general enquiries on this form should be made...

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code IS0218

2. Project title

A desk study - developing integrated production systems for free range hens

3. Contractororganisation(s)

ADAS Uk Ltd.ADAS GleadthorpeMeden ValeMansfieldNottinghamshireNG20 9PF

54. Total Defra project costs £ 128,908(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 May 2006

end date................. 31 March 2008

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.The focus of farming in the UK today is changing and there is now a strong emphasis on biological sustainability, the efficient use of natural resources and a need to reduce the release of pollutants to the air and water environments.

This project investigated the options of the development of UK integrated production systems (IPS) for free range egg production which would optimise biological sustainability, water efficiency, environmental sustainability, health and animal welfare, egg quality and economic sustainability, and minimise the potential release of pollutants such as nitrogen to the air and water environments. Information on how laying hens and other classes of poultry have historically been included in farming systems was also reviewed. The project also identified where (technical) problems might occur that would hinder the establishment of IPS for free range egg production. Two agricultural systems were identified as having most potential for integrated poultry production, these were organic farming and three types of agroforestry systems (newly planted forest tree plantations, traditional fruit orchards or short rotation coppice plantations).

With a growing world population global food demand will increase, in conjunction with this there is a change in diet with an increase in demand for food of animal origin. This will lead to an increase in the production of poultry and pork. There are different pathways of achieving this increase in global food production, but if we do not want the detrimental consequences for the environment we should look for sustainable methods of production. The main avenue for sustainable intensification of agriculture is the integration of livestock and crop operations. This can be done at a farm level, e.g. with mixed farms that are inter-sectoral enterprises with a combination of diverging agricultural activities, characterised by an intensive exchange of products and services between the different sectors. Integration of crop and livestock production can also happen in a farming region rather than on individual farms. Region-wide crop-livestock integration allows individual, specialised enterprises to operate separately but energy for farming and flows of organic and mineral matter are linked by markets and regulations.

The modern trend back towards outdoor production has not led to more integrated systems as of yet this has not been found to be realistic, economic or sustainable on a larger scale. However, modern free range and intensive poultry systems may have potential for integration with mixed farming by returning the manure they produce to the land on which their feed was grown. Modern free range farms are increasingly planting trees to provide outside shelter and shade to encourage birds out on the range, however trees would not fit well into a crop rotation in which the land requires cultivation during some of the courses. This will only work well in a purposely-designed agroforestry systems where poultry

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

production is combined with tree production. In order to put poultry back on the land and integrate them into crop rotations, the return to traditional free range using small movable houses or folds, implying outside feed and water, may have to be investigated. Alternatively, small fixed houses with several paddocks through which the hens could be rotated while some were rested, cultivated and fertilised with poultry or other manure could be used to achieve integrated free range production.

Two agricultural systems were identified as having most potential for integrated poultry production, these were organic farming and three types of agroforestry systems (newly planted forest tree plantations, traditional fruit orchards or short rotation coppice plantations). Organic systems have a lot of potential in terms of offering a suitable habitat with range cover, additional feed stuffs from the range and the opportunity to express species-specific behaviour. However problem areas such as organic nutrition, breeds and feather pecking exist. Agroforestry systems also have a lot of potential in terms of offering a suitable habitat with tree cover, additional feed stuffs from the range and the opportunity to express species-specific behaviour. However knowledge on environmental aspects, egg quality and food safety aspects and potential health and welfare problems of poultry in such systems is limited, especially for orchards and short rotation coppice.

Energy and protein requirements of laying hens will influence their feed consumption and nutrient requirement. In free range systems these requirements will be influenced by the birds’ daily activity and the outdoor environment with variations in air temperature and the effects of wind, rain and sun. Many of the published equations for estimating the voluntary metabolisable energy intake of laying hens do not consider the effect of temperature. Size and breed of the hen and stage of production will also affect nutrient requirements.

Nutrient (N, P, K) balances for integrated vs. non-integrated free range layer production units showed that both systems had a surplus of nutrients at the farm-gate. Integrating the free range enterprise within an arable farm reduced this surplus as compared to the independent system. Purchased feeds formed a large part of the input into both systems, with most, if not all of the protein supplied from non-farm sources. The use of mobile housing would be useful to avoid localised nutrient enrichment. Management of the range (e.g. the presence/absence of trees for wood, fuel or fruit production), will have very little impact on the overall nutrient budget. The most important contribution to the nutrient budget on an integrated farm comes from whether there is associated arable land either on or near the farm to provide some of the feed requirements, recycle the manures and potentially enable the rotation of the range around the farm.

The majority (99%) of water usage on a free range unit consists of consumption by the hens, and only 1% is used for washing of hen houses and equipment. It will therefore be rarely economic to seek an alternative source for the supply of wash water. Alternative options are the use of abstracted groundwater, but abstracted water from surface-water sources and re-cycled roof water should be avoided as these sources could be infected with FIOs (Faecal Indicator Organisms) and poultry disease organisms from wild bird populations. The collection and use of roof water to use for irrigation is also not an economic option. If irrigation of the range is necessary an abstraction source will be needed. This source needs to be low in boron and chloride, as orchard fruit are sensitive to these common contaminants. Based on the limited available knowledge, water usage and recycling do not seem to be a viable option for integrated poultry systems.

The comparison of economic aspects of integrated free range egg production (in fixed and mobile houses) using production costings from four different sources showed that additional income (up to £480 per ha) could be generated in each of the three tree-based production systems. These costings assumed that a two pence per dozen premium is generated as a consequence of the eggs being produced in a tree-based system. As with any modelling exercise, the future profit or loss from any enterprise ultimately depends upon what assumptions are made in the calculations.

The literature on behavioural needs of laying hens and the extent to which the (outdoor) environment of an integrated production system (IPS) allows for the expression of behavioural needs, shows that the need for a suitable nest site is likely to be easily satisfied with suitable nestboxes provided in house as part of an IPS. The behavioural need of hens for foraging is likely to be satisfied by providing an enriched and varied environment with the probability of birds being able to forage and eat plant and insect species and to access several foraging substrates. If the henhouse provides sufficient perches, the behavioural need to perch will be satisfied. In addition, hens can make use of trees, shrubs, branches and other natural perches during the day. An IPS would need to be designed to ensure that suitable materials were kept dry in wet weather (e.g. by providing roofed areas on the range and dry, friable litter indoors) to ensure that hens can fulfil the need for dustbathing. An IPS would provide ample space, together with the freedom of choice of environment and the potential opportunity to escape bullies. In conclusion, the majority of IPS would enable hens to express a full behavioural repertoire thereby enhancing their welfare.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

The stakeholder’s workshop held towards the end of the project identified several technical issues associated with the establishment of IPS systems.

The findings described in this report illustrate that that integrated systems with free range poultry production have a lot of potential. The attendance and discussions at the workshop showed that there is a lot of interest in these types of integrated systems. There is also a lot of existing knowledge on organic production and agroforestry on the one hand and free range poultry production on the other hand, this knowledge needs to be brought together. Only a few integrated systems are in existence and until more actual systems are set-up, trialled and studied the answers to a number of practical issues (such as management, effect on the environment, animal welfare and economics) will remain largely unclear.

Further research should focus on setting-up and studying integrated (organic) poultry systems within new forest plantations, traditional orchards and short rotation coppice plantations. Aspects to study are animal welfare, practical management, economics, environmental impact, water use and re-use, food safety aspects and the impact on biodiversity. Laying hens in integrated systems should be observed to study how they will use the outdoor space and the features in that space and how this may affect their welfare. It will also allow assessments of how much and which types of additional feed will be taken from the range area and what effect this may have on the biodiversity.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

A desk study - developing integrated production systems for free range hens

Introduction

The focus of farming in the UK today is changing and there is now a strong emphasis on biological sustainability, the efficient use of natural resources and a need to reduce the release of pollutants to the air and water environments.

This project investigated the options of the development of UK integrated production systems (IPS) for free range egg production which optimise biological sustainability, water efficiency, health, animal welfare, egg quality and economic sustainability, and minimise the potential release of pollutants such as nitrogen to the air and water environments. The project assessed four possible options for IPS for free range egg production.

The original idea for this project was first submitted to Defra as a concept note by Sue Gordon in 2004. The project was funded in 2006 and the authors who delivered the work were: Heleen van de Weerd, Arnold Elson, Fiona Short, Anne Bhogal, John King, John Newton, from ADAS and Claire Weeks from the University of Bristol. The following persons also contributed by for commenting on the different sections: Ruth Layton (FAI), Mark Shepherd (ADAS), Philip Canning (ADAS) and Christine Nicol (University of Bristol).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

The project had eight objectives and the results of these objectives are described in the different chapters of the full project report. This SID5 summary report gives an overview of the contents of the chapters of the project report.

Project objectives1. To determine from the literature how laying hens and other classes of poultry have historically been

included in farming systems and how they are being included in modern evolving farming systems within Northern Europe.

2. To determine from the literature the hen’s biological, physical and behavioural needs for health, welfare and production so as to justify the approaches to developing hypothetical IPS for free range egg production, and so as to verify all inputs into the biological models of nutrient balances and enterprise costings.

3. To develop biological models of nutrient balances (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)) for a number of hypothetical IPS for free range egg production (e.g. arable, livestock, woodland, orchard and coppice) and for a number of different scenarios (e.g. rotation, field size, flock size etc.).

4. To determine from the literature the potential for IPS for free range egg production to offer a system that makes more efficient use of water, and protects the soil and water environments from pollution.

5. To develop costing models for existing UK free range egg production systems and compare the profitability of these with developed costings models for a number of hypothetical IPS for free range egg production.

6. To determine the potential impact of IPS for free range egg production on welfare, egg quality and the environment at an ADAS-led workshop, and to determine from the literature whether there are solutions to specific problems.

7. To enumerate and define the perceived key technical problems which might occur in several of the most successful hypothetical IPS for free range egg production at an ADAS-led workshop, and to determine from the literature whether there are solutions.

8. To undertake knowledge transfer activities.

All the objectives of the project were met.

Set-up of report in relation to objectives

The following section gives a brief description of the contents of each chapter and describes the work that was done in order to meet the project objectives.

Chapter 1 gives a general background to the subject area of the project and discusses global food demand and the need for sustainable agriculture. It also presents different forms of integrated approaches to agriculture.

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 describe the findings of the review of the literature on historical, traditional (Chapter 2) and modern (Chapter 3) methods of including free range hens and other domestic birds in whole farm systems. These chapters relate to project objective 1.

Chapter 4 describes the hen's biological and physical needs for maintenance, growth and egg production, health and welfare. This relates to project objective 2.

Chapter 5 describes the development of models of nutrient balances (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) for different farming systems including free range hens (e.g. arable, livestock and woodland, orchard or coppice). This relates to project objective 3.

Chapter 6 describes the findings of the literature review on the potential release of pathogens and pollutants in waste water from free range egg production facilities, and on the potential systems for improving the efficiency of water use in IPS for free range egg production (e.g. rainfall capture and storage, and treatments for cleaning washing-down water). This relates to project objective 4.

Chapter 7 describes the development of different costings models for IPS for free range hens and the profitability results of different costings models in comparison with those from models developed for existing UK free range egg production systems. This relates to project objective 5.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Chapter 8 evaluates the literature on the behavioural needs of laying hens and the welfare implications of IPS for laying hens. This relates to project objective 2.

Chapter 9 presents the findings of the discussions held at a stakeholders workshop. The workshop was held to present and discuss the findings of the project and discuss the potential impact of integration on laying hen welfare, egg quality and the environment. The stakeholders at the workshop also helped to identify key technical difficulties which might occur in several of potential IPS for free range egg production, and the extent to which these problems might be overcome. This relates to project objectives 6, 7 and 8.

Chapter 10 summarises the main findings from each chapter and draws final conclusions. Furthermore, recommendations for further research are listed.

Summary of project report

Chapter 1 - General introduction - the need for sustainable agriculture

Projections are that the world population will reach 8 billion by 2025 and this will lead to a tripling in food consumption. Agriculture has intensified over the last centuries due to technological developments leading to higher yields. The use of animals in agriculture has led to several benefits such as the conversion of inedible materials into high quality human food.

Due to factors such as income growth and urbanisation the demand for food of animal original will grow globally. The production of poultry and pork is more efficient than producing ruminants so these livestock sectors will expand most. Pigs and poultry require feed with high nutrient densities (e.g. grains) and therefore animals will increasingly consume food that could (formerly) be eaten by humans.

Meeting the increasing global food demands can be achieved by extensification (expanding the area of cultivated land) or by intensification (increasing the number of crops sown or increasing the yield of crops or animal products) of production. Both these pathways have ecological and environmental consequences (e.g. climate change). Animal agriculture is also associated with a range of problems (e.g. pollution, animal welfare) and the increasing pressure on using agricultural crops for bio-fuels instead of for feeding animals or people. Another pathway is to develop sustainable systems.

These global change processes will have implications for the decisions on environmental and agricultural policy in European countries. The UK Government defined the goal of sustainable development as ‘to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations’ (‘Securing The Future’, 2005).

Sustainable intensive systems aim at closing nutrient cycles to improve the efficiency with which nutrients, water and other inputs are used. This will reduce pollution and could increase profitability and conserve natural resources.

The main avenue for sustainable intensification of agriculture is the integration of livestock and crop operations. Integration can be done at a farm level, e.g. with mixed farms that are inter-sectoral enterprises with a combination of diverging agricultural activities, characterised by an intensive exchange of products and services between the different sectors. Integration of crop and livestock production can also happen in a farming region rather than on individual farms. Region-wide crop-livestock integration allows individual, specialised enterprises to operate separately but energy for farming and flows of organic and mineral matter are linked by markets and regulations.

There are several ways of re-integrating the main agricultural production systems in the EU, centred on a more efficient use of nitrogen. Aiming at a more efficient use of nitrogen will also target other problems currently associated with intensive agriculture, such as long transport and unemployment. Integration should lead to subsistence agriculture that aims at locally-oriented agriculture by closing all cycles as much as possible at the lowest level.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Chapter 2 - Historical and traditional methods for including free range poultry in (UK) Integrated Production Systems

This review investigated whether poultry has been integrated in farming systems in the past. It considered important historic, traditional, conventional and modern developments in poultry husbandry and systems, especially those that brought poultry and/or its manure onto farmed land alongside or integrated with, pasture, crops and other livestock. Although the main project focused on laying hens, in this chapter, the production of other classes of poultry was also briefly discussed.

Poultry have been domesticated for thousands of years. Following domestication they spread gradually throughout the world; currently poultry and eggs provide an immense supply of food for the human population. Poultry housing and husbandry have gradually developed and generally intensified, resulting in a specialised largely separate industry, although retaining important links to agriculture.

During the historic period poultry production was mainly in small scale enterprises on general farms. Following the First World War, during the traditional period, commercial poultry farming as a specialised enterprise was encouraged. Production was mainly on free or limited range pasture to which manure was returned directly by the birds. Poultry was fairly rarely involved in crop rotations involving grass leys and arable crops. They were commonly kept on ‘permanent’ pasture, sometimes shared by sheep or cattle. Efficient direct distribution of manure to improve the land was best achieved by the use of small frequently moved free range houses, especially fold units. Some free range poultry were moved onto stubble after harvest to glean grain and return some nitrogen to the soil. They were generally kept alongside other agriculture rather than being integrated into it.

During the conventional period the poultry industry rapidly changed. 1953 was a key turning point in the development of the poultry industry. Poultry feed rationing came to an end, which allowed expansion of the industry in size and technical efficiency in response to consumer demand for cheaper and more abundant supplies of eggs and poultry meat. Poultry housing systems became more intensive, which improved production efficiency, saved labour and reduced diseases and mortality. The majority of laying hens were kept in very small groups in cages and broilers were in large groups on the littered floor system. The main contact with general agriculture was through the purchase of feed and the disposal of manure on land. In most developed countries intensive methods of poultry husbandry dominated the scene until the 1980s, when as a result of the welfare debate and the development of a niche market, free range laying hens were re-introduced, initially on a small scale.

Early in the modern era a trend back towards increased outdoor production started at the expense of intensive methods. This was largely driven by a perception of superior bird welfare in extensive systems and willingness by a minority of consumers to pay premium prices.

Most modern free range houses are fixed and even mobile ones are usually fairly large, and only moved about once a year. These houses have the problem of over-used land near the house and under-used land further away and measures have to be taken to reduce contamination around the popholes. Feed and water are provided inside the house, the outside feeding of the traditional period now being unacceptable because it attracts wild birds, rodents and predators.

Although this trend back towards increased outdoor production might be expected to open an opportunity for modern extensive systems to be more integrated into general agriculture, this has not happened except in small scale organic enterprises. It has not yet been found to be realistic, economic or sustainable on a larger scale. However, modern free range and intensive poultry systems may have potential for integration with mixed farming by returning the manure they produce to the land on which their feed was grown. Depending on the location of the poultry and arable farms, energy requirements to achieve this may be high.

Modern free range farms are increasingly planting trees to provide outside shelter and shade to encourage birds out on the range, however trees would not fit well into a crop rotation in which the land requires cultivation during some of the courses. This will only work well in a purposely-designed agroforestry systems where poultry production is combined with tree production. In order to put poultry

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

back on the land and integrate them into crop rotations, the return to traditional free range using small movable houses or folds, implying outside feed and water, may have to be investigated. Alternatively, small fixed houses with several paddocks through which the hens could be rotated while some were rested, cultivated and fertilised with poultry or other manure could be used to achieve integrated free range production.

Chapter 3 - Modern and evolving methods of including free range poultry in Integrated Production Systems

This review focussed on different free range poultry production systems that have the potential to be managed in an integrated way (Integrated Production System, IPS). Two agricultural systems were identified as having most potential for integrated poultry production, these were organic farming and three types of agroforestry systems (newly planted forest tree plantations, traditional fruit orchards or short rotation coppice plantations).

Each system was first described in a general way and then specific aspects were investigated, such as feed supply (e.g. invertebrates from the crops or pasture) suitability of habitat (for the expression of natural behaviours and for enhancing physical comfort), environmental aspects (the use of production methods or practices that might impact on the environment), health and welfare problems and egg quality and food safety aspects. We also investigated whether the IPS currently exists in the UK.

Organic systemsOrganic farming has been defined as an approach to agriculture where the aim is to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable agricultural production systems. This means that integrated farming lies at the heart of organic agriculture. However, integrating laying hens on organic farms is less common in the UK than integrating rotations of different types of crops or integrating crops with ruminants.

The habitat on organic farms is more suitable for hens than on conventional (intensive) poultry farms, because the hens will have access to an outdoor range area that provides vegetation and cover. This allows them to express species-specific behaviour, such as the high priority behaviour of actively searching for food (foraging). Organic farming has been shown to increase biodiversity at every level of the food chain offering potential additional feed sources on the range. Studies have shown that organic layer strains are able to consume considerable amounts of herbage and forage form the range if these were offered.

Standards for organic livestock farming provide a framework for good living conditions of farm animals and should safeguard animal health and welfare. However, those minimal standards are not necessarily a guarantee for appropriate housing conditions. There are certain characteristics of organic farming that may be a risk for animal health and welfare, such as the restricted use of prophylactic medicines and free range conditions that limits bio-security measures.

The main health and welfare challenges for egg production systems to meet the aspirations of organic farming are breed suitability, pullet availability, organic diets, parasite control, feather pecking, range use and predation. These issues are discussed in the project report.

The general organic farming principle is that the number of animals on the farm should correspond to the amount of feed that a unit can produce and to the amount of manure that can be spread on the land without causing environmental damage, however it is not completely clear what the environmental benefits of organic systems are.

Information on egg quality and food safety issues is limited. A food safety issue that has been flagged up in recent years is the presence of high levels of dioxins in organic eggs in Europe. Outdoor hens ingest dioxins via a range of different sources such as feed, soil, worms and insects, with soil as the main route.

Despite the fact that organic standards aim towards integrated farms and the use of farm grown feed, poultry appears to be rarely integrated into organic farms and often exists as separate (organic)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

enterprises. This is partly because many production units have tended to be businesses established on holdings lacking land and partly for (technical) limitations such as: climate, availability of resources, risk of predation and the existing farming systems and enterprises.

Agroforestry systemsAgroforestry combines tree production with agricultural crops and/or animals on the same unit of land with significant ecological and economic interactions. Silvo-pastoralism is the most common form of agroforestry practised in developed countries in the temperate zones. This system integrates the production of trees, tree products and livestock and sometimes forage. The trees provide longer-term returns, while livestock generates an annual income. Integrating poultry in agro-forestry is less common in the UK than integrating herbivores.

The project evaluated the potential of different types of integrated agroforestry systems such as poultry in newly planted forest tree plantations, in fruit orchards or in short rotation coppice plantations.

Chickens are animals for which woodland is their natural habitat, so there are good reasons for using them in agroforestry. Other reasons for considering poultry in agroforestry systems are:

The significant growth in outdoor poultry enterprises (such as free range egg production) leading to increased demands on land resources

Recognition of the possibility of using tree cover to improve the husbandry conditions and welfare of outdoor poultry

The possibility of identifying and promoting specific markets for ‘forest-reared’ animal products Increasing demands on forest managers to find new uses for forest resources and alternative

methods for the silvo-cultural treatment of tree crops

The costs of integrating new tree plantings with poultry are lower than e.g. in comparison other livestock, as the poultry are immediately compatible with such plantings or tree shelters can be used. Not all designs of agroforestry will be suitable for combining with poultry. Complete integration with pre-existing natural woodland or mature plantation forests is not recommended as this will make the technical management of the system difficult as well as the erection of housing and fencing. Small mobile houses could be used on open spaces, however, daily, easy access to the houses for egg collection has to be taken into consideration.

The most promising designs utilising woodland edges or clearings for integrating forestry with chickens were identified as being new woodland planting or wide-spaced plantations (e.g. poplars) or orchards. The mixture of open space and tree cover should be intimate so that access to cover is provided at any point on the range and not in one area only. This is an important point, as very often in free range systems chickens have to cross an open space to reach shelter (e.g. trees or structures) and this could be one of the factors explaining low ranging percentages observed in free range systems.

Agroforestry systems offer a suitable habitat with tree cover. Chickens in their natural environment of woodland spend most of their time scratching and feeding in the humus under trees. Examination of crop contents showed slugs, several types of insects, macro-invertebrates and berries and seeds. Studies on biodiversity in agroforestry reported that the introduction of silvo-pastoral systems can lead to an increase in the diversity of invertebrates and arthropods. This illustrates that there are additional feed sources in agroforestry systems.

The trees offered in the outdoor area of an agroforestry systems are attractive to the chickens and tree cover can stimulate ranging behaviour. They also offer protection from the wind and provide shade from the sun. The outdoor area also offers opportunities for expressing species-specific behaviours such as roosting and dustbathing.

A review of environmental aspects shows that the management of the forestry part of a silvopastural system might require the use of biocides (for weed control), especially when new trees are planted. Laying hens could be used to control herbage below trees in the early stages of growth rather than using herbicides. However chickens may also eat new buds on growing trees. Mechanical damage to trees and tree roots can occur when using machinery for management purposes, such as approaching the hen houses for daily egg collection. This can be prevented in newly designed agroforestry systems. There is little risk of deleterious soil interactions because the majority of the poultry manure

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

will be deposited in and removed from the poultry houses. Manure inputs on the forested range may even be beneficial for the trees.

Besides general health and welfare problems of poultry in outdoor systems, such as feather pecking and parasite burden, a more specific issue for agroforestry systems with trees is the potential increased risk of predation. Forests and trees could provide a habitat for predators such as birds of prey, crows or foxes and badgers. Studies have reported a greater number of birds (although not bird species) for silvo-pastoral plots. On the other hand, chickens might be able to cope better with predation risks in agroforestry systems as they can take shelter under the trees and shrubs. Good electric fencing can keep mammalian (ground) predators away.

No specific risks for egg quality or food safety were found for agroforestry, mainly because this has not been studied scientifically.

Scientific knowledge on poultry-agroforestry systems in the UK is limited. There are currently numerous egg production farms where trees have been planted on the range to stimulate ranging behaviour of the chickens (‘Woodland eggs’ brand), although the main focus of these farms is egg production and not so much agroforestry as a complete integrated system. There is some experience from agroforestry systems with integrated broiler production in the UK. Sheepdrove Organic farms in Berkshire has an organic silvo-poultry system (studied by Elm Farm Research). The Northmoor Trust in Oxfordshire managed a project called PINE (Poultry in the Natural Environments), together with Oxford University and the Food Animal Initiative.

OrchardsTraditional orchards contain mostly standard (or half-standard) fruit trees at a wide spacing with a continuous grass floor. The management is 'low intensity' and this encourages a wide variety of species of wild plants, birds, mammals and insects. These traditional orchards are more suitable for integration with poultry production in comparison to modern orchards that are planted with closely spaced bush varieties for ease of pesticide application and fruit harvesting. Poultry has traditionally been used in fruit orchards to provide some control of insect pests. Chickens can also be used to remove fallen fruit from the orchard floor. This provides additional feed sources. Potential contact of the chickens with the fruit might present a risk of contamination of the fruit with chicken manure. This is more of an issue in modern orchards with low fruit bushes.

Short rotation coppice (SRC)Short rotation coppice (SRC) consists of fast-growing deciduous trees grown in plantations that are coppiced every three to five years to produce large quantities of wood for use as a renewable fuel. Willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) have shown the most potential as high-yielding crops for UK conditions.

Studies have shown that the introduction of SRC can lead to an increase in the diversity of plants and insects and this could provide an additional feed source for foraging laying hens in the plantation. Surveys on birds have shown that ground dwelling birds like pheasants and partridges use SRC coppice and the adjoining headlands and rides, this suggests that coppice plantations are suitable for ranging hens. If setting up a new SRC-poultry system, access to the houses and to the hens in the plants (by stockpeople) may need to be considered.

A review of environmental aspects revealed that coppice plantations often use herbicides to control weed before and after planting an SRC crop. However, this can also be done mechanically. It is feasible that laying hens could assist in reducing the early weed pressure in the establishment years. This means that SRC can be effectively managed as a low input crop system. Studies have shown that apart from the establishment phase the production of SRC crops reduces nitrate leaching to a very low level.

The information used for the assessment of the potential for integration of these systems has come mainly from written sources and very limited practical experience. The next step would be to set-up these integrated systems and investigate the practical management and economic aspects of running them.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Chapter 4 - Biological and physical needs of laying hens: nutrient requirements

The need to provide an adequate supply of energy, protein, amino acids, minerals and vitamins for optimum physiological development of laying hens is important to provide them with the health and tissue reserves needed for production throughout the laying phase. Energy and protein requirements of laying hens will influence their feed consumption and nutrient requirement.

In free range systems these requirements will be influenced by the birds’ daily activity and the outdoor environment with variations in air temperature and the effects of wind, rain and sun. Birds in outdoor systems are more active in comparison with caged birds as they are able to move around and forage for food. There are many published equations for estimating the voluntary metabolisable energy intake of laying hens but many of them do not consider the effect of temperature. In a free range production system, hens will experience a wide range of temperatures, both diurnally and annually. The problem in supplying an appropriate feed energy value to protein ratio for free range hens is that the prediction of feed energy intake is poorly validated for their thermal environment. At high temperatures, the hen reduces her feed energy intake. However, it may be detrimental under these conditions to increase the crude protein content of the diet. This is because protein utilisation efficiency is relatively poor and so metabolising protein increases heat production. Thus, in conditions of high temperature the answer may be to increase the concentrations of essential amino acids rather than the crude protein content. Other factors also affect nutrient requirements including the size and breed of the hen and stage of production. Heavier breeds and hybrids consume more feed than lighter breeds or hybrids, the heavier birds have higher energy and protein requirements for maintenance.

Laying hens require protein for maintenance and growth but more importantly protein requirements depend upon the stage of egg production. The amount of protein required can also be calculated using published equations. A typical White Leghorn hen will need to eat 2.6-2.8 g of protein per day to meet her protein requirements for body maintenance. If the dietary protein and amino acid supply only supports 80% production, when hens are actually laying at 100% for several days at a time, the protein supply on egg laying days will be insufficient and it may not support tissue re-payment on non-laying days. Thus, egg output will be less than optimal and the hen may start to lose body condition. Protein is supplied to meet the requirements of the flock and not individuals. So the individual hen’s daily protein requirements might not be met. Choice feeding of protein would enable hens to eat protein according to their daily needs. This approach may be practicable in free range egg production systems.

Problems associated with heat stress are due to hens having poor feed intakes. High temperature and high humidity are very stressful as they pant to lose heat through evaporative cooling. Air movement and air speed are factors that are relevant in helping hens lose heat. Hens are able to adapt to high temperatures over time and so the effects are less than when subjected to fluctuating hot and warm temperatures. However where temperatures do fluctuate, birds are able to cope better and have an improved feed intake when they are allowed to feed during the cooler part of the cycle and if they have access to cool water. Feathering is important as it insulates the bird from the cold and protects the skin from the sun. At about 27 C blood vessels in the comb, wattles and feet will start to dilate so as to facilitate heat loss, above this temperature the birds will pant. There is very little information on other modifying effects during periods of cold weather as birds in the UK have traditionally been kept in a controlled environment. There is limited information regarding the effects of temperature on mineral requirements of laying hens.

Chapter 5 - Models of nutrient balances for Integrated Production Systems for free range hens

The construction of nutrient balances provides a means of assessing the viability, sustainability and potential environmental impact of a farming system. This is a nutrient accounting process which sums all the inputs and outputs (typically nitrogen-N, phosphorus-P and potassium-K) for a given defined system. An excess of inputs over outputs will result in a surplus which can lead to increases in soil fertility, but may also have environmental consequences. Conversely, an excess of outputs over inputs will result in a deficit, leading to a progressive decline in fertility, with long-term implications for the sustainability of that system.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

A previous project looked at farm-gate and soil surface nutrient balances for a five or six course hypothetical organic rotation including free range egg production, therefore organic systems were not considered in the current project. The current study used a similar approach to nutrient balance to calculate farm-gate and soil surface nutrient balances for a number of conventional IPS for free range egg production in order to identify systems that optimise the recycling of nutrients on farm, minimise external inputs and reduce environmental pollution.

The main variations within conventional free range egg production are associated with how the farmer manages the range (particularly if a tree crop is grown). As tree crops tend to have minimal nutrient inputs and an output is only realised after many years (with the exception of orchards), there will be very little difference in the nutrient balance between such systems (with or without trees). The main differences will be whether the farmer also has associated arable land where some of the poultry feed can be grown (unlikely to be all, because of the protein issue) and the manures recycled. Therefore nutrient (N, P, K) balances were constructed for a free range layer production unit (8000 birds in 8 mobile houses), either integrated within a typical 100 ha arable farm (home-grown feed and manures recycled on farm) or as an independent enterprise (all feed purchased and manures exported).

Both systems had a surplus of nutrients at the farm-gate. There was a surplus of N at the farm-gate for all systems, with the N surplus of the integrated system approximately one third that of the independent system, with an identical flock size and feed requirement. This was due to the larger land area associated with the integrated farm, and the ability to provide c. 50% of the feed N from home-grown sources and recycle the manures within the farm. Nutrient export was c. 60% greater from the harvested crops in the integrated system, than from the manure exported from the independent system. The P balances were smaller than the N balances in both systems, and again a greater surplus was observed in the independent system compared to the integrated system. The latter was near equilibrium in terms of both P (and K) inputs/outputs, and was therefore likely to be sustainable over the long-term.

Improved nutrient use efficiency and reductions in the size of the nutrient surplus is generally considered to deliver both agronomic (including economic) and environmental benefits. The smaller farm size and absence of on-farm recycling of nutrients led to a greater surplus in the independent system. This surplus would be concentrated on the range, largely in the form of manure N, P and K inputs.

Use of the range to grow a tree crop and encourage ranging may help alleviate the problem of nutrient enrichment around the poultry housing, as well as provide an additional income source (albeit after many years). However, this could be problematic for fruit production, where excessive nutrient enrichment can adversely affect the quality and storage life of the fruit. Much of the nutrient surplus in the integrated system is also likely to be concentrated on the range, however, there is the opportunity to rotate the area of land used for the poultry range around the farm.

The use of mobile housing is useful to avoid localised nutrient enrichment. Purchased feeds formed a large part of the input into both systems, with most, if not all of the protein supplied from non-farm sources. Although there are many possibilities for integrating free range layer production into a farming system, most of the differences arise from how the range is managed (e.g. the presence/absence of trees for wood, fuel or fruit production). This will have very little impact on the overall nutrient budget. Of far more importance (in terms of nutrient budgeting) is whether there is associated arable land either on or near the farm to provide some of the feed requirements, recycle the manures and potentially enable the rotation of the range around the farm.

The findings in this chapter came from a modelling exercise whereby several assumptions had to be made. Whole farm nutrient balances are an effective way to indicate surpluses in nutrient use so that nutrient management practices can be improved. Inevitably there will be errors associated with the assumptions and calculations used to generate the balance, as ‘standard’ values for the nutrient content of the various inputs and outputs used. Some of these values are fairly robust (e.g. feed inputs) others are more variable (manure nutrient contents, gaseous emissions). In order to verify the assumptions and the model, integrated systems should be set-up so that nutrient balances can be

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

calculated using real data. This will lead to more accurate predictions of the environmental impact of these integrated systems.

Chapter 6 - Integrated Production Systems and water resource use and protection

The water resource requirements for three systems were considered. The basic farm model for all three options was that of 100 ha, with 92 ha for arable crops and the remaining 8 ha of land classified as either set-aside land (Option 1), lightly planted woodland for silvo-pastoral agro-forestry land (Option 2), or planted with orchard fruit trees under (Option 3). This land would be the location for mobile hen-houses for 8000 layer hens that forage over the 8 ha under a free range management.

The above scenarios assume that most of the feed for the hens is provided by the 92 ha of arable land (at least for their energy requirements) augmented with imported protein to provide essential amino acids and it will be assumed that feed is constant in quality between the three options. It is further assumed that the arable crops on the 92 ha of land are grown under solely rain-fed water supply, which is usual in Britain, it being uneconomic to irrigate cereals for yield purposes. This means that the water requirements are essentially the same for the three options of poultry operations and therefore dictated by the activities that occur on the 8 ha of land used for poultry housing. These activities fall into three categories 1) drinking requirements for the birds, 2) wash water requirements for the poultry housing 3) irrigation requirements for 8 ha of range land. The differences in water requirements between the options will therefore be dictated by the treatment of the 8 ha of land upon which the hens are housed.

The poultry sector uses an estimated 12 million m3 of water annually, at a fairly level demand throughout the year with production dominated by (mostly) year-round housing systems. Non-caged laying hens at a stocking density of 11 birds/m2 in the hen house, will typically use 81 L per year for drinking and 0.46 L per year for washing of hen houses and equipment. The majority (99%) of water usage on a free range unit therefore consists of consumption by the hens. The quality of this water should not be compromised and mains water supply is normally used. It is then rarely economic to seek an alternative for the 1% supply for the wash water. A free range system of 8000 birds at a density of 9 birds/m2 in the house and 1000 birds/ha on the range requires 648 m3 of water each year for drinking, and 5.28 m3 of water for washing down hen houses. Alternative options are the use of abstracted groundwater. Abstracted water from surface-water sources and re-cycled roof water should be avoided as these sources could be infected with FIOs (Faecal Indicator Organisms) and poultry disease organisms from wild bird populations.

Integration with woodland and orchard sites will help reduce consumption by lowering stress and thermal demand for water during the summer months. Moist home-grown feed and natural browsing will also help reduce consumption demand by increasing dietary intake of moisture.

Irrigation of orchard systems may be necessary to ensure quality and yield, and will typically use about 600 m3/ha per year, though this will increase in dry years. The area of orchard fruit that is irrigated has declined over the last 20 years from about 3000 ha to 1580 ha and the amount of irrigation per unit area may vary according to the weather in each year. The woodland option (Option 2), should require no irrigation water, if semi-natural woodland is used. Alternative plantation species that produce crops may however receive some irrigation under certain circumstances. Such alternatives may be short-rotation coppice for energy biomass crops, willow or poplar. These crops may benefit from irrigation in establishment years if they are dry or later dry years if abundant irrigation water is available. Whether this is a likely scenario depends upon where in the country the crop is situated, and supply contracts for local power stations. Irrigation need being more common in southern and eastern regions which are more likely to experience dry conditions. It is impossible to derive a typical value for the requirement, but it would be of a similar order to that for the orchard crop. The large volume required for even modest irrigation means that this water will almost inevitably come from an abstracted source (only 4% comes from the public supply). Either direct summer abstraction from surface or ground water sources, or from stored water abstracted during peak flow (winter) periods and pumped into a reservoir.

Roof water is a resource that a lot of plant nurseries and protected crop growers have developed as suitable systems for capturing. Rainwater is generally high quality and if the system linking its collection to the irrigation system is clean and sealed, then it may not be necessary to treat this water,

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

though most would use a “buffer” or “balancing” reservoir. Collecting and storing roof water for irrigation obviously depends on rainfall, but also on the seasonality of cropping and evaporation rates from the surface. The potential for storing and using roof water from the hen-houses to supply irrigation water was calculated. The use of rainwater from the roofs from 8 houses for 8000 birds would only supply 10-20% of the needs for 8 ha of orchard (4.8 thousand m3). Even in high rainfall areas of Britain with over 1000 mm of rainfall a year could not achieve more than one fifth of the supply requirement for 8 ha of orchard.

For the above reason access to an abstracted supply will be necessary for the irrigation of orchard or other tree crops. This supply will also have to meet quality constraints for salt (chlorides) and boron concentrations as tree crop such as apples, pears, plums and cherries are sensitive crops to these common contaminants. The threat of diffuse water pollution from the free range system also needs to be taken into account for pollutants such as excess nutrients and FIO’s. Control measures that may be relevant to IPS can be grouped into categories of dietary measures, manure handling measures, and landscape features.

Measures that can be considered are: Moving feed and water supply points regularly Dietary manipulation to reduce N & P in manure Increase capacity of manure storage Batch storage of manure Composting of manure Site manure stores well away from watercourses and drains The use of buffer strips and wetland/sediment ponds to intercept pollutants

Based on the limited available knowledge, water usage and recycling do not seem to be a viable option for integrated poultry systems. However, these findings are not based on existing integrated systems, so it would require further study of real integrated poultry systems to support these findings and to investigate further options for the reduction of water usage and water recycling. This is especially relevant for SRC plantations that have high demands for water.

Chapter 7 - Costings models to assess the economic sustainability of IPS for free range egg production

The economics of free range egg production in both fixed and mobile houses were initially investigated. Gross margin costings (defined as output of an enterprise less variable costs) were prepared using standard ADAS production parameters. The results were then compared with recently published free range egg production costings from three different sources – The Farm Management Pocketbook (“Nix”), the Farm Business Survey undertaken by Reading University and the Ranger magazine produced by the British Free range Egg Producers Association. To aid comparison, all the costings were converted to a gross margin basis and to a 52 week egg production period.

The ADAS standard gross margin costing for free range egg production was then reworked with the application of two pence and five pence per dozen premium to reflect the probability that additional egg income could be generated through eggs being produced in tree-based production systems. The relative profitability of free range egg production with the other systems studied – (Ash agro-forestry, short rotation coppice and cider apple orchards) was then calculated. Again, a gross margin approach was adopted, but in addition, to assist with the comparison of costs and returns from three very different systems with marked variations in economic life-spans, the costs and returns of each system were discounted back to give a net present value.

Finally, an investigation was undertaken into whether the total income derived from the integration of free range egg production within the tree based systems exceeded the total income from free range egg production and tree-based production systems when the egg production was not integrated. Comparing returns from the different agroforestry systems and free range egg production is not straightforward. Whereas egg production costs are incurred and revenue gained over a single production period of approximately one year, agro-forestry returns will occur sporadically over a period of many years hence. Moreover, costs, for example those associated with tree planting, have to set

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

against future revenues from trees many years hence. These issues have been addressed by using the Discounted Cash Flow technique to reduce all future costs and returns to a single equivalent present value. Due to the relative paucity of published costings on agro-forestry, short rotation coppice and cider apple production, a number of assumptions had to be made.

The future profit or loss from any enterprise ultimately depends upon what assumptions are made in the calculations – for example, numbers of eggs produced, income from egg sales, timber values, when the sale of timber occur, future values of fruit, grants available, discount rate used etc. No two free range egg producers will have identical costs of production. A wide range of factors, such as the type and quantity of feed used and variations in point of lay pullet prices will result in variations in input costs. Similarly, there are variations in output prices based upon the number of eggs produced by each hen, the proportion of eggs in each of the weight bands and the value placed on these eggs by the different packers that purchase the eggs from the producer.

However, using a conservative set of assumptions, the calculations showed that integrating free range egg production into tree-based production systems can provide a net financial benefit. This benefit can be £477 per ha, equating to £3,816 per 8 ha, assuming that a two pence per dozen premium can be achieved for eggs produced from this integrated system. If a five pence per dozen premium could be achieved, the net financial benefit would be increased to £1,193 per ha. It has been assumed that a premium is generated as a consequence of the eggs being produced in a tree-based system. This existence and the extent of this premium cannot be guaranteed. Ultimately, the market will decide whether any of the three tree-based systems examined here will attract such a premium, and if so, the extent of that premium.

As with any modelling exercise, the future profit or loss from any enterprise ultimately depends upon what assumptions are made in the calculations. Therefore in order to verify these assumptions and the model, integrated systems should be set-up so that the economics can be calculated using real data. This will lead to more accurate predictions of the economic viability of these integrated systems.

Chapter 8 – Behavioural needs of laying hens and welfare implications of Integrated Production Systems

The behavioural needs of laying hens were reviewed and, where possible, indications of how relatively important these are to the birds and the extent to which they can be provided in an outdoor environment that is part of an integrated production system (IPS), are given. Much of the evidence comes from small scale experimental studies using ‘consumer demand theory’ to determine how much the birds are prepared to work for access to the resource or facility. However, hens are in a more complex environment on farms, where social and other factors in colonies and large commercial flocks may alter their preferences and the relative motivational strength for enrichment components.

The provision of a suitable nest site to enable hens to show normal pre-laying and nesting behaviour is a priority, particularly as oviposition approaches. Hens have been shown to work hard to access a nest. In the wild, hens tend to move away from flockmates and find a secluded place in which to nest on the ground. Thus laying hens would find some of the micro-environments on range in IPS (e.g. agroforestry) attractive as nest sites in which to lay eggs. From a management perspective this is a costly choice, as eggs may be predated, damaged, dirty and need to be manually collected. Thus farmers operating free range systems ensure that hens are familiar with indoor nest boxes and use them before being allowed access to range. The indoor nest sites need to be sufficiently attractive that hens are willing to select them in preference to other sites. Further, social factors can influence nesting, whereby hens that select the more attractive sites (corners) may receive more aggressive pecks and thus stay for a shorter time. Failure to use a nestbox may have no welfare consequences for the hen if the alternative site selected by her meets her behavioural needs. The need for nesting is likely to be easily satisfied with suitable nestboxes provided in house as part of an IPS.

The behavioural need for foraging is strongly expressed; with many studies indicating that thwarting it contributes to the development of feather-pecking and cannibalism. Most forms of IPS (including organic, agro-forestry and orchard systems) will afford the hens significantly greater opportunities for foraging on range than indoor systems or even than in relatively unenriched free range systems.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Poultry have been shown to derive nutrition from and to consume a range of plant and invertebrate material. The potential value for welfare extends far beyond this potential nutrient value of eating crops on range. As indicated above, foraging is not only a behavioural need but also a priority for hens and thus the freedom of choice to forage over a wide area and to be able to select and ingest a variety of materials will fully satisfy this behaviour. It is even possible that the positive feedback (from achieving the ‘goal’ of feed ingestion) could influence the motivational state of the hens and lead to a feeling of contentment and satisfaction. Furthermore, in welfare terms, the health of the birds is also likely to benefit directly from ingestion of a variety of fresh, raw ingredients and also indirectly from reduced stress (freedom to express normal, natural behaviour). Foraging in addition gives hens the opportunity to supplement and balance their individual nutritional needs and could benefit their physiology and productivity. Fully satisfying the behavioural need to forage might reduce the incidence of feather pecking. By providing an enriched and varied environment with the probability of birds being able to forage and eat numerous species of plants and insects and to access several foraging substrates, an IPS is likely to fully satisfy the behavioural need of hens for foraging.

Hens show a strong motivation for perching, particularly at night but also during the day when they could make use of trees, shrubs, branches and other natural perches that might be provided in IPS. The majority of IPS will provide a wide choice of potential perches for hens and good visibility for accessing them, thus meeting the behavioural needs of the birds for perching. It is possible that the flexible nature of living branches and the potential cushioning of leaves could reduce the shock of landing to perch and thereby reduce the incidence of keel fractures in hens perching outdoors in IPS. Conversely flying up and down from comparatively high perches might lead to traumatic accidents. From a practical perspective it could be a problem getting hens in at night if they have chosen to roost in trees at dusk (where they would not necessarily be safe from predators). However, in practise this does not appear to be a problem (feedback from stakeholders at workshop). It is necessary that sufficient perches are provided indoors in IPS where hens are shut in at night in order to satisfy this behavioural need.

Dustbathing is a behavioural need and is most fully expressed when dry particulate matter such as peat, sand or dust is available to the hens. In well-managed IPS, hens will have continual access to a variety of substrates suitable for dustbathing. The welfare benefits of this include satisfying their behavioural need for dustbathing, possible removal of ectoparasites by other birds and a possible reduction in damaging feather-pecking activity within the flock. Particularly in IPS which provide roofed areas outdoors or covered verandas with litter and boxes of sand, peat or other particulate material, hens will have the opportunity to dustbathe even in wet weather. Birds in IPS are more likely to show complete dustbathing bouts with all elements of the behaviour and thus their needs will be better satisfied than in other systems where sham – or partial - dustbathing is the only possibility. Indoor littered areas need to be kept dry and friable to enable dustbathing to occur but doing so has the extra benefits of encouraging foraging behaviour and reducing levels of ammonia and other noxious gases. An IPS would need to be designed to ensure that suitable materials were kept dry in wet weather (e.g. by providing roofed areas on range and dry, friable litter indoors) in order to satisfy the need to dustbathe.

Hens have been shown to need considerably more space than is provided in the conventional cage, and this would be provided in IPS, together with freedom of choice of environment. Free range birds not only have greater space but also the opportunity to escape from or to choose to be near specific birds in the flock, with the potential for reduced (social) stress and better welfare. IPS with a variety of habitats offer even more scope for hens to escape from bullies but whether or not they do has not been reported. IPS also will offer birds three dimensional space outdoors and in many cases indoors as well.

Damaging pecking to the feathers or flesh of other birds are abnormal behaviours of great concern for the welfare and performance of laying hens. Their presence is indicative that the needs of the hens are not being met. Despite decades of research, the aetiology of feather pecking and cannibalism has yet to be fully understood. Research to date indicates that compared with other husbandry systems hens in IPS are at lower risk of feather pecking and cannibalism provided that facilities are designed and managed to meet the behavioural needs of the hens by maintaining a variety of habitats and in particular to provide a range of friable substrates for foraging and dustbathing, perches and nestboxes. It is likely to be important that chicks are reared in similar, enriched environments prior to lay and that

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

group sizes are either small or, possibly, large. Certain genotypes could be more adaptable to the system than others.

In conclusion, the majority of IPS would enable hens to express a full behavioural repertoire that might not be possible in most other systems of husbandry. The freedom to express normal behaviour is one of the ‘5 freedoms’ underpinning codes of welfare in the UK.

Chapter 9 – Stakeholders workshop and identification of key technical issues associated with establishing IPS

A workshop was organised towards the end of the project to disseminate and discuss the findings of all sections of the project with stakeholders. The aim of the workshop was to receive feedback on the results and discuss the potential impact of IPS for free range egg production on welfare, egg quality and the environment and to identify key technical issues associated with IPS systems.

The workshop was held on the 8th of April 2008 at the Hilton Hotel in Coventry. The programme is shown in Table 9.1. The workshop was attended by 38 stakeholders (excluding speakers and chairperson). The delegates represented free range egg producers, agroforestry specialists, biodiversity specialists, tree management specialists, welfare groups, funding charity, organic organisations, large egg producers and packers organisations, poultry equipment companies, poultry feed companies, research organisations and the press.

The discussion focussed on the definition of integration and several technical issues associated with the establishment of IPS systems were identified and discussed.

The meaning of ‘integration was discussed and some suggested that “integration” should be substituted by “sustainability”, so that an integrated system was also sustaining the needs of people (producers and consumers), the environment and animals. Others favoured a definition that embraced “a synergy of two or more different production systems leading to (preferably) economic advantage”. This group suggested that IPS could never be sustainable per se, in that it could never provide sufficient food for the world’s growing population. However, it could provide sound systems that are beneficial for the (local) environment, laying hens and producers. Integration can be achieved at different levels, such as the farm level, but also at a regional level (local farmers working together), or even at a national level.

The extent and degree of integration that should operate was also debated. Some felt that tree based production system should contain a range of different tree species, carefully managed for maximum environmental and amenity benefit (i.e. agroforestry systems). Others had the view that the trees should be present on the ranging area primarily to encourage better ranging of the outdoor area by the birds. This highlighted the fact that planting trees on the range is not agroforesty as such and agroforestry systems require a much more integrated approach, where a producer would need to have knowledge of forestry, arable crops and livestock in order to maximise benefits.

Integration of chickens into existing woodland or any other outdoor ecosystem can be beneficial for the welfare of the birds, but it could also have consequences for local biodiversity, especially for rare or endangered species.

Economic constraints were identified such as that the success, or failure, of IPS is dependent upon the stance taken by the multiple retail sector, acting as an agent for the consumer. Currently, retailers are interested in agricultural systems that add value to products. The dependency on a small price premium makes the system vulnerable. If this premium was to be cut (or even remain at the same level whilst the basic egg price increases significantly, thus devaluing the value of the premium) there could be a severe limit on the numbers of egg producers wishing to embark on IPS. Furthermore, whilst consumers may be prepared to pay an additional amount for eggs produced in Ash woodland, they may be less willing to pay the same premium for eggs from short rotation coppice (SRC) plantations or orchards. The success of such products would rely on good marketing schemes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Many tenancy agreements preclude the tenant from undertaking long-term activities on the land, such as the planting of trees. This could hinder free range egg producers to undertake new tree planting.

If the availability of grants designed to assist with offsetting the initial costs of planting trees and establishing the woodland were significantly reduced, or disappear altogether, there would be much less of an incentive for farmers to take the long term commitment of planting woodland trees.

Mortality of birds in integrated systems can potentially be higher as the presence of trees on the ranging area provides a natural harbourage for predators. Additional fencing may be required to keep out some of the ground-based predators, but it would not be possible to keep out aerial predators. Likewise, protection may be necessary to protect young saplings from the chickens, rabbits or deer, resulting in additional costs.

The management of a fully integrated production system may be more technically demanding and may therefore require the employment of (additional) skilled staff to ensure that all aspects of the system operate correctly.

There could be some physical constraints to the uptake of IPS. In SRC, the management of the birds ranging amongst the densely-planted SRC stools could be problematic. In addition, site access for the SRC harvesting equipment needs to be possible.

The siting of free range laying houses within established tree areas would need careful attention. Nitrogen “hotspots” might form immediately adjacent to the hen house pop holes. In order to prevent this, the soil structure would need to be carefully examined before siting of static laying houses within established tree areas. Rotation is also important to prevent that the land will become “fowl sick” with a build up of a disease (and/or parasites) reservoir within the soil. It is presently unknown how often poultry on woodland would need to be rotated in order to prevent the build-up of high levels of nutrients. Trees can absorb a share of the nutrients deposited by the chickens, so rotation may need to be less often in comparison with conventional free range systems.

Soil type may also be an issue in some locations. Well-drained, light, fast-draining soils are often ideal for free range egg production, but these soil types may not be compatible with the needs of some tree species.

Problems can exist with insufficient access for egg collection and feed delivery vehicles if laying units were sited amongst existing tree areas. If mobile egg laying houses are used, these would need to be moved around the outdoor area at regular intervals. If the range area is covered with trees, this could lead to problems, particularly if the spacing of the trees was less than the width of the mobile laying house. If a new tree based production system was being planned, it would be possible to provide a larger spacing between the rows of trees or a use a suitable design (e.g. trees planted in groups) to allow larger mobile units to be moved around the grazing area.

Despite existing knowledge on organic, agroforestry and free range poultry production only a few integrated systems exist and more actual systems are needed to be able to answer practical issues such as management an economics.

Conclusion

The findings described in this report illustrate that that integrated systems with free range poultry production have a lot of potential. The attendance and discussions at the workshop showed that there is a lot of interest in these types of integrated systems. There is also a lot of existing knowledge on organic production and agroforestry on the one hand and free range poultry production on the other hand, this knowledge needs to be brought together. Only a few integrated systems are in existence and until more actual systems are set-up, trialled and studied the answers to a number of practical issues (such as management, effect on the environment, animal welfare and economics) will remain largely unclear.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

Recommendations for further research:

As the poultry sector consists of highly specialised enterprises, it would be useful to investigate the economic and environmental benefits of regional forms of integrated farming and also what is needed to stimulate such integration.

Practical research into the use of traditional-style small movable houses or folds or small fixed houses with several paddocks through which the hens could be rotated is necessary to assess the feasibility of such systems.

Study integrated organic farms to assess animal welfare, practical management, economics, environmental impact, food safety aspects and the impact on biodiversity.

Set-up and study integrated poultry systems within new forest plantations, traditional orchards and short rotation coppice plantations. Aspects to study: animal welfare, practical management, economics, environmental impact, food safety aspects and the impact on biodiversity.

Close observations of hens foraging in an outdoor area would provide knowledge on how much and which types of additional feed will be taken from the range area. In addition, the effect of foraging behaviour on the ecology of the outdoor area should be assessed (effect on plant and invertebrate species).

More research into the effect of outdoor climates on the energy requirements laying hens is needed.

Study nutrient balances on integrated organic farms to assess environmental impact.

Set up and study nutrient balances on integrated poultry systems within new forest plantations, traditional orchards and short rotation coppice plantations to assess actual environmental impact.

Study practical integrated poultry systems for actual water usage (for consumption, washing and irrigation) and see if there are options for recycling or alternative sources.

Set up and study economic aspects of integrated poultry systems within new forest plantations, traditional orchards and short rotation coppice plantations to assess actual economic viability.

Observations on laying hens in integrated systems can give a better idea if and how the hens will use the outdoor space and the features in that space and how this may affect their welfare.

Note: For ease of reading and space saving, references are not included in this report. The full list of references can be found in the full project report.

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

None yet.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 21

general enquiries on this form should be made...

Documents