Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:44:35.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour and meat quality of chicken under different housing systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2018

A. EL-DEEK  and
K. EL-SABROUT
A. EL-DEEK
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby), Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
K. EL-SABROUT*
Affiliation:
Department of Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby), Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
*
Corresponding author: kareem.badr@alexu.edu.eg
Get access

Abstract

Chicken housing systems have been an interesting subject of research for many years and remains a topic of debate. The information detailed in the literature provides opposing views on recommended housing systems (indoor or outdoor) for chickens, and thus, producers are searching for more precise information in terms of animal welfare, productive performance, chicken behaviour and meat quality. Approximately 80% of customers worldwide prefer chicken products with perceived higher quality derived from free-range (organic) systems with increased welfare standards. Based on published literature, the majority (approximately 70%) of intensive production systems that are currently used do not usually support the natural behavioural needs of poultry. However, mortality rate of broilers can reach more than 10% in outdoor production systems due to cannibalism. Suitable housing systems that focus on the animals’ well-being translate into better behavioural activities and higher productive performance. The present review provides the critical information detailed in the existing literature on different housing systems and their effect on chicken behaviour and meat quality. It can be concluded that the housing system, as a non-genetic factor, directly affects the welfare of the birds and can impact their behaviour and certain meat quality traits. Thus, the free-range production system might be considered favourable alternative housing system.

Keywords

behaviourbroilerfree-rangelaying hensmeat qualityproductivitywelfare

Information

Type
Review
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 105 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ALVARADO, C.Z., WENGER, E. and O'KEEFE, S.F. (2005) Consumer perception of meat quality and shelf-life in commercially raised broilers compared to organic free ranged broilers. Poultry Science 84: 129.Google Scholar
BENNET, R.M. (1996) Willingness-to-pay measures of public support for farm animal welfare legislation. Veterinary Record 139: 320-321.Google Scholar
BOGOSAVLJEVIĆ-BOŠKOVIĆ, S., KURĆUBIĆ, V., PETROVIĆ, M. and RADOVIĆ, V. (2006) The effect of season and rearing systems on meat quality traits. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51: 369-374.Google Scholar
BOGOSAVLJEVIĆ-BOŠKOVIĆ, S., RAKONJAC, S., DOSKOVIĆ, V. and PETROVIĆ, M.D. (2012) Broiler rearing systems: A review of major fattening results and meat quality traits. World's Poultry Science Journal 68: 217-228.Google Scholar
CASTELLINI, C., BERRI, C., LE BIHAN-DUVAL, E. and MARTINO, G. (2008) Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World's Poultry Science Journal 65: 120-135.Google Scholar
D'AGATA, E.M.C., MAGAL, P., OLIVIER, D., RUAN, S. and WEBB, G.F. (2007) Modeling antibiotic resistance in hospitals: The impact of minimizing treatment duration. Journal Theorology Biology 249: 487-499.Google Scholar
DAL BOSCO, A., CASTELLINI, C. and MUGNAI, C. (2002) Rearing rabbits on wire net floor or straw litter: Behaviour, growth and meat qualitative traits. Livestock Production Science 75: 149-156.Google Scholar
DAL BOSCO, A., CASTELLINI, C. and BERNARDINI, M. (2000) Productive performance and carcass and meat characteristics of cage- or pen-raised rabbits. World Rabbit Science 8: 579-583.Google Scholar
DAWKINS, M.S. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106: 383-387.Google Scholar
DRESCHER, B. (1992) Housing of rabbits to animal welfare. Applied Rabbit Research 15: 678-683.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, I.J.H. (2002) Gordon memorial lecture. Poultry welfare: science or subjectivity? British Poultry Science 43: 643-652.Google Scholar
EL-SABROUT, K. (2018) Does the blindness affect the behavioural activities of rabbit? Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 6: 6-8.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (EC) (1999) Council directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999. Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L 203: 53-57.Google Scholar
FANATICO, A.C., PILLAI, P.B., CAVIT, L.C., OWENS, C.M. and EMERT, J.L. (2005) Evaluation of slower growing genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Grow performance and carcass yield. Poultry Science 84: 1321-1327.Google Scholar
FANATICO, A.C., PILLAI, P.B., CAVITT, L.C., EMMERT, J.L., MEULLENET, J.F. and OWENS, C.M. (2006) Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: sensory attributes. Poultry Science 85: 337-343.Google Scholar
FERRANTE, V., VERGA, M., MANGIAGALLI, M.G. and CARENZI, C. (2001) Behaviour reactions, semen quality and testosterone levels in cocks: genetic implications. Animal Welfare 10: 269-279.Google Scholar
FREIRE, R., WILKINS, L.J., SHORT, F. and NICOL, C.J. (2003) Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. British Poultry Science 44: 22-29.Google Scholar
GONÇALVES, S., FERREIRA, R., PEREIRA, I., OLIVEIRA, C., AMARAL, P., GARBOSSA, C. and FONSECA, L. (2017) Behavioral and physiological responses of different genetic lines of free-range broiler raised on a semi-intensive system. Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology 5: 112-117.Google Scholar
GREGORY, N.G. (2003) Animal welfare and meat science. USA: CABI Publishing Cambridge.Google Scholar
HEIER, B.T., HOGASEN, H.R. and JARP, J. (2002) Factors associated with mortality in Norwegian broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 53: 147-158.Google Scholar
HEGELUND, L., SØRENSEN, J.T., KJÆR, J.B. and KRISTENSEN, I.S. (2005) Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46: 1-8.Google Scholar
HORSTED, K., ALLESEN-HOLM, B.H. and HERMANSEN, J.E. (2010) The effect of breed and feed-type on the sensory profi le on breast meat in male broilers reared in an organic free-range system. British Poultry Science 4: 515-524.Google Scholar
JONES, R.B. and MILLS, A.D. (1999) Divergent selection for social reinstatement behaviour in Japanese quail: effects on sociality and social discrimination. Poultry and Avian Biology Reviews 10: 213-223.Google Scholar
JONES, T., FEBER, R., HEMERY, G., COOK, P., JAMES, K., LAMBERTH, C. and DAWKINS, M. (2007) Welfare and environmental benefits of integrating commercially viable free-range broiler chickens into newly planted woodland. A UK case study. Agricultural Systems 94: 177-188.Google Scholar
JULIAN, R.J. (2005) Production and growth related disorders and other metabolic diseases of poultry - A review. Veterinary Journal 169: 350-369.Google Scholar
KESKIN, S., KOR, A. and KARACA, S. (2012) Evaluation of sensory characteristics of sheep and goat meat by Procrustes Analysis. Czech Journal of Animal Science 57: 516-521.Google Scholar
LEBAS, F. (2001) Fattening farms: advantages and disadvantages. Cuniculture 28: 163-168.Google Scholar
LEYENDECKER, M., HAMANN, H., HARTUNG, J., KAMPHUES, J., RING, C., GLÜNDER, G., AHLERS, C., SANDER, I., NEUMAN, U. and DISTL, O. (2001) Analyse von Genotyp-Umwelt-Interaktionenzwischen Legennenhybriden und Haltungssystemen in der Legeleistung, Eiqualität und Knochenfestigkeit. 1. Mitteilung: Legeleistung-smerkmale. Züchtungskunde 73: 290-307.Google Scholar
MANTEUFFEL, G. (2002) Central nervous regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and its impact on fertility, immunity, metabolism and animal welfare - a review. Archiv für Tierzucht Dummerstorf 45: 575-595.Google Scholar
MARIN, R.H., FREYTES, P., GUZMAN, D. and BRYAN JONES, R. (2001) Effects of an acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement responses of domestic chicks to cagemates and strangers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 57-66.Google Scholar
MATT, D., VEROMANN, E. and LUIK, A. (2009) . Effect of housing systems on biochemical composition of chicken eggs. Agricultural Research 7: 662-667.Google Scholar
MCNITT, J., WAY, R., WAY, M. and FORRESTER-ANDERSON, I. (2003) Growth of fryers reared and (or) finished using controlled grazing in movable pens. World Rabbit Science 11: 189-198.Google Scholar
MELLEN, J. and MACPHEE, M.S. (2001) Philosophy of environmental enrichment: past, present, and future. Zoology Biology 20: 211-226.Google Scholar
MELUZZI, A., SIRRI, F., CASTELLINI, C., RONCARATI, A., MELOTTI, P. and FRANCHINI, A. (2009) Influence of genotype and feeding on chemical composition of organic chicken meat. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 766-768.Google Scholar
MENDL, M. (1999) Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 221-244.Google Scholar
MONIN, G. and OUALI, A. (1991) Muscle differentiation and meat quality, in: LAWRIE, R. (Ed.) Developments in meat science, pp. 89-157 (Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK/New York, USA).Google Scholar
MUGNAI, C., DAL BOSCO, A., MOSCATI, L., BATTISTACCI, L. and CASTELLINI, C. (2011) Effect of genotype and husbandry system on blood parameters, oxidative and native immune status: welfare and implications on performance of organic laying hens. The Open Veterinary Science Journal 5: 12-18.Google Scholar
PLA, M. (2008) A comparison of the carcass traits and meat quality of conventionally and organically produced rabbits. Livestock Production Science 115: 1-12.Google Scholar
PREISINGER, R. (2005) Development, state and perspectives of poultry production. Zuchtungskunde 77: 502-507.Google Scholar
REITER, K. and KUTRITZ, B. (2001) Das Verhalten und Beinschwächen von Broilern verschiedener Herkünfte. Archive für Geflügelkunde 65: 137-141.Google Scholar
RUIS, M. and COENEN, E. (2004) A group-housing system for rabbit does in commercial production: a new approach. World Rabbit Science 13: 200-201.Google Scholar
SCHÜTZ, K.E. and JENSEN, P. (2001) . Effects of resource allocation on behavioral strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107: 753-765.Google Scholar
SIRRI, F., CASTELINI, C., RONCARATI, A., FRANCHINI, A. and MELUZZI, A. (2010) Effect of feeding and genotype on the lipid profile of organic chicken meat. European Journal of Lipid Science Technology 112: 994-1002.Google Scholar
SMITH, M.O. and TEETER, R.G. (1987) Influence on feed intake and ambient temperature stress on the relative yield of broilers parts. Nutritional Reports International 35: 299-306.Google Scholar
SORENSEN, P., SU, G. and KESTIN, S.C. (2000) Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 79: 864-870.Google Scholar
SOSSIDOU, E.N., DAL BOSCO, A., ELSON, H.A. and FONTES, C.M. (2011) Pasture-based system for poultry production: implications and perspectives. World's Poultry Science Journal 67: 47-58.Google Scholar
STOLZE, M. and LAMPKIN, N. (2009) Policy for organic farming: Rationale and concepts. Food Policy 34: 237-244.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R., WAHLSTRÖM, A. and ABRAHAMSSON, P. (1999) Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 152-159.Google Scholar
TUYTTENS, F., HEYNDRICKX, M., DE BOECK, M., MOREELS, A., VAN NUFFEL, A., VAN POUCKE, E., VAN COILLIE, E., VAN DONGEN, S. and LENS, L. (2005) Comparison of broiler chicken health and welfare in organic versus traditional production systems. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23 Suppl. 1: 217-222.Google Scholar
VANHONACKER, F., VERBEKE, W., VAN POUCKE, E., PIENIAK, Z., NIJS, G. and TUYTTENS, F. (2012) The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 25: 79-101.Google Scholar
VERGA, M., ZINGARELLI, I., HEINZL, E., FERRANTE, V., MARTINO, P.A. and LUZI, F. (2004) Effect of housing and environmental enrichment on performance and behaviour in fattening rabbits. World Rabbit Science 13: 139-140.Google Scholar
WIEPKEMA, P.R. and KOOLHAAS, J.M. (1993) Stress and animal welfare. Animal Welfare 2: 195-218.Google Scholar
ZELNTER, E. and MAURER, V. (2009) Welfare of organic poultry. Poultry Welfare Symposium. Cervia, Italy, pp. 18-22.Google Scholar
ZHAO, Z., LI, J., LI, X. and BAO, J. (2014) Effects of Housing Systems on Behaviour, Performance and Welfare of Fast-growing Broilers. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 27(1): 140-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13167.Google Scholar