Restriction of behavioral opportunities and uneven use of space are considerable welfare concerns in modern broiler production, particularly when birds are kept at high densities. We hypothesized that increased environmental complexity by provision of barrier perches would help address these issues by encouraging perching and enhancing use of the pen space across a range of stocking densities. 2,088 day-old broiler chicks were randomly assigned to one of the following barrier and density treatment combinations over four replications: simple barrier, complex barrier, or control (no barrier) and low (8 birds/m2), moderate (13 birds/m2), or high (18 birds/m2) density. Data were collected on focal birds via instantaneous scan sampling from 2 to 6 weeks of age. Mean estimates per pen for percent of observations seen performing each behavior, as well as percent of observations in the pen periphery vs. center, were quantified and submitted to an analysis of variance with week as the repeated measure. Barrier perches, density and age affected the behavioral time budget of broilers. Both simple and complex barrier perches effectively stimulated high perching rates. Aggression and disturbances were lower in both barrier treatments compared to controls (P<0.05). Increasing density to 18 birds/m2 compared to the lower densities suppressed activity levels, with lower foraging (P<0.005), decreased perching (P<0.0001) and increased sitting (P = 0.001) earlier in the rearing period. Disturbances also increased at higher densities (P<0.05). Use of the central pen area was higher in simple barrier pens compared to controls (P<0.001), while increasing density above 8 birds/m2 suppressed use of the central space (P<0.05). This work confirms some negative effects of increasing density and suggests that barrier perches have the potential to improve broiler welfare by encouraging activity (notably by providing accessible opportunities to perch), decreasing aggression and disturbances, and promoting more even distribution of birds throughout the pen space.

The public has become increasingly interested in the welfare of food animals, but the food animal industries possess few mechanisms for public engagement. Here we present results from a web-based forum designed to allow stakeholders to share views on controversial issues in dairying. In response to the question "Should dairy calves be separated from the cow within the first few hours after birth?" participants were able to indicate "yes," "no," or "neutral" and either write a reason in support of their view or select reasons provided by other participants. Four independent groups of participants were recruited (a total of 163 people); 31% said they had no involvement in the dairy industry; the remaining 69% (with some involvement in the industry) were students or teachers (33%), animal advocates (13%), producers (11%), veterinarians (9%) and other dairy industry professionals (3%). Overall, little consensus existed among participants across groups; 44% chose "yes," 48% "no," and 9% "neutral." Responses varied with demographics, with opposition to early separation higher among females, animal advocates, and those with no involvement with the dairy industry. A fifth group was recruited at a dairy industry conference (an additional 28 participants); 46% chose "yes," 32% "no," and 21% "neutral." Across all 5 groups, opponents and supporters often referenced similar issues in the reasons they provided. Opponents of early separation contended that it is emotionally stressful for the calf and cow, it compromises calf and cow health, it is unnatural, and the industry can and should accommodate cow-calf pairs. In contrast, supporters of early separation reasoned that emotional distress is minimized by separating before bonds develop, that it promotes calf and cow health, and that the industry is limited in its ability to accommodate cow-calf pairs. These results illustrate the potential of web-based forums to identify areas of agreement and conflict among stakeholders, providing a basis for the development of practices that address shared concerns.

Citizens’ concerns about farm animal welfare are often dismissed on the assumption that they are not well informed about farming practices. We conducted exploratory surveys of interested citizens (n = 50) before and after a self-guided tour of a 500-head dairy farm. ‘Before’ survey questions explored perceptions, concerns, and values about dairy cattle farming and welfare, in addition to a short knowledge-based quiz on dairy cattle husbandry. An ‘after’ survey explored the extent to which these constructs shifted after the tour. Before, most participants correctly answered quiz questions about general feeding and housing practices, but scores were low on questions about specific practices such as cow-calf separation. Participants considered several elements as necessary for a ‘good’ life for dairy cattle: fresh food and water, pasture access, gentle handling, space, shelter, hygiene, fresh air and sunshine, social companions, absence of stress, health, and safety from predators. These elements reflect a diverse conception of animal welfare that incorporates values for physical and mental well-being, natural living, and humane care. The visit had a mixed effect on perceptions of whether dairy cows had a ‘good’ life, improving perceptions for a quarter of participants, worsening perceptions in a third, with no shift in the remaining participants. The visit appeared to mitigate some concerns (e.g., provision of adequate food and water, gentle humane care) while reinforcing or eliciting others (e.g., lack of pasture access, early cow-calf separation). Moreover, animal welfare-relevant values held by participants (e.g., natural living, care) appeared to play an important role in influencing perceptions of farm practices. These results suggest that education and exposure to livestock farming may resolve certain concerns, but other concerns will likely persist, especially when practices conflict with deeply held values around animal care.

Deterioration of footpad and hock condition and increased stress are important welfare concerns in high-density broiler production. It has been argued that environmental enrichment may help address these issues. We hypothesized that increasing environmental complexity by providing access to barrier perches across a range of densities should improve footpad and hock health, reduce leg fluctuating asymmetry (FA), and mitigate fear in broilers without compromising bird performance. In this study, 2,088 one-day-old broiler chicks were randomly assigned to one of the following barrier and density treatment combinations over 4 replications: simple barrier, complex barrier, or no barrier (control) and low (8 birds/m(2)), moderate (13 birds/m(2)), or high (18 birds/m(2)) density. In wk 7, data were collected on average tibia width and length, FA of tibia width and tibia length, footpad and hock lesions, tonic immobility, feed conversion, final BW, and mortalities. Broilers at higher densities had more severe footpad (P < 0.0001) and hock lesions (P < 0.0001). Their tibias were also longer (P < 0.0001) and less symmetric in length (P < 0.05). The tibias of birds in complex barrier pens were more symmetric in length compared with controls (P < 0.05). Barrier treatment had no effect on hock lesions, although there was a trend for simple barriers to reduce the severity of footpad lesions compared with the control treatment (P = 0.089). Birds kept in simple barrier pens were more susceptible to tonic immobility induction (P < 0.05). Final BW, feed conversion, and mortalities were neither affected by stocking density nor by barrier inclusion. In conclusion, this study shows a negative effect of high density on broiler footpad health and FA. Although barrier perches did not appear to reduce fearfulness, the improvement in footpad health suggests that simple barriers may provide key welfare benefits to broiler chickens.

The innovations developed by scientists working on animal welfare are often not adopted in practice. In this paper, we argue that one important reason for this failure is that the solutions proposed do not adequately address the societal concerns that motivated the original research. Some solutions also fail because they do not adequately address perceived constraints within the industry. Using examples from our own recent work, we show how research methods from the social sciences can address both of these limitations. For example, those who persist in tail-docking cattle (despite an abundance of evidence showing that the practice has no benefits) often justify their position by citing concern for cow cleanliness. This result informs the nature of new extension efforts directed at farmers that continue to tail dock, suggesting that these efforts will be more effective if they focus on providing producers with methods (of proven efficacy) for keeping cows clean. Work on pain mitigation for dehorning shows that some participants reluctant to provide pain relief believe that the pain from this procedure is short lasting and has little impact on the calf. This result informs the direction of new biological research efforts to understand both the magnitude and duration of any suffering that result from this type of procedure. These, and other examples, illustrate how social science methodologies can document the shared and divergent values of different stakeholders (to ensure that proposed solutions align with mainstream values), beliefs regarding the available evidence (to help target new scientific research that meets the perceived gaps), and barriers in implementing changes (to ease adoption of ideas by addressing these barriers).