Upright versus inverted catching and crating end-of-lay hens: a trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomic and financial concerns.

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.
Competing Interests: DISCLOSURES The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)