4 research outputs found
How Do Flemish Laying Hen Farmers and Private Bird Keepers Comply with and Think about Measures to Control Avian Influenza?
No full textCompetent authorities of many countries, including Belgium, impose control measures (preventing wild bird access to feeders and water facilities, indoor confinement of captive birds, or fencing off outdoor ranges with nets) on professional and non-professional keepers of birds to prevent the spread of avian influenza (AI). Flemish laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) and private keepers of captive birds (PRI, n = 263) were surveyed about their opinion on and compliance with AI measures legally imposed during the most recent high-risk period before this survey in 2021. Participants answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = the worst, 3 = neutral, and 5 = the best). FAR indicated better compliance with the AI measures than PRI, except for net confinement. FAR indicated that they and other poultry farmers complied better with AI measures than PRI. Additionally, PRI indicated that they better complied than other PRI keepers. FAR regarded the AI measures as more effective than PRI. To prevent the spread of AI more effectively, national authorities could focus on information campaigns explaining to private bird keepers the need for the various control measures that they impose. If these campaigns fail, local authorities may need stricter enforcement or alternative ways to increase compliance
Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks : a trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics
No full textCatching, carrying, and loading of broilers before transport to the slaughterhouse causes stress. In this study three catching methods (two manual (inverted, upright) and one mechanical) were compared using a cost-benefit analysis of animal welfare, ergonomics and economic analysis. Depopulation of approximately 5,000 broilers per catching method per flock (upright vs. inverted vs. mechanical: n=3; upright vs. inverted: n=9; inverted vs. mechanical: n=3 flocks) was analyzed on 15 commercial farms. Economic considerations (person-hours per 1,000 chickens), ergonomics (catcher survey, ergonomic assessment of simulated catching), and animal welfare on-farm (wing flapping frequency, catcher-bird interaction) and at the slaughterhouse (catch damage and DOA prevalence) were considered. Wing flapping frequency was lower (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 5.4 ± 0.1, P < 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, P < 0.01) for upright catching compared to inverted catching based on a 7-point Likert scale. Prevalence of catch damage was lower for upright versus mechanical catching (15.5 ± 1.3% vs. 17.7 ± 1.4%, P = 0.046). More person-hours per 1,000 broilers were required for upright versus inverted (1.6 ± 0.1 h vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 h) and mechanical catching (0.6 ± 0.3 h) (P < 0.001). Upright catching was 1.5 and 1.2 times more expensive than inverted and mechanical catching based on 20,000 broilers. Compared to inverted catching, fair compensation would increase by €0.012 (upright) and €0.006 (mechanical) per kg of live weight. An ergonomics expert rated manual catching as very demanding, but catchers (n = 16) disliked upright catching (more labor-intensive). This study revealed animal welfare benefits of upright versus inverted (less wing flapping, better catcher-bird interaction) and mechanical catching (less catch damage), whereas mechanical catching provided the best labor conditions. Widespread application of upright catching would require testing of entire flocks and collaboration with the poultry sector to determine fair compensation, improve labor conditions and identify strategies to minimize catch and load duration
Survey of Flemish Poultry Farmers on How Birds Fit for Transport to the Slaughterhouse Are Selected, Caught, and Crated and Their Opinions Regarding the Pre-Transport Process
No full textThe pre-transport phase induces stress, fear, and injury in poultry, but management choices greatly influence this. Pre-transport practices for spent hens and broilers in Flanders (Belgium) were studied. Poultry farmers (31 of 156 layers and 48 of 203 broiler farmers completed the survey) were surveyed on the selection of unfit chickens, catching and crating, and farmer opinion. A minority of farmers made a specific selection of chickens unfit for transport prior to catching (layers 25%: 5.1 ± 5.9 h, broilers 39%: 6.8 ± 7.0 h). More layer (69%) than broiler farmers (19%) withdrew feed too early (EU regulations stipulate max. 12 h before expected slaughter time). Layer farmers withdrew water earlier than broiler farmers (47.9 ± 51.1 min vs. 20.6 ± 23.3 min). More broiler than layer farmers believed that the container type affects the birds’ welfare (48% vs. 27%; p < 0.05). On broiler farms, mechanical catching was preferred for catchers’ well-being, while upright catching was considered better for animal welfare than catching more than three chickens by one/two legs, wings, or mechanically. Poultry farmers should be sensitized about the need for additional selection before catching, including clear guidelines about judging which birds are fit for transport
Upright versus inverted catching and crating end-of-lay hens: a trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomic and financial concerns
No full textABSTRACT: This study explores upright versus inverted catching and crating of spent laying hens. Both catching methods were compared using a cost-benefit analysis that focused on animal welfare, ergonomic, and financial considerations. Data were collected on seven commercial farms (one floor system and six aviary systems) during depopulation of approximately 3,000 hens per method per flock. Parameters such as wing flapping frequency, catcher bird interaction, incidence of catching damage and hens dead on arrival (DOA) were measured and compared between catching methods. Ergonomic evaluations were performed via catcher surveys and expert assessment of video recordings. The wing flapping frequency was lower (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 4.0 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) and handling was gentler (1.9 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), both on a 7-point Likert scale, for upright versus inverted catching. However, more person-hours per 1000 hens were required for upright than inverted catching (8.2 ± 3.2 h vs. 4.8 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.011), with only wing bruises being significantly less common for upright than inverted catching (1.1 ± 0.6 % vs. 1.7 ± 0.7%, P = 0.04). Upright catching was 1.8 times more expensive than inverted catching; compensation for this cost would require a premium price of approximately €0.0005 extra per egg. Ergonomically, both catching methods were considered demanding, although catchers (n = 29) preferred inverted catching. In conclusion, this study showed animal welfare benefits of upright vs. inverted catching. Industry adoption of upright catching will depend on compensation of the additional labor costs, adjustments to labor conditions and shorter loading times
