PLS: Welfare of quail on farm

Disclaimer

• This plain language summary (PLS) is a simplified communication of EFSA’s Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm and focuses on quail. The full EFSA scientific opinion can be found here.
• The purpose of the PLS is to enhance transparency and inform interested parties on EFSA’s work on the topic using simplified language to present a summary of the main findings.

Background to the scientific opinion

• This was the first scientific opinion assessing the welfare of quail on farms.
• The scientific opinion did not include birds reared for hunting or gaming, and the transport or slaughter of the birds.

What was EFSA asked to do?

EFSA was asked to evaluate and provide a scientific opinion on the impact of cage systems and other systems currently used in the EU on the welfare of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica).

The descriptive categories that were evaluated are:

• breeders (breeding quail) for reproduction;
• layers (egg-laying quail) for egg production;
• broiler quail for meat production.

EFSA was asked to describe the welfare of quail and the associated risks. The following topics were included:

• the main husbandry* systems, focusing on the accommodation currently used in the EU for keeping these birds;
• the following relevant† welfare consequences: restriction of movement, injuries, group stress and inability to perform comfort behaviour‡ related to these husbandry systems.

*Accommodation for keeping animals. 
†Based on literature and EFSA’s expert opinion 
‡Activities that maintain the function and integrity of the integument.

EFSA was asked to provide recommendations to prevent negative consequences on the welfare of quail relating to the following specific factors:

• space allowance (three-dimensional) per bird;
• group size;
• floor quality;
• availability, design and size of nesting facilities;
• environmental enrichment provided to fulfil biological needs (e.g. material for dust bathe).

How did EFSA carry out this work?

• The methodology followed the EFSA AHAW Panel guidance, 2022: Methodological guidance for the development of animal welfare mandates in the context of the Farm to Fork strategy.
• The types of husbandry system were identified.
• Experts considered eight welfare consequences: restriction of movement, group stress, inability to perform comfort behaviour, soft tissue lesions and integument damage, bone lesions (including fractures and dislocations), locomotory disorders (including lameness), inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, and inability to express pre-laying and nesting (maternal) behaviours.
• The relevance of the welfare consequences was identified in each husbandry system, based on the prevalence of the hazards.
• Only animal-based measures (ABMs) relevant to the welfare consequences were considered.
• Preventive measures to reduce the risk of the birds experiencing the welfare consequences were described in relation to the specific factors: space allowance (including minimum floor area and height), group size, floor quality, nesting facilities and environmental enrichment. Uncertainty regarding the identification and assessment of husbandry systems, welfare consequences, related ABMs, and the assessment of factors was assessed.

What data were used?

• Literature (published and grey* literature).
• Data provided by Member States and stakeholders.
• Expert opinion through working group discussion and specific exercises.

*Written material that is not published in a scientific journal.

What were the limitations/uncertainties?

• There was limited literature and information available on quail raised in the EU.
• The limited data may have impacted the description and type of husbandry systems, relevant welfare consequences, ABMs and/or specific factors.
• There is limited knowledge on the prevalence of the hazards related to the welfare consequences and husbandry systems.
• There is a scarcity of knowledge on each of the specific factors that limited the welfare assessment.
• There is a degree of uncertainty for each of the required questions. This is indicated in the conclusions of the scientific opinion.

What were the outcomes and their implications?

Space allowance

• The spaces required for quail to express different behaviours and prevent specific welfare consequences were described.
• The minimum height required for Japanese quail to exhibit vertical jumping and flying when startled, without high risk of incurring injuries, is 150 cm; however, a total height allowing a human to enter and inspect the birds should be guaranteed.

Group size

• The male:female ratio is important for groups of mature quail to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour and aggression between males.
• There is no scientific evidence to conclude on any maximum group size.

Floor quality

• Littered solid floors provide better opportunities than perforated floors for exploratory, foraging and comfort behaviour, and prevent or mitigate group stress and injuries.
• Litter management is important to maintain good quality litter (dry, friable and free of physical, chemical and microbiological hazards).

Availability, design and size of nesting facilities

• Japanese quail show a preference to lay eggs in cover, and the majority use a nest box when it is provided.
• Japanese quail prefer to lay in dry and friable material.
• Further research is needed to identify the optimal nest characteristics.

Environmental enrichment

• Fine substrate is preferred by quail for dust bathing.
• The provision of manipulative enrichment material, such as pecking blocks, stimulates exploratory or foraging behaviour.
• The provision of cover or shelter might reduce the flight response in quail, mitigating the risk of injuries.
• Outdoor access provides stimuli but is a management challenge related to protection of the birds from predation and biosecurity.
• Alternatively, a covered veranda provides some of the benefits of outdoors.

Implications

• The welfare of quail in the husbandry systems described can be improved by applying the preventive measures indicated in the scientific opinion.

What are the key recommendations for public health authorities, policy makers, industry, research community or others?

• The currently used husbandry systems as described in the scientific opinion and called cages (individual, couple or collective) should be avoided as they lead to a high risk of occurrence of the welfare consequences considered in the scientific opinion.
• Preventive measures indicated in the scientific opinion should be applied to all husbandry systems.
• More space (three-dimensional) should be provided to allow species-specific behaviours (including dust bathing).
• Quail should not be kept individually.
• The male:female ratio should be considered when grouping mature quail.
• Quail in indoor systems should be provided with solid and littered floors. The litter material should be dry and friable.
• Soft and manipulable nesting material should be provided to facilitate nest-building behaviour.
• Fine material (e.g. sand) should be provided in specific areas to enable dust-bathing behaviour.
• Permanent access to manipulable enrichment should be provided, not only in the form of dry, friable litter on at least part of the floor, but also in the form of additional, preferably edible, material.
• A covered veranda is recommended when outdoor access is unavailable.
• Further research is needed on the several aspects included in this assessment (husbandry systems, ABMs and specific factors).

Are there any additional information sources for the reader?

• 2018 European Citizen Initiative (ECI) for banning the use of cages for quail, amongst other farmed animal species: End the cage age.