Floor-rearing of chickens
Floor husbandry is currently the most widespread type of husbandry for laying hens in Germany. 62 percent of the approximately 43 million hens live in barn systems. This husbandry system is largely replacing the previously widespread cage husbandry.2
In barn systems, the animals spend the whole year crowded together in large halls. Some farms provide the animals with a winter garden. There, they have access to outdoor climate stimuli, but not to green areas.
Who We Are – Animal Society is a non-profit organisation dedicated to advocating for the rights and interests of animals and encouraging society and politics to end animal suffering. Through our educational efforts and political campaigns, we create transparency to establish effective animal policy. More
The husbandry system is considered an “animal-friendly” alternative to the cage, but it is just as much a form of intensive animal husbandry. Whether caged or floor-kept, the laying hens are exploited for the purpose of egg production and must lay an egg almost every day.
What is floor husbandry?
In barn management, laying hens live in climatically controlled buildings. The minimum requirements are laid down by law, but are based primarily on economic considerations rather than the animals’ needs.
A distinction is made between classic floor husbandry with one level and aviary husbandry with several lattice levels. Some farms give the hens additional access to the outdoor climate in the form of a winter garden.
The animals have more freedom of movement in floor housing than in cage housing. Nevertheless, the legal husbandry requirements allow conditions that are in stark contrast to the needs of the chickens:
- large groups of 6,000 laying hens
- high stocking density of 9 hens per square meter of barn space or 18 birds with tiers built on top of each other
- no continuous bedding, since only at least one third of the surface must be bedded
- natural daylight is not mandatory
- outdoor climate stimuli are not mandatory
Classic floor husbandry
In classic floor husbandry, only the floor of the barn is available to the laying hens. The littered area covers at least one third of the stable floor area. The remaining floor area consists of a perforated grid floor and is comparable to a slatted floor.3
Drinking troughs, feeding troughs and perches are mounted in the area.4 The artificial nests are located on the walls or in the center of the barn. A plastic curtain hangs in front of each nest, and there are no nest materials such as straw or branches.5
Although much of the area is perforated, parasite infestation is high because the birds are in contact with their own feces in the litter area. The red bird mite in particular puts a strain on the animals and causes severe itching and feather loss.6
Aviary husbandry
Instead of one level on the floor, aviary housing has several tiers of up to three lattice levels built on top of each other. Perches, drinkers, feed troughs and nests are installed in them.7 Mechanical belts transport the eggs out of the coop.
In aviary housing, the animals are more active and use the stable space in three dimensions instead of just the stable floor with perches. In this respect, aviary husbandry is considered a husbandry system in which the animals can better act out their behavioral patterns.8
But this way of keeping hardly corresponds to the actual living conditions of the chickens. Shelf-like grid systems fill the coop. As a result, the animals collide with the aviaries or fall down and suffer painful bone fractures.9
Floor husbandry with winter garden
This form of floor husbandry allows the animals to leave the barn building. In the winter garden, they experience fresh air and dayligh.10 However, access to the outdoor climate cannot be compared to free-range on a grassed area.
Rather, the conservatory acts as a covered scratching area with a paved interspersed floor instead of natural soil with plants11. Since the side walls are made of lattice or nets, the animals at least escape the dust load in the barn.
The technical literature recommends this form of husbandry to farm managers – not so much for the sake of the animals but to market the eggs better. This is because, unlike in classic floor husbandry, the animals here are not locked in the barn 24 hours a day.12
Animal welfare problems in floor husbandry
The housing system influences the welfare of the animals. Although floor husbandry provides significantly more space than the small cages, it is still associated with problems relevant to animal welfare.
How much space does a chicken have in floor husbandry?
The German Husbandry Ordinance stipulates a maximum stocking density of 9 hens per square meter for floor husbandry.13 In mathematical terms, that is only 1,111 square centimeters of space per hen. That is slightly less than a sheet of paper in A3 size.
In aviary housing, farmers are allowed to double the stocking density to 18 birds because the hens have several levels at their disposal.14 However, twice as many birds share the same air space as in a classic floor housing system.
Unlike in cage management, the laying hens here can use the entire barn. Nevertheless, they cannot move around completely freely. They have to constantly push past other animals to reach food, water, perches, scratching areas and nests.15
Feather pecking in chickens
Feather pecking is common in all housing systems – including floor systems.16 It is a serious behavioral disorder of laying hens. The birds peck at each other, frequently injure themselves and eat the feathers of their conspecifics.17
However, the behavior is not aggressively motivated. Rather, it is a redirected exploratory and foraging behavior. The causes for the harmful behavioral disorder are caused by many influences and are not conclusively clarified.18
Missing or, from the animals’ point of view, unsuitable picking substrates are a particular risk factor.19 In addition to husbandry and management, there is also a breeding effect. Some animals and lines are more prone to feather pecking than others.20
The behavioral disorder is associated with physical suffering on the one hand and fear on the other.21 The pulling out of the feathers and the injuries cause pain. The affected chickens are more susceptible to diseases and mortality increases.22
In order to minimize the consequences, it was common practice in Germany until late summer 2016 to shorten the beaks of laying hens 23, even though beak trimming is a particularly serious interference with their physical integrity.
Even if this measure is no longer implemented, hen farmers use other forms of management. These include non-invasive preventive measures such as environmental enrichment through feed and structural elements.24
Nevertheless, methods relevant to animal welfare are also used. If a herd shows the behavioral disorder, owners are allowed to lower the lighting in the barn as an emergency measure.25 This is an effective method, but one that needs to be viewed critically, as the animals now live in semi-darkness for a long time.
Even though darkening must be recorded,26 there is no publicly available data on how many laying hens are kept in darkness. The animals suffer a considerable restriction of their living environment,27 just so that the production of eggs continues as undisturbed as possible.
Cannibalism in chickens
Cannibalism is another welfare-relevant problem that also occurs in floor husbandry. The animals peck at each other, pull the skin of other chickens with their beaks and peck into deeper layers of tissue.28
Feather pecking can develop into cannibalism.29 If the animals lose many feathers due to feather pecking and have featherless skin areas, they are more likely to become victims of cannibalism.30 The pecked animals suffer enormously.
Two specific forms of cannibalism are not necessarily associated with feather pecking: Toe and cloacal cannibalism. The former is more commonly observed in chicks and pullets during rearing and less frequently during the laying period.31
Cloacal cannibalism, on the other hand, is more common and is favored by various factors.32 For example, when a chicken lays a large egg and bleeds from the cloaca as a result.33 Other animals now peck particularly vigorously at the shiny skin.
Cloacal cannibalism can take on strong proportions. The chickens peck until they open the abdominal cavity of the affected animals. As a result, the internal organs emerge. The pecked animals die in agony.34
Antibiotic use in laying hens
Antibiotic treatment is a problem in factory farming. In principle, the health care of chickens is desirable, but the extent of antibiotic administration in commercial animal husbandry is critical.
The care of individual animals is uncommon to the laying farms. It does not matter how many animals are sick with a bacterial infection. Treatment includes the entire group rather than just the sick animals. Since any antibiotic use increases the risk of resistant bacteria, this approach is particularly problematic.35
Laying hens may be treated with various antibiotic agents.36 Even antibiotics that are considered critical reserve antibiotics are commonly used in poultry farming. They are actually reserved for the treatment of people infected with resistant bacteria.
The exact extent of antibiotic administration in Germany is unclear, as there are no surveys on their use in laying hens. Although the quantities of antibacterially active veterinary drugs dispensed have been surveyed since 2011, the figures only refer to the classes of active ingredient. The target animal species is not recorded.37
In 2014, the government introduced the concept of antibiotic minimization in livestock farming.38 However, only fattening farms are required to collect key figures on antibiotic use. Laying farms are exempt from the regulation.39
Trip to the slaughterhouse
After a laying period of 12 to 15 months, the chickens no longer lay enough eggs from the point of view of the farm. New animals are brought in and the “old” hens are killed. At the end of the day, profitability in the egg industry is paramount.
The hens are thin and exhausted from laying eggs almost every day. Many suffer from painful diseases or injuries. They actually need to be treated with special care at the end of the laying period.
But the trappers take the animals out of the barn under great time pressure. They pay little attention to the well-being of the animals. Instead, they stuff the chickens into small transport containers and load them onto multi-story animal transporters.
The sudden commotion causes severe stress among the hens. Tightly packed in the small crates, they leave the laying farm for the first time since their arrival at the age of only a few weeks. After many hours, the stressful journey ends at the slaughterhouse.
How do chickens live in other types of housing?
Floor husbandry is one of several legally permitted husbandry systems for laying hens in Germany. In addition, other forms of husbandry with different requirements and animal welfare levels are permitted in egg production in Germany.
Caging
After the ban on conventional cages, also known as battery cages, many farmers switched to small group cages, which are only slightly larger. They are permitted in Germany until 2025, with exception even until 2028.
Currently, 2.3 million hens are still kept in enriched cages.40 Learn more about the caging of laying hens here.
Free range and organic
Of the alternative forms of husbandry, free-range and organic husbandry represent a possibility to allow the hens to run outdoors. In both systems, the hens have 4 m2 of outdoor space at their disposal according to European specifications.41
In Germany, about 8.5 million laying hens are given access to a green run under conventional conditions.42 5.8 million hens are kept on organically managed farms.43 Learn more about the two husbandry systems here.
Comparison of the types of husbandry in Germany
| Form of husbandry | Caging (small group cages) | Floor husbandry | Free-range | Organic farming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code number on the egg | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Stocking density per m2 | depending on body weight between 11 and just under 13 hens | 9 hens | 9 hens | 6 hens |
| Group size | Varies depending on the size of the cage (30 to 60 animals are common)61 | max. 6.000 chickens | max. 6.000 chickens | max. 6.000 chickens |
| Daylight in the stable | no | yes, but exceptions to daylighting in the barn are allowed by law62 | yes, but exceptions to daylighting in the barn are allowed by law63 | yes, but exceptions to daylighting in the barn are allowed by law64 |
| Outdoor climate contacts (sun and fresh air) | no | only if winter garden available | yes | yes |
| Grassland outlet | no | no | yes, 4 m² per animal | yes, 4 m² per animal |
| Interspersed area | at least 250 square centimeters per laying hen | at least one third of the stable area | at least one third of the stable area | at least one third of the stable area |
| Sand bathing behavior | severely limited | depending on the quality and quantity of bedding in the stable | Depending on the quality and quantity of bedding in the barn and the design of the outdoor area | Depending on the quality and quantity of bedding in the barn and the design of the outdoor area |
| Foraging behavior and intake of different foods | severely limited | limited, somewhat better when kept with winter garden | Variety possible due to outdoor area | Variety possible due to outdoor area |
| Grain offerings | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory |
| Social structures appropriate to the species (animals of different ages, chickens and roosters kept together) | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory |
| Organic nesting materials | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory | not mandatory |
| Beak trimming | Permitted by law, but voluntary waiver agreement currently in effect | Permitted by law, but voluntary waiver agreement currently in effect | Permitted by law, but voluntary waiver agreement currently in effect | Permitted by law, but voluntary waiver agreement currently in effect |
Eggs vs. products containing eggs
Eggs must be labeled with information on the farming method of the laying hens. The labeling regulation has been in force throughout the EU since 2004 and creates transparency for consumers. Each husbandry system has its own identification number:48
- 0 = Organic production
- 1 = Free-range
- 2 = Floor husbandry
- 3 = Caging
However, this regulation does not apply to all eggs. Colored Easter eggs are exempt from the labeling requirement. In addition, manufacturers of foods containing eggs, such as pasta, pastries or sauces, do not have to provide information on the farming method.
In recent years, the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture has spoken out several times in favor of mandatory EU-wide labeling of the farming method used for processed eggs.49 So far, the European Union has not implemented this regulation.
Labeling is a proven tool to get out of selling eggs from caged hens. More than ten years ago, animal welfare campaigns in Germany succeeded in getting supermarkets to gradually delist caged eggs.50
What type of husbandry is best for chickens?
Keeping chickens must allow them to live out their species-specific behavior. In particular, foraging takes a lot of time and space.51 It is important to provide balanced and healthy feed, which is available all day.
Like their ancestors, the Bankiva chickens, chickens want to seek out high roosting places at night.52 This is the only way they can find rest. They need high perches in sufficient numbers to sleep safely.
Chickens are social creatures that live in families of hens, roosters and their offspring. In contrast, in floor husbandry, the animals live in large homogeneous groups. All animals are the same age and only a few farms keep hens and roosters.
Every chicken has the right to a life worth living without exploitation and violent death. Decisive are their physical and psychological well-being. The keeping of chickens must be adapted to their individual needs and requirements.
Sanctuaries provide chickens with a safe living space. Unlike in commercial floor husbandry with thousands and thousands of animals, here they are in the foreground as individuals. They enjoy their lives instead of being anonymous high-performance machines.
Demands of Animal Society
Animal Society criticizes that chickens are exploited in egg production. The commercial keeping of laying hens in general and the system of floor keeping disregard their behavioral, social and physical needs.
On the one hand, the Animal Welfare Act and the husbandry requirements must be amended immediately to prevent suffering. On the other hand, the new regulations must go hand in hand with a reduction in the number of laying hens.
Animal Society is committed to ending the exploitation of animals. Animals are subjects with their own interests and needs. Support us to carry this conviction into animal policy!
FAQ
Is floor husbandry allowed?
In Germany, the floor husbandry of laying hens is permitted. The Animal Welfare – Farm Animal Husbandry Ordinance defines the requirements for the husbandry system. Up to 6,000 animals are kept at a stocking density of 9 laying hens per square meter. In multi-story aviary systems, the stocking density is even twice as high. 62 percent of laying hens, about 26.5 million animals, currently live in this husbandry system.53
Is floor husbandry cage rearing?
Floor husbandry is different from cage husbandry. In floor husbandry, the laying hens are given access to the entire barn instead of a small cage. They have a littered area and nests at their disposal. Nevertheless, the husbandry system is associated with problems relevant to animal welfare. Behavioral disorders such as feather pecking and cannibalism are common. Due to the large animal groups of up to 6,000 laying hens, there is a high infection pressure compared to cage rearing.
Is floor husbandry factory farming?
The floor husbandry of laying hens is a form of intensive animal production, also called factory farming. In the husbandry system, a high stocking density is allowed. In the meager barns, there are few opportunities for the animals to distract or occupy themselves. This is because any additional effort in the husbandry reduces the economic yield of the farm and is avoided as far as possible.
Sources
1 Statistisches Bundesamt. Eierproduktion 2021: Jedes achte Ei aus Öko-Haltung. Pressemitteilung Nr. 111 vom 15. März 2022.
2 Statistisches Bundesamt. Eierproduktion 2021: Jedes achte Ei aus Öko-Haltung. Pressemitteilung Nr. 111 vom 15. März 2022.
3 § 13a Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung – TierSchNutztV).
4 Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (2016). Leitlinien Legehennenhaltung. S. 13.
5 Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (2016). Leitlinien Legehennenhaltung. S. 13.
6 EFSA (2005). The welfare aspect of various systems of keeping laying hens. The EFSA Journal, 197, 1-23.
7 Fitz, B. (2007). Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Gesundheit, Leistung und Verhalten von Legehennen mit unterschiedlichen Einstreumaterialien in Volierenhaltung (Doctoral dissertation, lmu). S. 5.
8 Damme, K., & Hildebrand, R. A. (2002). Geflügelhaltung: Legehennen, Hähnchen, Puten, Management, Tierschutz, Umwelt, Ökonomie. Ulmer.
9 Stratmann, A., Fröhlich, E. K. F., Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G., Harlander-Matauschek, A., Würbel, H., & Toscano, M. J. (2015). Modification of aviary design reduces incidence of falls, collisions and keel bone damage in laying hens. Applied animal behaviour science, 165, 112-123.
10 Damme, K. & Hildebrand, R. A. (2015). Legehennenhaltung und Eierproduktion. Eugen Ulmer KG. Stuttgart. S. 140 f.
11 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2005). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related to the welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens. EFSA Journal, 3(3), 197. S. 19.
12 Damme, K., & Hildebrand, R. A. (2002). Geflügelhaltung: Legehennen, Hähnchen, Puten, Management, Tierschutz, Umwelt, Ökonomie. Ulmer. S. 95.
13 § 13a Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung – TierSchNutztV)
14 § 13a Verordnung zum Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere und anderer zur Erzeugung tierischer Produkte gehaltener Tiere bei ihrer Haltung (Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung – TierSchNutztV)
15 Basiswissen MTool
16 Cronin, G. M., & Glatz, P. C. (2020). Causes of feather pecking and subsequent welfare issues for the laying hen: a review. Animal Production Science, 61(10), 990-1005.
17 Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (2017). Empfehlungen zur Verhinderung von Federpicken und Kannibalismus bei Jung- und Legehennen. 1. Auflage. Drei-R-Druck GmbH. Wunstorf. S. 1; Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., … & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed bird welfare science review. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. S. 33.
18 Cronin, G. M., & Glatz, P. C. (2020). Causes of feather pecking and subsequent welfare issues for the laying hen: a review. Animal Production Science, 61(10), 990-1005.
19 Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., … & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed bird welfare science review. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. S. 34.
20 Keppler, C. (o.J.). Gutachten zum Risiko von Federpicken und Kannibalismus in der Kleingruppenhaltung nach der Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungs-Verordnung.
21 Iffland, H., Wellmann, R., Preuß, S., Tetens, J., Bessei, W., Piepho, H. P., & Bennewitz, J. (2020). A novel model to explain extreme feather pecking behavior in laying hens. Behavior Genetics, 50(1),
22 Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., … & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed bird welfare science review. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. S. 33.
23 Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2015). Vereinbarung zur Verbesserung des Tierwohls, insbesondere zum Verzicht auf das Schnabelkürzen in der Haltung von Legehennen und Mastputen.
24 Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen (2016). Minimierung von Federpicken und Kannibalismus bei Legehennen mit intaktem Schnabel. Neue Wege für die Praxis: Managementleitfaden
25 Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2015). Vereinbarung zur Verbesserung des Tierwohls, insbesondere zum Verzicht auf das Schnabelkürzen in der Haltung von Legehennen und Mastputen.
26 Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) (2015). Vereinbarung zur Verbesserung des Tierwohls, insbesondere zum Verzicht auf das Schnabelkürzen in der Haltung von Legehennen und Mastputen.
27 Nicol, C. J., Bestman, M., Gilani, A. M., De Haas, E. N., De Jong, I. C., Lambton, S., … & Rodenburg, T. B. (2013). The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 69(4), 775-788. S. 779.
28 Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (2017). Empfehlungen zur Verhinderung von Federpicken und Kannibalismus bei Jung- und Legehennen. 1. Auflage. Drei-R-Druck GmbH. Wunstorf. S. 1
29 Cronin, G. M., & Glatz, P. C. (2020). Causes of feather pecking and subsequent welfare issues for the laying hen: a review. Animal Production Science, 61(10), 990-1005.
30 Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., … & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed bird welfare science review. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. S. 33 ff.
31 Nikolov, S., & Kanakov, D. (2020). Types and clinical presentation of damaging behaviour – Feather pecking and cannibalism in birds. S. 7.
32 Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., … & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed bird welfare science review. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. S. 33 ff.
33 Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (2017). Empfehlungen zur Verhinderung von Federpicken und Kannibalismus bei Jung- und Legehennen. 1. Auflage. Drei-R-Druck GmbH. Wunstorf. S. 42.
34 Nikolov, S., & Kanakov, D. (2020). Types and clinical presentation of damaging behaviour – Feather pecking and cannibalism in birds. S. 6 f.
35 Richter, A., Hafez, H. M., Böttner, A., Gangl, A., Hartmann, K., Kaske, M., … & Werckenthin, C. (2009). Verabreichung von Antibiotika in Geflügelbeständen. Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe G: Großtiere/Nutztiere, 37(05), 321-329.
36 Richter, A., Hafez, H. M., Böttner, A., Gangl, A., Hartmann, K., Kaske, M., … & Werckenthin, C. (2009). Verabreichung von Antibiotika in Geflügelbeständen. Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe G: Großtiere/Nutztiere, 37(05), 321-329.
37 BVL & BfR (2022). Lagebild zur Antibiotikaresistenz im Bereich Tierhaltung und Lebensmittelkette 2021. S. 4.
38 Bundesregierung (2015). DART 2020. Antibiotika-Resistenzen bekämpfen zum Wohl von Mensch und Tier.
39 BMEL (2019). Wie funktioniert das Konzept zur Antibiotikaminimierung in der Nutztierhaltung?
40 Statistisches Bundesamt. Eierproduktion 2021: Jedes achte Ei aus Öko-Haltung. Pressemitteilung Nr. 111 vom 15. März 2022.
41 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 557/2007 DER KOMMISSION vom 23. Mai 2007 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1028/2006 des Rates mit Vermarktungsnormen für Eier, Anhang II, Nummer 1 c).
42 Statistisches Bundesamt. Eierproduktion 2021: Jedes achte Ei aus Öko-Haltung. Pressemitteilung Nr. 111 vom 15. März 2022.
43 Statistisches Bundesamt. Eierproduktion 2021: Jedes achte Ei aus Öko-Haltung. Pressemitteilung Nr. 111 vom 15. März 2022.
44 Thünen (o. D.). Hintergrund. Konventionelle Legehennenhaltung. Zuletzt abgerufen am 15.06.2022
45-46-47 Mögliche Ausnahmen nach § 13 TierSchNutzV:
– Ställe, die vor dem 13. März 2002 in Benutzung genommen wurden
– Ställe bei denen Tageslichteinfall durch fehlende technische oder sonstige Möglichkeiten nicht oder nur mit unverhältnismäßig hohem Aufwand erreicht werden kann und eine dem natürlichen Licht so weit wie möglich entsprechende künstliche Beleuchtung sichergestellt ist.
48 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 589/2008 der Kommission vom 23. Juni 2008 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1234/2007 des Rates hinsichtlich der Vermarktungsnormen für Eier.
49 BMEL (2019). Klöckner: Auch bei verarbeitetem Ei Informationen zur Haltung geben. Pressemitteilung Nr. 108/2019.
50 Deutschlandfunk (2009). Tiergerechte Haltung von Legehennen.