Animal Welfare

Contemporary Issues in Farm

Animal Housing and Management
Poultry Well-being

46

Ruth C. Newberry
Washington State University
Pullman,Washington, USA

Introduction
The world is populated with vast numbers of domesticated birds collectively known as poultry including, at any
one time, over 16 billion broiler chickens raised for meat,
5 billion laying hens raised for egg production, a quarter
of a billion turkeys, and lesser numbers of ducks, geese,
quail, pheasants, guinea fowl, and various species of ratite. The world market for poultry is growing, with the
highest production currently occurring in the USA, China
and Brazil. From an evolutionary perspective, close association with humans has made the domestic fowl Gallus
gallus domesticus (comprising broiler chickens and laying hens), the most abundant and thus most successful of
all birds.
Human survival depends upon consumption of nutrients obtained from other species, be they from poultry
or other animal or plant prey. Due to intense genetic selection, housing and management, poultry products are
relatively cheap, plentiful and appetising sources of nutrients to meet our needs. Nevertheless, there are some
externalities associated with this massive success in human-poultry mutualism that are difficult to condense into
numbers in an economic analysis but nevertheless need to
be considered in evaluating the sustainability of poultry
production practices. These include:

338

Environmental pollutants emanating from poultry

facilities, such as ammonia
Carbon footprint for poultry production
Use of land and energy/protein sources to produce
poultry rather than other crops, or as a bioreserve
Poultry acting as vectors of diseases (e.g. avian
influenza) to humans and other animals, including
endangered species
Occupational hazards related to working at poultry
farms, hatcheries and poultry processing plants
Use of antibiotics to enhance poultry production, contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance
Human obesity and associated health problems, as a
consequence of over-consumption of readily available, low-cost food products including poultry
Impacts on poultry well-being the focus of the current article.
The ethic of animal care leads us to strive to keep animals
in a manner that minimises suffering and contributes to
a positive sense of well-being. Although it may be easier
for us to care about sheep and cows than chickens and
turkeys, we should remember that birds have a highly developed nervous system that is, essentially, homologous
to that of mammals. Their small brains and seemingly expressionless faces should not be construed as evidence of
a lack of thoughts and feelings.

Animal Welfare

Evolution has prepared birds to cope with the vagaries of the natural environment in a flexible manner
through learning and subsequent recall; learning that is
made salient by association of events with sensations
such as pain, fear and separation distress. Based on evidence from brain and behaviour research, we can infer
that birds have the ability to experience both positive and
negative feelings, and to use memories of specific sensations occurring in specific situations as a foundation for
future behaviour. Although domestication has altered the
thresholds for expression of some behaviours, poultry
species still retain the same basic behavioural repertoires
of their wild relatives.
This knowledge leads us to reflect upon the impact of
current commercial production systems on poultry wellbeing. The following discussion identifies the issues surrounding some controversial housing and management
practices. As we shall see, scientific knowledge can inform decisions but value judgements are also involved
when weighing up the relative merits of different options.

Induced Moulting
Let us start by considering the controversial practice
of induced (forced) moulting of laying hens, whereby
moulting is induced through feed withdrawal for up to
two weeks. Egg producers have argued that this is an appropriate practice since birds moult in nature. Induced
moulting is conducted after hens have been laying eggs
at a high rate for approximately one year, and has the benefit of rapidly rejuvenating the bird, leading to improved
hen survival rates, egg production and egg shell quality
during a subsequent laying period. These benefits to subsequent health depend upon the hen losing abdominal fat
that has accumulated over the lying cycle.
On the other hand, research assessing the level of motivation to eat during moulting indicates that these benefits come at a cost to the birds of strong hunger during
the initial period of feed withdrawal, followed by fatigue
and depressed behaviour. If weight loss is too great, feed
withdrawal can lead to anorexia and death. Under commercial conditions, where the ratio of birds to caretakers
is high, weight loss is monitored based on sampling of a

proportion of birds rather than close monitoring of each

individual bird. As a consequence, birds that are lighter
than average at the start of moulting have an elevated risk
of dying during the feed withdrawal period.
One can, therefore, contemplate whether it would be
better from an animal welfare perspective to terminate
the lives of the hens at the end of the first production cycle, when their egg production rate and egg shell quality have declined to uneconomic levels, than to subject
them to a moult. Fortunately, research has shown that it
is economically feasible to moult hens under commercial
conditions by feeding them low nutrient feedstuffs such
as wheat middlings or low sodium diets instead of withdrawing feed completely for 14 days. Producers can thus
obtain the benefits of moulting on post-moult health and
productivity without severe adverse consequences for the
birds during the moulting process.
The complete feed withdrawal moulting procedure
has therefore been outlawed in the European Union and,
more recently, abandoned in the US through industry
adoption of voluntary animal care standards. This approach to solving the animal welfare concerns surrounding induced moulting means that the same number of
eggs can be produced with fewer hens than would be
needed if flocks were terminated after a single laying cycle and extra pullets had to be raised to replace the flock
every year. It also avoids the environmental impact associated with housing, feeding and disposing of manure
from additional pullets.
The story does not end here, however. We always face
the difficulty of deciding how far we should go towards
accommodating poultry well-being. Although the use of
low nutrient moulting diets enables birds to fill their gut
and provides birds with an outlet for foraging behaviour,
these diets do not appear to create a pleasant feeling of
satiety, and may promote increased aggression in lines of
poultry predisposed towards aggressive behaviour. Use
of certain pharmacological appetite suppressants may be
more humane than feeding low nutrient feedstuffs, thereby
reducing feed inputs and manure outputs, but this approach
would not be acceptable to consumers concerned about the
naturalness of their food. For increased sustainability, we
should also be considering increasing the longevity of hens
beyond two laying cycles, even if this can only be achieved
by reducing the hens rate of egg production per cycle.

339

Animal Welfare

Problems Associated with Rapid Growth

Weight control is also relevant to the production of broiler chickens and turkeys being raised for breeding purposes rather than for meat production. Genetic selection
and management of broilers and turkeys for rapid growth
comes at a cost of increased risk for heart attacks and leg
deformities that make walking painful, while the prodigious appetite of these birds necessitates continual feed
restriction of parent breeding stock to facilitate survival
and reproduction. This long-term feed restriction results
in hunger and can lead over time to the development of
oral stereotypies such as spot pecking. Poultry breeding
companies are now applying increased selection pressure against cardiovascular and skeletomuscular problems in these birds, primarily by selecting for somewhat
slower growth during early development. The health of
broilers and turkeys can also be improved by using short
daylengths to limit early growth rate, and hunger in feed
restricted breeders can be alleviated to some extent by
feeding high-fibre diets.
Bone Fractures
Genetic selection of laying hens for high egg production
can also create welfare concerns if insufficient emphasis
is placed on concurrent selection for bone strength. The
consequence is hens that tend to have fragile bones at the
end of lay. This is a problem when hens are caught for
transport to a processing plant because they can acquire
painful bone fractures when handled. A related problem
is that few poultry plants are interested in processing

meat from hens, due in part to concerns about food safety

created by bone fragments in meat as a result of bone
fractures. As a result, hens may face long transportation
distances to slaughter, facing an elevated risk of dying in
transit.
Due to difficulties in marketing end-of-lay hens in the
US, they are increasingly killed on the farm using carbon
dioxide gas. Because the hens are killed almost immediately following catching, the duration of suffering from
any bone fractures sustained during catching is brief.
However, the carcasses must then be disposed of by rendering, incineration or composting, which is wasteful of
a potential human food source.
Hen bones are more fragile when hens get little exercise due to confinement in cages. However, the risk of
bone breakage in caged hens is low until they are handled
at the end of lay. By contrast, although uncaged hens in
aviaries and free range systems have stronger bones, they
nevertheless can have high rates of keel bone fracture during the laying cycle, possibly due to crash landings and
collisions. In either case, broken bones represent a serious animal welfare concern. Fortunately, it is possible to
reduce the risk of fractures through improved housing design and gentler handling methods, and to increase bone
strength through increased selection pressure for this trait
(Figure 46.1). A question is how much to favour bone
strength through genetic selection if this benefit comes
at a cost of reduced egg production, thereby increasing
the number of hens that must be kept to obtain the same
number of eggs.

Figure 46.1. (a) Laying hens must be handled carefully to avoid bone fractures; (b) Fractured keel bone; (c) Housing must be designed to minimise
the risk of bone fractures when hens move between locations. Photo: R. Newberry.

340

Animal Welfare

Figure 46.2. (a) Cannibalistic attack; (b) Feather pecked hen; (c) Beak trimmed hen. Photo: R. Newberry.

Cannibalism
Cannibalism and feather pecking are pervasive welfare problems in poultry (Figure 46.2). The incidence is
sometimes very high in hens with intact beaks, especially
when hens are kept in large groups and even a single cannibalistic bird has access to many potential victims. In
addition to causing welfare problems, feather pecking results in denuded birds that need to eat more feed to stay
warm. Beak trimming is a minor surgical procedure used
to control these behaviours. Beak trimming also makes
manipulation of feed more difficult, resulting in less feed
being thrown on the floor and wasted. Beak trimming is,
however, a painful procedure and may reduce the ability
of hens to remove parasitic mites through preening.
Beak trimming has been banned in Sweden, and some
other countries are considering a similar ban. As a result, producers must use management techniques that reduce the risk of cannibalism such as rearing pullets with
perches, which increases the likelihood that they will use
the nest boxes for egg laying as adults. There is also increased demand for hens of genetic lines in which strong
selection pressure has been applied to reduce cannibalistic tendencies. Nevertheless, the debate about beak trimming continues because, if properly done, it is reliably
effective in minimising the risk of cannibalism, whereas
cannibalism can otherwise emerge unpredictably. An alternative approach might be to permit beak trimming but
find effective methods for controlling the pain from the
procedure.

Behavioural Restriction
Probably the most hotly debated issue concerning the
welfare of poultry is the behavioural restriction that results from the housing of laying hens in unfurnished
cages. The European Union is phasing out the use of conventional cage housing systems for laying hens by 2012
by requiring that hens be provided with a nest, perch
and foraging/dust bathing substrate. The intention is that
these enrichments, whether provided in furnished cages
or in aviaries, pens with litter and slatted areas, or free
range systems, allow hens to perform more natural behaviour (Figure 46.3). In the US, animal advocacy groups
are pressing for legislation to ban the use of cage housing systems where hens are unable to spread their wings
without touching cage walls or other birds. In addition,
there is increasing consumer demand for eggs from noncage systems and especially for free range eggs and poultry meat, and consumers are showing a willingness to pay
more for poultry products with some form of humane
certification. Although increased behavioural freedom is
a laudable goal, it is not a simple matter to define and
implement welfare standards for non-cage housing that
produce an overall net benefit for poultry welfare while at
the same time being sustainable in other ways.
For example, what constitutes an adequate perch for a
hen (Figure 46.4)? Should a rod a few centimetres off the
cage floor count as a perch? It would help to increase leg
bone strength but do hens feel safer as a result of sitting
on such perches? This may be the case at night when it is
dark but not in the daytime when there is an increased risk
of being cannibalised while sitting on low perches. What

341

Animal Welfare

Cages

Aviaries

Slatted/Litter Pens

Free-range

Figure 46.3. Laying hens are kept in a wide range of housing systems, each with benefits and costs for hen well-being. Photo: R. Newberry.

if higher perches are required, resulting in birds that are

calmer and safer from cannibalism but with an increased
incidence of keel bone fractures as a result of crash landings when jumping off perches? If a slatted floor allows
birds to wrap their feet around the slats, should the slatted area be counted as perch space? What if birds do
not use the perches that are provided to meet an auditing requirement? This may occur if perches are specified
in legal requirements for the housing of adults only and
the birds are not given the opportunity to obtain early experience in the use of perches. Genetic background and
body weight can also influence propensity to use perches.
Furthermore, depending on their design and placement,
perches can affect the use of nest boxes, the frequency

342

of cracked eggs, the ease of keeping the facilities clean,

the likelihood of faeces falling on birds below, the risk of
foot lesions, and a host of other interrelated factors. As
a consequence, a simple decision to require that hens be
provided with perches to enable natural behaviour turns
out to have many implications, depending upon how the
requirement is implemented and audited.
Similar questions can be asked about appropriate
substrates for promoting foraging, exploration and dust
bathing behaviour, the amount of space that should be
covered with these substrates, and the amount of time
that they should be available to the birds. Porous floors
allow faeces to fall through and be separated from the
birds, thereby reducing the risk of faeces-born pathogens

Animal Welfare

Figure 46.4. (a) Hen on perch in furnished cage; (b) Slatted floor perch space; (c) Providing perches during rearing enables pullets to learn to move
in 3-dimensional space. Photo: R. Newberry.

and parasites. When a particulate substrate is provided, it

must be managed carefully to avoid problems with ammonia, dust and painful foot pad dermatitis.
Access to free range can potentially provide the greatest
degree of environmental enrichment for the birds, especially when there is woodland cover that provides a sense
of security relative to open space. However, it also comes
with risks such as predators, soil-borne parasites, and exposure to wildlife providing potential for disease transmission. In addition, manure must be managed to avoid
environmental pollution. Products from such systems are
more expensive due to greater land use, higher feed consumption, and sometimes higher mortality. Nevertheless,
it is likely that the future will bring increased consumer
demand for pasture-based production systems and use of
less productive but more robust breeds of poultry.

ness and damage to the environment. Ethical review of

poultry production practices incorporating the latest scientific knowledge and taking into account the hierarchy
of public values can help to identify improvements and
avoid unanticipated adverse consequences for both people and poultry.

Conclusions
The health and well-being of poultry in different housing
and management systems can range from good to poor
depending on the genetic stock used, previous rearing
conditions of the birds, specifics of the housing design
and management, and husbandry skills and empathy of
poultry caretakers. Sustainable solutions are needed that
promote poultry health and well-being while at the same
time maintaining the affordability and safety of poultry
products, ensuring worker safety, and avoiding wasteful343

References

611, 98 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_

Opinion/ahaw_report_pigwelfare_tailbiting_en.pdf?ssbinary=true
(Accessed 2009-09-07)
EFSA 2005 (Broom, D., Gunn, M., Edwards, S., Wechsler, B., Algers,
B., Spoolder, H., Madec, F., von Borell, E. and Olsson, O.) The
welfare of weaning and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types. In: Annex to the The EFSA Journal
(2005) 268. 129 pp. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/
Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej268_pigwelfare_report_en3,0.
pdf?ssbinary=true (Accessed 2009-09-07)

Chapter 46
Further reading

Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A. and Hughes, B.O. 2004. Poultry behaviour
and welfare. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.
Berg, C. 2002. Health and welfare in organic poultry production. In:
Acta vet. scand. 2001, Suppl. 95, 37-45.
Council of the European Union, 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC
of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection
of laying hens. In: Official Journal of the European Communities.
L 203/53-57. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF.
Council of the European Union, 2007. Council Directive 2007/43/EC
of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection
of chickens kept for meat production. In: Official Journal of the
European Union. L 182/19-28. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF.
LayWel, 2006. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. In: European Commission, 6th Framework
Programme, contract No. SSPE-CT-2004-502315. http://www.laywel.eu/.
National Chicken Council, 2005. Animal welfare guidelines and audit
checklist. Washington, D.C.: National Chicken Council. http://www.
nationalchickencouncil.com/files/AnimalWelfare2005.pdf.
Perry, G.C. (ed.) 2004. Welfare of the laying hen. Wallingford, U.K.:
CABI Publishing
United Egg Producers. 2008. Animal husbandry guidelines for U.S. egg
laying flocks. 2008 Edition. Alpharetta, GA: United Egg Producers.
http://www.uepcertified.com/docs/UEP-Animal-WelfareGuidelines-2007-2008.pdf
Weeks, C. and Butterworth, A. 2004. Measuring and auditing broiler
welfare. Wallingford, U.K: CABI Publishing

Recommended Reading

Appleby, M., Cussen, V., Lambert, L. and Turner, J. (eds.) 2008. Long
distance transport and welfare of farm animals. Wallingford. UK:
CABI International.
Grandin, T. (ed.) 2007. Livestock handling and transport. Wallingford.
UK: CABI International.
Humane Slaughter Association, website: http://www.hsa.org.uk

Chapter 47
Anil, M.H., Whittington, P.E. and McKinstry, J.L. 2000. The effect
of the sticking method on the welfare of slaughter pigs. In: Meat
Science. Vol. 55, pp. 315-319.
Anil, M.H., Yesildere, T., Aksu, H., Matur, E., McKinstry, J.L. Erdogan,
O., Hughes, S. and Mason, C. 2004. Comparison of religious slaughter of sheep with methods that include pre-slaughter stunning, and
the lack of differences in exsanguination, packed cell volume and
meat quality parameters. In: Animal Welfare. Vol. 13, pp. 387-392.
Bornett-Gauci, H.L.I., Martin, J.E. and Arney, D.R. 2006. The welfare
of low-volume farm animals during transport and at slaughter: A
review of current knowledge and recommendations for future research. In: Animal Welfare. Vol.15, pp. 299-308.
Broom, D.M. 2000. Welfare assessment and welfare problem areas during handling and transport. In: Grandin, T. (ed.) Livestock handling
and transport, 2nd edition. Wallingford, UK: CABI publishing.
Carlyle, W.W.H., Guise, H.J. and Cook, P. 1997. Effect of time between
farm loading and processing on carcase quality of broiler chickens.
In: Veterinary Record. Vol. 141, p.364
Dalin, A.M., Magnusson, U., Haggendal, J. and Nyberg, L. 1993. The
effect of transport stress on plasma levels of catecholamines, cortisol, corticosterol-binding globulin, blood cell count and lymphoctye
proliferation in pigs. In: Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Vol. 34, pp.
59-68.
EFSA 2004. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare AHAW on a request from the Commission related to welfare
aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals. Question number: EFSA-Q-2003-093.
Summary, Opinion and Report: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/
efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620775454.htm;Report:http://
www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/opinion_
ahaw_02_ej45_stunning_report_v2_en1,1.pdf?ssbinary=true
EFSA 2006. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and
welfare AHAW on a request from the Commission related with
the welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing
applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches,
ducks, geese . Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-005. Summary,
Opinion and Report: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale1178620753812_1178620773440.htm.
Report:http://www.efsa.
europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_stunning2_report1.pdf?ssbinary=true
Ekstrand, C. 1998. An observational cohort study of the effects of
catching methods on carcass rejection rates in broilers. In: Animal
Welfare. Vol. 7, pp. 87-96
Gregory, N.G. and Wilkins, L.J. 1989. Effect of stunning current on
carcass quality in chickens. In: Veterinary Record. Vol. 121, pp.
530-532.
Heffner, R.S. and Heffner, H.E. 1983. Hearing in large mammals, horse
equus caballus and cattle bos taurus. In: Behavioural Neuroscience.
Vol. 97, pp. 299-309
Hunter, R.R., Mitchell, M.A, Carlisle, A.J., Quinn, A.D., Kettlewell,
P.J, Knowles, T.G. and Wariss, P.D. 1998. Physiological responses
of broilers to pre-slaughter lairage: Effects of the thermal micro-environment? In: British Poultry Science, Vol. 39. pp. 53-54

493