taken prior to considering beak trimming. That is after egg farmers have considered purchasing appropriate strains of birds with more docile tendencies.
Long term, conventional free range egg producers in this country and overseas have shown that beak trimming is only a management requirement for 'free range' operations when the stocking density is too high. The simple and effective solution has always been to reduce stocking density.


 

Les White wrote this in todays issue of the Weekly Times"
THE RSPCA has slammed the Australian Egg Corporation’s bid to allow 20,000 birds a hectare to be considered free-range".
And supermarket giant Coles has repeated it will not allow eggs or meat farmed in such a way to be labelled free-range" under its own brands, while Woolworths says it is "concerned".

But the AEC says it has a social responsibility" to feed a growing population with an affordable source of protein".

RSPCA scientific officer Melina Tensen said allowing 20,000 birds a hectare or two for every square metre and calling them "free-range" would be "a backward step for animal welfare".

Free-range farmer groups allow stocking rates of between 750 and 1500 hens a hectare.

"The RSPCA is concerned about the impact that a stocking density of up to 20,000 birds per hectare is likely to have on the quality of the range," Ms Tensen said.

 A Coles spokesman said 20,000 hens a hectare was "too high".  However, Coles brand egg suppliers will be able to stock al 10,000 13 times higher than the Free Range Farmers Association does.

The consumer group Choice is running a campaign for better food labelling.Hopefully the responses will include egg labels to get a bit of honesty into the system and restore some consumer confidence.
Check out http://www.choice.com.au/shametheclaim

The Australian Egg Corporation's latest newsletter contains this pathetic appeal:
AECL has been  subjected to significant media interest during the past week.  AECL urges all egg  producers to act in a team-spirited manner as we create some very important  policies for the industry. As mentioned earlier, the draft ESA will be open for  industry consultation next month.
An AECL statement  provided to media about the issue is pasted below.
The Australian Egg  Corporation Ltd represents all egg production systems and we are in discussions  with egg producers about new egg standards for Australia.  
This standard must  consider consumer expectations, robust science and commercial reality as it  relates to bird health and welfare, food safety and environmental stewardship. 
Stocking densities  of up to two birds per metre square provide hens with the ability to display all  their natural behaviours. They can roam while having access to food, water and  shelter in the henhouse.  
AECL is working to  improve the current situation by establishing a cap on free range stocking  densities. There is currently no cap on free range stocking densities. his is  unacceptable. We believe these changes would be a substantial improvement on the  current situation.
We seek this to be  legislated and enforced by government.
The egg industry  needs to feed a growing population with an affordable source of quality protein.  This is our industry’s social responsibility. We believe this
definition will  provide clarity, consistency and transparency. 
For further  information, please contact AECL Communications Manager, Kai Ianssen, on (02)  9409 6909 or kai@aecl.org.
What a load of ....
Team-spirited indead! If AECL actively represented the free range sector we wouldn't have to make our voices heard in the only way the Egg Corp understands - publicity.
Here's FRFA's response to James Kellaway, Managing Director of the Egg Corp
Our members look forward to the planned workshops on your  Egg Standards Australia proposal, which we believe will mislead consumers and  damage the environmental sustainability of farms. We note your comment:
'This standard must consider consumer expectations, robust science and commercial reality as it relates to bird health and welfare, food safety and environmental  stewardship.'
Unfortunately your proposal does not meet consumer expectations or  robust science. Despite an assurance by you that details would be provided, you  have failed to provide evidence of the methodology of your 'Consumer Survey' and  you have shown no evidence that egg production standards anywhere in the  world are even close to your proposed high density 'free range' standard.
It is not credible for you to claim that this proposed standard will  meet environmental stewardship requirements. The stocking density you propose  would ensure that participating farms would be either mud baths or dust bowls -  depending on the time of year.

The website of Home On The Range -  a member of the Free Range Farmers Association has been hacked and is currently out of action. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Cyber attacks are always difficult and at this stage no-one knows if it was a random event or if it was a result of the noise being made within the egg industry. We will find out if any additional measures need to be taken to protect this site for the Association, but I understand that Weebly already has full back-up processes in place in the event of an attack. 
UPDATE: The site was only down for about 24 hours. It now back up and running. 

The onslaught of publicity over AECL's ridiculous 'standard' for free range egg production must make the Egg Corp board realise that they can't ram this plan through. The Egg Corporation is damaging the industry by destroying consumer confidence. Free range producers are being completely disenfranchised by the arrogant stance which has been taken by the Egg Corporation and the major egg producers.  They see an opportunity to make money by labelling intensively produced eggs as 'free range' and they expect consumers to fall for it.
The timing of the release of the draft standard played into the hands of The Greens in NSW who have introduced a Truth in Labelling Bill in State Parliament. The Egg Corp's action demonstrates exactly why such legislation is needed.
When all the dust has settled, if AECL still goes ahead with this, no doubt the ACCC will intervene.
Here's a link to the George Negus programme on Channel 10. http://humanechoice.com.au/EmailTracker/LinkTracker.ashx?selId=4yahVOXYoc4YDZzaY2wXg929naGJ%2fHbRmF8vfHv65Ulq1VhSRm%2fP7ytG2f%2fVwZnr
There will be more until AECL comes to its senses and truly represents ALL egg farmers.

The Australian Egg Corporation is getting a great wake-up call this morning with outrage over its proposed 'standard' for free range egg production. It hit the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and has been run in just about every Fairfax newspaper and on-line site throughout the country.Have a look at :
 http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/farmers-cackle-over-freerange-definition-20110914-1k9s9.html
The Egg Corp needs to clean up its act and be honest with consumers and legitimate free range egg farmers.

The Australian Egg Corporation has finally sent out the latest draft of its egg production standards for comment by egg producers. It still contains unacceptable features such as allowing a 'free range' stocking density of up to 20,000 chickens per hectare.
It also proposes that hens are allowed to be locked up until five weeks after the start of lay - which  would generally mean they are locked in sheds until around 25 - 26 weeks old by which time they would be conditioned to life in a shed and would probably never venture outside (which of course is what the big operators want). Currently to be classified as free range, the Model Code stipulates that hens must be allowed access to range once they are fully feathered - around six weeks old.
The Egg Corp also specifies that no other livestock (other  than guardian dogs) must be allowed on the range area with the chooks. This is  nonsense as Alpacas and donkeys are often used as flock guardians as well. We are not aware of any significant disease control issues with running cattle and sheep in the same paddock as chooks. Many farms rotationally graze and problems have not emerged. There is no science behind the Egg Corp proposal - it's just a blatant scheme designed to increase the profits of intensive egg producers.
Workshops will be held around the country in October and we hope that AECL gets the message that this version of 'free range' is not acceptable to farmers or consumers. If they want an intensive standard like this call it something else - Cage Free or Lot Fed perhaps. But leave the term 'free range' alone for the genuine free range farmers.

A UK study about the benefits of trees and shubs in the paddocks where free range hens are allowed to roam found that the problems of feather pecking and potetial cannibalism were reduced significantly.
We believe that this research will help to kill off the Egg Corporation's proposed 'standard' for its version of 'free range' egg production.
Domestic chickens are descended from the red junglefowl of south-east Asia and are found in areas where there is plenty of undergrowth, and overhead  cover, which provides shade, shelter and protection from aerial predators (Johnson 1963;Johnsgard 1986). Horton (2006) found that with tree cover present,
a higher proportion of hens in commercial freerange flocks ranged, and ranged further, compared to hens without range tree cover; in ranges with tree cover,
the maximum numbers of hens outside were 50 m from the house compared with 10 m in ranges without cover.
Hegelund et al (2005) and Zeltner and Hirt (2008) demonstrated that artificial and tree/bush cover on the range can attract more hens away from the area immediately outside the house compared to ranges without cover, and that the variety and quality of cover was more important than the absolute amount of cover. Furthermore, there is a well-established link between range use and IFP (injurious feather pecking) in commercial laying hen flocks; the higher the percentage of flocks using the outdoor range, the lower the prevalence of feather pecking (Green et al 2000; Bestman & Wagenaar 2003; Nicol et al 2003; Lambton et al 2010). In an experimental study by Mahboub et al (2004), a negative correlation was found between percent of time spent outside and plumage damage.
If providing cover on the range improves the number and distribution of hens using the range, and range use is negatively correlated with IFP, it might also be expected that range cover will be correlated with IFP. To our knowledge, however, the relationship between proportion of range cover or canopy cover and IFP has yet to be examined.
The study described the first results from an ongoing collaborative project between a major UK high street restaurant chain and two UK egg-producing companies, McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd, UK (McDonald’s), The Lakes Free Range Egg Co Ltd  and Noble Foods Ltd. The aim of the project was to
implement animal welfare research on a commercial scale and improve the welfare of laying hens within the McDonald’s supply chain. During 2007 and early 2008, all 286 laying hen producers (approximately one third are Lakes and two-thirds are Noble), were required by McDonald’s to plant, if not present already, 5% of the total range area in trees (decided upon after consultation of existing farm assurance free-range standards, cost and practical considerations). There was a large variation in tree cover because of the proportion of the range on which producers decided to plant trees, the timing of planting prior to flock placements and the presence of existing tree stands.
The objective of this study was to investigate, in a commercial situation, the correlation between: i) proportion of range cover and ii) proportion of canopy cover, with plumage damage of end-of-lay hens.
The full report is available from Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead,Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
or by contacting the Free Range Farmers Association

The ACCC has halted its investigation of the Australian Egg Corporation's proposed new industry production standard which will allow a 'free range' stocking density of up to 20,000 chickens per hectare, until extensive consulation with producers has taken place.
AECL is sending the latest draft of the Egg Standards Australia (ESA) to all egg producers on its datbase seeking comment and feedback.  
AECL will convene a series of workshops in October to gain the views of egg producers. Please make sure your voice is heard. The Association will certainly be putting a strong case against the proposed standard - unless AECL chooses to redefine the production type as something other than 'free range'.

For further information about the AECL proposal please contact Abe Moses, AECL’s newly appointed Extension, Quality & Training Manager on (02) 9409 6901 or extension@aecl.org.


 

Major meat chicken suppliers in Victoria are facing court for allegedly claiming their chooks roam freely in spacious barns.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has launched Federal Court action against Baiada Poultry and Bartter Enterprises and Turi Foods, which supply chickens to Steggles and La Ionica respectively, and peak industry body the Australian Chicken Meat Federation Inc.
All three are accused of claiming their chickens have been raised in spacious barns where they can roam freely, similar to free-range birds.
The consumer watchdog claims chickens raised in barns cannot enjoy a free range-type lifestyle because there are so many of them.
 "Promotional activities that convey an impression of farming practices are powerful representations which influence many consumer purchases and food
choices," the ACCC says. If the action succeeds, it will send a great message to all those dodgy 'free range' egg producers out there!

The Britsh Free Range Eggs Producers Association (BFREPA) recognises that to compete with the big boys in the industry, they need to increase their membership base of free range egg producers to 80%.  It's currently 50%.   Just imagine how much clout we would have if we had 50% of the 'free range' industry here in Australia!
Details at:
   http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2011/09/01/128709/BFREPA-producers-speak-out-at-meeting.htm

A SIDELINE venture introduced at Rob and Sandra Waterson’s cattle operation to improve its pastures has become a good earner in its own right.
The property turned to egg production from free-range chickens in a process of rotational grazing between cattle and hens about a year ago.
The egg production strand of the rural business operates under the name Silverdale Eggs.
Stowe Park manager Dan Carney said the enterprise accepted a contract with Coles to supply free-range eggs.
"We are starting to supply Coles at Gladstone and Tannum Sands but as we expand we expect to supply more stores in Central Queens-Stowe Park manager Dan Carney.
"We recently brought in 1600 pullets so we are running nearly 3000 birds to meet the demand, and by April next year we plan to have 5000 birds." Mr Carney said negotiations were conducted in Melbourne.
"They (Coles) have been really good to deal with and they have been surprisingly supportive of getting local produce into their stores." Buyers of Silverdale Eggs need not be concerned the hens that laid them had not received the best possible treatment.
Mr Carney said Coles had informed him the Gladstone and Tannum Sands Coles stores were the only ones in Australia to have RSPCA-approved
free-range eggs.
He said Silverdale Eggs was only one of three such egg providers to have RSPCA approval in Australia. The other two are both in South AustraUa.
The company already employs one full-time egg packer and two casual egg collectors and packers.
"But with more layers we will have to increase our casual staff~" Mr Carney said.
The birds are rotated around the property in mobile pens after the cattle have grazed there.
The hens’ droppings, combined with the cattle manure, enrich the soil and provide more protein in the introduced and native pasture grasses
and this helps fatten the cattle.
"Tissue testing of the growth after the birds had been there has been remarkable the protein value went from 9% to 15%." The birds help control fly larvae and weeds and their scratching softens the soil.

Australia’s chief medical officer says people shouldn’t be worried about reports that a mutant strain of the deadly bird 'flu virus is spreading across Asia and beyond.
Prof Chris Baggoley, who was officially appointed the nation’s top doctor on Tuesday, August 29 argues that  Australia is well served by strict testing and customs regimes.
Avian migration patterns also mean infected birds are highly unlikely to arrive here.

A new study in the UK has demonstrated that  the canopy cover provided by trees increases the health of roaming chickens and reduces feather pecking. See details at:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/New-study-shows-tree-cover-leads-to-healthier-hens_21417.html

The global giant food group Heinz has announced that it has switched recipes and will now use only free range eggs in response to consumer demand.
Details: http://www.farminguk.com/news/Heinz-makes-switch-to-free-range-eggs_21403.html

There's some good information on ways to limit heat stress on laying hens on World Poultry Net. Have a look at:
http://www.worldpoultry.net/background/combating-heat-stress-to-keep-birds-productive-9134-page-1.html

Egg Standards Australia still in development
The AECL Board met recently to consider and address a number of issues including the progress towards establishing an egg standard for Australia.  Egg 
Standards Australia (ESA) has now been developed by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that included egg producers.  

The Standard has also been reviewed by an expanded ECA Industry Consultative Committee (ICC).  This feedback has resulted in AECL ‘taking stock’ of the process and seeking broader or wider consultation with egg producers.  As a result, AECL will dispatch information to all egg producers seeking written 
comment and will also convene workshops nationwide in the coming months to gain input into the Standard.
For further information please contact James Kellaway on (02) 9409 6906 or james@aecl.org.
This standard was to have been released late last year but various deadlines have been missed because of the problems associated with conflicting demands. Hopefully there will be a lot of feedback at the workshops telling the Egg Corporation that the standard proposed which allows eggs produced on intensive facilities to be called 'free range' is not acceptable to the genuine free range sector (or to consumers). 

Response to NSW Greens ‘Truth in Labelling (Free Range Eggs) draft Bill  2011’
  
AECL sent letters to all NSW Government MP’s to explain what it sees as the significant industry and market consequences of a draft Bill that Greens MLC, Dr John Kaye put to the NSW Parliament on 5 August. 
It claimed that the draft would see non-cage egg production unnecessarily restricted and would ban legitimate forms of marketing for caged egg farmers. AECL believes the  draft Bill is unsustainable, unrealistic, not commercial and discriminatory. The  draft Bill is due to return to the NSW Parliament for debate this week. For further information, please contact Kai Ianssen on (02) 9409 6909 or kai@aecl.org.
You can read the Bill here
The Free Range Egg and Poutry Association of Australian (the national body with which FRFA is affiliated) has sent the following letter to NSW MPs:
 
Dear Parliamentary Members,
Re: Draft Truth in Labelling (Free-Range Eggs) Bill 2011
The egg industry largely supports the Bill designed to generate truth in labelling on egg cartons and we urge you to support this Bill in the New South Wales
Parliament.
There is now a broad agreement in the egg industry that clear, legal definitions need to be established and we hope that a national definition for free
range egg production will be implemented.
The Free Range Farmers Association Inc. and the national industry body, Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc.
have been pushing for a national definition to be established for free range production systems which meets consumer expectations.
These arguments have been boosted by the Australian Egg Corporation's managing director, James Kellaway, who now says AECL wants a definition enshrined in law. He has stated:“We have definitions that are enforced by the industry but we want to make such definitions more robust and definitive … what we'd like to see is a definition that is clearly enunciated and enforced” 
The Associations have argued that the starting point should be the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry. The definition should require a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare and prohibit the beak trimming or de-beaking of birds.
Consumer research has demonstrated that these minimum standards meet the expectations of people who buy free range eggs.
Currently, many producers who label their eggs as 'free range' run stocking densities well above the 1500 bird limit. AECL has revealed that some farms run as many as 40,000 chickens per hectare.
The Model Code requires producers to find alternative measures to combat feather pecking and cannibalism before resorting to beak trimming –but most farms (even those which claim to be free range) make no attempt to find alternatives. Their birds are beaked trimmed at day old or soon after.
Claims that stocking densities proposed by this Bill are not commercially viable are false. Many successful commercial egg farms demonstrate every day that a stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare or less is readily achievable and sustainable. 
In Victoria, the standards of the Free Range Farmers Association limit numbers to 750 chickens per hectare (which is based on the Victorian Government standard prior to the deregulation of the industry).
Beak trimming is totally unnecessary for hens on a free range farm. Problems of feather pecking and cannibalism only arise in intensive production systems
because of overstocking. It is misleading for eggs produced on those farms to be labelled as 'free range'.

Fighting anti-biotic resistant bacteria on poultry farms

The University of Maryland in the US has just published a study showing that the levels of anti-biotic resistant bacteria is radically reduced on poultry farms that go organic and don't use anti-biotics on their flocks. It showed significantly lower levels of drug-resistant and multi-drug resistant enterococci bacteria.
Check it out at:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-08-poultry-farms-significantly-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria.html
   
Eating the Planet
A joint publication by Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming is a real eye-opener.  See what we are doing to our world in the name of feeding the population (or making money):
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/what_we_do/factory_farming/eating_the_planet.aspx

Egg Stamping
If all egg producers have to begin stamping individual eggs next year, we need to start looking at equipment. The bigger operators, of course, will be able to fit ink jet stampers to their grader/packers, but small farm businesses will probably want hand stampers.
Many varieties are available. There are stampers for individual eggs, ones that do several and ones that do a tray of 30 at a time.
Some ingenius individuals may be able to rig up a stamper which operates with their current small grading machine as the eggs roll down the chute.
Here's a link that could be useful:
http://www.fikser.nl/Eistempels/producten_e.html

Nutritional differences
Some studies into nutritional differences between cage and 'free range' eggs have been conducted by North Carolina State University in the US and published recently by the Poultry Science Association.
http://www.worldpoultry.net/news/study-free-range-or-cage-produced-eggs-have-no-nutritional-difference-9226.html
Not surprisingly, the report claimed that there is very little difference between the nutritional values of the eggs. The research was funded by the egg industry, and as the picture in the article shows, the 'free range' hens used were beak trimmed so they couldn't forage properly.