Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:48:33.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Space needs of broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

EAM Bokkers ,
IJM de Boer  and
P Koene
EAM Bokkers*
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
IJM de Boer
Affiliation:
Animal Production Systems Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
P Koene
Affiliation:
Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: eddie.bokkers@wur.nl
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.

There is continuing debate about the space needs and requirements of broiler chickens, The aims of this study were to measure the amount of floor area a six-week-old broiler occupies for different behaviours and to use the obtained results in two models to estimate the number of birds that can be kept per m2 in large flocks simulating different levels of behavioural synchronisation. Photographs were taken of overhead projections of broilers (2.468 kg on average) kept in floor pens of 1 m2 with either eight (low density) or 16 birds (high density) per pen. Individual body space was measured from these photographs for seven behaviours. Posture and density affected body space of the behaviours idle, drinking, and ground pecking. The first model, computing space needed per bird performing a behaviour in relation to flock size, showed that 15.3-15.7 birds m−2 (37.8-38.7 kg m−2) can be housed maximally, based on low density measurements and 18.5-19.4 birds m−2 (45.7-47.9 kg m−2) based on high density measurements. The second model, computing stocking density based on synchronisation of behaviour and body space, showed that 13.7-15.9 birds m−2 (33.8-39.2 kg m−2) can be housed maximally based on low density measurements and 15.4-18.6 birds m−2 (38.0-45.9 kg m−2) based on high density measurements. Results based on high density measurements implied that birds are compressed. Given the restrictions of a limited number of behaviours and no inclusion of movement and social interactions in the models of this study, stocking density in large flocks should not exceed 16 birds m−2 (39.4 kg) because that would lead to compression of birds which will suppress opportunities for behavioural expression and therefore impair welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourbroiler chickenmodellingspace occupationsynchronisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 623 - 632
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC 2004 What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313–320Google Scholar
Arnould, C and Faure, JM 2003 Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessei, WK 2006 Welfare of broilers: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizeray, D, Estevez, I, Leterrier, C and Faure, JM 2002 Effects of increasing environmental complexity on the physical activity of broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogner, H, Peschke, W, Seda, V and Popp, K 1979 Studie zum Flächenbedarf von Legehennen in Käfigen bei bestimmten Aktivitäten. Berliner und Munchener Tierartzlicher Wochenschrift 92: 340–343. [Title translation: Study on space occupation for different activities in caged laying hens]Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM and Koene, P 2003 Behaviour of fast- and slow-growing broilers to 12 weeks of age and the physical consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokkers, EAM and Koene, P 2004 Motivation and ability to walk for a food reward in fast- and slow-growing broilers to 12 weeks of age. Behavioural Processes 67: 121–130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bokkers, EAM, Zimmerman, PH, Rodenburg, TB and Koene, P 2007 Walking behaviour of heavy and light broilers in an operant runway test with varying durations of feed deprivation and feed access. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems pp 65. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Collins, LM and Sumpter, DJT 2007 The feeding dynamics of broiler chicks. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4: 65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornetto, T and Estevez, I 2001 Influence of vertical panels on use of space by domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 141–153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS, Donnelly, CA and Jones, TA 2004 Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427: 342–344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS and Hardie, S 1989 Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wet, L, Vranken, E, Chedad, A, Aerts, J-M, Ceunen, J and Berckmans, D 2003 Computer-assisted image analysis to quantify daily growth rates of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 44: 524–532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I and Hopster, H 2003 Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellerbrock, S and Knierim, U 2002 Static space requirements of male meat turkeys. The Veterinary Record 151: 54–57CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esmay, ML 1969 Principles of Animal Environment. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc Westport: Connecticut, USAGoogle Scholar
Estevez, I 2007 Density allowances for broilers: where to set the limits? Poultry Science 86: 1265–1272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EU 2000 The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare pp 149. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
EU 2007 Council Directive 2007/43/EC Laying Down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens kept for Meat Production. Official Journal of the European Union 182: 19–28Google Scholar
Febrer, K, Jones, TA, Donnelly, CA and Dawkins, MS 2006 Forced to crowd or choosing to cluster? Spatial distribution indicates social attraction in broiler chickens. Animal Behaviour 72: 1291–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, BM 1983 Floor space allowances for the caged domestic fowl. The Veterinary Record 112: 562–563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouveia, KG, Vaz-Pires, P and Martins da Costa, P 2009 Welfare assessment of broilers through examination of haematomas, foot-pad dermatitis, scratches and breast blisters at processing. Animal Welfare 18: 43–48Google Scholar
Hall, AL 2001 The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare 10: 23–40Google Scholar
Hurnik, JF and Lewis, NJ 1991a Research note: Body surface area, a reference for space allowance in confinement. Poultry Science 70: 412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, JF and Lewis, NJ 1991b Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowances for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 1995 Spacing behaviour and an ethological approach to assessing optimum space allocations for groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kells, A, Dawkins, MS and Cortina Borja, M 2001 The effect of a ‘freedom food’ enrichment on the behaviour of broilers on commercial farms. Animal Welfare 10: 347–356Google Scholar
Klatt, G, Glende, P and Brauer, P 1975 Tierkörpermasse bei Schweinen als Grundlage für tiergerechte Stand- und Buchtenkonstruktionen. Tierzucht 29: 420–422. [Title translation: The use of bodyweights of pigs to develop animal-friendly housing constructions]Google Scholar
Leone, EH, Christman, MC, Douglass, L and Estevez, I 2010 Separating the impact of group size, density, and enclosure size on broiler movement and space use at a decreasing perimeter to area ratio. Behavioural Processes 83: 16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, NJ and Hurnik, JF 1990 Locomotion of broiler chickens in floor pens. Poultry Science 69: 1087–1093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallapur, A, Miller, C, Christman, MC and Estevez, I 2009 Short-term and long-term movement patterns in confined environments by domestic fowl: Influence of group size and enclosure size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Hall, JW 1990 Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC 1983 A biological basis for the design of space in livestock housing. In: Baxter, SH, Baxter, MR and MacCormack, JAC (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare pp 103–120. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC and Baxter, SH 1981 Modelling the static spatial requirements of livestock. In: MacCormack, JAD (ed) Modelling, Design and Evaluation of Agricultural Buildings, Aberdeen, Scotland pp 75–82. Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit: Bucksburn, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC and Phillips, CJC 2009 Space allowances for confined livestock and their determination from allometric principles. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, AJ and Penning, PD 1991 Synchronisation of eating, ruminating and idling activity by grazing sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 32: 157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, SJ, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2005 Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84: 1816–1824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricklin, WR, Zhou, JZ and Gonyou, HW 1995 Selfish animals and robot ethology: using artificial animals to investigate social and spatial behavior. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villagrá, A, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Chacon, G, Lainez, M, Torres, A and Manteca, X 2009 Stocking density and stress induction affect production and stress parameters in broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 18: 189–197Google Scholar