Poultry farming

Poultry farming is the process of raising

domesticated birds such as chickens,
ducks, turkeys and geese for the purpose
of farming meat or eggs for food. Poultry
are farmed in great numbers with chickens
being the most numerous. More than 50
billion chickens are raised annually as a
source of food, for both their meat and
their eggs.[1] Chickens raised for eggs are
usually called layers while chickens raised
for meat are often called broilers.[1] In the
US, the national organization overseeing
poultry production is the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). In the UK, the
national organisation is the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra).

Intensive and alternative

According to the researchers and
scientists, 74% of the world's poultry meat,
and 68 percent of eggs are produced in
ways that are described as 'intensive'.[2]
One alternative to intensive poultry
farming is free-range farming using lower
stocking densities. Poultry producers
routinely use nationally approved
medications, such as antibiotics, in feed or
drinking water, to treat disease or to
prevent disease outbreaks. Some FDA-
approved medications are also approved
for improved feed utilization.[3]

Egg-laying chickens – basin

systems
Commercial hens usually begin laying
eggs at 16–20 weeks of age, although
production gradually declines soon after
from approximately 25 weeks of age.[4]
This means that in many countries, by
approximately 72 weeks of age, flocks are
considered economically unviable and are
slaughtered after approximately 12
months of egg production,[5] although
chickens will naturally live for 6 or more
years. In some countries, hens are force
moulted to re-invigorate egg-laying.

Environmental conditions are often

automatically controlled in egg-laying
systems. For example, the duration of the
light phase is initially increased to prompt
the beginning of egg-laying at 16–20
weeks of age and then mimics summer
day length which stimulates the hens to
continue laying eggs all year round;
normally, egg production occurs only in the
warmer months. Some commercial breeds
of hen can produce over 300 eggs a year.[6]

Free-range

Commercial free range hens

h k b f d d
Free range chickens being fed outdoors

Free-range poultry farming allows

chickens to roam freely for a period of the
day, although they are usually confined in
sheds at night to protect them from
predators or kept indoors if the weather is
particularly bad. In the UK, the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra) states that a free-range chicken
must have day-time access to open-air
runs during at least half of its life. Unlike in
the United States, this definition also
applies to free-range egg laying hens. The
European Union regulates marketing
standards for egg farming which specifies
a minimum condition for free-range eggs
that "hens have continuous daytime
access to open-air runs, except in the case
of temporary restrictions imposed by
veterinary authorities".[7] The RSPCA
"Welfare standards for laying hens and
pullets" indicates that the stocking rate
must not exceed 1,000 birds per hectare
(10 m2 per hen) of range available and a
minimum area of overhead shade/shelter
of 8 m2 per 1,000 hens must be provided.

Free-range farming of egg-laying hens is

increasing its share of the market. Defra
figures indicate that 45% of eggs produced
in the UK throughout 2010 were free-range,
5% were produced in barn systems and
50% from cages. This compares with 41%
being free-range in 2009.[8]

Suitable land requires adequate drainage

to minimise worms and coccidial oocysts,
suitable protection from prevailing winds,
good ventilation, access and protection
from predators. Excess heat, cold or damp
can have a harmful effect on the animals
and their productivity.[9] Free-range
farmers have less control than farmers
using cages in what food their chickens
eat, which can lead to unreliable
productivity, though supplementary
feeding reduces this uncertainty. In some
farms, the manure from free-range poultry
can be used to benefit crops.[10]

The benefits of free-range poultry farming

for laying hens include opportunities for
natural behaviours such as pecking,
scratching, foraging and exercise
outdoors.[11]

Both intensive and free-range farming

have animal welfare concerns.
Cannibalism, feather pecking and vent
pecking can be common, prompting some
farmers to use beak trimming as a
preventative measure, although reducing
stocking rates would eliminate these
problems.[12] Diseases can be common
and the animals are vulnerable to
predators.[12] Barn systems have been
found to have the worst bird welfare.[12] In
South-East Asia, a lack of disease control
in free range farming has been associated
with outbreaks of Avian influenza.[13]

Organic

In organic egg-laying systems, chickens

are also free-range. Organic systems are
based upon restrictions on the routine use
of synthetic yolk colourants, in-feed or in-
water medications, other food additives
and synthetic amino acids, and a lower
stocking density and smaller group sizes.
The Soil Association standards[14] used to
certify organic flocks in the UK, indicate a
maximum outdoors stocking density of
1,000 birds per hectare and a maximum of
2,000 hens in each poultry house. In the
UK, organic laying hens are not routinely
beak-trimmed.

Yarding

While often confused with free-range

farming, yarding is actually a separate
method of poultry culture by which
chickens and cows are raised together.
The distinction is that free-range poultry
are either totally unfenced, or the fence is
so distant that it has little influence on
their freedom of movement. Yarding is
common technique used by small farms in
the Northeastern US. The birds are
released daily from hutches or coops. The
hens usually lay eggs either on the floor of
the coop or in baskets if provided by the
farmer. This husbandry technique can be
complicated if used with roosters, mostly
because of aggressive behavior.

Battery cage
Bank of cages for layer hens[15]

The majority of hens in many countries are

housed in battery cages, although the
European Union Council Directive
1999/74/EC[16] has banned the
conventional battery cage in EU states
from January 2012. These are small
cages, usually made of metal in modern
systems, housing 3 to 8 hens. The walls
are made of either solid metal or mesh,
and the floor is sloped wire mesh to allow
the faeces to drop through and eggs to roll
onto an egg-collecting conveyor belt.
Water is usually provided by overhead
nipple systems, and food in a trough along
the front of the cage replenished at regular
intervals by a mechanical chain.

The cages are arranged in long rows as

multiple tiers, often with cages back-to-
back (hence the term 'battery cage').
Within a single shed, there may be several
floors containing battery cages meaning
that a single shed may contain many tens
of thousands of hens. Light intensity is
often kept low (e.g. 10 lux) to reduce
feather pecking and vent pecking. Benefits
of battery cages include easier care for the
birds, floor eggs which are expensive to
collect are eliminated, eggs are cleaner,
capture at the end of lay is expedited,
generally less feed is required to produce
eggs, broodiness is eliminated, more hens
may be housed in a given house floor
space, internal parasites are more easily
treated, and labor requirements are
generally much reduced.

In farms using cages for egg production,

there are more birds per unit area; this
allows for greater productivity and lower
food costs.[17] Floor space ranges
upwards from 300 cm2 per hen. EU
standards in 2003 called for at least
550 cm2 per hen.[18] In the US, the current
recommendation by the United Egg
Producers is 67 to 86 in2 (430 to 560 cm2)
per bird.[19] The space available to battery
hens has often been described as less
than the size of a piece of A4 paper.[20]
Animal welfare scientists have been
critical of battery cages because they do
not provide hens with sufficient space to
stand, walk, flap their wings, perch, or
make a nest, and it is widely considered
that hens suffer through boredom and
frustration through being unable to
perform these behaviours.[21] This can
lead to a wide range of abnormal
behaviours, some of which are injurious to
the hens or their cagemates.

Furnished cage

In 1999, the European Union Council

Directive 1999/74/EC[16] banned
conventional battery cages for laying hens
throughout the European Union from
January 1, 2012; they were banned
previously in other countries including
Switzerland. In response to these bans,
development of prototype commercial
furnished cage systems began in the
1980s. Furnished cages, sometimes called
'enriched' or 'modified' cages, are cages for
egg laying hens which have been designed
to overcome some of the welfare concerns
of battery cages whilst retaining their
economic and husbandry advantages, and
also provide some of the welfare
advantages of non-cage systems. Many
design features of furnished cages have
been incorporated because research in
animal welfare science has shown them to
be of benefit to the hens. In the UK, the
Defra "Code for the Welfare of Laying
Hens"[22] states furnished cages should
provide at least 750 cm2 of cage area per
hen, 600 cm2 of which should be usable;
the height of the cage other than that
above the usable area should be at least
20 cm at every point and no cage should
have a total area that is less than
2000 cm2. In addition, furnished cages
should provide a nest, litter such that
pecking and scratching are possible,
appropriate perches allowing at least
15 cm per hen, a claw-shortening device,
and a feed trough which may be used
without restriction providing 12 cm per
hen.

Modern egg laying breeds often suffer

from osteoporosis which results in the
chicken's skeletal system being weakened.
During egg production, large amounts of
calcium are transferred from bones to
create egg-shell. Although dietary calcium
levels are adequate, absorption of dietary
calcium is not always sufficient, given the
intensity of production, to fully replenish
bone calcium. This can lead to increases
in bone breakages, particularly when the
hens are being removed from cages at the
end of laying.

Countries such as Austria, Belgium or

Germany are planning to ban furnished
cages until 2025 additionally to the already
banned conventional cages.[23]

Meat-producing chickens –
husbandry systems

Broilers in a production house

Indoor broilers

Meat chickens, commonly called broilers,

are floor-raised on litter such as wood
shavings, peanut shells, and rice hulls,
indoors in climate-controlled housing.
Under modern farming methods, meat
chickens reared indoors reach slaughter
weight at 5 to 9 weeks of age. The first
week of chickens life they can grow 300
percent of their body size, a nine-week-old
chicken can average over 9 pounds in
body weight. At nine weeks a hen will
average around 7 pounds and a rooster
will weigh around 12 pounds, having a
nine-pound average.

Broilers are not raised in cages. They are

raised in large, open structures known as
grow out houses. A farmer receives the
birds from the hatchery at one day old. A
grow out consist of 5 to 9 weeks
according on how big the kill plant wants
the chickens to be. These houses are
equipped with mechanical systems to
deliver feed and water to the birds. They
have ventilation systems and heaters that
function as needed. The floor of the house
is covered with bedding material
consisting of wood chips, rice hulls, or
peanut shells. In some cases they can be
grown over dry litter or compost. Because
dry bedding helps maintain flock health,
most growout houses have enclosed
watering systems (“nipple drinkers”) which
reduce spillage.[24]

Keeping birds inside a house protects

them from predators such as hawks and
foxes. Some houses are equipped with
curtain walls, which can be rolled up in
good weather to admit natural light and
fresh air. Most growout houses built in
recent years feature “tunnel ventilation,” in
which a bank of fans draws fresh air
through the house.[24]

Traditionally, a flock of broilers consist of

about 20,000 birds in a growout house that
measures 400/500 feet long and 40/50
feet wide, thus providing about eight-
tenths of a square foot per bird. The
Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology (CAST) states that the
minimum space is one-half square foot
per bird. More modern houses are often
larger and contain more birds, but the floor
space allotment still meets the needs of
the birds. The larger the bird is grown the
fewer chickens are put in each house, to
give the bigger bird more space per square
foot.[24]

Because broilers are relatively young and

have not reached sexual maturity, they
exhibit very little aggressive conduct.[24]

Chicken feed consists primarily of corn

and soybean meal with the addition of
essential vitamins and minerals. No
hormones or steroids are allowed in
raising chickens.[24][25]

Issues with indoor husbandry

In intensive broiler sheds, the air can
become highly polluted with ammonia
from the droppings. In this case a farmer
must run more fans to bring in more clean
fresh air. If not this can damage the
chickens' eyes and respiratory systems
and can cause painful burns on their legs
(called hock burns) and blisters on their
feet. Broilers bred for fast growth have a
high rate of leg deformities because the
large breast muscles causes distortions of
the developing legs and pelvis, and the
birds cannot support their increased body
weight. In cases where the chickens
become crippled and can't walk farmers
have to go in and pull them out. Because
they cannot move easily, the chickens are
not able to adjust their environment to
avoid heat, cold or dirt as they would in
natural conditions. The added weight and
overcrowding also puts a strain on their
hearts and lungs and Ascites can develop.
In the UK, up to 19 million broilers die in
their sheds from heart failure each year. In
the case of no ventilation due to power
failure during a heat wave 20,000 chicken
can die in a short period of time. In a good
grow out a farmer should sell between 92
and 96 percent of their flock. With a 1.80
to a 2.0 feed conversion ratio. After the
marking of birds the farmer must clean out
and repair for another flock. A farmer
should average 4 to 5 grow outs a year.[26]

Indoor with higher welfare

Chickens are kept indoors but with more

space (around 12 to 14 birds per square
metre). They have a richer environment for
example with natural light or straw bales
that encourage foraging and perching. The
chickens grow more slowly and live for up
to two weeks longer than intensively
farmed birds. The benefits of higher
welfare indoor systems are the reduced
growth rate, less crowding and more
opportunities for natural behaviour.[11]

Free-range broilers

Turkeys on pasture at an organic farm

Free-range broilers are reared under

similar conditions to free-range egg laying
hens. The breeds grow more slowly than
those used for indoor rearing and usually
reach slaughter weight at approximately 8
weeks of age. In the EU, each chicken
must have one square metre of outdoor
space.[11] The benefits of free-range
poultry farming include opportunities for
natural behaviours such as pecking,
scratching, foraging and exercise
outdoors. Because they grow slower and
have opportunities for exercise, free-range
broilers often have better leg and heart
health.[11]

Organic broilers

Organic broiler chickens are reared under

similar conditions to free-range broilers
but with restrictions on the routine use of
in-feed or in-water medications, other food
additives and synthetic amino acids. The
breeds used are slower growing, more
traditional breeds and typically reach
slaughter weight at around 12 weeks of
age.[27] They have a larger space
allowance outside (at least 2 square
metres and sometimes up to 10 square
metres per bird).[5] The Soil Association
standards[14] indicate a maximum
outdoors stocking density of 2,500 birds
per hectare and a maximum of 1,000
broilers per poultry house.

Issues
Humane treatment

Battery cages

Chickens transported in a truck.

Animal welfare groups have frequently

criticized the poultry industry for engaging
in practices which they believe to be
inhumane. Many animal rights advocates
object to killing chickens for food, the
"factory farm conditions" under which they
are raised, methods of transport, and
slaughter. Compassion Over Killing and
other groups have repeatedly conducted
undercover investigations at chicken
farms and slaughterhouses which they
allege confirm their claims of cruelty.[28]

Conditions in chicken farms may be

unsanitary, allowing the proliferation of
diseases such as salmonella, E. coli and
campylobacter.[29] Chickens may be raised
in very low light intensities, sometimes
total darkness, to reduce injurious pecking.
Concerns have been raised that
companies growing single varieties of
birds for eggs or meat are increasing their
susceptibility to disease. Rough handling,
crowded transport during various weather
conditions and the failure of existing
stunning systems to render the birds
unconscious before slaughter, have also
been cited as welfare concerns.

A common practice among hatcheries for

egg-laying hens is the culling of newly
hatched male chicks since they do not lay
eggs and do not grow fast enough to be
profitable for meat. There are plans to
more ethically destroy the eggs before the
chicks are hatched by "in-ovo" sex
determination.[30]

Beak trimming

Laying hens are routinely beak-trimmed at

1 day of age to reduce the damaging
effects of aggression, feather pecking and
cannibalism. Scientific studies (see below)
have shown that beak trimming is likely to
cause both acute and chronic pain.

The beak is a complex, functional organ

with an extensive nervous supply including
nociceptors that sense pain and noxious
stimuli.[31][32] These would almost
certainly be stimulated during beak
trimming, indicating strongly that acute
pain would be experienced. Behavioural
evidence of pain after beak trimming in
layer hen chicks has been based on the
observed reduction in pecking behavior,
reduced activity and social behavior, and
increased sleep duration.[33][34][35][36]
Severe beak trimming, or beak trimming
birds at an older age, may cause chronic
pain. Following beak trimming of older or
adult hens, the nociceptors in the beak
stump show abnormal patterns of neural
discharge, which indicate acute
pain.[31][37][38][39]
Neuromas, tangled masses of swollen
regenerating axon sprouts,[40] are found in
the healed stumps of birds beak trimmed
at 5 weeks of age or older and in severely
beak trimmed birds.[41] Neuromas have
been associated with phantom pain in
human amputees and have therefore been
linked to chronic pain in beak trimmed
birds. If beak trimming is severe because
of improper procedure or done in older
birds, the neuromas will persist which
suggests that beak trimmed older birds
experience chronic pain, although this has
been debated.[42]
Beak-trimmed chicks will initially peck less
than non-trimmed chickens, which animal
behavioralist Temple Grandin attributes to
guarding against pain.[43] The animal
rights activist, Peter Singer, claims this
procedure is bad because beaks are
sensitive, and the usual practice of
trimming them without anaesthesia is
considered inhumane by some.[44] Some
within the chicken industry claim that
beak-trimming is not painful[45] whereas
others argue that the procedure causes
chronic pain and discomfort, and
decreases the ability to eat or drink.[44][46]

Antibiotics
Antibiotics have been used in poultry
farming in mass quantities since 1951,
when the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved their use.[47] Three years
prior to the FDA’s approval, scientists were
investigating a phenomenon in which
chickens who were rooting through
bacteria-rich manure were displaying signs
of greater health than those who did not.
Through testing, it was discovered that
chickens who were fed a variety of vitamin
B12 manufactured with the residue of a
certain antibiotic grew 50 percent faster
than those chickens who were fed B12
manufactured from a different source.[48]
Further testing confirmed that use of
antibiotics did improve the health of the
chickens, resulting in the chickens laying
more eggs and experiencing lower
mortality rates and less illness. Upon this
discovery, farmers transitioned from
expensive animal proteins to
comparatively inexpensive antibiotics and
B12. Chickens were now reaching their
market weight at a much faster rate and at
a lower cost. With a growing population
and greater demand on the farmers,
antibiotics appeared to be an ideal and
cost-effective way to increase the output
of poultry. Since this discovery, antibiotics
have been routinely used in poultry
production, but more recently have been
the topic of debate secondary to the fear
of bacterial antibiotic resistance.[49]

Emerging threats: antibiotic

resistance

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC),

has identified the emergence of antibiotic
resistance as a national threat.[50] The
concern over antibiotic use in livestock
arises from the necessity antibiotics have
in keeping populations disease-free. As of
2016, over 70 percent of FDA approved
antibiotics are utilized in modern, high
production poultry farms to prevent,
control, and treat disease.[51] The FDA
released a report in 2009 estimating that
29 million pounds (13 kt) of antibiotics
had been used in livestock in that year
alone.[52] However, surveillance of
consumer exposure to antibiotics through
poultry consumption is limited. More
specifically in 2012, the FDA speculated
the most significant public health threat in
regard to antimicrobial use in animals is
the exposure of antimicrobial resistant
bacteria to humans.[53] These statements
are challenged by the American meat
industry lobbyists that antibiotics are used
responsibly and judiciously in order to
ensure effectiveness.[54]
Consumer health effects

Consumers are exposed to antibiotic

resistance through consumption of poultry
products that have prior exposure to
resistant strains. In poultry husbandry, the
practice of using medically important
antibiotics can select for resistant strains
of bacteria, which are then transferred to
consumers through poultry meat and
eggs. The CDC acknowledges this
transferral pathway in their 2013 report of
Antibiotic Resistant Threats in the United
States.[55] The annual rate of foodborne
illness in the United States is one in six.
For the 48 million individuals affected,
antibiotics play a critical role in thwarting
mortality rates.[56] In a literature review
conducted by the Review of Antimicrobial
Resistance 100 out of 139 studies found
evidence of a link between antibiotic use in
animals and antibiotic resistance in
consumers.[52]

When a gram-negative bacterial infection

is suspected in a patient, one of the first-
line options for treatment is in the
fluoroquinolone family. This, along with
penicillin, is one of the first families of
antibiotics utilized in the broiler industry. If
this first-line treatment is not successful, a
stronger class of antibiotics is typically
used, however, there is a limitation on how
many classes are available, as well as
which medications are available on
hospital formularies. There is also more
drug toxicity affiliated with second and
third line antibiotic options. This is one
example why it is critical to keep as many
first line antibiotic options available for
human use.[57]

Other issues are associated with duration

and complexity of infection. On average,
treatment for non-resistant bacteria is
administered 11.5 hours after diagnosis,
and treatment for resistant bacteria is
administered 72 hours after diagnosis.[57]
This is a reflection of the additional threat
of prolonged incubation, leading to greater
potential for systemic disease, with higher
morbidity and mortality associated with
opportunities for complications, and
prolonged treatment time. For example, of
the two million people affected by
resistant infections a year, 23,000 will
die.[58] Severity in mortality is coupled
when exposed to high risk populations
such as immunocompromised and elderly
individuals in hospital and nursing home
settings.[59]

History of US federal policy on

antibiotic use in livestock
1940s – Beginning of utilization of
antibiotics in livestock feed
1951 - Antibiotics first FDA approved for
use in poultry. Approved uses included
production (growth enhancement),
treatment, control, or prevention of
animal disease. Antibiotics were also
available for purchase over the counter
at that time.
1970 - FDA task force publication
proposes limitations of utilizing
antibiotics in livestock feed that are also
used in humans.
1975 - Secondary to this publication,
drug sponsors are required to submit
studies demonstrating the antibiotics
did not harm human health
1976 - Stuart Levy study demonstrating
tetracycline resistant E. coli moving to
consumers[60]
1977 - FDA proposal to remove penicillin
and tetracycline in subtherapeutic
doses, however, request by Congress for
further studies to be conducted.
1980 - National Academy of Science
recruited by the FDA to conduct further
studies, specifically for penicillins and
tetracyclines. Conclusion from these
studies indicated no sufficient evidence
to ban these antibiotics.
1980s-early 2000s - Further studies
continued, supported by the FDA
2003 - FDA issued guidance to
pharmaceuticals for an approval
process utilizing new antibiotics in
animal feed. For antibiotics already in
use, the FDA would have to withdraw
approval for each individual medication.
2005 - Enrofloxacin, an already utilized
antibiotic, was removed from poultry
production. This took 5 years to
accomplish.
2010 - FDA first draft of “voluntary”
limitations of medically important
antibiotics in livestock, and requirement
of veterinarian oversight, which would
later become “Guidance for Industry
#209.”
2011 - FDA removed original request
from 1977 to remove penicillins and
tetracyclines in feed.
2012 - FDA finalized “Guidance for
Industry #209,” which was implemented
under the Veterinary Feed Directives.
These guidelines were issued to
pharmaceuticals.[61]
2013 - FDA issues “Guidance for
Industry #213,” which provided
additional information to
pharmaceuticals for recommendations
 from #209.
2014 - All 26 pharmaceutical companies
producing antibiotics used in livestock
feed agreed to the FDA guidelines in
#213. Gave total of 3 years to make all
recommended changes.
[62]

Current US federal regulators

National Antimicrobial Resistance

Monitoring System’s (NARMS) Enteric
Bacteria program - Established in 1996,
and represents a collaboration between
the USDA, FDA, and CDC. Its purpose is to
organize these organizations into a drug
monitoring program for antibiotics utilized
in animal feed with the goal of maintaining
their medical efficacy. There are three
branches which oversee humans, retail
meat, and food animals.[62]

USDA - Operating under the Food Safety

and Inspection Service (FSIS). Main role
is in charge of testing imported and
domestic meat for antimicrobial
resistant bacteria. If a ‘residue violation’
found, they may condemn the product.
Regardless, funding and resources are
not available for outbreak investigations
at farms or ranches.
 FDA - Operating under the Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Works with
CDC to monitor retail meat.
CDC - Monitors human samples.
[62]

Vertical integration

This is the current business structure

utilized almost universally in the broiler, or
chicken bred for meat, industry. This also
began in the 1940s when antibiotics began
to be utilized in livestock feed. Perdue is
credited as the pioneer of this structure.[63]
The basis is centralization of production.
‘Integrators’ control cost, policy, and are
the decision makers of production. They
decide feed formulations, choice of
antibiotic administration, and cover those
costs in addition to veterinary services.
They also own the poultry that is grown.
Farmers are labeled as ‘Growers’ or
‘Operators’. They own the land and
buildings where the poultry is grown, and
are essentially caretakers for the poultry
growth to the Integrators.[62] The benefit
for Growers in this business structure is
they are guaranteed payment from the
Integrators, which is compensated in
weight gained by each flock.[64] Due to this
structure, about 90% of broilers are raised
within 60 miles of the processing plant.
Integrators are large poultry companies
such as Perdue, Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride,
Koch Foods, etc. There are about 20 of
these companies in the U.S. that control
96% of all broilers produced in 2011.[62]

Regulatory surveys

There are two main surveys distributed to

farmers by the federal government to aid
in various regulations of the agricultural
industry. They are the Agricultural and
Resource Management Survey (ARMS)
and the National Animal Health Monitoring
Survey (NAHMS).[62]
Agricultural and Resource Management
Survey (ARMS) - Ran by the USDA’s
Economic Research Service (ERS) and
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). The main focus is finances of
farming, production practices, and
resource use. Seventeen total states are
sampled every 5–6 years per livestock
type, with the most recent surveys
distributed to broiler farmers in 2006 and
2011. There was one question about
utilization of antibiotics in poultry food or
water, excluding use for illness
treatment.[62]

Antibiotic resistant outbreaks

from poultry meat

In order to minimize and prevent any

residues of antibiotics in chicken meat,
any chickens given antibiotics are required
to have a "withdrawal" period before they
can be slaughtered. Samples of poultry at
slaughter are randomly tested by the FSIS,
and show a very low percentage of residue
violations.[65] Although violations are
minimal, these small amounts of
antibiotics have still contributed to
antibiotic resistant outbreaks in the U.S.
There are five infectious agents that
account for 90% of foodborne related
deaths. Three consistently found in poultry
are: Salmonella, Campylobacter, and
Escherichia coli.[66]

2014: Outbreak of Salmonella in 634

people across 29 states (38%
hospitalized) from eating chicken from
Foster Farms that was sold at Costco.
44/68 tested isolates were resistant to
at least 1 drug (65%), and 4 of 5 chicken
samples tested were drug resistant
(80%).[67]
2015: Outbreak of Salmonella in 15
people in 7 states (4 hospitalized) from
eating frozen stuffed chicken produced
by Barber Foods.[68]

Limitations and challenges

One obstacle to gathering more
comprehensive data on the use of
antibiotics in feed is the majority of the
poultry industry utilizes vertical
integration. As a consequence, farmers
are often unaware of what components go
into the feed, including whether or not
antibiotics are used.[69] Also in antibiotic
usage in general, there are criteria to
define bacterial resistance to specific
antibiotics, however, there are no
standards to divide the bacteria into
resistant and susceptible categories
based on antibiotics utilized.[70]
The poultry industry also plays a large part
in the United States economy, both in
domestic purchasing and through
international demand. The USDA reports
that the U.S. is the “world’s largest
producer and second largest exporter of
poultry meat.” In 2010, the U.S. produced
36.9 billion pounds of broiler meat and
exported 6.8 billion pounds of broiler
meat. This equates to an estimated retail
value of 45 billion dollars in 2010.[71]

Both the agricultural and pharmaceutical

industries have been lobbying against
legislation that seeks to quell non-
therapeutic antibiotic use in livestock
since the first introduction of such
legislation in Congress in the 1970s.[72]
Despite scientific evidence suggesting a
strong association between antibiotic use
in poultry and other livestock, agribusiness
lobbies such as The National Chicken
Council argue that there is not sufficient
evidence to purport that there is a
measurable impact to humans and shifts
the blame of the problem of antibiotic
resistance to overprescribing in the field of
medicine.[73]

With antibiotic restrictions, integrators will

bare the immediate costs of these
changes, and would likely result in
modified finances and contracts with
growers.[62] Also, public health agencies
may not have adequate scientific evidence
for making appropriate decisions for
better public health outcomes, secondary
to lack of research funds. As a reference,
the US spends about $101 billion per year
for both governmental and biomedical
industrial research, which is only 5% of
total health expenditures.[70]

Solutions

Several policies have been proposed to

improve data collection and transparency
in livestock production. For example, the
2013 Delivering Antimicrobial
Transparency in Animals (DATA) Act
proposed the enactment of policies to
acquire more accurate documentation of
antibiotic use in growth promotion by
farmers, drug manufacturers, and the
FDA.[74] Also, the Preservation of
Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act
(PAMTA) was enacted to eliminate the use
of medically important antibiotics in
livestock.[74] In 2015, the Preventing
Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA) was
passed with two components: requirement
of drug companies to provide evidence
that antibiotics that are approved for use
in poultry, and that meat production does
not add to the growing threat of antibiotic
resistance in humans.[75] Antimicrobial
Stewardship Programs (ASPs) serve as an
example of systematic monitoring and
analysis of data via interdisciplinary and
multi-sectoral collaboration.[76]

Performing quality improvement in the

process of livestock production is another
focus. Some alternative methods include
“improving hygiene, using enzymes,
probiotics, prebiotics, and acids to improve
health and utilizing bacteriocins,
antimicrobial peptides, and
bacteriophages as substitutes for
antibiotics.”[76] Adaptations of methods by
other countries is an additional focus. For
example, the use of antibiotics in feed was
banned in Sweden in 1985 with no
compensatory increase in antibiotic usage
in other sectors of production, proving that
a ban can be successfully administered
without unintended impacts on other
categories.[77]

Major producers in the poultry industry

have also begun to make strides towards
change, largely due to public concern over
the widespread use of antibiotics in
poultry. Some producers have started
eliminating the use of antibiotics in order
to produce and market chickens that may
legally be labeled "antibiotic free". In 2007,
Perdue began phasing out all medically
important antibiotics from its feed and
hatcheries and began selling poultry
products labeled “no antibiotics ever”
under the Harvestland brand. Consumer
response was positive and in 2014 Perdue
also began phasing out ionophores from
its hatchery and began using the
"antibiotic free" labels on its Harvestland,
Simply Smart and Perfect Portions
products.[78]

Impacts of change
As Guidance for Industry #213 has been
voluntarily accepted, it will be a violation of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
to use antibiotics in livestock production
for non-therapeutic purposes. However, as
there is now a requirement for veterinary
oversight and approval for antibiotics use,
there is leeway in the interpretation of non-
therapeutic purposes dependent on the
situation. For example, per the FDA, “a
veterinarian may determine, based on the
client’s production practices and history,
that weaned beef calves arriving at a
feedlot in bad weather after a lengthy
transport are at risk to develop bacterial
respiratory infection. In this case, the
veterinarian might choose to preventively
treat these calves with an antimicrobial
approved for prevention of that bacterial
infection.”[79]

The FDA is not trying to regulate all

antimicrobials at this time - only those
antibiotics which are considered
“medically important.” For example,
bacitracin, a common antibiotic found in
over the counter antibiotic ointments, is
not classified as “medically important.”
Also, ionophores, which are not a part of
human medicine but given for improving
the health of livestock, are also not
included in this regulation.[80]
Arsenic

Poultry feed can also include roxarsone or

nitarsone, arsenical antimicrobial drugs
that also promote growth. Roxarsone was
used as a broiler starter by about 70% of
the broiler growers between 1995 and
2000.[81] The drugs have generated
controversy because it contains arsenic,
which is highly toxic to humans. This
arsenic could be transmitted through run-
off from the poultry yards. A 2004 study by
the U.S. magazine Consumer Reports
reported "no detectable arsenic in our
samples of muscle" but found "A few of
our chicken-liver samples has an amount
that according to EPA standards could
cause neurological problems in a child
who ate 2 ounces of cooked liver per week
or in an adult who ate 5.5 ounces per
week." The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), however, is the
organization responsible for the regulation
of foods in America, and all samples
tested were "far less than the... amount
allowed in a food product."[82]

Roxarsone, a controversial arsenic compound used as

a nutritional supplement for chickens.
Growth hormones

Hormone use in poultry production is

illegal in the United States.[25][83][84]
Similarly, no chicken meat for sale in
Australia is fed hormones.[85] Several
scientific studies have documented the
fact that chickens grow rapidly because
they are bred to do so, not because of
growth hormones.[86][87]

E. coli

According to Consumer Reports, "1.1

million or more Americans [are] sickened
each year by undercooked, tainted
chicken." A USDA study discovered E. coli
(Biotype I) in 99% of supermarket chicken,
the result of chicken butchering not being
a sterile process.[88] However, the same
study also shows that the strain of E. coli
found was always a non-lethal form, and
no chicken had any of the pathenogenic
O157:H7 serotype.[88] Many of these
chickens, furthermore, had relatively low
levels of contamination.[89]

Feces tend to leak from the carcass until

the evisceration stage, and the
evisceration stage itself gives an
opportunity for the interior of the carcass
to receive intestinal bacteria. (The skin of
the carcass does as well, but the skin
presents a better barrier to bacteria and
reaches higher temperatures during
cooking.) Before 1950, this was contained
largely by not eviscerating the carcass at
the time of butchering, deferring this until
the time of retail sale or in the home. This
gave the intestinal bacteria less
opportunity to colonize the edible meat.
The development of the "ready-to-cook
broiler" in the 1950s added convenience
while introducing risk, under the
assumption that end-to-end refrigeration
and thorough cooking would provide
adequate protection. E. coli can be killed
by proper cooking times, but there is still
some risk associated with it, and its near-
ubiquity in commercially farmed chicken is
troubling to some. Irradiation has been
proposed as a means of sterilizing chicken
meat after butchering.

The aerobic bacteria found in poultry

housing can include not only E. coli, but
Staphylococcus, Pseudomona,
Micrococcus and others as well. These
contaminants can contribute to dust that
often cause issues with the respiratory
systems of both the poultry and humans
working in the environment. If bacterial
levels in the poultry drinking water reach
high levels, it can result in bacterial
diarrhoea which can lead to blood
poisoning should the bacteria spread from
the damaged intestines.[90]

Salmonella too can be stressful on poultry

production. How it causes disease has
been investigated in some detail.[91]

Avian influenza

There is also a risk that crowded

conditions in chicken farms will allow
avian influenza (bird flu) to spread quickly.
A United Nations press release states:
"Governments, local authorities and
international agencies need to take a
greatly increased role in combating the
role of factory-farming, commerce in live
poultry, and wildlife markets which provide
ideal conditions for the virus to spread and
mutate into a more dangerous form..."[92]

Efficiency

Farming of chickens on an industrial scale

relies largely on high protein feeds derived
from soyabeans; in the European Union the
soybean dominates the protein supply for
animal feed,[93] and the poultry industry is
the largest consumer of such feed.[93] Two
kilograms of grain must be fed to poultry
to produce 1 kg of weight gain,[94] much
less than that required for pork or beef.[95]
However, for every gram of protein
consumed, chickens yield only 0.33 g of
edible protein.[96]

Economic factors

Changes in commodity prices for poultry

feed have a direct effect on the cost of
doing business in the poultry industry. For
instance, a significant rise in the price of
corn in the United States can put
significant economic pressure on large
industrial chicken farming operations.[97]
Worker health and safety
Poultry workers experience substantially
higher rates of illness and injury than
manufacturing workers do on average.

Muscular disorders

For the year 2013, there were an estimated

1.59 cases of occupation-related illness
per 100 full-time U.S. meat and poultry
workers, compared to .36 for
manufacturing workers overall.[98] Injuries
are associated with repetitive movements,
awkward postures, and cold temperatures.
High rates of carpal tunnel syndrome and
other muscular and skeletal disorders are
reported. Disinfectant chemicals and
infectious bacteria are causes of
respiratory illnesses, allergic reactions,
diarrhea, and skin infections.[99]

Respiratory consequences

Poultry housing has been shown to have

adverse effects on the respiratory health
of workers, ranging from a cough to
chronic bronchitis. Workers are exposed to
concentrated airborne particulate matter
(PM) and endotoxins (a harmful waste
product of bacteria). In a conventional hen
house a conveyor belt beneath the cages
removes the manure. In a cage-free aviary
system the manure coats the ground,
resulting in the build-up of dust and
bacteria over time. Eggs are often laid on
the ground or under cages in the aviary
housing, causing workers to come close to
the floor and force dust and bacteria into
the air, which they then inhale during egg
collection.[100]

Excretory consequences

Oxfam America reports that huge

industrialized poultry operations are under
such pressure to maximize profits that
workers are denied access to
restrooms.[101]
World chicken population
The Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations estimated that in 2002
there were nearly sixteen billion chickens
in the world, counting a total population of
15,853,900,000.[102] The figures from the
Global Livestock Production and Health
Atlas for 2004 were as follows:

1. China (3,860,000,000)
2. United States (1,970,000,000)
3. Indonesia (1,200,000,000)
4. Brazil (1,100,000,000)
5. India (729,209,000)[103]
6. Pakistan (691,948,000)
7. Mexico (540,000,000)
8. Russia (340,000,000)
9. Japan (286,000,000)
10. Iran (280,000,000)
11. Turkey (250,000,000)
12. Bangladesh (172,630,000)
13. Nigeria (143,500,000)

In 2009 the annual number of chicken

raised was estimated at 50 billion, with 6
billion raised in the European Union, over 9
billion raised in the United States and more
than 7 billion in China.[104]
In 1950, the average American consumed
20 pounds of chicken per year, but it is
predicted that the average consumption
will be 89 pounds in 2015. Additionally, in
1980 most chickens were sold whole, and
by 2000 almost 90 percent of chickens
were sold after being processed into parts.
This increase in consumption and
processing has led to many occupation-
related illness.[105]

See also
Chicken harvester
Controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)
Environmental issues with agriculture
 Henopause
Hy-Line International
Poultry farming in the United States

References
1. "Compassion in World Farming -
Poultry" . Ciwf.org.uk. Retrieved August 26,
2011.
2. State of the World 2006 World watch
Institute, p. 26
3. "Food-Animal Production Practices and
Drug Use" . National Center for
Biotechnical Information. Retrieved
February 28, 2016.
4. "Performance Records of Hy-Line Grey"
(PDF). Retrieved November 18, 2011.

5. "Compassion in World Farming - Egg

laying hens" . Ciwf.org.uk. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
6. "How to Select the Perfect Breed of Best
Egg Laying Chickens" .
homesteadchores.com. Retrieved
October 5, 2017.
7. "European Union Regulation for
marketing standards for eggs - page 25" .
Retrieved August 26, 2011.
8. "50% of UK eggs laid by free range
hens" . The Ranger. Retrieved
November 18, 2011.
9. Deeb, N.; Shlosberg, A.; Cahaner, A.
(October 2002). "Genotype-by-environment
interaction with broiler genotypes differing
in growth rate. 4. Association between
responses to heat stress and to cold-
induced ascites". Poultry Science. 81 (10):
1454–1462. doi:10.1093/ps/81.10.1454 .
PMID 12412909 .
10. "Chicken Feed: Grass-Fed Chickens &
Pastured Poultry" . Lions Grip. Retrieved
July 6, 2007.
11. "Compassion in World Farming - Poultry
- Higher welfare alternatives" . Ciwf.org.uk.
Retrieved August 26, 2011.
12. Sherwin, C., Richards, G. and Nicol, C.
(2010). "A comparison of the welfare of
layer hens in four housing systems used in
the UK". British Poultry Science. 51 (4):
488–499.
doi:10.1080/00071668.2010.502518 .
13. WSPA International> 'Free-range
farming and avian flu in Asia retrieved July
6, 2007
14. "Soil Association Standards" . Retrieved
December 5, 2011.
15. Appleby, M.C.; Hughes, B.O.; Elson, H.A.
(1992). Poultry Production Systems:
Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB
International.
16. "European Union Council Directive
1999/74/EC" . Retrieved November 15,
2011.
17. VEGA Laying hens, free range and bird
flu retrieved July 6, 2007
18. Chickens: Layer Housing, Michael C.
Appleby, Encyclopedia of Animal Science.
doi:10.1081/E-EAS-120019534
19. Housing, space, feed and water United
Egg Producers
20. "Animal Pragmatism: Compassion Over
Killing Wants to Make the Anti-Meat
Message a Little More Palatable" .
Washington Post. September 3, 2003.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
21. Appleby, M.C.; J.A. Mench; B.O. Hughes
(2004). Poultry Behaviour and Welfare.
Wallingford and Cambridge MA: CABI
Publishing. ISBN 0-85199-667-1.
22. "Defra Code For The Welfare Of Laying
Hens" (PDF). Retrieved December 5, 2011.
23. "Ecologist, September 2011" . Retrieved
January 22, 2012.
24. "Animal Welfare For Broiler Chickens" .
National Chicken Council. Retrieved
June 21, 2012.
25. "Poultry Industry Frequently Asked
Questions" . U.S Poultry & Egg Association.
Retrieved June 21, 2012.
26. "Compassion in World Farming - Meat
chickens - Welfare issues" . Ciwf.org.uk.
Retrieved August 26, 2011.
27. "Compassion in World Farming - Meat
chickens" . Ciwf.org.uk. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
28. "Undercover Investigations ::
Compassion Over Killing Investigation" .
Kentucky Fried Cruelty. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
29. Wenonah Hauter, How the USDA
Cowers to the Poultry Industry , AlterNet,
2014.02.20
30. Brulliard, Karin (10 June 2016). "Egg
producers pledge to stop grinding newborn
male chickens to death" . The Washington
Post. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
31. Breward, J., (1984). Cutaneous
nociceptors in the chicken beak.
Proceedings of the Journal of Physiology,
London 346: 56
32. Gentle, M.J. (1992). "Pain in birds".
Animal Welfare. 1: 235–247.
33. Gentle, M.J.; Hughes, B.O.; Hubrecht,
R.C. (1982). "The effect of beak-trimming
on food-intake, feeding behaviour and body
weight in adult hens". Applied Animal
Ethology. 8: 147–157. doi:10.1016/0304-
3762(82)90140-7 .
34. Duncan, I.J.H.; Slee, G.S.; Seawright, E.;
Breward, J. (1989). "Behavioural
consequences of partial beak amputation
(beak trimming) in poultry". British Poultry
Science. 30: 479–488.
doi:10.1080/00071668908417172 .
35. Gentle, M.J.; Hunter, L.N.; Waddington,
D. (1991). "The onset of pain related
behaviours following partial beak
amputation in the chicken". Neuroscience
Letters. 128: 113–116. doi:10.1016/0304-
3940(91)90772-l .
36. Gentle, M.J.; Hughes, B.O.; Fox, A.;
Waddington, D. (1997). "Behavioural and
anatomical consequences of two beak
trimming methods in 1- and 10-d-old
domestic chicks". British Poultry Science.
38: 453–463.
doi:10.1080/00071669708418022 .
37. Breward, J., (1985). An
Electrophysiological Investigation of the
Effects of Beak Trimming in the Domestic
Fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Ph.D.
thesis, University of Edinburgh.
38. Gentle, M.J., (1986). Beak trimming in
poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal',
42: 268-275
39. Breward, L.; Gentle, M.J. (1985).
"Neuroma formation and abnormal afferent
nerve discharges after partial break
amputation (beak trimming) in poultry".
Experientia. 41 (9): 1132–1134.
doi:10.1007/BF01951693 .
40. Devor, M. and Rappaport, Z.H., (1990).
Pain Syndromes in Neurology., edited by
H.L. Fields, Butterworths, London, p. 47.
41. Lunam, C.A.; Glatz, P.C.; Hsu, Y-J.
(1996). "The absence of neuromas in beaks
of adult hens after conservative trimming
at hatch". Australian Veterinary Journal. 74:
46–49. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
0813.1996.tb13734.x .
42. Kuenzel, W.J. (2001). "Neurobiological
basis of sensory perception: welfare
implications of beak trimming". Poultry
Science. 86: 1273–1282.
43. Grandin, Temple; Johnson, Catherine
(2005). Animals in Translation. New York,
NY: Scribner. p. 183. ISBN 0-7432-4769-8.
44. Singer, Peter (2006). In Defense of
Animals. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 176. ISBN 1-
4051-1941-1.
45. Hernandez, Nelson (September 19,
2005). "Advocates Challenge Humane-Care
Label on Md. Eggs" . Washington Post.
Retrieved July 30, 2009.
46. "Md. Egg Farm Accused of Cruelty" .
Washington Post. June 6, 2001. Retrieved
July 30, 2009.
47. Castonon, J.R. “History of the Use of
Antibiotics” [Poultry Science, 2011].
48. Ogle, Maureen. “Riots, Rage, and
Resistance: A Brief History of How
Antibiotics Arrived on the Farm” . Scientific
American. Sep 3, 2013. Retrieved 28
October 2016.
49. Roth, Natalia. “How to reduce antibiotic
resistance on poultry farms.” July 27,
2016. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
50. CDC. “Antibiotic Resistant Threats in
the United States” [CDC] 2013.
51. O’Niel, Jim. “Antimicrobials in the
agriculture and the environment: Reducing
the unnecessary use and waste” The
Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. 2016.
52. O’Niel, Jim. [1] “Review on
Antimicrobial Resistance” December 2015.
53. Federal Register. “Rules and
Regulations” 2012.
54. American Meat Institute. “The Facts
About Antibiotics in Livestock & Poultry
Production” .
55. [CDC]. "Antibiotic Resistance Threats in
the United States 2013" , April 23, 2013.
Retrieved on 28 October 2016.
56. CDC. “Estimates of foodborne illness in
the United States” 2011.
57. Lautenbach, et al. "Extended-Spectrum
β-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli
and Klebsiella pneumoniae: Risk Factors
for Infection and Impact of Resistance on
Outcomes" , Clinical Infectious Disease,
2001. Retrieved on 28 October 2016.
58. CDC. "Antibiotic Resistance Threats in
the United States 2013" , April 23, 2013.
Retrieved on 28 October 2016.
59. CDC. “Antibiotic Resistant Threats in
the United States” 2013.
60. Grow, et al. "Farmaceuticals: The drugs
fed to farm animals and the risks posed to
humans" , Reuters, Filed Sept. 15, 2014, 1
p.m. GMT. Retrieved on 28 October 2016.
61. U.S. FDA. "Phasing out certain
antibiotics use in farm animals" , Dec 11,
2013. Updated Feb 25, 2015. Retrieved on
28 October 2016.
62. Sneeringer, et al. "Economics of
Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock
production" , USDA, November 2015.
Retrieved on 28 October 2016.
63. Pelton, Tom. "New Book Explains How
Perdue’s ‘Chickenizing” Changed the
World" , 'WYPR', Sep 8, 2016. Retrieved on
28 October 2016.
64. "Vertical Integration" , National Chicken
Council, 2012. Retrieved on 28 October
2016.
65. "Chicken from Farm to Table | USDA
Food Safety and Inspection Service" .
Fsis.usda.gov. April 6, 2011. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
66. “The Human Health Impact of
Antimicrobial Resistance in Animal
Populations” 2011.
67. CDC. “Multistate Outbreak of Multi-Drug
Resistant Salmonella Heidelberg Infections
Linked to Foster Farms Brand Chicken
(Final Update).” 31 July 2014.
68. CDC. “Multistate Outbreak of Multi-Drug
Resistant Salmonella Enteriditis Infections
Linked to Raw, Frozen, Stuffed Chicken
Entrees Produced by Barber Foods (Final
Update)” 16 October 2015.
69. S. Sneeringer, "Restrictions on
Antibiotic Use for Production Purposes in
U.S. Livestock Industries Likely To Have
Small Effects on Prices and Quantities,"
Amber Waves, November 2015.
70. Dorsey, ER; de Roulet, J; Thompson, JP;
Reminick, JI; Thai, A; WhiteStellato, Z; et al.
(2010). "Funding of US biomedical
research, 2003–2008". JAMA. 303: 137–
43. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1987 .
71. D. Harvey, "Poultry & Eggs: Statistics &
Information," Amber Waves Magazine, 22
August 2016.
72. S. Tavernise, "F.D.A. Restricts Antibiotic
Use for Livestock," The New York Times, 11
December 2013.
73. Frontline. “Modern Meat: Antibiotic
Debate Overview”
74. "U.S. Congressional Legislation Relating
to Antibiotic Use, 2004-2014," Washington
D.C.
75. The Pew Charitable Trusts. "New
Antibiotics Bill Addresses the Threat of
Superbugs" 2 March 2015.
76. L. Chang-Ro, H. C. Ill, C. J. Byeong and
H. L. Sang, "Review Strategies to Minimize
Antibiotic Resistance," International Journal
of Environment Research and Public
Health, 2013.
77. Gilchrist, M. J.; Greko, C.; Wallinga, D. B.;
Beran, G. W.; Riley, D. G.; Thorne, P. S.
(2007). "The Potential Role of Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations in Infectious
Disease Epidemics and Antibiotic
Resistance" . Environmental Health
Perspectives. 115 (2): 313–316.
doi:10.1289/ehp.8837 . PMC 1817683  .
PMID 17384785 .
78. Stephanie Strom (July 31, 2015).
"Perdue Sharply Cuts Antibiotic Use in
Chickens and Jabs at Its Rivals" . The New
York Times. Retrieved August 12, 2015.
79. “FDA’s Strategy on Antimicrobial
Resistance - Questions and Answers”
Page Last Updated: 06/11/2015.
80. Grow et al.
ters.com/investigates/special-
report/farmaceuticals-the-drugs-fed-to-
farm-animals-and-the-risks-posed-to-
humans/ “The drugs fed to farm animals
and the risks posed to humans:
Farmaceuticals.” Filed Sept. 15, 2014, 1
p.m. GMT.
81. Jones, F. T. (2007). "A Broad View of
Arsenic" . Poultry Science. 86 (1): 2–14.
doi:10.1093/ps/86.1.2 . PMID 17179408 .
82. "Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics" .
ConsumerReports.org. Retrieved March 24,
2009.
83. "The Use Of Steroid Hormones For
Growth Promotion In Food-Producing
Animals"
84. "Chicken from Farm to Table | USDA
Food Safety and Inspection Service" .
Fsis.usda.gov. April 6, 2011. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
85. "Landline - 5/05/2002: Challenging food
safety myths" . Australian Broadcasting
Corp. Abc.net.au. May 5, 2002. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
86. Havenstein GB, Ferket PR, Qureshi MA
(October 2003). "Carcass composition and
yield of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed
representative 1957 and 2001 broiler
diets" . Poult. Sci. 82 (10): 1509–18.
doi:10.1093/ps/82.10.1509 .
PMID 14601726 .
87. Havenstein GB, Ferket PR, Scheideler
SE, Rives DV (December 1994). "Carcass
composition and yield of 1991 vs 1957
broilers when fed "typical" 1957 and 1991
broiler diets". Poult. Sci. 73 (12): 1795–804.
doi:10.3382/ps.0731795 . PMID 7877935 .
88. "Nationwide Broiler Chicken
Microbiological Baseline Data Collection
Program July 1994 - June 1995" (PDF).
Retrieved November 6, 2012.
89. "Revised Young Chicken Baseline"
(PDF). Retrieved August 26, 2011.
90. "Poultry Dipslides Tests" . Retrieved
March 10, 2016.
91. Yashroy, Rakesh. "Poultry production
under Salmonella stress: Infection
mechanisms" . Research Gate. Retrieved
November 18, 2014.
92. "UN task forces battle misconceptions
of avian flu, mount Indonesian campaign" .
UN News Center. Retrieved July 24, 2009.
93. "Protein Sources For The Animal Feed
Industry" . Fao.org. May 3, 2002. Retrieved
August 26, 2011.
94. Lester R. Brown (2003). "Chapter 8.
Raising Land Productivity: Raising protein
efficiency" . Plan B: Rescuing a Planet
Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble .
NY: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-05859-X.
95. Adler, Jerry; Lawler, Andrew (June
2012). "How the Chicken Conquered the
World" . Smithsonian. Retrieved April 19,
2015.
96. Tom Lovell (1998). Nutrition and
feeding of fish . Springer. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-
412-07701-2.
97. Jonathan Starkey (April 9, 2011).
"Delaware business: Chicken companies
feeling pinch as corn prices soar" . News
Journal. Gannett. DelawareOnline.
OCLC 38962480 . Retrieved April 10, 2011
98. U.S. General Accountability Office.
Workplace Safety and Health: Additional
Data Needed to Address Continued
Hazards in the Meat and Poultry Industry .
GAO-16-337. Washington, D.C. April, 2016.
99. "CDC - Poultry Industry Workers - NIOSH
Workplace Safety and Health Topic" .
www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2016-07-15.
100. "WCAHS Ag Health News - Aviary
Housing Effects on Worker Health" (PDF).
101. "Lives on the Line: The high human
cost of chicken" . Oxfam America.
Retrieved 2016-05-14.
102. "Chicken population" . Fao.org.
Retrieved August 26, 2011.
103. [2] , Annexure I, page 139. Department
of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries;
Ministry of Agriculture; Government of
India.
104. Foer, Jonathan Safran (2009). "Eating
Animals", Page 136. Little, Brown and
Company, USA. ISBN 978-0-316-06990-8
105. "Lives on the Line" (PDF).

Wikimedia Commons has media related

to Poultry farming.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Poultry_farming&oldid=824940077"

Last edited 7 days ago by Rodw

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.