The Impacts of Colony Cages on the Welfare of Chickens Farmed for Meat
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Study Characteristics
3.2. Welfare Comparisons between the Studies
3.3. Could Colony Cages with Slatted Floors Improve Chicken Welfare?
3.4. Limitations of Retrieved Studies
3.4.1. Welfare Indicators Assessed
3.4.2. Inconsistencies in Study Design and Reporting
3.4.3. Studies Favouring Slatted Floors
3.5. Future Research to Improve Farmed Chicken Welfare
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT: Crops and Livestock Products. 2022. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 24 October 2022).
- Widowski, T.M.; Rentsch, A.K. Farming poultry. In Routledge Handbook of Animal Welfare; Knight, A., Phillips, C., Sparks, P., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2023; pp. 47–63. [Google Scholar]
- Big Dutchman. AviMaxtransit: The Multi-Tier System for Hygienic, Efficient and Successful Broiler Growing; Big Dutchman: Holland, MI, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Plitman, L.; Ben-Dov, D.; Dolev, S.; Katz, R.; Miculitzki, M.; Nagar, S.; Honig, H. Case study: Comparing the welfare of broiler chickens in two intensive production systems in Israel. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 2021, 76, 156–160. [Google Scholar]
- O’Connor, A.M.; Sargeant, J.M. An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2014, 15, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elsevier. Scopus Content Coverage Guide; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2022).
- Khabsa, M.; Giles, C.L. The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aviagen. Ross Broiler Management Handbook, 5th ed.; Hunstville, A.L., Ed.; Aviagen: Elkmont, AL, USA, 2018; Available online: https://en.aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerHandbook2018-EN.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2022).
- Riber, A.B.; Van De Weerd, H.A.; De Jong, I.C.; Steenfeldt, S. Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 378–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OIE. Animal welfare and broiler chicken production systems. Terr. Anim. Health Code 2015, 1, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
- OIE. What Is Animal Welfare? 2021. Available online: https://www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-at-a-glance/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Chen, Q.; Saatkamp, H.W.; Cortenbach, J.; Jin, W. Comparison of Chinese broiler production systems in economic performance and animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abd El-Wahab, A.; Kriewitz, J.P.; Hankel, J.; Chuppava, B.; Ratert, C.; Taube, V.; Kamphues, J. The effects of feed particle size and floor type on the growth performance, git development, and pododermatitis in broiler chickens. Animals 2020, 10, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abo Ghanima, M.M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Othman, S.I.; Taha, A.E.; Allam, A.A.; Eid Abdel-Moneim, A.M. Impact of different rearing systems on growth, carcass traits, oxidative stress biomarkers, and humoral immunity of broilers exposed to heat stress. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 3070–3078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bracke, M.B.M.; Koene, P.; Estevez, I.; Butterworth, A.; de Jong, I.C. Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0222955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Deek, A.; El-Sabrout, K. Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2019, 75, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, E.A.; Sant’Anna, A.C.; Crowe, T.G.; MacAri, M.; Furlan, R.L. Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries-Experiment 2: Heat stress situation. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 1954–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Çavuşoǧlu, E.; Petek, M.; Abdourhamane, I.M.; Akkoc, A.; Topal, E. Effects of different floor housing systems on the welfare of fast-growing broilers with an extended fattening period. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2018, 61, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Wen, X.; Alphin, R.; Zhu, Z.; Zhou, Z. Effects of two different broiler flooring systems on production performances, welfare, and environment under commercial production conditions. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 1108–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almeida, E.A.; Souza de, L.F.A.; Sant’Anna, A.C.; Bahiense, R.N.; Macari, M.; Furlan, R.L. Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries-Experiment 1: Thermal Comfort. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3155–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Özhan, N.; Simsek, U.G.; Özcelik, M. Comparison of floor and cage housing systems in terms of some welfare assessments in broiler. Ank. Üniversitesi Vet. Fakültesi Derg. 2016, 63, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Şimşek, G.Ü.; Erişir, M.; Çiftçi, M.; Seven, P.T. Effects of cage and floor housing systems on fattening performance, oxidative stress and carcass defects in broiler chicken. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2014, 20, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, S.; Greger, M. Animal welfare and food safety aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages. Animals 2013, 3, 386–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fouad, M.A.; Abdel Razek, A.H.; Badawy, E.S.M. Broilers welfare and economics under two management alternatives on commercial scale. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2008, 7, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fortomaris, P.; Arsenos, G.; Tserveni-Gousi, A.; Yannakopoulos, A. Performance and behaviour of broiler chickens as affected by the housing system. Archiv. Fur Geflugelkd. 2007, 71, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
- Massey, J.W. Comparison of Broiler Breeder Production and Fertility in a Colony Cage System with Two Different Floors Versus a Slat-Floor System; West Virginia University: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Soliman, E.S.; Hassan, R.A. Influence of housing floor on air quality, growth traits, and immunity in broiler chicken farms. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2020, 8, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Deen, A.S.; Abdel-Azeem, F.; Al-Gamal, A. Effect of two housing systems on productive performance and some physiological traits of broiler chickens reared in enclosed houses. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 2020, 35, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çavuşoglu, E.; Petek, M. Effects of different floor materials on the welfare and behaviour of slow- and fast-growing broilers. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2019, 62, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sargeant, J.M.; Bergevin, M.D.; Churchill, K.; Dawkins, K.; Deb, B.; Dunn, J.; Winder, C.B. The efficacy of litter management strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality in broiler chickens: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2019, 20, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Süzer, B.; Tüfekçi, K.; Arican, İ.; Petek, M.; Abdourhamane, I.M.; Özbek, M.; Yildiz, H. Effects of genotype and housing system on some bone biomechanical characteristics in broiler chickens. Ank. Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2019, 66, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baracho, M.S.B.; Nääs, I.A.; Betin, P.S.; Moura, D.J. Factors that influence the production, environment, and welfare of broiler chicken: A systematic review. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2018, 20, 617–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuppava, B.; Visscher, C.; Kamphues, J. Effect of different flooring designs on the performance and foot pad health in broilers and Turkeys. Animals 2018, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sunarti, D.; Haryono, H.; Soedarsono, S. The effect of density and floor types on performance, physiological state and immune response of broilers. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 2010, 35, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adler, C.; Tiemann, I.; Hillemacher, S.; Schmithausen, A.J.; Müller, U.; Heitmann, S.; Spindler, B.; Kemper, N.; Büscher, W. Effects of a partially perforated flooring system on animal-based welfare indicators in broiler housing. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 3343–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fidan, E.D.; Kaya, M.; Nazligul, A.; Türkyilmaz, M.K. The effects of perch cooling on behavior, welfare criteria, performance, and litter quality of broilers reared at high temperatures with different litter thicknesses. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2020, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, N.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Johnson, A.; Marshall, V.; Garmyn, A.; Jacobs, L. Remedying contact dermatitis in broiler chickens with novel flooring treatments. Animals 2020, 10, 1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen, I.J.; Tahamtani, F.M.; Forkman, B.; Young, J.F.; Poulsen, H.D.; Riber, A.B. Effects of environmental enrichment on health and bone characteristics of fast growing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1946–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, M.M. A Novel Environmental Enrichment Laser Device Stimulated Broiler Chicken Active Behavior and Improved Performance Without Sacrificing Welfare Outcomes. Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA, 2019; p. 166. [Google Scholar]
- Kaukonen, E. Housing Conditions and Broiler and Broiler Breeder Welfare: The Effect of Litter Condition on Contact Dermatitis in Broilers and Breeders, and The Effect of Elevated Structures on Broiler Leg Health. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2017. Available online: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/183811 (accessed on 24 September 2022).
- Mesa, D.; Muniz, E.; Souza, A.; Geffroy, B. Broiler-housing conditions affect the performance. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2017, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaukonen, E.; Norring, M.; Valros, A. Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathol. 2016, 45, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simsek, U.G.; Dalkilic, B.; Ciftci, M.; Cerci, I.H.; Bahsi, M. Effects of enriched housing design on broiler performance, welfare, chicken meat composition and serum cholesterol. Acta Vet. Brno 2009, 78, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterworth, A. Welfare assessment of poultry on farm. In Advances in Poultry Welfare; Mench, J.A., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Kidlington, UK, 2017; pp. 113–130. [Google Scholar]
- Kutlusan. Broplus Broiler Cage System with Drawer. 2021. Available online: https://www.kutlusan.com.tr/en/broplus-broiler-cage-system-with-drawer/urun-detay/178,132 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Nagar, S.; Dov, D.B. Position Paper–Broiler Rearing in Cages; Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Veterinary and Livestock Health Services: Hadera, Israel, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Animals Now. Investigation team footage - catching of the chickens. Personal Communication, 7 January 2021. [Google Scholar]
- CMC Industries. Apollo Generation 2-The Chicken Harvester. 2016. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqzpIqwpOdQ (accessed on 6 February 2021).
- Mönch, J.; Rauch, E.; Hartmannsgruber, S.; Erhard, M.; Wolff, I.; Schmidt, P.; Louton, H. The welfare impacts of mechanical and manual broiler catching and of circumstances at loading under field conditions. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 5233–5251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolff, I.; Klein, S.; Rauch, E.; Erhard, M.; Mönch, J.; Härtle, S.; Louton, H. Harvesting-induced stress in broilers: Comparison of a manual and a mechanical harvesting method under field conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 221, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittelsen, K.E.; Granquist, E.G.; Aunsmo, A.L.; Moe, R.O.; Tolo, E. An evaluation of two different broiler catching methods. Animals 2018, 8, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vegans with Chickens. Post by Treetops Jen. 2021. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/groups/VegansWithChickens/permalink/4307230129293310 (accessed on 5 February 2021).
- Algers, B.; Bassler, A.; Brown, S.B.R.; Colin, L.; Ferrari, P.; Blokhuis, H.J. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry; Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, Netherlands, 2009; p. 111. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandez, A.P.; Norton, T.; Exadaktylos, V.; Vranken, E.; Berckmans, D. Analysis of behavioural patterns in broilers using camera-based technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Agricultural Engineering CIGR AgEng, Aarhus, Denmark, 26–29 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gocsik, É.; Brooshooft, S.D.; de Jong, I.C.; Saatkamp, H.W. Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Agric. Syst. 2016, 146, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J. Chicken dustbaths. 2020. Available online: https://www.knowyourchickens.com/chicken-dust-bath/ (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- EU Council. Council Directive 2007/43/EC. 2007. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0043 (accessed on 7 February 2021).
- Vissers, L.S.M.; de Jong, I.C.; van Horne, P.L.M.; Saatkamp, H.W. Global prospects of the cost-efficiency of broiler welfare in middle-segment production systems. Animals 2019, 9, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Jong, I.; Berg, C.; Butterworth, A.; Estevéz, I. Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. EFSA Supporting Publ. 2017, 9, 1–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, G.; Lin, T.; Ying, Y.; Chowdhary, G.; Ting, K.C. Agricultural robotics research applicable to poultry production: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 169, 105216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, E.; Dawkins, M.S.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G. A systematic review of precision livestock farming in the poultry sector: Is technology focussed on improving bird welfare? Animals 2019, 9, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
No. | Author(s); Date | Research Design | Title/Key Research Question | Sample | Key Result(s) and Recommendation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country; Sample Size | Floor/Housing Types | Stocking Density | Chicken Breed/Type | |||||
1 | Chen et al. (2020) [12] | Welfare evaluations of broilers using WQA | Comparison of Chinese broiler production systems in economic performance and animal welfare | China; 66 flocks on 52 farms |
| Variable stocking densities in the NF. NC/HSC = >50 kg/m2 | White-feathered | Welfare decreased over time amidst shift from NF to NC, and from NC to HSC. An overall negative correlation was found between welfare and profit. Net floor may be preferable to colony cages. Nine out of fourteen measures showed significant differences between the three systems. |
2 | Abd El-Wahab et al. (2020) [13] | Dissection | The effects of feed particle size and floor type on the growth performance, GIT development, and pododermatitis in broiler chickens | Germany; n = 480 |
| 20 birds/m2 pens | Ross 308, both sexes | Using a fully slatted floor led to a higher body weight while having no effect on reducing the incidence of footpad dermatitis. Housing birds on litter with floor heating resulted in the lowest pododermatitis prevalence. |
3 | Abo Ghanima et al. (2020) [14] | Physiological measures | Impact of different rearing systems on oxidative stress biomarkers | Egypt; 270; 12 birds per group |
| 12 birds/m2 (litter) 12 birds/m2 (perforated) Not stated (cage) | Cobb | Higher oxidative stress was found in cage systems. Eosinophil, lymphocyte, basophil, and monocyte counts, and phagocytic index and activity were reduced in litter systems. |
4 | Bracke et al. (2019) [15] | Expert survey | Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey | International; 20 meat chicken welfare scientists and 7 veterinarians | n/a | n/a | n/a | It appeared that experts use both input and output parameters to explain overall welfare, and that both are important. The major conventional systems and modern cages for meat chickens received low welfare scores, well below scores that may be considered acceptable. |
5 | El-deek et al. (2019) [16] | Review | Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems | international | n/a | n/a | n/a | Housing system, as a non-genetic factor, directly affects the welfare of the birds and can impact their behaviour. Free-range production system might be considered a favourable alternative housing system. The majority (approximately 70%) of intensive production systems that are currently used do not usually support the natural behavioural needs of poultry. |
6 | Almeida et al. (2018) [17] | Behaviour and physiology, WQA | Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries—Experiment 2: Heat stress situation (part 1 in no. 9 below) | Brazil; n = 384 |
| 12 birds/m2 | Cobb 500, mixed sex | Use of perforated plastic flooring in a heat stress situation can improve air quality (less CO2 and NH3 concentration) and bird cleanliness. On the other hand, chickens are more susceptible to develop lesions in the breast, hock, and footpad. More research is required into bird wellbeing. |
7 | Çavuşoǧlu et al. (2018) [18] | Animal-based welfare parameters were measured, WQA | Effects of different floor housing systems on the welfare of fast-growing broilers with an extended fattening period | Turkey; n = 210 |
| Not stated | Male fast-growing hybrids, Ross PM3 | Haemorrhage or lesion scores of the breast and shoulder of broilers with slat floor housing were found to be significantly greater than for conventional deep litter as a result of a heavy body weight at a greater slaughter age. |
8 | Li et al. (2017) [19] | WQA | Effects of two different broiler flooring systems on production performances, welfare, and environment under commercial production conditions | China; four flocks, 31,700 per flock |
| Meat chicken house = 18 × 150 m, 31,700 per house 12 birds/m2 | Cobb 500 | The average ammonia concentration was lower at 10.44 ppm in the litter house compared to 15.02 ppm in the netting flooring house due to manure accumulation under the floor. Birds raised in the netted floor house had increased breast blister incidence. However, no difference was found in foot/hock lesions, lameness, and fearfulness. |
9 | Almeida et al. (2017) [20] | WQA and injuries | Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries—Experiment 1: Thermal Comfort (part 2 in no. 6 above) | Brazil; n = 384 |
| 12 birds/m2 | Both sexes, Cobb | The highest scores of footpad dermatitis were found in the slatted case. |
10 | Ozhan et al. (2016) [21] | Blood samples, other physiological measures | Comparison of floor and cage housing systems in terms of some welfare assessments in broiler chickens | Turkey; n = 30 |
| Not stated | Ross 308 | Cage housing system negatively affected broilers’ blood parameters, bone quality, and pH level of breast muscle. |
11 | Simsek et al. (2014) [22] | Physiological parameters | Effects of cage and floor housing systems on fattening performance, oxidative stress and carcass defects in broiler chicken | Turkey; n = 30 |
| 17–17.5 chicks/m2 | Ross 308 broiler | Cases of wing fractures and wing and breast bruising were found to be higher with cage housing. Serum malondialdehyde level increased with cage housing. The results of this study indicated that floor housing had shown better performance and carcass quality at the production capacities examined. |
12 | Shields and Gregor (2013) [23] | Review | Animal welfare and food safety aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages | International | n/a | n/a | n/a | Cage environments are usually stocked at a higher density than open floor systems, and the limited studies available suggest that caging may lead to increased levels of fear and stress in the birds. Further, birds reared on the floor appeared less likely to harbour and shed Salmonella, as litter may serve as a seeding agent for competitive exclusion by other microorganisms. Cages likely to meet with public disapproval. |
13 | Fouad et al. (2008) [24] | Behavioural and physiological parameters, ethogram | Broiler welfare and economics under two management alternatives on a commercial scale | Egypt, 2 × 12,375 flocks |
| Floor: 16 bird/m2 Cage: 20 birds/m2 | Hubbard, sexed groups | Economic analysis revealed that rearing meat chickens on the floor was more profitable than a cage rearing system. Data obtained in this experiment suggested that the welfare status of meat chickens was compromised under cage conditions as indicated by impaired performance, increased mortalities, higher prevalence of leg problems, stereotyped behaviour, and higher stress. In conclusion, cages were not recommended as a management system for rearing meat chickens from both economic and welfare perspectives. |
14 | Fortomaris et al. (2007) [25] | Behavioural and physiological parameters, ethogram | Performance and behaviour of broiler chickens as affected by the housing system | Germany; n = 870 |
| Litter floor pens: 15 birds/m2 Cage: 27 birds/m2 | Cobb 500, sexed groups | There was more preening and wing flapping behaviour in litter systems. |
15 | Massey (2002) [26] | Physiological/body | Comparison of broiler breeder production and fertility in a colony cage system with two different floors versus a slat-floor system | USA; n = 870 |
| Slat + litter: 5 birds/m2 Cage: 13 birds/m2 | Cobb 500 | Lower fertility was observed in the cage-maintained hens. |
No. | Author(s); Date | Research Design | Title/Key Research Question | Sample | Key Result(s) and Recommendation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country; Sample Size | Floor/Housing Types | Stocking Density | Chicken Breed/Type | |||||
1 | Soliman and Hassan (2020) [27] | Environmental and bodily samples | Influence of housing floor on air quality, growth traits, and immunity in broiler chicken farms | Egypt; n = 200 |
| Not stated | Hubbard | Slatted floors and battery cages were able to maintain indoor air quality, reduce microbial contamination, and enhance growth traits and immunity of meat chickens compared to traditional deep litter systems. |
2 | El-Deen et al. (2020) [28] | Physiological parameters | Effect of two housing systems on productive performance and some physiological traits of broiler chickens reared in enclosed houses | Egypt; n = 3120 |
| Cage—26 birds/m2, not exceed 58 kg/m² Floor—17 birds/m2 | Ross 308 | There was not much difference in blood parameters between two systems. Higher H/L ratio (i.e., stress) on floor system. |
3 | Çavuşoǧlu and Petek (2019) [29] | Welfare and behavioural parameters incl. RSPCA | Effects of different floor materials on the welfare and behaviour of slow- and fast-growing broilers | Turkey; n = 200 |
| 10 birds/m2 | Slow-growing (Hubbard JA57) and fast-growing (Ross 308), males | Floor type did not affect behaviour parameters. Mean score of footpad dermatitis for the birds on the slatted floor was lower than for birds raised on deep litter at all ages. Meat chickens kept on the slatted floor were characterized by significantly lower hock-joint dermatitis scores throughout the experiment. No significant difference in gait scores. Slat flooring could be beneficial to improve meat chicken welfare, but further behavioural investigations are needed such as dust bathing and walking behaviour, i.e., covering more parameters. |
4 | Sargeant et al. (2019) [30] | Review/meta-analysis | The efficacy of litter management strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality in broiler chickens: A systematic review and network meta-analysis | International | n/a | n/a | n/a | There were no differences in mortality among the litter types, floor types, or additives. For footpad lesions, peat moss appeared beneficial compared to straw, based on a small number of comparisons. There was no association between fresh versus used litter on the risk of mortality, although there was considerable heterogeneity among studies. There was poor reporting of key design features in many studies, and analyses rarely accounted for non-independence of observations within flocks. |
5 | Suzer et al. (2019) [31] | Biomechanical bone characteristics | Effects of genotype and housing system on some bone biomechanical characteristics in broiler chickens | Turkey; n = 300 |
| Free-range: 10 birds/5 m2 Indoor: 10 birds/m2 | Hubbard JA-57 SG and Ross 308 FG | Housing had no effect on bone characteristics. |
6 | Baracho et al. (2018) [32] | Review | Factors that influence the production, environment, and welfare of broiler chickens: A systematic review | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Study did not find housing type to influence welfare. |
7 | Chuppava et al. (2018) [33] | Weight, footpad examination | Effect of different flooring designs on the performance and footpad health in broilers and turkeys | Germany; n = 720 |
| 35 kg/m2 | Ross 308 | The results in this study did not justify the use of slatted flooring systems. More research should be conducted to study the effects of slatted flooring on poultry welfare: behaviour, use of space, use of the sand bath, and other welfare indicators. Footpad dermatitis showed no difference between floor types. Slatted flooring might offer almost no possibilities for the birds to peck and manipulate particles when no litter particles are available on the ground, therefore, feed pecking occurs rather than pecking at the slatted floor resulting in higher feed intake. Insufficiently conclusive to be able to show whether litter floor pens with floor heating were superior to an entire floor pen without floor heating. “Other measures concerning behaviour, use of space, use of the sandbox, and other welfare indicators might have been very useful, but were not part of the study”. |
8 | Sunarti et al. (2010) [34] | Performance, physiological state, immune response | The effect of density and floor types on performance, physiological state, and immune response of broilers | Indonesia |
| 7/10/13/16 birds/m2 | 368 male broilers New Lohman strain | Link was found between stocking density and stress. It could be concluded that bamboo slats are best used for broilers up to a density of 13 meat chickens/m2. |
Welfare/Behaviour/Physiological Parameter | Litter Floor Best | Slatted Floor Best | No Significant Difference | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Injuries/lesions | Footpad dermatitis | Abd El-Wahab * [13] Almeida * [20] Almeida * [17] | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] Li * [19] Simsek * [22] Çavuşoǧlu * [29] | Chuppava * [33] Chen * [12] |
Hock burn | Almeida * [17] | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] Almeida * [20] Çavuşoǧlu * [29] | Li * [19] | |
Breast blister/damage | Almeida * [17] Li * [19] | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] | Almeida * [20] | |
Bruising (shank, drumstick) | Simsek * [22] | |||
Other (fractures, bruises) | Simsek * [22] | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] | ||
Mortality | Fouad * [24] | Li * [19] Simsek * [22] Massey [26] | ||
Blood/body measure | H/L ratio (high = stress) | Fouad * [24] | El-Deen * [28] Abo Ghanima * [14] | Sunarti * [34] |
Cortisol | Soliman * [27] | |||
Oxidative stress biomarkers | Abo Ghanima * [14] Ozhan * [21] Simsek * [22] | Soliman * [27] | ||
Antioxidant capacity | Soliman * [27] | |||
LDH (biomarker for cell damage) | Abo Ghanima * [14] | |||
Immunoglobulin IgG/IgM | Soliman * [27] | |||
Bacteria counts | Soliman * [27] | |||
pH of breast muscle | Ozhan * [21] | |||
Glucose, uric acid, cholesterol | Ozhan * [21] | |||
Other (e.g., lymphoid organs, bones, serum creatine kinase and alkaline phosphatase activity, CAT, fertility, ND antibody titter, oocyst) | Massey [26] | El-Deen * [28] Abo Ghanima * [14] Sunarti * [34] (oocyst, spleen) | El-Deen * [28] Süzer * [31] Abo Ghanima * [14] Ozhan * [21] Sunarti * [34] (bursa) | |
Behaviour | Gait | Almeida * [20] Li * [19] Almeida * [17] Fouad * [24] | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] Li * [19] Çavuşoǧlu * [29] | |
Duration active | Fouad * [24] | |||
Tonic immobility | Çavuşoǧlu * [29] | |||
Avoidance test/novel object test | Li * [19] Fouad * [24] | Çavuşoǧlu * [29] Li * [19] Chen * [12] | ||
Wing flap | Fortomaris * [25] | |||
Panting | Chen * [12] Li * [19] | |||
Stereotypic behaviour (drinking) | Fouad * [24] | |||
Comfort | Fouad * [24] | |||
Aggression | Fortomaris * [25] | |||
Preening | Fortomaris * [25] | |||
Dirtiness of plumage | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] Almeida * [20] Li * [19] Almeida * [17] Çavuşoǧlu * [29] | Chen * [12] | ||
Feather condition | Çavuşoǧlu * [18] | |||
Air quality (CO2, ammonia) | Li * [19] | Soliman * [27] Almeida * [20] Almeida * [17] | Li * [19] | |
Expert view/review | El-deek * [16] Bracke * [15] Shields * [23] | Baracho * [32] Sargeant * [30] | ||
Total | 29 | 31 | 27 |
No. | Author(s); Date | Research Design | Title/Key Research Question | Sample | Key Result(s) and Recommendation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country; Sample Size | Floor/Housing Types | Stocking Density | Chicken Breed/Type | |||||
1 | Adler et al. (2020) [35] | WQA | Effects of a partially perforated flooring system on animal-based welfare indicators in broiler housing | Germany; n = 500 |
| 39 kg/m2 | Fast-growing 308 Ross | Results showed that the partially perforatedflooring system had a positive influence on footpad dermatitis from day 14, and hock burn on day 28. There was no effect on production performance. |
2 | Fidan et al. (2020) [36] | Welfare criteria examination | The effects of perch cooling on behavior, welfare criteria, performance, and litter quality of broilers reared at high temperatures with different litter thicknesses | Turkey; n = 459 |
| 10 birds/m2 | Male, day-old | Cooled perches and 14 cm of litter thickness tended to decrease the incidence of footpad dermatitis and hock burn. The body weight gain of the broilers in the cooled perch group was higher than those in no perch and non-cooled perch groups. These results suggest that cool perches have a beneficial effect on the performance and welfare of broilers. |
3 | Freeman et al. (2020) [37] | Physiological and injury measures | Remedying contact dermatitis in broiler chickens with novel flooring treatments | USA; n = 546, 42 pens, 13 per pen |
| 10.4 chicks/m2 at placement; stocking density of 35.8 kg/m2 | Hubbard X Ross | Unexpectedly, the positive control, consisting of replacing litter every four days, resulted in the best welfare condition (footpad dermatitis, hock burns, and gait); the other flooring types did not remedy or prevent contact dermatitis. This comparable approach may be commercially feasible. |
4 | Pedersen et al. (2020) [38] | Post-mortem analysis | Effects of environmental enrichment on health and bone characteristics of fast-growing broiler chickens | Denmark; 497 birds in each of 58 pens | Deep litter system with trials of different enrichments such as:
| 40 kg/m2 | Fast-growing Ross, both sexes, day-old | Provision of vertical panels and increased distance between resources can result in larger muscle and bone dimension, possibly having a positive effect on leg health. Furthermore, the provision of environmental enrichment does not appear to be a risk factor for wooden breast or bacterial infection. |
5 | Meyer (2019) [39] | Behavioural and physiological measures | A novel environmental enrichment laser device stimulated broiler chicken active behavior and improved performance without sacrificing welfare outcomes | USA; n = 1260 | Litter with laser Litter without laser | Not stated | Ross 308, day-old | Lasers improved welfare and weight gain. Good for commercial environments. |
6 | Riber et al. (2018) [9] | Review | Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens | n/a | Non-cage options | n/a | n/a | Many of the ideas for environmental enrichment for broilers need to be further developed and studied, preferably in commercial trials, with respect to the use, the effect on behaviour, and on other welfare aspects such as leg health, and the interaction with genotype, production system, stocking density, light, and flock size. |
7 | Kaukonen (2017) [40] | WQA | Housing conditions and broiler and broiler breeder welfare | Finland | Litter variations—platforms, peat, and more | 42 kg/m² | Fast-growing broiler breed, Ross 508 | Regarding footpad health, peat seems to be the optimal litter material for Finnish conditions. Farmer ability to manage litter conditions is important, regardless of the chosen litter material. Hock burn monitoring could represent a more sensitive indicator of litter condition and possibly also signal leg health status. Platforms should be preferred over perches as the latter are unused. Platform availability could enhance broiler wellbeing. |
8 | Mesa et al. (2017) [41] | Physiological measures | Assessing the effects of different housing conditions on both feed conversion ratio and mortality of male broiler flocks | Brazil; >100 million birds, 977 farms, one major producer, 3516 flocks | Concrete +litter Dirt | 12 birds/m2 | Male Ross 308, one-day | Positive ventilation, metal and clay roof, dirt floor, and owner management were shown to reduce mortality. |
9 | Kaukonen et al. (2016) [42] | WQA | Effect of litter quality on footpad dermatitis, hock burns, and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period | Finland; 10 farms, 18 houses | Slatted litter | 6 birds/m2 | Ross 508, 10% male | The condition of footpads deteriorated towards slaughter age, with the occurrence of severe lesions reaching a maximum of 64% on average at slaughter. Hock lesions and breast blisters were rare. The litter layer became drier over time. Although poorer litter condition and wetness influenced footpad health negatively, the effect on severe lesions was not significant. A negative effect on footpad condition of larger slat areas was observed. In conclusion, maintaining good litter quality alone is not enough to ensure healthy footpads. |
10 | Simsek et al. (2009) [43] | Physiological measures | Effects of enriched housing design on broiler performance, welfare, and serum cholesterol | Turkey; 480 | Litter with perches/sand Litter without (wood shavings) | 15 birds/m2 | Ross 308, sexed groups | Housing enriched with perches and sand bedding in addition to wood shavings improved broiler welfare and meat quality. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mace, J.L.; Knight, A. The Impacts of Colony Cages on the Welfare of Chickens Farmed for Meat. Animals 2022, 12, 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212988
Mace JL, Knight A. The Impacts of Colony Cages on the Welfare of Chickens Farmed for Meat. Animals. 2022; 12(21):2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212988
Chicago/Turabian StyleMace, Jenny L., and Andrew Knight. 2022. "The Impacts of Colony Cages on the Welfare of Chickens Farmed for Meat" Animals 12, no. 21: 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212988
APA StyleMace, J. L., & Knight, A. (2022). The Impacts of Colony Cages on the Welfare of Chickens Farmed for Meat. Animals, 12(21), 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212988