Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:19:41.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and refinement of three animal-based broiler chicken welfare indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

APO Souza,
VS Soriano,
MA Schnaider,
DS Rucinque and
CFM Molento
APO Souza
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
VS Soriano
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
MA Schnaider
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
DS Rucinque
Affiliation:
Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of São Paulo, Av Duque de Caxias Norte 225, 13635-900, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil
CFM Molento*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
∗ Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: carlamolento@ufpr.br
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aimed to refine bird-soiling as a broiler chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) welfare indicator, and to develop and test two additional indicators, namely contact dermatitis on the breast and abdominal areas and carcase scratches. We constructed a questionnaire with pictures of birds presenting different indicator levels for classification as absent, low, moderate or severe. The questionnaire was sent to 146 invited experts for the first round and 88 for the second, in a Delphi process. Visual scales were built for the target indicators, which were tested by three assessors in ten flocks on-farm (n = 1,303 birds) and at the slaughterhouse (n = 1,631 birds). High concordance was observed among groups of Delphi respondents and among assessors. A total of 90.7% of the birds were either moderately or severely soiled, 99.9% were poorly feathered, 73.4 and 90.0% presented erythaema and carcase scratches, respectively. The correlations between litter quality and all outcomes assessed on-farm, and between bird-soiling and contact dermatitis on the breast and abdominal areas, were moderate. Results suggest that adoption of the proposed scales may improve our ability to assess broiler chicken welfare, since relevant problems were prevalent and measurement consistency acceptable. Substantial concordance observed among assessors encourages application of these animal-based indicators to assess broiler chicken welfare in a wide range of poultry houses, in a variety of different countries, thereby allowing the scales to be tested in a host of animal welfare conditions.

Keywords

animal welfareoutcomesplumage cleanlinessskin irritationwelfare assessmentwelfare measures

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , August 2018, pp. 263 - 274
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allain, V, Huonnic, D, Rouina, M and Michel, V 2013 Prevalence of skin lesions in turkeys at slaughter. British Poultry Science 54: 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.764397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allain, V, Mirabito, L, Arnould, C, Colas, M, Le Bouquin, S, Lupo, C and Michel, V 2009 Skin lesions in broiler chick-ens measured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science 50: 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660903110901CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnould, C, Butterworth, A and Knierim, U 2009 Standardisation of clinical scoring in poultry. In: Forkman, B and Keeling, LJ (eds) Assessment of Animal Welfare Measures for Layers and Broilers, Welfare Quality® Report No 9 pp 7–30. Cardiff University: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Bassler, AW, Arnould, C, Butterworth, A, Colin, L, de Jong, IC, Ferrante, V, Ferrari, P, Haslam, S, Wemelsfelder, F and Blokhuis, HJ 2013 Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poultry Science 92: 2811–2826. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, C 2004 Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks, CA and Butterworth, A (eds) Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare pp 37–49. CABI Publishing: London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851998053.0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, B 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 60: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb-Vantress 2013 Broiler Management Guide. http://www.cobb-vantress.com/docs/default-source/management-guides/broiler-management-guide.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dahlke, F, Gonzales, E, Gadelha, AC, Maiorka, A, Borges, SA, Rosa, PS, Faria Filho, DE and Furlan, RL 2005 Empenamento, níveis hormonais de triiodotironina e tiroxina e temperatura corporal de frangos de corte de diferentes genótipos criados em diferentes condições de temperatura. Ciência Rural 35:664–670. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782005000300029.[Title translation: Feathering, triiodothyronone and thyroxine plasma levels and body temperature]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dajani, JS, Sincoff, MZ and Talley, WK 1979 Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 13: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Donnely, AE and Jones, TA 2004 Chicken wel-fare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking den-sity. Nature 427: 342–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Gunnink, H and van Harn, J 2014 Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23: 51–58. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, IC, Hindle, VA, Butterworth, A, Engel, B, Ferrari, P, Gunnink, H, Perez Moya, T, Tuyttens, FAM and van Reenen, CG 2015 Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 10: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001706Google ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2010 Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic param-eters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal 8: 1–82Google Scholar
EFSA 2012 Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. EFSA Supporting Publication 9: 116Google Scholar
Elfadil, AA, Vaillancourt, J and Meek, AH 1996 Impact of stocking density, breed, and feathering on the prevalence of abdominal skin scratches in broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 40:546–552. https://doi.org/10.2307/1592262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwinger, K 1995 Broiler production under varying population densities, a field study. Archiv fur Geflugelkunde 59: 209–215Google Scholar
European Commission 2017 Study on the application of the broil-ers directive (DIR 2007/43/EC) and development of welfare indicators pp 261. European Union: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Federici, JF, Vanderhasselt, R, Sans, ECO, Tuyttens, FAM, Souza, APO and Molento, CFM 2016 Assessment of broiler chicken welfare in Southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 18: 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1590/18069061-2015-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouveia, KG, Martins da Costa, P and Vaz-Pires, P 2009 Welfare assessment of broilers through examination of haematomas, foot-pad dermatitis, scratches and breast blisters at processing. Animal Welfare 18: 43–4810.1017/S0962728600000051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, JA, McCracken, RM and Evans, RT 1985 A contact dermatitis of broilers, clinical and pathological findings. Avian Pathology 14: 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079458508436205Google ScholarPubMed
Hargis, BM, Moore, RW and Sams, AR 1989 Toe scratches cause scabby hip syndrome lesions. Poultry Science 68: 1148–1149. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0681148Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, GC, Mushbah, M, Beasley, JN and Nelson, GS 1978 The development of dermatitis (scabby-hip) on the hip and thigh of broiler chickens. Avian Diseases 22: 122–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/1589515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660701371341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herborn, KA, Graves, JL, Jerem, P, Evans, NP, Nager, R, McCafferty, DJ and McKeegan, DEF 2015 Skin temperature reveals the intensity of acute stress. Physiology & Behavior 152:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.09.032CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, C-C and Sandford, BA 2007 The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 12(10): 1–8Google Scholar
Jones, BR, Facchin, L and McCorquodale, C 2002 Social dis-persal by domestic chicks in a novel environment: reassuring properties of a familiar odourant. Animal Behaviour 63: 659–666. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Roper, TJ 1997 Olfaction in the domestic fowl: a critical review. Physiology & Behavior 62: 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00207-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korte, SM, Beuving, G, Ruesink, W and Blokhuis, HJ 1997 Plasma catecholamine and corticosterone levels during manual restraint in chicks from a high and low feather pecking line of laying hens. Physiology and Behavior 62: 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00149-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Google ScholarPubMed
Martinez-Lemus, LA and Laughlin, H 2015 Microcirculation, lymph and edema. In: Reece, WO (ed) Duke's Physiology of Domestic Animals pp 376–378. Wiley-Blackwell: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Muller, GH 2001 Environmental skin diseases. In: Scott, DW, Miller, WH Jr and Griffin, CE (eds) Muller and Kirk's Small Animal Dermatology pp 1081. Saunders: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Nalon, E, Maes, D, Van Dongen, S, van Riet, MMJ, Janssens, GPJ, Millet, S and Tuyttens, FAM 2014 Comparison of the inter- and intra-observer repeatability of three gait-scoring scales for sows. Animal 8(4): 650–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113002462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OIE 2013 Animal welfare and broiler chicken production sys-tems. OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. OIE: Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Pilecco, M, Almeida Paz, I, Tabaldi, L, Nääs, I, Garcia, RG, Caldara, FR and Andrela, G 2012 Multi-criteria analysis of the influence of rearing, equipment and catching management prac-tices on the incidence of back scratches in broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 14: 233–304. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2012000400007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayens, MK and Hahn, EJ 2000 Building consensus using the policy delphi method. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice 1: 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/152715440000100409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2016 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Butterworth, A and Swanson, JC 2011 Farm animal welfare assurance: science and application. Journal of Animal Science 89: 1219–1228. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saraiva, S, Saraiva, C and Stilwell, G 2016 Feather conditions and clinical scores as indicators of broilers welfare at the slaugh-terhouse. Research in Veterinary Science 107: 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, APO, Sans, ECO, Müller, BR and Molento, CFM 2015 Broiler chicken welfare assessment in GLOBALGAP certified and non-certified farms in Brazil. Animal Welfare 24: 45–54. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.1.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, EL, Bezanson, JM and Hall, CF 1960 Factors affecting the incidence and severity of a breast blister condition in broilers. Poultry Science 39: 1520–1524. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0391520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Federici, JF, Vanderhasselt, RF, Goethals, K, Duchateau, L, Sans, ECO and Molento, CFM 2015 Assessment of welfare of Brazilian and Belgian broiler flocks using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Poultry Science 94: 1758–1766. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Boivin, X, Pedersen, V, Tosi, M-V, Janczak, AM, Visser, EK and Jones, RB 2006 Assessing the human-ani-mal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 185–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2009 The Virtuous Bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–14710.1017/S0962728600000282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA, Nicol, CJ, Sherwin, CM and Kestin, SC 1994 Comparison of the behaviour of broiler chickens in indoor and free-range environments. Animal Welfare 3: 179–19210.1017/S0962728600016833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, Brown, SN, Phillips, AJ and Warriss, PD 2003 Cleanliness of broilers when they arrive at poultry processing plants. The Veterinary Record 153(23): 701–703Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Souza et al. supplementary material

Souza et al. supplementary material

Download Souza et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 13.1 MB