One Welfare - a platform for improving human and animal welfare.

Adopting the concept of One Welfare could help to improve animal welfare and human wellbeing worldwide, argue Rebeca García Pinillos, Michael Appleby, Xavier Manteca, Freda Scott-Park, Charles Smith and Antonio Velarde.

Essential veterinary education in the welfare of food production animals.

The primary responsibility of veterinarians is to the animals in their care, so veterinary students need to be aware of important issues and factual information relevantto animal welfare. Veterinarians have tended to concentrate on physical aspects of welfare, but also need to take account of mental aspects (including pain) and naturalness. A crucial first step in animal welfare education is to encourage students to examine the interactions between welfare science, ethics and policy. Scientific measures of welfare include physiological, immunological, behavioural, disease and productivity. Welfare ethics includes consideration of different ethical theories and of professional ethics. Understanding of policy involves awareness of legislation, codes of practice and farm assurance programmes. As well as utilising their education in their clinical practice, veterinarians may expectto have an important role in influencing policy and standards in the wider world. It is recommended that animal welfare should be taught as a clearly defined academic subject within the curriculum.

Animal welfare: the role of non-governmental organisations.

The welfare of animals is of interest to many people in most parts of the world. Concern about the way that animals are treated will depend on many factors, including socio-economic conditions, culture, religion and tradition. The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is committed to ensuring that all animal welfare standards are science-based, but recognises that these other factors must also be taken into account. The International Coalition for Farm Animal Welfare (ICFAW) was formed to represent the interests of non-governmental animal welfare organisations from most corners of the globe and opinions, comment and information from these animal welfare organisations will play a part in the OIE decision-making process. In coming together for this purpose it was recognised that the views of the various member organisations of ICFAW vary depending on which part of the world they come from. The authors provide information about the situation in three continents: Africa, North America and Europe. This information includes details of relevant legislation, farming practices, and educational and campaign programmes developed by both animal welfare non-governmental organisations and governments. The authors also look to the future to see what issues may influence the way that farm animals are reared, transported and slaughtered.

Development of furnished cages for laying hens.

1. A 3-year trial was carried out of cages for laying hens, occupying a full laying house. The main cage designs used were 5000 cm2 in area, 50 cm high at the rear and furnished with nests and perches. F cages had a front rollaway nest at the side, lined with artificial turf. FD cages also had a dust bath containing sand over the nest. H cages had two nest hollows at the side, one in front of the other. They were compared with conventional cages 2500 cm2 in area and 38 cm high at the rear. 2. Cages were stocked with from 4 to 8 ISA Brown hens per cage, resulting in varied allowances of area, feeder and perch per bird. No birds were beak trimmed. In F and FD cages two further treatments were applied: nests and dust baths were sometimes fitted with gates to exclude birds from dust baths in the morning and from both at night; elevated food troughs, with a lip 33 cm above the cage floor, were compared with standard troughs. 3. Management of the house was generally highly successful, with temperature control achieved by ventilation. Egg production was above breeders' standards and not significantly affected by cage design. More eggs per bird were collected when there were fewer birds per cage but food consumption also then tended to be higher. 4. The number of downgraded eggs was variable, with some tendency for more in furnished cages. Eggs laid in dust baths were often downgraded. Those laid at the back of the cage were frequently dirty because of accumulation of droppings. H nests were unsuccessful, with less than 50% of eggs laid in the nest hollows. However, up to 93% of eggs were laid in front rollaways, and few of these were downgraded. 5. Feather and foot damage were generally less in furnished than in conventional cages, greater where there were more birds per cage. With an elevated food trough there was less feather damage but more overgrowth of claws. In year 2, mortality was greater in cages with more birds. 6. Pre-laying behaviour was mostly settled in front rollaway nests. Dust baths were used more for pecking and scratching than for dust bathing. Comfort behaviour was more frequent in furnished cages than conventional, although still not frequent. Locomotion was strongly affected by number of birds per cage or by space per bird, being reduced by crowding. Most birds perched at night except in one treatment providing only 10.7 cm perch per bird. 7. Behaviour was more unrestricted and varied, and physical condition was better, in furnished than in conventional cages. However, egg production will cost more in furnished cages, partly because more eggs are downgraded. Dust baths must be fitted with gates that the birds cannot open from outside, but gates for nest boxes were found unnecessary. If a low perch is fitted it must be far enough from the back of the cage for birds to walk there. 8. Where there was less space per bird (more birds per cage) than the requirements in the 1999 European Commission Directive on laying hens, there were: fewer eggs per hen, but still above the breeders' target; lower food consumption; more feather and foot damage, but less than in conventional cages; higher mortality in one trial out of three; less freedom of movement. However, the results were still very good even with 8 birds per cage, and support the principle that furnished cages provide an acceptable way of protecting the welfare of laying hens.

Tower of Babel: variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation.

Attitudes to animal biotechnology are diverse, partly because people have different viewpoints and often do not recognize or acknowledge this to be so. First, people adopt different ethical approaches. If an opponent of genetic manipulation says 'I don't like the idea of altering animals' biology' and a proponent replies '...but it is useful', they are failing to communicate, because one is asking whether the action is right or wrong, whereas the other emphasizes the consequences. Another approach focuses on the person carrying out the action. Many people have hybrid views combining elements of these different approaches. Second, people's concepts of welfare vary, emphasizing animal minds, bodies or natures--or a combination of these. A proponent who argues that a particular genetic change will not cause suffering is unlikely to reassure an opponent who puts more emphasis on naturalness than on feelings or health. An improved dialogue, in which people attempt to understand one another's viewpoints, may enable common principles to be established and practical measures to be taken that enable more cooperation in attempts to improve both human and animal welfare.

Factors affecting the use of perches in cages by laying hens.

1. Three experiments were carried out with ISA Brown laying hens housed in individual cages with softwood perches of rectangular cross section fitted across the width of each cage, to investigate factors affecting the tendency of hens to lay their eggs from the perches and to use perches at other times. These factors were perch width and angle and method of perch introduction. 2. In experiment 1 there were 4 treatments. Perches were 38 or 60 mm wide; half of each width were flat and half were fixed at 8 degrees, parallel to the slope of the floor. In 2 similar trials (with 48 and 44 birds respectively, equally divided between treatments) birds were moved to experimental cages already fitted with perches. Birds with 38 mm, sloping perches laid less than one third of their eggs from the perch (31% and 9% in the two trials) while those with the other designs laid more than 80% from the perch. Narrow sloping perches were not otherwise aversive and there was no consistent variation between treatments in total time perching. 3. In experiment 2, 32 birds were allowed to start laying on the floor of the experimental cages then perches were introduced at 24 weeks with 8 birds on each of 4 treatments: 50 mm perches fixed flat and 38 mm perches fixed flat, and at 5 and 10 degrees respectively. Only 27% of eggs were laid from the perches with no variation between treatments either in this behaviour or in total time perching. 4. Experiment 3 provided 24 of the birds from experiment 2 with double-length perches to determine whether they showed preferences for the design features under consideration. Either half the perch length was flat and half sloping at 10 degrees or half was 38 and half 50 mm wide. Again a relatively low proportion of eggs was laid from the perches (18%) and birds showed no significant preference for different perch designs as indicated by either how much they perched or where they perched. 5. These results suggest that both perch design and the way pullets are introduced to perches influence the proportion of perch-laid eggs. They confirm that in some circumstances laying from perches can be a serious problem, but that in other circumstances incidence can be reduced to a manageable frequency. Perches may therefore be practical in commercial production without increasing the number of cracked eggs. The results are also likely to be applicable in cages with other facilities including nest boxes.

Modification of laying hen cages to improve behavior.

Although they have many disadvantages for welfare, including for behavior, laying hen cages also have advantages. For example, aggression and cannibalism (or the need for beak trimming to prevent these) are usually less than in other systems, benefiting both the birds and the producer. There have been three approaches to reducing other behavioral problems. First, the design of conventional cages has been improved, which has had favorable effects on some aspects of behavior, such as feeding. Second, cages for larger groups of birds have been tested; for example, the getaway cage has increased behavioral freedom but has also increased problems such as aggression and cannibalism. Third, novel cages have been designed for conventional group sizes. Many of the behavioral problems-for producers, birds, or both--occurring in conventional cages can be reduced or prevented by increasing cage area (including width) and height and by providing a nest box, dust bath, and perch. Some of these modifications could be implemented at negligible cost to the producer. Others will be commercially viable if premium prices are available for eggs or if legislation on housing of laying hens changes.

Genetic engineering, welfare, and accountability.

Comments on the implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare. Welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes; Detrimental effects of genetic modifications to welfare; Modification of farm animals for biomedical products. Implications of genetic engineering for animal welfare are changing rapidly and need to be reviewed regularly. They include the welfare problems associated with techniques used to achieve genetic changes, which are similar to problems of other experimental approaches; these should be considered carefully, especially where techniques are used on a routine basis. When it comes to the genetic modifications themselves, some are detrimental to welfare, some are neutral, and some are beneficial; these results include direct effects of the intended change, side effects, and indirect effects. Currently, the two main applications are modification of farm animals for biomedical products--which appears to be largely neutral for welfare--and modification of mice as models for human disease, which results in suffering, often severe suffering. Beneficial applications are rare and still experimental or theoretical. The situation is similar with regard to the use of recombinant hormones and viruses; use of recombinant vaccines has potential for improving welfare, but may raise other ethical problems. Although few, if any, of these concerns are specific to genetic engineering, various factors combine to suggest that particular safeguards are needed in this field. These include the facts that changes can be produced rapidly and repeatedly, and that one of the driving forces behind genetic engineering is commercial exploitation of technology. In general, ethical evaluation still is done on a case-by-case basis, using the limited criteria seen as directly relevant to each case, rather than on a broader framework. There also is little public accountability, whereby the public can have confidence that such evaluation is being carried out properly. Calls for advisory "watchdog" committees to consider ethical questions on the use of animals are endorsed by this article. Furthermore, it is essential for public confidence in the safeguarding of animal welfare that the procedures of such committees should be well-publicized.

Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages.

1. In 2 trials the health and behaviour of a total of 3552 caged laying hens of 4 hybrids, Dekalb XL, Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL) and Shaver 288 in trial 1 and ISA Brown and LSL in trial 2, were studied. The cage designs were Get-away cages (GA) with 15 hens per cage, a special version of the 'Edinburgh modified cage' called 'Modified and enriched cage' (ME) with 4 ISA or 5 Leghorn hens per cage, conventional metal cages with 4 hens per cage without (CO) and with a perch (PC) and conventional plastic cages (PL) with three hens per cage. GA and ME included nests, perches and sandbaths. 2. In the first trial f1p4nest models were used, artificial turf and welded wire floor. In the second trial both nest models were used in GA, while all nests in ME were equipped with artificial turf. In the second trial there were 4 sandbath treatments in ME; no sandbath, sandbath (25 x 50 cm) first opened at 16 weeks of age, sandbath first opened at 26 weeks and double size sandbath (50 x 50 cm) first opened at 16 weeks. Hens in GA were allowed access to the sandbaths from 26 weeks. 3. At 35 and 55 weeks the best plumage condition (feather cover) was found in PL and GA but plumage condition in ME was not significantly inferior than in GA. Hens in GA had the dirtiest plumage and most bumble foot but no toe pad hyperkeratosis. Some toe pad hyperkeratosis occurred in the other systems. Most keel bone lesions were found in systems with perches. The highest mortality was registered in GA. Hens in systems with perches, sandbaths and nests had increased strength of humerus at slaughter. 4. More eggs were laid in nests with artificial turf than in welded wire floor nests. LSL hens laid larger proportions of eggs in the nests (94% and 92% in the two trials) than the other hybrids. Less than 1% of the eggs in ME and 2% in GA were laid in the sandbaths. 5. The use of perches in ME and PC was approximately 30% in the day time. At night the use was 93% in ME and 89% in PC in trial 1 and 96% in ME and 81% in PC in trial 2. 6. Hens in ME with the double sized sandbath both visited the sandbath and performed dust bathing behaviour most, followed by hens in GA, hens in ME with access to the bath from 16 weeks and last, hens in ME with access to the bath from 26 weeks. 7. It is concluded that enrichments of laying cages are used by the hens to a large extent if properly constructed and managed, implying an increased behavioural repertoire of the hens compared with conventional cages. With perches at only one level and with smaller groups of birds, ME provided better hygiene and inspection properties than GA.

Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs.

1. Floor eggs are a problem in non-cage systems for laying hens, as they require secondary egg collecting. Failure to lay in a well-defined nest site may also be a welfare problem for the hens, but only if their nesting motivation has been thwarted. We investigated the relationships between a hen's prelaying behaviour and its tendency to lay on the floor by recording the behaviour of 20 hens housed individually in wire cages with single littered nest boxes. 3. Most floor eggs (80%) were laid by the same 6 hens. These 6 "floor-layers" performed more nest seeking behaviour, less nest-building behaviour and less sitting prior to oviposition than the 14 hens that consistently laid in nest boxes. 4. The incidence of floor eggs declined with age. Both nest and floor laying hens performed less nest seeking behaviour with age. Floor layers, however, increased their performance of nesting behaviour, whilst nest layers performed less nesting behaviour with age. 5. Floor laying hens behaved as if they found the nest box less attractive than nest-laying hens; perhaps because they had lower nesting motivation, or perhaps because their nesting motivation was as high, but they less readily perceived the nest box as an appropriate nest site.

Demand for nest boxes in laying hens.

Domestic hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) from commercial laying strains have been selected for high egg yield and may lay over 300 eggs in their working lives. In conventional wire cages, there is little opportunity to perform either nest seeking or nest building activities, which may lead to frustration each time an egg is laid. To measure the demand for a well-defined nest-site, which may act as a consummatory stimulus for nest seeking behaviour and an appetitive stimulus for nest building behaviour, 16 hens were allowed to work to gain access to a pen containing two littered, enclosed nest boxes. The cost of access to the nest boxes was varied by changing the width of the vertical gap, which divided a home pen containing food, water and a perch from the pen containing the nest boxes (gaps of 220, 140, 125, 110 and 95 mm, compared with mean body width of 117 mm). The number of entries to the nest pen declined with narrowing gap, whilst the number of failed attempts to enter rose, but all 16 hens persevered with entering the nest pen prior to oviposition and laid in the nest boxes. Between 120 and 30 min to oviposition hens made many entries with the 220 mm gap (27.6), but this declined to no entries with 95 mm gap. Hens made few entries in the last half hour prior to ovipositoin (1.3) but there was no significant decline in entries as the gap narrowed (1.1 with 95 mm gap). The number of nest inspections and nest entries also declined with width of gap, but there was no effect on time spent in the nest boxes. Hens passed gaps of 220, and 140 mm to return to the nest pen following oviposition, but did not pass gaps of 125, 110 or 95 mm. We therefore conclude that the narrow gap width can be used to assess the demand for environmental requirements. Hens were willing to pay a high cost to gain access to a nest box prior to oviposition, so prelaying behaviour may be frustrated in hens without a well-defined, littered nest site.

The Edinburgh modified cage for laying hens.

1. Behaviour, production and welfare of ISA Brown medium hybrids were assessed in 2 trials (each from 20 to 44 weeks of age) of a novel design of cage for laying hens: the Edinburgh Modified Cage (EMC). 2. The EMC was 600 mm wide, 450 mm deep and 450 mm high at the rear; it had a softwood perch and at one side a 250 mm wide nest box (containing litter or artificial turf) with a dust bath directly above. It housed 4 birds and provided 675 cm2/bird in the main cage with an additional 281 cm2/bird in the nest box. The nest box and dust bath had automatically controlled doors which were closed at night. There were 18 EMC; in the first trial these were compared with 6 control cages with perch but without next box or dust bath. 3. Hens spent 32 to 37% of day time on the perch, 5 to 7% in the dust bath and 5 to 6% in the nest. At night 92 to 98% roosted on the perch. 4. Initially only 55 to 70% of eggs were laid in the nest box partly because some eggs were laid before dawn. Once the door was retimed to open 3h before lights-on the proportion rose to 91 to 96%. Very few eggs were laid in the dust bath. Pre-laying behaviour lasted longer in treatments with nest boxes (55 to 76min) than in control cages (48min); disturbance was slight in all treatments, but lowest in control cages. 5. Dust baths were well used, with on average 61% of hens dust bathing during a 3-h afternoon observation period compared with only 17% in control cages. Two birds could use the dust bath simultaneously. 6. It was concluded that although a number of minor design features still required attention the EMC has potential to reduce the disadvantages of conventional cages for welfare while retaining their advantages and has possible commercial application.

Perch length in cages for medium hybrid laying hens.

1. ISA Brown hens were housed as groups of 4 from 18 to 72 weeks in 24 cages 450 mm deep, each with a softwood perch of rectangular cross-section fitted across the rear. There were 4 treatments, each with 6 cages: cage widths and perch lengths were 480, 520, 560 or 600 mm. 2. Daytime perching did not differ significantly between the treatments. At night, over the whole year, 81% of birds in the 480 mm cages and 86% in the 520 mm cages roosted on the perch. This figure reached about 95% in the 560 and 600 mm cages, significantly more at most ages than in the 480 mm cages. 3. Feather damage was slightly less, but claw problems slightly more, in the 2 wider treatments than in the 2 narrower treatments. Birds in the wider cages were calmer when approached or handled by humans than those in the narrower cages. This may have been associated with variation in space allowance between the treatments. 4. There was a trend for lower production in the 480 mm cages than in the other treatments which may have been associated with the reduced feeding space in this treatment. There were few other treatment differences in production traits. 5. The balance of the evidence from this study is that when perches are provided in laying cages for medium weight hybrids, 140 mm of perch space per hen is adequate. For the amelioration of a number of the welfare problems of conventional cages, provision of perches should be combined with other modifications.

Current state of poultry welfare: progress, problems and strategies.

This article supplements the published Proceedings of the 4th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare. It presents an overview of the conclusions of the Symposium and of the workshops and plenary discussions of the papers. The four main topics reviewed were: Basic Biology and Welfare, Welfare Criteria in Alternative Systems, Welfare of Turkeys, Waterfowl and Other Species, Welfare of Broilers.

Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: effects of design on behaviour and welfare.

1. Laying hens (192 ISA Brown medium hybrids) were housed from 18 to 72 weeks as groups of 4 in conventional or experimental cages. The main area of all cages provided 675 cm2/hen. All experimental cages had perches, dust baths and nest boxes, which were of three types: litter (L), artificial turf (A) or plastic rollaway (P). These facilities provided an additional 375 to 480 cm2/hen. The nest boxes and dust baths occupied either high or low positions. Behaviour, physical condition and production of the birds were regularly recorded. 2. Mortality was low (1.6% overall) and egg production very good in all treatments. The proportion of cracked and dirty eggs was slightly (but not significantly) higher in the experimental cages. In the experimental cages 90% of eggs were laid overall in the nest boxes and 3% in the dust baths. The proportion laid in the nest boxes was lower early in the laying cycle and increased with time, reaching 99% in A. 3. The facilities were heavily used. Birds spent about 25% of day time on the perches and 10-15% in or near the nest box and dust bath. At night, the majority of birds (90 to 94%) roosted on perches, but most of the remainder were on the lips of the nest box or dust bath, fouling the interiors. 4. Pre-laying behaviour was much more settled in the experimental cages (45 min spent in the eventual laying position) than in the conventional ones (20 min) and total duration varied from 68 min in A to 87 min in P. The number of nest entries varied from 3.0 (A and P) to 4.3 (L); disturbance to sitting birds was correspondingly greater in L. 5. Dust bathing in the experimental cages generally took place during the afternoon in a single bout of about 5 min duration, whereas in the conventional cages it was brief and fragmented (3 bouts of 10 s each). The dust bath was also used for foraging behaviour (pecking and scratching). The treatments with small dust baths (A and P) caused problems for the birds. 6. Feather, foot and claw damage all tended to be less in the experimental than in the conventional cages, though only in the last case was the difference significant. Keel bone depressions appeared to be associated with perches; they were present in 43% of hens in the experimental cages but only 4% in conventional cages.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Comparison of bone volume and strength as measures of skeletal integrity in caged laying hens with access to perches.

Fractures in spent laying hens are now recognised as a major welfare problem; the objective of this work was to determine whether provision of perches for caged layers would increase bone strength, bone volume or both. Sixteen ISA Brown hens were housed from 18 to 72 weeks old in cages with perches and 16 in similar cages without perches. At the end of lay the birds' tibiotarsi were examined for strength by a three-point loading test and their tarsometatarsi for bone volume by histomorphometry. There was no significant effect of perches on tibiotarsal breaking strength. Hens from both groups showed evidence of osteoporosis, but it was more severe in the birds from conventional cages: tarsometatarsal trabecular bone volume was greater in the hens which had access to perches. A positive correlation was found between trabecular bone volume and the degree of day-time perch usage by individual hens. Provision of perches can have a slight but significant beneficial effect, at least for the leg bones, in increasing the bone volume of caged laying hens.

Effects of perches on trabecular bone volume in laying hens.

Trabecular bone remodelling is known to be affected by loading or exercise, and thus exercise may effect the trabecular bone loss associated with osteopenia in laying hens. Sixteen ISA Brown hens were housed from 18 to 72 weeks old in cages with perches and 16 in similar cages without perches to examine the effects of the exercise afforded by perch provision on trabecular bone volume. At 72 weeks, mean trabecular bone volume in the proximal tarsometatarsus of birds with access to perches was significantly greater than in control birds, while medullary bone volume was not significantly different in the two groups. However, all the birds were considered osteoporotic, though to varying degrees, and the beneficial effects of perches were relatively minor. It was concluded that while trabecular bone loss may be reduced by perch provision, other factors are probably more influential in the development of the osteoporosis typical of laying hens.

Individual perching behavior of laying hens and its effects in cages.

1. ISA Brown hens were housed, from 18 to 71 weeks of age, as groups of 4 in cages with 675 cm2/bird. There were 7 treatments: control cages and 6 treatments with perches fitted across the rear of the cage. Five treatments had 450 mm wide cages, with perches made from hardwood, textured metal, smooth plastic, softwood and padded vinyl, and one treatment had a 600 mm wide cage, with a softwood perch. There were 4 cages in each of the first 6 treatments and 6 in the last. 2. Overall, birds spent about 25% of the day time on perches. Most time (28 to 41%) was spent perching on the 600 mm softwood perches. Among 450 mm perches, most time (25 to 30%) was spent on the softwood perch and least (13 to 23%) on the plastic; the results suggested that a slightly rough surface was preferred. Individual birds varied considerably in the proportion of day time they spent perching; this variation was relatively consistent over time. 3. Overall, the proportion of birds roosting on the perches at night was 85% in period 1; declined to 76% by period 6, probably because increased body size made it almost impossible for 4 birds to perch in the 450 mm cages. Birds roosting on the floor tended always to be the same individuals. 4. Damage to the soles of the feet was less in all treatments with perches than in control cages. It was least in 600 mm wide cages and showed a negative correlation with time spent perching, both within and between treatments. Long or twisted claws, in contrast, tended to be slightly worse in treatments where there was most perching. 5. Downgraded eggs tended to be slightly more frequent in cages with perches; the greatest proportion (cracked 1.4%, dirty 3.6%) was from the 600 mm wide cages, as a result of hens laying from the perch and a build-up of manure behind it. 6. Although problems remain the findings suggest that provision of perches is important for the welfare of hens; perch space should be sufficient to allow all birds to perch simultaneously.