United Poultry Concerns’ Karen Davis wrote a letter in August blasting the American Veterinary Medical Association’s recent adoption of a resolution endorsing induced molting of hens, but calling for further research into the practice.
Induced molting involves temporarily depriving hens of food which causes them to lose their feathers. The AVMA’s position on induced molting is as follows,
Molting is a natural seasonal event in which birds substantially reduce their feed intake, cease egg production, and replace their plumage. Induced molting is a process that simulates the natural molting events. Induced molting extends the productive life of commercial chicken flocks, improves long-term flock health and performance, and results in substantial reduction in the number of chickens needed to produce the nation’s egg supply. When birds return to full feed, a new plumage develops and the birds resume egg production at a higher rate with better egg quality. Induced molting also has a positive impact on the environment through reduction of waste and natural resources needed for growing more birds for egg production.
The commercial induced molting procedure is carefully monitored and controlled. Acceptable practices include reduction of photoperiod and “day length” dietary restrictions that result in cessation of egg production, but water should not be withdrawn. Intermittent feeding or diets of low nutrient density are recommended, rather than total feed withdrawal. Special attention should be paid to flock health, mortality, and bird weight. Egg quality and safety should be monitored through an egg quality assurance program. The welfare of the bids should be a major consideration in this and any management practice.
The AVMA encourages ongoing research into the effect of various methods of induced molting on the performance and well-being of laying chickens.
The AVMA’s contention about more chickens being required for egg production if induced molting were abandoned is worth elaborating on. The number of additional chickens likely needed would be enormous. An economic analysis of induced molting prepared by Donal Bell of the University of California found that at a minimum, ending induced molting would require egg producers to add at least another 400 million chickens to the production process.
In her letter to the AVMA, Davis writes,
In justifying force molting you have chosen to ignore the pathologic effects of this cruel practice on the birds: naturally molting birds do not degenerate into debilitation and susceptibility to Salmonella enteritis. They do not, in the words of Dr. Ian Duncan, “suffer enormously” as do force-molted hens, and their mortality does not “increase dramatically” as does the mortality of force-molted hens. I live with chickens, and I know that their behavior and condition when molting naturally do not match your assertions.
The AVMA rejected a proposal by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights that would have put the organization on record as opposing induced molting.
Source:
An Egg Economics Update Donal Bell, University of California, April 20, 2000.
New position on induced molting wins favor. American Veterinary Medical Association, July 15, 2002.
Open Letter from United Poultry Concerns to The American Veterinary Medical Association. Karen Davis, August 27, 2002.