No abstract

No abstract

Demand for meat from free-range broiler chickens is increasing in several countries. Consumers are motivated by better animal welfare and other product attributes such as quality and taste. However, scientific literature is not unanimous about whether free-range access influences quality, composition, and taste of the meat. Because chickens normally do not use free-range areas optimally, it is possible that provision of more suitable shelter will lead to more pronounced differences between chickens raised indoors and outdoors. In this study, an experiment with 2 production rounds of 600 slow-growing broilers each was performed. In each round, 200 chickens were raised indoors (IN), 200 had free-range access to grassland with artificial shelter (AS), and 200 had free-range access to short-rotation coppice with willow (SRC). Free-range use, feed intake, and growth were monitored, and after slaughter (d72) meat quality, composition, and taste were assessed. Free-range use was higher in SRC than in AS chickens (42.8 vs. 35.1%, P < 0.001). IN chickens were heavier at d70 than AS and SRC chickens (2.79 vs. 2.66 and 2.68 kg, P = 0.005). However, feed intake and conversion did not differ. Breast meat of chickens with free-range access was darker (P = 0.021) and yellower (P = 0.001) than that of IN chickens. Ultimate pH was lower (5.73 vs. 5.79; P = 0.006) and drip loss higher (1.29 vs. 1.09%; P = 0.05) in IN versus AS chickens. The percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids was higher in AS than in IN meat (35.84 vs. 34.59%; P = 0.021). The taste panel judged breast meat of SRC chickens to be more tender (P = 0.003) and less fibrous (P = 0.013) compared to that of AS and IN chickens, and juicier compared to the IN chickens (P = 0.017). Overall, freerange access negatively affected slaughter weight, but positively affected meat quality, taste, and composition. Only a few differences between AS and SRC were found, possibly due to limited differences in free-range use.

On 1 January 2012, conventional cages for laying hens were banned in the European Union (EU); all egg farmers must now use alternative hen housing systems. In total, 218 Flemish egg farmers were surveyed in 2013 to 2014 regarding which housing systems they currently use, their degree of satisfaction with the system, and how they experienced the transition from conventional cages to an alternative system. The response rate was 58.3% (127 respondents). Of these, 43 (33.9%) were no longer active as an egg farmer, mainly due to the ban on conventional cages. The respondents who were active as egg farmers both before and after the transition (84, 66.1%) mainly judged the ban as negative for their own finances and for the competitive position of the Belgian egg industry, but were neutral or positive regarding the general consequences for their own business. Most respondents' hens were housed in either aviary systems (47.7%) or in alternative cage systems (38.2%). When choosing a new system, the fit into the farm and consumer demand were the most important factors. Consumer demand was the main reason for choosing a system with free-range access. In general, egg farmers were satisfied with the system they chose, although this differs between systems. When asked to compare the alternative systems to conventional cages, alternatives were judged to be better for hen welfare and consumer demand, but similar or worse for all other aspects, especially labor. Egg farmers previously using conventional cages judged alternative systems more negatively than those who had no prior experience with conventional cages. Farmers who had experience with free-range systems judged these more positively than those without this experience, e.g., for egg consumer demand, profitability, and hen welfare. These results can possibly be extrapolated to other EU countries in which conventional cages were the most common housing system until 2012, and lessons can be drawn from the farmers' experiences when implementing other animal welfare legislation that may require similar far-reaching adaptations for primary production.

Free-range use by broiler chickens is often limited, whereas better use of the free-range area could benefit animal welfare. Use of free-range areas could be stimulated by more appropriate shelter or environmental enrichment (by decreasing birds' fearfulness). This study aimed to assess the effects of shelter type, early environmental enrichment and weather conditions on free-range use. Three production rounds with 440 slow-growing broiler chickens (Sasso T451) were carried out. Birds were housed indoors in four groups (two with males, two with females) from days 0 to 25, during which two of the groups received environmental enrichment. At day 23 birds' fearfulness was assessed with a tonic immobility (TI) test (n=100). At day 25 all birds were moved (in mixed-sex groups) to mobile houses, and provided with free-range access from day 28 onwards. Each group could access a range consisting for 50% of grassland with 21 artificial shelters (ASs, wooden A-frames) and for 50% of short rotation coppice (SRC) with willow (dense vegetation). Free-range use was recorded by live observations at 0900, 1300 and 1700 h for 15 to 21 days between days 28 and 63. For each bird observed outside the shelter type (AS or SRC), distance from the house (0 to 2, 2 to 5, >5 m) and its behaviour (only rounds 2 and 3) were recorded. Weather conditions were recorded by four weather stations. On average, 27.1% of the birds were observed outside at any given moment of observation. Early environmental enrichment did not decrease fearfulness as measured by the TI test. It only had a minor effect on the percentage of birds outside (0.4% more birds outside). At all distances from the house, SRC was preferred over AS. In AS, areas closer to the house were preferred over farther ones, in SRC this was less pronounced. Free-range use increased with age and temperature and decreased with wind speed. In AS, rainfall and decreasing solar radiation were related to finding more birds outside, whereas the opposite was true in SRC. Behaviour of the birds depended on shelter type, distance from the house, early environmental enrichment, time of day and age. Chickens ranged more and farther in SRC, possibly because this provided a greater sense of safety because of the amount of cover and/or better protection against adverse weather conditions. These results indicate that SRC with willow is a more appropriate shelter for slow-growing broiler chickens than A-frames.