Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

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

Abstract

Intensive broiler (meat) chicken production now exceeds 800 million birds each year in the United Kingdom and 2 × 1010 birds worldwide1, but it attracts accusations of poor welfare2,3. 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 contradictory4,5,6,7,8,9,10. 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Total mortality in relation to target stocking density.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) (European Commission, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Webster, J. Animal Welfare: a Cool Eye Towards Eden (Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stevenson, P. The Welfare of Broiler Chickens (Compassion in World Farming, Petersfield, UK, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bagshaw, C. S. & Matthews, L. R. Broiler Welfare–a Review of Latest Research and Projects in Progress Internationally (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hall, A. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Anim. Welf. 10, 23–40 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grashorn, M. & Kutritz, B. Effect of stocking density on performance of modern broiler breeds. Arch. Geflügelkd. 55, 84–90 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  7. McLean, J. A., Savory, C. J. & Sparks, N. H. C. Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation to stocking density, as indicated by performance, health and behaviour. Anim. Welf. 11, 55–73 (2002)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sørensen, P., Su, G. & Kestin, S. C. Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 79, 864–870 (2000)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feddes, J. J. R., Emmanuel, E. J. & Ziudhoff, M. J. Broiler performance, body weight variance, feed and water intake and carcass quality at different stocking densities. Poult. Sci. 81, 774–779 (2002)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heier, B. T., Hogasen, H. R. & Jarp, J. Factors associated with cumulative mortality in Norwegian broiler flocks. Prev. Vet. Med. 53, 147–165 (2002)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Farm Animal Welfare Council Report on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens (FAWC, Tolworth, UK, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The RSPCA Welfare Standards for Chickens (RSPCA, Horsham, UK, 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Broom, D. M. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 142, 524–526 (1986)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dawkins, M. S. in Coping with Challenge: Welfare in Animals including Humans (ed. Broom, D. M.) 63–78 (Dahlem Univ. Press, Berlin, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mendl, M. Assessing the welfare state. Nature 410, 31–32 (2001)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Martrenchar, A., Boilletot, E., Huoinnic, D. & Pol, F. Risk factors for foot-pad dermatitis in chicken and turkey broilers in France. Prev. Vet. Med. 52, 213–226 (2002)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ekstrand, C., Carpenter, T. E. & Andersson, I. Prevalence and prevention of foot pad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. Br. Poult. Sci. 39, 318–324 (1998)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kestin, S. C., Gordon, S., Su, G. & Sorenson, P. Relationships in broiler chickens between lameness, live-weight growth rate and age. Vet. Rec. 148, 195–197 (2001)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bradshaw, R. H., Kirkden, R. D. & Broom, D. M. A review of the aetiology and pathology of leg weakness in broilers in relation to welfare. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 13, 45–103 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weeks, C. A., Danbury, T. D., Davies, H. C., Hunt, P. & Kestin, S. C. The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 67, 111–125 (2000)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kristensen, E. K. M. & Wathes, C. M. Ammonia and poultry: a review. World's Poult. Sci. J. 56, 235–245 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cockrem, J. F. & Rounce, J. R. Faecal measurements of oestradial and testosterone allow non-invasive estimation of plasma steroid concentrations in the domestic fowl. Br. Poult. Sci. 35, 433–443 (1994)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Denhard, M. et al. Measurement of plasma corticosterone and fecal glucocorticoid metabolites in the chicken (Gallus domesticus), the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 131, 345–352 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kemp, C. & Kenny, M. Ross Broiler Management Manual 36 (Aviagen, Newbridge, UK, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reiter, K. & Bessei, W. Moglichkeiten zur Verringerung von Beinschaden bei Broilern und Puten (Ubersicht). Arch. Geflugelkd. 62, 145–149 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Whitehead, C. C. Nutrition and poultry welfare. World's Poult. Sci. J. 58, 349–356 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kestin, S. C., Knowles, T. G., Tinch, A. F. & Gregory, N. G. The prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Vet. Rec. 131, 190–194 (1992)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gordon, S. H., Charles, D. R. & Green, G. Metabolic age: a basis for comparison of traditional breeds of meat chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 42, S118–S119 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Banham Poultry Ltd, Dove Valley (Ashbourne) Ltd, Faccenda Group (including Webb Country Food Group), Grampian Country Chicken, L&M Food Group, Moy Park Ltd, O'Kane Poultry Ltd, G. W. Padley Poultry Ltd, Rose Brand Poultry (including Skovsgaard) and Two Sisters Ltd (including Premier Farming) for participation; and P. Harvey for comments on the manuscript. We thank Defra for funding. M.S.D. conceived the project, made links with the companies, obtained funding, designed the protocols, ran the first trial, took part in about 25% of subsequent trials and largely wrote the paper. C.A.D. advised on the experimental design and undertook much of the statistical analysis. T.A.J. took over the running of the project from trial 2, collected and collated data from all subsequent trials, did the preliminary statistical analysis and collaborated in writing the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Stamp Dawkins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

41586_2004_BFnature02226_MOESM1_ESM.doc

Supplementary Information: Management information, chick placement details, randomisation of stocking density, and correlation outcomes of the main variables with target stocking density effects. (DOC 136 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stamp Dawkins, M., Donnelly, C. & Jones, T. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427, 342–344 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02226

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02226

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing