Tracey A. Jones

Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density

Intensive broiler (meat) chicken production now exceeds 800 million birds each year in the United Kingdom and 2 × 1010 birds worldwide, but it attracts accusations of poor welfare. The European Union is currently adopting standards for broilers aimed at a chief welfare concern—namely, overcrowding—by limiting maximum ‘stocking density’ (bird weight per unit area). It is not clear, however, whether this will genuinely improve bird welfare because evidence is contradictory. Here we report on broiler welfare in relation to the European Union proposals through a large-scale study (2.7 million birds) with the unprecedented cooperation of ten major broiler producers in an experimental manipulation of stocking density under a range of commercial conditions. Producer companies stocked birds to five different final densities, but otherwise followed company practice, which we recorded in addition to temperature, humidity, litter and air quality. We assessed welfare through mortality, physiology, behaviour and health, with an emphasis on leg health and walking ability. Our results show that differences among producers in the environment that they provide for chickens have more impact on welfare than has stocking density itself.

Campylobacter infection of broiler chickens in a free-range environment

Campylobacter jejuni is the most common cause of bacterial gastroenteritis worldwide, with contaminated chicken meat considered to represent a major source of human infection. Biosecurity measures can reduce C. jejuni shedding rates of housed chickens, but the increasing popularity of free-range and organic meat raises the question of whether the welfare benefits of extensive production are compatible with food safety. The widespread assumption that the free-range environment contaminates extensively reared chickens has not been rigorously tested. A year-long survey of 64 free-range broiler flocks reared on two sites in Oxfordshire, UK, combining high-resolution genotyping with behavioural and environmental observations revealed: (i) no evidence of colonization of succeeding flocks by the C. jejuni genotypes shed by preceding flocks, (ii) a high degree of similarity between C. jejuni genotypes from both farm sites, (iii) no association of ranging behaviour with likelihood of Campylobacter shedding, and (iv) higher genetic differentiation between C. jejuni populations from chickens and wild birds on the same farm than between the chicken samples, human disease isolates from the same region and national samples of C. jejuni from chicken meat.

Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and welfare on commercial farms in the UK

1. Forty-six flocks of commercially-reared Pekin ducks were studied in 23 houses differing in their ventilation and brooding systems, and water and feed resources, in order to identify factors affecting duck welfare in commercial practice. 2. A wide range of environmental variables were measured, together with the physical and plumage condition of the ducks at two ages, whilst companies supplied mortality and growth rate data. 3. At 23 d, more than 98% of ducks had clean eyes, nostrils and feathers and an upright posture, and 86% had no gait abnormalities. By 41 d, body condition had deteriorated slightly with 84% of ducks having clean eyes, 67% clean feathers and 79% no gait abnormalities. 4. Gait worsened with increasing temperature and litter moisture, and atmospheric ammonia concentrations. The incidence of foot pad lesions was 10% (moderate) and 3% (severe) and was positively correlated with increasing humidity and ammonia. 5. Average mortality rates were 5⋅2% for ducks reared to 3⋅35 kg at 48 d with average growth rates of 60⋅3 to 81⋅3 g/d. High temperatures correlated with high mortality and reduced growth rate; growth rate was not related to poor gait. 6. Controlling the ducks’ environment, particularly temperature, humidity, litter moisture and ammonia is crucial to duck welfare. Effective ventilation systems, high quality straw and access to some form of open water were considered important for duck welfare.