HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scanes, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scanes, C. G.

The Well-Being of Poultry in Production

The American Veterinary Medical Association has defined animal welfare as "encompassing all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane treatment and humane euthanasia" (DeHart, 1993). The United States Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Library considers that "most livestock production industries have developed and implemented science-based animal care guidelines in response to consumer concerns that animals being raised for food production are treated humanely. Assurances that animals are being raised according to these guidelines are provided through voluntary third-party audits rather than legislation" (http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3%20&tax_level=2&tax_subject=170&topic_id=1782&placement_default%20=0).

In the past, producers viewed animal welfare as providing animals with food, water, ventilation, and protection from disease such that productivity is maximized (Kertz, 1996). However, there have been campaigns from animal activists. It is not surprising that the poultry industry has responded with a series of well-considered actions. These include the United Egg Producers’ "Recommended Guidelines of Husbandry Practices for Laying Chickens" (2006 edition; http://www.uepcertified.com/docs/2006_UEPanimal_welfare_guidelines.pdf) and the National Chicken Council’s poultry welfare program (http://www.poultryegg.org/positionpapers/docs/animalwelfare.pdf). In addition, many companies have their own positions on poultry welfare. For instance, Wendy’s International states that it "is committed to the humane treatment of animals" (http://www.wendys.com/community/animal_welfare.jsp) and has developed a series of requirements for its suppliers of chicken meat (http://www.wendys.com/community/animal_welfare.jsp#5). Perdue Farms’ position is that it "and our farm-family partners share a belief that it is our responsibility to treat the animals in our care with respect." It goes on to designate poultry welfare officers for all of its operations and a poultry welfare council including outside experts in animal welfare as part of its effort to ensure the well-being of its poultry (http://www.perdue.com/company/commitments/poultry_welfare.html). The audits have resulted in improvements in the welfare of the animals and the public’s perception of the industry. However, there are still science-based concerns, such as those of Temple Grandin (http://www.grandin.com/survey/2005.poultry.audits.html).

One of the areas of greatest concern is cages for laying hens and slaughter. Among the recommendations of the latest Recommended Guidelines of Husbandry Practices for Laying Chickens were the following on space:

• All birds should be able to stand comfortably upright;
  
• Space allowance should be 67 to 86 square inches of usable space per bird;
  
• Sufficient feeder space that all birds can eat at the same time.
  

The same guidelines make recommendations on temperature, drinking water, and feed. The European Community has mandated a minimum allowance of 75 square inches per bird. Some European countries have increased this space allowance or outlawed battery cages entirely. Several alternative production systems are being investigated in Europe. These vary from intensive systems such as the get-away cage or the Edinburgh cage (modified battery cages with perches, dustbaths, and nestboxes) to more extensive systems such as aviaries, straw yards, and free range.

I recently received an e-mail from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on avian influenza. My preconceptions were that HSUS was a moderate group committed to animal welfare. The overall tenor of the letter was that modern poultry production practices are leading to the emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The e-mail included the following statements: "the stressful, overcrowded, unhygienic conditions typical of intensive confinement have been implicated in facilitating the emergence of highly pathogenic avian flu viruses like H5N1" and "the emergence of bird flu viruses that may have the potential to trigger a human pandemic." Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS, was quoted as saying that "It’s not worth risking the lives of millions of people for the sake of cheaper chicken." The position of HSUS on poultry can be summarized thus (based on the goals with animal experimentation): reduce use of poultry products; refine use of poultry products by moving to cage-free animal products; and replace poultry and other animal products with vegetarian alternatives.

	REFERENCES

TOP REFERENCES

 
DeHart, H. 1993. Animal rights position allows no room for compromise. Feedstuffs 65(1):8.

Kertz, A. F. 1996. Animal care and use: An issue now and in the future. J. Anim. Sci. 74:257–261.[Abstract]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scanes, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scanes, C. G.