4^th October 2001

Dear Mr. Runkle,

I have viewed the videotape of scenes from Buckeye Egg Farm and Day Lay Egg Farm both situated in Ohio. Without a doubt these show the worst conditions in which I have ever seen laying hens being kept. Both farms are filthy and unhygienic. Apart from the awful suffering bein imposed on the birds, I would reckon there is a serious health risk to anyone consuming the eggs and certainly any staff working in those conditions.

The hens are being kept in grossly overcrowded cages. Without actual measurements, it is not possible to be precise, but I would estimate that these hens have about 300 sq cm each. The minimum space allowance in Canada is 450 sq. cm; in many European countries, each hen must have 600 sq cm. This crowding means that the hens are constantly infringing on each other's personal space. This leads to continuous social friction and a high level of stress.

Most of the hens are very badly de-feathered. This in itself need not necessarily reduce welfare, if it occurs naturally. However, it is quite obvious that the majority of feather loss is due to feather pecking by other birds. This is a painful procedure. Some of the feather loss is also due to abrasion on the sides of the cage. This is obvious from the damage done to the primary and secondary flight feathers in the wing. The abrasion occurs because the hens are overcrowded and are forced against the sides of the cage by the other hens and in order to change position. The feather loss on the necks of many birds is due to abrasion on the rim of the food trough. There is a further consequence of feather loss. Not only do feathers act as an insulating layer to reduce heat loss, but they also protect the skin from damage. Many birds have long deep scratches on the skin which were almost certainly caused by the claws of other birds as they scrambled over each other. These wounds would be very painful when inflicted, and in such filthy conditions would be at high risk of infection. Many of the birds had blisters and callouses on their throats where the rough edge of the feed trough had been rubbing. These would also be painful.

Many of the hens had been beak-trimmed extremely badly. It is known that beak trimming causes both acute and chronic pain when it is carried out well. It is recommended that, if it is necessary to carry out this surgery, then a third of the upper beak at most should be removed. Some of the hens in the videotape had a half to three-quarters of the upper beak missing. This must have resulted in extreme pain. However, there would be additional consequences. Hens use their beaks for foraging, preening, and exploring their environments. All of these functions would be greatly compromised leading to severe frustration.

Many of the hens had terrible eye problems. I have no doubt that this was caused by the filthy atmosphere in which they were living. It is known that high concentrations of ammonia can lead to inflammation and difficulty in resisting infection. This would be compounded by the high concentration of dust that could be seen in the air. These hens were suffering terribly from these lesions. Moreover many of the lesions were obviously long-standing. This is evidence that there was completely inadequate inspections of the hens. Such problems should have been spotted in their early stages and veterinary help sought.

There was a high incidence of trapped birds. This suggest very bad cage design and once again completely inadequate inspection of the hens. When a hen gets trapped it suffers terribly; the trapped part is liable to lose blood circulation and this leads to great pain. It is also unable to reach the food or water and so suffers from great hunger and thirst. In addition, it is unbale to avoid social interactions and so suffers from fear and stress. The fact that there were dead trapped birds once again shows the inadequacy, or complete absence, of inspections. Some of the dead trapped hens were in an advanced state of decomposition suggesting that these units may not have been inspected for weeks. These birds must have suffered slow agonizing deaths over several days.

There were also live and dead hens in the manure pit. A hen in the manure pit has no access to food and water and if not rescued quickly will eventually die of starvation and thirst. Once again, this is evidence of no bird inspection. Several of the hens were very weak and had obviously been in the pit for days. One was so weak that it was gradually being engulfed by the manure. I cannot think of a worse way to die than being deprived of food and water and sinking into fecal material.

There was also a scene of many dead birds in a dumpster, but amongst them was a very weak live bird. I do not know how this occured, but it suggests that occasionally dead birds were collected and thrown out but that care was not taken to ensure that all the birds were actually dead. Allowing sickly dirds to die like this is gross cruelty.

In summary, this videotape depicts some of the worst cruelty that I have ever witnessed. If any of these incidents were allowed to happen to any verterbrate animals in any civilised country, the perpetrators would be immediately prosecuted under cruelty to animals laws. I urge that something be done to stop this awful abuse of sentient animals.

I have attached a brief biographical sketch to give an indication of my expertise in this area.

Yours sincerely,

Ian J.H. Duncan
Professor of Poultry Ethology
Chair in Animal Welfare

Biographical sketch

Ian Duncan was born and educated in Edinburgh, Scotland. He graduated B.Sc. in Agriculture with Honours in Animal Husbandry at Edinburgh University and went on to study for his Ph.D. at the Poultry Research Centre in Edinburgh, with a research topic of frustration in the domestic fowl. He continued to work at the Poultry Research Centre for over 20 years on topics related to poultry welfare.

From 1979 to 1988 he advised the Commission of the European Communities on matters related to animal welfare.

In January 1989, Dr. Duncan joined the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, and is a FUll Professor in that Department.

In June 1990, Dr. Duncan was appointed Director of the newly established Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare at the University of Guelph.

In October 1995, Dr. Duncan was appointed to the University Chair in Animal Welfare.

He was given the 1993 Award for Innovative Developments in Animal Welfare presented jointly by the British Society of Animal Production and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals--the first time this award has been given outside the U.K.

In 1999, his course, "Principles of Farm Animal Care and Welfare", was given the inaugural award by the Humane Society of the United States as being the best course in North America dealing with Animals and Society.

In 2001, Dr. Duncan was awarded the Robert Fraser Gordon medal for outstanding services to Poultry Science.

He has published over 150 scientific papers, most of which are connected to poultry welfare.

His current research interests include developing methods of asking chickens what they feel about the conditions and procedures to which they are subjected.

He has travelled throughout the world lecturing on animal behaviour and welfare, and is the only scientist to have given the keynote address at meetings of both the Poultry Science Association and the American Society of Animal Science.