Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:06:35.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Stocking Density on the Welfare and Behaviour of Broiler Chickens Reared Commercially

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A L Hall
A L Hall*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, South Parks Rd, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An experiment was conducted to compare the effect of two levels of house stocking density (34kg m 2 and 40kg m’2) on broiler welfare and behaviour. The trial monitored 121 900 birds housed in eight flocks under commercial conditions and used a range of behavioural and productivity measures to assess welfare.

At the higher stocking density: i) the daily mortality was greater for part of the rearing period; ii) the incidence of leg problems, contact dermatitis and carcase bruising increased; Hi) the birds’ resting behaviour was increasingly disturbed; iv) locomotion and ground pecking decreased; and v) lying and preening patterns were affected, probably due to increased disruption by other birds.

Aspects of welfare were adversely affected at the higher stocking density. Further research is required to determine how stocking density affects welfare under different commercial conditions.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourbroilercommercial conditionsstocking density
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 23 - 40
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Algers, B and Svedberg, J 1989 Effects of atmospheric ammonia and litter status on broiler health. In: Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 237–241. World Poultry Science Association's Working Group 9 on Poultry Welfare: Nouzilly, FranceGoogle Scholar
Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, S M, Omed, H M and Phillips, C J C 1997 The effect of a single or repeated period of high stocking density on the behaviour and response to stimuli in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 76: 16551660CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bessei, W 1993 Der Einfluß der Besatzdichte auf Leistung, Verhalten und Gesundhet von Broilern. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 57: 74–77Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H J and Van der Haar, J W 1990 The effect of the stocking density on the behaviour of broilers. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 54: 74–77Google Scholar
Bolton, W, Dewar, W A, Jones, R M and Thompson, R 1972 Effect of stocking density on performance of broiler chicks. British Poultry Science 13: 157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 124: 524–26Google Scholar
Cambac JMA Research 1996 A Welfare Audit of Conditions During Transport and Handling of Broilers. Cambac JMA Research: Draycot Cerne, UKGoogle Scholar
Coenen, M, Schulzerkersting, I, Zentek, J and Kamphues, J 1996 Effects of different housing conditions (stocking density) on performance of broilers and the composition of litter. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 103: 79–83Google Scholar
Cravener, T L, Roush, W B and Mashaly, M M 1992 Broiler production under varying population densities. Poultry Science 71: 427–433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M S 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1989 Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1981 Animal rights - animal welfare: a scientist's assessment. Poultry Science 60: 489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekstrand, L 1993 Effects of Stocking Density on the Health, Behaviour and Productivity of Broilers. A Literature Review. (Report 32. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Elfadil, A A, Vaillancourt, J P and Meek, A H 1996 Impact of stocking density, breed and feathering on the prevalence of abdominal skin scratches in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 40: 546–552CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission - Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (2000) The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
FAWC 1992 Report on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens. FAWC: Tolworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Frakenhuis, M T, Vertommen, M H and Hemminga, H 1991 Influence of claw clipping, stocking density and feeding space on the incidence of scabby hips in broilers. British Poultry Science 32: 227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glunder, G 1990 Dermatitis in broilers caused by Escherichia coli. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 37: 383–391Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, S H 1992 The effect of broiler stocking density on bird welfare and performance. British Poultry Science 5: 1120–1121Google Scholar
Grashorn, M and Kutritz, B 1991 Der Einfluss der Besatzdichte auf die Leistung moderner Broilerherkunfte. Archiv för Geßügelkunde 55: 84–90Google Scholar
Kestin, S C, Knowles, T G, Tinch, A E and Gregory, N G 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruijt, J P 1964 Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese Red Junglefowl. Behaviour, Supplement 12: 1–201Google Scholar
Lewis, N J and Hurnik, F J 1990 Locomotion of broiler chickens in floor pens. Poultry Science 69: 1087–1093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MAFF 1998 Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Documents, 1999-2000. MAFF: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P P G 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martland, M F 1985 Ulcerative dermatitis in broiler chickens: the effect of wet litter. Avian Pathology 14: 353–364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martrenchar, A, Morisse, J P, Huonnic, D and Cotte, J P 1997 Influence of stocking density on some behavioural, physiological and productivity traits of broilers. Veterinary Research 28: 473–480Google ScholarPubMed
MathSoft S-Plus 4, Programmer's Guide 1997 Data Analysis Products Division, MathSoft Inc: Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, M H and Robertson, G W 1998 UK survey of broiler ascites and sudden death syndrome in 1993. British Poultry Science 39: 203–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcllroy, S G, Goodall, E A and McMurray, C H 1987 A contact dermatitis of broilers - epidemiological findings. Avian Pathology 16: 93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, L B and Preston, A P 1988 Time-budgeting in meat chickens grown commercially. British Poultry Science 29: 571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, R C and Hall, J W 1990 Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R A, Jones, W T, llardi, R L and Carpenter, G H 1987 Effect of tetracycline hydrochloride and oxytetracycline hydrochloride on early mortality of broiler chicks from twenty-eight week old dams. Poultry Science 66: 158Google Scholar
Phelps, A 1990 Crowding of broilers leads to profit. Feedstuffs 62(35): 12Google Scholar
Preston, A, Pamment, P, McBride, G and Foenander, F 1983 Some activity patterns of meat chickens. Fifth Australian Poultry and Stock Feed Convention, Adelaide: 203-201Google Scholar
Proudfoot, F G 1973 Response of broilers to variations in waterer, feeder and floor space under continuous and intermittent photoperiods. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53: 349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proudfoot, F G, Hulan, H W and Ramey, D R 1979 The effect of four stocking densities on broiler carcase grade, the incidence of breast blisters and other performance traits. Poultry Science 58: 791–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinones, R, Polanco, G and Morejon, O 1984 A comparison of three housing densities for broilers reared on the floor. Revista Aviculture 28: 241–249Google Scholar
Rose, S P, Burnett, A and Elmajeed, R A 1986 Factors affecting the diet selection of choice fed broilers. British Poultry Science 27: 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, ML 1991 Statistics for the Life Sciences. Dellen Publishing Company: San Fransico, USAGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J 1975 A growth study of broiler and layer chicks reared in single-strain and mixed-strain groups. British Poultry Science 16: 315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholtyssek, S and Gschwindt, B 1980 Untersuchungen zu Besatzdichte und Futterplatz in der Bodenmast von Broilern. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 44: 220–224Google Scholar
Shanawany, M M 1988 Broiler performance under high stocking densities. British Poultry Science 29: 43–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tegethoff, V and Hartung, J 1996 A field study on stocking density and air-quality in broiler production and recommendations to avoid heat stress in summer. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 103: 87–91Google Scholar
Thorpe, W H 1965 The assessment of pain and distress in animals. In: Brambell F W R (chairman) Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems: Cmnd 2836 pp 71–79. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Vertommen, M H, Frakenhuis, M T and Hemminga, H 1989 Scabby hips in broilers is a space problem. Poultry Misset 5: 40–41Google Scholar
Vonesh, E F and Chinchilli, V M 1997 Linear and Nonlinear Models for the Analysis of Repeated Measurements. Marcel Dekker Inc: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Weaver, W D jr, Beane, W L, and Cherry, J A 1982 Effect of light, feeding space and dietary energy on broiler performance. Poultry Science 61: 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, W D jr, Beane, W L and Siegel, P B 1973 Methods of rearing sexes and stocking densities on broiler performance. Poultry Science 52: 2100–2101Google Scholar