Oh Gawd... not this crap again Sherlock (your new name).
You can assume all you want, I don't care.

I'm not going to defend myself twice, but I'll make fun of your nutcracker paranoid lunacy instead.
Go and get your head checked, PLEASE.

As someone raised mostly on farms, dairy, potatoes and eggs. I completely agree with Max Green, decent normal human being's take on this one!
Alan B.

As for me, I would rather be free even if that meant a 10%-12% annual death rate and 10.5% reduction in my egg production.

Given the descriptions by my previous commentators about artificial electric food, food being replaced by nutritional gel over the skin along atrophy of mouse and teeth, and the absence of cash with enforcement of electronic transactions, I join Max Green in advising that staying alive is a bad investment, the value of which has already peaked in the second half of the 20th century and will be going way down in the next 10 to 15 years.

Basically, like his climate-Denial, David L is CHERRY-PICKING! As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise surprise surprise!" Yes - some free range farms perform worse for the chickens than caged, because there is a LEARNING PERIOD! Denying this is as honest as anti-nukes that just chant "Chernobyl and Fukushima" or go on about expense by chanting "Hinkley C". Really helps make your case when you just turn a blind eye to 90% of the rest of the DATA!

So YES - the learning period when farmers adapt can be rough on chooks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/06/15/many-people-think-cage-free-life-is-better-for-hens-its-not-that-simple/

But the rewards after adapting and learning are scientifically verified.

"The study

A report looking at egg production and welfare of hens in different housing systems, published in Poultry Science, conducted an experiment. Groups of 40 hens were randomised to conventional cage, enriched cage and free range. All conditions were the same for all the hens except the housing system. They followed the birds for 50 weeks, and after, compared each group on multiple factors.

Benefits

The report showed the benefits of the free-range system were more than just welfare issues. The eggs produced per day and egg mass were better in the free-range system. Hens had better feather scores, shorter claw length and stronger bones. Free-range hens had lower indicators of fear and stress in their blood. Additionally, there was less death and body wounds in free-range hens. These all show positive effects for free-range hens on their overall individual comfort and care."
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2018/08/24/chicken-science-is-free-range-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/

But why let science get in the way of a conspiracy theory? As they say, "Haters gon hate". Why let reality in on David L's world - it might give him something less to rant about

I'd trust the RSPCA and a host of scientific experts before David L on matters of animal welfare. This is an extract from the RSPCA's analysis:

"The overwhelming consensus among animal welfare experts is that the welfare of hens in battery cages is severely compromised."

for more, see here:

https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-battery-cages/

Man needs food.
And most of this comes from animal and plant life.
Of necessity, as we gather food we must have some impact on that life.
Wisdom suggests that, while doing so, we minimise any impact we do have?
We need to be careful what we do, and how we do it?
Above all, we need not, and should not, be cruel to animals when we source food.
Anything which minimises unnecessary stress to them is to be applauded?
Deprivation of liberty, even for 'lowly' animals, is to be frowned upon?
Anything which leads us towards a less 'invasive' approach is beneficial?
The reality is that other animals have a much healthier and proportionate way of living off the land?
Maybe we should learn from them?