National Organic Standards Board

Livestock Committee

Proposed Recommendation

Species-Specific Guidance

October 14, 2011

Introduction

Animal welfare is a basic principle of organic production. As the number of farmers in 

the United States decline, consumer concerns for farm animal care have increased. 

There are numerous animal welfare organizations and methods to verify animal welfare. 

The Livestock Committee wishes to provide guidance that will assist producers and 

certifiers to improve and assess welfare on farm and assure consumers that animals 

are well cared for and that the organic community is leading with a focus on continuous 

improvement.

Background

The United States Congress anticipated the need to elaborate livestock standards in 

1990 when the Organic Foods Production Act was passed. The Humane Society of the 

United States played a central role in advocating for the passage of OFPA. It was 

understood at that time that animal welfare standards would eventually be developed. 

Several animal health and welfare practices were described in the Preamble 

accompanying the NOP Final Rule. An organic livestock farmer must conform to the 

following list according to the Description of Regulations:

 select species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific 

conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites

 provide a feed ration including vitamins, minerals, protein, and/or amino acids, 

energy sources, and, for ruminants, fiber.

 establish appropriate housing, pasture conditions and sanitation practices to 

minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites.

 maintain animals under conditions which provide for exercise, freedom of 

movement, and reduction of stress appropriate to the species.

 conduct all physical alterations to promote the animals’ welfare and in a manner 

that minimizes stress and pain.

 establish and maintain livestock living conditions which accommodate the health 

and natural behavior of the livestock.

 provide access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, and 

direct sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of production, the climate, and the 

environment.

 provide shelter designed to allow for the natural maintenance, comfort level, and 

opportunity to exercise appropriate to the species
Page 2 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

The NOSB was further tasked in the Preamble with creating species specific guidelines. 

These were to include specifics on temporary confinement, space requirements, and 

management guidance. The current Livestock Committee has worked with Temple 

Grandin, the Livestock Issues Working Group, and other individuals with specific areas 

of expertise toward completing this task. The Livestock Committee feels that outcome 

based standards best measure the health and well-being of livestock and will continue 

to work on those documents. The guidance documents are intended to help the 

program, certifiers and producers to understand and meet the regulations. These 

documents were written to enhance the regulations, clarify the expectation for animal 

welfare on organic farms and minimize the need for increased regulations.

Committee Recommendation

The Livestock Committee intends to develop species specific guidance for all species. 

To date, the Livestock Committee has worked with members of the organic community, 

certifiers, animal welfare specialists, and previous NOSB members to develop the 

following three species specific guidance pieces:

I. Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Bison

II. Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Poultry Operations

III. Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Sheep Operations

Committee Vote

Motion: Wendy Fulwider Second: Mac Stone

Yes: 4 No: 2 Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0
Page 3 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Bison

Introduction

The North American Bison has undergone little modification through domestication or 

selective breeding. Consequently, it is still possible to compare the characteristics of 

today’s bison to what was historically roaming the North American continent to identify 

the similarities to what is called typical for this animal.

Because bison remain largely undomesticated, the optimal nutritional requirements, and 

body conditioning will vary significantly on a seasonal basis. In addition, humane 

handling procedures are crucial to minimizing stress on the animals. We attempt to 

address those factors in this guidance document. 

Bison Nutrition

General Guidance

Because bison are grazing ruminants with a four chambered stomach for feed digestion, 

it is easy to assume that the feed requirements for bison are similar to cattle. However, 

there are some significant differences in the species that require an understanding of 

the nutritional needs of bison.

A bison’s rumen is very structured, ensuring that forage based feeds are retained for 

long periods of time. Bison retain feed in their digestive system longer than cattle. 

Longer feed retention 

means that bison have 

more time to digest the 

fiber in feeds such as 

sedges and grasses. 

However, when 

consuming alfalfa or 

alfalfa brome hay, there 

is virtually no difference 

in digestibility between 

bison and cattle because the fiber level in alfalfa based forages is typically lower than in 

grasses and sedges. Forages with lower fiber levels do not need to stay in the digestive 

tract as long to be fully digested as compared to forages with higher fiber levels.

Bison seem to naturally self-limit intake with less dry matter consumed per unit body 

weight than bovines. Bison also consume feed in several small meals throughout the 

day vs. fewer large meals observed in bovines. This habit maintains a more uniform 

ruminal environment and may contribute to more complete nutrient extraction by bison 

vs. bovines. 

Protein needs to be treated entirely different in bison diets than bovines. Bison recycle 

nitrogen efficiently, an evolutionary response to very low protein diets from mature 

Comparison of total tract retention time and dry matter 

digestibility of forages between bison and cattle
Page 4 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

grasses during several months of the year. This recycling may cause high blood urea 

nitrogen levels from modestly high protein levels in the diet. In some areas, many feeds 

contain protein levels higher than many bison producers consider optimum making it 

difficult to formulate diets. Eleven or 12% protein is considered the maximum from 

anecdotal experience.

Animals given too high protein and feed have produced rapid growth and resulted in 

horn, hoof and kidney problems that lead to other problems. The over-feeding of highnutrient feed may lead to lethargic animals that have trouble moving about, and could 

lead to calving problems. A cow needs nine percent protein just to maintain her 

condition over winter and try to develop her calf. Less than that amount of protein or 

severe winter could result in pulling her down physically, and thus would take more time 

to bring her back into condition prior to breeding. The result is a late calf or no calf the 

following year. 

Forage samples alone would indicate that the forage or feed is sufficient for the bison’s 

need, but examining the water could show that a critical element like copper is tied up 

by iron and manganese and thus causes a deficiency. Molybdenum, sulfate, nitrate, 

calcium and sodium can also cause mineral deficiencies due to interference. 

Many producers experiencing cold winter climates realize that they need to supplement 

with more of an energy supplement to insure that their animals have the energy to eat 

and be active. 

Seasonal Considerations

Bison have a strong anabolic/catabolic cycle based on day length (anabolic means build 

up – catabolic means to tear down). All wildlife species in the northern hemispheres 

require this cycle for survival. It relies on the animal’s ability to have a strong anabolic 

cycle in spring, summer, and early fall and survive nutritional deficiencies in the winter 

with the nutrients they stored during the anabolic cycle. 

Summer grazing usually meets most bison nutrient requirements so long as carrying 

capacity is not exceeded and minerals are supplemented. If pasture quality and quantity 

is low, supplementation with hay or grains may be necessary.

It is not uncommon for bison older than 18 months of age to lose 10 to 15% of prewinter body weight from December to April. Dry matter intake during the winter period 

tends to range from 1.4 to 1.8% of body weight depending on forage quality, fiber levels, 

metabolism and total tract retention time. In the spring to autumn, dry matter intake can 

be expected to range from 2.0 to 3.0% of body weight.

Nutrition and Bison Reproduction

Heifers/Cows

Bison typically mature at two years of age for both male and females. Some yearling 

females will breed at one year of age and give birth to a calf as they turn two years of 

age, but this is an exception. The nutrient intake during the pregnancy of first and 

second calf heifers is significantly higher than a mature cow, especially during the third 
Page 5 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

trimester. These young females must have sufficient nutrient intake to finish growing 

their own body in addition to finish growing a calf. 

This nutrient demand will continue after the calf is born and taper off some as the calf 

forages on grass. Her ability to seek sufficient nutrition to grow and come into cycle 

during the normal breeding period is dependent on the quality of food available to her. 

The result is that calves are then born 45 days following the spring equinox. Normal 

practice is to breed females at age two with bulls that are two years or older. If a heifer 

does not attain sufficient size, it may be difficult for her to stand up under the weight of 

large mature bulls. A key concern for first and second calf heifers is to grow them to 

sufficient size prior to being bred to insure pregnancy each year of their lives.

A critical issue affecting pregnancy is the ability of a female to flush on highly nutrient 

forage or feed. Spring time usually brings forth lush vegetation that is high in nutrients. 

Having this available to females that have recovered from previous pregnancies will 

help insure a high calving percentage the following year. 

Drought and high temperatures prior to and during the normal rut (breeding) period can 

have a negative effect on pregnancy rate. Often times, a fall green up will cause a flush 

in the cows that did not breed or take during the normal rut period, and the result is a 

late calf the next year. 

Bulls

A bison male at 18 months of age will begin a lifetime cycle of winter weight loss 

followed by spring/summer weight gain. Mature bulls will also lose weight during the 

breeding season, followed by a final period in the fall to allow for weight gain. 

Much like mature females, bison bulls can lose 10 to 15% of their pre-winter body 

weight from December to April due to a slower metabolism. During this winter period, 

dry matter intake will range from 1.4 to 1.8% of body weight. If grass hay diets are 

supplemented with grain, winter weight loss will be minimized, but compensatory gains 

in the spring and summer will not be as great. 

During the breeding season, bulls can potentially lose 10 to 15% of body weight again. 

Therefore, it may be necessary to provide extra energy through supplementation to 

prevent too much loss of body condition. Excessive loss of body weight during breeding 

makes it more difficult for the bulls to regain a proper weight status prior to the start of 

the wintering period. It is important to ensure the bulls are of adequate body condition 

prior to the winter and breeding seasons. Much like the cows, thin or poorly conditioned 

bulls entering the winter will still lose weight and be more expensive to feed.
Page 6 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Body Condition and Scoring

As mentioned above, the idea body condition for bison is based upon the attributes that 

the animal carries in nature. Survivability and low management requirements are 

important characteristics. 

Even though bison in commercial organic operations are selected for the meat 

marketplace, it is important that the commercial characteristics (size, yield, etc.) are not 

accomplished at the expense of sacrificing the unique genetic characteristics that allow 

bison to survive in a wide variety of conditions, and to calve easily. In other words, bison 

producers must avoid an attitude of ―screw the hump, and build the rump.‖ 

Bison characteristics are usually developed and identifiable by the time they mature at 

two years of age. The characteristics become more pronounced with age such as the 

horn growth and overall size. Calves start exhibiting typical bison characteristics late in 

their first year of life. The more angular and triangle shaped heads, greater horn bases 

and growth are found on the males, while the females have smaller horns both in 

diameter and length. 

Female bison heads are longer and narrower than the male. Female horns are typically 

more curved and possess less circumference and more curvature, with the horn tips 

curved up and inward and often times pointing at each other. 

Typical bison characteristics of the Plains bison, (Bison, bison, bison), include long hair 

under the chin forming a large rounded beard, long hair on the front legs forming 

leggings, and a raised pelage of usually longer and lighter colored hair located over the 

front shoulder. The pelage extends along the back to just behind the front shoulders. 

The raised hump is a distinguishing characteristic as well. Calves should exhibit the 

development of the hump as they approach one year of age. 

Wood bison, normally associated with the Canadian provinces, (Bison, bison 

athabascae) tend to have less developed beard, leggings, and an incomplete pelage. 

The structure of the Wood bison is taller, more moose-like in form. The incomplete 

development of the beard, leggings and raised pelage, and the body higher off the 

ground is an advantage for Wood bison, who have to endure the deep snow and ice 

conditions found in Canada. 

The head and neck projection of the Plains bison favored grazing of the plains in more 

mild climates. The Plains bison’s highest point is typically found by extending a line 

straight up the center of the leg to a point on the back. The highest point on a Wood 

bison is also the hump, but it is typically projected as much as one foot forward from a 

line extending up the middle of the front leg to a point on the back. 
Page 7 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Bulls that have to compete within a herd for breeding rights need to have size, muscling 

and strength less they be overpowered by a bull having more strength. Bison strength 

is a result of a wide and deep body conformation. The lack of muscle development may 

be attributed in part to nutrition and exercise. 

Female bison need to have sufficient ―spring of rib‖ (width and depth to provide for room 

for an unborn calf to grow, develop and be born). Pelvic structure is important. 

Females possessing a narrow pelvis or a serious drop in the top line in the last foot 

before the tail could very easily develop calving problems due to restriction of the 

birthing canal. A high tail head can also produce a problem, due to narrowing of the 

birthing canal to compensate for the projected high tail head. 

Bison are seldom caught in a squeeze to allow a ―hands on‖ body condition scoring 

system so most of the criteria used to assess the animal are visual clues. 

A body condition score (BCS) of 1 indicates that the animal is very thin. A BCS of 5 

indicates that it is very fat. Alberta Agriculture has developed a comprehensive guide for 

body conditioning scoring for bison. The table below is excerpted from that guide. The 

entire guide is available at: 

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9622/$FILE/bcsbison.pdf. The guide can also be obtained through the National Bison Association at 

www.bisoncentral.com.
Page 8 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Source: Alberta Agriculture, "What's the Score; Bison"

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9622/$FILE/bcs-bison.pdf
Page 9 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Optimal body condition for bison varies with the seasonal weight fluctuations of the 

animals.

For example, the weight of 

mature females will vary up to 

15% throughout the year. The 

animals’ typically achieve top 

weight in the late fall as they 

graze to store fat to provide 

energy for both mother and 

unborn calf to overwinter. The 

females will lose up to 100 lbs.

from December to April, when 

calving season typically 

begins. 

The chart at right illustrates a typical weight change for mature female bison.

Most people aim to have their bison fat in the fall so that they do not require as much 

feed over the winter. Most experienced producers aim to have their bison lean in the 

spring because excess fat may lead to calving problems. 

By the beginning of breeding season, the cows should be back to a moderate to good 

body condition to ensure optimal conceptions rates.

The best indication of overall 

bison health and condition 

throughout the season is the 

hair. Healthy animals have a 

good hair coat that is full of life 

that may give a producer an 

indication of proper nutrition. 

Bison Health

Bison are not cattle. Differences include the age to breeding (2.5 years), nutritional 

requirements over winter, nutrition for slaughter animals, social structure, and longevity. 

Bison have a relatively good resistance to many pathogens that affect cattle. 

The two primary factors affecting the health of bison are environmental/nutritional 

considerations, and chronic stress. Paying attention to these two areas is critical 

Source: USDA NRCS Grazing Lands Technology Institute
Page 10 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

because typical livestock therapeutic drugs are not as effective in bison as in cattle. In 

fact, one saying in the bison business is: ―A sick bison is a dead bison.‖ 

Because bison still carry the prey/predator instinct, they will mask a sickness until 

seriously ill (why let the predators know your sick?). At that point, antibiotics and other 

therapeutic remedies will have only limited efficacy. In addition, the added stress 

induced to administer the treatment is so great that it often pushes the animal over the 

edge. This stress can be effectively eliminated by using one of the modern air-powered 

dart guns. 

Poor environmental and feed conditions will weaken the animal’s natural immune 

system, and increase susceptibility for disease. A successful organic systems plan for 

bison must focus heavily on the ecosystem and developing systems that will provide 

optimal nourishment for the bison while sustaining the natural environment. 

Chronic stress will have the same effect as more environmental and nutritional 

conditions. Bison can readily handle the acute stress that comes from a short-term 

perceived threat. That is the ―fight or flight‖ response to a stimulus. They can fight or 

run from grizzlies or humans and when all threats are passed, go back to grazing and 

the adrenalin and steroid levels return to normal. However, they react poorly to 

extended or continuous (chronic) stress. That stress can be minimized through humane 

handling procedures (discussed later).

Pathogens

Bison have a strong resistance to many pathogens prevalent in other livestock. Much of 

this resistance is the result of the ―bottleneck‖ that the species passed through roughly 

110 years ago. 

In the 1850’s, the bison population was estimated to be somewhere between 30 and 60 

million animals. The domesticated livestock species introduced to the West allowed the 

pathogens these species carried to adapt to these new and different species. BVD, 

IBR, PI3, BRSV, TB, Johne’s, mycoplasma, leptosirosis, clostridia, Staph, Strep, 

internal and external parasites and probably pasteurella found a plethora of new ways 

to reproduce and spread their DNA (genes) to the demise of these native ungulates. 

In the late 1800’s, bison were driven to the brink of extinction because of market 

hunting, war tactics against the Native Americans, and because of the introduced 

pathogens. Fewer than 1,000 bison survived this onslaught. The surviving animals were 

those bison that had a genetic resistance to these new pathogens. Testing of wild 

ungulate species has been undertaken for the past several decades across the western 

states. All wild populations show exposure to these introduced pathogens without large 

detrimental effects - yet these same pathogens remain of utmost importance to the 

livestock industry. 

Today, the primary diseases affecting bison are bovine TB, brucellosis, Bovine Virus 

Diarrhea (BVD) and Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF). 
Page 11 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Bovine Tuberculosis (TB)

Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) is a slow, progressive bacterial disease that is difficult to 

diagnose in the early stages. As the disease progresses, animals may exhibit 

emaciation, lethargy, weakness, anorexia, low-grade fever, and pneumonia with a 

chronic, moist cough. It usually is transmitted through contact with respiratory 

secretions from an infected animal. TB is a zoonotic disease meaning it can be 

transferred to other species, including man. 

Free-ranging and privately owned bison in the U.S. have been free of TB for several 

decades. TB testing in bison has proven to be effective in diagnosing infected animals. 

If you are buying animals to start or augment your herd, have the bison over 12 months 

old tested. Many states are TB free and testing is not required, but as a precautionary 

measure require TB testing before purchasing. 

Brucellosis 

Brucellosis is a disease that has strong regulatory and economic guidelines for all 

states. A majority of states have been brucellosis free in livestock for many years. 

The notable exceptions are the states that border Yellowstone National Park. State and 

federal regulatory agencies consider the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) an area of 

interaction with these wildlife species the last nidus of infection in the U.S. Brucellosis 

was introduced into bison and elk in the early 20th century. Once the organism was in 

these wildlife populations it became problematic to control. To this day 20 to 40 percent 

of the bison and elk in the GYA have been proven to harbor titers from exposure or 

infection. 

Abortion is the most obvious indication of the disease in a herd. Brucellosis is a disease 

not spread from cow to cow, but from a birthing or abortive event where the abortive 

event including the aborted, stillborn, newborn calf and afterbirth are exposed to other 

animals. There are several tests to determine if bison are infected or exposed. These 

tests are, for the most part, accurate. There are cross-reactions with other organisms 

that can create suspects in your bison. Regulators are working on being able to identify 

these other organisms and incorporate them in the battery of tests for brucellosis 

―suspect‖ bison.

Calfhood vaccination for brucellosis (Bang’s vaccinations) is not mandatory in many 

states. The vaccine (RB51) is safe for use in bison. It is not as protective against 

abortion or infection as in cattle, but does offer limited protection. Brucellosis is also a 

zoonotic disease and can be transmitted to other species including man. 

Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD)

Anywhere in the world there are cattle, there is Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD). This 

worldwide distribution makes this disease important to cattle producers. BVD is a 

complicated disease to discuss as it can result in a wide variety of disease problems 

from very mild to very severe. BVD can be one of the most devastating diseases cattle 

encounter and one of the hardest to get rid of when it attacks a herd. The viruses that 
Page 12 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

cause BVD have been grouped into two genotypes, Type I and Type II. The disease 

syndrome caused by the two genotypes is basically the same. However, disease 

caused by Type II infection is often more severe in cattle. The various disease 

syndromes noted in cattle infected with BVD virus are mainly attributed to the age of the 

animal when it became infected and to certain characteristics of the virus involved. 

As mentioned earlier, bison appear to be resistant to clinical manifestations from 

exposure. BVD has been incriminated in losses of bison placed in feedlots in 

conjunction with cattle. Vaccinations for BVD Type I and Type II are effective in 

preventing the disease in bison. I have never seen the disease in free-ranging or any 

captive herd. 

Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) 

Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) is a generally fatal disease of cattle, bison, true 

buffalo species, and deer. It is caused by viruses belonging to the Herpesvirus family. 

MCF occurs worldwide and is a serious problem, particularly for bison in the United 

States and Canada.

MCF in bison is caused by a virus called ovine herpesvirus-2 (OvHV-2). Most infections 

are characterized by depression, separation from the rest of the herd, loss of appetite, 

and in many bloody diarrhea. Unlike MCF in cattle, discharge from the eyes and nasal 

passages of affected bison is minimal. Animals develop a fever and may pass bloody 

urine. The clinical course is generally 1-7 days. Most animals die within three days of 

developing clinical signs. There is no effective treatment for MCF in bison. Bison older 

than six months, particularly if stressed by bad weather, transportation and handling are 

the most susceptible to infection. Large outbreaks occur in feedlots, where stress due 

to crowding is likely. 

Studies of field outbreaks strongly suggest that sheep infected with OvHV-2 are the 

principal source of MCF outbreaks in bison. A strong association between outbreaks in 

bison and recent exposure to sheep has been documented repeatedly since 1929. In 

some outbreaks, however, no sheep were in the vicinity immediately prior to the first 

case being identified. There is no evidence that transmission occurs horizontally from 

one bison to another. Currently there is a study supported in part by the National Bison 

Association to establish whether bison-to-bison transmission is a factor in natural 

outbreaks.

Internal parasites

It is necessary for special attention to be given to managing internal parasites on 

organic bison operations. Each parasite’s life cycle is different and many cycles can be 

interrupted by changes in management. Sometimes small changes in the way the 

producer pastures or feed bison may slow or stop the future spread of the parasite 

based on the available facilities. 
Page 13 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

If breed selection, pasture management, supplements and allowed treatments are not 

successful in keeping sheep parasite loads from impacting well-being, individual 

animals need to be given conventional treatments. 

External Parasites

Ticks and lice have been identified on bison and could potentially be detrimental. Bison 

have a thicker hair coat and identification of lice in bison is rare. Ticks have been found 

on bison around the tail head. In many areas where elk and deer are infested with ticks, 

bison sharing the same habitat are tick free. 

Physical Alterations

Consistent with the low-management approach to bison, bulls are not castrated. Nor is 

there any need to dehorn bison. 

Bison Handling

The primary objective of any handling program is to reduce stress on the animals while 

assuring the safety of handlers. A bison organic systems plan must discuss how the 

producer will handle or move bison; how they manage them on range; how they confine 

and feed them; as well as how they are worked in the corral.

It is important to recognize that bison are an extremely social animal with strong 

matriarchal divisions. Establishing a herd with the correct social balance, and the ability 

for animals to express their natural behavior, is the first step in reducing stress. 

Bison have a very intact social structure that has definite spacing requirements between 

individuals and family groups. This spacing requirement may be different for different 

sexes and ages of animals throughout various times of the year. Herds that generate 

their own replacements from offspring will develop family groups between related 

individuals. 

The pasture environment includes the size and shape of the pastures, forage quantities 

and qualities available, watering sources, spatial requirements for individuals and/or 

family groups as well as a myriad of other considerations. Social stress will become a 

factor if pasture size is too small to give adequate spatial requirements for individuals or 

family groups for large herds. This causes discontent and disharmony within the herd, 

causing animals to breach fences and become difficult to handle. 

Bulls will separate from the herds after breeding and only young bulls are allowed to 

stay with the cows and calves. Post-breeding, the bulls have been nutritionally and 

physically stressed and should be checked for wounds or other forms of trauma. 
Page 14 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Corrals

Corrals and working facilities should be designed to minimize the stress on animals, and 

to facilitate the ability of handlers to gently apply and release pressure. The amount of 

space allowed for each individual animal depends upon the amount of time that the 

animal will be maintained in the corral. When animals are introduced into a new herd, is 

advisable to house those animals in the corral for several days so that the animal s can 

adjust to their new environment. The producer should allow a minimum of 250 sq. /ft. 

(preferably 400 sq. ft.) per adult animal in this type of confined situation. 

Never place just one bison in a corral or pasture for extended periods. Because they 

are extremely social, they will experience chronic stress when isolated from the herd. 

When handling bison, the producer should strive for a gentle ―dance‖ of applying 

pressure, the animal moving away from the pressure and then releasing the pressure. 

The fact that we move into an animal’s flight zone giving it pressure and when it moves 

away from us, we release the pressure by either not moving with them in the same 

direction (by stopping) or we move in a different direction. This sets up a positive cause 

and effect relationship – that is we get into their flight zone putting pressure on them, 

and they, by moving away from us get released from the pressure. 

The National Bison Association—in cooperation with Dr. Temple Grandin of Colorado 

State University—developed has developed a bison welfare audit form to measure 

several areas of working bison in the corral. That audit form is included as an 

attachment at the end of the Guidance Document. 

Inside housing is rarely used for bison. These animals are adapted for extreme weather 

conditions in the outdoors. Bringing the animals inside actually increases stress.

Calving

Human interaction with calving bison should be held to a minimum. Because bison have 

not been bred to produce calves larger than nature intended, cows rarely need 

assistance in calving. 

One of the most important things a bison cow needs at calving time is peace. There is 

no fixed rule regarding amount of space a calving bison cow needs. However, the 

producer can judge that space by monitoring the cow’s behavior: If she changes her 

behavior with the producer’s presence (such as standing up, running off or her labor 

arrests) she needs more space. If the other bison pester her and she cannot get away, 

then she needs more room. 

Nature also needs the cow to be leaner to give birth effectively. A fat bison cow will 

have trouble giving birth, and the calf from such a cow will likely be too big and too hard 

to birth. 
Page 15 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Reference Material

Alberta Agriculture (2007) “What’s the Score: Bison” Body Condition Scoring Guide. 

Anderson, Vern PhD (____) “perspectives on Nutritional Management of Bison Bulls 

Fed for Meat, Carrington Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University. 

Feist, Murray (2000)”Basic Nutrition of Bison,” Saskatchewan Agriculture, Agriculture 

Knowledge Centre, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CA

National Bison Association (2010) The Bison Producers’ Handbook, A Complete Guide 

to Production and Marketing, Westminster, CO.

USDA NRCS (2006) “Bison Body Condition.” Grazing Lands Technology Institute, Fort 

Worth, TX
Page 16 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Poultry Operations

Introduction

The following is provided to aid in assessment of whether or not the requirements of § 

205.238-241 are being met sufficiently to demonstrate adequate animal welfare 

conditions on organic poultry operations. In addition, this document provides further 

guidance to producers for improving poultry welfare. The internationally recognized 

―five freedoms‖ (freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and 

distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and 

disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behavior) promulgated by the Farm 

Animal Welfare Council are a useful framework for considering animal welfare.

Nutritional requirements

Poultry must be fed a wholesome diet that meets their nutritional needs and promotes 

optimal health. Feed should be formulated to meet or exceed the National Research 

Council’s Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, and adjusted with bird age and stage of 

production. Feed and water should be palatable and free from contaminants. Unless 

using a commercially prepared complete feed, laying hens must have access to a 

course calcium source, such as ground limestone. Water should be fresh, potable, and 

clean. Feed and water delivery systems should be checked daily and kept clean and in 

good working order. Birds must be provided with feed on a daily basis and water should 

be available continuously, with the rare exception of withholding for medical treatment 

under the advice of a veterinarian.

There should be enough feed and water space to prevent competition between birds. In 

double sided liner feed track, there should be at least 2 inches of feed space per bird, 

and 4 inches per bird for single sided feed track. Circular feeders should provide at 

least 1.5 inches of feeding space per bird.

Adjust the height of drinkers for easy access at each bird age and so that droppings do 

not fall into the water supply. There should be at least 1 bell-type drinker for every 100 

hens and 1 nipple drinker per 12 hens. In small flocks, there should be a minimum of 

two drinkers.

Physical Alterations

Management methods should be implemented to reduce feather pecking and 

cannibalism (see ―preventing injurious pecking‖ below). If these management strategies 

fail, therapeutic beak trimming using the infrared laser method should be considered for 

subsequent flocks. This amputation must be performed on chicks no later than 10 days 

of age, and is commonly carried out at the hatchery. 

While not pain-free, infrared laser beak trimming is superior to the conventional hot 

blade trimming in that open wounds are eliminated and the method is more precise, 
Page 17 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

minimizing error and inconsistency. It also leaves a greater proportion of the beak 

intact.i

With the exception of toe trimming of turkey poults at the hatchery using infrared laser, 

other alterations including de-snooding, caponization, dubbing and toe clipping of birds 

are not permitted.

Force Molting

Forced molting by feed withdrawal is not permitted under the National Organic Program, 

as it causes hunger and distress. If force molting is practiced, a molt ration should be 

supplied that is palatable and acceptable to the birds. A molt diet is acceptable to the 

birds if, on average, the total amount of feed consumed per day does not differ during 

the molting and non-molting period. Flocks should be carefully monitored during a molt, 

and individual hens that are not faring well should be separated into a designated sick 

pen and provided with a non-molt diet. Water should never be withheld for molting 

purposes.

Poultry health

Poultry should be monitored for signs of stress and disease. Birds should have a 

healthy body condition, have good feather cover for their stage of life, and no more than 

2% should have poor hygiene, lesions or other injuries. Sick or injured birds must be 

treated without delay or, if suffering and unlikely to recover, euthanized humanely. 

Producers must not withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to 

preserve its organic status.

Animal health plan

All poultry farms should draft and follow an animal health plan that covers the specific 

circumstances unique to each farm. The plan should include, at a minimum, the 

disease prevention strategy (such as vaccination schedules and biosecurity protocols), 

contingency plans for emergency situations (including failure of the power or water 

supply), predator exclusion steps, veterinary contacts and emergency euthanasia 

procedures.

Sick pens

A designated area for the treatment of injured or moribund birds should be prepared to 

aid recovery, by preventing competition between birds and allowing a greater level of 

individual care. Sick pens should be arranged for the comfort and safety of the birds 

during convalescence. Feed and water must be provided, with the rare exception of 

withholding for medical treatment under the advice of a veterinarian.

Lameness

Broiler chickens, turkeys and ducks are prone to leg problems, including angular 

deformities, tibial dyschondroplasia (TD), and in severe cases, ruptured tendons. 

These may manifest as lameness or more severe mobility impairment.
Page 18 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Gait scoring is a tool that can be used to assess the degree of lameness in a broiler 

chicken flock.ii,iii,iv Randomly score 100 birds individually by viewing their walking ability 

using the following scale:

Score 0. No detectable gait impairment

Score 1. Slight gait defect. Wobbling or uneven gait.

Score 2. Gait abnormality. Bird has impairment, but will move away from handler when 

approached.

Score 3. Gait abnormality that impairs function. Bird has a limp, jerky or unsteady gait 

and moves away from the observer when approached, but squats again within 15 

seconds. Bird prefers to squat when not coerced by handler.

Score 4. Severe gait defect. Bird remains sitting when approached or nudged, but can 

stand or walk when placed in a standing position by a handler. 

Score 5. The bird is completely lame and cannot walk. The bird may shuffle along on 

its hocks.

Gait score tends to worsen as birds age.v Birds that are suffering or are too crippled to 

reach feed and water should be humanely euthanized. Birds at gait score 3 and above 

are probably experiencing pain,vi,vii so ideally no birds should reach this level. However, 

a reasonable place to set the target for lameness is that 95% of the birds should be gait 

score 2 or less at seven weeks of age or older. 

Broiler chickens, turkeys and ducks are also prone to contact dermatitis. When heavy 

birds spend excessive time lying down in wet or soiled litter, they are prone to skin 

lesions on the feet, legs and breast.viii, ix,x Focal ulcerative dermatitis is small skin 

lesions (commonly called ―breast buttons‖) that develop on the keel bone of turkeys.xi A 

reasonable place to set target levels is that no more than 5% of birds should show hock 

burn, breast blisters or foot pad dermatitis. 

Additional producer guidance on preventing leg problems

While dietary deficiencies are one factor that can lead to skeletal deformities,xii genetic 

selection for rapid early growth rate is the major contributing factor. Rapid growth is 

also implicated in metabolic disorders, including ascites and Sudden Death 

Syndrome.xiii Some commercial broiler crosses are more susceptible to leg problems 

than others,xiv but slow growing broiler strains are generally less prone to these 

weaknesses. They are also less prone to heart and circulatory problems.xv The use of 

slow growing breeds is therefore recommended. Broiler growth should be limited to no 

more than 45g per day and should be achieved without feed restriction.

Other factors that can improve gait score include: increasing the daily period of 

darkness, lowering the stocking density, and adding whole wheat to an otherwise 

balanced diet. Increasing the daily period of darkness allows chickens more time to rest 

and less time to feed. Feeding whole wheat is thought to be effective though slowing 

the rate of digestion. Both of these interventions work through reducing growth rate.xvi 

The reason that higher stocking densities can lead to lameness is more complex, 
Page 19 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

involving both lack of room available for exercise and movement, as well as factors 

such as additional ammonia and litter moisture.xvii,xviii,xix

Additional producer guidance on preventing dermatitis

Dermatitis lesions are painful and create a gateway for bacterial infection. Avoid them 

by preventing wet, sticky, or compact litter. Use bedding with good moisture holding 

capacity, such as wood shavings, and keep litter dry (but not dusty), with good 

ventilation. Drinkers should be monitored to ensure they are not spilling over and 

causing wet areas in the litter. Water nipples with drip cups can reduce water spillage.

xx

 

Moisture and temperature of the litter increase with stocking density, so if these 

variables become problematic, it may be necessary to raise fewer birds in the allotted 

space.xxi Manually turning the litter can help. Floor heating systems have also been 

found to improve litter quality.xxii

Conversely, well-managed litter is a soft substrate, while outdoor environments can 

cause abrasion and foot-pad dermatitis if not carefully managed.xxiii Birds should be 

kept on cushioned, dry, clean surfaces outdoors. Rotate or move birds onto fresh 

pasture often enough to prevent the build-up of droppings and damage to the protective 

vegetative cover.

Feed composition affects the consistency and composition of bird droppings, and is 

therefore a factor influencing irritant qualities of litter. Protein, fat and salt content can 

all affect the levels of contact dermatitis, as can the source and type of raw ingredients. 

Within the limits of meeting nutritional requirements, adjustments to the diet may help 

improve litter quality.xxiv

For ducks, bell-type drinkers and open water troughs have been correlated with low 

levels of foot pad dermatitis. Conversely, foot pad dermatitis tends to worsen in houses 

with nipple drinkers. There is also evidence that increasing relative humidity and 

ammonia levels are associated with foot pad dermatitis of ducks.xxv

The health status of the flock will also affect the prevalence of contact dermatitis. 

Intestinal parasites, infectious disease, and poor feed quality can cause diarrhea, which 

will negatively impact litter friability (looseness and dryness). Prevent coccidiosis and 

other enteric diseases and feed good quality feed. Also strive to reduce leg problems, 

as lame birds will sit for longer periods of time in contact with litter.xxvi
Page 20 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Disease 

Disease incidence is a welfare indicator. Respiratory disease may indicate poor air 

quality. Incidence of internal parasites can indicate management issues such as lack of 

sanitation and failure to rotate outdoor areas often enough. 

Poultry houses must be cleaned out completely between flocks if there have been 

adverse health issues with the previous flock; in other cases, the addition of a clean 

layer of litter will help maintain a sanitary environment.

If there is a documented occurrence of a disease outbreak in the region or relevant 

migratory pathway, or state or federal advisory order to confine birds, then poultry must 

be kept indoors to reduce the likelihood of pathogen transmission.

Any dead birds must be removed daily and disposed of in accordance with state and 

local laws.

Varying degrees of foot pad dermatitis on the feet of turkeys

Foot pad dermatitis and hock burns on a broiler chicken
Page 21 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Additional producer guidance on management of disease risk

Disease risk should be managed by using multiple approaches, including attention to 

outdoor range area, good litter management indoors, adherence to an effective 

biosecurity plan and ensuring clean, hygienic facilities. 

Overcrowded and unsanitary outdoor environments are a disease hazard. Providing a 

rest period in-between flocks reduces the buildup of infectious organisms and allows the 

regeneration of vegetation and soil. Where stocking density is high, the environmental 

pathogen load may be correspondingly heavy, and bird-to-bird contact will be more 

frequent. Providing as much space as possible is therefore important, and the stocking 

density guidelines set out in the organic rule are minimum space allowances—where 

conditions permit, the aim should be to lower stocking densities and provide as much 

space as possible, while balancing freedom of movement with safety of the flock, 

including protection from predators.

Disease risk can be reduced in barn housing by removing droppings (e.g., via a belt in 

aviary systems, for example) or by preventing birds from accessing heavily soiled areas 

(e.g., by placing drinkers on a raised, slatted platform above a manure pit). Contact 

with droppings—exacerbated by high stocking density and wet, cool conditions—is a 

risk factor for enteric disease.xxvii Litter that ―stops working‖, leaking drinkers, and an 

inadequate ventilation system (to remove water vapor) may all increase disease 

risk.xxviii,xxix Maintain litter in friable condition.xxx,xxxi Introduce only healthy young birds 

from genetic lines resistant to intestinal parasites.xxxii

The build-up of parasites around the barn can be avoided with the use of mobile 

housing,xxxiii pasture rotation, reduced stocking density, and by using land with good 

drainage.xxxiv,xxxv Other methods that are helpful include regularly mowing or grazing to 

keep vegetation short on pasture, and removing heavily contaminated soil around the 

barn before introducing a new flock.xxxvi Gravel around the outside of permanent 

housing structures, by the exits where birds tend to congregate, can prevent muddy 

conditions in wet weather and provide additional drainage.

Biosecurity is a strategic plan to prevent the introduction of harmful pathogens. A good 

biosecurity plan will minimize disease risks and protect flocks. To prevent the spread of 

disease, limit movement between flocks and outside visitors. Always start with the

youngest birds on the farm when doing daily chores and inspections to avoid carrying 

pathogens from older flocks to younger flocks. Microorganisms, such as coccidiosis for 

example, can be spread on vehicles and equipment, so designate specific tools and 

equipment for each poultry house or farm area. Transport crates should be cleaned 

between uses. Visitors should not enter a poultry farm if they have recently visited other 

flocks, unless they wear protective, disposable outerwear at both locations and ideally 

change clothes and shoes and shower between farms. 
Page 22 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Mortality rates (deaths, culls)

Mortality rate is a key indicator of poultry welfare. Low mortality is also important for the 

economic viability of a poultry or egg production enterprise. A reasonable place to set 

the target for mortality is 3-5%. Birds must be protected from predators.

Additional producer guidance on lowering mortality rates

A low mortality rate is the hallmark of a well-managed poultry farm. Mortality spikes can 

be caused by a number of different problems, including disease outbreaks, cannibalism, 

and excessive losses due to predation. It is vital that producers take steps to prevent 

each of these outcomes, as they are all serious welfare and economic problems.

When poultry are given outdoor access, they become targets for many types of 

predators including coyotes, opossums, hawks, owls, and domestic dogs, to name a 

few. Predation is a welfare issue, as birds may suffer when attacked, are not 

necessarily killed quickly, and flocks can become fearful and reluctant to use outdoor 

areas if they are threatened by repeated attacks. To protect free-range flocks from 

nocturnal predators, birds must be secured in a fully enclosed coop, barn, mobile 

chicken house or other safe facility at night, without fail. Depending on the predator 

pressure at individual farm sites, further steps may be necessary; perimeter fences can 

be dug deep in the ground to prevent predators from digging underneath, and an 

overhang at the top of the fence will help prevent animals from climbing over. Electric 

fencing can further discourage ground predators, and overhead netting may be 

necessary to protect hens from aerial predators. Do not permit repeated heavy losses.

Preventing Injurious Pecking 

Injurious pecking, including feather pecking and cannibalism should be managed so that 

severe outbreaks do not occur.

Additional producer guidance on management of injurious pecking

Feather pecking and cannibalism are common behavioral abnormalities of poultry, 

usually most problematic in large flocks of laying hens, but also sometimes seen in 

other poultry such as turkeys, ducks and pheasants. Severe feather pecking can lead 

to denuded plumage and eventually to cannibalism.xxxvii,xxxviii Outbreaks of cannibalism 

are unpredictable, and once they begin, are very difficult to stop. Prevention is the best 

approach.

Beak trimming is commonly used as a prophylactic measure to prevent feather pecking 

and cannibalism. Beak trimming is usually effective in significantly reducing 

cannibalism and subsequent mortality,xxxix,xl although occasional outbreaks do occur in 

beak trimmed flocks. Beak trimming as a solution is not ideal though, as it is a painful 

procedure. Further, the beak tip is highly innervated and contains abundant sensory 

receptors;xli,xlii cutting off the beak tip thus impairs sensory function. Welfare can be 

improved by controlling cannibalism using alternative means. 
Page 23 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Dietary deficiencies have been linked to increased incidence of pecking damage,xliii

especially protein deficiencies,xliv,xlv so the first step in preventing injurious pecking is to 

ensure that the feed is nutritionally complete. However, outbreaks of feather pecking 

still often occur in flocks that are fed to their nutritional requirements. There are a 

variety of other factors involved. 

Successful control of feather pecking and cannibalism requires an integrated approach 

that includes consideration of three main factors: early-life experiences, the environment 

and genetics.xlvi

Feather pecking and cannibalism are not aggressive acts—rather, science 

demonstrates that these are foraging pecks that have been re-directed toward 

feathers.xlvii,xlviii,xlix In natural conditions, domestic fowl spend over 50% of their active 

time in foraging related activity.l,li Studies have shown that hens will choose to forage 

for feed on the ground in loose substrate rather than eat identical food freely available 

from a feeder.lii,liii Thus, the natural urge to forage remains strong, even when full feed 

is provided. The acquisition process itself—including seeking, investigating, and 

manipulating feed items—is nearly as important as the act of consuming the feed 

itself.liv

Pecking preferences are formed early in life, and these are learned through 

experience.lv Therefore, providing appropriate pecking and foraging substrate from day 

onelvi,lvii is a critical factor shaping adult pecking preferences. Scientific research has 

demonstrated that early access to loose litter—such as wood shavings, sand and 

straw—is an important first step in reducing feather pecking, cannibalism and 

subsequent mortality.lviii,lix,lx, lxi,lxii,lxiii Conversely, studies also show that the absence of 

loose-litterlxiv and poor litter quality are risk factors for plumage deterioration due to 

feather pecking.lxv Scattering grain or feed into loose litter for young chicks can also be 

beneficial.lxvi

Lack of perches during early rearing is another important risk factor for feather pecking 

on organic farms.lxvii Early access to perches can decrease cloacal cannibalism by 

giving potential victims a safe place to avoid hens who would peck them from the 

floor.lxviii,lxix,lxx Young birds must learn how to successfully navigate perches by gaining 

experience with them from a young age, which shapes their cognitive spatial abilities.lxxi 

Pullets should have access to perches elevated above 35 centimeters at no later than 

four weeks of age.lxxii,lxxiii Higher perches are generally better, lxxiv although they must be 

constructed and arranged in a way that allows easy access, or else hens can miss a 

landing, fall and become injured (see section on providing perches for laying hens in 

indoor housing below). 

Feather pecking often begins to appear in affected flocks shortly after moving pullets 

from the rearing to the laying house. When transferring pullets, there are many 

potential stressors including changes in light intensity, diet, house layout and access to 

the outdoors. Stress can be partially alleviated by matching the rearing and laying 
Page 24 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

environments as closely as possible.lxxv Do not change the feed or lighting program at 

the same time pullets are moved into the laying house.

Since cannibalism is thought to have a hormonal basis, the risk of cannibalism may be 

reduced by using lighting programs that delay the age at which hens first begin to lay 

eggs to after 20 weeks of age.lxxvi Flocks that begin laying eggs before 20 weeks of age 

have approximately four times the risk for vent pecking as compared with flocks that 

begin laying at a later age.lxxvii

When feather pecking outbreaks occur in adult hens, lowering the light level is a 

commonly used intervention. While somewhat effective, the problem with dimming the 

light is that, like beak trimming, the underlying cause of the problem is not addressed. 

To truly attend to the welfare issue, the natural early motivation of a hen to forage and 

peck should be channeled appropriately into desirable adult pecking behavior, as

discussed above.

Feed form is also important for attracting and sustaining foraging related pecks and 

regulating appetite. Studies show that a mash diet is better than pelleted feed for 

reducing feather pecking and cannibalism.lxxviii,lxxix The small particle form takes longer 

to consume, sustaining foraging related pecking behavior for a longer period of time as 

birds pick out individual feed particles.lxxx A diet high in insoluble fiber has also been 

shown to help to reduce and control cannibalism,lxxxi and millrun, oat hulls, rice hulls, 

and lucerne meal are effective sources.lxxxii Additional foraging enrichments such as 

maize, barley-pea silage, carrots,lxxxiii strawlxxxiv,lxxxv seeds in suet, and cabbage 

leaveslxxxvi have been shown to attract interest and reduce the tendency to perform 

injurious pecking.

Most importantly, it has been repeatedly demonstrated in scientific studies that flocks 

making good use of an outdoor range area (where more foraging and exploring 

opportunities are provided for them) are significantly less likely to feather peck and 

cannibalize flock mates.lxxxvii,lxxxviii,lxxxix,xc,xci,xcii,xciii One study found that when at least half 

the flock was observed outdoors during good weather, there was a five-fold decrease in 

the risk of feather pecking. On these farms, it is likely that hens are directing their 

pecking behavior at appropriate foraging substrate, rather than at each other.xciv 

Therefore it is essential to provide attractive outdoor areas and encourage hens to go 

outside (see section on outdoor access below).

If possible, time the introduction of pullets into the laying house so that they will have 

good weather when the doors are first opened to permit outdoor access. If inclement 

weather prevents them from using the range area when they are young, it may be 

difficult to encourage them out when they grow older.xcv

Other risk factors that have been associated with injurious pecking include:

 Restricting access to portions of the indoor litter area;xcvi

 Restricting access to the outside range area;xcvii

 Changing the diet three or more times during the laying period;xcviii,xcix
Page 25 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 Using lights inside the nest boxes;c

 Use of bell drinkers;ci,cii

 Inadequate number of drinking places;ciii

 Reduced indoor temperature (below 68o F);civ

 Not keeping cockerels with the hen flock;cv and

 Dietary deficiencies.cvi

Feather pecking, cannibalism, and the associated mortality have genetic components, 

which means that these traits can be selected against in breeding programs.cvii,cviii,cix,cx 

Different hen strains vary in their propensity to exhibit injurious pecking behavior.cxi It is 

therefore critical to source hens that exhibit low levels of feather pecking behavior. 

Because breeding efforts to control cannibalism are ongoing, it is difficult to pinpoint 

lasting recommendations on specific genetic lines. If a severe outbreak occurs, 

consider using a different supplier, switch to a different hen strain, or use a different 

breed or hybrid altogether. 

For more information on managing feather pecking without beak trimming see: 

―A guide to the practical management of feather pecking & cannibalism in free range 

laying hens‖ at:

www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb10596-feather-pecking-050309.pdf

Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, 

Poultry Science Symposium Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-

58).

Indoor Living Conditions

Housing must protect birds from the elements, maintain a comfortable temperature, 

provide ventilation and allow birds to exercise and conduct natural behavior. Cages are 

not permitted. Bedding indoors provides comfort, insulation, and pecking and 

scratching opportunity. However, it must be maintained in clean, dry condition. Slattedfloor systems are useful under watering areas to prevent wet litter. 

The indoor climate must be modulated for light, temperature, and air quality to provide a 

comfortable environment for the birds. Lighting should provide for an 8 hour rest period 

daily. Indoor temperatures must not be so warm that birds pant or so cold that they 

huddle together. Ventilation must be adequate to prevent the buildup of ammonia. 

Ammonia levels should generally be less than 10 ppm. Ammonia level testing must be 

documented and ammonia levels must be at or below 25ppm. General levels can be 

tested using ammonia test strips and if excessive ammonia is noted a second test using 

passive dosimeter or gas detection tubes should be conducted. Dust should also be 

kept to a minimum.
Page 26 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Layers should be provided with nest boxes—at least one box per 5 birds is 

recommended. If community nest boxes are provided, there should be at least 9 square 

feet of nesting space for every 100 hens.

Laying hens must also be provided with perches—at least 6 inches of elevated perch 

space per hen is suggested. There must be enough perch and/or flat roost space for all 

hens to simultaneously rest off of the floor at night. Turkeys can be provided with 

elevated platforms and ramps in addition to or instead of perches.cxii

Poultry must be provided with dustbathing areas. Preferred substrates include sand, 

wood shavings and peat. On outdoor range areas, chickens usually create their own 

preferred dustbathing locations in loose, dry dirt. Dustbathing balances oil levels in the 

feathers,cxiii,cxiv,cxv and helps keep the plumage in good condition.

Ducks should have access to water for bathing and head dunking in addition to water 

for drinking. Water related activity is part of the natural behavior of waterfowl. At a 

minimum, ducks should be able to dip their heads and splash their feathers with water. 

This behavior will help keep their nostrils, eyes and feathers clean.cxvi,cxvii Troughs are 

often used to provide an open water source and these can be situated on grids or slats 

over a drainage channel to prevent adjacent litter from becoming wet. Nipple drinkers 

do not permit ducks to wet their eyes or feathers, and can lead to poor eye and plumage 

cleanliness.cxviii Open water sources should be cleaned daily.

Additional producer guidance on providing perches for laying hens in indoor housing

Perches are an important enrichment in indoor housing for laying hens. The foot of a 

hen is anatomically adapted to close around a perch,cxix,cxx and this is the natural resting 

position for chickens. Perch use maintains bone volume and bone strength,cxxi,cxxii,cxxiii

and can serve as a refuge for subordinate hens to avoid aggressive interactions with 

more dominant hens.cxxiv Research demonstrates that hens are highly motivated to 

perch at night.cxxv,cxxvi,cxxvii When given a choice, hens often prefer to roost on higher 

perches as opposed to those that are closer to the floor.cxxviii,cxxix

Bumblefoot is a bulbous swelling of the footpad caused by a localized infection.cxxx 

Some hen breeds are more susceptible than others, and the condition is associated 

with poor hygiene and poor perch design.cxxxi,cxxxii The use of plastic perches or the 

commonly used soft wooden perches measuring 25 mm (0.98 in) in width are thought to 

contribute to poor foot health, as manure and moisture are able to accumulate on the 

structure’s top where the birds’ feet rest.cxxxiii Incidence of bumblefoot can be reduced 

by providing hens with hardwood perches that are approximately 1.5 inches in diameter 

with a flattened topcxxxiv,cxxxv and by limiting walking exposure to mud and manure.cxxxvi

Hens selected for egg production are prone to osteoporosis and subsequent bone 

fractures.cxxxvii,cxxxviii,cxxxix These often go undetected unless hens are palpated by an 

experienced veterinarian. The way perches are arranged inside the poultry house can 

have an effect on the incidence of bone fractures. Research suggests that the upper 

limit on a hen’s ability to jump from one perch to another is about three feet,cxl and 
Page 27 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

angles greater than approximately 45o can be difficult to navigate.cxli At a minimum, 

hens need approximately 6 inches of perch space to take-off, and 6-9 inches to land.cxlii 

Perches should be large enough for hens to maintain stable footing, about 1.5 inches in 

diameter.cxliii,cxliv These general requirements may differ depending on the size and 

previous experience of the hen, so adjustments may be necessary for individual flocks. 

Injuries are more likely to occur if perch design and layout require hens to jump beyond 

their natural capabilities.cxlv

Providing perches at a young age can also help reduce the risk of floor eggs,cxlvi as 

pullets must be skilled at flying up and down in order to access elevated nest boxes.cxlvii

Outdoor Access and Living Conditions

Outdoor access must be provided to all poultry, with the following exceptions:

 Pullets younger than 12 weeks of age.

 Broiler chickens younger than 4 weeks of age.

 Outdoor temperatures below 50oF.

 Other inclement weather such as heavy snow, sleet, rain, wind or extreme heat that 

would endanger the health or welfare of the animals.

Pullets must be provided outdoor access by 12 

weeks of age, when weather permits. As a 

guide, doors for outdoor access should be at 

least 14 inches high, spaced uniformly and 

provide direct access to the outdoors. Total 

door opening should be at least 6 feet/1000 

birds.cxlviii Once layers are accustomed to going 

outdoors, a brief confinement period of no 

more than 5 weeks to allow for nest box 

training is permitted. Broiler chickens must be 

provided outdoor access by 4 weeks of age, 

provided that they are fully feathered and 

weather permits. 

Enclosed spaces that have a solid roof overhead (sometimes called ―porches‖ or ―winter 

gardens‖) do not meet the definition of outdoor access and cannot be included in the 

space calculation of outdoor access.

Additional producer guidance on outdoor access

Outdoor areas for poultry should be fully vegetated, where possible. Grasses, legumes, 

and other forage provide interest and enrichment to poultry, who consume not only 

greens, but also insects, grubs, and seeds. However, high traffic areas tend to become 

denuded of vegetation, so steps must be taken to keep outdoor areas in good condition. 

Rotate the use of range areas by taking flocks off of pasture to prevent the buildup of 

infectious organisms and allow the re-growth of vegetation. Fields can also be rotated 
Page 28 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

between species with different parasite spectrums, such as cattle and poultry. 

Harvested crop fields also make good poultry runs.

Layout is important for attracting hens to use outdoor space. There should be plenty of 

exits from the hen house, and they should be easily accessible and large enough for 

several hens to pass through simultaneously. Since hens are prey animals, they are 

naturally wary of overhead predators, and will sometimes avoid open range if some sort 

of cover is not provided. Cover, either artificial or natural structures, should therefore be 

provided.cxlix Natural cover can take many forms, including tall plantings of vegetation, 

bushes, and trees,cl however, large swaths of thick undergrowth can actually attract 

ground predators if fences don’t exclude them. Maize plantings and low pollard willows 

(Salix), for example, have worked on organic farms to attract hens outdoors.cli In ―treerange‖ production, the outdoor area is planted with short trees, such as orchard 

varieties. Flocks with canopy cover from trees are more likely to have better plumage 

condition at the end of lay than those without canopy cover.clii 

Artificial structures that provide shelter, shade, 

and security can also be constructed.cliii,cliv Cover 

made from a wide variety of wood, plastic or 

recycled materials, in designs both low to the 

ground and high enough to include perches, 

have been innovated by producers with success. 

Camouflage nets are another option.clv If 

artificial cover is portable, it can be moved to 

different range areas to encourage more even 

distribution of the flock, preventing buildup of 

contamination over highly frequented areas.

For more information see: Fanatico, A. 2006. Alternative poultry production systems 

and outdoor access. Available through the National Sustainable Agriculture Information 

Service at: www.attra.ncat.org

Space Allowances

Poultry housing must be sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch 

their wings and engage in natural behavior. Perching areas and nest boxes may not be 

used in the calculation of floor space. Slatted/grated floors may be considered floor 

space. Mobile poultry units require the same amount of indoor space per bird but allow 

the house to be moved so birds always have access to fresh vegetation.
Page 29 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Livestock Species Indoor Space Outdoor Runs and 

Pens 

Chickens

Laying hens and 

breeders

1.5 sq ft / bird 2.0 sq ft / bird

 

Pullets 5 lbs / sq ft 5 lbs / sq ft

Broilers 5 lbs / sq ft 5 lbs / sq ft

Other poultry

Turkeys and 

Geese—breeding, 

laying, or meat birds 

(pounds)

7.5 lbs / sq ft 2lbs / sq ft

 

Ducks-meat 5 lbs / sq ft 2 lbs / sq ft

Ducks-laying hen 2 lbs / sq ft 1 lbs / sq ft

Ducks—breeder 3.3 lbs / sq ft 1 lbs / sq ft

Humane Handling of Poultry

Poultry should be handled quietly and firmly, with care taken to avoid unnecessary 

distress and dislocated or broken bones during catching and loading for transport. 

Poultry catching should be scheduled to minimize the time to slaughter as well as 

climatic stress during catching, transport and holding. Birds should not be picked up by 

the neck or wings. 

Transport is a stressful experience,clvi,clvii as birds are subjected to noise, vibration, 

motion, overcrowding, feed and water deprivation, social disruption, and potential 

temperature extremes.clviii,clix,clx Aim to reduce these stressors and comfort the birds 

wherever possible. Transportation units should provide space enough that all birds can 

lie down at the same time and none are on top of each other. Birds must be protected 

from heat and cold. Delivery of poultry for slaughter should be scheduled such that they 

are not deprived of water for longer than 12 hours. 

Birds must be fit for transport before being loaded for slaughter. Due to the stress 

involved, animals must be healthy enough to withstand the rigors of the journey. Birds 

exhibiting obvious signs of poor health, weakness or injury are not fit for transport. 

These birds should be euthanized using the most humane method available.

Inspectors should discuss procedures for poultry catching and loading with the producer 

and must observe poultry being caught and loaded for slaughter at the annual 

inspection and note percentage of birds with broken/dislocated legs/wings. 

Additional producer guidance on humane handling of poultry

Low-stress handling is as important for poultry as it is for livestock. Although commonly 

carried this way, research shows that birds react with a significant stress response 

when picked up and held upside-down by the legs, as this is a physiologically abnormal 
Page 30 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

posture for chickens.clxi Handling, crating and loading for transportation, have been 

identified by researchers as major sources of stress and trauma.clxii Bruising and injuries 

are well-documented, and these are not only welfare problems, but can also result in 

carcass downgrading and economic loss to producers.clxiii, clxiv,clxv,clxvi,clxvii Ideally, all 

poultry should be handled individually, upright, and carried gently using two hands.

Catching and carrying turkeys can also cause bruises and injuries. Turkeys can be 

driven or herded into transport crates instead, which reduces stress levels.clxviii

Euthanasia and Depopulation

Individual birds who are ill or injured, are suffering, and are unlikely to recover, should 

be euthanized without delay. All euthanized and depopulated birds must be confirmed 

dead before disposal. No live birds should be found on dead piles.

Permitted methods include:

 Hand held electrical or percussive stunning using an instrument designed for the 

specific size/age of the species, followed by neck cutting;

 Cervical dislocation by stretching the neck to sever the spinal cord and cause 

extensive damage to the major blood vessels.

 Barbiturate overdose administered by a licensed veterinarian (with special 

considerations noted below)

 Decapitation

 Carbon dioxide or a mixture of nitrogen and argon gases, delivered in an appropriate 

container at acceptable concentrations.

Acceptable gas mixtures include:

 a minimum of 2 minutes exposure to any mixture of argon, nitrogen or other inert 

gases with atmospheric air and carbon dioxide, provided that the carbon dioxide 

concentration does not exceed 30 percent by volume and the residual oxygen

concentration does not exceed 2 percent by volume; or

 a minimum of 2 minutes exposure to argon, nitrogen, other inert gases or any mixture 

of these gases in atmospheric air with a maximum of 2 percent residual oxygen by 

volume.

Methods that are not permitted include, but are not limited to: 

 Suffocation

 Blow to the head by blunt instrument

 Equipment that crushes the neck including killing pliers or burdizzo clamps

 Carbon monoxide

 Neck wringing (holding the head while swinging the body in a circular motion)

 Maceration in a wood chipper
Page 31 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Additional producer guidance on euthanasia and depopulation

The term euthanasia is derived from Greek words meaning ―good death‖ and is applied 

to the killing of an animal with minimal pain and distress.clxix Animals that are suffering 

must be euthanized in a timely manner, and should not be left for extensive periods, 

over a weekend, for example.

Barbiturate injection or inhalant anesthetics administered by a veterinarian are the ideal 

methods for a limited numbers of hens, as they most closely meet the goals of killing 

with minimal pain and distress. However, these methods have not been widely used on 

farm settings due to cost and convince issues associated with culling large numbers of 

birds. Producers should also be aware that drug residues associated with the use of 

barbiturate injections will prevent the use of carcasses for human consumption, and 

dead birds must be disposed of carefully, because residues could also be unwittingly 

consumed by other animals eating the carcass or could become an environmental 

pollutant. Dead poultry should be disposed of in a way that does not attract wildlife. 

Research demonstrates that inhalation of an inert gas (including argon and nitrogen) is 

probably painless, as they are colorless, odorless gases and birds do not demonstrate 

aversive reactions with initial exposure. In carefully controlled behavior experiments, 

turkeys and chickens are willing to enter a chamber filled with inert gas in order to 

access food.clxx,clxxi Argon and nitrogen can be used to kill chickens on the farm. 

Containerized gas killing systems have been developed for culling large numbers of 

birds,clxxii and these can be built on either a large or small scale, depending on the 

needs of individual producers. Such a system is the most humane method for killing 

large numbers of chickens on the farm that researchers have identified to date.

The use of CO2 is problematic as there are both physiological and behavioral lines of 

scientific evidence suggesting that CO2 may be unpleasant and possibly very 

distressing to inhale, as it is an acidic gas, pungent at high concentrations.clxxiii,clxxiv

Exhaust fumes from an idling car engine are an unacceptable source of carbon 

monoxide, due to problems with production of other gases, inadequate gas 

concentration, and gas temperature. 

While purpose-build macerators are sometimes used to kill unwanted chicks at 

hatcheries, using a wood chipper to dispose of a spent laying-hen flock is never 

acceptable. 

It is extremely important to confirm that all animals are dead before disposal. When 

depopulation is performed on large flocks, depending on the methods used, it can be 

difficult to ensure that birds are actually dead and not simply lying still or unconscious. 

There is a very high potential for birds that are not dead, but are severely injured, to 

suffer greatly. Each bird must be methodically checked, and dead piles must be 

examined carefully for any sign of movement. A backup method of euthanasia must be 

in place to kill any birds that recover. Careful attention to this step in the euthanasia 

process is essential to ensuring a humane end for farmed poultry.
Page 32 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Slaughter of Poultry

All slaughter facilities must be audited yearly. Organic certifiers can use documentation 

from other third-party animal welfare audits that have been performed and should do 

additional auditing as necessary. 

Slaughter establishments must also perform self-audits on a weekly basis. Self-audits 

ensure that animal welfare standards are being upheld, identify problems that may arise 

within the facility or with individual staff members, and identify specific farms that may 

be shipping problematic animals to the slaughter plant. These problems may be due to 

animals’ genetics or handling; slaughter facilities are encouraged to contact the 

producers of problematic animals so that these problems can be addressed in the 

future. 

In electrical water-bath stunning systems, birds must be shackled by both legs. Birds 

with broken or dislocated wings should be humanely killed before being shackled. 

Stunning

Poultry must be rendered unconscious by stunning, or killed before being bled by 

simultaneous severance of both carotid arteries or by decapitation. Bleeding without 

stunning requires a high level of operator competency to avoid causing pain and 

missing cutting of both carotid arteries. A very sharp blade or knife of sufficient length is 

needed so that the point of the knife remains outside the incision during the cut; the 

point of the knife should not be used to make the incision. The incision should not close 

over the knife during the throat cut. Decapitation may be achieved by manual or 

automatic means.

Decapitation must be performed using a sharp instrument which achieves the complete 

severance of the head from the body by cutting all the major vessels of the neck and the 

spinal cord with a sharp instrument. All mechanical and automatic instruments used in 

this method shall be sharp and inspected frequently for sharpness. The poultry 

slaughter establishment shall ensure that all instruments and equipment are maintained 

so that they function effectively. All birds (100%) should be dead before they enter the 

scald tank. 

For inspector assessment, 99% of the birds must be rendered insensible by the 

stunning method chosen. Arched neck and wings tucked in are visible signs of effective 

stunning. 

Additional producer/processor guidance on stunning for slaughter

Electric stunning: The disadvantage of electric stunning for poultry is that birds must be 

shackled and hung upside-down before they enter the stunner. Care must be taken to 

avoid pre-stun electrical shocks. Amperage must be high enough that birds lose 

consciousness and are not merely paralyzed. The electric current shall be administered 

so as to produce effective surgical anesthesia or death with a minimum of excitement 

and discomfort. The current necessary to produce an effective stun changes depending 
Page 33 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

the species and electrical frequency. These are outlined in the World Organization for 

Animal Health, Terrestrial Animal Health Guide, Chapter 7.5, Slaughter of animals 

(available at: www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.7.5.htm), and the 

minimum currents are as follows:

 Broiler chickens and spent laying hens, 100 milliamperes per bird

 Turkeys, 150 milliamperes per bird

 Ducks and geese, 130 milliamperes per bird

For high frequency settings of 200-400 Hz, the minimum current needed to stun 

chickens is 150 milliamperes. For frequency settings of 400-1500 Hz, the minimum 

current is 200 milliamperes. For turkeys, frequency settings of 200-1500 Hz require a 

400 milliampere currency setting.

These are minimal settings, and higher current levels better ensure that more birds will 

be effectively rendered unconscious.clxxv

Gas stunning: Acceptable gas mixtures include argon, nitrogen, and low initial levels of 

CO2 in one of the following combinations, as described by the World Organization for 

Animal Health:

 a minimum of 2 minutes exposure to 40 percent carbon dioxide, 30 percent oxygen 

and 30 percent nitrogen, followed by a minimum of one minute exposure to 80 percent 

carbon dioxide in air; or

 a minimum of 2 minutes exposure to any mixture of argon, nitrogen or other inert 

gases with atmospheric air and carbon dioxide, provided that the carbon dioxide 

concentration does not exceed 30 percent by volume and the residual oxygen 

concentration does not exceed 2 percent by volume; or

 a minimum of 2 minutes exposure to argon, nitrogen, other inert gases or any mixture 

of these gases in atmospheric air with a maximum of 2 percent residual oxygen by 

volume.

To avoid unnecessary stress and trauma due to handling, chickens should remain in 

their transport crates while being conveyed through the gas tunnels. Gas 

concentrations must be monitored for precision at all times. An alarm system is 

necessary to indicate malfunctions.

Bleeding

Once stunned, birds should be bled without delay to ensure that consciousness is not 

regained. Bleeding shall be accomplished by severing both carotid arteries or by 

decapitation. Sufficient bleeding time (at lest 30 seconds, 60 seconds for gas stunning, 

and approximately 2 to 3 minutes for electric stunning resulting in cardiac arrest) shall 

be allowed to prevent the unacceptable condition known as ―red skins‖ or ―cadavers‖ 

which may occur with insufficient bleeding. For inspector assessment, 99% must be 
Page 34 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

effectively cut by hand or by the bleed machine. Remaining birds must be cut by a 

backup person.

The inspector will monitor condition of carcasses exiting the scald tank. Birds exiting 

the scald tank should not show signs that they entered it alive. ―Red skins‖ with uncut 

throats indicate that they entered the scalding water alive, and those with cut throats 

could possibly have entered before becoming unconscious.

For poultry, the percentage of chickens with broken or dislocated wings should not 

exceed 2%, with zero being the goal. No broken legs should be noted.

 

i Dennis RL, Fahey AG, and Cheng HW. 2009. Infrared beak treatment method compared with conventional hotblade trimming in laying hens. Poultry Science 88:38-43.

ii Garner JP, Falcone C, Wakenell P, Martin M and Mench JA. 2002. Reliability and validity of a modified gait 

scoring system and its use in assessing tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. British Poultry Science 43:355-63.

iii Kestin SC, Knowles TG, Tinch AE, and Gregory. 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its 

relationship with genotype. The Veterinary Record 131:190-4.

iv Mench J. 2004. Lameness. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare 

(Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.3-17).

v Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Haslam SM, Brown SN, Green LE, Butterworth A, Pope SJ, Pfeiffer D, and Nicol CJ. 

2008. Leg Disorders in Broiler Chickens: Prevalence, Risk

Factors and Prevention. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1545. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.

vi Danbury TC, Weeks CA, Chambers JP, Waterman-Pearson AR, and Kestin SC. 2000. Self selection of the 

analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 146:307-11.

vii McGeown D, Danbury TC, Waterman-Pearson AE, and Kestin SC. 1999. Effect of carprofen on lameness in 

broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144: 668-71.

viii Bessei W. 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:455-66.

ix Berg C. 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), 

Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare (Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.37-49).

x

Jones TA and Dawkins MS. 2010. Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and 

welfare on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 51(1):12-21.

xi Kamyab A. 1997. Studies on the etiology of enlarged sternal bursa and focal ulcerative dermatitis on market tom 

turkeys. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, pp. 1, 33-43, 50.

xii Cook ME. 2000. Skeletal deformities and their causes: introduction. Poultry Science 79:982-4.

xiii Bessei W. 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:455-66.

xiv Kestin SC, Su G, and Sorensen P. 1999. Different commercial broiler crosses have different susceptibilities to leg 

weakness. Poultry Science 78:1085-90.

xv Van Middelkoop K, van Harn J, Wiers WJ, and van Horne P. 2002. Slower growing broilers pose lower welfare 

risks. World Poultry 18(8):20-1.

xvi Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Haslam SM, Brown SN, Green LE, Butterworth A, Pope SJ, Pfeiffer D, and Nicol CJ. 

2008. Leg Disorders in Broiler Chickens: Prevalence, Risk

Factors and Prevention. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1545. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.

xvii Knowles TG, Kestin SC, Haslam SM, Brown SN, Green LE, Butterworth A, Pope SJ, Pfeiffer D, and Nicol CJ. 

2008. Leg Disorders in Broiler Chickens: Prevalence, Risk

Factors and Prevention. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1545. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.

xviii Dawkins MS, Donnelly CA and Jones TA. 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than 

by stocking density. Nature 427:342-4.

xix Bessei W. 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:455-66.

xx Berg C. 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), 

Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare (Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.37-49).

xxi Bessei W. 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62:455-66.
Page 35 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

xxii Berg C. 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), 

Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare (Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.37-49).

xxiii Pagazaurtundua A and Warriss PD. 2006. Levels of foot pad dermatitis in broiler chickens reared in 5 different 

systems. British Poultry Science 47(5):529-32.

xxiv Berg C. 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), 

Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare (Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.37-49).

xxv Jones TA and Dawkins MS. 2010. Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and 

welfare on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 51(1):12-21.

xxvi Berg C. 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks C and Butterworth A (ed.s), 

Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare (Walingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp.37-49).

xxvii European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare 

aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 27. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. 

www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf.

xxviii Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and 

Welfare on a request from the Commission related to the welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. 

The EFSA Journal 197:1-23. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_opinion1.pdf.

xxix Hane M, Huber-Eicher B, and Frohlich E. 2000. Survey of laying hen husbandry in Switzerland. World’s Poultry 

Science Journal 56:21-31.

xxx Fanatico A. 2006. Parasite Management for Natural and Organic Poultry: Coccidiosis. National Sustainable 

Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/coccidiosis.pdf.

xxxi Hy-Line®. 2007-2008. W-36 commercial management guide. www.hy-line.com/userdocs/library/W36_Eng_indd.pdf.

xxxii McDougald LR. 2003. Internal parasites. In: Saif YM, Barnes HJ, Gilsson JR, Fadly AM, McDougald LR, and 

Swayne DE (eds.), Diseases of Poultry, 11th Edition (Ames, IA: Iowa State Press, p. 943).

xxxiii Bassler A, Ciszuk P, Sjelin K: Management of laying hens in mobile houses – a review of experiences. 1999. 

In: Hermansen JE, Lund V, and Thuen E (eds.), Proceedings NJF-seminar No 303, Ecological Animal Husbandry in 

the Nordic Countries (Horsens, Denmark: Danish Research Center for Organic Farming, pp. 45-50). 

www.foejo.dk/publikation/rapport/dar_2.pdf.

xxxiv Fanatico A. 2006. Alternative poultry production systems and outdoor access. National Sustainable Agriculture 

Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/poultryoverview.pdf.

xxxv Thear K. 2002. Free-Range Poultry Production (Suffolk, U.K.: Whittet Books Ltd., pp. 70-2).

xxxvi Fanatico A. 2006. Alternative poultry production systems and outdoor access. National Sustainable Agriculture 

Information Service. www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/poultryoverview.pdf.

xxxvii Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

xxxviii Rodenburg TB, Komen H, Ellen ED, Uitdehaag KA, van Arendonk JAM. 2008. Selection method and earlylife history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: A review. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 110:217-28.

xxxix Hartini S, Choct M, Hinch G, Kocher A, and Nolan JV. 2002. Effects of light intensity during

rearing and beak trimming and dietary fiber sources on mortality, egg production, and performance of ISA brown 

laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11:104-10.

xl Lambton SL, Knowles TG, Yorke C, and Nicol CJ. 2010. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and 

severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123(1):32-42.

xli Cheng H. 2006. Morphopathological changes and pain in beak trimmed laying hens. World’s Poultry Science 

Journal 62(1):41-52.

xlii Lunam CA. 2005. The anatomy and innervation of the chicken beak: effects of trimming and re-trimming. In: 

Glatz PC (ed.), Poultry Welfare Issues: Beak Trimming (Nottingham, U.K.: Nottingham University Press, pp.51-

68).

xliii Hughes BO and Duncan IJH. 1972. The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and 

cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13:525-47.

xliv Ambrosen T and Petersen VE. 1997. The influence of protein level in the diet on cannibalism and quality of 

plumage of layers. Poultry Science 76:559-63.
Page 36 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

xlv Van Krimpen MM, Kwakkel RP, Reuvekamp BFJ, Van der Peet-Schwering CMC, Den Hartog LA, and 

Verstegen MWA. 2005. Impact of feeding management on feather pecking in laying hens. World’s Poultry Science 

Journal 61:663-86.

xlvi Rodenburg TB, Komen H, Ellen ED, Uitdehaag KA, van Arendonk JAM. 2008. Selection method and early-life 

history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: A review. Applied Animal 

Behaviour Science 110:217-28.

xlvii Dixon LM, Mason GJ, and Duncan IJH. 2007. What’s in a peck? A comparison of the motor patterns involved in 

feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging. In: Galindo F and Alvarez L (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st International 

Congress of the ISAE (Merida, Mexico: International Society for Applied Ethology, p.47).

xlviii Huber-Eicher B and Wechsler B. 1997. Feather pecking in domestic chicks: its relation to dustbathing and 

foraging. Animal Behaviour 54:757-68.

xlix Blokhuis HJ. 1986. Feather-pecking in poultry: its relation with ground-pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour 

Science:16:63-7.

l

Savory CJ, Wood-Gush DGM, and Duncan IJH. 1978. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the 

wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4:13-27.

li Dawkins MS. 1989. Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24:77-80.

lii Dawkins MS. 1989. Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24:77-80.

liii Duncan IJH and Hughes BO. 1972. Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls. Animal Behaviour 20:775-7.

liv Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

lv Rogers L. 1995. The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the Chicken (Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International, 

pp. 95-110).

lvi Rogers L. 1995. The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the Chicken (Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International, 

pp. 95-110).

lvii Huber-Eicher B and Sebö F. 2001. Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:59-68.

lviii Johnsen PF, Vestergaard KS, Nørgaard-Nielsen G.1998. Influence of early rearing conditions of the development 

of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60:25-41.

lix Huber-Eicher B and Sebö F. 2001. Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:59-68.

lx Aerni V, Brinkhof MWG, Wechsler B, Oester H, and Fröhlich E. 2005. Productivity and mortality of laying hens 

in aviaries: a systematic review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(1):130-42.

lxi Johnsen PF, Vestergaard KS, and Nørgaard-Nielsen G. 1998. Influence of early rearing conditions on the 

development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60:25-41.

lxii Nicol CJ, Lindberg AC, Phillips AJ, Pope SJ, Wilkins LJ, and Green LE. 2001. Influence of prior exposure to 

wood shavings on feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging in adult laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour 

Science 73:141-55.

lxiii Huber-Eicher B and Sebö F. 2001. Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:59-68.

lxiv Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-

8.

lxv Knierim U, Staack M, Gruber B, Keppler C, Zaludik K, and Niebuhr K. 2008. Risk factors for feather pecking in 

organic laying hens –starting points for prevention in the housing environment. 16th IFOAM Organic World 

Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20.

lxvi Knierim U, Staack M, Gruber B, Keppler C, Zaludik K, and Niebuhr K. 2008. Risk factors for feather pecking in 

organic laying hens –starting points for prevention in the housing environment. 16th IFOAM Organic World 

Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20.

lxvii Knierim U, Staack M, Gruber B, Keppler C, Zaludik K, and Niebuhr K. 2008. Risk factors for feather pecking in 

organic laying hens –starting points for prevention in the housing environment. 16th IFOAM Organic World 

Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20.
Page 37 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

lxviii Gunnarsson S, Keeling LJ, Svedberg J. 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal 

cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40:12-8.

lxix Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

lxx Huber-Eicher and Audigé. 1999. Analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen 

growers. British Poultry Science 40:599-604.

lxxi Gunnarsson S, Yngvesson J, Keeling LJ, and Forkman B. 2000. Rearing without early access to perches impairs 

the spatial skills of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67:217-28.

lxxii Gunnarsson S, Keeling LJ, Svedberg J. 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal 

cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40:12-8.

lxxiii Huber-Eicher and Audigé. 1999. Analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen 

growers. British Poultry Science 40:599-604.

lxxiv Wechsler B and Huber-Eicher B. 1998. The effect of foraging material and perch height on

feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58:131-41.

lxxv Bright A. 2009. Time course of plumage damage in commercial layers. Veterinary Record 164:334-5.

lxxvi Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

lxxvii Pötzsch CJ, Lewis K, Nicol CJ, and Green LE. 2001. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 74:259-72.

lxxviii Aerni V, El-Lethey H And Wechsler B. 2000. Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in 

laying hens. British Poultry Science 41:16-21.

lxxix Lambton SL, Knowles TG, Yorke C, and Nicol CJ. 2010. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle 

and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123(1):32-42.

lxxx Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

lxxxi Hartini S, Choct M, Hinch G, Kocher A, and Nolan JV. 2002. Effects of light intensity during rearing and beak 

trimming and dietary fiber sources on mortality, egg production, and performance of ISA brown laying hens. Journal 

of Applied Poultry Research 11:104-10.

lxxxii Choct M and Hartini S. 2005. Interaction between nutrition and cannibalism in laying hens. In: Glatz PC (ed.), 

Poultry Welfare Issues: Beak Trimming (Nottingham, U.K.: Nottingham University Press, pp.111-5).

lxxxiii Steenfeldt S, Kjaer JB, and Engberg RM. 2007. Effect of feeding silages or carrots as supplements to laying 

hens on production performance, nutrient digestibility, gut structure, gut microflora and feather pecking behaviour. 

British Poultry Science 48(4):454-68.

lxxxiv Nørgaard-Nielsen G, Vestergaard K, and Simonsen HB. 1993. Effects of rearing experience and stimulus 

enrichment on feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38:345-52.

lxxxv Martrenchar A, Huonnic D, and Cotte JP. 2003. Influence of environmental enrichment on injurious pecking 

and perching behaviour in young turkeys. British Poultry Science 42:161-70.

lxxxvi Dixon LM, Duncan IJH, and Mason GJ. 2010. The effects of four types of enrichment on feather-pecking 

behaviour in laying hens housed in barren environments. Animal Welfare 19:429-35.

lxxxvii Nicol CJ, Pötzsch C, Lewis K, and Green LE. 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for 

feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44:515-23.

lxxxviii Bestman MWP. 2001. The role of management and housing in the prevention of feather pecking in laying 

hens. In: Hovi M and Bouilhol M (eds.), Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic 

Livestock Systems. Proceedings of the Third NAHWOA Workshop (Clermont-Ferrand, France: Network for 

Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture, University of Reading, pp.77-86). 

www.veeru.rdg.ac.uk/organic/ProceedingsFINAL.pdf.

lxxxix Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-

8.

xc Lambton SL, Knowles TG, Yorke C, and Nicol CJ. 2010. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and 

severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123(1):32-42.

xci Nicol CJ, Pötzsch C, Lewis K and Green LE. 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for 

feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44(4):515-23.
Page 38 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

xcii Bestman MWP and Wagenaar JP. 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying 

hens. Livestock Production Science 80:133-40.

xciii Mahboub HDH, Müller J, and von Borell E. 2004. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio 

and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45(6):738-44.

xciv Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-

8.

xcv Elwinger K., Tufvesson M., Lagerkvist G, and Tauson R. 2008. Feeding layers of different genotypes in organic 

feed environments. British Poultry Science 49(6):654-65.

xcvi Nicol CJ, Pötzsch C, Lewis K, and Green LE. 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for 

feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44:515-23.

xcvii Nicol CJ, Pötzsch C, Lewis K, and Green LE. 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for 

feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44:515-23.

xcviii Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-

8.

xcix Pötzsch CJ, Lewis K, Nicol CJ, and Green LE. 2001. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 74:259-72.

c

Pötzsch CJ, Lewis K, Nicol CJ, and Green LE. 2001. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in 

laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 74:259-72.

ci Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in 

laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-8.

cii Pötzsch CJ, Lewis K, Nicol CJ, and Green LE. 2001. A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in 

laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 74:259-72.

ciii Knierim U, Staack M, Gruber B, Keppler C, Zaludik K, and Niebuhr K. 2008. Risk factors for feather pecking in 

organic laying hens –starting points for prevention in the housing environment. 16th IFOAM Organic World 

Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16-20.

civ Green LE, Lewis K, Kimpton A, and Nicol CJ. 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking 

in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147:233-

8.

cv Bestman MWP and Wagenaar JP. 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. 

Livestock Production Science 80:133-40.

cvi Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium 

Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

cvii Brunberg E, Jensen P, Isaksson A, and Keeling L. 2011. Feather pecking behavior in laying hens: Hypothalamic 

gene expression in birds performing and receiving pecks. Poultry Science 90:1145-52.

cviii Ellen ED, Visscher J, van Arendonk JAM, and Bijma P. 2008. Survival of laying hens: genetic parameters for 

direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science 87:233-9.

cix Rodenburg TB, Uitdehaag KA, Ellen ED, and Komen J. 2009. The effects of selection on low mortality and 

brooding by a mother hen on open-field response, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens. Animal Welfare 

18: 427-32.

cx Hocking PM, Channing CE, Robertson GW, Edmond A, and Jones RB. 2004. Between breed genetic variation for 

welfare-related behavioural traits in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89:85-105.

cxi Rodenburg TB, Komen H, Ellen ED, Uitdehaag KA, van Arendonk JAM. 2008. Selection method and early-life 

history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: A review. Applied Animal 

Behaviour Science 110:217-28.

cxii Berk J and Cottin E. 2007. Effect of stocking densities and elevated platforms on behaviour, walking ability and 

leg posture of tom turkeys. In: Galindo F and Alvarez L (ed.s), Proceeding of the 41st International Congress of the 

ISAE, Merida, Mexico, July 30th-August 3rd.

cxiii Van Liere DW and Bokma S. 1987. Short-term feather maintenance as a function of dust-bathing in laying hens. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18(2):197-204.
Page 39 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

cxiv Olsson IAS and Keeling LJ. 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed 

from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93(3-4):259-82.

cxv Shields SJ. 2004. Dustbathing by broiler chickens: characteristics, substrate preference, and implications for 

welfare. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis, pp.10-2.

cxvi Jones T, Waitt CD, and Stamp Dawkins M. 2009. Water off a duck’s back: Showers and troughs match ponds for 

improving duck welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116(1):52-7.

cxvii O’Driscoll KKM and Broom DM. 2011. Does access to open water affect the health of Pekin ducks (Anas 

platyrhynchos)? Poultry Science 90:299-307.

cxviii Jones TA and Dawkins MS. 2010. Environment and management factors affecting Pekin duck production and 

welfare on commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 51(1):12-21.

cxix Baxter M. 1994. The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. The Veterinary Record 134(24):614-9.

cxx Blokhuis HJ. 1984. Rest in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12(3):289-303, citing: Ellenberger W and 

Baum H. 1943. Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der Haustiere (Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag, p. 1155).

cxxi Wilson S, Hughes BO, Appleby MC, and Smith SF. 1993. Effects of perches on trabecular bone volume in 

laying hens. Research in Veterinary Science 54(2):207-11.

cxxii Hughes BO, Wilson S, Appleby MC, and Smith SF. 1993. Comparison of bone volume and strength as measures 

of skeletal integrity in caged laying hens with access to perches. Research in Veterinary Science 54(2):202-6.

cxxiii Duncan ET, Appleby MC, and Hughes BO. 1992. Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production 

of hens. British Poultry Science 33(1):25-35.

cxxiv Appleby MC and Hughes BO. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, 

physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47(2):109-28.

cxxv Baxter M. 1994. The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. The Veterinary Record 134(24):614-9.

cxxvi Olsson IAS and Keeling LJ. 2000. Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to 

perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68(3):243-56.

cxxvii Olsson IAS and Keeling LJ. 2002. The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated 

to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11(1):11-9.

cxxviii Newberry RC, Estevez I, and Keeling L. 2001. Group size and perching behaviour in young domestic fowl. 

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:117-29.

cxxix Schrader L and Müller B. 2009. Night-time roosting in the domestic fowl: The height matters. Applied Animal 

Behaviour Science 121:179-83.

cxxx European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare 

aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 34. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. 

www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf.

cxxxi Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and 

Welfare on a request from the Commission related to the welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. 

The EFSA Journal 197:1-23. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_opinion1.pdf.

cxxxii Tauson R and Abrahamsson P. 1996. Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens: effects of artificial perch 

material and hybrid. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 46:239-46.

cxxxiii European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare 

aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 35. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. 

www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf.

cxxxiv Tauson R and Abrahamsson P. 1996. Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens: effects of artificial perch 

material and hybrid. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 46:239-46.

cxxxv European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare 

aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 35. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. 

www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf.

cxxxvi LayWel. 2006. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. 

www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2071%20welfare%20assessment.pdf.

cxxxvii Gregory NG and Wilkins LJ. 1991. Broken bones in hens. The Veterinary Record 129(25-26):559.

cxxxviii Nicol CJ, Brown SN, Glen E, et al. 2006. Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the 

welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47(2):135-46.

cxxxix Wilkins LJ, Brown SN, Zimmerman PH, Leeb C, and Nicol CJ. 2004. Investigation of palpation as a method 

for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. The Veterinary Record 155(18):547-9.
Page 40 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

cxl Scott GB and Parker CAL. 1994. The ability of laying hens to negotiate between horizontal perches. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 42:121-7.

cxli Scott GB, Lambe,NR, and Hitchcock D. 1997. Ability of laying hens to negotiate horizontal perches at different 

heights, separated by different angles. British Poultry Science 38:48-54.

cxlii Moinard C, Rutherford KMD, Haskell MJ, McCorquodale C, Jones RB, and Green PR. 2005. Effects of 

obstructed take-off and landing perches on the flight accuracy of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 

93:81-95.

cxliii Struelens E, Tuyttens FAM, Ampe B., O ̈Dberg F, Sonck B, and Duchateau L. 2009. Perch width preferences of 

laying hens. British Poultry Science 50(4):418-23.

cxliv Pickel T, Scholz B, and Schrader L. 2010. Perch material and diameter affects particular perching behaviours in 

laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127:37-42.

cxlv Scott GB and Parker CAL. 1994. The ability of laying hens to negotiate between horizontal perches. Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science 42:121-7.

cxlvi Gunnarsson S, Keeling LJ, Svedberg J. 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal 

cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40:12-8.

cxlvii Colson S, Arnould C, and Michel V. 2008. Influence of rearing conditions of pullets on space use and 

performance of hens placed in aviaries at the beginning of the laying period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 

111:286-300.

cxlviii Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying 

hens, chapter 1, article 4.3.b.1. Official Journal of the European Communities. 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:203:0053:0057:EN:PDF

cxlix Hegelund L, Sørensen JT, Kjær JB, and Kristensen IS. 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production 

systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46(1):1-8.

cl Bestman MWP. 2001. The role of management and housing in the prevention of feather pecking in laying hens. In: 

Hovi M and Bouilhol M (eds.), Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock 

Systems. Proceedings of the Third NAHWOA Workshop (Clermont-Ferrand, France: Network for Animal Health 

and Welfare in Organic Agriculture, University of Reading, pp.77-86). 

www.veeru.rdg.ac.uk/organic/ProceedingsFINAL.pdf.

cli Bestman MWP and Wagenaar JP. 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. 

Livestock Production Science 80:133-40.

clii Bright A, Brass D, Clachan J, Drake KA and Joret AD. 2011. Canopy cover is correlated with reduced injurious 

feather pecking in commercial flocks of free-range laying hens. Animal Welfare 20:329-38.

cliii Zeltner E and Hirt H. 2008. Factors involved in the improvement of the use of hen runs. Applied Animal 

Behaviour Science 114:395-408.

cliv Thear K. 2002. Free-Range Poultry (Suffolk, U.K.: Whittet Books Ltd., pp. 72-3).

clv Bestman MWP and Wagenaar JP. 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying 

hens. Livestock Production Science 80:133-40.

clvi Mitchell M. 1992. Indicators of physiological stress in broiler chickens during road transportation. Animal 

Welfare 1:91-103.

clvii Freeman BM, Kettlewell PJ, Manning ACC, and Berry PS. 1984. The stress of transportation for broilers. The 

Veterinary Record 114:286-7.

clviii Mench J. 1992. The welfare of poultry in modern production systems. Poultry Science Reviews 4:107-28.

clix Weeks C. 2007. Poultry handling and transport. In: Grandin T (ed.), Livestock Handling and Transport, 3rd 

Edition (Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International, pp. 295-311).

clx Duncan IJH. 1989. The assessment of welfare during the handling and transport of broilers. In: Faure JM and 

Mills AD (eds.), Proceedings of the Third European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Tours, France: French Branch 

of the World Poultry Science Association, pp. 79-91).

clxi Kannan G, Heath JL, Wabeck CJ, and Mench JA. 1997. Shackling of broilers: effects on stress responses and 

breast meat quality. British Poultry Science 38(4):323-32.

clxii Kettlewell PJ and Mitchell MA. 1994. Catching, handling and loading of poultry for road transportation. 

World’s Poultry Science Journal 50:54-6.

clxiii Kettlewell PJ and Turner MJB. 1985. A review of broiler chicken catching and transport systems. Journal of 

Agricultural Engineering Research 31:93-114.
Page 41 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

 

clxiv McGuire AR. 2003. Improving carcass quality. Poultry 10(1):25-6.

clxv Farsaie A, Carr LE, and Wabeck CJ. 1983. Mechanical harvest of broilers. Transactions of the American 

Society of Agricultural Engineers 26:1650-3.

clxvi Nijdam E, Zailan ARM, van Eck JHH, Decuypere E, and Stegeman JA. 2006. Pathological features in dead on 

arrival broilers with special reference to heart disorders. Poultry Science 85:1303-8.

clxvii Gregory NG and Austin SD. 1992. Causes of trauma in broilers arriving dead at poultry processing plants. 

Veterinary Record 131:501-3.

clxviii Prescott NB, Berry PS, Haslam S, and Tinker DB. 2000. Catching and crating turkeys: effects on carcass 

damage, heart rate, and other welfare parameters. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 9:424-32.

clxix American Veterinary Medical Association. 2007. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. 

www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf

clxx Webster AB and Fletcher DL. 2004. Assessment of the aversion of hens to different gas atmospheres using an 

approach-avoidance test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88(3-4):275-87.

clxxi Raj ABM. 1996. Aversive reactions of turkeys to argon, carbon dioxide and a mixture of carbon dioxide and 

argon. The Veterinary Record 138(24):592-3.

clxxii Raj M, O'callaghan M, Thompson K, et al. 2008. Large scale killing of poultry species on

farm during outbreaks of diseases: evaluation and development of a humane containerised gas killing system. 

World’s Poultry Science Journal 64:227-44.

clxxiii Raj ABM. 2004. Stunning and slaughter of poultry. In: Mead GC (ed.), Poultry Meat Processing and Quality 

(Cambridge, U.K.: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.).

clxxiv Raj M. 1998. Welfare during stunning and slaughter of poultry. Poultry Science 77(12):1815-9.

clxxv Hindle VA, Lambooij E, Reimert HGM, Workel LD, and Gerritzen MA. 2010. Animal welfare concerns during 

the use of the water bath for stunning broilers, hens, and ducks. Poultry Science 89:401-12.
Page 42 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Guidance for Assessing Animal Welfare on Organic Sheep Operations

Introduction

The following is provided to aid in assessment of whether or not the requirements of § 

205.238-241 are being met sufficiently to demonstrate adequate animal welfare 

conditions on organic sheep operations.

Nutritional Requirements

Body condition scoring of sheep

Because wool covering makes visual examination of sheep body condition more difficult 

than with other species of livestock, body condition scoring may be helpful in 

determining whether the nutritional requirements of the ewe flock are being met and 

also in assessing the health status of sheep.

Estimated external fat cover is used as a base for estimating body condition. The 

fingertips are used to palpate fat cover over and around the vertebrae in the loin region. 

The best area to palpate is just behind the last rib. The spinal column has a vertical 

process at the midpoint of the back and a transverse process horizontal to the back and 

just below the loin. The prominence of these two points, or their lack of prominence due 

to fat cover, is helpful when estimating body condition. The recommended scoring 

system uses body condition scores ranging from 0 to 5. A condition score of 0 indicates 

extreme emaciation; a score of 5 represents excessive obesity. A condition score of 

2.5-3 is considered as a medium fat-condition score for a healthy ewe at breeding and 

starting into the late gestation stage of pregnancy. If, within a ―uniform‖ group or flock, 

several or more ewes differ from the majority in body condition score it may mean they 

are parasitized, diseased, aged (lacking teeth) or have other non-nutritional problems. 

As a rule, no more than 5% of the ewe flock should be below target body condition 

scores for the stage of production.

Scoring:

1. Feel for fullness of muscle and fat cover. (illustration)

2. Feel for the spine in the center of the sheep’s back behind the last rib and 

anterior to the hipbone. (illustration)

3. Feel for the tips of the transverse processes. (illustration)

Target body condition scores based on stage of production

Dry Ewe 1.5-2.0

Breeding 2.5-3.0

Early Gestation 2.0-2.5

Late Gestation* 2.5-3.0

Early Lactation* 3.0-3.5

Late Lactation, Weaning 2.0-2.5

*Add .5 to the target score for ewes expecting or nursing twins.
Page 43 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Body Condition Score 0: Sheep is extremely thin, unthrifty and weak. Skeletal features, 

such as backbone, shoulder blades and ribs, very prominent. Wasted muscle tissue 

evident. Eye socket is prominent and sunken. May be humped back and isolates self 

from flock.

Body Condition Score 1: Sheep is extremely thin, unthrifty but agile. Skeletal features 

are prominent with no fat cover. No apparent muscle tissue degeneration. Has 

strength to remain with the flock. 

Body Condition Score 2: Sheep is thin but strong and thrifty with no apparent muscle 

structure wasting. No evident fat cover over the backbone, rum and ribs, but skeletal 

features do not protrude.

Body Condition Score 3: Sheep are thrifty with evidence of limited fat deposits in fore 

rib, over top of shoulder, backbone, and tail head. Hipbone remains visible. 

Body Condition Score 4: Moderate fat deposits give the sheep a smooth external 

appearance over the shoulder, back, rump, and fore rib. Hipbone is not visible. Firm fat 

deposition becomes evident in brisket and around the tail head.

Body Condition Score 5: Sheep are extremely fat with the excess detectable over the 

shoulder, backbone, rump, and fore rib. Excess fat deposits in brisket, flank, and tail 

head regions lack firmness. Sheep appear uncomfortable and reluctant to move about. 

Quality fleeces are generally found.

Other areas of importance in providing adequate nutrition to sheep:

 Sheep need to be provided with enough roughage in the diet to ensure proper 

rumen function. After weaning, 70% of daily dry matter fed should be long fiber 

roughage/forage.

 There should be sufficient access to forage when fed that all sheep have 

sufficient access to meet their nutritional requirements within 24 hours.

 If supplementary concentrates are fed, all animals in a group should be able to 

eat at the same time.

 Ewe lambs should not be bred unless they have reached 70% of their mature 

body weight. If ewe lambs are bred to lamb before they are 18 months of age, 

they may need to be fed separately from the ewe flock to ensure adequate 

nutrition during gestation.

 Lambs should not be weaned before 5 weeks of age. Early weaned lambs need 

a high-protein ration and should not be put on forage only.

 If culling does not remove older sheep with damaged or missing teeth from the 

flock, attention should be given to providing sufficient feed of a type these sheep 

can eat and digest. 
Page 44 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Sheep Health

When managed in a pasture-based or range system as required by organic production, 

with attention to suitability of species, and selective breeding for desirable traits, sheep 

can require few health inputs, require little lambing intervention, operator- or veterinaryprovided health treatment and yet display optimal health. 

Internal Parasites

It is necessary for special attention to be given to managing internal parasites on 

organic sheep operations. If breed selection, pasture management, supplements and

allowed treatments are not successful in keeping sheep parasite loads from impacting 

well-being, individual animals need to be given conventional treatments. Lambs are 

more susceptible to parasites than ewes. 

Lameness

Sheep hooves should be examined periodically or at least once yearly, and trimmed if 

necessary. 95% of the sheep should walk with no obvious limp. Animals with chronic or 

infrequent trimming management will be seen grazing on their knees and often will have 

grass stains on their knees. To simplify assessment, sheep can be classified as either 

lame or not lame. On a 5 point lameness scoring system, sheep that score as 3, 4, or 5 

would be classified as lame. 

Score 1. Completely normal walking 

Score 2. No obvious limp, but may have slight gait abnormalities. 

Score 3. All sheep that walk with an obvious limp. Sheep with a score 3 are able to keep 

up with their flock mates when the group is walking. 

Score 4. All sheep that walk with an obvious limp and refuse to bear their full weight on 

one or more legs. Score 4 animals are not able to keep up with their flock mates when 

the group is walking. 

Score 5. All sheep that have great difficulty walking. Score 5 sheep are barely able to 

walk. 

Physical Alterations

Tail docking should only be done if needed for prevention of fly strike. When necessary, 

tail docking should be performed by suitably trained and competent individuals on lambs 

that are between 24 hours and 14 days old. Tails should not be docked shorter than the 

distal end of the caudal tail fold.

If castration is necessary to avoid breeding by ram lambs, banding should be done by 

suitably trained and competent individuals on lambs that are between 24 hours and no 

more than 30 days old.
Page 45 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Sheep Living Conditions

Flocks may be managed with only natural shelter, depending upon climate, breed and 

lambing season. If sheep are housed or fed in lots, conditions should be such to 

maintain a cleanliness score or 1 or 2 for 95% of the flock.

Cleanliness Scoring 

Fleece maintenance is necessary to prevent manure from accumulating on the back 

end, rear legs and tail if present. The presence of manure in the fleece is an indicator of 

poor management that can lead to low conception rates and harbor external parasites. 

Messy rear ends may be due to washy forage growth or may be from untreated internal 

parasite loads. Excessive wool growth is problematic for newborn lambs to find the 

nipple and receive the valuable colostrum. 

Score 1. The entire sheep is clean except its feet and lower half of the legs. Animals on 

lush green pastures may have some soiling of the rear legs.. 

Score 2. Both the upper and lower legs are soiled and the body/breast and sides are 

clean. 

Score 3. Both the legs and belly are soiled. 

Score 4. The legs, belly and sides of the body are soiled. 

95% of the sheep should have a cleanliness score of 1 or 2. 

Space Allowances

If sheep are confined in buildings or lots during the non-grazing season, the following 

minimum space allowances should be met. Because the standards require outdoor 

access for organic livestock unless weather conditions would be injurious to animal 

health, and because sheep tend towards respiratory difficulties when confined unless 

ventilation and moisture control is optimum, it is important than confinement of sheep to 

buildings be of a temporary nature—for treatment of illness, or shelter due to inclement 

weather, winter lambing or post-shearing—and that outdoor access be provided as 

soon as possible.

Livestock Indoor Floor Space Outdoor Space 

Sheep and goats 

(pounds)

Square feet / animal Square feet / animal

Sheep and Goats 16.0 30.0 

Nursing lamb or kid 4.0 8.0 

For ewes with lambs add 5 square feet for lambing percentages over 170%. Ewes 

lambing in confinement should be provided with a dry, bedded area for lambing and 

should be checked at least 3 times daily during lambing time for lambing difficulties or 

unclaimed lambs. Lambing jugs (pens) as small as 16 square feet in area may be used 

for up to three days for a ewe and her lamb(s) to separate them from the rest of the 

flock for a period of bonding and observation.
Page 46 of 46

Species-Specific Guidance Recommendation

October 14, 2011

Pasturing Sheep

Important factors in managing sheep on pasture:

 Pastures need to be rotated and rested to minimize parasite infestation.

 Sheep need to be protected from predation.

 If electronet fencing is used, it should be kept properly energized.

 Sheep on pasture should be checked at least twice/day during lambing, once/day 

otherwise.

Humane Handling of Sheep

Sheep should be handled quietly and firmly, with care taken to avoid unnecessary pain

or distress. Sheep should not be caught by the fleece, or lifted or dragged by fleece, 

limbs, ears or tail. Electric prods should not be used on sheep.

Mortality Rates in Sheep Production

In assessing the level of animal welfare that is met on an organic sheep operation, 

mortality rates and causes should be examined and considered. Mortality in sheep 

production is generally looked at in terms of lamb mortality before and after weaning 

and ewe mortality. 

Lamb mortality rates are impacted by the prolificacy of the ewe breed (multiple 

births=higher mortality rate) and lambing conditions. The primary causes of neonatal 

lamb death are starvation and hypothermia. A lamb survival rate of 95% at weaning is 

considered to be a goal by many sheep producers. 

Similarly, a death loss of 5% or less in weaned lambs or ewes is considered to be 

indicative of good management. Weaned lambs in organic systems are impacted most 

greatly by parasites or predation. The mortality rate of ewes is affected by culling rate; if 

older ewes are kept on the farm, the mortality rate could be higher.