Review Special Issues

Volatile organic compound emissions in free-range chicken production: Impacts on environment, welfare and sustainability

  • The increasing demand for free-range poultry products has led to a surge in their availability in the market, prompting a potential decline in premium prices associated with these products. This shift places considerable pressure on upstream costs in chicken production. A comprehensive under-standing of its impact on the environment is essential to ensure the success of commercial and industrial free-range chicken production. However, there exists a significant knowledge gap concerning the emission and concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic-free range chicken, and their environmental implications have yet to be understood. We aim to address this critical knowledge gap by elucidating the role of VOC emissions in chicken production and assessing their impact on human and animal health, as well as environmental challenges. Understanding the implications of VOC emissions is essential for promoting sustainable and responsible free-range chicken farming practices. By identifying the sources of VOC emissions and their impacts, stakeholders can implement appropriate measures to optimize air quality and enhance the well-being of chickens and workers. Ultimately, this review highlights the role of VOCs in animal production, providing valuable insights for improving the efficiency, environmental sustainability and welfare aspects of free-range chicken farming.

    Citation: Kiattisak Huanhong, Sureerat Thomya, Patipon Teerakitchotikan, Chompunut Lumsangkul, Tibet Tangpao, Shashanka K Prasad, Kollur Shiva Prasad, Sarana Rose Sommano. Volatile organic compound emissions in free-range chicken production: Impacts on environment, welfare and sustainability[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 1071-1091. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023058

    Related Papers:

    [1] Gabriel Adewunmi Eyinade, Abbyssinia Mushunje, Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf . A systematic synthesis on the context reliant performance of organic farming. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 142-158. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021009
    [2] Maurizio Canavari, Federico Gori, Selene Righi, Elena Viganò . Factors fostering and hindering farmers' intention to adopt organic agriculture in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 108-129. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022008
    [3] Marcello De Rosa, Annalisa Castelli, Luca Bartoli, Martina Francescone . Sustainable public procurement and constrained agricultural entrepreneurship. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 585-597. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023032
    [4] Monsuru Adekunle Salisu, Yusuf Opeyemi Oyebamiji, Omowunmi Kayode Ahmed, Noraziyah A Shamsudin, Yusoff Siti Fairuz, Oladosu Yusuff, Mohd Rafii Yusop, Zulkefly Sulaiman, Fatai Arolu . A systematic review of emerging trends in crop cultivation using soilless techniques for sustainable agriculture and food security in post-pandemic. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(2): 666-692. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024036
    [5] Nicholas Mawira Gitonga, Gilbert Koskey, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, John M. Maingi, Richard Cheruiyot . Dual inoculation of soybean with Rhizophagus irregularis and commercial Bradyrhizobium japonicum increases nitrogen fixation and growth in organic and conventional soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 478-495. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021028
    [6] Wei Yang, Bryan Anh, Phuc Le . Do consumers care about environmentally sustainable attributes along the food supply chain? —A systematic literature review. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 513-533. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023027
    [7] Edwin Collado, Anibal Fossatti, Yessica Saez . Smart farming: A potential solution towards a modern and sustainable agriculture in Panama. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 266-284. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.266
    [8] Hans-Georg Schwarz-v. Raumer, Elisabeth Angenendt, Norbert Billen, Rüdiger Jooß . Economic and ecological impacts of bioenergy crop production—a modeling approach applied in Southwestern Germany. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(1): 75-100. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.1.75
    [9] Surni, Doppy Roy Nendissa, Muhaimin Abdul Wahib, Maria Haryulin Astuti, Putu Arimbawa, Miar, Maximilian M. J. Kapa, Evi Feronika Elbaar . Socio-economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic: Empirical study on the supply of chicken meat in Indonesia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 65-81. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021005
    [10] Alexandros Tsoupras, Eirini Panagopoulou, George Z. Kyzas . Olive pomace bioactives for functional foods and cosmetics. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 743-766. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024040
  • The increasing demand for free-range poultry products has led to a surge in their availability in the market, prompting a potential decline in premium prices associated with these products. This shift places considerable pressure on upstream costs in chicken production. A comprehensive under-standing of its impact on the environment is essential to ensure the success of commercial and industrial free-range chicken production. However, there exists a significant knowledge gap concerning the emission and concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from organic-free range chicken, and their environmental implications have yet to be understood. We aim to address this critical knowledge gap by elucidating the role of VOC emissions in chicken production and assessing their impact on human and animal health, as well as environmental challenges. Understanding the implications of VOC emissions is essential for promoting sustainable and responsible free-range chicken farming practices. By identifying the sources of VOC emissions and their impacts, stakeholders can implement appropriate measures to optimize air quality and enhance the well-being of chickens and workers. Ultimately, this review highlights the role of VOCs in animal production, providing valuable insights for improving the efficiency, environmental sustainability and welfare aspects of free-range chicken farming.



    Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) encompass a diverse group of volatile hydrocarbon chemicals that are present in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures. These compounds contribute significantly to odor pollution, which can have adverse effects on the environment [1]. Livestock production activities, in particular, are known to be a major source of VOC emissions, leading to environmental issues like odor nuisances and land pollution [2]. Moreover, health concerns arise due to prolonged exposure to odor pollution, as it involves the continuous inhalation of numerous chemical components. Chronic or long-term exposure to these VOCs can result in various health problems, making it crucial to address and manage odor pollution effectively [3,4]. The poultry industry is a significant source of odor pollution, and its adverse effects on air quality and human health have received significant attention [3,5]. Intensive poultry production gives rise to various odorous VOCs and gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Among the gaseous emissions, ammonia (NH3) is of particular concern. Moreover, odor nuisance can be a significant issue for surrounding communities [6,7]. The VOCs emitted from chicken feces and bodily fluids can be odorous [8]. Some odorous substances from these facilities may pose health risks to livestock, workers and the environment [4,5,9,10]. Prolonged exposure to odor causes respiratory and campylobacters infection, the major poultry-borne zoonotic pathogens [11,12]. Environmental pollution can be reduced by formulating poultry diets based on the nutrients available in the ingredients [11,13,14].

    Recently white meat that is low in fat and antibiotic-free has become famous among general consumers [5,15,16]. The free-range system in poultry farming involves providing a housing structure and access to pasture or outdoor runs, enabling animals to express their natural behaviors more freely than in closed systems [17]. Consumer interest in organic and free-range poultry production continues to experience steady growth. Furthermore, consumers associate organic production not only with positive health outcomes, animal welfare and environmental considerations but also with good taste [18]. The demand for free-range poultry products is experiencing rapid growth. As free-range eggs and chicken meat become more prevalent in the market, the premium prices associated with these products are expected to decline, putting pressure on upstream costs [19]. Given the current strong demand for native free-range chicken products and their relatively expensive pricing, it is important to gain a thorough understanding of all the fundamentals and details associated with this type of poultry to ensure its viability for commercial and industrial production. However, little is known about the emission and concentrations of VOCs from organic-free-range chicken farming, and the environmental impact of these emissions has been underestimated. Considering the growing consumer interest in free-range poultry products, we aim to comprehensively examine the emission of VOCs from organic-free-range chicken production. We also seek to shed light on the underexplored environmental consequences and the effects of VOCs on human and animal health. Our overarching goal of this review is to provide a broader perspective on the roles of VOCs in animal production, offering valuable insights for sustainable and responsible poultry farming practices.

    The environmental problems caused by volatile organic compounds in nervous systems are due to their offensive odor and toxicity. For humans, extended exposure to VOCs can cause inflammation of the eyes and throat, liver damage and damage to the central nervous system. VOCs may also have carcinogenic properties. VOCs can also contribute to ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone production and global warming. As a result, VOCs are subject to stricter regulations; in Europe, for instance, the European Union Directive 1999/13/EC on the limitation of VOC emissions [20].

    During poultry production, farm biomass, chicken manure and anaerobic microbial decomposition are the primary sources of malodor, foul odor or unpleasant smell on the farm [21,22]. Odor has long been associated with animal production, and data for 1997–2013 reveal that poultry generates the highest levels of odor [11]. Factors such as animal diet, spill feed, urine, fresh manure and anaerobic microbial decomposition contribute to the generation of odor on poultry farm [21]. Generally, feed and body odors are not considered offensive as manure and its decomposition during collection are. Manure decomposes anaerobically under a range of moisture and temperature conditions, resulting in the production of odorous volatile compounds [23]. Some compounds result from microbial degradation, with carbohydrates and proteins as the substrates for their formation [24]. The type and quantity of VOCs produced can vary depending on several factors, including the type of poultry litter, the composting method and the environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, season and distance during composting [20]. Other variables include the type of chicken, housing system, building structure, ventilation system, bedding materials, flow rate, feed type and quantity, animal activity level, manure handling system, building management (cleaning and disinfection procedures) and cleaning practices [22].

    Methane (CH4) is produced by the microbial decomposition of soluble lipids, carbohydrates, organic acids, proteins and other organic compounds. CH4 is an additional potent greenhouse gas (GHG). The presence of atmospheric CH4 has been linked to climate alterations [3]. Since the beginning of the industrial period, CH4 concentrations have increased two-fold with a global mixing ratio of approximately 1,890 parts per billion (ppb), making a significant increase since pre-industrial time. Due to its effects on atmospheric chemistry and climate, the rapid increase in atmospheric CH4 concentrations is a cause for concern. CH4 is the troposphere's third most prevalent GHG (after water vapour and carbon dioxide, or CO2). More CH4 is a considerably more potent GHG than more CO2, both on a molecule and mass basis [25,26,27]. Its increasing concentrations in the atmosphere contribute to global warming and climate change. In addition to its impact on global warming, CH4 plays a significant role in atmospheric chemistry. It reacts with other gases in the atmosphere, including ozone and water vapour, to produce a range of other compounds, such as formaldehyde (CH2O), nitrogen oxides and organic compounds. The first is a toxic and reactive gas that can contribute to ground-level ozone and particulate matter formation. The others have complex and far-reaching effects on atmospheric chemistry and air quality. According to carbon emissions, there are significant environmental effects. Additionally, the creation of CH4 is considerably aided by the animal production sector, particularly through the use of chicken manure [28,29]. Large amounts of poultry manure have been produced as a result of the concentration of chicken farms on relatively small land areas. On average, a single chicken produces around 80 to 100 grams of manure per day, which, when considering the scale of the industry, leads to a significant environmental impact. For instance, Malaysia alone generated approximately 77,209 tons of chicken manure daily in 2014. This immense volume of waste holds the potential to generate up to 3.86 million cubic meters of CH4 through anaerobic digestion [30]. The release of CH4, a potent GHG, further exacerbates the environmental challenges posed by the animal production industry [31]. Gac et al. [32] reported that the emissions from litter manure in the chicken house were found that the amount of CH4 emission for egg hens, pullets and litter manure during storage were 0.053 and 0.013 kg of CH4/head/year. Understanding the makeup of the anaerobic microbiome and the way microorganisms interact with each other is extremely important. This is because an anaerobic reactor's proper functioning and stability depend on the microbial community's specific arrangement and dynamics [33].

    Figure 1 illustrates the correlation between the breakdown of chicken manure and the microbiome in the digesters. It encompasses the key types of bacteria engaged in the process, their respective fermentation activities and the resultant products generated. Converting chicken manure into CH4 relies on the collaborative efforts of various microorganisms, which can be categorized into two main groups. Carbohydrates in the manure can be degraded to polysaccharides and monosaccharides before being converted to VFA by bacteria (Clostridium IV), acetate and CH4 by the contribution of Methanothris and Methanosarcina. Proteins and lipids undergo a series of microbial transformations before CH4 is released by archaea, specifically Methanobacterium and Methanosarcina. Initially, proteins are hydrolysed into peptone, which is further broken down into amino acids. Bacteria, like Gallicola, convert these amino acids into butyrate. Furthermore, lipids are transformed into glycerol and fatty acids, which are subsequently digested by Syntrophomonas. Throughout the process, urea is converted into NH3. Eventually, these metabolic pathways culminate in the production of lactate and the subsequent release of CH4 by archaea. Additionally, the influence of bioaugmentation on the archaeal community was found to be more pronounced than its impact on the bacterial community [34].

    Figure 1.  Impact of bioaugmentation on chicken manure anaerobic digestion pathway. Modified from LiWangXu et al. [34].

    In broiler sheds where birds are raised for human consumption, odorants are either released by the birds or produced in the litter. Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) are a type of air pollutant comprising organic compounds that can quickly vaporize and become airborne, resulting in various environmental and health effects. In poultry farming, NMVOCs primarily originate from the waste products generated by the birds, including their manure and bedding materials. The chemicals and odorants frequently identified as NMVOC are listed in Table 1. Microbial activity, including Bacillus, Atopstipes, Clostridium and Lactobacillus, initiates the decomposition process by converting complex organic compounds into simpler ones, resulting in the production of various compounds over time [35]. The compositions and combination of NMVOCs vary depending on various factors such as their age, activity level and diet [36,37]. In addition, NMVOCs can be detected during various stages of chicken production. However, the specific VOCs and their concentrations may vary depending on the production practices, management and environmental factors. NMVOCs may arise from different sources, including manure management, feed storage and cleaning practices. As organic materials decompose, these compounds can be released into the air, contributing to indoor air quality challenges within chicken production facilities. Among the examples of NMVOCs, certain compounds like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene are commonly found in gasoline, paint thinners and industrial solvents, respectively. Additionally, formaldehyde, acetone, butadiene and ethylene are present in various industrial processes and products, with some compounds, such as benzene, recognized as known carcinogens. As organic materials decompose, these compounds can be released into the air, contributing to indoor air quality challenges within chicken production facilities. Effective ventilation and management strategies are vital to mitigate the accumulation of NMVOCs and maintain a healthy environment for chickens and workers. Terpenes, although not directly formed in poultry waste, can be indirectly present if poultry consumes feed containing aromatic herbs or plants, resulting in their transfer to the waste [38,39]. Aromatics, such as benzene, toluene and xylene, are released during the decomposition of organic matter, including lignin, while further degradation of organic compounds, such as carbohydrates and lipids, results in the production of alcohols (e.g., methanol, ethanol) and ketones (e.g., acetone, methyl ethyl ketone) [40,41]. Aldehydes, such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, are produced as byproducts of microbial degradation of organic compounds in poultry waste, contributing to the overall VOC emissions associated with poultry farming and emitting distinct odors [42,43]. Carboxylic acids, including acetic acid, propionic acid and other fatty acids, are also released through microbial degradation of organic matter in poultry biomass [43,44]. These compounds are part of the overall VOC emissions and can contribute to the odorous characteristics of poultry farming [42].

    Table 1.  Non-methane volatile organic compounds and common volatiles frequently identified in samples from chicken houses.
    Compound name Compound specified Odorants
    Aromatics Benzene
    Toluene
    Xylene
    Trimethylbenzene
    Acetophenone
    Benzaladehyde
    Phenol
    Toluene
    Alcohols 1-butanol
    2-butanol
    2-ethyl-1-hexanol
    1-butanol
    Aldehydes Butanal
    3-methyl-butanal
    Hexanal
    Heptanal
    Octanal
    Nonanal
    Decanal
    3-methyl-butanal
    Octanal
    Ketones 2-butanone
    2,3-butanedione
    3-methyl-2-butanone
    3-hydroxy-2-butanone
    2,3-butanedione
    Carboxylic Acids Ethanoic acid
    Propanoic acid
    Butanoic acid
    Terpenes α-pinene
    β-pinene
    Limonene
    Camphene
    Camphor
    Carene
    Eucalyptol
    α-pinene
    β-pinene
    Limonene
    Camphene
    Camphor
    Carene
    Eucalyptol
    Other Hydrocarbons Tetradecane
    Hexadecane
    Tetrahydrofuran
    Hexadecane
    Sulphur Dimethyl Sulphide
    Dimethyl Disulphide
    Dimethyl Trisulphide
    Dimethyl Sulphide
    Dimethyl Disulphide
    Dimethyl Trisulphide

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Ammonia, when present in high concentrations, can lead to acidification of soil and water, causing harm to plants and aquatic organisms [45]. Inhalation of NH3 can irritate the respiratory system, particularly in individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions [46]. The decomposition process generates NH3 as a byproduct from the breakdown of nitrogen-containing compounds, such as proteins [47]. The estimated global chicken NH3 emissions are around 5.5 Tg(N) yr−1 (Teragrams of Nitrogen per year), which accounts for approximately 13% of total agricultural NH3 emissions [48]. The production of NH3 as a by-product of poultry production is a significant concern, as various factors influence NH3 production in poultry houses. When concentrations of NH3 exceed permissible limits, typically 15–20 ppm, it can lead to disastrous consequences, including negative health and welfare effects on poultry, their caretakers and the overall production efficiency [49,50]. NH3 exposure increases infection risks, alters bird behavior and reduces production efficiency, affecting feed intake, growth, egg production and overall costs [51]. Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) emitted from poultry farms contribute to unpleasant odors in the vicinity, affecting the quality of life for nearby residents and potentially leading to respiratory irritation, including symptoms such as coughing and throat irritation, upon prolonged exposure to high levels [52,53]. Such compounds, including acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid, are formed as microbes metabolize carbohydrates and lipids in the waste [54,55]. Sulphide species are often associated with emissions from agricultural and livestock activities, such as broiler sheds and industrial processes [56]. Sulfur-containing compounds in the waste, such as proteins and amino acids, decompose and release sulfide species compounds like hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and other volatile sulfur compounds [57]. Phenols and indoles are additional compounds that can be emitted from poultry farming, particularly from the decomposition of poultry waste, with phenols being produced as organic matter, including lignin, breaks down, contributing to the overall odor emissions [58,59]. While they are not classified as NMVOCs, they are worth mentioning as they contribute to the overall emissions and can have environmental and health implications [8,60]. Phenol and indole are indicators of the quality of litter or bedding material in poultry houses; odorous compounds with long-term exposure can cause irritation of mucosal membranes in the respiratory tract of farm chickens [61].

    Free-range chickens are a farming system that offers outdoor access, allowing the birds to roam freely, forage for natural food sources like insects, plants and seeds, and express their innate behaviors. This method stands in contrast to conventional factory farming, providing a more humane and sustainable approach to poultry production. By allowing the chickens to lead healthier and happier lives, they are more likely to produce better-quality eggs and meat. While the provision of outdoor access poses challenges, proper management and monitoring ensure the safety and well-being of the birds [62,63]. In a free-range chicken farming system, the birds are encouraged to find food by foraging outdoors. However, supplementary feed is also provided to meet their nutritional requirements, especially during certain seasons or when natural forage is limited. The feed for free-range chickens typically includes a mix of grains, such as corn, wheat and barley, along with protein sources like soybean meal, ensuring they receive the necessary carbohydrates, proteins and fats for healthy growth and egg production [64,65]. In Europe, free-range poultry production has a long-established history, exemplified by the well-known "Label Rouge" certification for chickens in France. This certification signifies a commitment to high animal welfare standards and product quality. It encompasses practices such as providing extensive outdoor access for birds, using slower-growing breeds, prioritizing humane living conditions and setting a benchmark for poultry farming methods across Europe and beyond [66,67]. Likewise, in the United States, pasture-raised poultry is raised in open fields with access to fresh air and natural forage. This practice provides poultry with fresh pasture and small quantities of grass, insects and worms [68], which in turn can lead to enhanced quality of meat and eggs. However, it's essential to note that the percentage of diet substituted by these pasture-derived sources may vary based on factors like breed and age of the bird, environment and forage quality, making it challenging to predict the exact nutrient contribution [69]. When formulating diets for pasture-raised birds, it is advisable to assume minimal nutrient intake from the pasture to ensure their nutritional needs are met.

    Commercial poultry houses confine birds in stressful conditions and often rely on antibiotics in their feed to manage health issues. In contrast, free-range poultry enterprises offer a stress-free environment with ample space, natural diets and exposure to fresh air and sunlight. The antibiotic-free system, along with on-farm hand-processing to ensure a clean and faecal matter-free carcass, enhances food safety and quality compared to commercial poultry products [65,70]. A fundamental principle in free-range chicken production is avoiding the use of growth hormones and routine antibiotics and prioritizing an ethical and responsible approach to animal welfare. If a chicken falls ill and requires medical attention, it is promptly isolated and given appropriate care without compromizing the "free-range" status of the rest of the flock. This dedicated commitment to animal well-being and responsible healthcare practices contributes to the production of healthier, more ethically raised and sustainably raised free-range chickens [71,72,73]. By choosing free-range chicken products, consumers support a more ethical and natural food production system, aligning with their values of sustainable and responsible farming practices. The health benefits of such chicken products are also evident, as they provide better nutritional value due to the birds' natural foraging behaviors and the avoidance of routine antibiotics.

    The primary characteristic of free-range chicken production is that the birds have access to outdoor areas. These areas should be spacious and allow the chickens to roam freely, forage for food and engage in natural behaviors like dustbathing and scratching the ground. In free-range chicken production, hens must have continuous daytime access to open-air runs with predominantly vegetated ground, encouraging natural behaviors like foraging. The maximum stocking density should not exceed 1,000 birds per hectare to avoid overcrowding and allow sufficient space for movement. Additionally, the interior of the chicken housing must conform to specific standards to ensure shelter from extreme weather and appropriate health monitoring. Following these guidelines promotes a more natural, humane and sustainable approach to raising free-range chickens, prioritising their welfare and producing healthier, ethically raised poultry products [68]. In the UK, there are several free-range systems for meat chickens, each designed to keep in mind the welfare and ethical treatment of the birds. The "Free-Range" system permits a maximum indoor stocking density of 13 birds per m2 with access to open-air runs. In contrast, "Traditional Free Range" offers a maximum density of 12 birds per m2 and requires continuous daytime access to open-air runs, providing at least 2 m2 per chicken. For even more freedom, "Free Range - Total Freedom" includes unlimited area open-air runs. The "Organic" system combines free-range conditions with slower-growing chickens, offering organic feed and no routine antibiotics while keeping chickens in smaller flocks with ample indoor and outdoor space. These systems address consumer preferences for more humane and sustainable meat chicken production [74]. In terms of free-range laying egg chickens to promote the welfare and natural behaviors of laying egg chickens, it is recommended to provide ample outdoor space and encourage early exposure to the outdoor area. Ensuring sufficient indoor and outdoor space and offering environmental enrichment can contribute to improved welfare indicators, such as reduced plumage damage and footpad dermatitis incidence in hens [75]. In free-range and organic chicken farming, animal welfare is paramount, as both systems prioritize outdoor access and natural environments for the birds, enabling them to roam freely and forage naturally [76]. Additionally, minimizing stress, refraining from antibiotics and hormones and offering ample space for movement contribute to the chickens' well-being. These practices foster an ethical and sustainable approach to poultry production, providing consumers with healthier and responsibly sourced chicken products. Moreover, sustainability is further emphasized through responsible waste management and the preservation of natural habitats [77]. In conclusion, as illustrated in Figure 2, free-range chicken farming provides a humane and sustainable alternative to conventional methods. The outdoor access and encouragement of natural behaviors lead to healthier, happier chickens, producing better quality eggs and meat. Avoiding routine antibiotics and growth hormones enhances ethical animal welfare. Choosing free-range products supports a natural, environmentally conscious approach to food production, emphasizing animal welfare, sustainability and high-quality, responsibly sourced poultry. Overall, free-range chicken farming represents a positive shift in the poultry industry, emphasizing animal welfare, environmental sustainability and producing high-quality, responsibly sourced poultry products [19,65].

    Figure 2.  The general concept of free-range chicken production.

    Regulations for free-range chicken farming vary depending on the country and region. However, common standards include providing outdoor access with adequate space for foraging and natural behaviors, minimum indoor space per chicken to prevent overcrowding and access to a natural diet supplemented with feed [78]. In the USA, free-range chicken farming is categorized into three major systems: Pastured, day range and traditional free-range. In pastured and day-range systems, chickens have access to highly nutritious vegetation, and the constant rotation of broiler houses reduces the risk of parasitic infections. Conversely, traditional free-range systems have immobile houses and less abundant vegetation, leading to a higher incidence of parasitic infections. The regulations do not specify stocking density, genotype, feed composition or age at slaughter, but producers must demonstrate that the birds have been given outdoor access. This classification highlights the importance of outdoor access and vegetation in providing a more natural and healthier environment for free-range chickens while allowing producers flexibility in their farming practices [79]. Continuous improvement is essential as producers regularly enhance practices for optimal animal welfare. They prioritize enriching environments and access to natural resources while emphasizing environmental sustainability through eco-friendly practices and resource conservation. Nutritional aspects are carefully assessed for a balanced, natural diet and health monitoring ensures prompt veterinary care to prevent disease outbreaks. Producers adapt to consumer preferences, embrace innovation and seek certifications, resulting in improved welfare, reduced environmental impact and consumer satisfaction [80,81].

    Producing free-range chicken entails creating a natural and open environment where chickens can roam and forage freely, leading to improved health and well-being. Achieving successful free-range chicken production requires skilfully balancing the birds' welfare needs with the demands of a sustainable and economically viable operation. During free-range chicken production, some of the steps involved can contribute to concerns about VOCs and their impact on the environment. The following are some steps in free-range chicken production that may involve VOCs.

    When free-range chickens are allowed to forage outdoors, they interact with vegetation and soil. In some cases, natural processes, such as the decomposition of organic matter in the soil, can lead to the emission of VOCs. Plants release VOCs as part of their normal metabolic processes [82]. These VOCs can be emitted from plants' leaves, stems and roots [83]. Common pasture plants used in free-range farming include grasses, legumes and native or naturalized species. Examples of grasses commonly used are ryegrass (Lolium perenne), timothy grass (Phleum pratense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and brome grass (Bromus inermis). These grasses are rich in well-known nutrients and contain unidentified factors that contribute to their nutritional values [84,85,86]. When plants are mechanically stressed, such as during mowing or grazing, they can release VOCs. This is considered the defence mechanism that helps plants protect themselves from predators. The specific types of VOCs emitted from pasture production will vary depending on the type of plants and the management practices used. VOC emissions from undisturbed pastures rose significantly with higher temperatures and intense sunlight, reaching their peak at midday and stopping at night [87]. When the pasture was physically damaged or cut, temporary raises of emissions occurred, which, when measured over time, could be comparable to emissions from undisturbed pastures [88,89]. Terpenes such as α-pinene, β-pinene, limonene, myrcene, linalool, caryophyllene, geraniol and terpinene are common volatiles produced from pastures [90,91,92]. When plants die, they undergo decomposition carried out by a diverse group of soil microbes, including bacteria (e.g., Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp.), fungi (e.g., Aspergillus sp., Penicillium sp.), actinomycetes (e.g., Streptomyces sp.), protozoa and earthworms. These microorganisms, consisting of bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa and nematodes, work together to break down plant material into smaller molecules, making it easier for plants and other organisms to absorb and utilize the nutrients [93]. This process can release VOCs, such as CH4 and H2S [94,95,96]. Reduced sulfur compounds such as dimethyl sulfide (DMS) are known to be produced during the decomposition of organic matter, including plants [97,98,99]. In pastures, when plants go through natural processes of senescence and decay, DMS may be emitted, contributing to the characteristic sweet, sulfurous odor often associated with decaying plant materials [97]. This scent can be noticeable in areas with abundant plant biomass, such as grazed pastures, especially during active plant growth and decomposition periods. Ethylene is the VOCs produced during plant growth and microbial activity in aerobic and anaerobic soils [100,101].

    Poultry feed formulations often include grains, legumes and oilseed meals. These ingredients can contain organic compounds that have the potential to release VOCs. The composition of feed or the quality of forage processing, the proportion of forage in the diet and the source of the grain of forage influences CH4 production [102,103]. The study found that free-range eggs have a relatively low carbon footprint compared to white or red meat, with 63% of emissions attributed to embodied carbon in poultry feed. However, the production of eggs heavily relies on cereals and soy, which leads to high emissions from industrial nitrogen production, land-use change and transport. To reduce GHG emissions and dependence on imported raw materials, alternative digestible protein sources for poultry diets, such as those produced from waste processing, are suggested [104]. In organic feed, the absence of synthetic preservatives leads to generally higher microbial activity compared to conventional feed [105]. Bacteria and fungi naturally present in organic feed can produce VOCs as metabolic byproducts during the decomposition and breakdown of organic matter. These microbial VOC emissions may contribute to the overall VOC production associated with organic feed [106,107]. During the processing of free-range chicken feed, mechanical processes such as abrasion and friction can contribute to the emission of VOCs from the feed ingredients [108]. Heat treatments like drying and pelletising can also lead to chemical reactions between organic compounds in the feed, resulting in the formation of VOCs as byproducts. One example is the Maillard reactions, involving the reaction of amino acids with reducing sugars, which can produce VOCs such as aldehydes, ketones and furans during feed processing [109,110]. Additionally, poultry feed contains fish meal as an ingredient that may release dimethyl sulfide, which gives a smell that is characteristic with fish meal-based feeds [111].

    Housing for free-range chickens serves as a shelter and protective space, but it can also be a potential source of VOCs. Bedding materials like straw, wood shavings or sawdust in chicken housing can undergo decomposition, particularly when exposed to microbial activity and moisture. This decomposition process can result in the production of VOCs as natural byproducts. It was observed that the majority of the bedding material (rice husk) was absorbent, and additional litter was added daily to prevent wet litter and litter caking, which are associated with NH3 production [112]. Addressing VOC emissions in poultry housing, Yao et al. [113] demonstrated the effectiveness of vegetative environmental buffers in mitigating emissions and addressing environmental concerns. Additionally, in free-range systems, the outdoor activities and scratching behavior of chickens can generate dust, which may contain particulate matter and VOCs. Under dry and windy conditions, this dust, when released into the air, can contribute to air pollution, as highlighted by McGahan [114]. To minimize VOC emissions and control particulate matter in the housing environment, measures such as proper ventilation, regular maintenance of bedding materials and dust management should be implemented. These strategies promote better air quality for both the chickens and the surrounding areas, as suggested by Casey et al. [3], Edwards and Hemsworth [115].

    Manure management is a crucial aspect of free-range systems to prevent environmental contamination. However, manure can emit VOCs as it undergoes decomposition, leading to odor issues and potential air pollution if not managed properly. Appropriate waste management practices are key to minimizing VOC emissions and addressing odor concerns [116,117]. Litter used in free-range systems can also contribute to odor emissions. Proper management of litter is essential to mitigate VOC production. Removing soiled litter and adding fresh litter helps maintain a healthier environment with lower odor levels. Regular removal of accumulated manure reduces the opportunity for prolonged decomposition and VOC release. Drying manure can be achieved through adequate ventilation or drying systems, reducing the potential for VOC emissions [3,118]. Figure 3 showed the VOCs released from free-range chicken production system.

    Figure 3.  Emission of volatile organic compounds during free-range chicken production.

    The growing demand for free-range poultry products has driven significant expansion in their availability in the market. While this expansion has led to more affordable prices for consumers, it has also placed pressure on the upstream costs associated with free-range chicken production. To ensure the continued success of this industry, a thorough understanding of all aspects of free-range chicken production is essential. VOCs play a significant role in air quality and atmospheric chemistry and their environmental impact has been underestimated. Therefore, it is imperative to study the role of VOC emissions thoroughly, their adverse effects on human and animal health and their environmental challenges. Free-range chicken production involves several steps that can contribute to VOC emissions. Chickens foraging outdoors can interact with vegetation and soil, leading to VOC release through natural processes like organic matter decomposition. Additionally, poultry feed formulations and housing materials can also produce VOCs. Understanding VOC emissions is crucial for addressing environmental and health concerns. By adopting a broader perspective of animal productions and recognising the significance of VOC emissions, the poultry industry can evolve responsibly, ensuring the well-being of consumers and the planet. With careful management and ongoing research, free-range chicken farming can thrive, offering high-quality products while minimizing its ecological impact.

    The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    We would like to acknowledge the Teaching Assistant and Research Assistant (TA/RA) scholarship from the Graduate School, Chiang Mai University. This research work is partially supported by Chiang Mai University. SKP thanks JSS AHER for the infrastructural support provided. The research project is funded by Targeted Research 2023 (R66IN00339).

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.



    [1] Jiang Y, Yao Y, Liu H, et al. (2023) Volatile organic compounds conversion pathways and odor gas emission characteristics in chicken manure composting process. Front Ecol Evol 11: 1192132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1192132 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1192132
    [2] Aneja VP, Schlesinger WH, Erisman JW (2009) Effects of agriculture upon the air quality and climate: research, policy, and regulations. Environ Sci Technol 43: 4234–4240. https://doi.org/10.1021/es8024403 doi: 10.1021/es8024403
    [3] Casey KD, Bicudo JR, Schmidt DR, et al. (2006) Air quality and emissions from livestock and poultry production/waste management systems. ASABE: Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20246
    [4] KA A, Benson O (2014) Poultry wastes management strategies and environmental implications on human health in Ogun state of Nigeria. Adv Econ Bus 2: 164–171. https://doi.org/10.13189/aeb.2014.020402 doi: 10.13189/aeb.2014.020402
    [5] Cao T, Zheng Y, Zhang Y, et al. (2022) Pilot study on gaseous pollution removal efficiency of acid scrubbing in a broiler house. Agric Ecosyst Environ 335: 108021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108021 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2022.108021
    [6] Kalus K, Konkol D, Korczyński M, et al. (2020) Effect of biochar diet supplementation on chicken broilers performance, NH3 and odor emissions and meat consumer acceptance. Animals 10: 1539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091539 doi: 10.3390/ani10091539
    [7] Cai L, Koziel JA, Liang Y, et al. (2007) Evaluation of zeolite for control of odorants emissions from simulated poultry manure storage. J Environ Qual 36: 184–193. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0052 doi: 10.2134/jeq2006.0052
    [8] Hobbs P, Webb J, Mottram T, et al. (2004) Emissions of volatile organic compounds originating from UK livestock agriculture. J Sci Food Agric 84: 1414–1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1810 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1810
    [9] Van der Heyden C, Demeyer P, Volcke EI (2015) Mitigating emissions from pig and poultry housing facilities through air scrubbers and biofilters: State-of-the-art and perspectives. Biosyst Eng 134: 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.04.002
    [10] Yao Q (2017) Assessing the effectiveness of vegetative environmental buffers in mitigating poultry-emitted air pollutants. University of Maryland, College Park ProQuest Dissertations Publishing 2017: 10617007.
    [11] Konkol D, Popiela E, Skrzypczak D, et al. (2022) Recent innovations in various methods of harmful gases conversion and its mechanism in poultry farms. Environ Res 214: 113825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113825 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113825
    [12] Garner CE, Smith S, Elviss NC, et al. (2008) Identification of Campylobacter infection in chickens from volatile faecal emissions. Biomarkers 13: 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547500801966443 doi: 10.1080/13547500801966443
    [13] Jaturasitha S, Leangwunta V, Leotaragul A, et al. (2002) A comparative study of Thai native chicken and broiler on productive performance, carcass and meat quality. Proc Deutscher Tropentag 146:1–10.
    [14] Nahm K (2007) Feed formulations to reduce N excretion and ammonia emission from poultry manure. Bioresour Technol 98: 2282–2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.039 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.07.039
    [15] Jaturasitha S, Chaiwang N, Kreuzer M (2016) Thai native chicken meat: An option to meet the demands for specific meat quality by certain groups of consumers; a review. Anim Prod Sci 57: 1582–1587. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15646 doi: 10.1071/AN15646
    [16] Dal Bosco A, Mattioli S, Cartoni Mancinelli A, et al. (2021) Extensive rearing systems in poultry production: The right chicken for the right farming system. A review of twenty years of scientific research in Perugia University, Italy. Animals 11: 1281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051281 doi: 10.3390/ani11051281
    [17] Wongrak K, Daş G, Moors E, et al. (2014) Establishment of gastro-intestinal helminth infections in free-range chickens: a longitudinal on farm study. Berl Münch Tierarztl Wochenschr 127: 305–313.
    [18] Castellini C, Berri C, Le Bihan-Duval E, et al. (2008) Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. Worlds Poult Sci J 64: 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933908000172 doi: 10.1017/S0043933908000172
    [19] Singh M, Cowieson A (2013) Range use and pasture consumption in free-range poultry production. Anim Prod Sci 53: 1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13199 doi: 10.1071/AN13199
    [20] Turan N, Akdemir A, Ergun O (2007) Emission of volatile organic compounds during composting of poultry litter. Water Air Soil Pollut 184: 177–182. https://doi.org./10.1007/s11270-007-9406-0 doi: 10.1007/s11270-007-9406-0
    [21] Abdullah A, Shukor S, Kamis M, et al. (2017) Calibration of an electronic nose for poultry farm. AIP Conf Proc 1808: No.1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4975235 doi: 10.1063/1.4975235
    [22] Rosentrater KA (2004) Laboratory analysis of an electrostatic dust collection system. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J 2: 3–17.
    [23] Mackie RI, Stroot PG, Varel VH (1998) Biochemical identification and biological origin of key odor components in livestock waste. J Anim Sci 76: 1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7651331x doi: 10.2527/1998.7651331x
    [24] Gutarowska B, Matusiak K, Borowski S, et al. (2014) Removal of odorous compounds from poultry manure by microorganisms on perlite–bentonite carrier. J Environ Manage 141: 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.017 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.017
    [25] Wuebbles DJ, Hayhoe K (2002) Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth-Sci Rev 57: 177–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00062-9 doi: 10.1016/S0012-8252(01)00062-9
    [26] Saunois M (2020) Supplement of the global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst Sci Data 12: 1561–1623. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 doi: 10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020
    [27] IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, UK and USA, 659–740.
    [28] Abouelenien F, Kitamura Y, Nishio N, et al. (2009) Dry anaerobic ammonia–methane production from chicken manure. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82: 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-1881-3 doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-1881-3
    [29] Thangarajan R, Bolan NS, Tian G, et al. (2013) Role of organic amendment application on greenhouse gas emission from soil. Sci Total Environ 465: 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.031 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.031
    [30] Manogaran MD, Shamsuddin R, Yusoff MHM, et al. (2022) A review on treatment processes of chicken manure. Cleaner Circ Bioeconomy 2: 100013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100013 doi: 10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100013
    [31] Ilea RC (2009) Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. J Agric Environ Ethics 22: 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9136-3 doi: 10.1007/s10806-008-9136-3
    [32] Gac A, Béline F, Bioteau T, et al. (2007) A French inventory of gaseous emissions (CH4, N2O, NH3) from livestock manure management using a mass-flow approach. Livest Sci 112: 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.006
    [33] Carballa M, Regueiro L, Lema JM (2015) Microbial management of anaerobic digestion: Exploiting the microbiome-functionality nexus. Curr Opin Biotechnol 33: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.01.008 doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.01.008
    [34] Li Y, Wang C, Xu X, et al. (2022) Bioaugmentation with a propionate-degrading methanogenic culture to improve methane production from chicken manure. Bioresour Technol 346: 126607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126607 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126607
    [35] Wadud S (2011) Understanding the microbial ecology of chicken litter in the context of odour production (Ph.D. thesis). University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Australia. https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/15136
    [36] Robertson A, Hoxey R, Demmers T, et al. (2002) Commercial-scale studies of the effect of broiler-protein intake on aerial pollutant emissions. Biosyst Eng 82: 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1006/bioe.2002.0073 doi: 10.1006/bioe.2002.0073
    [37] Jiang J, Sands J (2000) Odour and ammonia emission from broiler farms. A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC Publication No 00/2, Kingston, ACT, Australia.
    [38] Cross DE (2004) Phytochemical and enzyme supplementation of broiler chicken diets and the effects on intestinal microflora, nutrient utilisation and performance (Ph.D. thesis). University of Glasgow.
    [39] Lee KW, Everts H, Beynen A (2004) Essential oils in broiler nutrition. Int J Poult Sci 3: 738–752.
    [40] Senesi N, Loffredo E (1999) The chemistry of soil organic matter. Soil Phys Chem 2: 239–370.
    [41] Lichtfouse E (2000) Compound‐specific isotope analysis. Application to archaelogy, biomedical sciences, biosynthesis, environment, extraterrestrial chemistry, food science, forensic science, humic substances, microbiology, organic geochemistry, soil science and sport. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 14: 1337–1344. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0231(20000815)14:15<1337::AID-RCM9>3.0.CO;2-B doi: 10.1002/1097-0231(20000815)14:15<1337::AID-RCM9>3.0.CO;2-B
    [42] Chai F, Li P, Li L, et al. (2022) Dispersion, olfactory effect, and health risks of VOCs and odors in a rural domestic waste transfer station. Environ Res 209: 112879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112879 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.112879
    [43] Skóra J, Matusiak K, Wojewódzki P, et al. (2016) Evaluation of microbiological and chemical contaminants in poultry farms. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020192 doi: 10.3390/ijerph13020192
    [44] Izat A, Tidwell N, Thomas R, et al. (1990) Effects of a buffered propionic acid in diets on the performance of broiler chickens and on microflora of the intestine and carcass. Poult Sci 69: 818–826. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0690818 doi: 10.3382/ps.0690818
    [45] Khan M, Mobin M, Abbas Z, et al. (2018) Fertilizers and their contaminants in soils, surface and groundwater. Encycl Anthropocene 5: 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09888-8 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09888-8
    [46] Pyatt F (2003) Potential effects on human health of an ammonia rich atmospheric environment in an archaeologically important cave in southeast Asia. Occup Environ Med 60: 986–988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.12.986 doi: 10.1136/oem.60.12.986
    [47] Oenema O, Oudendag D, Velthof GL (2007) Nutrient losses from manure management in the European Union. Livest Sci 112: 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.007
    [48] Jiang J, Stevenson DS, Uwizeye A, et al. (2021) A climate-dependent global model of ammonia emissions from chicken farming. Biogeosciences 18: 135–158. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-135-2021 doi: 10.5194/bg-18-135-2021
    [49] Naseem S, King AJ (2018) Ammonia production in poultry houses can affect health of humans, birds, and the environment—techniques for its reduction during poultry production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25: 15269–15293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2018-y doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2018-y
    [50] Al-Kerwi MSM, Mardenli O, Jasim MRM, et al. (2022) Effects of harmful gases emitted from poultry houses on productive and health performance. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1060: 012082. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1060/1/012082 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1060/1/012082
    [51] Bist RB, Subedi S, Chai L, et al. (2023) Ammonia emissions, impacts, and mitigation strategies for poultry production: A critical review. J Environ Manage 328: 116919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116919 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116919
    [52] Gržinić G, Piotrowicz-Cieślak A, Klimkowicz-Pawlas A, et al. (2023) Intensive poultry farming: A review of the impact on the environment and human health. Sci Total Environ 858: 160014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160014 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160014
    [53] Sazakli E, Leotsinidis M (2021) Odor nuisance and health risk assessment of VOC emissions from a rendering plant. Air Qual Atmos Health 14: 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-020-00935-2 doi: 10.1007/s11869-020-00935-2
    [54] Luo K, Pang Y, Yang Q, et al. (2019) A critical review of volatile fatty acids produced from waste activated sludge: Enhanced strategies and its applications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26: 13984–13998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04798-8 doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04798-8
    [55] Feng S, Ngo HH, Guo W, et al. (2022) Volatile fatty acids production from waste streams by anaerobic digestion: A critical review of the roles and application of enzymes. Bioresour Technol 359: 127420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127420 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127420
    [56] Dunlop MW (2011) Dust and odour emissions from meat chicken sheds. Australian Poultry CRC: Final Report, Project No: 04-45.
    [57] Saksrithai K, King A (2018) Controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions during poultry productions. J Anim Res Nutr 3: 2. https://doi.org/10.21767/2572-5459.100040 doi: 10.21767/2572-5459.100040
    [58] Nowak A, Matusiak K, Borowski S, et al. (2016) Cytotoxicity of odorous compounds from poultry manure. Int J Environ Res 13: 1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111046 doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111046
    [59] Calvo‐Flores FG, Dobado JA (2010) Lignin as renewable raw material. ChemSusChem 3: 1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201000157 doi: 10.1002/cssc.201000157
    [60] Tanaka N, Moriyama K, Ohtsu M, et al. (2019) Emissions of volatile organic compounds from a dairy cattle shed in Japan. Asian J Atmos 13: 171–185. https://doi.org/10.5572/ajae.2019.13.3.171 doi: 10.5572/ajae.2019.13.3.171
    [61] Nowak A, Bakuła T, Matusiak K, et al. (2017) Odorous compounds from poultry manure induce DNA damage, nuclear changes, and decrease cell membrane integrity in chicken liver hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Int J Environ Res 14: 933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080933 doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080933
    [62] Spencer T (2013) Pastured poultry nutrition and forages. ATTRA (attra ncat org), 1–20.
    [63] Coetzee A (2018) What makes free range chicken "free": A case study of the free range chicken sector in the Western Cape (Ph.D. thesis). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
    [64] Campbell D, De Haas E, Lee C (2019) A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poult Sci 98: 9–28. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey319 doi: 10.3382/ps/pey319
    [65] Van Krimpen M, Leenstra F, Maurer V, et al. (2016) How to fulfill EU requirements to feed organic laying hens 100% organic ingredients. J Appl Poult Res 25: 129–138. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfv048 doi: 10.3382/japr/pfv048
    [66] Kollenda E, Baldock D, Hiller N, et al. (2020) Transitioning towards cage-free farming in the EU: Assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts of increased animal welfare standards. Policy report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels & London, 1–65.
    [67] da Silva DCF, de Arruda AMV, Gonçalves AA (2017) Quality characteristics of broiler chicken meat from free-range and industrial poultry system for the consumers. J Food Sci Technol 54: 1818–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2612-x doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2612-x
    [68] Miao Z, Glatz P, Ru Y (2005) Free-range poultry production—A review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 18: 113–132. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.113 doi: 10.5713/ajas.2005.113
    [69] Fanatico A (2007) Specialty poultry production: Impact of alternative genotype, production system, and nutrition on performance, meat quality and sensory attributes of meat chickens for free range and organic markets (Ph.D. thesis). University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
    [70] Poole TE (2007) Introduction to Developing a Free-Range Poultry Enterprise. University of Maryland, 1–24.
    [71] Mickelson T (2016) Free-Range Farming. Lerner Publications.
    [72] Harper GC, Makatouni A (2002) Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. Br Food J 104: 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425723 doi: 10.1108/00070700210425723
    [73] Crandall P, Seideman S, Ricke S, et al. (2009) Organic poultry: Consumer perceptions, opportunities, and regulatory issues. J Appl Poult Res 18: 795–802. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2009-00025 doi: 10.3382/japr.2009-00025
    [74] Miele M (2011) The taste of happiness: Free-range chicken. Environ Plan A 43: 2076–2090. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43257 doi: 10.1068/a43257
    [75] Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea A, Estevez I (2016) Use of space and its impact on the welfare of laying hens in a commercial free-range system. Poult Sci 95: 2503–2513. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew238 doi: 10.3382/ps/pew238
    [76] Van Horne P, Achterbosch T (2008) Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade. Worlds Poult Sci J 64: 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001705 doi: 10.1017/S0043933907001705
    [77] Karreman HJ, Fulwider W (2021) Animal well-being on organic farms. Improving animal welfare: A practical approach, 3Ed., 268–283.
    [78] Martínez-Pérez M, Sarmiento-Franco L, Santos-Ricalde R, et al. (2017) Poultry meat production in free-range systems: Perspectives for tropical areas. Worlds Poult Sci J 73: 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000034 doi: 10.1017/S0043933917000034
    [79] Sánchez-Casanova R, Sarmiento-Franco L, Phillips C, et al. (2020) Do free-range systems have potential to improve broiler welfare in the tropics? Worlds Poult Sci J 76: 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1707389 doi: 10.1080/00439339.2020.1707389
    [80] Young RJ (2013) Environmental enrichment for captive animals: John Wiley & Sons.
    [81] Taylor PS, Schrobback P, Verdon M, et al. (2023) An effective environmental enrichment framework for the continual improvement of production animal welfare. Anim Welf 32: e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2023.5 doi: 10.1017/awf.2023.5
    [82] Rocchi L, Paolotti L, Rosati A, et al. (2019) Assessing the sustainability of different poultry production systems: A multicriteria approach. J Clean Prod 211: 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.013
    [83] Loreto F, Barta C, Brilli F, et al. (2006) On the induction of volatile organic compound emissions by plants as consequence of wounding or fluctuations of light and temperature. Plant Cell Environ 29: 1820–1828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01561.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01561.x
    [84] Rutter SM (2006) Diet preference for grass and legumes in free-ranging domestic sheep and cattle: Current theory and future application. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97: 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.016
    [85] Walker A, Gordon S (2003) Intake of nutrients from pasture by poultry Proc Nutr Soc 62: 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2002198 doi: 10.1079/PNS2002198
    [86] Lipiec A, Gruszecki T, Warda M, et al. (2015) Nutritional well-being of sheep under free-range grazing system on natural dry grasslands. Med Weter 71: 41–45.
    [87] Kirstine W, Galbally I, Ye Y, et al. (1998) Emissions of volatile organic compounds (primarily oxygenated species) from pasture. J Geophys Res Atmos 103: 10605–10619. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD03753 doi: 10.1029/97JD03753
    [88] Kirstine W, Galbally I, Hooper M. (2002) Air pollution and the smell of cut grass. In: Conference proceedings: 16th International Clean Air & Environment Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, 433–438.
    [89] Fall R, Karl T, Hansel A, et al. (1999) Volatile organic compounds emitted after leaf wounding: On-line analysis by proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. J Geophys Res Atmos 104: 15963–15974. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900144 doi: 10.1029/1999JD900144
    [90] Moran L, Aldezabal A, Aldai N, et al. (2019) Terpenoid traceability of commercial sheep cheeses produced in mountain and valley farms: From pasture to mature cheeses. Food Res Int 126: 108669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108669 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108669
    [91] Abd-ElGawad AM, El Gendy AE-NG, Assaeed AM, et al. (2021) Phytotoxic effects of plant essential oils: A systematic review and structure-activity relationship based on chemometric analyses. Plants 10: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10010036 doi: 10.3390/plants10010036
    [92] Kilcawley KN, Faulkner H, Clarke HJ, et al. (2018) Factors influencing the flavour of bovine milk and cheese from grass based versus non-grass based milk production systems. Foods 7: 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7030037 doi: 10.3390/foods7030037
    [93] Srikamwang C, Onsa NE, Sunanta P, et al. (2023) Role of microbial volatile organic compounds in promoting plant growth and disease resistance in horticultural production. Plant Signal Behav 2023: 2227440. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2023.2227440 doi: 10.1080/15592324.2023.2227440
    [94] Guimarães GS, Rondina ABL, Santos MS, et al. (2022) Pointing out opportunities to increase grassland pastures productivity via microbial inoculants: Attending the society's demands for meat production with sustainability. Agronomy 12: 1748. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081748 doi: 10.3390/agronomy12081748
    [95] Richardson AE, Simpson RJ (2011) Soil microorganisms mediating phosphorus availability update on microbial phosphorus. Plant Physiol 156: 989–996. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.175448 doi: 10.1104/pp.111.175448
    [96] Sahur A (2015) The interaction between Endophytic actinomycetes and Rhizobium in Leguminous plants. J Trop Crop Sci 2: 29–34. https://doi.org/10.29244/jtcs.2.3.29-34 doi: 10.29244/jtcs.2.3.29-34
    [97] Bentley R, Chasteen TG (2004) Environmental VOSCs––formation and degradation of dimethyl sulfide, methanethiol and related materials. Chemosphere 55: 291–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.12.017 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.12.017
    [98] Smet E, Lens P, Langenhove HV (1998) Treatment of waste gases contaminated with odorous sulfur compounds. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 28: 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389891254179 doi: 10.1080/10643389891254179
    [99] Wang D, Rosen C, Kinkel L, et al. (2009) Production of methyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide from soil-incorporated plant material and implications for controlling soilborne pathogens. Plant Soil 324: 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-9943-y doi: 10.1007/s11104-009-9943-y
    [100] Smith A (1976) Ethylene in soil biology. Annu Rev Phytopathol 14: 53–73.
    [101] Adams WA, Akhtar N (1994) The possible consequences for herbage growth of waterlogging compacted pasture soils. Plant Soil 162: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01416085 doi: 10.1007/BF01416085
    [102] Shibata M, Terada F (2010) Factors affecting methane production and mitigation in ruminants. Animal Anim Sci J 81: 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00687.x doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00687.x
    [103] Moss A (1994) Methane production by ruminants-Literature review of Ⅰ. Dietary manipulation to reduce methane production and Ⅱ. Laboratory procedures for estimating methane potential of diets. Nutr Abstr Rev (Series B) 64: 786–806.
    [104] Taylor R, Omed H, Edwards-Jones G (2014) The greenhouse emissions footprint of free-range eggs. Poult Sci 93: 231–237. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03489 doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03489
    [105] Gutiérrez-del-Río I, Fernández J, Lombó F (2018) Plant nutraceuticals as antimicrobial agents in food preservation: Terpenoids, polyphenols and thiols. Int J Antimicrob Agents 52: 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.04.024 doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.04.024
    [106] Insam H, Seewald MS (2010) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soils. Biol Fertil Soils 46: 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-010-0442-3 doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0442-3
    [107] Kusstatscher P, Cernava T, Berg G (2020) Using bacteria-derived volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for industrial processes. Bacterial Volatile Compounds as Mediators of Airborne Interactions, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7293-7_13 doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-7293-7_13
    [108] Seedorf J (2018) Controlling the internal concentrations of gases and odor within and emissions from animal buildings. Air Quality and Livestock Farming, CRC Press, 227–264.
    [109] Preis S, Klauson D, Gregor A (2013) Potential of electric discharge plasma methods in abatement of volatile organic compounds originating from the food industry. J Environ Manage 114: 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.042 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.042
    [110] Wu S, Wang Q, Fang M, et al. (2023) Hydrothermal carbonization of food waste for sustainable biofuel production: Advancements, challenges, and future prospects. Sci Total Environ 897: 165327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165327 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165327
    [111] Rios C, Panini R, Menezes LA, et al. (2021) Effects of the substitution of fishmeal with mealworm meal on enzymes, haemolymph and intestinal microbiota of the Pacific white shrimp. J Insects Food Feed 7: 1023–1033.
    [112] Hamid A, Ahmad A, Khan N (2018) Respiratory and other health risks among poultry-farm workers and evaluation of management practices in poultry farms. Braz J Poult Sci 20: 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2017-0513 doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2017-0513
    [113] Yao Q, Torrents A, Li H, et al. (2018) Using a vegetative environmental buffer to reduce the concentrations of volatile organic compounds in poultry-house atmospheric emissions. J Agric Food Chem 66: 8231–8236. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b00088 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b00088
    [114] McGahan E, Gould N, Dunlop MW (2021) Best practice litter management manual for Australian meat chicken farms: Covering fresh, in-shed, reuse and spent litter management. AgriFutures Australia Project No. PRJ-011589.
    [115] Edwards LE, Hemsworth PH (2021) The impact of management, husbandry and stockperson decisions on the welfare of laying hens in Australia. Anim Prod Sci 61: 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19664 doi: 10.1071/AN19664
    [116] Koerkamp PG (1994) Review on emissions of ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in relation to sources, processes, building design and manure handling. J Agric Eng Res 59: 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1994.1065 doi: 10.1006/jaer.1994.1065
    [117] Fangueiro D, Alvarenga P, Fragoso R (2021) Horticulture and orchards as new markets for manure valorisation with less environmental impacts. Sustainability 13: 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031436 doi: 10.3390/su13031436
    [118] Feilberg A, Sommer SG (2013) Ammonia and malodorous gases: sources and abatement technologies. In: Sommer SG, Christensen ML, Schmidt T, et al. (Eds.), Animal Manure Recycling: Treatment and Management, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118676677.ch9
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Kiattisak Huanhong, Chompunut Lumsangkul, Chaiwat Arjin, Sasithorn Sirilun, Tibet Tangpao, Yu-Lei Wang, Raktham Mektrirat, Chen-Si Lin, Sarana Rose Sommano, Korawan Sringarm, Dietary supplementation of coffee pulp extract enhances growth performance and intestinal morphology in broiler chicken, 2025, 00325791, 104873, 10.1016/j.psj.2025.104873
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2569) PDF downloads(164) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog