Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:46:14.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2015

I. C. de Jong ,
V. A. Hindle ,
A. Butterworth ,
B. Engel ,
P. Ferrari ,
H. Gunnink ,
T. Perez Moya ,
F. A. M. Tuyttens  and
C. G. van Reenen
I. C. de Jong*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
V. A. Hindle
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. Butterworth
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford, N Somerset BS40 5DU, UK
B. Engel
Affiliation:
Biometris, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. Ferrari
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Animal Production, C.R.P.A., Viale Timavo 43/2, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
H. Gunnink
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
T. Perez Moya
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
F. A. M. Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
C. G. van Reenen
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocols place the emphasis on animal-based measures as an indicator for animal welfare. Stakeholders, however, emphasize that a reduction in the time taken to complete the protocol is essential to improve practical applicability. We studied the potential for reduction in time to complete the WQ broiler assessment protocol and present some modifications to the protocol correcting a few errors in the original calculations. Data was used from 180 flocks assessed on-farm and 150 flocks assessed at the slaughter plant. Correlations between variables were calculated, and where correlation was moderate, meaningful and promising (in terms of time reduction), simplification was considered using one variable predicted from another variable. Correlation analysis revealed a promising correlation between severe hock burn and gait scores on-farm. Therefore, prediction of gait scores using hock burn scores was studied further as a possible simplification strategy (strategy 1). Measurements of footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait score on-farm correlated moderately to highly with slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and/or hock burn, supporting substitution of on-farm measurements with slaughter plant data. A simplification analysis was performed using footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait scores measured on-farm predicted from slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and hock burn (strategy 2). Simplification strategies were compared with the full assessment protocol. Close agreement was found between the full protocol and both simplification strategies although large confidence intervals were found for specificity of the simplified models. It is concluded that the proposed simplification strategies are encouraging; strategy 1 can reduce the time to complete the on-farm assessment by ~1 h (25% to 33% reduction) and strategy 2 can reduce on-farm assessment time by ~2 h (50% to 67% reduction). Both simplification strategies should, however, be validated further, and tested on farms with a wide distribution across the different welfare categories of WQ.

Keywords

animal welfarebroilersanimal-based assessment protocolssimplification
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 1 , January 2016 , pp. 117 - 127
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allain, V, Mirabito, L, Arnould, C, Colas, M, Le Bouquin, S, Lupo, C and Michel, V 2009. Skin lesions in broiler chickens measured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science 50, 407–417.Google Scholar
Berg, C and Algers, B 2004. Using welfare outcomes to control intensification: the Swedish model. In Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (ed. CA Weeks and A Butterworth), pp. 223–229. CABI Publishers, Oxford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, JM and Altman, DG 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i, 307–310.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 60, 129–140.Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Buist, W, Butterworth, A, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2009. Reports on the construction of welfare criteria for different livestock species. Part 3 – Subcriteria construction for broilers on farm. Deliverable 2.8c, subtask 2.3.1.2, Welfare Quality® (EU Food-CT-2004-506508), Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Butterworth, A, De Jong, IC, Keppler, C, Stadig, L and Lambton, SL 2015. Facilitation on communication on technical measures amongst competent authorities in the implementation of the broiler directive (2007/43/EC). Animal, first published online 17 August 2015, doi:10.1017/S1751731115001615.Google Scholar
Corr, SA, Gentle, MJ, McCorquodale, C and Bennett, D 2003. The effect of morphology on walking ability in the modern broiler: a gait analysis study. Animal Welfare 12, 159–171.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Gunnink, H and van Harn, J 2014. Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23, 51–58.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Reimert, HGM, Vanderhasselt, R, Gerritzen, MA, Gunnink, H, van Harn, J, Hindle, VA and Lourens, A 2011. Development of methods to monitor foot pad lesions in broiler chickens. Wageningen UR Livestock Research Report 463. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Publication-details.htm?publicationId=publication-way-343037363037.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, van Harn, J, Gunnink, H, Lourens, A and van Riel, JW 2012. Measuring foot-pad lesions in commercial broiler houses. Some aspects of methodology. Animal Welfare 21, 325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M, Bokkers, EAM, van Schaik, G, Engel, B, Dijkstra, T and de Boer, IJM 2014. Exploring the value of routinely collected herd data for estimating dairy cattle welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 715–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohoo, IRS, Martin, W and Stryhn, H 2009. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, 2nd edition. VER Inc., Charlottetown, PEI, Canada.Google Scholar
EFSA 2010. Scientific opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal 8, 1666.Google Scholar
Finney, DJ 1989. Was this in your statistics textbook? VI regression and covariance. Experimental Agriculture 25, 291–311.Google Scholar
Haslam, SM, Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Wilkins, LJ, Kestin, SC, Warriss, PD and Nicol, CJ 2007. Factors affecting the prevalence of footpad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science 48, 264–275.Google Scholar
Hepworth, PJ, Nefedov, AV, Muchnik, IB and Morgan, KL 2010. Early warning indicators for hock burn in broiler flocks. Avian Pathology 39, 405–409.Google Scholar
Knowles, TG, Kestin, SC, Haslam, SM, Brown, SN, Green, LE, Butterworth, A, Pope, SJ, Pfeiffer, D and Nicol, CJ 2008. Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS One 3, e1545.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC and Hall, JW 1990. Use of pen space by broiler-chickens – effects of age and pen size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, EM and Fairchild, BD 2010. Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science 89, 2043–2051.Google Scholar
Shields, SJ, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2005. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84, 1816–1824.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, KK, Botreau, R and Sandøe, P 2011. Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20, 89–101.Google Scholar
VSN International Ltd 2010. Genstat for Windows Release 13. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. The Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). The Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

de Jong supplementary material 1

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 49.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

de Jong supplementary material 2

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 35.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

de Jong supplementary material 3

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 23.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

Table S1

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 17.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

Table S2

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

Table S3

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 16.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

de Jong supplementary material

Table S4

Download de Jong supplementary material(File)
File 23.5 KB