Standard or Free Range Eggs?

[prendrelemick]

Its one of those issues it is almost impossible to get straight facts on. Every article I read has an editorial bias one way or another.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My eggs have yolks that are a dark yellow, almost orange. I think there is a huge difference in taste. Maybe it's a visual thing and my mind is just tricking me.

I too definitely think that there is a difference in taste and not suprising really.

Hey, what a coincidence. As it turns out my current issue of Nutrition Action (a nutrition newsletter I receive monthly) has a article on cage versus cage-free chickens. Most of the article deals with the ethics of caged raised chickens, and to be honest I'm moved by it ("A typical caged hen lives in an area no bigger than this page.") and the increased risk of salmonella from caged raised chickens. We had an instance here in the US a few months ago where salmonella from eggs effected a number of people (I think a couple of people might have even died) and they had to recall half a billion eggs. I can't even imagine a half a billion eggs. I wonder how many eggs are laid in the US every day.

As for nutrient claims, while the article doesn't spend a lot of words on it, it does say a lot depends on the feed the growers give the hens. "Caged and caged-free hens typically eat the same corn-based diet, so there's no nutritional difference between their eggs. But some producers supplement their hen's diets with ingredients that raise the level of some nutrients."

Frankly, if you're basing your egg purchasing decision on possible nutritional advantage, I think it's not worth it. First of all the modern diet contains more than enough daily nutritional content. Very few people (probably alcoholics and drug addicts being the exception) today don't get proper nutrition from a balanced diet. Whatever extra you might be getting from caged free eggs is unnecessary. Second, I don't think you really know what the nutritional content of the eggs are. How do you prove what the farmer fed the hens?

But if you're basing the decision on humane treatment of the animals, I understand and I might in time go along with it too. Good post to Paul a few comments above here.

Hey good man. Yes, well, whether there are any health benefits from going free range is at best only a side issue for me anyway. For me, buying free range eggs (and chicken) is about what I consider to be morally right. I’m not particularly an animal lover by any means, I’m certainly not a “pet person”, but for me the conditions these animals are kept in are way below what I see as acceptable to treat other living creatures by on any level. That’s the short of it really.

It’s funny, we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers, as the cliché goes, which seems a little ridiculous considering the treatment that’s allowed for these birds. I suspect that if you kept a dog or a cat in the same conditions, i.e. trapped in a cage for a year, barely able to turn around and never getting out (only to be killed), eating and defecating in the same place, then there would be an extremely strong case for prosecution on grounds of animal cruelty. However, it seems if it is done to chickens it is seen as normal, as “standard” – it’s OK to treat them in such a way for some reason? I don’t get it. Why the double standard?

If all it takes is buying an egg at an extra 5p, or whatever, then it’s a vote for common decency in my book. I’m certainly pleased that this system will be outlawed in the UK by 2012; because it seems that these birds have the worst life imaginable.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm just shamelessly bumping this up one more time to catch any stray voters. So far, it seems that more people are willing to pay the bit extra for free range eggs but not for the chickens themselves.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'll throw in my two cents, Neely. And I'll clear up a few chicken/egg myths along the way!

Brown chickens lay brown-shelled eggs, white chickens lay white-shelled eggs. Egg shell colour does not in any way affect taste.

The colour of the yolk (ranging from pale yellow to dark orange/red) is determined by the diet fed to the laying hen. That's why you see regional differences- an area tends to prefer yolks of a certain colour because that is what they're used to as the hens are fed based on what's locally available. There will be some taste variation because of the different types/ relative amounts of protein.

I think before you can make a decision on this matter, you need to understand the welfare concerns with both types of housing. A lot of people have been arguing for free-range eggs because of the animal welfare issues associated with battery cages (the stacks of wire cages in which birds are housed). Everyone should also be aware that there are welfare issues associated with free-range birds as well. These birds are subject to competition for feed and space and places within the dominance hierarchy when they are not confined. There are much higher instances of feather pecking, fighting, and cannibalism in free-range birds, and these animals are subjected to beak trimming, in which the tip of the bird's beak is clipped off (anesthetic- and analgesic-free) to prevent injury among the birds, though there is chronic pain associated with this process and it does not prevent fighting.

There's no question that battery cages have a lot of issues. The birds experience a lot of frustration for various reasons, particularly at not having access to a nest box when they lay, they're often overstocked, and movement is severely restricted. It's a pretty terrible system, but does have some advantages for both the animals and the producers (fewer injuries, more sanitary). This system is on the way out in Europe (YAY!!, already gone in Switzerland, and hopefully Canada won't be tooo far behind. Sorry US, you guys are slacking in the animal welfare department). Actually, for those of you who thought that the cages looked unsanitary, there are more issues concerned with sanitation for free-range birds. Free-range birds eat food off the same ground on which they defecate. Caged birds eat out of a feeder (space does not allow them to defecate in the feeder unless they're pretty talented).

That being said, I don't think either housing system is preferable. Research from the 90s has already made suggestions for improved housing systems for poultry, that provide more space, as well as nest boxes and perches. These enhanced cages still allow for the smaller group size and better hygiene associated with cage housing. Basically, there is definitely a happy medium in the works in terms of poultry welfare, but it will take a long time for the system to be adopted because of economic constraints.

So all in all, I'm very against the battery cage system but I don't think that free-range is the best solution either. When it comes to buying eggs, a few people buying free-range over caged is not enough to make a significant difference to this industry. There needs to be more educated awareness so that people can make real differences- finding good alternative solutions to the crappy systems we have now. That means admitting that there are good reasons for having those crappy systems, we just need to improve on them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Firstly, thanks for adding and sharing your knowledge to this thead and issue. Some good points made, thank you. I only have a little time left in me so I'll just reply to a few points as not to feel rude by not doing so.

It is true definitely that egg yolk colour is determined by diet. I've read and read about that and others have posted on this as well. So I definitely agree with this point.

I agree and know that some of the conditions of free range birds are not ideal, and I have had it first hand from animal welfare people (of which I am not one really, though I suppose it looks like that) that some wacky ones even prefer the caged system because there are less deaths in this way. However I can only feel that this is utter nonsense and stupidity. The caged system for me is the biggest system of animal abuse in this country and as you say, thankfully, soon to be outlawed here. Personally, I would sooner see a more natural free range system - for me this is not science - just let the chickens roam around feeding and living naturally. The problem comes when you have to produce this system on the larger scale because it puts pressure on the whole thing. Ideally, we would have lots of smaller farms which would ease the pressures, but this is not likely of course. I did say ideally.

Just one quick point because Mrs Neely is nagging for the laptop, I'll edit later and add more, actually the sales of free range eggs in this country is about 50/50 I believe, in terms of free range Vs cruel caged which is quite remarkable when all is considered. So, unless I am mistaken on this point, though I'm sure it is close to 50/50 at least, 70/30 at most (depends if they take barn into account?), I believe it is a big factor, at least in the UK, in making a difference on the system of production as the soon to be (about time) outlawed system shows.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Firstly, thanks for adding and sharing your knowledge to this thead and issue. Some good points made, thank you. I only have a little time left in me so I'll just reply to a few points as not to feel rude by not doing so.

My pleasure! I love when animal conversations come up around here! I study animal biology in university, and my program heavily focuses on farm animal species.

I agree and know that some of the conditions of free range birds are not ideal, and I have had it first hand from animal welfare people (of which I am not one really, though I suppose it looks like that) that some wacky ones even prefer the caged system because there are less deaths in this way.

I only want to ensure here that you mean true animal welfare people, NOT animal rightists. They are very, very different. Within that, when it comes to animal welfare, there is an enormous amount of science to be considered. Welfare is not about simply keeping the animal alive on principle, or about maximizing "natural" conditions.

However I can only feel that this is utter nonsense and stupidity. The caged system for me is the biggest system of animal abuse in this country and as you say, thankfully, soon to be outlawed here. Personally, I would sooner see a more natural free range system - for me this is not science - just let the chickens roam around feeding and living naturally.

Herein lies one of the largest misconceptions about animals- that "natural" is always better. How could a life where you have to compete for food, be exposed to the elements, fight with others, and undergo a painful mutilation automatically be better than any other life? That's not an animal welfare perspective because you're not looking out for what's actually best for the animal; it's a rights perspective where you claim that a certain type of life is just the way an animal should live. Another problem with people and this industry is anthropomorphizing, where a human treats an animal as though it has the same capacity for experiencing things as a human. As far as the research goes (according to a first-hand account from one of the world's leading welfare scientists whose focus is poultry housing and behaviour), chickens are not capable of feeling boredom the way people do. They feel frustration when they cannot exhibit natural behaviours, but these behaviours can be allowed by the right type of caging system. Chickens do not derive any sort of pleasure by being allowed to "explore".

Just one quick point because Mrs Neely is nagging for the laptop, I'll edit later and add more, actually the sales of free range eggs in this country is about 50/50 I believe, in terms of free range Vs cruel caged which is quite remarkable when all is considered. So, unless I am mistaken on this point, though I'm sure it is close to 50/50 at least, 70/30 at most (depends if they take barn into account?), I believe it is a big factor, at least in the UK, in making a difference on the system of production as the soon to be (about time) outlawed system shows.

Interesting numbers- I wasn't aware of that. What's your source, if you don't mind me asking? The numbers here aren't anywhere close to that.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My pleasure! I love when animal conversations come up around here! I study animal biology in university, and my program heavily focuses on farm animal species.

Great I bet that is really interesting, I’m greatly interested in all aspects of farming and all such related matter.

I only want to ensure here that you mean true animal welfare people, NOT animal rightists. They are very, very different. Within that, when it comes to animal welfare, there is an enormous amount of science to be considered. Welfare is not about simply keeping the animal alive on principle, or about maximizing "natural" conditions.

True there is a difference between the animal welfare people and animal rightists. The comment I made previously probably related to animal rightists which is ironic as they preferred the caged system in some warped idea, sure.

Herein lies one of the largest misconceptions about animals- that "natural" is always better. How could a life where you have to compete for food, be exposed to the elements, fight with others, and undergo a painful mutilation automatically be better than any other life? That's not an animal welfare perspective because you're not looking out for what's actually best for the animal; it's a rights perspective where you claim that a certain type of life is just the way an animal should live.

Yes I realise that it is not a straight-forward issue and that there are problems with free range production and determining what is “natural” but I am glad that these are the problem issues that we are going to be facing in the UK when the caged system gets dumped. These for me are a better set of problems/issues than the whole caged system which is totally unacceptable.

Another problem with people and this industry is anthropomorphizing, where a human treats an animal as though it has the same capacity for experiencing things as a human. As far as the research goes (according to a first-hand account from one of the world's leading welfare scientists whose focus is poultry housing and behaviour), chickens are not capable of feeling boredom the way people do. They feel frustration when they cannot exhibit natural behaviours, but these behaviours can be allowed by the right type of caging system. Chickens do not derive any sort of pleasure by being allowed to "explore".

True but I’m not anthropomorphizing anything, I’m not saying look at that cute little chicken or anything, I am simply saying that the caged egg system in totally inhumane and should be stopped, which it is going to be, in the UK at least. However I would question the assumption that chickens don’t derive any sort of pleasure by being allowed to explore, or even move, or even turn around.

Interesting numbers- I wasn't aware of that. What's your source, if you don't mind me asking? The numbers here aren't anywhere close to that.

I’ve read this sort of number in several places and I recall Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall quoting such figures as well. The whole access and attitude towards free range eggs is totally different to the idea of free range meat in the UK. All supermarkets stock free range eggs, some only stock free range, even my very small local convenience shop (beer-off) only stocks free range or barn. What’s more a number of restaurants, bars, pubs, cafes even are making the point of only selling/working with free range – it’s a selling point. The whole issue of free range has just become part of the way we eat egg and egg products in the UK, I mean even look at the poll above, if only the same could be said of meat production, but perhaps that is on the distant horizon?

[Paulclem]

When meat can be grown in vats - then the welfare problem will go away. There will be purists who want meat with veins and blood riunning through it, and so i bet that's what'll be developed. If they can grow an ear, I don't see why a side of beef can't be grown.

It might be a way down the line yet and will be a matter of taste, but could help with land conservation and be cheaper. Who knows.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Great I bet that is really interesting, I’m greatly interested in all aspects of farming and all such related matter.

Yes, my plan is vet school, though graduate work in animal welfare science has become a serious consideration (a backup plan for now).

Yes I realise that it is not a straight-forward issue and that there are problems with free range production and determining what is “natural” but I am glad that these are the problem issues that we are going to be facing in the UK when the caged system gets dumped. These for me are a better set of problems/issues than the whole caged system which is totally unacceptable.

I'm agreeing with you that free-range living seems more natural, but my point is that natural is not always in the best interests of the animal. And to be clear- the UK is not abandoning caged systems altogether, but battery cages, a specific type of caging system.

True but I’m not anthropomorphizing anything, I’m not saying look at that cute little chicken or anything, I am simply saying that the caged egg system in totally inhumane and should be stopped, which it is going to be, in the UK at least. However I would question the assumption that chickens don’t derive any sort of pleasure by being allowed to explore, or even move, or even turn around.

You are though, if only mildly, by assuming that chickens do have the same capacity for wanting to learn and explore as people. It is by no means an assumption that chickens do not get "bored", it is a conclusion drawn from much study by people far superior to myself who work in this field. The majority of farm animal species have specific natural behaviours and when prohibited from exhibiting them, will cause frustration in the animal. Frustration and boredom are not the same thing, which means that it can be established what the animal needs to live what would be the best kind of life for it. It doesn't gain any extra "happiness" from being given more than what it needs. I just want to be clear here- I'm not defending the battery cage system, I'm just trying to provide a more thorough picture of what a chicken needs in order to avoid extreme views. I do believe that saying all chickens should be kept free range is an extreme view. Of course they need room to move and turn around. They need more than this, but what they need can be supplied by an indoor husbandry system.

Have a look- it's research, not a guessing game. http://www.uoguelph.ca/abw/iduncan/whatwedo.shtml

I’ve read this sort of number in several places and I recall Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall quoting such figures as well. The whole access and attitude towards free range eggs is totally different to the idea of free range meat in the UK. All supermarkets stock free range eggs, some only stock free range, even my very small local convenience shop (beer-off) only stocks free range or barn. What’s more a number of restaurants, bars, pubs, cafes even are making the point of only selling/working with free range – it’s a selling point. The whole issue of free range has just become part of the way we eat egg and egg products in the UK, I mean even look at the poll above, if only the same could be said of meat production, but perhaps that is on the distant horizon?

Interesting! As I mentioned somewhere between the two chicken threads, Europe is more advanced than Canada in its movements regarding farm animal husbandry. I suspect part of the reason it has not been adopted so thoroughly here is because of the larger and more densely-located population. Free range eggs are far more laborious from the producers' point of view in that you need to have people walking about finding and collecting the eggs, and that's not as possible when you need the large quantities of eggs as are needed in Canada. That and there's a lot more waste with free range eggs, due to crushing by the birds themselves and the people walking through.

[Paulclem]

When meat can be grown in vats - then the welfare problem will go away. There will be purists who want meat with veins and blood riunning through it, and so i bet that's what'll be developed. If they can grow an ear, I don't see why a side of beef can't be grown.

It might be a way down the line yet and will be a matter of taste, but could help with land conservation and be cheaper. Who knows.

I was thinking about this tonight, and what about growing parts of yourself as meat? Would that be cannibalism, and, apart from the requirements of additional nutrients through fruit and veg, etc - would it be nutritionallty sustaining?

I'm no scientist, as Classic is, I'm just wondering. Is it too off topic?

[*Classic*Charm*]

I was thinking about this tonight, and what about growing parts of yourself as meat? Would that be cannibalism, and, apart from the requirements of additional nutrients through fruit and veg, etc - would it be nutritionallty sustaining?

I'm no scientist, as Classic is, I'm just wondering. Is it too off topic?

I'm not a scientist yet, Paul, but thank you!

What you mention in your earlier post is in fact in the works. Attempts are being made to culture "meat" in a laboratory setting. At this point I don't believe it's being considered seriously as an alternative to meat, but more of a try-and-see. It would not be the same though; even if it were possible to grow the muscle as an exact replica of what it looks like on the animal, the conversion of muscle to meat begins with residual nervous contraction. That is, even though the animal is dead, nervous system pulses still occur, causing changes in the muscle as would happen when the animal contracted it when it was alive. Basically, as far as I understand it, you could make meat in the lab, but you couldn't make an animal muscle and convert it to meat as occurs naturally.

That being said, the ability of a meat to be nutritionally sustaining depends on what the animal itself consumed, so this wouldn't apply to a part of yourself you had grown (cultured in a lab). You would have to fortify your product...that's all pretty gross to think about haha

[Paulclem]

I'm not a scientist yet, Paul, but thank you!

What you mention in your earlier post is in fact in the works. Attempts are being made to culture "meat" in a laboratory setting. At this point I don't believe it's being considered seriously as an alternative to meat, but more of a try-and-see. It would not be the same though; even if it were possible to grow the muscle as an exact replica of what it looks like on the animal, the conversion of muscle to meat begins with residual nervous contraction. That is, even though the animal is dead, nervous system pulses still occur, causing changes in the muscle as would happen when the animal contracted it when it was alive. Basically, as far as I understand it, you could make meat in the lab, but you couldn't make an animal muscle and convert it to meat as occurs naturally.

That being said, the ability of a meat to be nutritionally sustaining depends on what the animal itself consumed, so this wouldn't apply to a part of yourself you had grown (cultured in a lab). You would have to fortify your product...that's all pretty gross to think about haha

I suppose lab grown might make better burger/ pie type meat where it is retextured.

As for the lab cannibalism - just a thought - bit of prime rump... It's not a million miles away from growing your own organs though.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm agreeing with you that free-range living seems more natural, but my point is that natural is not always in the best interests of the animal.

See I just can't buy that. I hear what you are saying with the science but I just cannot base my decisions and conscience on micro scientific experiments on chickens - I just don't work like that. I would rather see chickens living as naturally as possible, with natural food then to force chickens in cages based on hunches of experimental evidence.

You are though, if only mildly, by assuming that chickens do have the same capacity for wanting to learn and explore as people. It is by no means an assumption that chickens do not get "bored", it is a conclusion drawn from much study by people far superior to myself who work in this field. The majority of farm animal species have specific natural behaviours and when prohibited from exhibiting them, will cause frustration in the animal. Frustration and boredom are not the same thing, which means that it can be established what the animal needs to live what would be the best kind of life for it. It doesn't gain any extra "happiness" from being given more than what it needs. I just want to be clear here- I'm not defending the battery cage system, I'm just trying to provide a more thorough picture of what a chicken needs in order to avoid extreme views. I do believe that saying all chickens should be kept free range is an extreme view. Of course they need room to move and turn around. They need more than this, but what they need can be supplied by an indoor husbandry system.

I don't assume that chickens have the same capacity to learn and explore as humans do. I assume that literary theory is above standard, or even free range chickens, even if they read Barry . However, I cannot support an indoor, intensive system because this is not what any animal is supposed live under and I don't care what any scientist says on this. If I was to argue that dogs never need to see outdoors based on experiments conducted by certain scientists and that, if you merely gave them the kitchen to roam around in for the rest of their lives it would be OK, I suspect that others would disagree. By the same stretch, if I was to prove that cats could be kept in a cage for a year without excess suffering would this mean that people would do so? I don't think so.

Of course I am being a little playful, but the point is that I cannot buy that a natural, if controlled life, is not the best life. I would rather see a chicken live or die by natural causes than be forced into unacceptably cruel conditions in order to supply cheap eggs or meat to meet supermarket demand.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I've read the two articles you posted Classic, thanks for including them.

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAInfo/home/e.../part2/2_5.pdf
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/docu...cages_1991.pdf

The top one incidentally also shows that the UK is relatively high up the scale in free range egg production. If you look at the table on page 8 it shows sales of free range and barn at 40%, however the data is from 2007 and I strongly suspect that the figures have increased a little since then, certainly the 50/50 mark I mentioned previously doesn't seem out of reach. Yes as you say the US is well behind this figure at around 5% of free range sales. Switzerland is best of all with no caged systems and sales around 60/40% free range/barn, although perhaps both this numbers have increased in the last three years a little too?

The other article certainly proves scientifically that the caged system is cruel, though I would have guessed that without reading it, it's common sense at the end of the day, but it is good to have some data on it regardless. For example in the conclusion it states that "hens suffer in battery cages. Many aspects of suffering are chronic, and affect all individuals." This like I said is common sense as they can hardly turn around.

One thing I picked up on though, which I didn't know, is that producers control egg production by regular bouts of controlled starvation. This causes the birds to moult and to produce fewer eggs. Then when they are fed again the yield and size increases. Hmm, I'm not sure that I support controlled starvations - Jesus what century are we living in?

Another interesting point highlighted the fact that these birds kept in the caged system have 41% less bone strength (probably because they can hardly move) and regularly suffer from breakages, often self-inflicted through agitation and frustration. Honestly people if you are buying these eggs then you are indirectly causing this.

In the other thread you said that the caged system was not being dropped in the UK, merely adapted, if possible could you give me some more information on this please? I’ll have a dig around in the meantime. I believed that the caged system was being abandoned altogether, following the fine example set by the world leader, Switzerland.

Also, if you have any other good links feel free to post them up. I don't usually bother which much science stuff, but it is very informative.

Thank You.

Edit:
UK Egg Facts 2009:
http://www.egginfo.co.uk/page/eggfacts

[*Classic*Charm*]

See I just can't buy that. I hear what you are saying with the science but I just cannot base my decisions and conscience on micro scientific experiments on chickens - I just don't work like that. I would rather see chickens living as naturally as possible, with natural food then to force chickens in cages based on hunches of experimental evidence.

This is what I don't understand, though. You're essentially saying that you'll allow the animal to suffer in the name of living a "natural" life. Here's an example for you-

The gorillas in the Toronto zoo have an enclosure that is decorated to look like their natural habitat. They've got green plants and bushes and whatnot to look like a jungle, yet they seem restless, bored, and exhibit stereotypic behaviours, patterns of behaviour which are unnatural, repetitive, and indicative that the animal is lacking something essential and compensating with this behaviour. On the other hand, the orangutans have an enclosure which looks like an industrial park- it's cement, has very little in the way of plants, and it is full of things like cardboard boxes, a metal climbing jungle gym, stuff like that. These animals are active, happy, and exhibit no stereotypic behaviours. While the gorillas live in the more natural setting, the orangutans are the ones that are living more stimulated, good lives. Would you take that away from them in the name of having them live in a more "natural" setting?

To be quite honest with you, it bothers me that people are quick so quick to dismiss experimental evidence with regards to animal behaviour and welfare. It's this science that has allowed humans to better understand how animals experience their surroundings, which has helped us determine how and when they feel stress, pain, or frustration. It's rather insulting to diminish this work into people acting on "haunches of experimental evidence". In fact, it is the developments in this field that have revealed the actual problems that are wrong with the battery cage system. An animal doesn't suffer from lack of space so much as it suffers from the problems incurred by lack of space- frustration at not being able to dust bathe or access a nest box, pain from being feather pecked by other birds or breaking an underdeveloped limb.

Most people see the superficial nature of the cage and claim that it is wrong. They might be right in that claim, but their reasons for making it are not the right ones.

I don't assume that chickens have the same capacity to learn and explore as humans do. I assume that literary theory is above standard, or even free range chickens, even if they read Barry . However, I cannot support an indoor, intensive system because this is not what any animal is supposed live under and I don't care what any scientist says on this. If I was to argue that dogs never need to see outdoors based on experiments conducted by certain scientists and that, if you merely gave them the kitchen to roam around in for the rest of their lives it would be OK, I suspect that others would disagree. By the same stretch, if I was to prove that cats could be kept in a cage for a year without excess suffering would this mean that people would do so? I don't think so.

"Suppose to live under"? How can one make a claim about what anyone or anything is "supposed" to do? I'd suggest to you that back in the cavemen days, the predecessors pf the chicken still chose to seek shelter and live inside when the conditions told them to. Saying you don't care what any scientist says about this is just choosing to be ignorant, and I promise I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying that. The reason people would disagree about your claim about dogs is because we know better. We know what dogs need to live a good life. When it comes to chickens, most people don't know. They assume, which is not always correct. The whole point of research is to make conclusions about things we suspect or even assume. Disregarding potential conclusions in the name of supporting an assumption seems like a step backwards to me.

Of course I am being a little playful, but the point is that I cannot buy that a natural, if controlled life, is not the best life. I would rather see a chicken live or die by natural causes than be forced into unacceptably cruel conditions in order to supply cheap eggs or meat to meet supermarket demand.

I understand that, but the point of research is to give you a reason to "buy" it. There was a time when people didn't believe that dogs were capable of feeling pain. Even when there was scientific evidence to prove what seemed obvious to most, Renee Descartes was still performing open-body surgery on completely conscious dogs. He didn't "buy" the theory, either.

Again, I don't support the battery cage system. I do however acknowledge that there are some features of a cage or pen system that are in the best interests of the chickens, regardless of how cheap their eggs are.