©2009 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Overview of natural and organic egg production:
Looking back to the future1
K. E. Anderson2
Department of Poultry science, north Carolina state University, Raleigh 27695-7608
Primary Audience: Organic Egg Producers, Natural or Cage-Free Egg Producers, Sales
Managers
SUMMARY
The US egg industry has grown dramatically in the past, with a significant component of that
growth focusing on alternative production systems such as cage-free or range egg production.
Constituents of this growth involving intensive egg production create uncertainty in relation to
the future because of concerns about the impact of the cage environment on laying hen wellbeing. Both the commercial egg production sector and small producers using heritage strains of
chickens, in flocks ranging in size from 100 to 3,000 hens, are responding by producing eggs in
both cage-free and range settings. However, one of the current issues is that our knowledge base
of how these alternative production methods influence egg performance and quality characteristics is limited to research studies that were conducted in the late 1940s and early 1950s. This
information was collected with specific breeds, and not with modern lines of poultry that have
been selected for very high rates of egg production. Therefore, an examination of alterative
laying hen husbandry practices in the context of the current knowledge base would provide
beneficial information to identify how these husbandry and feeding practices translate to modern strains of laying hens under cage-free or range production. Research on range or cage-free
production done in controlled settings is limited, and additional studies relevant to egg producers wishing to expand cage-free and range egg production are needed.
Key words: chicken, egg, organic, cage-free, range production
2009 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18:348–354
doi:10.3382/japr.2008-00119
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
In the early 1900s, when smaller, highly diversified farms were commonplace in the United
States, free-range poultry production of eggs and
meat was a standard component of most farms.
The poultry operations were typically run by the
farm wife; they provided many household amenities for the farm family and accounted for 2.78%
1
of the livestock income [1]. By the 1930s, more
intensive range production was prevalent, and
there was movement within the poultry industry toward more intensive practices [2]. Farmers
were constantly looking for methods to produce
eggs by more economical means to better supply the market demands. As the understanding
of disease control improved and vaccines were
developed, the range productivity increased and
Papers from the Current and Future Prospects for Natural and Organic Poultry Symposium were presented at the Poultry Science Association’s 97th Annual Meeting in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada.
2
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Anderson: ORGANIC SYMPOSIUM
further intensification of egg production was
possible. The egg production sector continued
to confine hens, which culminated in highly intensive cage operations by the early 1950s. This
protected the hens from the environment, predation, external and internal parasites, and disease.
However, because of the increasing generational
distance of the public from animal agricultural
production, consumers have voiced concerns
related to the use of the cage environment for
egg production [3]. This has culminated in the
passing of a proposition banning caged layers
in California. In response to these concerns, the
commercial egg industry is expanding the production of eggs in cage-free and range settings.
However, our current knowledge base is very
limited regarding how these extensive production methods influence the broad array of egg
performance, quality characteristics, and management. Much of the management information
is limited or based on research conducted in the
late 1940s and early 1950s. These types of studies have not been conducted on today’s layers or
in controlled settings relevant to US egg producers. This is a brief, historical examination of the
effects of production environments of cage-free
and range settings on productivity and management inputs as they relate to the specific public
demand for these types of eggs.
DISCUSSION
As I begin this discussion, it is important
for members of the audience to understand that
the topic of natural and organic production has
been expanded to include cage-free and range
production and that the two have become integrally linked. The domestication of animals, and
poultry in particular, is a relatively new pursuit
of humans since our emergence (Figure 1) [4].
Since the time humans began the process of domestication, the behavior and environments of
birds have been altered and the birds have been
selected in a way that has enhanced their ability
to adapt to more intensive environments. With
the domestication of the hen came the desire
to understand and manage these animals, and
many changes have occurred since Aldrovandi
published his first work in 1598 [5] in which he
discussed common knowledge related to poultry
husbandry. The poultry industry began a rapid
349
development by the early 1900s. At approximately that time, poultry accounted for 19.3%
of livestock income [1], with eggs contributing
$144,286,157 and other poultry contributing
$186,801,877. In 1907, the poultry and eggs
produced in the United States accounted for
$600,000,000 according to USDA Statistics,
as summarized by Hastings [6]. By the early
1900s, and probably earlier, significant changes
in poultry management were being implemented
by farmers. I believe the most drastic changes
in the US poultry industry began with the 1909
book The Dollar Hen, by Milo Hastings [6].
Before these guides were published, husbandry
recommendations were rather vague in the way
they were presented to the reader. Recommendations are summarized in Table 1 for each of
the references.
This work was followed by others, such as
Poultry Breeding and Management, by James
Dryden [7], Profitable Poultry Management, by
C. E. Lee [8], and Poultry Husbandry, by M. A.
Jull [9]. These 4 authors and others ushered forward the shift in poultry production from a farm
production component to a stand-alone production farm, which, over the course of the 50 yr
they span, brought to the farming community
many of the most modern production methods
for cage-free and range production. This progress was swift in that from 1942 to 1946, poultry and eggs accounted for $2.6 billion in farm
income, and by the 1950 census, the poultry
industry accounted for 21% of the agricultural
livestock income.
Husbandry Changes
The husbandry recommendations from 1906
through 1950 remained somewhat vague in nature, but, with some extrapolation, the general requirements are shown in Table 1 [6–9]. In 1908,
range recommendations provide for 100 hens/
acre, or 433 ft2/hen of usable range area, which
would allow for approximately 2,000 hens on 25
acres, including structures. The range should be
made up of 2 paddocks on a 4- to 6-mo rotation
that would allow for the maintenance of ground
vegetative cover. There was also a suggestion
that poultry should follow cattle or pigs on the
paddocks. Range huts should be portable and
accommodate approximately 80 hens each, with
JAPR: Symposium
350
a floor space of 4.5 ft2/hen. Feeders for nutrient
supplements needed to be designed to minimize
feed wastage and to accommodate weekly feeding. The interpretation of this is that the feeders
needed to protect the feed from rain and other
elements. Water recommendations were that the
hens should have access to naturally flowing water. The paddocks should be planted with cover
crops such as sunflower, corn, rape, kale, or a
comparable crop. Other outside feeds included
beef scraps, corn grain, and grit. This resulted
in annual inputs of $600 for cover crop seeds
and planting, $500 for beef scraps and grit, and
$1,000 for corn grain. Along with the chick cost
of $250, this resulted in an income of $2,291
for a flock of 2,000 hens. Three breeds of hens
were mentioned, namely, Single Comb White
Leghorn, which produced 175 eggs at 7.8 lb of
feed/dozen; Black Orpingtons, which produced
167 eggs at 8.2 lb of feed/dozen; and Silver Wyandottes, which produced 161 eggs at 8.5 lb of
feed/dozen [6].
The 1918 husbandry recommendations
changed, with a range population variation of
100 to 500 hens/acre [7]. It was indicated that
for disease control (i.e., Marek’s, coryza, coccidiosis) reasons, the 500 hen/acre population
should be used for only 3 to 5 yr. The average
range population was 288 hens/acre, or 150 ft2/
hen. The recommended paddock rotation was
1 time each year, with the empty paddock being planted and harvested. The recommended
Figure 1. Historical perspective on poultry husbandry.
Domestication of the chicken and the beginning of environmental and behavioral modifications in relation to
the emergence of Homo sapiens and animal domestication.
Table 1. Summary of husbandry recommendations and bird performance characteristics as translated from
management texts
Year
Range hut floor
space, ft2
Range
area, ft2
Hen-housed
eggs
19061
19183
19504
20015
4.5
2.4
1.5
1.3
433
150
86–173
856
170
125
168
240
20066
0.47
0
374
Feed conversion,
lb/dozen
8.0
6.6
7.4
6.1
Mortality,
%
Labor,
h/hen
Net income,
$/hen
29.4
53.4
23.5
25.0
2.4
1.8
2.6
1.5
1.152
4.842
11.702
16.202
5.5
0.17
7.42
Cage production
1
3.0
Hastings, 1909 [6].
In 2000 dollar values, incomes are equivalent according to the Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation Calculator (http://
cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html).
3
Dryden, 1918 [7].
4
Lee, 1949 [8].
5
Plamondon, 2001 [17].
6
Anderson, 2007 [22].
2
Anderson: ORGANIC SYMPOSIUM
crops were clover, vetch, rye, and alfalfa, and it
was emphasized that the crop should match the
season for optimal cover crop production. The
requirement for the range hut was 2.4 ft2/hen,
1 nest/5 hens, and approximately 150-ft spacing
between the huts. Poultry yards were introduced
at this time, with a recommendation of 40 ft2/
hen and a stipulation that the yards be cleaned
regularly. The supplemental diets were composed of meat scraps and cereal grains, which
resulted in a diet containing approximately
15% protein. Interestingly, it was emphasized
that hens were meat eaters. Dryden [7] indicated that the forages consumed by the chickens
were approximately 50% digestible (clovers,
alfalfa), but this still meant that the hens were
consuming approximately 19 lb of supplemental feed/100 hens. Annual production costs for
a 776-hen flock included housing, forage costs,
feed, chicks, and operating, for total expenses of
$3,656 and a net income of $3,753 from the sale
of eggs and poultry. Dryden [7] did not indicate
specific strains but reviewed several strains, including light, medium, and heavy strains, indicating that the average egg production was only
125 eggs/hen.
The husbandry practices recommended for
the 1950s were derived from recommendations
by Lee [8] and Jull [9]. The range populations
continued to increase to 250 to 500 hens/acre
(173 to 86 ft2/hen, with year-round access) because of advancements in disease control. Jull
indicated that 1,000 hens/acre could be sustained for single seasons before disease problems developed. The forages recommended
for the cover crops included ladino clover, rye,
bluegrass, and other related cover crops. He recommended a mixed stand for seasonal changes,
with a mowing schedule to enhance new growth
for increased nutritional value. The floor space
allowance in the range huts decreased to 1.5 ft2/
hen, with nest space requirements of 1 nest/5
hens. A great deal more was known about nutrition, with diets composed of cereal grains, plant
proteins, and animal by-products, and balanced
for vitamins and minerals. Interestingly, these
researchers still recommended that 25% of the
proteins be of animal origin. The hens consumed
approximately 15 g of protein/d and the diets
were formulated at 15 to 17% CP. In addition,
there was further work on forages, and several
351
clovers and alfalfas were recommended, along
with mixed grasses. There was also a shift to
single-hen and colony cages for egg production,
with cage densities ranging from 102 to 85 in.2/
hen. There was a shift at this time to considering
the income per cage as the driving force. The
costs associated with egg production in flocks of
more than 200 hens included housing, forages,
feed, chicks, and operating, which totaled $9.50
per hen. The income received included an income of $2.12/hen from the spent fowl, with the
gross income for a year being $4,240 (Table 1).
Jull [9] designated light breeds as those producing 168 eggs/hen per yr at 6.9 lb of feed/dozen.
Heavy breeds were those producing 167 eggs/
hen per yr at 7.9 lb of feed/dozen. Mortalities
for both breeds were high, at 26.5 and 20.6%,
respectively [9].
Labor Inputs
Winter and Funk [10] examined the relationship between flock size and labor hours per hen
for the life of the flock. They indicated (Figure
2) that as flock size increased from less than 100
hens to more than 500 hens, labor hours would
decrease from 2.4 to 1.5 h/hen per yr, respectively. This was supported by Jull [9], who also
indicated a decline in labor inputs as flock size
increased. Even in 2008, the labor input to care
for a flock of 300 hens was monitored at 1.7
h/hen per yr at the Piedmont Research Station
range facility [11]. This is very much in line
with the findings of Winter and Funk [10]. In
a comparison with an equivalent flock size in
cages, the labor input was only 0.17 h/hen per
yr [11]. This was probably a driving force in the
move from range and cage-free layer egg production to nearly exclusively cage production in
the commercial egg industry.
Organic Foods
From 1997 through 2003, food sales for organic products increased by 17 to 21% each
year, whereas in the same time frame, nonorganic products increased by only 2 to 4% each
year. This resulted in total sales for organic
products reaching $10.4 billion [12]. There was
a shift from the traditional outlets of direct sales
and farmers markets for organic foods to health
food and independent grocers and supermarkets,
JAPR: Symposium
352
which accounted for at least 37% of organic
sales. There is also a projected continuation of
double-digit growth through 2009. In a survey
conducted by Synovate for Whole Foods Market
Inc., consumers ranked their rationale for purchasing organics as being that organics are environmentally friendly, locally produced, healthier, high quality, and better tasting [13]. Organic
poultry production increased by state, with the
1997 organic poultry production totaling less
than 1 million birds and by 2005 totaling more
than 13 million birds [14]. North Carolina, for
example, is ranked in the top 5 organic poultryproducing states.
Natural or Organic Production Facilities
Recommendations for requirements of poultry
facilities as indoor or outdoor systems are coming from numerous sources [15–17]. The first
noncage systems are defined as being indoor systems constructed with a single level [15]. They
can have litter or slatted floors or a combination,
with feed and water typically located over the
slats. They contain integrated nest boxes so the
hens would have access from all locations in the
house. The floor space recommendations are for
1.2 to 1.5 ft2/hen, and if the barn system includes
litter, the recommendation is 39 in.2/hen of litter
space [16]. The second indoor system is called
an “aviary,” which is classified as a multilevel
system. It is a combination of litter and perforated floors, with upper levels having slats with
manure belts below to prevent manure from falling on hens below. Feeders, waterers, and nest
boxes must be integrated and located for equal
access by all hens on all levels in the facility.
Aviaries allow for a much higher bird population in a single building. The third noncage system is the outdoor system using either outdoor
areas, called verandas, or ranges for the hens’
outdoor space. The houses are constructed as litter, slatted, or a combination of the 2. Feed and
water are located indoors over the slats, along
with the nests. The verandas are covered areas
with some type of litter or ground covering. The
space is limited but is protected from the rain.
Range is a pasture that has a maintained forage
covering and may be divided into multiple paddocks for rotational grazing. The paddocks may
have covered areas to help maintain hygiene in
inclement weather. The recommendation for hen
densities is 1,000 hens/acre (43.3 ft2/hen) [16].
The outdoor systems can range in size from a
few hens to thousands, and they require much
more management input on a per-hen basis. In
a roundabout way, total free-range egg production systems being promoted for the small natural or organic producer are a throwback to the
1909 publication [6], with some modifications
being promoted by current producers. Recommended standards for smaller producers are a
flock size of approximately 500 hens at a range
density of 50 hens/acre, or a space of 865 ft2/
hen [17]. The range huts provide 1.3 ft2/hen,
with 10 in. of roost space per hen. The feeder
space is 2 in./hen and the range feeders should
be 50 to 150 ft from the range hut. The capital
investment in 2001 was $7.00/hen. The costs of
pullets, feed, labor, fuel, processing, and miscel-
Figure 2. Relationship of labor (hours/hen per year) as related to range flock size.
Anderson: ORGANIC SYMPOSIUM
laneous totaled $44.80/hen, with an income of
$60.00 for eggs and $1.00 for the fowl, leaving
a net income of $16.20/hen. A comparison of
the incomes by using the Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation Calculator (http://cost.jsc.
nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html) showed that the net
incomes adjusted for inflation for all the periods
in time were similar (Table 1). The other item
mentioned was the application of 2.5 tons of manure annually on each acre.
Future Perspective
If you have ever seen the movie The Egg and
I, the perspective of advancement of an industry
is portrayed based on the book of the same title
[18]. Fred McMurray portrays a soldier returning from the war. He bought an old poultry farm
and took his new wife to make his fortune. The
movie documents the transition of his farm from
an old range house to a cage-free house. Later
he buys out his neighbor, who has a cage house
with egg belts, or the latest technology. Should
we be going back to shape our future?
The questions we face in the future are many,
and on top of it all, we have to worry whether
market forces are going to be allowed to determine production and ultimately our future. For
now, the balancing act we play with is among
laying hen welfare, productivity, economic returns, environmental impact, and capital costs.
The big question is, “Is the regulation of production going to become more invasive?” If the
future follows the trends of the past, the answer
is yes. This is already happening with respect to
food safety, welfare, and waste disposal; these
issues are being linked, and the individuals forcing many of these regulations do not even eat
the products being produced. Currently, we are
faced with the passage of a proposition to ban
cages for egg production in California. Because
it has passed, what will it take to produce eggs
in a 1-million-hen complex? First would be the
use of an aviary, which would double the space
requirement per hen to 129 in.2/hen. This would
require at least twice as many houses to put the
hens in a complex in an aviary system. If we decided to produce eggs on the range with those
1 million hens, it would require at least 2,500
acres at 500 hens/acre. This would include the
space for the processing facility and the range
353
rotational pattern. Based on the best available
data, this would also require at least a 10-fold
increase in the labor force.
The next item we need to establish is, “What
type of production is sustainable?” “Sustain” is
defined in the Random House Dictionary [19]
as “to keep up or keep going as an action or process” or “to supply with food, drink, and other
necessities of life.” The modern egg industry
and small producers satisfy this definition. “Sustainable” is defined by the Encarta Dictionary
[20] as something “able to be maintained” or
“exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of an area.” The shift
to extensive animal agriculture production we
see today appears to be as sustainable as today’s
commercial egg production facilities. Historically, however, extensive egg production was
not sustainable for economic reasons, and that is
the primary reason it is diminishing. Currently,
both systems seek to use resources in an optimal
manner to supply the birds with the necessities
of life in an ecologically minded manner. Neither group is trying to take advantage of others
in an unfair manner, but both groups are trying
to gain or benefit from the consumer. However,
if they do not make a profit, they will not be sustainable and will cease to exist.
The reality is that there is a place in animal
agriculture for all types of production systems
in a free-market society. Consumers will choose
what they want and what they are willing to pay
for. The key to this is that they need to be informed, and the information should come from
a reliable and truthful source. I always say that if
you have a question about something, go directly to the source if you can. I believe that all animal agriculture producers are better sources than
individuals who have no background or understanding of animal husbandry. The one thing that
organic, natural, cage-free, and range producers
always need to be aware of is the importance we
put on an affordable, safe, and nutritious product in the food stores that has been produced in
a humane manner. The European Community
has discovered a few realities through their research [15]. These realities are that you cannot
get comparable densities in alternative systems;
that housing and labor costs are higher in alternative systems; that flock management is more
complicated; that disease and parasite risks are
JAPR: Symposium
354
higher; that cannibalism is a threat as flock sizes increase; that dust is enormous in cage-free
operations, threatening worker health; and that
floor eggs can be a problem, with increased labor, egg eating by hens, cracks and broken eggs,
and an increased food safety risk. Williams et al.
[21] looked at the environmental burden and resources involved in production agriculture. They
reported that in animal production, poultry meat
production had the smallest environmental footprint, followed by egg production. Surprisingly,
both of these were with animals maintained in
the current commercial model. The natural and
organic poultry production systems had the next
smallest environmental footprint.
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. Currently, research is being conducted
at many institutions, both here and in
Europe, to examine nutrition, foraging
behavior, forage utilization, and range
husbandry. These studies will provide
greater insight into the needs of stocks
used in a range setting.
2. Considerable research must be done to
improve the viability and sustainability
of cage-free and range production.
3. The key to sustainability is to have a
consumer group willing to pay the price
differential.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. United States Census Office. 1902. Twelfth Census
of the United States—1900. Census Reports Volume V—
Agriculture Part I, Farms, Livestock, and Animal Products.
Table CXVII. United States Census Office. http://www2.
census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/3398096v5ch7.pdf
Accessed June 2, 2008.
2. USDA-APHS. 1973. American Poultry History,
1823–1973: Volume I. The American Poultry Historical Society, Watt Publishing Co., Mt. Morris, IL.
3. Anderson, K. E., and K. W. Koelkebeck. 2007. Realistic views concerning poultry welfare. Poult. Sci. 86:1251–
1252.
4. Craig, J. V. 1981. Domestic Animal Behavior: Causes
and Implications for Animal Care and Management. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
5. Aldrovandi, U. 1598. Aldrovandi on Chickens: The
Ornithology of Ulisse Aldrovandi (1600). Vol. II, Book XIV.
Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK. Translated from
Latin in 1963 with introduction, contents, and notes by L.
R. Lind.
6. Hastings, M. 1909. The Dollar Hen: The Classic
Guide to American Free-Range Egg Farming. Arcadia Press,
Mount Pleasant, SC. Reprinted with editorial comments in
2003 by R. Plamondon, Norton Creek Press, Blodgett, OR.
7. Dryden, J. 1918. Poultry Breeding and Management.
Orange Judd Company, New York, NY.
8. Lee, C. E. 1949. Profitable Poultry Management.
Beacon Milling Company Inc., Cayuga, NY.
9. Jull, M. A. 1951. Poultry Husbandry. 3rd ed. McGrawHill Book Company Inc., New York, NY.
10.Winter, A. R., and E. M. Funk. 1949. Poultry farm
management. Pages 526–571 in Poultry Science and Practice. R. W. Gregory, ed. J. B. Lippincott Company, Chicago,
IL.
11.Anderson, K. E. 2008. North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Personal communication.
12.Hansen, N. 2004. Organic Food Sales See Healthy
Growth: Mainstream Food Companies Promote Natural Brands. C-NBC TV. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/6638417/ Accessed June 2, 2008.
13.Whole Foods Market Inc. 2004. Organic Foods Continue to Grow in Popularity, Survey. http://www.allbusiness.
com/retail-trade/4299058-1.html Accessed June 2, 2008.
Whole Foods Market Inc. survey conducted by Synovate,
August 2004.
14.Oberholtzer, L., C. Greene, and E. Lopez. 2006. Organic Poultry and Eggs Capture High Price Premiums and
Growing Share of Specialty Markets. Table 2: U.S. certified organic farmland acreage, livestock numbers, and farm
operations, 1992–2005. USDA-ERS Outlook Report No.
LDPM-15001, December 2006. http://www.ers.usda.gov/
Data/Organic/ Accessed June 2, 2008.
15.LayWel. 2006. Welfare implications of changes in
production systems for laying hens: Deliverable 2.3. http://
www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2023.pdf Accessed
June 2, 2008. Description of housing systems for laying
hens.
16.Fanatico, A. 2006. Alternative poultry production
systems and outdoor access. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/
PDF/poultryoverview.pdf Accessed June 2, 2008.
17.Plamondon, R. 2001. Mixing free-range hens and
ruminants on pasture. http://www.plamondon.com/sare.pdf
Accessed June 2, 2008.
18.McDonald, B. 1945. The Egg and I. J. B. Lippincott
Company, Philadelphia, PA.
19.Random House Dictionaries. 1975. The Random
House College Dictionary. Rev. ed. J. Stein, ed. Random
House Inc., New York, NY.
20.Encarta Dictionary. 2008. Encarta World English
Dictionary [English (North America)]. Microsoft Corporation/Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. http://encarta.msn.com/
encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx Accessed
June 2, 2008.
21.Williams, A. G., E. Audsley, and D. L. Sandars. 2006.
Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in
the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities.
Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra, Bedford, UK. http://www.silsoe.cranfield.
ac.uk and http://www.defra.gov.uk Accessed June 2, 2008.
22.Anderson, K. E. 2007. Final Report of the Thirty
Sixth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management
Test. Vol. 36, No. 5. Coop. Ext., North Carolina State University, Raleigh.