Academics
Published, peer-reviewed research articles are used to support the academic perspectives surrounding this controversy. Research may be done on behalf of other stakeholders (e.g. the independent science review that supported the creation of NFACC’s Code of Practice) but is more often conducted when information gaps are identified by researchers and others in academia.
Stance
Dr. Michael Cockram (Chair in Animal Welfare, Professor, Dept. of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College), warns against excluding enriched cages during Canada’s transition away from battery cages:
"I think it's unfortunate that some companies are being pressurized to go cage-free, because that would preclude the enrich or furnished cage, and that does offer a number of welfare advantages and it's very feasible for the industry to transition to,"
- Dr. Michael Cockram (source)
Additionally, Dr. Tina Widowski (Professor of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare & EFCC Chair in Poultry Welfare at University of Guelph), one of the scientists involved in the research review that informed the creation of the 2017 NFACC Code of Practice, highlighted the importance of matching housing systems to farmers management capacities:
“There is evidence that the welfare problems that tend to occur more in non-cage systems, for example, higher mortality and feather pecking, can improve with management experience, but non-cage housing is not a good fit for all managers.”
- Dr. Tina Widowski (source)
How much does the research on hen welfare shape what Canadians buy?
Research has shown that there is a gap in public understanding and awareness of different welfare outcomes within alternative housing systems (Bejaei et al., 2015)(Weary et al., 2015)(Rondoni et al,. 2020). With better communication and education strategies that address consumers' preconceptions, the Canadian public will be able to make more informed decisions that support animal welfare (Nolan et al., 2022)(Rohlf et al., 2019).