|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rose Acre Farms responds to letter |
|
|
|
In response to Carol Chandler’s Letter to the Editor (Reader objects to story on ‘cage-free myths’ - page 4, June 17):
Mrs. Chandler, you make several incorrect statements and assumptions in your response to the article Egg producer battles cage-free myths (June 10, Farm World). Free-range chickens have not only similar problems as cage-free but have other problems in additions to cage-free.
For instance, salmonella risks are three times higher in free-range eggs compared to eggs from chickens housed in appropriate cages. This is simply because eggs outside not only sit in a much dirtier environment they are also exposed to more bacteria found outside.
Another example of the differences is that the death rate in free-range chickens is triple that of properly caged chickens. It is not possible to reconcile far higher death rates with more humane conditions. The far lower death rates in properly caged chickens is just one example of how proper cages are more humane to the chicken itself than either cage-free or free-range chickens.
Another misstatement Mrs. Chandler makes concerns the nutritional value of the eggs.
The nutritional value of caged, free-range and cage-free eggs are identical. This has been proven over and over again by numerous peer-reviewed, scientific studies.
The fact is properly caged chickens have a much smaller carbon footprint than either cage-free or range-free chickens.
They need less feed to live productive lives and use fewer natural resources.
As such properly caged chickens are much more environmentally friendly while providing more eggs that are nutritionally equivalent to eggs produced in alternative systems.
Anthony Rust
Vice President
Rose Acre Farms |
| 7/8/2009 |
|
|
|
|
