Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey

Abstract

In order to support decision making on how to most effectively improve broiler welfare an innovative expert survey was conducted based on principles derived from semantic modelling. Twenty-seven experts, mainly broiler welfare scientists (n = 20; and 7 veterinarians), responded (response rate 38%) by giving welfare scores (GWS, scale 0–10) to 14 benchmarking housing systems (HSs), and explaining these overall scores by selecting, weighing and scoring main welfare parameters, including both input and output measures. Data exploration followed by REML (Linear Mixed Model) and ALM (Automatic Linear Modelling) analyses revealed 6 clusters of HSs, sorted from high to low welfare, i.e. mean GWS (with superscripts indicating significant differences): 1. (semi-natural backyard) Flock (8.8a); 2. Nature (7.7ab), Label Rouge II (7.4ab), Free range EU (7.2ab), Better Life (7.2ab); 3. Organic EU (7.0bc), Freedom Food (6.2bc); 4. Organic US (5.8bcd), Concepts NL (5.6abcdef), GAP 2 (4.9bcd); 5. Conventional EU (3.7de), Conventional US (2.9ef), Modern cage (2.9abcdef); 6. Battery cage (1.3f). Mean weighting factors (WF, scale 0–10) of frequently (n> = 15) scored parameters were: Lameness (8.8), Health status (8.6), Litter (8.3), Density (8.2), Air quality (8.1), Breed (8.0), Enrichment (7.0) and Outdoor (6.6). These did not differ significantly, and did not have much added value in explaining GWS. Effects of Role (Scientist/Vet), Gender (M/F) and Region (EU/non-EU) did not significantly affect GWS or WF, except that women provided higher WF than men (7.2 vs 6.4, p<0.001). The contribution of welfare components to overall welfare has been quantified in two ways: a) using the beta-coefficients of statistical regression (ALM) analyses, and b) using a semantic-modelling type (weighted average) calculation of overall scores (CalcWS) from parameter level scores (PLS) and WF. GWS and CalcWS were highly correlated (R = ~0.85). CalcWS identified Lameness, Health status, Density, Breed, Air quality and Litter as main parameters contributing to welfare. ALM showed that the main parameters which significantly explained the variance in GWS based on all PLS, were the output parameter Health status (with a beta-coefficient of 0.38), and the input parameters (stocking) Density (0.42), Litter (0.14) and Enrichment (0.27). The beta-coefficients indicated how much GWS would improve from 1 unit improvement in PLS for each parameter, thus the potential impact on GWS ranged from 1.4 welfare points for Litter to 4.2 points for Density. When all parameters were included, 81% of the variance in GWS was explained (77% for inputs alone; 39% for outputs alone). From this, it appears that experts use both input and output parameters to explain overall welfare, and that both are important. The major conventional systems and modern cages for broilers received low welfare scores (2.9–3.7), well below scores that may be considered acceptable (5.5). Also, several alternatives like GAP 2 (4.9), Concepts NL (5.6), Organic US (5.8) and Freedom Food (6.2) are unaccep...

Application of Ultraviolet Light for Poultry Production: A Review of Impacts on Behavior, Physiology, and Production

“…In these systems, birds experience several housing constraints such as high stocking density, poor air quality, and high moisture in the litter, with welfare issues such as leg health disorders (e.g., rickets, dyschondroplasia, lameness, angular bone deformities, hock burns, and foot pad dermatitis) and compromised behavioral repertoire (Dawkins et al, 2004;Bessei, 2006;Angel, 2007;Averós and Estevez, 2018). While free-range housing is used for both fast-and slow-growing broilers, welfare improvements in conventional intensive indoor production systems remains a focus point in broiler welfare research (Bracke et al, 2019;Rios et al, 2020). A range of lighting factors (i.e., source, intensity, photoperiods, and spectrum) have consequences for broiler production, behavior and welfare (Buyse et al, 1996;Olanrewaju et al, 2006;Soliman and El-Sabrout, 2020).…”

Intensi Membeli, Jenis Kelamin, Gender Produk, dan Tujuan Konsumsi

“…Dari hasil penelitian lainnya dapat diketahui bahwa warna memiliki makna yang berbeda pada konsumen ketika memutuskan untuk membeli produk (Babolhavaeji et al, 2015;Bracke et al, 2019;Budruk dan Feldhaus, 2019;Dalgin et al, 2018;Prado-León et al, 2018). (Aritonang, 2018), (Schnurr, 2018) maupun (Van Tilburg et al, 2015) juga menemukan bahwa prouk berwarna terang cenderung diasosiasikan dengan sifat feminim, sedangkan produk berwarna gelap cenderung diasosiasikan dengan sifat maskulin.…”

Exploring the performance of system changes in Dutch broiler production to balance animal welfare, ammonia emissions and particulate matter emissions with farm profitability

“…Stakeholders in the broiler supply chain introduced more extensive broiler production systems to address the critique on AW. These systems provided a higher level of AW, but had a higher environmental impact relative to conventional systems (Leinonen et al, 2012;Bracke et al, 2019). Therefore, the attempts by the EU and private sector are deemed to be insufficient by European citizens as criticism persists as of today (Eurobarometer, 2016).…”