RESUMEN
1. The following trial compared broiler chicken welfare in closed-sided (CS) versus open-sided (OS) industrial house types during the winter season in the South of Brazil.2. Ten flocks in each house type were evaluated as follows: a) bird health: contact dermatitis on the breast and abdominal areas (CDE), bird soiling (BSO), footpad dermatitis (FPD), hock burn (HBU), lameness (LAM), fractures (FRA), bruising (BRU), scratches (SCR), dead on arrival (DOA), and diseases (DIS); b) house environmental measurements: relative humidity (RHU), temperature (TEM), air velocity (AVE), illuminance (ILL), ammonia concentration (NH3), and carbon dioxide concentration (CO2), and c) bird behaviour and affective states: bird behaviour (BBE), touch test (TTE), and qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA).3. Statistical analyses were based on regression models for CDE, BSO, FPD, HBU, LAM and generalised linear models for DOA, FRA, BRU, SCR, and DIS. The Mann-Whitney test was used for RHU, TEM, AVE, ILL, NH3, CO2, and the t-test for TTE and LMO, with a specific regression model for BBE data and Principal Component Analysis for QBA.4. According to odds ratio for worse scores for CS relative to OS, birds were less likely to have severe scores for CDE (P = 0.040 and P = 0.007), BSO (P = 0.031, P = 0.016, and P = 0.038), and HBU (P = 0.017), and had higher median values for AVE (2.3, 0.0-7.8 m s-1 vs. 0.0, 0.0-4.3 m s-1), lower NH3 concentration (9.0, 0.0-64.0 ppm vs. 12.0, 0.0-60.0 ppm) and TTE scores (98, 96-100 vs. 67, 25-100). Worse results were observed in CS houses for higher stocking density (13.8 ± 0.2 birds/m2 vs. 12.0 ± 0.2 birds/m2), RHU (74.5, 50.7-99.9% vs 72.3, 47.4-99.9%), and TEM (23.9, 14.6-29.2°C vs. 21.7, 12.9-30.1°C), lower ILL (16.0, 1.0-60.0 lx vs. 161.0, 8.0-2380.0 lx), less drinking (P = 0.007), more inactive behaviour (P < 0.001) and lower positive emotions, according to QBA (P = 0.028).5. In the studied region and season, CS houses seemed to offer fewer welfare problems in terms of the health indicators; however, OS houses showed fewer behavioural restrictions and higher positive emotional states.
Asunto(s)
Pollos , Enfermedades de las Aves de Corral , Crianza de Animales Domésticos , Bienestar del Animal , Animales , Brasil/epidemiología , Vivienda para Animales , Enfermedades de las Aves de Corral/epidemiología , Estaciones del Año , Tarso AnimalRESUMEN
New EU regulations require more stringent country-of-origin labeling, while imports of broiler meat from non-EU countries are increasing. In light of these trends, we have studied citizens' and producers' perceptions of broiler meat originating from Belgium versus Brazil and their perception of broiler production in Belgium versus Brazil. A particular focus was the association between country of origin and perceived level of animal welfare. We also investigated the perception of scaling-up and outdoor access in terms of perceived level of animal welfare. Cross-sectional survey data was collected among Flemish citizens (n = 541) and broiler producers (n = 114). In accordance with literature on general farm animal welfare, both stakeholder types claimed to allocate great importance to broiler welfare and generally agreed with the Welfare Quality model of broiler welfare. Citizens disagreed with the producers that 1) consumers are not willing to pay more for higher welfare products, 2) that broilers suffer little, 3) that broiler welfare in current Belgian production units is generally non-problematic, 4) that scaling-up production units would not have a positive impact on profitability nor a profoundly negative impact on broiler welfare, and 5) that the impact of providing broilers with outdoor access is negative for consumers, farmers, and broilers. Country of origin had a strong influence on the perception of both broiler production and broiler meat. Belgian citizens, and producers (much more than citizens) considered nearly all aspects related to broiler production and broiler meat to be significantly superior for chicken produced in Belgium compared to Brazil. Further research should focus on how these perceptions influence purchase intentions and production decisions. Future avenues for research are to quantify market opportunities for country-of-origin labeling and to investigate to which extent stakeholders' perceptions correspond with reality.
Asunto(s)
Crianza de Animales Domésticos , Bienestar del Animal , Pollos , Percepción , Animales , Bélgica , Brasil , Estudios Transversales , Agricultores , Opinión PúblicaRESUMEN
Scientific literature on broiler chicken welfare in Brazilian industrial systems is scarce. This study aimed at assessing broiler chicken welfare on industrial farms in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil, using the Welfare Quality(r) assessment protocol for poultry, to provide directly applicable scientific information. Results are presented as criteria scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better welfare; and percentages of prevalence. The scores classified as excellent (above 80) were absence of prolonged thirst, absence of prolonged hunger, litter quality, breast blister and touch test. Enhanced scores (between 55 and 80) were comfort around resting, plumage cleanliness and dust sheet test. Acceptable scores (between 20 and 55) were thermal comfort, stocking density, absence of injuries, footpad dermatitis and hock burn; and unacceptable scores (below 20) were lameness and qualitative behavioral assessment. The median percentage of mortality and culled birds were 5.2% and 0.6%, respectively. This study provides useful information to select priorities of action on assessed farms and may contribute for setting up legal standards and guiding decisions related to animal welfare issues in Brazil.
Asunto(s)
Animales , Bienestar del Animal , Pollos/clasificación , Pollos/crecimiento & desarrolloRESUMEN
Scientific literature on broiler chicken welfare in Brazilian industrial systems is scarce. This study aimed at assessing broiler chicken welfare on industrial farms in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Southern Brazil, using the Welfare Quality(r) assessment protocol for poultry, to provide directly applicable scientific information. Results are presented as criteria scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better welfare; and percentages of prevalence. The scores classified as excellent (above 80) were absence of prolonged thirst, absence of prolonged hunger, litter quality, breast blister and touch test. Enhanced scores (between 55 and 80) were comfort around resting, plumage cleanliness and dust sheet test. Acceptable scores (between 20 and 55) were thermal comfort, stocking density, absence of injuries, footpad dermatitis and hock burn; and unacceptable scores (below 20) were lameness and qualitative behavioral assessment. The median percentage of mortality and culled birds were 5.2% and 0.6%, respectively. This study provides useful information to select priorities of action on assessed farms and may contribute for setting up legal standards and guiding decisions related to animal welfare issues in Brazil.(AU)
Asunto(s)
Animales , Pollos/clasificación , Pollos/crecimiento & desarrollo , Bienestar del AnimalRESUMEN
The Welfare Quality consortium has proposed a science-based protocol for assessing broiler chicken welfare on farms. Innovative features make the protocols particularly suited for comparative studies, such as the focus on animal-based welfare measures and an integration procedure for calculating an overall welfare status. These protocols reflect the scientific status up to 2009 but are meant to be updated on the basis of inter alia implementation studies. Because only few such studies have been done, we applied the Welfare Quality protocol to compare the welfare of broiler flocks in Belgium (representing a typical European Union (EU) country which implies stringent animal welfare legislation) versus Brazil (the major broiler meat exporter to the EU and with minimal animal welfare legislation). Two trained observers performed broiler Welfare Quality assessments on a total of 22 farms in Belgium and south Brazil. All of the farms produced for the EU market. Although the overall welfare was categorized as 'acceptable' on all farms, many country differences were observed at the level of the welfare principles, criteria, and measures. Brazilian farms obtained higher scores for 3 of the 4 welfare principles: 'good feeding' (P = 0.007), 'good housing' (P < 0.001), and 'good health' (P = 0.005). Four of the 10 welfare criteria scores were, or tended to be, higher on Brazilian than Belgian farms: 'absence of prolonged thirst' (P < 0.001), 'ease of movement' (P < 0.001), 'absence of injuries' (P = 0.002), and 'positive emotional state' (P = 0.055). The only criteria with a higher score for the Belgian farms than their Brazilian counterparts were 'absence of prolonged hunger' (P = 0.048) and 'good human-animal relationship' (P = 0.002). Application of the Welfare Quality protocol has raised several concerns about the validity, reliability, and discriminatory potential of the protocol. The results also call for more research into the effect of animal welfare legislation as broiler welfare on the south Brazilian farms appeared to be superior to that on the Belgian farms. Animal-based welfare assessments on a larger sample of farms are needed to evaluate to what extent these findings may be generalized.
Asunto(s)
Bienestar del Animal/normas , Pollos , Animales , Bélgica , Brasil , Vivienda para AnimalesRESUMEN
Animal-based measures of thirst are currently absent from animal welfare monitoring schemes due to the lack of a well-validated indicator applicable for on-farm use. In the present study, an on-farm test based on voluntary water consumption from an unfamiliar open drinker was validated in a (semi-)commercial setting. To investigate the effect of thirst on water consumption, we subjected 4 flocks of 1,500 broilers to either 0 or 12 h of water deprivation and subsequently measured the amount of water that small subgroups consumed after the deprivation period (first experiment). Broilers that were water deprived before the test drank more than control broilers (P < 0.001). In a second experiment, a similar test was performed using 20 commercial broiler flocks in Belgium and Brazil. After a pretreatment water consumption test, the birds were subjected to 0 or 6 h of water deprivation, and a posttreatment water consumption test was conducted. Only in Brazil, deprived birds drank significantly more than controls in the posttreatment water consumption test (P < 0.001). A tendency for a difference was found in Belgium (P = 0.083). Pre- and posttreatment water consumption was higher in Brazil than in Belgium (P < 0.001). Stocking density and temperature influenced, respectively, the pretreatment and the control's posttreatment water consumption in Brazil, but not in Belgium. These results indicate that the water consumption test is sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between control and 12 h deprived flocks, and in Brazil even between control and 6 h deprived birds. The location of the test within the house did not affect the amount of water consumed in either experiment, suggesting that this variable does not have to be standardized. However, the amount of water consumed by broilers able to drink freely for a long period depended on indoor climatic variables (in Brazil only) and possibly genotype. This suggests that these variables need to be considered when interpreting the test outcome in terms of the thirst level experienced by the broilers.