Search

There is increasing evidence that the field of applied ethology is prone to expectation biases invalidating research outcomes. Nevertheless, outcome assessors are rarely blinded. We surveyed delegates of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE) 2014 congress shortly before (n = 39 respondents) and after (n = 51 respondents) a combined congress plenary and workshop on expectation bias in applied ethology. The aims were to evaluate the effect of the plenary and workshop on the opinion of applied ethologists in order to better comprehend why blinding outcome assessors seems so rarely practiced as a debiasing technique in this field of research. The results suggest that a moderate awareness about expectancy effects among ethologists and the logistic constraints of blinded observations rather than a perceived low susceptibility of the research field is the larger part of the explanation. Although awareness about expectancy effects and debiasing techniques was higher immediately after than before the congress plenary and workshop, a more sustained and concerted effort is needed throughout all stages of the research process to avoid expectation bias invalidating research finding and to improve the scientific credibility of the field of applied ethology.

The European Union (EU) Broiler Directive (2007/43/EC) is unique amongst current EU Directives, which address animal welfare, in that it uses outcome data collected at abattoirs and on farm to monitor on-farm broiler welfare and vary the maximum permitted stocking density on farm. In this study, we describe how, by bringing together personnel from the competent authorities in 22 member states (MSs) who have responsibility for implementing the Directive, and engaging in exchange of information and technical methods regarding the Broiler Directive, it has been possible to identify differences in approach with regard to ‘what data is being collected, and by whom’ across EU MSs. Online questionnaires and workshop exercises enabled us to identify priority areas for knowledge transfer and training. For example, foot pad dermatitis, hock burn, dead on arrival and total rejections (birds rejected as unfit for human consumption by the meat inspection staff at slaughter) were identified by the MSs as measures of medium-to-low priority in terms of knowledge transfer because there are assessment methods for these conditions that are already well accepted by competent authorities. On the other hand, breast lesions, cellulitis, emaciation, joint lesions, respiratory problems, scratches, wing fractures and a number of environmental measures were identified as having high priority in terms of knowledge transfer. The study identified that there is significant variability in the stage of implementation between MSs, and responses from the participating MSs indicated that sharing of guidance and technical information between MSs may be of value in the future set-up process for those MSs engaged in implementation of the Directive.

Most observers in behaviour studies are aware of relevant information about the animals being observed. We investigated whether observer expectations influence subjective scoring methods during a class practicum. Veterinary students were trained in recording negative and positive interactions between pigs, in scoring the degree of panting in cattle and in applying qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) using a fixed set of terms for assessing hens' behaviour. The students applied these methods in three trials in which they were shown duplicated video recordings of the same animals: the original and a slightly modified version (to prevent recognition at second viewing). When scoring the duplicated recordings they were told either correct or false information about the conditions in which the animals had been filmed. The false information reflected plausible study scenarios in ethology and was used to create expectations about the outcome. As in reality the students scored the identical behaviour twice, the difference in the scores for the original and modified recordings reflects expectation bias due to providing different contextual information. In all trials there was evidence of expectation bias: students scored the ratio of positive to negative interactions higher when told that the observed pigs had been selected for high social breeding value, they scored cattle panting higher when told that the ambient temperature was 5 °C higher than in reality, and in the QBA they indicated more positive and fewer negative emotions when told that the hens were from an organic instead of a conventional farm. The magnitude of the bias in the QBA trial was related to the opinion of the students about hen welfare in organic versus conventional farms. Although veterinary students may not be representative of practising ethologists, these findings do indicate that observer bias could influence subjective scores of animal behaviour and welfare.

Demand for meat from free-range broiler chickens is increasing in several countries. Consumers are motivated by better animal welfare and other product attributes such as quality and taste. However, scientific literature is not unanimous about whether free-range access influences quality, composition, and taste of the meat. Because chickens normally do not use free-range areas optimally, it is possible that provision of more suitable shelter will lead to more pronounced differences between chickens raised indoors and outdoors. In this study, an experiment with 2 production rounds of 600 slow-growing broilers each was performed. In each round, 200 chickens were raised indoors (IN), 200 had free-range access to grassland with artificial shelter (AS), and 200 had free-range access to short-rotation coppice with willow (SRC). Free-range use, feed intake, and growth were monitored, and after slaughter (d72) meat quality, composition, and taste were assessed. Free-range use was higher in SRC than in AS chickens (42.8 vs. 35.1%, P < 0.001). IN chickens were heavier at d70 than AS and SRC chickens (2.79 vs. 2.66 and 2.68 kg, P = 0.005). However, feed intake and conversion did not differ. Breast meat of chickens with free-range access was darker (P = 0.021) and yellower (P = 0.001) than that of IN chickens. Ultimate pH was lower (5.73 vs. 5.79; P = 0.006) and drip loss higher (1.29 vs. 1.09%; P = 0.05) in IN versus AS chickens. The percentage of polyunsaturated fatty acids was higher in AS than in IN meat (35.84 vs. 34.59%; P = 0.021). The taste panel judged breast meat of SRC chickens to be more tender (P = 0.003) and less fibrous (P = 0.013) compared to that of AS and IN chickens, and juicier compared to the IN chickens (P = 0.017). Overall, free-range access negatively affected slaughter weight, but positively affected meat quality, taste, and composition. Only a few differences between AS and SRC were found, possibly due to limited differences in free-range use.

On 1 January 2012, conventional cages for laying hens were banned in the European Union (EU); all egg farmers must now use alternative hen housing systems. In total, 218 Flemish egg farmers were surveyed in 2013 to 2014 regarding which housing systems they currently use, their degree of satisfaction with the system, and how they experienced the transition from conventional cages to an alternative system. The response rate was 58.3% (127 respondents). Of these, 43 (33.9%) were no longer active as an egg farmer, mainly due to the ban on conventional cages. The respondents who were active as egg farmers both before and after the transition (84, 66.1%) mainly judged the ban as negative for their own finances and for the competitive position of the Belgian egg industry, but were neutral or positive regarding the general consequences for their own business. Most respondents' hens were housed in either aviary systems (47.7%) or in alternative cage systems (38.2%). When choosing a new system, the fit into the farm and consumer demand were the most important factors. Consumer demand was the main reason for choosing a system with free-range access. In general, egg farmers were satisfied with the system they chose, although this differs between systems. When asked to compare the alternative systems to conventional cages, alternatives were judged to be better for hen welfare and consumer demand, but similar or worse for all other aspects, especially labor. Egg farmers previously using conventional cages judged alternative systems more negatively than those who had no prior experience with conventional cages. Farmers who had experience with free-range systems judged these more positively than those without this experience, e.g., for egg consumer demand, profitability, and hen welfare. These results can possibly be extrapolated to other EU countries in which conventional cages were the most common housing system until 2012, and lessons can be drawn from the farmers' experiences when implementing other animal welfare legislation that may require similar far-reaching adaptations for primary production.

Simple Summary Until 2012, laying hens in the EU were often housed in conventional cages that offered limited space and few opportunities to perform highly motivated behaviors. Conventional cages are now banned in the EU in order to improve animal welfare. In this study, egg farmers were surveyed (winter 2013–2014) to assess whether they perceived any changes in animal welfare since changing housing systems, what role hen welfare played in choosing a new housing system, and which aspects of hen welfare they find most important. The data show that the answers differ depending on which housing system the farmers currently use and whether they had used conventional cages in the past. Abstract As of 2012, the EU has banned the use of conventional cages (CC) for laying hens, causing a shift in housing systems. This study’s aim was to gain insight into farmers’ opinions on hen health and welfare in their current housing systems. A survey was sent to 218 Belgian egg farmers, of which 127 (58.3%) responded, with 84 still active as egg farmer. Hen welfare tended to be less important in choosing the housing system for farmers with cage than with non-cage systems. Respondents currently using cage systems were more satisfied with hen health than respondents with non-cage systems. Reported mortality increased with farm size and was higher in furnished cages than in floor housing. Feather pecking, cannibalism, smothering and mortality were perceived to be higher in current housing systems than in CC, but only by respondents who shifted to non-cage systems from previously having had CC. Health- and production-related parameters were scored to be more important for hen welfare as compared to behavior-related parameters. Those without CC in the past rated factors relating to natural behavior to be more important for welfare than those with CC. This difference in opinion based on farmer backgrounds should be taken into account in future research.