Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:38:18.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of animal welfare on worldwide poultry production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

W. BESSEI
W. BESSEI*
Affiliation:
University of Hohenheim, Institute of Animal Science, Garbenstr. 17, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Animal welfare has become an important issue in poultry production. Concern about poultry welfare has mainly been expressed in industrialised countries. Since trade of poultry products is highly internationalised, welfare aspects have to be considered by all countries involved. This paper reviews the changes in the attitude to animal welfare in Western societies and the related development of regulations and standards, the impact of high welfare standards on production costs and on international trade of poultry products and finally, the influence of different stakeholders on poultry production and marketing. From the 1960s onwards, animal welfare activities have been focused on farm animals kept under ‘industrial’ conditions, such as caged laying hens. Consequently, the management conditions for laying hens in Europe have been regulated in detail by national laws and EU-Directives. Meanwhile, conventional cages have been banned in the EU and welfare activities are now directed towards other issues, such as beak-trimming and killing day-old chicks of layer lines. All measures which are considered to improve the welfare of animals increase cost of production. Hence, differences in national welfare regulations are expected to relocate poultry production to countries with low welfare standards. There is a tendency that important retailers and food chains use welfare as a marketing argument and establish high price premium labels. Standards which are established and controlled by stakeholders of the poultry market are independent of national welfare legislation. This will lead to harmonisation of welfare standards on an international level. Most welfare labels have been developed by retailers in cooperation with welfare-oriented NGOs. There is a new trend in Germany where retailers and farmers organisations develop welfare schemes and poultry producers are paid an extra allowance for welfare-friendly production. This system ensures that poultry farmers are reimbursed for the welfare-related costs.

Keywords

poultrywelfareproduction systemscompetitivenessproduction costs
Type
Review
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 211 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BACOT, P., BARATAY, E., BARBET, D., FAURE, O. and MAYNAUD, J. (2003) L`animal en politique. L`éditions Harmattan, Paris.Google Scholar
BELL, D. (2000) Economic implications of reducing cage density in the US. Cooperative Extension of the University of California. An economic update, number 234. December 2000.Google Scholar
BETER LEVEN (2017) Criteria for layers and broilers (Dutch). https://beterleven.dierenbescherming.nl/zakelijk/deelname/criteria. Accessed Jan. 2017.Google Scholar
BRACKE, M.B.M. (2009) Animal welfare from a global perspective - A Survey of foreign agricultural services and case studies on poultry, aquaculture and wildlife. Wageningen UR Livestock Research. http://www.livestockresearch.wur.nl. Accessed Jan 2017.Google Scholar
DAMME, K. (2016) Ökonomische Auswirkungen des Verzichts auf das Schnabelkupieren bei Legehennen (Economic effects of keeping intact-beak laying hens). Report, Bayerische Landesanstalt fuer Landwirtschaft (LfL), Kitzingen, Germany.Google Scholar
DAMME, K. and URSELMANS, S. (2013) Infrared beak treatment - a temporary solution? Lohmann Information 48 (2): 36-44.Google Scholar
DAMME, K., URSELMANS, S. and SCHMIDT, E. (2015) Economics of dual purpose breeds: a comparison of meat and egg production using dual purpose breeds. Lohmann Information 49 (2): 4-9.Google Scholar
DE JONG, I.C., HINDLE, V.A., BUTTERWORTH, A., ENGEL, B., FERRARI, P., GUNNINK, H., PEREZ MOYA, T., TUYTTENS, F.A. and VAN REENEN, C.G. (2016) Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 10: 117-127.Google Scholar
DRAKE, K.A. (2015) A brief review of drivers for change in the free range poultry industry. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, 9th -11th February 2015: 256-259.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, I.J. and PETHERICK, J.C. (1991) The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science 69: 5017-5022.Google Scholar
ECON (2010) Overview of animal welfare standards in selected EU and third countries. Final Report, Schmid O. and R. Kilchsperger (Eds), Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.Google Scholar
EFSA (2012) Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 10: 27-74.Google Scholar
EU (1999) Richtlinie 1999/74/EG des Rates vom 19. Juli 1999 zur Festlegung von Mindestanforderungen zum Schutz von Legehennen. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 203/53.Google Scholar
EU (2001) Standing committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (T-AP).Google Scholar
EU (2007) Council Directive 2007/43/EC Minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production.Google Scholar
FAWC (1995) Report on the welfare of turkeys. Farm Animal Welfare Council, Tolworth Tower, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 7DX, UK.Google Scholar
FIKS VAN NIEKERK, T. and DE JONG, I. (2007) Mutilations in poultry in European poultry production systems. Lohmann Information 42: 35-46.Google Scholar
GALLI, R., PREUSSE, G., UCKERMANN, O., BARTELS, T., KRAUTWALD-JUNGHANNS, M.E., KOCH, E. and STEINER, G. (2016) In Ovo Sexing of Domestic Chicken Eggs by Raman Spectroscopy. Analytical Chemistry 88: 8657-8663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GAP (2017) The 5-Step® Animal Welfare Program. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/5-step-animal-welfare-rating-program (accessed August 2017).Google Scholar
GÖHLER, D., FISCHER, B. and MEISSNER, S. (2017) In-ovo sexing of 14-day-old chicken embryos by pattern analysis in hyperspectral images (VIS/NIR spectra): A non-destructive method for layer lines with gender-specific down feather color. Poultry Science 96: 1-4.Google Scholar
GROSS, W.B. and SIEGEL, P.B. (1983) Evolution of heterophil/leucocyte ration as a measure of stress in chickens . Avian Diseases 34: 755-761.Google Scholar
HARIS, J. and GSCHWINDT-ENSINGER, B. (1982) Das Kaufverhalten von Konsumenten bei der Entscheidung zwischen Eiern aus Boden- und Käfighaltung (Buying behaviour of consumers in the decision of eggs from deep litter and cages). Archive für Geflügelkunde. 46: 210-217.Google Scholar
HARRISON, R. (1964) Animal Machines. Ed..Vincent Stuart, London, UK.Google Scholar
HARTCHER, K.M., TRAN, M.K.T.N., WILKINSON, S.J., HEMSWORTH, P.H., THOMSON, P.C. and CRONIN, G.M. (2015) Plumage damage in free-range laying hens: Behavioural characteristics in the rearing period and the effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 164: 64-72.Google Scholar
HUERTAS, S.M., GALL, C. and GALINDO, F. (2014) Drivers of animal welfare in the Americas. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties (Paris) 33: 67-76.Google Scholar
INITIATIVE POULTRY WELLBEING (2017) Informationen zur Initiative Tierwohl (Information on the Initative Animal Welfare). https://initiative-tierwohl. de/downloads/. Accessed Jan. 2017.Google Scholar
KEELING, L. (2009) An overview of the development of the Welfare Quality project assessment system. Welfare Quality Report Nr. 12, Cardiff University, Cardiff, U.K.Google Scholar
KIM, J.S. (2014) Poultry welfare policy and research in Korea. Proceedings of the 10th Asia Pacific Poultry Conference, 19-23 October 2014, Jeju, Korea 223.Google Scholar
KJAERNES, U., MIELE, M. and ROEX, J. (2007) Attitudes of Consumers, Retailers and Producers to Farm Animal Welfare. Quality® Reports No. 2, Cardiff University 1-29.Google Scholar
LAMBTON, S.L., KNOWLES, T.G., YORKE, C. and NICOL, C.J. (2010) The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32-42.Google Scholar
LAMBTON, S.L., KNOWLES, T.G., YORKE, C. and NICOL, C.J. (2015) The risk factors affecting the development of vent pecking and cannibalism in free-range and organic laying hens . Animal Welfare 24: 101-111.Google Scholar
LAY, D.C., FULTON, R.M., HESTER, P.Y., KARCHER, D.M., KJAER, J.B., MENCH, J.A., MULLENS, B.A., NEWBERRY, R.C., NICOL, C.J., O'SULLIVAN, N.P. and PORTER, R.E. (2011) Hen welfare in different housing systems . Poultry Science 90: 278-294.Google Scholar
LAYWEL (2006) Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. CD - Results of the European Project SSPE-CT-2004-502315.Google Scholar
LEENSTRA, F., VAN HORNE, P. and VAN KRIMPEN, M. (2010) Dual purpose chicken, exploration of technical, environmental and economical feasibility. Proceedings of the XIII European Poultry Congress, Tours, France.Google Scholar
LICHTER, J. and KLEIBRINK, J. (2015) Geflügelwirtschaft weltweit - Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. Handelsblatt Research Institute, Duesseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
MATTHEWS, W.A. and SUMNER, D.A. (2015) Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production . Poultry Science 94: 552-557.Google Scholar
MAXWELL, M.H. (1993) Avian blood leucocyte responses to stress. World´s Poultry Science Journal 49: 34-43.Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A. (1998) Thirty years after Brambell. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1: 91-102.Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A. (2008) Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programmes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 298-312.Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A. and BLATCHFORD, R.A. (2014) Determination of space use by laying hens using kinematic analysis. Poultry Science 93: 794-798.Google Scholar
MEYER, S., PUPPE, B. and LANGBEIN, J. (2010) Kognitive Umweltanreicherung bei Zoo- und Nutztieren- Implikationen für Verhalten und Wohlbefinden der Tiere. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 123: 446-456.Google Scholar
MOE, R.O., GUÉMENÉ, D., BAKKEN, M., LARSEN, H.J.S., SHINI, S., LERVIK, S., SKJERVE, E., MICHEL, V. and TAUSON, R. (2010) Effects of housing conditions during the rearing and laying period on adrenal reactivity, immune response and heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios in laying hens . Animal 4: 1709-1715.Google Scholar
MONTAGUE, P.R. and BERNS, G.S. (2002) Neural Economics and the Biological Substrates of Valuation . Neuron 36: 265-284.Google Scholar
NCC (2017) Animal Welfare for Broiler Chickens. http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/industry-issues/animal-welfare-for-broiler-chickens/. Accessed August 2017.Google Scholar
NL (2006) Verordening Welzijnsnormen Vleeskoenen, 2003; Integrale Tekst, 2006.Google Scholar
OHH, S.J., JUNG, Y.P., LEE, J.Y. and LEE, J. (2014) A study on the consumer valuing for animal welfare using experimental auction market. Loc. cit. Ohh, S.J., Lee, Jung-In, Lee, J.Y.: Poultry Welfare-prospect and concern for the current poultry production industry. Proceedings of the 10th Asian Pacific Poultry Conference, Jeju, Korea, 19 - 23 Oct. 2014: 49-52.Google Scholar
OIE (2013a) OIE`s achievements in animal welfare. In: Terrestrial animal health code, 22nd ed., OIE, Paris.Google Scholar
OIE (2013b) Animal welfare. In: Terrestrial animal health code, 22nd ed., OIE, Paris.Google Scholar
RIBBEKK, E. (2005) World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs / Population Division »www.un.org/esa/«.Google Scholar
ROBINS, A. and PHILLIPS, C.J.C. (2011) International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens . World's Poultry Science Journal 67: 351-369.Google Scholar
RSPCA (2012) Welfare standards for turkeys. http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1233014273714&ssbinary=true. Accessed 2016.Google Scholar
RUSHEN, J. (1991) Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 381-386.Google Scholar
SATO, S. and OHARA, A. (2014) Recent trends of policy and research relating poultry welfare in Japan. Proceedings of the 10th Asian Pacific Poultry Conference, Jeju, Korea, 19 - 23 Oct. 2014: 223.Google Scholar
SHANAWANY, M.M. (1988) Broiler Performance under high stocking densities . British Poultry Science 29: 43-52.Google Scholar
SHERWIN, C.M., RICHARDS, G.J. and NICOL, C.J. (2010) Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK . British Poultry Science 51: 488-499.Google Scholar
SINGER, P. (1995) Animal Liberation. Updated version. The Bodley Head, London.Google Scholar
SOUZA, A.P.O., DE OLIVEIRA SANS, E.C., MÜLLER, B.R. and MOLENTO, C.F.M. (2015) Broiler chicken welfare assessment in GLOBALGAP® certified and noncertified farms in Brazil . Animal Welfare 24: 45-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STADIG, L.M. (2015) Opinion of Belgian egg farmers on hen welfare and its relationship with housing type . Animal 6:1-11.Google Scholar
STADIG, L.M., AMPE, B.A., VAN GANSBEKE, S., VAN DEN BOGAERT, T., D'HAENENS, E., HEERKENS, J.L.T. and TUYTTENS, F.A.M. (2016) Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium . Poultry Science 95: 715-725.Google Scholar
TRINH, C. (1997) Le développement des productions ‘alternatives’ d'oeufs en Europe. Analyse des réglementations relatives au bien être et situation du marché. ITAVI, Paris, France: 42.Google Scholar
TUYTTENS, F., VANHONACKER, F. and VERBEKE, W. (2014) Broiler production in Flanders, Belgium: Current situation and producers' opinions about animal welfare . World's Poultry Science Journal 70: 343-354.Google Scholar
UEP (2016) United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks 2016 Edition http://uepcertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/UEP-Animal-Welfare-Guidelines-20141.pdf. Accessed August 2017.Google Scholar
VAN HORNE, P.L.M. and ACHTERBOSCH, T.J. (2008) Animal welfare in poultry production systems: Impact of EU standards on world trade . World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 40-51.Google Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T. and REUVEKAMP, B. (2011) Rondeel™, a new housing design for laying hens. Lohmann Information 46: 25-28.Google Scholar
VANHONACKER, F. and VERBEKE, W. (2009) Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not . Poultry Science 88: 2702-2711.Google Scholar
VIZZIER-THAXTON, Y., CHRISTENSEN, K.D., MENCH, J.A., RUMLEY, E.R., DAUGHERTY, C., FEINBERG, B., PARKER, M., SIEGEL, P. and SCANES, C.G. (2016) Symposium: Animal welfare challenges for today and tomorrow . Poultry Science 95: 2198-2207.Google Scholar
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT (1999) Bundeseinheitliche Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Jungmasthühnern (Broiler, Masthähnchen) und Mastputen. Document of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture BML 321-3545/2, Bonn, 2 September 1999.Google Scholar
WALLEY, K., PARROTT, P., CUSTANCE, P., MELEDO-ABRAHAM, P. and BOURDIN, A. (2015) A review of French consumers purchasing patterns, perceptions and decision factors for poultry meat . World's Poultry Science Journal 71: 5-13.Google Scholar
WEISSMANN, A., REITEMEIER, S., HAHN, A., GOTTSCHALK, J. and EINSPANIER, A. (2013) Sexing domestic chicken before hatch: A new method for in ovo gender identification . Theriogenology 80: 199-205.Google Scholar
WINDHORST, H.-W. (2008) Eiererzeugung in Kalifornien. Das Volk hat entschieden - Die Käfighaltung wird verboten. Deutsche Geflügelwirtschaft und Schweineproduktion 60: 3.Google Scholar
WINDHORST, H.-W. (2016) Cage-free heißt das Zauberwort. Ausstieg aus der Käfighaltung in den USA steht bevor. Deutsche Geflügelwirtschaft und Schweineproduktion 68 (27): 1-5.Google Scholar
WELFARE QUALITY (2009) The Overall On-farm Animal Welfare Score. http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/network/45848/7/0/40, accessed 19.04.2017.Google Scholar