Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:57:10.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is being measured, and by whom? Facilitation of communication on technical measures amongst competent authorities in the implementation of the European Union Broiler Directive (2007/43/EC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

A. Butterworth ,
I. C. de Jong ,
C. Keppler ,
U. Knierim ,
L. Stadig  and
S. Lambton
A. Butterworth*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset, BS40 5DU, UK
I. C. de Jong
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Adaptation, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
C. Keppler
Affiliation:
Fachgebiet Nutztierethologie und Tierhaltung, Universität Kassel, Nordbahnhofstrasse 1a, 34109 Kassel, Germany
U. Knierim
Affiliation:
Fachgebiet Nutztierethologie und Tierhaltung, Universität Kassel, Nordbahnhofstrasse 1a, 34109 Kassel, Germany
L. Stadig
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Welfare & Behaviour Group, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 96, Box 1, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Lambton
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset, BS40 5DU, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

broiler chickendirectiveoutcomeslegislationassessment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 2016 , pp. 302 - 308
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

Annual Report of the Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the EU countries 2014. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from http://www.avec-poultry.eu/annual-reports-overview/annual-report-2014 Google Scholar
Bessei, WK 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 455–466.Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM, de Boer, IJM and Koene, P 2011. Space needs of broilers. Animal Welfare 20, 623–632.Google Scholar
Bokkers, EAM and Koene, P 2004. Motivation and ability to walk for a food reward in fast- and slow-growing broilers to 12 weeks of age. Behavioural Processes 67, 121–130.Google Scholar
Buijs, S, Keeling, L and Tuyttens, FAM 2011. Using motivation to feed as a way to assess the importance of space for broiler chickens. Animal Behaviour 81, 145–151.Google Scholar
Butterworth, A 2009. Animal welfare indicators and their use in society. In Food safety assurance and veterinary public health (ed. H Smulders and B Algers), pp. 371–389. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Butterworth, A, Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, B and Veissier, I 2013. Relevance and implementation of the Welfare Quality assessment systems. In Improving farm animal welfare: science and society working together: the Welfare Quality approach (ed. H Blokhuis, M Miele, I Veissier and B Jones), pp. 201–214. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Donnelly, CA and Jones, TA 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427, 342–344.Google Scholar
de Jong, I, Berg, C, Butterworth, A and Estevez, I 2012. Report updating the EFSA opinion on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders – part A – the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy.Google Scholar
European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development 2015. Data on European market sectors. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/poultry/index_en.htm Google Scholar
European Union (EU) 2007. Council directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. Official Journal of the European Union 182, 19–28.Google Scholar
Haslam, SM, Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Wilkins, LJ, Kestin, SC, Warriss, PD and Nicol, CJ 2007. Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science 48, 264–275.Google Scholar
Jones, TA, Donnelly, CA and Stamp Dawkins, M 2005. Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poultry Science 84, 1155–1165.Google Scholar
Kestin, SC, Knowles, TG, Tinch, AE and Gregory, NG 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131, 190–194.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, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.Google Scholar
Kristensen, HH, Perry, GC, Prescott, NB, Ladewing, J, Ersboll, AK and Wathes, CM 2006. Leg health and performance of broiler chickens reared in different light environments. British Poultry Science 47, 257–263.Google Scholar
Meluzzi, M, Fabbri, C, Folegatti, E and Sirri, F 2008a. Survey of chicken rearing conditions in Italy: effects of litter quality and stocking density on productivity, foot dermatitis and carcase injuries. British Poultry Science 49, 257–264.Google Scholar
Meluzzi, M, Fabbri, C, Folegatti, E and Sirri, F 2008b. Effect of less intensive rearing conditions on litter characteristics, growth performance, carcase injuries and meat quality of broilers. British Poultry Science 49, 509–515.Google Scholar
Saif, YM, Fadly, AM and Glisson, JR (ed.) 2008. Diseases of poultry. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Berg, C and Lund, JD 2003. A comparison between leg problems in Danish and Swedish broiler production. Animal Welfare 12, 677–683.Google Scholar
Shepherd, EM and Fairchild, BD 2010. Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science 89, 2043–2051.Google Scholar
Sørensen, P, Su, G and Kestin, SC 2000. Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 79, 864–870.Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008. European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. In Farm animal welfare since the Brambell report (ed. J Rushen), pp. 279–297. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Villagrá, A, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Chacon, G, Lainez, M, Torres, A and Manteca, X 2009. Stocking density and stress induction affect production and stress parameters in broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 18, 189–197.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality Consortium 2009. Welfare Quality assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar