Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:27:27.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the mechanisation of catching broilers a welfare improvement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

E Delezie ,
D Lips ,
R Lips  and
E Decuypere
E Delezie*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Biosystems, Division Livestock-Nutrition-Quality, University of Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, B–3001 Heverlee, Belgium
D Lips
Affiliation:
Centre for Science, Technology and Ethics, University of Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, B–3001 Heverlee, Belgium
R Lips
Affiliation:
Pingo Poultry Farming, Westkaai 21; B–2170 Merksem, Belgium
E Decuypere
Affiliation:
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Biosystems, Division Livestock-Nutrition-Quality, University of Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, B–3001 Heverlee, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In most European countries broilers are currently caught manually: broilers are caught by the leg, inverted and carried by a catcher with 3–4 birds in each hand. This method of catching broiler chickens is a welfare concern as it causes severe stress to the birds. A possible alternative to manual catching may be mechanical catching. The aim of this study was to compare the level of stress and injuries of broilers caught manually or with a harvesting machine (CIEMME Super Apollo L harvester) under commercial conditions. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in plasma corticosterone concentrations and duration of tonic immobility, which suggested that mechanically caught broilers were no more stressed than those caught manually. At the end of the catching process, mechanically caught broilers had even lower plasma corticosterone concentrations and shorter durations of tonic immobility, indicating that at this moment these broilers were less stressed than the manually caught birds. The incidence of wing haemorrhages was also reduced for broilers caught mechanically; however, there was no significant difference in the incidence of haemorrhages in the breast or legs between the two catching methods. As injuries are associated with pain and stress, this parameter is important not only for the welfare of the birds but also for product quality and the subsequent financial return. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of the mechanical harvesting machine, CIEMME Super Apollo L, appears to be a good alternative to manual catching. Nevertheless, some aspects of mechanical catching require further improvement.

Keywords

animal welfarebroilerscatchinginjuriesmachinestress
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 141 - 147
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bayliss, PA and Hinton, MH 1990 Transportation of broilers with special reference to mortality rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campo, JL and Carnicer, C 1994 Effects of several ‘stressors’ on tonic immobility reaction of chickens. Archiv für Geflugelkunde 58: 75–78Google Scholar
Cashman, PJ, Nicol, CJ and Jones, RB 1989 Effects of transportation on the tonic immobility fear reactions of broilers. British Poultry Science 30: 211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIEMME 2004 http://www.ciemmecalabria.com/english/super-apollo.htm (accessed 9 February 2006)Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Slee, GS, Kettlewell, P, Berry, P and Carlisle, AJ 1986 Comparison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand. British Poultry Science 27: 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekstrand, C 1998 An observational cohort study of the effects of catching method on carcase rejection rates in broilers. Animal Welfare 7: 87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elrom, K 2000a Handling and transportation of broilers: welfare, stress, fear and meat quality. Part II: stress. Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine 55(2)Google Scholar
Elrom, K 2000b Handling and transportation of broilers: welfare, stress, fear and meat quality. Part IV: handling of broilers. Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine 55(4)Google Scholar
Elrom, K 2001 Handling and transportation of broilers: welfare, stress, fear and meat quality. Part VI: the consequences of handling and transportation of chickens. Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine 56(2)Google Scholar
European Commission 2000 The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). Europese Commissie: Brussels, Belgium. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf (accessed 9 February 2006)Google Scholar
Farsaie, A, Carr, LE and Wabeck, CJ 1983 Mechanical harvest of broilers. Transactions of the ASAE 26: 1650–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N and Wilkins, L 1990 Broken bones in chickens: effect of stunning and processing in broilers. British Poultry Science 31: 53–58Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1986 The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1990 Is the experimenter an influential variable in studies of tonic immobility in the domestic fowl? Biology of Behaviour 15: 93–103Google Scholar
Jones, RB 1992 The nature of handling immediately prior to test affects tonic immobility fear reactions in laying hens and broilers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Faure, JM 1982 Tonic immobility in the domestic fowl as a function of social rank. Biology of Behaviour 7: 27–32Google Scholar
Kannan, G and Mench, JA 1996 Influence of different handling methods and crating periods on plasma CORT concentrations in broilers. British Poultry Science 37: 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettlewell, PJ and Mitchell, MA 1994 Catching, handling and loading of poultry for road transportation. World's Poultry Science Journal 50: 54–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettlewell, PJ and Turner, MJB 1985 A review of broiler chicken catching and transport systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 31: 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Gocke, A 2003 Effect of catching broilers by hand or machine on rates of injuries and dead-on arrivals. Animal Welfare 12: 63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, MP and Czarick, M 1994 Field testing of a mechanized broiler harvesting system. Poultry Science 73, Suppl 1: 41 (abstract)Google Scholar
Lacy, MP and Czarick, M 1998 Mechanical harvesting of broilers. Poultry Science 77: 1794–1797CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metheringham, J and Hubrecht, R 1996 Poultry in transit — a cause for concern. British Veterinary Journal 152: 247–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, MA and Kettlewell, PJ 1993 Catching and transport of broiler chickens. In: Savory, CJ and Hughes, BO (eds) Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 219–229. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Productschappen Vee, Vlees en Eieren 2001 Brochure. Beoordelingssysteem kwaliteit vleeskuikens, Rijswijk, The Netherlands [Title translation: Product qualities animals, meat and eggs 2001 Pamphlet. Evaluation system quality broilers]Google Scholar
Scott, GB 1993 Poultry handling: a review of mechanical devices and their effect on bird welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal 49: 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulkifli, I and Siegel, PB 1995 Is there a positive side to stress? World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar