Egg industry launches promotion of “low carbon” caged eggs
Australia’s peak egg body, the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL), today launched a marketing campaign to promote caged egg production as having the lowest carbon footprint of all the main protein foods.
AECL Managing Director, James Kellaway, said the findings of a study undertaken by the AECL suggested that caged eggs are the “highest quality protein food with the lowest emissions”.
The AECL study, based on the green house gas emissions from three egg farms over one year, found that Australian egg production had a lower carbon footprint than several European egg studies. Mr Kellaway attributed this to Australia having a more efficient grain production process.
The AECL research also found that ‘free range’ egg production’s carbon footprint was about 20 per cent higher than caged production. Mr Kellaway said this was due to free range production using more feed per kilogram of eggs produced, compared to cage egg production.
According to the AECL study, the largest carbon impacts in the supply chain were feed grain production, manure management and energy use at the farm of cage-based egg layers.
Mr Kellaway said that the research highlighted that there is scope for refinements to current practices in egg production in Australia to allow further reductions in emissions.
Are you referring to the media release available on this page?:
http://www.aecl.org/media-centre/eggs-are-the-new-low-carbon-protein
As that one doesn’t seem to be promoting “caged eggs” specifically, rather eggs in general:
“MEDIA RELEASE
Eggs are the new ‘low carbon protein’
14th December 2011
New AECL research suggests that egg production has the lowest carbon footprint of all the main protein foods.”
It does say free-range eggs are less “efficient” than caged but the document as a whole doesn’t seem to be promoting the latter.
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 cage egg producers and one ‘free range’ operation, 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.
The three cage farms had a total number of one million birds but the ‘free range’ farm selected for this analysis had an unknown quantity of hens.
AECL 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. It has included some assessment of the costs of transporting feed grain, but the impacts of transporting eggs all over Australia have been specifically excluded from the analysis.
It has has based its claims on a desk-top review of three cage egg farms and one ‘free range’ farm in an effort to discredit the free range egg industry.
There is massive variability in farm practices which limits the value of this study. Some farms grow and mill their own feed. Some farms only buy local grains while others bring in feed and some ingredients from overseas. Some farms only sell their eggs within a locally-defined region while others distribute nation-wide. Some farms generate their own power using solar or wind systems.
This project report takes no account of those variables – although the consultants do suggest that more work needs to be done.
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 appetising 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.
Surely the needs and welfare of live animals should be the focus here and NOT the carbon footprint. ALL caged egg farming should be banned and free range egg production be promoted. I can’t believe the AECL thinks it is a good idea to promote caged eggs.