Duration: 10/01/2009 to 09/30/2014

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Over the past several decades improved poultry production systems have contributed to significantly enhanced performance traits (egg production, growth rates, meat yields, livability, feed conversion) and are responsible for providing economic, nutritious, and safe food choices. However, the poultry industry is also increasingly being challenged to address consumer and general public concerns about animal welfare and environmental issues. Pressure from activists and well-intentioned groups using outdated, unscientific information, as well as misunderstandings by consumers removed from agriculture, have already resulted in a substantial redefinition of acceptable production practices. Tensions between optimal production (safe, affordable food), welfare of birds in production, and perceptions of consumers will certainly continue and intensify in the near term; therefore it is imperative that the basis for future production practices be based on sound science that includes a strong emphasis on bird physiology and behavioral indicators of well-being in all types of production systems. In fact, the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and Midwest Poultry Consortium, two primary organizations that represent the poultry industry, have identified the development of energy/resource efficient production systems for poultry as a research need. This includes consideration of nutrition, ventilation, lighting, air quality, environmental footprint, food safety/security, and welfare. A particular, related research need identified by these organizations is the environmental and economic effects of the movement toward alternative production systems. Production systems must be further optimized to be more energy/resource efficient and environmentally sustainable; otherwise poultry products will be compromised from a quality, security and affordability perspective. The consequences of not remaining competitive will result in a loss of the U.S. poultry industry's position in the global market, and more poultry industry leaving the U.S. This may lead to the demise of poultry production within the United States as we know it today.

To optimize poultry welfare under various types of production systems, it is essential that important environmental conditions be well defined and that interactions among various components of the systems are identified. Production optimization requires that the physiological basis for the bird's response to its complex environment be well understood. It also requires that the interactions between multiple environmental factors (thermal, gaseous, nutritional, social) and genetics be elucidated as well as the ways in which multiple environmental factors converge to disrupt physiological processes, resulting in, for example, ascites, respiratory impairment, skeletal deformations, or reproductive failure, all of which have profound impacts on the poultry industry. In addition to substantial financial losses, these conditions compromise welfare and performance of individual birds. An interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to addressing these problems is essential because of the multifaceted nature of poultry production systems and the reciprocal and simultaneous effects on different aspects of performance or welfare.

Historically this particular multi-state project has been a successful interdisciplinary research project involving nutritionists, environmental physiologists, neuroscientists, behaviorists, engineers, operations researchers, extension specialists and economists. These collaborators have the facilities (both laboratory and commercial scale) and equipment necessary to continue work in the proposed areas.

Objectives

Collaborators at the experimental stations in CA, CT, IA, IL, MD, MN, NE, MS-ARS, TX, GA, and PA will work on research related to the following objectives.

1. Energy/resource efficient poultry production systems

This will include collaborative efforts on feed energy sources for poultry by geographical region, ventilation systems, lighting systems, animal welfare and modeling energy use in poultry systems.

2. Alternative production systems

This collaborative research will encompass characterization and mitigation of air emissions, manure nutrient management, animal welfare (including health), and economic evaluation of alternative poultry production systems.

Animal-environment interactions are complex. No environmental factor exerts its influence on animals in a vacuum, nor does any physiological response occur without affecting other systems. Increased sophistication of analytical and data processing methodologies, and greater precision of environmental control systems, increase the desirability of multi-disciplinary research efforts. The complexity of the questions and problems that will be addressed by this project could not be accomplished at any single station. The level and diversity of expertise that this project brings together cannot be found at any single institution. Additionally, the equipment and facilities available for use in this research would also not be found in any single location. This multi-expertise and multistate effort will eliminate duplication of effort and conserve resources. In times of tight budgets, sharing birds, facilities, and resources surely makes good sense, in that maximum return for dollars spent can be realized. Duplication of effort is minimized by crossing state and university lines to focus the tremendous scientific expertise of the committee members (nutritionists, environmental physiologists, neuroscientists, behaviorists, engineers, operations researchers, extension specialists and economists) of this unique multi-discipline, multi-state project on questions of critical importance to the poultry industry. In addition, a unique element of this project is the strong extension component. Many of the contributing members of the project have a primary extension appointment and thus are in direct and continual contact with poultry producers; this, of course, facilitates flow of information in both directions and strengthens the effectiveness of the project. Although specific inter-state and university linkages will be provided later in the proposal, some of the critical and unique instruments and facilities that will be shared/used collaboratively are spectra radiometers (CT) and audiology analysis systems (CT), hypo/hyperbaric chambers (TX), emission chambers (IL, PA, IA), portable air emission monitoring trailers (IA), multi-channel telemetric body temperature sensing system with ingestible sensors (IA), infrared thermal imager for quantification of surface temperature distribution (IA, GA), multi-station individual bird feeding units (IA), environmental chambers (MS, CA, IL), and four large-scale indirect animal calorimeters/emission chambers that allow for simulation of commercial production settings (IA). We also have state of the art poultry production facilities (IL, CT, GA, MN, IA) available. These are highly specialized pieces of equipment and/or facilities already in place that would be prohibitive to reproduce at other universities. Collaborative use through this project maximizes both efficiency of use and research productivity. In addition, this project has the distinct advantage of poultry behavioral expertise (CA, IN) that is lacking in other poultry regional projects.

Successful completion of the endeavors outlined in this proposal will lead to 1) increased knowledge of basic physiological and behavioral processes in poultry; 2) identification of meaningful relationships between environmental factors and their associated production and economic ramifications; and, 3) enhanced management-decision making and action taking initiatives. With this information, housing environments can be optimized by defining environmental conditions (aerial, thermal, spectral, spatial, and nutritional) and management practices that will result in production systems which promote bird welfare, performance, food safety and security, environmental soundness, and ultimately sustainable development of the U.S. poultry industry.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Related work: Results of the CRIS Search

A CRIS search on poultry environment identified only two other multi-state projects working on similar areas, S-1025 (Systems for Controlling Air Pollutant Emissions and Indoor Environments of Poultry, Swine and Dairy Facilities) and S-1035 (Nutritional and Management Abatement Strategies for Improvement of Poultry Air and Water Quality). S-1025 focuses on an engineering approach to improve facilities in a variety of domestic animal species while S-1035 focuses on nutritional and horticultural approach (use of vegetative buffers). In contrast, the proposed project will focus a diversity of disciplines on development of optimal environmental systems for broilers, laying hens/pullets and turkeys, based on physiological and behavioral measurements.

The CRIS search also identified several other currently active research groups working in similar or related areas. Several citations were found but, as with S-1025 and S-1035, the overlap was minimal and reflects different approaches to similar issues. Several stations, in addition to those listed on our project, are conducting measurements of air pollutant emissions from livestock and poultry facilities (AR, DE, GA (ARS), KY, NC, SC TN AL and TX). AL, MS, NC and PA are examining the use dietary additives and strategies to reduce poultry manure nutrients. In contrast to the above work, the proposed research will be investigating environmental and dietary factors (including antibiotics) that could alter these emission rates. No other stations were found to be working in this specific area with multi-discipline approach. AR (ARS) was identified as developing alternatives to the use of antibiotics from the standpoint of disease control. GA was examining the influence of antimicrobials on intestinal microflora.

Other aspects of the environment to be studied by this proposed committee will include light and acoustics. Other groups working in similar areas include AL and AR performing studies investigating aspects of light for improved reproduction and growth of broilers. Other groups looking at lighting for poultry are MN testing LEDs with turkeys) and MD (ARS) (examining photoperiod and turkey hen breeder performance). In the area of bioacoustics only one other station, NY is doing any current research (bioacoustics of wildlife in navigating and orientation but not in agricultural animals). The proposed research will concentrate on poultry, specifically commercial meat birds and laying (chicken) hens and will investigate energy efficient lighting systems. The area of acoustics relative to livestock and poultry is a very new area of research.

In the area of behavior and welfare, one active multi-state Project (NC-1029 Applied Animal Behavior and Welfare) was found but they are investigating multiple species, such as sheep, cattle and poultry, while our project is all poultry related. Other stations are working independently (AL, IN, NC, NE) on various aspects of poultry welfare, such as cage rearing, molting of laying hens, effects of various nutrients and alternative housing. While there may be some overlap between this project and some of those listed above, efforts should be viewed as highly complementary, with each having its own equally important uniqueness. None of the projects found in the CRIS search directly and completely overlap the work proposed by this committee.

Current work: Literature Review

A. Defining and Measuring Animal Welfare

Animal welfare has been a controversial topic in animal agriculture, in part because some management practices that increase farm profitability (e.g. increased stocking density) may negatively impact certain aspects of welfare , for example by severely restricting the animals movement (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Animal welfare is a complex concept that includes consideration not only for the biological functioning of the animal, but also ethics (Broom, 1986). The ethical component of welfare is responsible for much of the controversy, since there are deeply held but conflicting values in our society about what constitutes appropriate use and treatment of animals (Fraser, 2008).

From a scientific standpoint, welfare can be considered to be a state of the animal that may range from poor to good (Broom and Johnson, 1993). Many methods are used to scientifically assess the animals physical and psychological state, including aspects of bodily condition, health, physiology and behavior. Many physical components of welfare are relatively straightforward to evaluate, since they include parameters traditionally used to evaluate performance and health (e.g. growth rate, body weight, egg production, mortality and morbidity, comb color, and feather condition) (Estevez et al., 1997; Estevez, 2002; Keeling et al., 2003; Adams and Craig, 1985; Craig et al., 1986a and 1986b; Bell and Carey, 1998). Behavioral indicators include the expression of particular normal behaviors (such as activity, grooming and resting), preferences (such as for different types of bedding or flooring surfaces), and the absence of abnormal or negative behaviors (such as stereotypies, feather pecking, cannibalism, or unusually high levels of aggression, social conflict or fearfulness) (Bilcik et al., 1998; Gunnarsson et al., 1999). Physiological parameters include hormone levels such as corticosterone (Craig et al. 1986a), heart rate (Price and Sibly, 1993), or immune status (Gross and Siegel, 1983; Patterson and Siegel, 1998). It is important to evaluate multiple measures of welfare when investigating particular production practices, since any single measure is unlikely to provide the most definitive information about the welfare of the animal.

In recent years, the need for retail companies to assure certain welfare standards has led to animal welfare auditing of production facilities. Animal care guidelines primarily have sought to establish standards for handling and husbandry in conventional production systems (Mench 2003). Future guidelines may put increasing emphasis on the adoption of alternative management practices or housing systems that are intended to improve particular aspects of animal welfare (Webster, 2007).

B. Elements of the Physical Environment

Aerial. The volatilization of ammonia (NH3) from poultry manure can be a problem not only for the health of the birds (Anderson et al., 1964 Charles and Payne, 1966; Reece et al., 1980; Deaton et al., 1984), but have also become a cause of concern outside the poultry house. Litter additives such as phosphoric acid (Malone, 1987), proprionic acid (Parkhurst et al., 1974), and ferrous sulfate (Huff et al., 1984) have been used to reduce the volatilization of NH3 from poultry manure in laboratory conditions and data obtained in the field (Xin et al., 2002). More recently, Kim and Patterson (2003) examined the use of minerals to reduce microbial urease activity of poultry manure. Commercially available, topically applied litter and manure amendments such as sodium bisulfate (PLT®), aluminum sulfate (Al+Clear®), and an enzyme treatment (De-oderase®) have been used with some success (Moore et al., 1995). Effectiveness of commercial products in reducing NH3 volatilization from poultry manure has been based on gaseous concentration of NH3 in and around poultry facilities. Work at IL has shown that the emissions rates of NH3 have much more potential than measuring ppm levels for establishing dosage and time interval effects of these compounds (Harrison and Koelkebeck, 2007).

Prior to 2000 air emissions data in the literature were mostly collected from European animal production systems (Wathese et al., 1997; Takai et al., 1998). Over the past 6-8 years, inspired by the National Academy of Science Report on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs (2003), researchers in the United States have made considerable strides toward collecting baseline air emissions data under U.S. animal production conditions. The most extensive field studies focusing on poultry air emissions that have been completed to date are those reported by Liang et al. (2006) monitoring ammonia and carbon dioxide emissions from 10 laying-hen houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania for one year, by Wheeler et al. (2006) monitoring ammonia and carbon dioxide emissions from 12 broiler houses in Kentucky and Pennsylvania for one year, by Burns et al. (2008) monitoring ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, non-methane-hydrocarbon, nitrous oxide, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 from two broiler houses in Kentucky for one year, and by Li et al. (2009) monitoring ammonia, carbon dioxide, TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 from two turkey in Iowa and Minnesota one year.

Certain housing systems involve separate manure storage, which contributes to overall air emissions of the production system. Manure-belt layer houses belong to such systems. Lab-scale measurements of ammonia emissions from hen manure storage have been conducted (Li, 2006). The factors considered in the evaluations include manure stacking configuration, manure moisture content typically encountered under commercial production conditions, and ambient temperature in the storage. Manure stacking configuration was found to have a significant impact on emissions in that deeper stacks with smaller exposed or emitting surface area lead to lower emissions. Ammonia emission is positively related to ambient temperature. Manure at 77% moisture content emits more ammonia than manure at 50% moisture content (Li., 2006).

Poultry manure is typically land-applied as fertilizer, although poultry litters have found use in renewable energy generation. Air emissions associated with land application of poultry manure are much more limited as compared to emissions from houses or manure storage due to technical difficulty in quantifying such emissions and inherent large variations of application conditions. Ammonia nitrogen loss from manure during land application has been expressed as percentage of manure nitrogen content. These losses have been estimated to be 7% for dry laying-hen manure (Lockyer and Pain, 1989), 41.5% for wet laying-hen manure (Lockyer and Pain, 1989), and 25.1% for broiler litter (Cabera et al., 1994), as cited by US EPA in development of livestock and poultry manure management train (MMT).

Ammonia loss into the atmosphere can have negative impacts on the environment, such as soil acidification and eutrophication (deprivation of oxygen). When combined with nitric acid, ammonia in the atmosphere can form airborne nitrate particles that have negative effects on human health and reduced visibility. Ammonia volatilization from manure also reduces its fertilizer value. Odor from animal feeding operations has been the predominant source of complaints and in some cases litigation from neighbors.

To improve indoor air quality and reduce air emissions, researchers have been actively investigating viable techniques that will reduce the generation and/or emissions of the aerial pollutants. The mitigation techniques that have been studied or are being studied include dietary manipulation (Roberts et al., 2007; Xin, 2008), topical application of chemical or mineral additives on poultry manure (Li et al., 2008), electrostatic precipitation of particulates (Ritz et al., 2008), treatment of exhaust air via biofilter or wet scrubber (Melse and Ogink, 2005; Bendekar et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2008) or vegetative environmental buffer (Malone, et al., 2008), and prompt incorporation of land-applied manure. While these prospective mitigation strategies show appreciable efficacy in emissions reduction, a critical piece of information that is missing or lacking, especially for the emerging technologies, is the economic viability of the techniques and system longevity under production conditions.

Visual. The value of regulating the photoperiod of poultry to stimulate reproduction has been recognized for many years and is used regularly by commercial poultry farmers. Many studies have proven the effectiveness of energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps for layers (Darre and Spandorf, 1985; Patterson and Darre, 2002, Widowski et al., 1992), and broilers (Scheideler, 1990). The visual sensitivity of chickens has been well-studied. Jarvis et al. (2002) studied the sensitivity of poultry to fluorescent flicker, reporting that chickens may perceive this phenomenon better than humans. Widowski et al. (1992) reported that laying hens show a preference for compact fluorescent lamps over incandescent lamps. Prayitno and Phillips (1997) conducted behavioral tests on pullets and found that chickens see red light (650 nm) as being equal in illumination at about three times the quantum flux of violet light (470 nm).

Many studies have focused on the effects of photoperiod, or the quality, wavelength, intensity of light, on performance (Leeson and Summers, 1985; Lewis and Morris 1998, 1999, 2000; Lewis et al., 2000; Pyrzak et al., 1986, 1987; Prayitno et al., 1997a, 1997b; Prescott and Wathes, 1999), although few have focused on other aspects of welfare. Although birds respond to all wavelengths of light, broilers may be more active under red light than blue or green; they may grow slightly heavier under green lights whereas red appears to have a reproductive effect (Davis et al., 1999). Broilers reared under low day-night illumination contrast (5 lux/1 lux) are less active, more likely to have their resting bouts interrupted by other birds, and have heavier eyes, than those reared under moderate to high day-night illumination contrast (50 or 200 lux/1 lux) (Alvino et al., in press; Blatchford et al., 2009). Recent research also suggests that providing illumination during incubation may be important for broiler welfare; broilers hatched from eggs illuminated during incubation under a 12L:12D photoperiod were less fearful and showed less composite asymmetry, which is a measure of developmental stress, than those incubated under 0L:24D or 24L:0D (Archer et al., 2009). Darre (1979) observed reduced agonistic behavior of chickens reared under red lights while Prescott and Waithes (2002) studied feeding behaviors under illuminances. Fiber optics as a means of illuminating poultry need further study.

Auditory. Although much is known about hearing and sound production in poultry, we are still learning about the relationship of acoustical environments to their health and production; however, it is surmised that increased noise or the increase of certain tones and calls may significantly impact production. This has been shown regarding food calls in chickens where the presence of food was signaled to hens and where the food calls varied with food presence and food quality (Marler et al., 1986). It has also been shown that animal vocalizations correlate with handling and facilities design and as indicators of psychological well-being (Grandin et al., 1996 and Mulligan et al., 2003). Attempts are being made in California s poultry industry to use vocalizations of sentinel birds to signal disease outbreaks (G. Zeidler, personal communication). Further, current animal welfare regulations are tending toward the enactment of regulations and the institution of acoustic stress audits for animal welfare in the near future (Roybal, 2003) to help protect animals from hearing loss due to excessive noise levels. These issues will be affected by our knowledge (or lack thereof) of the effects of sound on animals as well our knowledge of animal hearing in the near future.

Structural features and enrichment. Because of concerns about the behaviorally restrictive nature of conventional (battery) cages, there has been considerable development of alternative hen housing systems, particularly in Europe. Current indoor alternative systems include non-cage systems (barns, aviaries, or percheries) and 'furnished cages' (also called enriched colony systems) which include design features intended to promote the performance of specific behaviors (Appleby et al., 2004; Laywel, 2007), particularly foraging dustbathing, nesting and perching. However, studies suggest that these features are not always optimally used by the hens. For example, Aerni (2005) reviewed studies that investigated the use of the dustbathing substrate in non-cage systems, and reported that the percentage of hens observed using the substrate in the different studies ranged from only 7.6 up to 50, with the majority of studies showing that fewer than 25% of the hens were in the substrate area during the observation periods. In furnished cages, it has been reported that the substrate is used infrequently, particularly for dustbathing (Hoerning, 2005). Hens are often observed to dustbathe on the floor of furnished cages even though there is a dustbathing area with substrate available (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997), although the reasons for this are unclear.

The use of battery cages raises a considerable debate pertaining to the relative impact of the practice on hen well-being. Battery cages provide some benefits to the hens well-being, such as maintaining a small stable group size, resulting in less bird aggression and cannibalism (Appleby, 1998; Rodenburg et al., 2005). However, there is a considerable body of morphological, physiological, and behavioral evidence demonstrating that the use of battery cages increases stress in hens due to barren environment, inhibiting the hens to perform certain natural behaviors and reduce bone quality (Koelkebeck and Cain, 1984; Hughes, et al., 1993; Nicol, 1995; Vestergaard et al., 1997; Tauson, 1998). The poultry producers and scientists are in prime position to preempt any future legislative restriction of battery caging systems by developing more welfare-friendly housing systems that minimize stress and safeguard hen well-being.

Environmental enrichment induces various changes in physiology and behavior in humans and other mammals, which, in turn, improves their physical and psychological well-being (Spires and Hannan, 2005; Nithianantharajah and Hannan, 2006; Baker, et al., 2007). Similar effects of environmental enrichment could be presented in chickens. However, alternative housing systems for laying hens must be designed to balance the health and the welfare of the birds with consumer preferences, the needs of the industry, and the impact on environment and profitability. Different housing systems for laying hens have considerable effects on performance and production traits such as egg weight, feed efficiency, daily feed consumption, and mortality (Singh, et al., 2009.) Designs to enrich the environment are crucial in the effort to fully address the biological needs of domestic animals. Environmental enrichment is not only beneficial for broiler breeder welfare, but can also be economically advantageous, resulting in a win-win situation for poultry welfare and production (Leone and Estavez, 2008).

Adequate use of the facilities and materials provided in alternative systems is critical for both hen welfare and economic sustainability (see review in Appleby et al., 2004). If nesting sites are undesirable for whatever reason, hens may lay their eggs on the floor. These eggs must be hand-collected and can be a source of food safety problems if they are cracked or soiled. Perch use improves leg and wing bone strength; conversely, poorly designed or maintained perches can cause lesions and infections of the feet, and poor perch placement can contribute to cannibalism and bone breakage. Adequate use of substrate is also important. Hens deprived of a substrate for dustbathing show evidence of frustration (Olsson and Keeling, 2005; Zimmerman et al., 2000). Dustbathing also has important physical functions. It removes excess feather lipids (van Liere et al., 1991), making the feather down fluffier and helping to maintain feather integrity (van Liere and Bokma, 1987) such that the feathers protect against injury and help to maintain thermal insulation. It is also claimed that dustbathing helps birds to remove ectoparasites (e.g. Olsson and Keeling, 2005), although there is almost no empirical work in this area. Investigating methods to improve the use and design of nesting, perching and substrate areas is thus important for the development and management of alternative systems.

C. Dietary Manipulations

Increased interest in ethanol production in North America has led to increased production of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), the majority of which are fed to ruminant livestock (Leytem, et al, 2008). However, it has been shown that DDGS are an acceptable ingredient for use in poultry diets (Lumpkins, et al. 2004; Lumpkins et al 2005; Noll et al. 2008, Thacker and Widyarantne, 2007). Incorporation of DDGs into poultry diets presents other challenges as the energy content is less than that of corn (Noll et al., 2003). In addition, the use of DDGS can impact manure nutrient content and ammonia emissions. Corn derived DDGS can be an economic source of available phosphorus (P). Previous studies have indicated the phosphorus availability of DDGS to be greater than that of phosphorus in corn the availability of which is estimated at 28% (NRC, 1994). Lumpkins and Batal (2005) obtained P bioavailability estimates of 54 and 68% with chicks. Martinez-Amezcua et al. (2004) found P bioavailability was related to heat processing such that P availability increased from 75 to 87% for a sample of DDGS that was autoclaved. Bioavailability of phosphorus in three other sets of DDGS was 75, 82 and 102%. In a follow-up study, Martinez Amezcua and Parsons (2007) demonstrated that heating or autoclaving DDGS increased P bioavailability, however, digestibility of lysine was decreased. Kalbfleisch and Roberson (2004, 2005) found relatively high availabilities for P in excess of 85% for DDGS using a turkey poult bioassay. Martinez-Amezcua et al. (2006) found additions of phytase and citric acid in a diet containing 40% DDGS released additional P, improving P availability of the DDGS from 62 to 72%. While the high bioavailability of P could reduce overall diet P content, the large range in bioavailability prevents accurate assignment of P bioavailability. The high P content of DDGS also may limit its use in diets containing animal protein (Noll and Brannon, 2008). Roberts et al., 2007 found inclusion of 10% DDGS reduced ammonia emissions in layer hens by 51% through a reduction in manure pH as a result of the fiber contribution from the DDGS.

The use of corn for ethanol production will also increase the use of alternative feedstuffs which may cause a decrease in diet energy levels and nutrient utilization. Lowering the CP content of broiler diets may reduce feed cost and allow for use of alternate feedstuffs (Kamran, et al, 2008). For example, wheat is an important ingredient in broiler diets because of its high starch (ST) and CP content, and is sometimes the only cereal in grower and finisher diets (Gutierrez del Alamo et al., 2008). However, the chemical composition and energy availability of wheat can vary (Mollah et al., 1983; Kim et al., 2003). Diets that are supplemented with crystalline amino acids and reduced protein are important to examine (Ferguson et al., 1998a,b).

Objectives

1. Investigation and development of poultry production systems to improve energy and resource use efficiency. This will include collaborative efforts on feed energy sources for poultry by geographical region, ventilation systems, lighting systems, animal welfare and modeling energy use in poultry systems.
   
2. Alternative systems and profitability. This collaborative research will encompass characterization and mitigation of air emissions, manure nutrient management, animal welfare (including health), and economic evaluation of alternative poultry production systems.
   

Methods

Objective 1. Investigation and development of poultry production systems to improve energy and resource use efficiency. This will include collaborative efforts on feed energy sources for poultry by geographical region, ventilation systems, lighting systems, animal welfare and modeling energy use in poultry systems.

Methods

Feed and fuel prices reached historical highs in 2007/2008. The volatility in corn and fuel prices has brought into focus the need to improve energy utilization in the production of poultry meat and eggs. Project participants will examine different ventilation and lighting systems relative to energy consumption, flock productivity and welfare.

Ventilation Manipulations. Collaborators (CT, GA, IL, MN) will work to determine the optimal thermal environment and ventilation conditions for poultry of different ages and weights. Rapid growth rates and high levels of egg production make for a greater potential for heat stress to occur. Likewise, the thermal environment at time of placement post-hatch is critical as young birds need to develop their thermoregulatory capacity while the producer encourages feed intake and growth. In older or more mature birds, relating feed/energy intake and utilization to production and comfort is needed for new genetics. In addition, the determination of proper ventilation procedures to prevent wide variations in temperatures in a layer house would have a huge impact on the egg industry. Acute heat change such as that which may occur following removal of broilers/turkeys from environmentally controlled housing for transport will be examined for physiological responses relative to gut fill, stocking densities, and duration and magnitude of heat change in environmentally controlled chambers and under simulated field conditions. Inappropriate thermal environments have behavioral and welfare considerations as well as economic concerns, thus systems will be examined for their ability to provide the needed heat as well as removing metabolically generated heat to minimize heat stress and maladaptive behaviors.

Lighting Manipulations. Optimizing the photic environment of poultry using energy efficient lighting devices will improve the welfare of the birds by reducing nervousness, decreasing agonistic behaviors and improve their feed efficiency. It is accepted that lighting intensity and spectral quality affect behavior in terms of aggression, laying and growth rates. By setting these parameters in accordance with the needs of the birds, it should be possible to improve the welfare of poultry in growing and layer houses and improve production. The egg industry does have a current interest in LEDs and would be interested in this work. Research on effects of light coverage/uniformity of light intensity is a major interest. Some issues recently discussed: effectiveness of drop lights to improve light intensity on lower rows of cages, cone-type covers over lights and effect on spreading of light coverage difference of intensity due to different wattage ('swirl') fluorescent bulbs (swirls preferred over U-tubes). Collaborators (CA, CT, MN and NE) will cooperate on research with both meat type poultry and egg type chickens on the effects of different pre- and post-hatch lighting programs, which will include altering the photoperiod and using different light sources, including electronic lamps, LED's and fiber optics. This testing of LED lights will allow for the study of specific spectral requirements which needs to be done in relationship to intensity and various lighting programs. Currently, lights are placed in the walkways between cage rows for caged layer houses. New LED's or fiber optics will be placed within each cage to optimize the lighting for each group of birds. The spectral quality and duration could be manipulated to maximize the impact on the hens. For broiler facilities, LED lights will be placed directly on feeders and waterers as attractants as well as for general lighting. Economics of the systems tested will be calculated, including costs of installation, replacement and energy usage.

Identifying Stress in Poultry. Egg production, hatchability, growth rate, feed efficiency, skeletal development, behavioral activity, fearfulness, heterophil:lympnocite ratios and vocalizations as potential indicators of welfare and stress will be measured, recorded and analyzed. Production, physiological and behavioral measurement will be done by labs in CA, NE, IL, and MN. Vocalizations of poultry as a welfare assessment tool will be studied by CA, CT and MS(ARS). Through the use of computerized vocal classification models, such as an Artificial Neural Network, Hidden Markhov and Learning Vector Quantization models, vocalization types will be sorted into stress and non-stress classes. These vocalization classifications can be used in poultry units to monitor for physical and psychological well-being. This would give operators a way of maintaining birds with minimal stress and to identify health problems early on. When used with audiological information the two may provide a sound basis for animal welfare regulation and increased unit production.

Vocalizations as a Welfare Assessment Tool (Collaboration between CT and MD). Through the use of computerized vocal classification such as Artificial Neural Network, Hidden Markhov and Learning Vector Quantization models, vocalization types will be sorted into stress and non-stress classes. These vocalization classifications can be used in poultry units to monitor for the physical and psychological well-being. This would give operators a way of maintaining birds with minimal stress and to identify health problems early on. When used with the audiological information the two may provide a sound basis for animal welfare regulation and increased unit production.

Dietary Manipulations. Nutritionists at IL, MN, and NE will examine the influence of varying nutrient levels, and use of alternative ingredients, emphasizing energy levels and utilization in various types of poultry. Collection of feed intake, nutrient characteristics measurements and productivity is important under the manipulations described above in ventilation and lighting. Current work at IL, NE, and MN have examined the use of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) in laying hen molt diets and commercial turkey grow out diets. There still needs to be work done in the area of feeding poultry DDGS formulated diets and its affect on growth, production, and physiological stress of which this will continue. The use of lower protein diets for poultry will be tested and this will include the evaluation of production and NH3 emissions. In addition, the number of feedings and stirring of the feed will be examined and correlated with the birds auditory responses.

Objective 2. Alternative systems. This collaborative research will encompass characterization and mitigation of air emissions, manure nutrient management, animal welfare, and economic evaluation of alternative poultry production systems.

Methods

Alternative production systems (such as non-cage systems for laying hens) are being promoted as a way to improve bird welfare and reduce the carbon foot print of poultry production. However, the volatilization of ammonia (NH3) from poultry manure in these systems can actually be a major problem for the health of the birds and their caretakers. In addition, research suggests that there are welfare trade-offs in these different systems that require further evaluation, with systems that provide more behavioral freedom for the birds tending to be associated with challenges associated with disease and abnormal behaviors like cannibalism. Further information is also needed about resource utilization by the hens in these alternative systems to ensure that system design is improved and optimized.

Concern from environmental groups and government has created a significant need to determine the extent to which NH3 emissions can be reduced by litter amendments, dietary manipulation or by other means. Previous reports by IL and IA have determined that concentration and frequency of application of ammonia emissions amendments has a very different effect. In fact, specifics on the application methods of these amendments have not been worked out and this will be a research focus here in this project. Alternatives to cage layer production systems such as enriched (furnished) cages, aviaries, small group systems, or outdoor housing will be examined. Comparative characterization of indoor air quality, environmental footprint of NH3 and particulate matter emissions (for confinement housing), welfare, productivity, and economics will be assessed (CA, IA, IL, NE, ARS/Purdue). Modifications of existing production systems and management procedures will also be examined. An important piece of this proposed research is the utilization of dynamic emission chambers (DEC) that have been developed by IA (4) and IL (3) to evaluate rate of gaseous (CO2, NH3) generation by animals and their manure. Gaseous concentrations are measured with either photoacoustic multi-gas analyzers (IA) or read directly from analysis reaction tubes calibrated against standard gases (IL). These DEC systems can accurately measure NH3 and CO2 emissions from any manure source within the chambers. The IA DEC system also features continuous measurement of feeding and defecation events (timing and amount) of the birds. The other participating stations will be providing samples to IA and IL for testing in the DEC. Currently IA and MN are collaborating to collect baseline air emissions (NH3, PM10, PM2.5) data from turkey barns in IA and MN. The collaboration will continue to seek practical means to improve indoor air quality and reduce air emissions into the environment. Currently IA and CA are collaboratively developing process-based models to better assess environmental impact (particularly NH3 emission) of different animal production systems or practices. The collaboration will continue in this phase of the project.

To better assess responses of pullets and hens to ammonia levels, IA has developed a preference test chamber system. The system features an automated tracking system that will monitor the location of the test bird and time spent by the bird at each environmental condition. An initial study has been conducted to evaluate aversive response of laying hens to two levels of ammonia (<10 ppm) and 25-30 ppm. IA is collaborating with IL to further the preference test studies. Further studies by IL will focus on how higher levels of NH3 will affect bird health and behavior.

Dietary changes will be incorporated to examine their influence on ammonia emissions. IA and PA have been collaborating to conduct field evaluation/demonstration concerning impact of dietary strategies on gaseous emissions, hen production performance, manure nutrients, and production economics of laying-hen operations. In the field measurements, IA uses state-of-the-art mobile air emissions monitoring units (monitoring three high-rise houses, 255,000 hens per house); and PA uses portable emissions chambers. The collaboration will continue during this project period.

Measurements of IAQ will include concentrations of ammonia, particulate matters (TSP, PM10, PM2.5), pathogens, and thermal comfort. The environmental footprint will be assessed in terms of amount of aerial emissions (NH3, CO2, and PM) from the barns/sources to the atmosphere, on the basis of per unit of product (egg or meat) output.

Various types of alternative hen housing systems (e.g. conventional cages, enriched (furnished) cages, aviaries, and small group systems) will be evaluated from the perspective of hen welfare and resource use, indoor air quality (IAQ), and environmental footprint (CA, IA, CT). Outcome measures of welfare will include hen health, behavior, physiology, and egg production and quality. Studies of resource use will focus on the provision of dustbathing and foraging materials, in terms of the amount, type and extent of substrate that needs to be provided to minimize competition among hens for dustbathing and foraging areas, and to ensure that hens are provided with a substrate that facilitates maintenance of good feather condition and ectoparasite removal.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Physiological and behavioral responses of various poultry to ventilation, lighting, dietary manipulation, and to the physical and social environment, will be determined.
• Physiological and behavioral responses of various poultry to mitigation of air emissions, dietary manipulations, and welfare will be determined for poultry maintained in conventional and alternative housing systems.
• Analysis and interpretation of data in combination with economic decision analyses will provide recommendations to improve environmental conditions in conventional and alternative poultry housing systems.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Feed energy sources for poultry, ventilation system assessment, lighting manipulations, animal welfare, and modeling energy usage results will allow for the assessment of improved facility design to manage poultry houses year round.
• Analysis of manure and compost NH3 emissions from poultry kept in various conventional and alternative housing designs will provide for the improvement of the design of these systems.
• Science-based results will be further augmented by economic analyses and modeling scenarios to determine the most efficient and profitable housing and environment systems for poultry.
• With this information, housing environments can be optimized by defining environmental conditions (aerial, thermal, spectral, and nutritional) and management practices that will result in production systems which promote bird welfare, performance, food safety and security, environmental soundness, and ultimately sustainable development of the U.S. poultry industry.
• Dietary manipulations that include using diets that are formulated with lower protein levels would result in reduced ventilation requirements due to reduced ammonia levels being omitted.

Milestones

(2010): Identify additional funding sources and conduct initial/pilot studies; develop working protocols for collection and sharing of data

(2011): Conduct planned studies using developed protocols

(2012): Continue with conduct of planned studies; Start to develop relationships between environment, production and welfare indicators

(2013): Continue with conduct of planned studies; Further develop relationships between environment, production and welfare indicators

(2014): Develop/publish recommendations from the research information

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Work completed will be disseminated in a number of ways refereed publications, presentations at scientific meetings, presentations at industry conferences, and publications in industry magazines and newsletters. In addition, summaries of the completed work will be available at the project website and faculty will be encouraged to post information on their own web pages. Workshops could be organized around different aspects of the committee's work, such as a poultry ventilation workshop. Research conducted will be presented at two national poultry industry meetings, i.e., International Poultry Exposition (IPE) and the Midwest Poultry Federation Convention (MPF). Research results will also be published in an annual report prepared by the Midwest Poultry Consortium. This research is sponsored by the Midwest Poultry Industry.

Organization/Governance

The Technical Committee is responsible for the planning and supervision of the Multi-State Research Project. The membership of this committee shall consist of an Administrative Advisor, a technical representative of each participating agency or experiment station, and representative of the USDA Cooperative States Research Service. Each participating agency or experiment station is entitled to one vote. The Technical Committee shall be responsible for review and acceptance of contributing projects, preparation of reviews, modification of the regional project proposal, and preparation of an annual report. Annual written reports will be prepared by each technical committee member and distributed at the annual meeting. Annual reports will be complied and distributed to Technical Committee members and Agricultural Experiment Station Directors. The Technical Committee will meet yearly and conduct an election for the office of Junior Executive. The position should alternate between Poultry Scientists and Agricultural Engineers. The person elected to serve as Junior Executive will rotate through the remaining offices of Senior Executive and Secretary and will serve as Chair in the fourth year. All voting members of the Technical Committee are eligible for office. The Chair prepares the meeting agenda and presides at meetings. The Chair is responsible for preparation of the annual report. The Secretary records minutes and assists the Chair. The Senior and Junior executives help with policy decisions and nominations. The Technical Committee functions as a unit with sub-committees formed as necessary. i.e., preparing nominations for elections.

Literature Cited

Adams, A.W., and J.V. Craig. 1985. Effect of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of caged layers: a survey. Poult. Sci. 64:238-242.

Aerni, V. 2005. The use of litter as a criterion to assess housing systems for laying hens. In: Welfare of Laying Hens in Europe, ed. G. Martin, H. Sambraus, and A. Steiger. Germany, University of Kassel, pp. 192-197.

Alvino, G.M., Blatchford, R.A., Archer, G.S., Mench, J.A. 2009. Light intensity during rearing affects the behavioural synchrony and resting patterns of broiler chickens. In press, British Poultry Science. DOI: 10.1080/00071660902942775.

Alvino, G.M., Archer, G.S., Mench, J.A. 2009. Behavioral time budgets of chickens reared in varying light intensities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 118:54-61.

Anderson, D.P., C.W. Beard, and R.P. Hanson. 1964. The adverse effects of ammonia on chickens including resistence to infection with Newcastle Disease virus. Avian Dis. 8:369-379.

Appleby, M.C. 1998. Modification of laying hens cages to improve behavior. Poult. Sci. 77:1828-1832.

Appleby, M. C., Mench, J.A., and Hughes, B.O. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford, U.K., CABI.

Archer, G.S., Shivaprasad, H.L., Mench, J.A. 2009. Effect of providing light during incubation on the health, productivity, and behavior of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 88:29-37.

Baker, K.C., J.L. Weed, C.M. Crockett, and M.A. Bloomsmith. 2007. Survey of environmental enhancement programs for laboratory primates. Am. J. Primatol. 69:377-394.

Bandekar, P., S. Bajwa, and Y. Liang. 2008. Preliminary evaluation of a wet scrubber system to reduce ammonia emission from poultry houses. ASAE Paper No. 083945, St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.

Batal, A. B., and N. M. Dale, 2006. True metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility of distillers dried grains with solubles. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 15:89-93.

Bell, D., and J. Carey. 1998. The effects of cage shape, housing and strain of chickens on various performance parameters (report #2). Progress in Poultry, Vol. 37.

Bilcik, B., L.J. Keeling, and R.C. Newberry. 1998. Effect of group size on tonic immobility in laying hens. Beh. Proc., 43:53-59.

Blatchford, R.A., Klasing, K.C., Shivaprasad, H.L., Wakenell, P.S., Archer, G.S., Mench, J.A. 2009. The effect of light intensity on the behavior, eye and leg health, and immune function of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 88:20-28.

Broom, D.M. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 142:524-26.

Broom, D.M., and K.G. Johnson. 1993. Stress and Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall, Animal Behaviour Series, Chapman and Hall, London, 211 pp.

Burns, R.T., H. Li, L. Moody, H. Xin, R. Gates, D. Overhults, J. Earnest. 2008. Quantification of particulate emissions from broiler houses in the southeastern United States. Proc of the 8th International Livestock Environment Symposium, Sept 1-3, 2008, Iguassu Falls, Brazil. (eds) R.R Stowell, E.F. Wheeler and H. Xin. St Joseph, MI: ASAE.

Cabera, M.L., S.C. Chiang, O.C. Merka, O.C. Pancorbo, and S.C. Thompson. 1994. Pelletizing and soil water effects on gaseous emission from surface-applied poultry litter. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:807-811.

Charles, D.R., and C.G. Payne. 1966. The influence of graded levels of atmospheric ammonia on chickens. 1. Effects on respiration and on the performance of broilers and replacement growing stock. Br. Poult. Sci. 7:177-187.

Craig, J.V., J.A. Craig, and J. Vargas Vargas. 1986a. Cortecosteroids and other indicators of hens well-being in four laying-house environments. Poult. Sci. 65:856-63.

Craig, J.V., J. Vargas Vargas, and G.A. Milliken. 1986b. Fearful and associated responses of white leghorn hens: effects of cage environments and genetic stocks. Poult. Sci. 65:2199-2207.

Darre, M. J. 1979. The influence of red light vs. white light rearing of broiler chicks on agonistic behavior, feed efficiency and oxygen consumption. Poult. Sci. 58:1048.

Darre, M.J., and A.H. Spanorf. 1985. Energy efficient cost effective lights for use with poultry. Poult. Sci. 64 (Suppl 1):85.

Davis, N.J., N.B. Prescott, C.J. Savory, and C.M. Wathes. 1999. Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behavior. Animal Welfare 8(3):193-203.

Deaton, J.W., F.N. Reece, and B.D. Lott. 1984. Effect of atmospheric ammonia on pullets at point of lay. Poult. Sci. 63:384-385.

Estévez, I. 2002. Dealing with animal welfare issues: proactive strategies and voluntary regulations. Proceedings of the 49th Maryland Nutrition Conference, March 27-28, 2002, Timonium, MD. Edited by the Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. pp: 3-19.

Estevez, I., R. Newberry, and L. Arias de Reyna. 1997. Broiler chickens, A tolerant social system? Etología, 5:19-29.

Ferguson, N.S., R.S. Gates, J.L. Taraba, A.H. Cantor, A.J. Pescatore, M.J. Ford, and D.J. Burnham. 1998a. The effect of dietary crude protein on growth, ammonia concentration and litter composition in broilers. Poult. Sci. 77:1481-1487.

Ferguson, N.S., R.S. Gates, J.L. Taraba, A.H. Cantor, A.J. Pescatore, M.L. Straw, M.J. Ford, and D.J. Burnham. 1998b. The effect of dietary protein and phosphorus on ammonia concentration and litter composition in broilers. Poult. Sci. 77:1085-1093.

Fraser, D. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science In Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, N.Y.

Grandin, T. 1996. Animal behavior, handling and facilities design: vocalizations correlate with stress in cattle and pigs. Report to USDA from Colorado State University.

Gross, W.B., and H.S. Siegel. 1983. Evaluation of the heterophil/lynphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Dis. 27:972-979.

Gunnarsson, S., L.J. Keeling, and J. Svedberg. 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:12-18.

Gutierrez del Alamo, A., M.W.A. Verstegen, L.A. Den Hartog, P. Perez de Ayala, and M.J. Villamide. 2008. Effect of wheat cultivar and enzyme addition to broiler chicken diets on nutrient digestibility, performance, and apparent metabolizable energy content. Poult. Sci. 87: 759-767.

Harrison, P.C., and K.W. Koelkebeck. 2007. Reducing ammonia emissions from poultry manure and compost. Proc. of 2007 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention, St. Paul, MN, 7 pages.

Hoerning, B. 2005. Welfare of laying hens in furnished cages. In: Welfare of Laying Hens in Europe, ed. G. Martin, H. Sambraus, and A. Steiger. Germany, University of Kassel, pp.

Huff, W.E., G.W. Malone, and G.W. Chaloupka. 1984. Effect of litter treatment on broiler performance and certain litter quality parameters. Poult. Sci. 63:2167-2171.

Hughes, B.O., S. Wilson, M.C. Appleby, and S.F. Smith. 1993. Comparison of bone volume and strength as measures of skeletal integrity of caged laying hens with access to perches. Res. Vet. Sci. 54:202-206.

Jarvis, J.R., N.R. Taylor, N.B. Prescott, I. Meeks, and C.M. Wathes. 2002. Measuring and modeling the photopic flicker sensitivity of the chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). Vision Research 42:99-106.

Kalbfleisch, J. L., and K. D. Roberson, 2004. Phosphorus availability of distillers dried grains plus solubles for male turkey poults. Poult. Sci. 83 (Suppl. 1):319.

Kalbfleisch, J. L., and K. D. Roberson, 2005. Phosphorus availability of distillers dried grains with solubles: Variation in color. Poult. Sci. 84 (Suppl. 1):68.

Kamran,Z., M. Sarwar, M. Nisa, M.A. Nadeem, S. Mahmood, M.E. Babar, and S. Ahmed. 2008. Effect of low-protein diets having constant energy-to-protein ratio on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens from one to thirty-five days of age. Poult. Sci. 87:468-474.

Keeling, L.J., I. Estévez, R.C. Newberry, and M.G. Correia. 2003. Production related traits of layers reared in different sized flocks: The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes. Poult. Sci. 82:1393-1396.

Kim, J.C., B.P. Mullan, P.H. Simmins, and J.R. Pluske. 2003. Variation in the chemical composition of wheats grown in Western Australia as influenced by variety, growing region, season and post-harvest storage. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 54:541-550.

Kim, W.K., and P.H. Patterson. 2003. Effect of minerals on activity of microbial urease to reduce ammonia volatilization in poultry manure. Poult. Sci. 82:223-231.

Koelkebeck, K.W. and J.R. Cain. 1984. Performance, behavior, plasma corticosterone, and economic returns of laying hens in several management alternatives. Poult. Sci. 63:2123-2131.

Laywel Deliverable 2.3, 2007. Description of housing systems for laying hens. http://www.laywel.eu

Leeson S., and J.D. Summers. 1985. Response of growing Leghorn pullets to long or increasing photoperiods. Poult. Sci. 64:1617-1622.

Leone E.H., and I. Estévez 2008. Economic and welfare benefits of environmental enrichment for broiler breeders. Poult. Sci. 87:14-21.

Lewis, P.D., and T. R. Morris. 1998. A comparison of the effects of age at photostimulation on sexual maturity and egg production in domestic fowl, turkeys, partridges and quail. Worlds Poult. Sci. 54:119-128.

Lewis, P.D., and T.R. Morris. 1999. Light intensity and performance of domestic pullets. Worlds Poult. Sci. 55:241-25.

Lewis, P.D., and T.R. Morris. 2000. Poultry and coloured light. World s Poult. Sci. 56:189-208.

Lewis, P.D., and T. R. Morris. 2006. Poultry Lighting: the theory and practice. Northcot, 168 pp.

Lewis, P.D., G.C. Perry, C.M Sherwin, and C. Moinard. 2000. Effect of ultraviolet radiation on the performance of intact male turkeys. Poult. Sci. 79:850-855.

Leytem, A.B., P. Kwanyuen, and P. Thacker 2008. Nutrient excretion, phosphorus characterization, and phosphorus solubility in excreta from broiler chicks fed diets containing graded levels of wheat distillers grains with solubles. Poult. Sci. 87: 2505-2511.

Li, H. 2006. Ammonia emissions from manure belt laying hen houses and manure storage. A PhD dissertation, Iowa State University Parks Library, Ames, IA 50011.

Li, H., H. Xin, R.T. Burns, L.D. Jacobson, S. Noll, S.J. Hoff, J. D. Harmon, J. A. Koziel, and I. Celen. 2009. Air emissions from tom and hen turkey houses in the U.S. Midwest. ASABE Technical Paper No. 096318, St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.

Li, H., H. Xin, Y. Liang, and R.T. Burns. 2008. Reduction of ammonia emission from stored poultry manure using additives: Zeolite, Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT. J. Appl. Poult. Sci. Res. 17(4):421-431.

Liang, Y., H. Xin, H. Li, R.S. Gates, E.F. Wheeler and K.D. Casey. 2006. Effect of measurement interval on estimation of ammonia emission rates for layer houses. Transactions of the ASAE 49(1): 183-186.

Lindberg, A. C., and C. J. Nicol. 1997. Dustbathing in modified battery cages: Is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 55:113-128.

Lockyer, D.R., and B.F. Pain. 1989. Ammonia Emission from Cattle, Pig, and Poultry Wastes Applied to Pasture. Environmental Pollution 56(1989):19-30.

Lumpkins, B.S., A.B. Batal, and N.M. Dale. 2004. Evaluation of distillers dried grains with solubles as a feed ingredient for broilers. Poult. Sci. 83:1891-1896.

Lumpkins, B., and A. Batal. 2005. Bioavailability of lysine and phosphorus in distillers dried grains with solubles. Poult. Sci. 84:581-586.

Lumpkins, B., A. Batal, and N.M. Dale. 2005. Use of distillers dried grains plus solubles in laying hen diets. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:25-31.

Malone, G.W. 1987. Chemical litter treatments to control ammonia. Proc. of the 22nd meeting on Poultry Health and Condemnations, Ocean City, MD.

Malone, G., G. VanWicklen, and S. Collier. 2008. Efficacy of vegetative environmental buffers to mitigate emissions from tunnel-ventilated poultry houses. In: Proc of the Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations Conference, May 19-21, Des Moines, IA, (eds) E. Muhlbauer, L. Moody and R.T. Burns, ISBN 978-0-9817781-0-5, pp 27-29.

Marler, P, A. Dufty, and R. Pickert. 1986. Vocal communication in the domestic chicken: II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Animal Behavior 34:194-198.

Martinez Amezcua, C., C. M. Parsons, and D. H. Baker, 2006. Effect of microbial phytase and citric acid on phosphorus bioavailability, apparent metabolizable energy, and amino acid digestibility in distillers dried grains with solubles in chicks. Poult. Sci. 85:470-475.

Martinez Amezcua, C., C. M. Parsons, and S.L. Noll. 2004. Content and relative bioavailability of phosphorus in distillers dried grains with solubles in chicks. Poult. Sci. 83:971-976.

Martinez Amezcua, C., and C. M. Parsons, 2007. Effect of increased heat processing and particle size on phosphorus bioavailability in corn distillers dried grains with solubles. Poult. Sci. 86:331-337.

Melse, R.W., and N.W.M. Ogink. 2005. Air scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor reduction at livestock operations: Review of on-farm research in the Netherlands. Transactions of the ASABE. 48(6): 2303-2313.

Mench, J.A. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: a U.S. perspective. Animal Welfare 12: 493-503.

Moore, P.A., Jr., T.C. Daniel, D.R. Edwards, and D.M. Miller. 1995. Effect of chemical amendments on ammonia volatilization from poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 24:293-300.

Mollah, Y., W.L. Bryden, I.R. Wallis, D. Balnave, and E.F. Annison. 1983. Studies on low metabolisable energy wheats for poultry using conventional and rapid assay procedures and the effects of processing. Br. Poult. Sci. 24:81-89.

Mulligan, B.E., S.C. Baker, and M.R. Murphy. 2003. Vocalizations as indicators of emotional stress and psychological well-being in animals. USDA AWIC newsletter 5 (3):1-3.

Nicol, C. 1995. Environmental enrichment for birds. In: Environmental Enrichment Information Resources for Laboratory Animals: 1965-1995: Birds, Cats, Dogs, Farm Animals, Ferrets, Rabbits, and Rodents. AWIC Resource Series No. 2 USDA, Beltsville, MD, pp.1-25.

Nithianantharajah, J., and A.J. Hannan. 2006. Enriched environments, experience-dependent plasticity and disorders of the nervous system. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7:697-709.

Noll, S. L., C. Abe, and J. Brannon, 2003. Nutrient composition of corn distiller dried grains with solubles. Poult. Sci. 82 (Suppl. 1):71.

Noll, S. L., and J. Brannon, 2008. Response of market turkey toms to diets containing high levels of corn distillers dried grains with solubles. Poult. Sci. 87 (Suppl. 1):100.

Noll, S.L., Brannon, J, Parsons, CM. 2008. Maximizing utilization of dried distillers grains with solubles in market turkey diets. Worlds Poult. Sci. 64 (Supp. 2):299.

Olsson, I.A.S., and L.J. Keeling. 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 93:259-282.

Parkhurst, C.R., P.B. Hamilton, and G.R. Baughman. 1974. The use of fatty acids for the control of microorganisms in pine saw dust litter. Poult. Sci. 53:801-806.

Patterson, P.H., and M.J. Darre. 2002. Light parameters and hen performance of commercial Leghorns illuminated with red and white fluorescent lamps. Poult. Sci. 80 (Suppl. 1):139.

Patterson, P.H., and H.S. Siegel. 1998. Impact of cage density on pullet performance and blood parameters of stress. Poult. Sci. 77:32-40.

Prayitno, D.S., and C.J.C. Phillips. 1997. Equating the perceived intensity of coloured lights to hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 38:136-141.

Prayitno, D.S., C.J.C. Phillips, and H. Omed. 1997a The effects of color of lighting on the behavior and production of meat chickens. Poult. Sci 76:452-457.

Prayitno, D.S., C.J.C. Phillips, and D.K. Stokes. 1997b. The effects of color and intensity of lighting on behavior and leg disorders in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:1674-1681.

Prescott, N.B., and C.M. Wathes. 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Br. Poult. Sci. 40:332-339.

Prescott, N.B., and C.M. Waithes. 2002. Preference and motivation of laying hens to eat under different illuminances and the effect of illuminance on eating behavior. Br. Poult. Sci. 43:190-195.

Price, S., and R. Sibly. 1993. Heart-rate of red deer during routine handling procedures taking account of motor activity and basal metabolic rate. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 35:297-298.

Pyrzak, R., N. Snapir, G. Goodman, E. Arnon, and M. Perek. 1986. The influence of light quality on initiation of egg laying by hens. Poult. Sci. 64:1617-1622.

Reese, F.N., B.D. Lott, and J.W. Deaton. 1980. Ammonia in the atmosphere during brooding affects performance of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 59:486-488.

Ritz, C.W., B.W. Mitchell, B.D. Fairchild, M. Czarick III, and J. W. Worley. 2008. Dust and ammonia control in poultry production facilities using an electrostatic space charge system. In: Proc of the Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations Conference, May 19-21, Des Moines, IA, (eds) E. Muhlbauer, L. Moody and R.T. Burns, ISBN 978-0-9817781-0-5, pp47-50.

Roberts, S.A., H. Xin, B.J. Kerr, J.R. Russell, and K. Bregendahl. 2007. Effects of dietary fiber and reduced crude protein on ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Poult. Sci. 86:1625-1632.

Roberts, S.A., H. Xin, B. J. Kerr, J. R. Russell, and K. Bregendahl. 2007. Effects of dietary fiber and low crude protein on ammonia emission from laying-hen manure. Poult. Sci. 86:1716-1725.

Rodenburg, T.B., F.A. Tuyttens, B. Sonck, K. De Reu, L. Herman, and J. Zoons. 2005. Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 8:211-226.

Roybal, J. (Ed.) 2003. Welfare audits will come. Beef Magazine February, Primedia Business magazines and media PP. 1-3.

Scheideler, S.E. 1990. Research Note: Effect of various light sources on broiler performance and efficiency of production under commercial conditions. Poult. Sci. 69:1030-1033.

Shah, S.B., P.W. Westerman, R.D. Munilla, M.E. Adcock, and G.R. Baughman. 2008. Design and evaluation of a regenerating scrubber for reducing animal house emissions. Transactions of the ASABE 51(1): 243-250.

Singh, R., K.M. Cheng, and F.G. Silversides. 2009. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88:256-264.

Spires, T.L., and A.J. Hannan, 2005. Nature, nurture and neurology: gene-environment interactions in neurodegenerative disease. FEBS J. 272:2347-2361.

Takai, H., S. Pedersen, J. O. Johnsen, J. H. M. Metz, P. W. G. Groot Koerkamp, G. H. Uenk, V. R. Phillips, M. R. Holden, R. W. Sneath, J. L. Short, R. P. White, J. Hartung, J. Seedorf, M. Schröder, K. H. Linkert, C. M. Wathes. 1998. Concentrations and emissions of airborne dust in livestock buildings in Northern Europe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70: 59-77.

Tauson, R. 1998. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poult. Sci. 77:1820-1827.

Thacker, P.A., and G.P. Widyaratne. 2007. Nutritional value of diets containing graded levels of wheat distillers grains with solubles fed to broiler chicks. J. Sci. Food Agric. 87:1386-1390.

van Liere, D. W., Aggrey, S.E., Brouns, F.M.R., Wiepkema, P.R. 1991. Oiling behaviour and the effect of lipids on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens Gallus gallus domesticus. Behav. Proc. 24:71-81.

van Liere, D.W., and Bokma, S. 1987. Short-term feather maintenance as a function of dust-bathing in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 18:197-204.

Vestergaard, K.S., E. Skadhauge, and L.G. Lawson. 1997. The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiol. Behav. 62:413-419.

Wathes, C.M., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., White, R.P., Phillips, V.R. 1997. Concentrations and emissions rates of aerial ammonia, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, dust and endotoxin in UK broiler and layer houses. Br. Poult. Sci. 38:14-28.

Webster, A.B. 2007. Animal care guidelines and future directions. Poult. Sci. 86:1253-1259.

Wheeler, E.F., K.D. Casey, R.S. Gates, H. Xin, J.L. Zajaczkowski, P.A. Topper, Y. Liang, A. J. Pescatore. 2006. Ammonia emissions from twelve U.S.A. broiler chicken houses. Transactions of the ASAE 49(5): 1495-1512.

Widowski, T. M., L.J. Keeling, and I.J.H. Duncan. 1992. The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:203-211.

Xin, H. 2008. Personal communication. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA.

Xin, H., A. Tanaka, T. Wang, R.S. Gates, E.F. Wheeler, K.D. Casey, A.J. Heber, J. Ni, and T, Lin. 2002. A portable system for continuous ammonia measurement in the field. Paper No. 024168. American Society of Agriculture Engineers, St Joseph, MI: ASAE.

Zimmerman, P.H., Koene, P., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., 2000. Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 69:255-264.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, AR, CA, CT, DE, GA, IA, IL, IN, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, NE, PA, TX, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

USDA-ARS/Mississippi