The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production

Abstract

Purpose There is increasing public concern over standards of farm animal welfare, yet the majority of sustainability studies of livestock have thus far focused only on environmental performance and profitability. Where social analysis has been carried out, there has yet to be a consistent methodology developed that incorporates animal welfare into social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). A framework was developed to assess animal welfare, using conventional broiler chicken meat production in Europe as a case in point. Methods Data were collected on stocking density, mortality, and carcass condemnation rate from conventional chicken meat production systems in Europe. The quantitative risk of each welfare indicator was characterised in accordance with the Social Hotspots Database methodology based on best to worst farm performances, i.e. quartiles of the data collected for each indicator. The overall animal welfare impact was assessed using a weighted sum methodology, which accounted for the level of risk animals were exposed to for each indicator and the animal lifespan. From this, a Social Hotspot Index (SHI) could be calculated for the animal welfare impact associated with the functional unit, which was 1 kg of chicken meat production. The animal welfare impact of four European countries was then compared. Results and discussion The countries assessed displayed a range of values for overall animal welfare impact; the country with the best animal welfare had a SHI for animal welfare impact of 0.14, whilst the worst had a SHI for animal welfare impact of 0.72. Farms that kept more birds per building had an increased overall animal welfare impact. Animal welfare, determined by negative welfare indicators, was worse in more recently established farm buildings due to increased flock size. Conclusions A methodology that incorporates animal welfare indicators into S-LCA was developed that is both scalable and related to welfare assessment frameworks. Although only some specific negative welfare indicators were considered here, the methodology could easily accommodate additional negative indicators and even positive welfare indicators as advancements are made in the understanding of animal welfare. Hence, this study provides a springboard for further development of S-LCA, animal welfare assessment and, ultimately, improved animal welfare in livestock systems.

Bird Health, Housing and Management Routines on Swedish Organic Broiler Chicken Farms

“…Skin lesions 4 0 (no lesions, or <3 pecks or scratches); 1 (≥ one lesion <2 cm or ≥3 pecks or scratches); 2 (≥ one lesion ≥2 cm) 0 (normal, dextrous and agile); 1 (slight abnormality, but difficult to define); 2 (definite and identifiable abnormality); 3 (obvious abnormality, affects ability to move); 4 (severe abnormality, only takes a few steps); 5 (incapable of walking) 1 Welfare Quality ® assessment protocol for poultry, applied to broiler chickens. 2 Both feet/legs examined: bird scored according to most severe lesion observed. 3 Adapted from [22].…”

“…Observed flock mortality (post-slaughter) calculated with reference to original number of eggs/chicks and number of birds delivered to the abattoir. 2 Information obtained from computer production records. 3 Mortality rates including eggs not hatched/discarded due to lack of information on number of chicks hatched.…”

Development of the ‘animal welfare’ dimension within the Greenwell sustainability assessment model. 1.: Justification of the selection of indicators

“…There is thus far no generally applied approach to select the indicators that are used to assess animal welfare as part of sustainability. E.g., for broiler chickens on-farm behavioural observations and physiological indicators of stress have been used [15], but also a more extended set of indicators based on the 'five freedoms' [14], whereas others used a limited list based on published data [12] or routinely collected data in different countries [13], or even an overall welfare estimation per farming system [124]. For comparison of sustainability between laying hen farming systems, Van Asselt et al [11] selected data based on the four principles of the Welfare Quality ® poultry protocol [17], although they were only able to use a very limited set of indicators in their calculations for the animal welfare dimension.…”

“…With respect to the selection of indicators to be included in the welfare assessment model, we first defined a longlist of indicators. Earlier studies on sustainability of chicken farming included a very limited range of welfare indicators, usually based on data availability from literature or routinely collected farming chain data [11][12][13][14][15], but this may not fully represent the welfare issues in the farming chain and thus may not provide a complete picture of the actual welfare status. In our selection process, we aimed to cover all welfare aspects using the Welfare Quality ® approach [2] (see section 1.2) as a framework, using existing welfare assessment protocols where available.…”

Benchmarking Farm Animal Welfare—A Novel Tool for Cross-Country Comparison Applied to Pig Production and Pork Consumption

“…As an alternative to using a direct on-farm assessment like that of Welfare Quality ® to make cross-country assessments and comparisons of animal welfare outcomes, which, as argued above, is not practically feasible, it has been suggested (e.g., [28,29]) that meat inspection data is used to cover key aspects of animal welfare outcomes. However, previous studies have shown that different sources of meat inspection data may have serious differences in the threshold for recording.…”