Search

Catching, carrying, and loading of broilers before transport to the slaughterhouse causes stress. In this study three catching methods (two manual (inverted, upright) and one mechanical) were compared using a cost-benefit analysis of animal welfare, ergonomics and economic analysis. Depopulation of approximately 5,000 broilers per catching method per flock (upright vs. inverted vs. mechanical: n=3; upright vs. inverted: n=9; inverted vs. mechanical: n=3 flocks) was analyzed on 15 commercial farms. Economic considerations (person-hours per 1,000 chickens), ergonomics (catcher survey, ergonomic assessment of simulated catching), and animal welfare on-farm (wing flapping frequency, catcher-bird interaction) and at the slaughterhouse (catch damage and DOA prevalence) were considered. Wing flapping frequency was lower (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 5.4 ± 0.1, P < 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, P < 0.01) for upright catching compared to inverted catching based on a 7-point Likert scale. Prevalence of catch damage was lower for upright versus mechanical catching (15.5 ± 1.3% vs. 17.7 ± 1.4%, P = 0.046). More person-hours per 1,000 broilers were required for upright versus inverted (1.6 ± 0.1 h vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 h) and mechanical catching (0.6 ± 0.3 h) (P < 0.001). Upright catching was 1.5 and 1.2 times more expensive than inverted and mechanical catching based on 20,000 broilers. Compared to inverted catching, fair compensation would increase by €0.012 (upright) and €0.006 (mechanical) per kg of live weight. An ergonomics expert rated manual catching as very demanding, but catchers (n = 16) disliked upright catching (more labor-intensive). This study revealed animal welfare benefits of upright versus inverted (less wing flapping, better catcher-bird interaction) and mechanical catching (less catch damage), whereas mechanical catching provided the best labor conditions. Widespread application of upright catching would require testing of entire flocks and collaboration with the poultry sector to determine fair compensation, improve labor conditions and identify strategies to minimize catch and load duration.

ABSTRACT: This study explores upright versus inverted catching and crating of spent laying hens. Both catching methods were compared using a cost-benefit analysis that focused on animal welfare, ergonomic, and financial considerations. Data were collected on seven commercial farms (one floor system and six aviary systems) during depopulation of approximately 3,000 hens per method per flock. Parameters such as wing flapping frequency, catcher bird interaction, incidence of catching damage and hens dead on arrival (DOA) were measured and compared between catching methods. Ergonomic evaluations were performed via catcher surveys and expert assessment of video recordings. The wing flapping frequency was lower (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 4.0 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) and handling was gentler (1.9 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), both on a 7-point Likert scale, for upright versus inverted catching. However, more person-hours per 1000 hens were required for upright than inverted catching (8.2 ± 3.2 h vs. 4.8 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.011), with only wing bruises being significantly less common for upright than inverted catching (1.1 ± 0.6 % vs. 1.7 ± 0.7%, P = 0.04). Upright catching was 1.8 times more expensive than inverted catching; compensation for this cost would require a premium price of approximately €0.0005 extra per egg. Ergonomically, both catching methods were considered demanding, although catchers (n = 29) preferred inverted catching. In conclusion, this study showed animal welfare benefits of upright vs. inverted catching. Industry adoption of upright catching will depend on compensation of the additional labor costs, adjustments to labor conditions and shorter loading times.