A demanda por sistemas intensivos de produção é uma realidade mundial com tendência a crescimento nas próximas décadas. No entanto, esses sistemas apresentam limitações em atender as necessidades físicas, comportamentais e psicológicas dos animais, o que pode acarretar no empobrecimento do bem-estar dos mesmos. Apesar do bem-estar animal já ser amplamente definido, sua avaliação dentro da produção animal ainda é pouco aplicada. Dentre suas formas de avaliação, o modelo dos “Cinco Domínios”, proposto por Mellor e Reid (1994), atua como um método sistemático que inclui quatro domínios físicos ou funcionais (Nutrição, Ambiente, Saúde e Comportamento) e um domínio mental (Estado Mental ou Afetivo). Este artigo descreve sucintamente as características do modelo “Cinco Domínios” e exemplifica as possíveis interações entre os domínios do bem-estar animal em três situações reconhecidamente limitantes para bem-estar dos animais de produção: restrição de espaço no confinamento de bovinos, procedimentos dolorosos no manejo de leitões e alta densidade no carregamento e transporte de frangos de corte. Nesse contexto, apesar de não ser possível incluir todos os fatores intervenientes nessa dinâmica, os exemplos apresentados mostram uma visão integrada sobre os riscos de comprometimento do bem-estar dos animais em sistemas intensivos de produção.

Stunning by inhalation of nitrogen (N 2) and carbon dioxide (CO 2) mixtures reduces aversion compared to high concentrations of CO 2 in pigs and poultry. The objective of the study was to assess the aversion to 90% of CO 2 (90C) and an alternative gas mixture of 80% N 2 and 20% CO 2 (80N20C) in commercial rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Sixty animals, divided into two groups, were used. During the first day, the rabbits of both groups were lowered in pairs into the pit with atmospheric air and their behaviour was recorded as control. During the second day, one group was exposed, again in pairs, to 90C and the other to 80N20C for 1 min. Exploratory behaviour and general activity were assessed 2 min before the exposure, during the exposure and for 2 min subsequently. During the exposure, signs of respiratory distress, loss of balance, muscle twitching and recovery of balance were also assessed. In the control sessions (atmospheric air), animals did not show respiratory distress or muscle twitching and were less active while the crate was descending than when gas treatments were applied. The percentage of animals with respiratory distress was higher in 90C (97%) than 80N20C (40%). Muscle twitching occurred earlier in 80N20C (97%; 23.9 s) than in 90C (17%; 37.4 s). A second phase of muscle twitching occurred only in 90C at 93.0 s. Mean latency of lost of balance and recovery were lower in 80N20C (24.2 and 98.6 s, respectively) than in 90C (28.2 and 110.2 s, respectively). It is concluded that rabbits showed less signs of respiratory distress to inhalation of 80N20C than 90C but more signs of aversion than when they were exposed to atmospheric air.

The aim of this study was to identify the influence of different catching practices during manual upright handling on broiler welfare and behavior. Catching was examined in a total of 4,595 Cobb broilers with average live weight of 3.2 kg and 42 days old. Six catching practices were evaluated: shed curtain position, loading time, catching method, catching team, height of the crates from the floor, and placement of the bird in the crate. Behavioral welfare indicators were defined as follows: 1) broiler agitation in the catcher's hands, measured when the birds flapped their wings, kicked, or wriggled in the hands; 2) broiler striking the crate entrance as it was being placed in the crate, measured when the birds get the head, wings, or legs, hit at the crate entrance; and 3) broiler agitation in the crate, measured when birds flapped the wings or jumped inside the crate for 3 s or more after placement in the crate. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the chance of occurrence of each behavioral welfare indicator due to the handling factors. All catching practices evaluated in the present study influenced the birds’ welfare and behavior. Thus, some procedures during broiler catching potentially improved their behavior, making them less prone to accidents, and consequently improved their welfare. The catching process should be performed with the curtains in the closed position, carrying one broiler per catcher in an upright position while containing its wings, carefully placing the birds inside the crates, and with the crates being positioned at a height of at least 21 cm from the ground. Additionally, it was concluded that more attention should be given to the broiler catchers, since the position of the curtain, loading time, and position of the crate during handling can influence the work done by them, affecting the welfare and behavior of both humans and birds.