肉鸡群捕获和饲养方法的比较:动物福利、人体工程学和经济学之间的权衡。

IF 3.8 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Poultry Science Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2024.104704
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":"肉鸡群捕获和饲养方法的比较:动物福利、人体工程学和经济学之间的权衡。","authors":"Femke Delanglez ,&nbsp;Anneleen Watteyn ,&nbsp;Bart Ampe ,&nbsp;Veerle Segers ,&nbsp;An Garmyn ,&nbsp;Evelyne Delezie ,&nbsp;Nathalie Sleeckx ,&nbsp;Ine Kempen ,&nbsp;Niels Demaître ,&nbsp;Hilde Van Meirhaeghe ,&nbsp;Gunther Antonissen ,&nbsp;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> &lt; 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, <em>P</em> &lt; 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> &lt; 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":"{\"title\":\"Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics\",\"authors\":\"Femke Delanglez ,&nbsp;Anneleen Watteyn ,&nbsp;Bart Ampe ,&nbsp;Veerle Segers ,&nbsp;An Garmyn ,&nbsp;Evelyne Delezie ,&nbsp;Nathalie Sleeckx ,&nbsp;Ine Kempen ,&nbsp;Niels Demaître ,&nbsp;Hilde Van Meirhaeghe ,&nbsp;Gunther Antonissen ,&nbsp;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> &lt; 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, <em>P</em> &lt; 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> &lt; 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}","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

摘要

在运送到屠宰场之前,捕捉、搬运和装载肉鸡会造成压力。本研究采用动物福利、工效学和经济分析的成本效益分析,对三种捕获方法(两种手动(倒立、直立)和一种机械)进行了比较。每种捕获方法每群减少约5,000只肉鸡(直立、倒立、机械:n=3;直立vs.倒立:n=9;对15个商业养殖场的倒立饲养与机械饲养(n=3只鸡)进行了分析。考虑了经济因素(每1000只鸡的人小时数)、工效学(捕手调查、模拟捕捞的工效学评估)以及农场(拍打翅膀频率、捕手与鸟的相互作用)和屠宰场(捕捞损害和DOA患病率)的动物福利。7分Likert量表显示,扑翼频率较低(2.0±0.1比5.4±0.1,P < 0.001),且直立捕鸟比倒立捕鸟的相互作用更好(3.7±0.2比4.4±0.2,P < 0.01)。与机械捕捞相比,直立捕捞的渔获物损伤发生率较低(15.5±1.3%比17.7±1.4%,P = 0.046)。每1000只肉仔鸡需要更多的人时(1.6±0.1 h比1.0±0.1 h)和机械捕捞(0.6±0.3 h) (P < 0.001)。以2万只肉鸡为例,直立捕捞的成本分别是倒立捕捞和机械捕捞的1.5倍和1.2倍。与倒捕相比,每公斤活重的公平补偿将增加0.012欧元(直立)和0.006欧元(机械)。一位人体工程学专家认为手动接球要求很高,但接球手(n = 16)不喜欢直立接球(更费力)。该研究揭示了直立与倒立(较少拍打翅膀,更好的捕鸟互动)和机械捕捞(较少捕获伤害)对动物福利的好处,而机械捕捞提供了最好的劳动条件。直立捕捞的广泛应用需要对整个鸡群进行测试,并与家禽业合作,以确定公平的补偿,改善劳动条件,并确定最小化捕捞和装卸时间的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Poultry Science
Poultry Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
15.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
94 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Transcriptome and chromatin accessibility landscape of ovarian development at different egg-laying stages in taihe black-bone silky fowls Corrigendum to “Pulsed electric field (PEF) processing of microalga Chlorella vulgaris and its digestibility in broiler feed” [Poultry Science, Volume 103, Issue 6, June 2024, 103721] Corrigendum to “Impact of adding zeolite to broilers' diet and litter on growth, blood parameters, immunity, and ammonia emission” [Poultry Science, Volume 103, Issue 9, September 2024, 103981] Research note: Mite infestations in non-descriptive indigenous chickens in Bangladesh: Present status and pathology Changes in gut microbiota affect DNA methylation levels and development of chicken muscle tissue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1