One consequence of concentration of the poultry industry, and of housing flocks in restricted-entry facilities, is that average citizens have lost their connection with how birds are raised for the production of poultry meat and eggs. In recognition of this, British writer Ruth Harrison detailed her concerns about the welfare of animals raised in commercial production systems in the influential book, Animal Machines (Harrison, 1964). As a non-scientist and someone not involved with agriculture, Harrison described husbandry practices used in the meat, egg and dairy industries in lay language that resonated with the general public, and she articulated many of the welfare concerns that are still being debated today. Approximately one-third of her book was devoted to laying hens and broilers, with concerns raised about pain associated with elective surgeries, such as beak trimming, deficiencies in battery cage design for housing laying hens, and problems, such as lameness, that are associated with fast growth in broilers. Public outcry prompted the British government to commission an investigation of these claims, and the resulting Brambell Report (Command Paper 2836, 1965) articulated many of the same concerns raised by Harrison.

Opinion surveys indicate that concerns about animal welfare resonate with the general public. In 2005, the European Commission’s Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General commissioned a comprehensive survey of public attitudes towards animal welfare, involving 24,708 citizens in 25 Member States of the European Union (Eurobarometer, 2005). Only 32% of respondents had a positive view about the welfare of laying hens and 22% had a very negative view of their welfare. More than 40% of respondents chose laying hens and broilers among the top three species needing improvements in their welfare. However, there are regional differences in the level of concern for animal welfare, and only 52% of respondents reported that they consider animal welfare when they are making their food purchases. Similarly, in an American Farm Bureau sponsored survey, >60% of respondents felt that the government should take an active role in promoting farm animal welfare, and 69–88% of respondents agreed with the statement “I would vote for a law in my state that would require farmers to treat their animals more humanely” (Lusk and Norwood, 2008). Fifty-six percent of respondents in this study felt that decisions about animal welfare should be made by the “experts” rather than the public. Interestingly, a survey of animal science faculty at US universities revealed support for general principles of animal welfare, and greatest concerns were directed at the welfare of poultry relative to other food producing species (Heleski et al., 2004).

Public awareness of animal welfare has been driven by high profile campaigns and activism about certain issues. For example, Compassion in World Farming placed celebrities in a large-scale cage to draw the attention of the British public to battery cages used in egg production. Similarly, in North America, welfare concerns relating to broiler chickens have been popularized through a campaign organized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with actress Pamela Anderson as spokesperson. The increased availability of video technology has also led to filmed evidence of poor housing or inhumane handling of poultry on some farms being broadcast on television news programs and on the internet. Furthermore, depiction of poultry as sentient beings in documentary films, such as Chickens are People, Too by J. Kastner (2000), and anthropomorphism in mainstream movies, such as Chicken Run by Lord and Park (2000), are increasingly stimulating questions about whether commercial production practices are morally acceptable.

Integral factors necessary for understanding and resolving contentious societal issues are precise terminology and frames of reference from which dialogue can proceed. The emergence of animal ethics and animal welfare science as academic disciplines has provided tools for discourse. In his book, Animal Liberation, philosopher Peter Singer (1975) popularized ethical questions about the treatment of animals. Basing his argument on utilitarian ethical principles, Singer proposed that emerging scientific evidence supports the capacity for sentience in some species, meaning that at least some animals can experience feelings of pleasure and pain that may be analogous to feelings experienced by human beings. Consequently, the interests of these animals should be factored into decision-making when weighing costs and benefits associated with a particular course of action. Singer used the example of behavioural deprivation of laying hens housed in battery cages to support his arguments, claiming that the costs to the hens in terms of frustration, pain and fear were greater than the marginal economic benefits obtained by the consumers that bought eggs from these farming systems. Other philosophers have considered treatment of animals in terms of their inherent value and their basic rights as moral agents with independent interests (Regan, 1983), or their rights according to the animal’s inherent nature or “telos” (Rollin, 1995). However, the utilitarian framework for animal welfare remains the predominant position referred to in discussions between policymakers, scientists and producers, with costs and benefits weighed according to values placed on impacts to an animal’s biological function, its feelings and its inherent nature (Fraser, 1999).

In addition to ethical components of animal welfare, there is a need for factual information about sentience, about the factors that cause suffering and pleasure, and how these concepts may be applied to production environments. Scientific interest in poultry welfare has varied over the decades. In the peer-reviewed Poultry Science journal, there has been interest in poultry welfare as far back as 1921 (Fig. 12.4), and increased interest in poultry welfare during the 1950s and 1960s, a period of industrialization with the advent of battery cage systems for laying hens and genetic selection for growth and feed efficiency in broilers and turkeys (Smith and Daniel, 2000). Conversely, scientific articles that cite “welfare” as a subject keyword were notably reduced during the 1970s, when public interest in animal welfare was rapidly increasing. One constraint on publication in peer-reviewed journals is the availability of qualified academic reviewers, and this was a particular problem for the new disciplines of applied ethology and animal welfare science (Millman et al., 2004). In recognition of the increasing importance of behaviour and welfare in contemporary poultry production, Poultry Science launched a new journal section in 2005, “Environment, Well-being and Behavior”, which has facilitated publication of welfare-related manuscripts. However, the number of poultry welfare manuscripts published is currently small when compared with those in traditional disciplines of economic importance, such as nutrition and genetics.

Exploring animal welfare as a scientific concept became a key focus for many researchers, particularly in the relatively young discipline of applied ethology. The journal Applied Animal Ethology (now Applied Animal Behaviour Science) launched its inaugural issue in 1974, and scientific papers were specifically solicited for “Welfare and relationships” as one of three topic areas. In the first issue, one-half of the papers published related to poultry. Research on animal cognition, consciousness and sentience has been an active area of study involving poultry (Duncan and Wood-Gush, 1971; Dawkins, 1976, 1977; Siegel et al., 1978; Duncan, 2002). This may have been facilitated by their small size and rapid growth, relative to other livestock species; poultry are easy to handle and to manage in typical laboratory environments, expediting collection of experimental data. Based on this growing background of fundamental research, there is a better understanding of the cognitive abilities of poultry (Rogers, 1995; Forkman, 2000; Davis and Taylor, 2001; Nicol, 2004), of how they communicate feelings of frustration (Duncan, 1970), fear (Jones, 1989), hunger (Savory et al., 1993) and pain (Gentle et al., 1990; Danbury et al., 2000), as well as relationships between behaviour, stress and poultry health (Zulkifli and Siegel, 1995).

Researchers have applied this fundamental knowledge to address commercial production practices of public concern (Appleby et al., 2004). Novel techniques have been developed to determine preferences of hens for certain resources in their environments and to assess strength of motivation to perform certain behaviour (Hughes, 1976; Dawkins, 1983; Duncan, 1992). This knowledge has been used to improve the design of cages for laying hens (Appleby et al., 2004). Interdisciplinary research teams have also produced refinements in handling (Hemsworth and Coleman, 2004), transportation (Mitchell and Kettlewell, 1998) and stunning of poultry at slaughter (Raj and O’Callaghan, 2004). Similarly, alternative solutions to beak-trimming have been developed using genetic selection on the basis of bird temperament (Craig and Muir, 1993). Most recently, epidemiological techniques are being used to assess welfare in “real life” commercial environments, and to identify associated risk factors (Huber-Eicher and Sebo, 2001; Algers and Berg, 2001; Nicol et al., 2003; Pagazaurtundua and Warriss, 2006; Weitzenburger et al., 2006). These techniques are particularly valuable for validating on-farm intervention strategies intended to improve welfare (Dawkins et al., 2004; Weeks and Butterworth, 2004).

In the absence of clear solutions to public concerns, scientists have been able to clarify the grounds upon which concerns about poultry welfare may be justified. For example, the practice of induced moulting to improve egg production performance is common in layer flocks in the United States. The traditional method involved depriving laying hens of food for 5–14 days until they lost 20–30% of their body weight, shed their feathers and ceased producing eggs, after which a second egg-laying cycle was stimulated through changes in diet and photoperiod (Bell, 2002). Conversely, a natural moult is a gradual process that results from physiological changes associated with decreasing day-length during the autumn, and although feed consumption is reduced at this time, hens never cease eating completely nor do they become denuded of feathers. Furthermore, behavioural and physiological changes that result from feed deprivation during an induced moult are consistent with feelings of hunger and distress, at least during the initial stages (Webster, 2003a). Articulation by scientists of the specific welfare issues associated with feed deprivation (Bell et al., 2004) facilitated industry-sponsored research into alternative moulting methods that may be more acceptable on welfare grounds (Biggs et al., 2003), and indeed led to a major change in this practice in the US (see below). Furthermore, once the specific concerns associated with practices like these have been delineated, ethical discussions may ensue based on value judgements used when weighing costs to the individual hens that arise from different practices, benefits of eggs as an inexpensive source of dietary protein for consumers, and the environmental and animal welfare benefits that arise when, for example, the use of a second egg-laying cycle results in fewer hens being raised to meet the demand for eggs.

It has been suggested that many of the changes to animal welfare policy have been made based on “collective and individual decisions, rather than on scientific assessment” (Bennett, 1997). Philosopher Paul Thompson (2003) argues that standard scientific methods are inadequate for addressing animal welfare concerns; integrative research is needed that explores animal welfare science while being sensitive to competing public values in terms of risks to environmental quality and food safety. Similarly, scientist Jeffrey Rushen (2003) suggests that researchers have used concepts of animal welfare that are too limited in the interest of scientific rigour, and consequently, are unable to address the multidimensional nature of animal welfare concerns as expressed by the public. He suggests that greater use of epidemiology and other research techniques that account for variability and interactions between husbandry factors may yield more useful information for identifying the main threats to animal welfare in commercial situations. In some countries, animal welfare research has also been limited because it is not well funded compared to other scientific areas.

Support for poultry welfare research has traditionally been strongest in Europe. In 1981, the first European symposium dedicated to poultry welfare was held in Køge, Denmark (Sørensen, 1981), with the objectives of increasing awareness of poultry welfare issues, disseminating knowledge of research results and identifying gaps in knowledge for further investigation. Subsequently, European Symposia on Poultry Welfare have been held every four years, organized by the World’s Poultry Science Association. The First North American Poultry Welfare Symposium was held in 1995 in Edmonton, Canada (Mench and Duncan, 1998), and increasingly these scientific meetings are being sponsored by the poultry meat and egg industries worldwide. Involvement of the poultry industry in organizing and attending animal welfare conferences, and in funding and participating in welfare-related research projects, is a promising development for transfer of welfare knowledge to commercial applications.

While expressing concern about the treatment of birds in commercial egg and meat production, many citizens probably assume that poultry welfare is protected under animal protection laws. However, there is considerable variation in the levels of protection conferred to animals in both developed and lesser-developed countries (Wilkins et al., 2005). Significant differences exist between European and North American countries, and this is particularly evident in terms of the laws that govern the treatment of poultry (see below).

In the UK, one outcome of the Brambell Report (Command Paper 2836, 1965) was a vision of morally acceptable animal production that granted certain rights or freedoms to animals. In addition, a Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) was formed to advise policymakers on animal welfare issues, composed of individuals from a variety of backgrounds including animal scientists, veterinarians, farmers and animal protection, all with an interest in improving animal welfare. The vision of animal care was further refined by FAWC into the “Five Freedoms for Farm Animal Welfare” (FAWC, 1993):

These Five Freedoms have provided a framework for development of government policy, research priorities and husbandry guidelines, particularly in Europe. Similarly, animal welfare advisory groups composed of different stakeholders developed recommended codes of practice for livestock and for poultry in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The development and review of these codes has been a consultative process, and they were often largely based on current industry “best practice”. Since the codes are strictly voluntary, there are no mechanisms to determine how closely they are followed, or even if producers are aware of them.

In Europe, animal welfare policy has continued to steadily evolve (Table 12.2). A Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes was developed, and was passed by the Council of Europe in 1976. Poultry welfare was one of the first issues to be addressed, specifically in regard to housing of laying hens (for a more thorough review, see Appleby, 2003). In 1979, European governments agreed to provide funding for scientific research on poultry welfare, to be reviewed by the Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC). As a consequence, a Council Directive was passed in 1986, regulating minimum standards for hens in battery cages. The legislation was further amended and strengthened, so that European Directive 88/166/EEC set down a minimum space allowance of 450 sq cm per bird, as well as minimum requirements for cage height, floor slope and feed trough space. Furthermore, the Commission was required to report back on scientific developments regarding the welfare of hens under different management systems. In 1996, a second review by the SVC proposed that there were inherent problems associated with battery cages, because of insufficiency in the design to accommodate the strong motivation of hens to build nests, to dustbathe, to perch and to forage in litter. These recommendations by the SVC led to Directive 1999/74/EC, requiring a phase out of standard battery cage housing for laying hens by 2012. However, cages that are furnished with a perch and a nest box will be permitted. A similar process involving scientific review and phasing in of recommended legislation is currently underway for broilers and turkeys. Despite these tremendous changes in laying hen housing, some animal protection groups remain critical of the European legislation, particularly in regard to the failure to require cages that incorporate litter for dustbathing and foraging (Wilkins, 2004).

A particularly significant development for animal protection in Europe was the Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into effect in 1999. The Treaty requires Member States to pay “full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”, granting animals special status as “sentient beings”. Conversely, animal protection laws of most countries have been traditionally based on the value of animals as property, and hence the intent of these laws has been to protect animal owners against losses, rather than protecting animals from suffering per see (Wise, 2003). Animal cruelty is discussed in the property section of the Canadian Criminal Code, and states “(i) Every one commits an offence who (a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or by wilful neglect, cause damage or injury to an animal or bird”. The offence is classified as a misdemeanour or lesser crime, and is often difficult to enforce since there is a burden of proof placed on the prosecutor to demonstrate that the accused intended to harm the animal, rather than on the impacts of these actions on the animal. Similarly, common husbandry practices, such as surgical amputations without analgesia (beak-trimming, toe-trimming, dubbing combs), are exempt in practice due to challenges in demonstrating that any pain experienced is unnecessary. In Canada, efforts to strengthen this century-old law, by making cruelty a felony and by moving it out of the property section of the Criminal Code, have been debated since 1999, generating more letters of support than any other issue. A significant obstacle has been lobbying of government officials by commodity groups, because of concerns about “nuisance lawsuits” that contest standard husbandry practices rather than address overt animal abuse. Changes were eventually made to the animal welfare section of the Canadian Criminal Code in 2008, but these only amounted to increasing the penalties for breaking the Code; the wording describing offences was left intact.

In the United States, where individual states have a great deal of legislative autonomy, all states have legislation covering aspects of animal treatment, generally referred to as anti-cruelty laws. The Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted the first anti-cruelty legislation in 1641, stating “no man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty toward any bruit creatures which are usually kept for the use of man” (as cited in Unti, 2002, p. 16). There is considerable variability between states in terms of what practices are considered acceptable. In many states, anti-cruelty legislation provides exemptions for all or some common agricultural practices, with many of these exemptions enacted since 1990 (Wise, 2003). Furthermore, poultry species are specifically exempt from anti-cruelty laws in some states (Wolfson, 1999). Cockfighting is banned in all states, although the final ban, in Louisiana, did not take effect until August, 2008 (in 2007, the US Congress also passed a federal law providing felony penalties for interstate commerce, import and export related to animal fighting activities, including cockfighting).