Femke Delanglez , Anneleen Watteyn , Bart Ampe , Veerle Segers , An Garmyn , Evelyne Delezie , Nathalie Sleeckx , Ine Kempen , Niels Demaître , Hilde Van Meirhaeghe , Gunther Antonissen , Frank A.M. Tuyttens
{"title":"Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics","authors":"Femke Delanglez , Anneleen Watteyn , Bart Ampe , Veerle Segers , An Garmyn , Evelyne Delezie , Nathalie Sleeckx , Ine Kempen , Niels Demaître , Hilde Van Meirhaeghe , Gunther Antonissen , Frank A.M. Tuyttens","doi":"10.1016/j.psj.2024.104704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Catching, 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, <em>P</em> < 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, <em>P</em> < 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%, <em>P</em> = 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) (<em>P</em> < 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20459,"journal":{"name":"Poultry Science","volume":"104 2","pages":"Article 104704"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poultry Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579124012823","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Catching, 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.
期刊介绍:
First self-published in 1921, Poultry Science is an internationally renowned monthly journal, known as the authoritative source for a broad range of poultry information and high-caliber research. The journal plays a pivotal role in the dissemination of preeminent poultry-related knowledge across all disciplines. As of January 2020, Poultry Science will become an Open Access journal with no subscription charges, meaning authors who publish here can make their research immediately, permanently, and freely accessible worldwide while retaining copyright to their work. Papers submitted for publication after October 1, 2019 will be published as Open Access papers.
An international journal, Poultry Science publishes original papers, research notes, symposium papers, and reviews of basic science as applied to poultry. This authoritative source of poultry information is consistently ranked by ISI Impact Factor as one of the top 10 agriculture, dairy and animal science journals to deliver high-caliber research. Currently it is the highest-ranked (by Impact Factor and Eigenfactor) journal dedicated to publishing poultry research. Subject areas include breeding, genetics, education, production, management, environment, health, behavior, welfare, immunology, molecular biology, metabolism, nutrition, physiology, reproduction, processing, and products.