Examining the catching, carrying, and crating process during depopulation of end-of-lay hens

Upright versus inverted catching and crating end-of-lay hens: a trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomic and financial concerns

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.

A decade on: where is the UK poultry industry for emergency on-farm killing?

Millions of poultry are farmed intensively every year across the United Kingdom (UK) to produce both meat and eggs. There are inevitable situations that require birds to be emergency killed on farm to alleviate pain and suffering. In Europe and the UK, emergency methods are regulated by the European Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 and The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations (England 2015; Scotland 2012; Wales and Northern Ireland 2014). Cervical dislocation has been reported to be the most widely used method prior to these legislative changes which took place from 1 January 2013. Based on limited scientific evidence and concern for bird welfare, these legislative changes incorporated restrictions based on bird weight for both manual (≤3 kg) and mechanical (≤5 kg) cervical dislocation, and introduced an upper limit in the number of applications for manual cervical dislocation (up to 70 birds per person per day). Furthermore, it removed methods which showed evidence of crushing injury to the neck. However, since legal reform new scientific evidence surrounding the welfare consequences of cervical dislocation and the development of novel methods for killing poultry in small numbers on farm have become available. Whether the UK poultry industry have adopted these novel methods, and whether legislative reform resulted in a change in the use of cervical dislocation in the UK remains unknown. Responses from 215 respondents working across the UK poultry industry were obtained. Despite legal reform, manual cervical dislocation remains the most prevalent method used across the UK for killing poultry on farm (used by 100% of farms) and remains the preferred method amongst respondents (81.9%). The use of alternative methods such as Livetec Nex® and captive bolt guns were available to less than half of individuals and were not frequently employed for broilers and laying hens. Our data suggests there is a lack of a clear alternative to manual cervical dislocation for individuals working with larger species and a lack of gold standard methodology. This risks bird welfare at killing and contributes to inconsistency across the industry. We suggest providing stakeholders with practical alternatives prior to imposing legislative changes and effective knowledge transfer between the scientific community and stakeholders to promote positive change and protect bird welfare.

Welfare of broilers on farm

This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day-old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: 'bone lesions', 'cold stress', 'gastro-enteric disorders', 'group stress', 'handling stress', 'heat stress', 'isolation stress', 'inability to perform comfort behaviour', 'inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour', 'inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour', 'locomotory disorders', 'prolonged hunger', 'prolonged thirst', 'predation stress', 'restriction of movement', 'resting problems', 'sensory under- and overstimulation', 'soft tissue and integument damage' and 'umbilical disorders'. These WCs and their animal-based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de-toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast-growing, slower-growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, 'total mortality', 'wounds', 'carcass condemnation' and 'footpad dermatitis' are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on-farm.

The impact of traumatic limb injuries resulting from operations related to transport for slaughter on biochemical indices in end-of-lay hens

The study focused on the welfare of end-of-lay hens during their transportation for slaughter from the viewpoint of the stress load on hens resulting from unsatisfactory treatment that leads to traumatic injury to the limbs of hens detected during the veterinary examination of hens at the slaughterhouse. Blood samples were taken during bleeding after slaughter at the slaughterhouse for the determination of corticosterone and other biochemical indices from 35 hens with traumatic limb injuries and 35 hens without traumatic limb injuries. The stress load during the transportation of hens for slaughter potentiated by traumatic injuries was found to increase (P < 0.01) the plasma corticosterone concentration as an indicator of stress in birds (6381 pg/ml vs. 3681 pg/ml) and affect the plasma concentration of some biochemical indices, in particular increasing (P < 0.05) the level of total protein and albumin and decreasing (P < 0.05) levels of triglycerides, calcium and alanine aminotransferase. These findings demonstrate that hens with traumatic limb injuries occurring during the course of transport (loading, transport, unloading) are burdened by a greater degree of stress than hens that have not suffered traumatic injuries. From the viewpoint of the protection and welfare of end-of-lay hens, this study unequivocally demonstrates the necessity of the corresponding careful handling of birds during their loading onto and unloading from means of transport during transportation to the slaughterhouse – the kind of handling that does not cause injuries and, thereby, an increased stress load on hens slaughtered at the slaughterhouse.

Welfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers

This opinion, produced upon a request from the European Commission, focuses on transport of domestic birds and rabbits in containers (e.g. any crate, box, receptacle or other rigid structure used for the transport of animals, but not the means of transport itself). It describes and assesses current transport practices in the EU, based on data from literature, Member States and expert opinion. The species and categories of domestic birds assessed were mainly chickens for meat (broilers), end-of-lay hens and day-old chicks. They included to a lesser extent pullets, turkeys, ducks, geese, quails and game birds, due to limited scientific evidence. The opinion focuses on road transport to slaughterhouses or to production sites. For day-old chicks, air transport is also addressed. The relevant stages of transport considered are preparation, loading, journey, arrival and uncrating. Welfare consequences associated with current transport practices were identified for each stage. For loading and uncrating, the highly relevant welfare consequences identified are handling stress, injuries, restriction of movement and sensory overstimulation. For the journey and arrival, injuries, restriction of movement, sensory overstimulation, motion stress, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged hunger and prolonged thirst are identified as highly relevant. For each welfare consequence, animal-based measures (ABMs) and hazards were identified and assessed, and both preventive and corrective or mitigative measures proposed. Recommendations on quantitative criteria to prevent or mitigate welfare consequences are provided for microclimatic conditions, space allowances and journey times for all categories of animals, where scientific evidence and expert opinion support such outcomes.

Traumatic Injuries Detected during Post-Mortem Slaughterhouse Inspection as Welfare Indicators in Poultry and Rabbits

Simple Summary

An analysis of the slaughterhouse post-mortem examination records over a decade showed that for animals transported to slaughter in containers, the risk of traumatic injury was highest in laying hens (2.80%) and rabbits (1.52%), while the overall incidence of trauma was below 0.5% in other species. The results show that the current rearing conditions and/or pre-slaughter handling of poultry and rabbits have comparatively negative welfare consequences, with significantly more traumatic injuries to the limbs than on the trunk in all species studied. In poultry, traumatic findings on the trunk were orders of magnitude lower to negligible, so the focus should be on preventing injuries to the limbs. In rabbits, the difference was less pronounced with a high number of injuries found on both limbs and trunk.

Abstract

The findings of traumatic injuries during post-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses reflect the level of pre-slaughter handling of animals at the farm and during transport to the slaughterhouse. The prevalence of traumatic injuries was monitored in poultry (1,089,406,687 broiler chickens, 20,030,744 laying hens, 1,181,598 turkeys, 37,690 geese, 28,579,765 ducks) and rabbits (1,876,929) originating from farms in the Czech Republic and slaughtered in slaughterhouses in the Czech Republic between 2010 and 2019. The greatest incidence of traumatic injuries was found in laying hens (2.80%) and rabbits (1.52%); while the overall incidence of trauma was less than 0.5% in other species and categories. The results show that the current rearing conditions and/or pre-slaughter handling of poultry and rabbits particularly affect the limbs; traumatic findings were significantly (p < 0.01) more frequent on the limbs than on the trunk in all species studied. In poultry, traumatic findings on the trunk were orders of magnitude lower to negligible, so the focus should be on preventing injuries to the limbs. In rabbits, the difference was less pronounced, and many injuries were found on both limbs (0.83%) and trunk (0.69%). Our results emphasize the need to reconsider both housing and pre-slaughter handling methods to determine minimum standards for the protection of rabbits, which are still lacking in European legislation.