REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2007/43/EC and its influence on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production, as well as the development of welfare indicators (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2018-04-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, animal disease, animal welfare, application of EU law, poultry, poultry farming, poultrymeat, protection of animals, veterinary legislation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.4.2018 COM(2018) 181 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Directive 2007/43/EC and its influence on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production, as well as the development of welfare indicators  (Text with EEA relevance)  
 
 
1 

BACKGROUND 

This  report  concerns  Council  Directive  (EC)  2007/43/EC1  which  lays  down  minimum  rules 
for  the  protection  of  chickens  kept  for  meat  production  (hereafter  "the  Directive")  and 
addresses Article 6(3) of the same Directive which requires the Commission to report to the 
European Parliament and to the Council on the application and influence of the Directive on 
the  welfare  of  chickens  kept  for  their  meat.  The  report  takes  into  account  production 
conditions  which  influence  broiler  welfare  as  well  as  the  socioeconomic  and  administrative 
implications of the Directive including regional aspects. This report is also one of the actions 
foreseen  in  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  protection  and  welfare  of  animals  2012-20152.  The  EU 
Strategy  promoted  an  approach  based  on  animal  welfare  outcomes  and  that  indicators  for 
assessing the welfare of broilers and at slaughter should be used more widely in future.  

This report is based on a study completed in 2017 on the socio-economic and animal welfare 
impacts  of  implementing  the  Directive3  (hereafter:  "The  2017  study").  Other  sources  of 
information  include  audits  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  which 
provide  information  on  official  controls,  opinions  of  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority 
(EFSA) and other studies which provide the scientific knowledge on broiler welfare  and the 
outcome of a workshop with all Member States in 2017 on the use of slaughterhouse data to 
monitor welfare4. 

Prior  to  the  Directive,  there  were  no  species  specific  broiler  welfare  requirements  and  only  
the  requirements  of  Directive  98/58/EC5  concerning  the  protection  of  animals  kept  for 
farming  purposes  applied,  with  its  general  principles  for  housing,  food,  water  and  care 
appropriate  to  the  physiological  and  ethological  needs  of  the  animals.  In  2005  a 
Eurobarometer  study  indicated  that  more  than  four  in  ten  EU  citizens  mentioned  chickens 
kept  for  meat  production  as  one  of  the  species  most  in  need  of  improvements  in  terms  of 
welfare and protection6.  

A separate Commission report on the impact of genetic selection on the welfare of chickens 
kept  for  meat  production,  which  was  required  by  Article  6  (1)  of  the  Directive,  concluded 
that, in line with its mandate on animal welfare and through the existing tools, the European 

1   Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production OJ L 

2

3

4

5

6

182, 12.7.2007, p. 19-28 

   COM(2012)6 final https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare/strategy_en 
   Study  on  the  application  of  the  broilers  Directive 

(DIR  2007/43/EC)  and  development  of  welfare 

indicators  see: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f4ccd35e-d004-11e7-a7df-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-
PDF/source-50600507 

    "Use  of  slaughterhouse  data  to  monitor  welfare  of  broilers  on  farm"  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

/publication/9fbf913d-de15-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

   Directive (EC) 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 0023 – 

0027 
"Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals" 
http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/yearFrom/1974/yearTo/2005/surveyKy/450   

1 

 
 
                                                            
  
Commission was willing to facilitate improvements and, at this stage, there was no need for 
legislative instruments in this area7. 

The  Directive  introduced  animal  welfare  requirements  applicable  to  houses  where  chickens 
are  kept  for  meat  production,  maximum  stocking  densities  with  additional  requirements  for 
keepers  operating  at  the  higher  stocking  densities.  In  the  case  of  higher  stocking  densities, 
mortality rate data must accompany the flock to the slaughterhouse and be evaluated. This is 
the first EU piece of legislation which introduces animal-based indicators as a way to regulate 
animal  welfare.  Monitoring  at  slaughterhouses  is  additional  to  non-discriminatory  farms 
inspections, and in certain cases should result in farm investigations to follow-up post mortem 
findings.  

2 

ECONOMICS OF THE SECTOR 

The  EU  is  a  major  global  producer  of  broilers  (11.3%  of  global  production)  with  a  total 
poultry meat production of 14.1 million tonnes in 2014. According to the 2017 study Brazil, 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  China  each  produce  more.  Three  quarters  of  the  EU 
production  is  concentrated  in  seven  Member  States:  Poland,  United  Kingdom,  Germany, 
France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands which also have the largest farms8.  

The 2017 study reported that broiler production in the EU has increased by 18.6% from 2009 
to  2014,  now  representing  about  6.5  billion  birds  a  year.  Production  and  consumption  have 
been increasing steadily and chicken is second after pig-meat as the largest consumed meat in 
the EU. Poultry meat production in the EU is expected to increase by 3.8% and consumption 
by  3.4%  in  the  period  2015-2025.  The  EU  is  103.9%  self-sufficient  in  poultry  meat,  with 
exports  accounting  for  11%  of  production  and  imports  equivalent  to  6%.  Imports,  most  of 
which  are  higher  value  cuts  from  Brazil  and  Thailand,  are  mainly  destined  for  France, 
Germany, Netherlands and the UK. 

Just over a quarter of a million people are employed in the EU poultry sector, according to the 
2017 study, with 62% employed in slaughter/processing and almost a fifth (19%) employed in 
primary production; mainly on the 23,360 large broiler farms9. In some regions of the EU the 
sector is highly integrated (common ownership of breeding, hatchery, housing, feed mill and 
processing plants) and keepers are paid a set rate for their labour and variable costs. In other 
regions, there is less integration and the keeper is also the owner of the birds. High levels of 
integration  are  common  in  Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  the  UK  with  lower  levels 
more  common  in  Belgium,  Finland,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and  Sweden.  Both  models  are 
common in Denmark and Hungary. 

7   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of genetic selection 
final) 

on 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-182-EN-F1-1.PDF  

the  welfare 

(COM(2016) 

for  meat 

production 

chickens 

kept 

182 

of 

8   European Commission - DG Agriculture and Rural Development available at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/poultry/index_en.htm 

9   Farms with more than 1000 broilers (Eurostat in 2013) although these represent less than 1% of all broiler 

farms they have 94% of the birds.   

2 

 
 
                                                            
3 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE  

The 2017 Study reported that the Directive has been fully transposed into national legislation 
and  that  implementation  of  the  Directive  is  regional  in  Belgium,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain 
and is a devolved matter in the UK.  

3.1 

Training and guidance for persons dealing with chickens 

The  Directive  introduced  specific  training  requirements  for  keepers  with  derogations  on  the 
basis of prior experience. Such training is approved by the authorities and usually delivered 
by a third party. However, the 2017 study indicated a small number of Member States do not 
offer appropriate training courses. 

The training emphasises the responsibility of the keeper and the need to balance management 
and provision of resources as well as practical aspects of catching and transport. 

Authorities  provide  keepers  with  a  certificate  of  competence,  with  two-thirds  of  these 
certificates awarded following training and a third on the basis of previous experience. Many 
keepers  who  could  have  got  a  derogation  based  on  their  experience  chose  instead  to  attend 
training  as  they  valued  the  opportunity  to  learn  about  issues  such  as  broiler  behaviour  and 
stress10.  

Although  persons  who  catch  and  load  birds  prior  to  transport  for  slaughter  do  not  require a 
certificate of competence, the Directive requires keepers to provide them with instructions and 
guidance.  However  the  keeper  is  usually  not  the  person  organising  the  catching,  especially 
where the sector is highly integrated and the slaughterhouse organises the transport, and the 
keeper is not in the best position to give instructions to the catching team.  Where this is the 
case  certain  sections  of  the  industry  have  provided  additional  training  to  catching  teams  to 
ensure that those involved are aware of good practices as well as their legal responsibilities. 

3.2 

Stocking densities and inspections  

The Directive provides three stocking density ranges and keepers must meet a different set of 
requirements for each range:  

  The general rule is that the stocking density does not exceed 33 kg/m2. 
  A  derogation  to  allow  an  increase  above  33kg/m2  up  to  39kg/m2  can  be  given  when 
additional documented details for each house are kept and the house achieves certain 
climatic  parameters.  In  addition  the  documentation  accompanying  the  flock  at  the 
slaughterhouse shall include the daily mortality rate and the cumulative daily mortality 
rate. 

10   "Educating professionals on animal welfare" available at:   

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4cca0815-024f-11e7-8a35-
01aa75ed71a1  

3 

 
 
                                                            
 
  A further increase above 39kg/m2 up to 42kg/m2 is allowed where, in addition to the 
conditions  mentioned  in  the  previous  point  being  met,  monitoring  by  the  authorities 
confirms  records  of  low  mortality  rates  and  good  management  practices.  At  these 
highest  stocking  densities,  the  Directive  provides  an  indicator,  by  way  of  a  formula, 
for the cumulative daily mortality rate which must not be exceeded.  

When transposing the Directive into national legislation, according to the 2017 Study Austria, 
Denmark,  Germany,  Sweden  and  the  UK  opted  not  to  make  use  of  some  or  all  of  these 
stocking  density  derogations.  Both  Germany  and  the  UK  indicated  that  their  decision  was 
based on scientific evidence that welfare could be compromised at higher stocking densities. 
In  the remaining  23  Member  States  national  legislation is  a  straightforward  transposition  of 
the Directive.  So at the time of the 2017 Study there was a group of Member States allowing 
a stocking  density  up to 33kg/m2, others up to  39kg/m2, and a  third  group to  the maximum 
42kg/m2 and overall almost three quarters of broilers in the EU are kept at a stocking density 
below 39kg/m2 (see chart): 

% Broilers in the EU kept at each of the three stocking 
densities 

26% 

34% 

40% 

Densities up to 33 kg/m2

Densities between 34 and
39 kg/m2

Densities up to 42 kg/m2

The 2017 Study indicated that slightly more than a quarter of EU production is at the highest 
stocking density where keepers are obliged to meet certain additional requirements set out in 
the Directive. More than half (55%) of broilers  stocked at the highest density are in France, 
with 18% located in the Netherlands and 9% in Belgium. 

During random inspections, authorities have ensured that overstocking does not occur at risk 
periods. One risk period is just before "thinning", a practice used in many Member States to 
remove  a  portion  of  birds  for  slaughter  some  days  earlier  than  the  majority  of  the  flock 
thereby creating additional space in the house. The other period when stocking density might 
be highest is immediately before the birds are sent for slaughter when the production cycle is 
completed. In order to effectively assess compliance with the Directive's legal requirements, 
Member  States  need  to  set  clear  compliance  criteria  so  that  their  inspectors  can  make  a 
practical judgement whether farms comply with the law. Most Member States provided some 
form of guidance for the practical steps to follow when measuring stocking density, but few 
gave any guidance to inspectors to assess if ventilation was sufficient. Ventilation is a critical 
point  to  ensure  the  climatic  conditions  within  a  house  but  authorities  only  a  minority  of 

4 

 
 
 
Member States had defined maximum gas concentrations and provided equipment to measure 
them. Random farm inspections are generally focussed on the resources provided rather than 
the birds themselves as it is difficult to examine individual live birds among several thousand 
in a poultry house. 

Certain  authorities,  particularly  in  Denmark  which  has  a  longest  established  system  for 
monitoring  specific  indicators  at  the  slaughterhouse,  indicated  that  it  was  more  efficient  to 
identify  problem  farms  on  the  basis  of  slaughterhouse  monitoring  rather  than  relying  on 
random farm inspections. These authorities see the use of an animal based indicator which can 
be measured post mortem and which is strongly correlated with the climatic conditions within 
the  house  during  rearing  as  the  most  efficient  way  to  organise  controls  and  target  potential 
problems with environmental conditions on farm. 

Both industry and authorities consider the requirement for data for both daily and cumulative 
daily mortality rates to accompany flocks to slaughter excessively burdensome. In a majority 
of Member States only the cumulative daily mortality rate data accompanies the flock to the 
slaughterhouse. In order to investigate when mortalities occur, e.g. close to slaughter or earlier 
during rearing, authorities need access to daily mortality rates in the case of stocking densities 
higher than 33 kg/m2. The provision of this data is made easier in certain Member States as 
keepers record daily mortality rates directly into a database, and this data can also be accessed 
by the official veterinarians who may need to investigate when deaths occurred..   

Different maximum stocking densities are applied in different Member States. The higher 
requirements  of  management  and  monitoring  to  operate  at  the  higher  stocking  densities 
mitigate against potential welfare problems.  

The  requirement  to  train  keepers  is  valued  by  the  industry,  and  certain  sections  of  the 
industry also provide additional training for transport organisers and personnel engaged in 
catching birds prior to transport. 

Farm  inspections  generally  provide  assurance  that  legislative  requirements  are  met,  but 
Member States have not always provided clear compliance criteria so that their inspectors 
can  make  a  practical  assessment  whether  farms  comply  with  the  law,  although  there  are 
some  good  practices  such  as  well-defined  maximum  gas  concentrations  and  available 
equipment to measure these.  

A  good  practice  in  some  Member  States  is  automatic  sharing  of  data  on  mortality  rates 
which  facilitates  investigation  of  cases,  in  accordance  with  the  Directive,  when  excessive 
deaths may have occurred. 

4 

DEVELOPMENT OF WELFARE INDICATORS 

4.1  Mandatory indicator 

To  be  useful  as  part  of  a  monitoring  programme  an  indicator  should  be  clearly  defined, 
practically measurable and support decision-making regarding the acceptability of conditions 

5 

 
 
on farm. The maximum cumulative daily mortality rate11 specified in the Directive for farms 
operating at the highest stocking densities is such an indicator.  

This indicator, which is determined for each flock using a formula specified in the Directive, 
can be used to measure whether the keeper has been able to avoid excessive deaths during the 
rearing period. If flocks operating at the highest stocking densities exceed the prescribed limit, 
authorities  require  keepers  to  provide  sufficient  explanation  that  the  causes  lie  beyond  their 
sphere of control otherwise they are obliged to operate at lower stocking densities for the next 
seven consecutive flocks. The keeper is required to operate below the limit during this period 
before being allowed to operate again at the higher stocking densities.  

Frequently,  when  mortality  rates  are  exceeded,  the  deaths  occurred  in  the  first  week  of 
production and the keeper claims these were due to conditions at the hatchery and/or in the 
parent  flocks.  The  authorities  accept  such  claims  but  do  not  investigate  conditions  at  the 
hatchery.  EU  law  does  not  provide  specific  requirements  for  hatcheries  and  none  of  the 
Member States audited by DG Health and Food Safety had criteria for assessing the general 
requirements of Directive 98/58/EC in relation to these establishments. 

Use of the cumulative daily mortality rate to reduce stocking densities in subsequent flocks is 
often perceived as a penalty. In order to stay below the limit and avoid a reduction in stocking 
densities,  keepers  who  might  otherwise  cull  birds  for  animal  welfare  reasons  may  instead 
transport possibly unfit birds for slaughter so that they are not included as part of their farm 
mortality rates. 

Monitoring  of  conditions  such  as  abnormal  levels  of  contact  dermatitis,  parasitism  and 
systemic illness are, as required, part of routine post mortem inspection at the slaughterhouse. 
However  the  Directive  does  not  define  the  extent  or  severity  of  such  conditions  which 
correspond  to  poor  welfare  conditions.  So  although  the  official  veterinarian  is  obliged  to 
communicate  the  results  to  the  keeper  and  the  competent  authority  where  inspection  results 
are consistent with poor animal welfare it is at the discretion of the Member State to further 
define measurable criteria, and provide an indicator, which might support this decision.  

4.2  Voluntary indicators 

The  2017  Study  reported  that  18  Member  States  have  a  requirement  in  national  law  which 
requires  footpad  dermatitis  to  be  recorded  and  15  of  these  link  this  requirement  to  targeted 
actions.  Footpad dermatitis is an indicator which is monitored at the slaughterhouse and can 
be  used  to  identify  problematic  farms  where  corrective  actions  are  needed  to  address 
underlying  problems.  Footpad  dermatitis  is  a  form  of  contact  dermatitis  due  to  ammonia 
burns, where prolonged contact with poor litter, with a high moisture and ammonia content, 
causes  chemical  irritation  of  the  skin.  Footpad  dermatitis  is  correlated  with  other  forms  of 

11  ‘Cumulative  daily  mortality  rate’  means  the  sum  of  daily  mortality  rates,  which  in  turn  is  the  number  of 
chickens which have died in a house on the same day including those that have been culled either for disease 
or because of other reasons divided by the number of chickens present in the house on that day, multiplied by 
100. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
contact  dermatitis  such  as  hock  burns  and  breast  blisters  which  suggest  not  only  poor  litter 
quality  but  also  possible  lameness  or  mobility  problems.  It  is  not  influenced  by  catching, 
transport  or  conditions  at  slaughter  and  is  therefore  a  good  indicator  of  animal  welfare  on 
farm. The 15 Member States which link this indicator to targeted action by law together with 
the  UK  and  Spain,  where  such  systems  are  implemented  without  being  specified  in  law, 
means that almost 80% of poultry production in the EU is subject to this scoring system.   

Sweden,  Denmark,  the  Netherlands  and  the  UK  have  used  this  indicator  in  practice  for  the 
longest and use the three tier scoring system first introduced in Sweden12. The eleven Member 
States who do not have such a scoring system linked to targeted actions nevertheless carry out 
post  mortem  inspections,  as  required  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  854/200413,  but  do  not 
systematically make use of this data to prioritise farm inspections.  

Use  of  footpad  dermatitis  as  an  indicator  has  allowed  Member  States  to  develop  effective 
control systems  for broiler welfare14. Although  the  scoring  and trigger levels differ between 
Member  States,  all  of  them  provide  instructions  for  post  mortem  assessment,  reporting  of 
results  and  follow  up.  Good  communication  and  coordination  between  the  authorities 
responsible for the slaughterhouse and for the farm is needed so that keepers with persistently 
high scores are obliged to deal with the problem. Continued low footpad dermatitis scores, on 
the other hand, provide evidence that the keeper is performing well. 

EFSA provided a harmonised data collection system and a model for the submission of data15 
as  required  by  Article  6(2)  of  the  Directive.  Member  States  experts  at  the  2017  workshop 
indicated that while this epidemiological/sampling approach gave a national picture of levels 
of footpad dermatitis this did not provide a tool to prioritise controls of individual farms on an 
on-going  basis.  The  Member  State  experts  concluded  that,  unless  they  already  had  such  a 
system in place, they needed to develop guidance on how data from slaughterhouses could be 
used as part of risk based controls. 

Mortality  rates  provide  a  basic  measure  of  the  welfare  of  the  flock,  but  scoring  specific 
types of contact dermatitis at post mortem, notably footpad dermatitis, is now relied on in a 
majority of Member States as the best way to make a risk assessment of broiler farms and 
prioritising  farms  for  investigation  and  action.  Monitoring  of  subsequent  flocks  at  post 
mortem can be used to confirm that underlying problems have been corrected. 

Conditions  at  hatcheries  and/or  parent  flocks  are  often  suspected  of  giving  rise  to  high 

12   "Management tools to reduce footpad dermatitis in broilers", I. de Jong & J. van Harn, Aviagem, 2012 

13 Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down 
specific  rules  for  the  organisation  of  official  controls  on  products  of  animal  origin  intended  for  human 
consumption OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 206, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 83 

14   "Contribution of Meat Inspection to the surveillance of poultry health and welfare in the European Union", 
A. Huneau-Salaün, K. D. Stärk, A. Mateus,  C. Lupo, A. Lindberg, S. Le Bouquin-Leneveu,  Epidemiology 
& Infection, 2015, Vol. 143, Issue 11, pp. 2459-2472 

15   "Technical assistance to the Commission (Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) for the preparation of 
slaughterhouses" 

of  welfare 

a 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3299/pdf  

indicators 

collection 

broilers’ 

system 

data 

EU 

in 

7 

 
 
                                                            
mortality  rates  during  the  early  stages  of  rearing,  but  such  establishments  are  not 
investigated by authorities as they have not defined specific animal welfare rules applicable 
at these other sites. 

5 

INFLUENCE ON THE WELFARE OF CHICKENS 

An  EFSA  opinion16  lists  the  major  diseases  with  welfare  implications  for  broilers  as  leg 
problems, contact dermatitis, ascites and sudden death syndrome. It indicates that these have 
been exacerbated by intense selection for fast growth rate and increased feed efficiency,  but 
also  by  environmental  conditions.  The  Directive  seeks  to  improve  the  welfare  of  chickens 
through  better  management  and  environmental  conditions  and  made  the  issue  of  genetic 
selection the subject of another Commission report. 

The 2017 study indicates that there has been little assessment of the impact of the Directive 
either by the Member States or by industry. The audits carried out by DG Health and Food 
Safety  together  with  the  2017  workshop  with  Member  States  provide  the  basis  for  the 
following conclusions on the impact of the Directive on the welfare of the birds.  

Production systems are basically the same as before the Directive entered into force, with one-
day  old  chicks  placed  in  a  house,  on  a  floor  covered  with  litter  material  (e.g.  straw,  wood 
chips,  peat  or  paper).  Improvements  have  been  made  in  housing  and  the  quality  of  the 
environment as certain Member States have phased out older housing which was not capable 
of  meeting  the  requirement  to  maintain  average  relative  humidity  inside  the  house  at  levels 
below  70  %  during  48  hours  when  the  outside  temperature  is  below  10°C.  That  incapacity 
was  also  found  to  result  in  high  levels  of  footpad  dermatitis  and  the  monitoring  of  this 
indicator also brought about housing improvements.  

So  most  systematic  improvements  have  been  made  through  measures  to  address  footpad 
dermatitis  rather  than  through  random  farm  inspections.  Actions  to  address  high  levels  of 
contact dermatitis also included killing birds at a younger age, before mobility problems occur 
and  preventing  deterioration  in  bird  welfare.  Maintaining  appropriate  litter  through  the 
lifecycle of the flock is also credited with reducing diseases such as coccidiosis and necrotic 
enteritis thereby bringing about improvements in bird health.  

Further indirect indications of the positive benefits of adopting such measures on flock health 
have  emerged  from  other  work  carried  out  by  DG  Health  and  Food  as  part  of  the 
Commission's action  plan on antimicrobial resistance17.  In  particular, there is  evidence that 
the need to use antimicrobials (other than coccidiostats) for treating common conditions has 
been substantially reduced, or avoided altogether, in those Member States which have a strong 
focus on welfare, health and hygiene issues18.   

16   "Scientific  Opinion  on  the  influence  of  genetic  parameters  on  the  welfare  and  the  resistance  to  stress  of 

commercial broilers" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1666/full  

17   https://ec.europa.eu/health/amr/sites/amr/files/amr_action_plan_2017_en.pdf  
18   http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=121 

8 

 
 
                                                            
The Directive has provided a good framework for ensuring broiler welfare and although the 
scoring  of  footpad  dermatitis  is  not  defined  at  EU  level,  the  use  of  this  indicator  has 
resulted in the most systematic improvements in animal welfare.  

6 

COSTS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The  2017  study  indicated,  on  the  basis  of  a  survey  of  Member  States,  that  the  costs  of  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  were  estimated  in  six  Member  States  and  were  not 
comparable.  The  recorded  implementation  costs;  both  annual  and  one-off,  were  associated 
with  keepers'  costs  to  meet  the  more  detailed  requirements,  costs  for  the  authorities  for 
additional staff and equipment to measure environmental parameters, and administrative and 
production costs for the industry.  

The  2017  study  indicates  that,  overall,  Member  States  and  industry  do  not  consider  the 
implementation  of  the  Directive  as  having  significant  financial  implications.  The  only 
Member States which indicated a significant cost were the UK and the Netherlands. The UK 
estimate, on the basis of an Impact Assessment before the Directive was implemented, a cost 
of c. €71.1 million for one off and annual costs over eight years. The main cost arose from the 
UK decision not to allow farms to operate at the highest stocking densities. According to the 
2017  study,  these  costs  were  borne  by  the  industry  but  consumer  willingness  to  pay  for 
products  with  higher  animal  welfare  standards  offset  costs  from  lower  stocking  density  and 
production.  In  the  Netherlands  no  impact  assessment  was  carried  out;  however,  both  the 
authorities and industry believe the implementation of the Directive had a substantial cost as, 
prior  to  the  Directive,  stocking  densities  ranged  from  45  kg/m2  to  50  kg/m²  and  the  lower 
production from the lower stocking densities introduced by the Directive were costs that had 
to  be  borne  by  the  industry.  The  Netherlands  estimated  an  annual  administrative  and 
production  cost  for  the  industry  of  €2.7  million,  not  including  the  loss  in  revenue  from 
stocking density reductions to comply with the Directive. In other Member States costs from 
implementation ranged from negligible up to €6 million annually for growers in Finland.  

Monitoring  of  indicators  at  the  slaughterhouse,  were  seen  as  a  cost  for  both  slaughterhouse 
staff  and  Official  Veterinarian  time  (e.g.  The  Czech  Republic  estimated  costs  of  c.  €1.3 
million to carry out checks in slaughterhouses).   

Broiler  farming  is  a  large  and  growing  sector  of  the  agricultural  economy  in  the  EU 
providing significant employment. Exports and imports largely balance each other and there 
has been no major cost from implementing the Directive. The competitiveness of the sector 
in different Member States has not been negatively affected by operating at lower stocking 
densities.  

9 

 
 
7 

CONCLUSIONS 

Broiler  farming  is  an  important  part  of  the  EU  agricultural  economy  and,  according  to  the 
information  gathered with the 2017 study, there has  been  no  major  cost from implementing 
the  Directive.  The  Directive  has  provided  a  framework  by  which  Member  States  have 
improved management and housing for broilers which have had a positive effect on the health 
and welfare of the birds. 

Controls based on monitoring footpad dermatitis are best at demonstrating that animal welfare 
has  improved.  Such  controls  are  the  most  efficient  and  effective  way  of  prioritising  farm 
investigations. Also authorities and keepers have been able to measure progress and maintain 
standards based on real animal welfare outcomes through scoring footpad dermatitis. 

Member  States  are  aware  of  the  steps  needed  to  implement  monitoring  systems  for  footpad 
dermatitis and two thirds of Member States have already established such systems.  

Random inspection of farms is still an important part of any control system, in particular to 
check  stocking  densities  and  that  management  and  housing  and  other  resources  are 
appropriate.  

Different maximum stocking densities have been applied in different Member States, and the 
possible  negative  effects  of  high  stocking  densities  have  been  mitigated  by  applying  higher 
requirements  and  monitoring  using  cumulative  daily  mortality  rates  as  an  indicator.  High 
mortality rates are often blamed on conditions at hatcheries and/or parent flocks but there are 
no known actions by authorities to address this suspicion. The proper assessment of the more 
technical  requirements,  such  as  ventilation,  which  influence  chickens'  welfare,  is  also  a 
challenge for authorities.  

The Commission will continue to work with Member States to disseminate examples of good 
practice for controls and with Member States and industry on guidance on farm management.  

10