Turkeys are curious and active animals with a strong need to explore, retreat and have their environment spatially structured. A structured housing environment can therefore make a significant contribution to animal-friendly turkey husbandry. 
The following information is aimed at poultry farmers and advisers, and is intended to help them identify suitable structural elements for their own farms, supplement existing equipment in a practical way, and realistically assess potential challenges. In addition to solutions already widely in use, ideas and proposals from the working group on alternative solutions are also presented.

Animal-welfare-friendly turkey farming is based on the animals’ natural behaviour. The aim is therefore to design the rearing environment in such a way that it meets the turkeys’ natural needs as closely as possible. Among other things, the aim is to rear turkeys with uncut beaks.
However, this is not yet fully feasible in practice. Consequently, most turkey flocks are still reared with trimmed beaks in order to reduce the risk of injury from mutual pecking.
In principle, Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG⁶) prohibits the complete or partial amputation of body parts in vertebrates, which includes beak trimming. Notwithstanding this, authorities may, in accordance with Section 6(3), first sentence, grant exemptions if the procedure is essential in individual cases to prevent pain, suffering or harm to the animals.
In Lower Saxony, such an exemption is subject to certain conditions. These include, in particular, compliance with the ‘Lower Saxony Recommendations⁷’ as a husbandry standard, participation in recognised training courses on their content, and the systematic recording and documentation of pecking injuries within the flock. In other federal states, the relevant requirements should be checked with the competent authority.
In the long term, the aim remains to phase out beak trimming and to further adapt husbandry conditions accordingly. In organic turkey farming^¹¹, turkeys with untrimmed beaks are already being reared. However, the data collected on pecking behaviour in this context is recorded on a farm-by-farm basis and is not published; consequently, no generally accessible conclusions can be drawn regarding the extent of pecking injuries in comparison with conventional farming.
With a view to rearing un-beak-trimmed birds, the design of the housing and management requirements therefore take on added importance. Structural elements can help to reduce stress, defuse hierarchical conflicts and limit maladaptive behaviours such as feather pecking. In doing so, they make a concrete contribution to the implementation of Section 2 ^of the Animal Welfare ^Act⁶, which requires species-appropriate housing and the opportunity to engage in natural behaviours.
In addition to enrichment materials and the provision of an ‘emergency ^kit⁷’ (enrichment materials introduced in the event of acute pecking incidents, which are not permanently present in the house), straw bales, raised perches, shelter options or an outdoor climate area are recommended for house structuring and to provide enrichment for the turkeys.
In practice, too, housing design has become significantly more important in recent years. The majority of turkeys reared in Germany are kept in housing type 2 in accordance with the requirements of the Animal Welfare Initiative (ITW)¹³ (as of 07/2026). Since 2025, the ITW has required structural elements such as straw bales or raised levels to divide the house into different functional areas (see Table 1). This is intended to encourage the expression of species-appropriate behaviours. This helps to meet the animals’ natural need to build nests. In addition, the use of enrichment materials is mandatory, alongside loose, dry and manipulable litter.
The ‘Turkey Guidelines⁸’ refer to the Council of Europe’s recommendations on the husbandry and care of animals; however, they do not themselves contain any specific guidelines on the structuring of turkey houses. At the time of their drafting, aspects such as enrichment opportunities and house structuring were not yet the focus of the animal welfare debate to the extent they are today. Current case law now emphasises the importance of an adequate house design. For instance, in April 2026¹^⁴, the Federal Administrative Court ruled in a case concerning turkey rearing that housing in largely unstructured houses significantly restricts the expression of essential behaviours. In this context, it was also clarified that the “turkey benchmarks” cannot be used as a sufficient standard for assessing whether rearing practices comply with animal welfare requirements, as “[…] they do not sufficiently explain or justify the impact of the specified benchmarks on enabling turkeys to engage in resting and social behaviour appropriate to their species and needs14”. Furthermore, the Administrative Court points out that the Standing Committee’s recommendation does not constitute a set of regulations, but merely sets ^out the basic needs of turkeys22.
 Accordingly, there is a need for further technical development of the ‘turkey guidelines’ in order to ensure species-appropriate and needs-based turkey husbandry, particularly with regard to housing design.

As enrichment ^{materials¹⁵} are frequently mentioned alongside housing design as part of animal welfare measures, it is important to distinguish between these two elements.
Enrichment materials primarily address the animals’ foraging and exploratory behaviour, whilst housing design focuses on the spatial layout of the housing. Key elements of housing design include raised platforms in the form of straw bales, jumping platforms or perches. Turkeys display a pronounced need to perch^16,17,18, particularly during the dark phase, and use elevated structures for resting, as well as for observation and as places of retreat. Studies and practical experience show that raised levels support natural perching behaviour, expand the house area and can help to reduce stocking density.
If such a layout is established as early as the rearing stage, the animals will be familiar with these elements by the time they reach the fattening stage. The aim is to create different functional areas, for example for rest, activity, exercise and retreat.
It is also important to bear in mind that ‘more is not necessarily better’: over-structuring can restrict movement routes, increase restlessness and create new sources of danger.
Existing elements should therefore be assessed first before installing additional ^ones2.

Table 1: Overview of requirements for structural elements

The following are suggestions from the working group for further organisational structures; these are not intended to be exhaustive, nor do they constitute approval by the regulatory authorities. Each farm must decide for itself to what extent the suggestions can be implemented. It may be helpful to consult with the regulatory authorities. Further resources can also be found in the practical handbook ‘#Pute@Praxis¹⁵’.