In most areas of the world, broiler chickens are raised in floor systems, but cage confinement is becoming more common. The welfare of broiler chickens in cages is affected by movement restriction, poor bone strength due to lack of exercise, and prevention of key behavioral patterns such as dustbathing and ground scratching. Cages for broiler chickens also have a long history of causing skin and leg conditions that could further compromise welfare, but a lack of controlled studies makes it difficult to draw conclusions about newer cage designs. 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 appear less likely to harbor and shed Salmonella, as litter may serve as a seeding agent for competitive exclusion by other microorganisms. Cages for laying hens used in egg production have met with substantial opposition due to welfare concerns and caging broiler chickens will likely be subject to the same kinds of social disapproval.
References
[1]
Haye, U.; Simon, P.C.M. Twisted legs in broilers. Br. Poul. Sci. 1978, 19, 549–557, doi:10.1080/00071667808416512.
[2]
Welch, S.W.; Metcalfe, P.F.; Wesley, R. Broilers in cages. World Poul. Sci. J. 1971, 27, 132–142, doi:10.1079/WPS19710021.
[3]
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). 2000, p. 16. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2013).
[4]
Reece, F.N.; Deaton, J.W.; May, J.D.; May, K.N. Cage versus floor rearing of broiler chickens. Poul. Sci. 1971, 50, 1786–1790, doi:10.3382/ps.0501786.
[5]
Andrews, L.D.; Nelson, G.S.; Harris, G.C., Jr.; Goodwin, T.L. Performance of five strains of broilers in a four tier cage system with plastic floors. Poul. Sci. 1975, 54, 54–58, doi:10.3382/ps.0540054.
Slepukhin, V.; Galpern, I.; Cherepanov, S. Breeding Russian broilers to adapt them to the cage environment. World Poul. 2000, 16, 25–27.
[8]
Zhao, F.R.; Zhao, Y.J.; Geng, A.L.; Shi, Z.X.; Li, B.M. Effects of cage floor systems on behaviours and breast blister in battery broilers. Zool. Res. 2007, 28, 155–160.
[9]
May, J.D.; Merkley, J.W.; Malone, G.W.; Chaloupka, G.W. Relationship of pen height to bone strength of broilers. Poul. Sci. 1981, 60, 546–549, doi:10.3382/ps.0600546.
[10]
Edens, F.W.; Parkhurst, C.R.; Havenstein, G.B. The effects of conventional versus cage housing and inorganic versus organic selenium on feathering in broilers. In Biotechnology in the Feed Industry (Proceedings of Alltechs 15th annual symposium, Under the Microscope-Focal Points for the New Millennium); Nottingham University Press: Nottingham, UK, 1999; pp. 567–577.
[11]
Wabeck, C.J.; Littlefield, L.H. Bone strength of broilers reared in floor pens and in cages having different bottoms. Poul. Sci. 1972, 51, 897–899, doi:10.3382/ps.0510897.
[12]
Andrews, L.D.; Goodwin, T.L. Performance of broilers in cages. Poul. Sci. 1973, 52, 723–728, doi:10.3382/ps.0520723.
[13]
Akpobome, G.O.; Fanguy, R.C. Evaluation of cage floor systems for production of commercial broilers. Poul. Sci. 1992, 71, 274–280, doi:10.3382/ps.0710274.
[14]
Reed, M.J.; White, H.D.; Huston, T.M.; May, K.N. The use of different types of cage bottoms to reduce breast blisters in battery reared broilers. Poul. Sci. 1966, 45, 1418–1419, doi:10.3382/ps.0451418.
[15]
Seay, R.L.; Nelson, G.S.; Andrews, L.D.; Harris, G.C. The development of a covered slat floor for loading broilers from cages. Poul. Sci. 1973, 52, 2083–2084.
[16]
Valli, M. Valli Poultry Equipment Manufacturers, Galeata, Italy, Personal Communication, 2013.
[17]
van Gruijthuijsen, M. Jansen Poultry Equipment, Barneveld, The Netherlands, Personal Communication, 2013.
[18]
Amos, T.T. Analysis of backyard poultry production in Ondo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Poul. Sci. 2006, 5, 247–250, doi:10.3923/ijps.2006.247.250.
[19]
Tamilvanan, T.; Thiagarajan, M.; Ramesh, V.; Sivakumar, T. Carcass yield and quality characters of broiler chicken under cage and floor management systems fed with different processed feed and probiotics. Ind. Vet. J. 2003, 80, 152–155.
[20]
Thamilvanan, T.; Thiagarajan, M.; Ramesh, V.; Gnanaraj, P.T.; Sivakumar, T. Performance of broiler chicken under cage and floor systems of management fed differently processed feeds. Ind. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 71, 985–988.
[21]
California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 13.8, Farm Animal Cruelty, Section 25990–25994. Available online: www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=25001-26000&file=25990-25994 (accessed on 8 May 2013).
[22]
Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 287, Act 466 of 1988, Section 287.746. Available online: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-287-746 (accessed on 8 May 2013).
[23]
Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999. Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF (accessed on 7 May 2013).
[24]
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. 2000, 67, 111–125, doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00102-1.
[25]
Leone, E.H.; Christman, M.C.; Douglass, L.; Estevez, I. Separating the impact of group size, density, and enclosure size on broiler movement and space use at a decreasing perimeter to area ratio. Behav. Process. 2010, 83, 16–22, doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.08.009.
[26]
Newberry, R.C.; Hall, J.W. Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 25, 125–136, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(90)90075-O.
[27]
Lewis, N.J.; Hurnik, J.F. Locomotion of broiler chickens in floor pens. Poul. Sci. 1990, 69, 1087–1093, doi:10.3382/ps.0691087.
Leone, E.H.; Estevez, I. Use of space in the domestic fowl: separating the effects of enclosure size, group size and density. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76, 1673–1682, doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.004.
[30]
Fouad, M.A.; Razek, A.H.A.; Badawy, S.M. Broilers welfare and economics under two management alternatives on commercial scale. Int. J. Poul. Sci. 2008, 7, 1167–1173, doi:10.3923/ijps.2008.1167.1173.
[31]
Merkley, J.W. A comparison of bone strengths from broilers reared under various conditions in coops and floor pens. Poul. Sci. 1981, 60, 98–106, doi:10.3382/ps.0600098.
[32]
Merkley, J.W.; Wabeck, C.J. Cage density and frozen storage effect on bone strength of broilers. Poul. Sci. 1975, 54, 1624–1627, doi:10.3382/ps.0541624.
[33]
Tolon, B.; Yalcin, S. Bone characteristics and body weight of broilers in different husbandry systems. Br. Poul. Sci. 1997, 38, 132–135, doi:10.1080/00071669708417957.
[34]
Travis, D.S., Jr.; Sloan, D.R.; Hughes, B.L. Bone fragility in broilers as affected by pen height, sex, and a comparison of left and right humeri. Poul. Sci. 1983, 62, 2117–2119, doi:10.3382/ps.0622117.
[35]
Buijs, S.; Keeling, L.J.; Vangestel, C.; Baert, J.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Neighbourhood analysis as an indicator of spatial requirements of broiler chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 129, 111–120, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.11.017.
[36]
Bokkers, E.A.M.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Koene, P. Space needs of broilers. Anim. Welf. 2011, 20, 623–632.
[37]
Estevez, I. Density allowances for broilers: Where to set the limits? Poul. Sci. 2007, 86, 1265–1272.
[38]
Hall, A.L. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Anim. Welf. 2001, 10, 23–40.
[39]
Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007. Laying Down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens Kept for Meat Production. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF (accessed on 7 May 2013).
[40]
United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks; United Egg Producers: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 2010. Available online: www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/UEP_2010_Animal_Welfare_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2013).
[41]
Buijs, S.; Keeling, L.J.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Using motivation to feed as a way to assess the importance of space for broiler chickens. Anim. Behav. 2011, 81, 145–151, doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.027.
[42]
Julian, R.J. Rapid growth problems: Ascites and skeletal deformities in broilers. Poul. Sci. 1998, 77, 1773–1780.
[43]
Sanotra, G.S.; Lund, J.D.; Ersboll, A.K.; Petersen, J.S.; Vestergaard, K.S. Monitoring leg problems in broilers: A survey of commercial broiler production in Denmark. World Poul. Sci. J. 2001, 57, 55–69, doi:10.1079/WPS20010006.
[44]
Whitehead, C.C.; Fleming, R.H.; Julian, R.J.; Sorenson, P. Skeletal problems associated with selection for increased production. In Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology; Muir, W.M., Aggrey, S.E., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 29–52.
[45]
Danbury, T.C.; Weeks, C.A.; Chambers, J.P.; Waterman-Pearson, A.R.; Kestin, S.C. Self selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. Vet. Rec. 2000, 146, 307–311, doi:10.1136/vr.146.11.307.
[46]
McGeown, D.; Danbury, T.C.; Waterman-Pearson, A.E.; Kestin, S.C. Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 668–671, doi:10.1136/vr.144.24.668.
[47]
Thorp, B.H.; Duff, S.R.I. Effect of exercise on the vascular pattern in the bone extremities of broiler fowl. Res. Vet. Sci. 1988, 45, 72–77.
[48]
Rizk, S.W.; Stake, P.E.; Simmons, R.W., III. Curled toes and perosis-like leg abnormalities in cage reared broilers. Poul. Sci. 1980, 59, 308–315.
[49]
Riddell, C. Selection of broiler chickens for a high and low incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia with observations on spondylolisthesis and twisted legs (perosis). Poul. Sci. 1976, 55, 145–151, doi:10.3382/ps.0550145.
[50]
Olsson, I.A.S.; Keeling, L.J. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and Animal Welfare perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 93, 259–282, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.11.018.
[51]
Van Liere, D.W.; Bokma, S. Short-term feather maintenance as a function of dust-bathing in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1987, 18, 197–204, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(87)90193-6.
[52]
Vestergaard, K. Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl—Diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1982, 8, 487–495, doi:10.1016/0304-3762(82)90061-X.
[53]
Vestergaard, K.; Hogan, J.A.; Kruijt, J.P. The development of a behavior system: Dustbathing in the Burmese Red Junglefowl I. The influence of the rearing environment on the organization of dustbathing. Behaviour 1990, 112, 99–116, doi:10.1163/156853990X00707.
[54]
Hogan, J.A.; Honrado, G.I.; Vestergaard, K. Development of a behavior system: Dustbathing in Burmese Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus): II. Internal factors. J. Comp. Psychol. 1991, 105, 269–273, doi:10.1037/0735-7036.105.3.269.
[55]
Shields, S.J.; Garner, J.P.; Mench, J.A. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poul. Sci. 2005, 84, 1816–1824.
[56]
Vestergaard, K.S.; Skadhauge, E.; Lawson, L.G. The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiol. Behav. 1997, 62, 413–419, doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00041-3.
[57]
Widowski, T.M.; Duncan, I.J.H. Working for a dustbath: Are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 68, 39–53, doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00088-5.
[58]
Fraser, D.; Duncan, I.J.H. “Pleasures”, “pains” and Animal Welfare: Toward a natural history of affect. Anim. Welf. 1998, 7, 383–396.
[59]
Dawkins, M.S. Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 24, 77–80, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(89)90126-3.
[60]
Savory, C.J.; Wood-Gush, D.G.M.; Duncan, I.J.H. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1978, 4, 13–27, doi:10.1016/0304-3762(78)90090-1.
[61]
Rogers, L.J. The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the Chicken; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1995; pp. 95–96.
[62]
Duncan, I.J.H.; Hughes, B.O. Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls. Anim. Behav. 1972, 20, 775–777, doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(72)80150-7.
[63]
Andrews, L.D. Performance of broilers reared on rubber and plastic mats in a cage system and on litter in a floor system. Poul. Sci. 1978, 57, 1493–1498, doi:10.3382/ps.0571493.
[64]
Sogunle, O.M.; Egbeyale, L.T.; Bajomo, T.T.; Bamigboje, O.V.; Fanimo, A.O. Comparison of the performance, carcass characteristics and haematological parameters of broiler chicks reared in cage and floor. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2008, 11, 480–483, doi:10.3923/pjbs.2008.480.483.
[65]
Swain, B.K.; Sundaram, R.N.S.; Barbuddhe, S.B.; Nirmale, A.V. Influence of cage and deep litter rearing systems on the performance of broilers. Ind. Vet. J. 2002, 79, 467–469.
[66]
Merkley, J.W. Effect of restricted activity in cage-reared broilers upon performance, bone integrity, and muscle characteristics. Poul. Sci. 1984, 63 (Suppl. 1), 149–150.
[67]
Hypes, W.A.; Carpenter, G.H.; Peterson, R.A.; Jones, W.T. Productive performance of conventional floor-reared broilers vs. high density cage-brooded broilers. J. Appl. Poul. Res. 1994, 3, 238–243.
[68]
Tarragó, J.; Puchal, F. Effect of strain, sex and stocking rate on the performance and carcass yield of caged broilers. Br. Poul. Sci. 1977, 18, 59–99, doi:10.1080/00071667708416329.
[69]
Colson, S.; Michel, V.; Arnould, C. Welfare of laying hens housed in cages and in aviaries: What about fearfulness? Archiv für Geflügelkunde 2006, 70, 261–269.
[70]
Hansen, I.; Braastad, B.O.; Storbr？ten, J.; Tofastrud, M. Differences in fearfulness indicated by tonic immobility between laying hens in aviaries and in cages. Anim. Welf. 1993, 2, 105–112.
[71]
Jones, R.B.; Faure, J.M. Tonic immobility (“righting time”) in laying hens housed in cages and pens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1981, 7, 369–372, doi:10.1016/0304-3762(81)90063-8.
[72]
Rodenburg, T.B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; de Reu, K.; Herman, L.; Zoons, J.; Sonck, B. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: An on-farm comparison. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 363–373.
[73]
Wallace, G.J.; Mahan, H.D. An Introduction to Ornithology; MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1975; pp. 60–61.
[74]
Appleby, M.C.; Hughes, B.O. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: Environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World Poul. Sci. J. 1991, 47, 109–128, doi:10.1079/WPS19910013.
[75]
Craig, J.V.; Milliken, G.A. Further studies of density and group size effects in caged hens of stocks differing in fearful behavior: Productivity and behavior. Poul. Sci. 1989, 68, 9–16, doi:10.3382/ps.0680009.
[76]
Craig, J.V.; Craig, J.A.; Vargas, J.V. Corticosteroids and other indicators of hens’ well-being in four laying-house environments. Poul. Sci. 1986, 65, 856–863, doi:10.3382/ps.0650856.
[77]
European Food Safety Authority. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. Part B. EFSA J. 2007, 101, pp. 1–86. Available online: www.infoagroisp.com/infocarne/aves/documentos/informe_efsa_estudio_broilers_parte_b.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2013).
[78]
Duncan, I.J.H. The pros and cons of cages. World Poul. Sci. J. 2001, 57, 381–390, doi:10.1079/WPS20010027.
[79]
Permin, A.; Bisgaard, M.; Frandsen, F.; Pearman, M.; Kold, J.; Nansen, P. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems. Br. J. Poul. Sci. 1999, 40, 439–443, doi:10.1080/00071669987179.
[80]
Willis, W.L.; Murray, C.; Talbott, C. Campylobacter isolation trends of cage versus floor broiler chickens: A one-year study. Poul. Sci. 2002, 81, 629–631.
[81]
Santos, F.B.O.; Sheldon, B.W.; Santos, A.A., Jr.; Ferket, P.R. Influence of housing system, grain type, and particle size on salmonella colonization and shedding of broilers fed triticale or corn-soybean meal diets. Poul. Sci. 2008, 87, 405–420, doi:10.3382/ps.2006-00417.
[82]
Fanelli, M.J.; Sadler, W.W.; Brownell, J.R. Preliminary studies on persistence of salmonellae in poultry litter. Avian Dis. 1970, 14, 131–141, doi:10.2307/1588564.
[83]
Olesiuk, O.M.; Snoeyenbos, G.H.; Smyser, C.F. Inhibitory effect of used litter on Salmonella typhimurium transmission in the chicken. Avian Dis. 1971, 15, 118–124, doi:10.2307/1588396.
[84]
Olesiuk, O.M.; Snoeyenbos, G.H.; Smyser, C.F. Transmission of Salmonella typhimurium in battery-reared chicks. Avian Dis. 1972, 16, 833–836, doi:10.2307/1588764.
[85]
Bohorquez, D.; Plunske, R.; Oviedo, E.; Ferket, P. Growth performance, out health, and feed passage of Salmonella-challenged chickens reared on litter floors or in cages. Poul. Sci. 2006, 85, S32.
[86]
Hannah, J.F.; Wilson, J.L.; Cox, N.A., Jr.; Richardson, L.J.; Cason, J.A., Jr.; Buhr, R.J. Potential for horizontal transmission of Salmonella & Campylobacter among caged & cage-free laying hens. Poultry Conference Proceedings, Georgia; 2009. Available online: www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=246508 (accessed on 28 December 2012).
[87]
Kraft, D.J.; Olechowski-Gerhardt, C.; Berkowitz, J.; Finstein, M.S. Salmonella in wastes produced at commercial poultry farms. Appl. Microbiol. 1969, 18, 703–707.
[88]
Cox, N.A.; Davis, B.H.; Watts, A.B.; Colmer, A.R. Salmonella in the laying hen. 2. The effect of simulated digestive tract pH levels on the survival of the three species of Salmonella. Poul. Sci. 1972, 51, 1268–1270, doi:10.3382/ps.0511268.
[89]
Abrams, G.D.; Bishop, J.E. Effect of the normal microbial flora on the resistance of the small intestine to infection. J. Bacteriol. 1966, 92, 1604–1608.
[90]
Holt, P.S. Molting and Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis infection: The problem and some solutions. Poul. Sci. 2003, 82, 1008–1010.
[91]
De Vylder, J.; Van Hoorebeke, S.; Ducatelle, R.; Pasmans, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Dewulf, J.; Van Immerseel, F. Effect of the housing system on shedding and colonization of gut and internal organs of laying hens with Salmonella Enteritidis. Poul. Sci. 2009, 88, 2491–2495, doi:10.3382/ps.2009-00203.
[92]
Humphrey, T. Are happy chickens safer chickens? Poultry welfare and disease susceptibility. Br. Poul. Sci. 2006, 47, 379–391.
[93]
Rostagno, M.H. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2009, 6, 767–776, doi:10.1089/fpd.2009.0315.
[94]
Sapolsky, R.M.; Romero, L.M.; Munck, A.U. How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions. Endocrine Rev. 2000, 21, 55–89, doi:10.1210/er.21.1.55.
[95]
El-Lethey, H.; Huber-Eicher, B.; Jungi, T.W. Exploration of stress-induced immunosuppression in chickens reveals both stress-resistant and stress-susceptible antigen responses. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2003, 95, 91–101, doi:10.1016/S0165-2427(02)00308-2.
[96]
Lochmiller, R.L.; Deerenberg, C. Trade-offs in evolutionary immunology: Just what is the cost of immunity? Oikos 2000, 88, 87–98.
[97]
Burkholder, K.M.; Thompson, K.L.; Einstein, M.E.; Applegate, T.J.; Patterson, J.A. Influence of stressors on normal intestinal microbiota, intestinal morphology, and susceptibility to Salmonella enteritidis colonization in broilers. Poul. Sci. 2008, 87, 1734–1741, doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00107.
[98]
Lyte, M.; Ernst, S. Catecholamine induced growth of gram negative bacteria. Life Sci. 1992, 50, 203–212, doi:10.1016/0024-3205(92)90273-R.
[99]
Konaka, S.; Ohashi, H.; Okada, T.; Takewaki, T. The appearance of noradrenaline and adrenaline and the developmental changes in their concentrations in the gut of the chick. Br. J. Pharmacol. 1979, 65, 257–260.
[100]
Bailey, M.T.; Karaszewski, J.W.; Lubach, G.R.; Coe, C.L.; Lyte, M. In vivo adaptation of attenuated Salmonella typhimurium results in increased growth upon exposure to norepinephrine. Physiol. Behav. 1999, 67, 359–364, doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(99)00087-6.
[101]
Methner, U.; Rabsch, W.; Reissbrodt, R.; Williams, P.H. Effect of norepinephrine on colonisation and systemic spread of Salmonella enterica in infected animals: Role of catecholate siderophore precursors and degradation products. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 298, 429–439, doi:10.1016/j.ijmm.2007.07.013.
