Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 6.3
Species-specific behaviour of chickens with regard to adequate housing systems (Fölsch
and Hörning 1996; Hörning 1998)
Functional unit
Species-speciic behaiours
Appropriate housing
Feeding
Scratching and pecking
Intake of plant material
Littered area for scratching,
feeding grains in the litter
Supply of roughage, access to
pasture
Locomotion
Walking, flying, fluttering
Enough space, elevated perches
Resting behaviour
Roosting in trees
Elevated perches
Social behaviour
Small groups including cocks
Division into groups, add cocks
Egg laying
Sheltered location
Nest building
Shaded nests
Littered nests (e.g. using chaff)
Comfort behaviour
Dust bathing
Sun bathing
Supply dust bath
Natural lighting
Possible conflict areas
Regulations
The IFOAM standards and the EU regulations contain some sections concerning housing. In
general, the organic standards require that housing conditions must meet the livestock's
normal biological and ethological needs (IFOAM 2002). The animals must be kept in group
housing because they are social living beings. They must have organic material for recreation
and other purposes (e.g. lying on soft ground). Therefore, the housing systems commonly
used in conventional agriculture like tying stalls for cattle, crates for sows, fully slatted pens
for growing cattle or growing pigs and battery cages for laying hens are forbidden.
Furthermore, the animals must have access to outside areas, either to an outdoor run or to
pasture. This offers additional space and contact with climatic stimuli (sun, rain, wind). In
most intensive housing systems, farm animals will never have any access to the outside. The
EU regulation contains minimum space requirements for the stable and the outside area. In
intensive animal production, animals are sometimes mutilated (e.g. beak trimming, tail
docking, teeth clipping, dehorning) to reduce the negative effects of intensive housing condi-
tions. Although the symptoms of intensive housing are removed, the causes remain. In organic
agriculture, mutilations should be avoided or restricted to a minimum (and allowed only as an
exception). However, some people argue that some mutilations are necessary in alternative
housing systems. For example, rooting of pigs at pasture could destroy the vegetation. Nose
ringing reduces pasture damages. However, nose ringing severely hinders the species-specific
behavioural need and could lead to injuries. Feather pecking may be a bigger problem in large
groups of laying hens that are common in alternative housing systems. Beak trimming is a
severe intervention into the physical intactness of the animal. Therefore, appropriate manage-
ment measures are very important to avoid such mutilations in alternative housing systems.
The aforementioned regulations for organic livestock housing offer good preconditions for
animal welfare. They can be regarded, and this should be communicated to consumers, as
strong principles, similar to the ban of pesticides in plant production. Literature on the distri-
bution of housing systems in organic agriculture in different, primarily English-speaking
countries is scarce. However, housing systems seem to differ considerably between countries.
For example, in Austria organic pigs are normally housed indoors with an access to an outside
run (mostly with a solid concrete f floor) for fattening pigs and gestating sows, but not for far-
