Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics

Catching, carrying, and loading of broilers before transport to the slaughterhouse causes stress. In this study three catching methods (two manual (inverted, upright) and one mechanical) were compared using a cost-benefit analysis of animal welfare, ergonomics and economic analysis. Depopulation of approximately 5,000 broilers per catching method per flock (upright vs. inverted vs. mechanical: n=3; upright vs. inverted: n=9; inverted vs. mechanical: n=3 flocks) was analyzed on 15 commercial farms. Economic considerations (person-hours per 1,000 chickens), ergonomics (catcher survey, ergonomic assessment of simulated catching), and animal welfare on-farm (wing flapping frequency, catcher-bird interaction) and at the slaughterhouse (catch damage and DOA prevalence) were considered. Wing flapping frequency was lower (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 5.4 ± 0.1, P < 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, P < 0.01) for upright catching compared to inverted catching based on a 7-point Likert scale. Prevalence of catch damage was lower for upright versus mechanical catching (15.5 ± 1.3% vs. 17.7 ± 1.4%, P = 0.046). More person-hours per 1,000 broilers were required for upright versus inverted (1.6 ± 0.1 h vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 h) and mechanical catching (0.6 ± 0.3 h) (P < 0.001). Upright catching was 1.5 and 1.2 times more expensive than inverted and mechanical catching based on 20,000 broilers. Compared to inverted catching, fair compensation would increase by €0.012 (upright) and €0.006 (mechanical) per kg of live weight. An ergonomics expert rated manual catching as very demanding, but catchers (n = 16) disliked upright catching (more labor-intensive). This study revealed animal welfare benefits of upright versus inverted (less wing flapping, better catcher-bird interaction) and mechanical catching (less catch damage), whereas mechanical catching provided the best labor conditions. Widespread application of upright catching would require testing of entire flocks and collaboration with the poultry sector to determine fair compensation, improve labor conditions and identify strategies to minimize catch and load duration.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Poultry Science
Published
2024-12-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104704
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.68

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics

Bart Ampe, Frank Tuyttens, Veerle Segers, Ine Kempen et al.
2 citations
Poultry Science
Animal Nutrition and Physiology
0.68
article

Comparing methods for catching and crating broiler chicken flocks: A trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomics and economics

Bart Ampe, Frank Tuyttens, Veerle Segers, Ine Kempen, Evelyne Delezie, Gunther Antonissen, An Garmyn, Nathalie Sleeckx, Femke Delanglez, Anneleen Watteyn, Hilde Van Meirhaeghe, Niels Demaître
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Catching, carrying, and loading of broilers before transport to the slaughterhouse causes stress. In this study three catching methods (two manual (inverted, upright) and one mechanical) were compared using a cost-benefit analysis of animal welfare, ergonomics and economic analysis. Depopulation of approximately 5,000 broilers per catching method per flock (upright vs. inverted vs. mechanical: n=3; upright vs. inverted: n=9; inverted vs. mechanical: n=3 flocks) was analyzed on 15 commercial farms. Economic considerations (person-hours per 1,000 chickens), ergonomics (catcher survey, ergonomic assessment of simulated catching), and animal welfare on-farm (wing flapping frequency, catcher-bird interaction) and at the slaughterhouse (catch damage and DOA prevalence) were considered. Wing flapping frequency was lower (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 5.4 ± 0.1, P < 0.001), and catcher-bird interaction was better (3.7 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.2, P < 0.01) for upright catching compared to inverted catching based on a 7-point Likert scale. Prevalence of catch damage was lower for upright versus mechanical catching (15.5 ± 1.3% vs. 17.7 ± 1.4%, P = 0.046). More person-hours per 1,000 broilers were required for upright versus inverted (1.6 ± 0.1 h vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 h) and mechanical catching (0.6 ± 0.3 h) (P < 0.001). Upright catching was 1.5 and 1.2 times more expensive than inverted and mechanical catching based on 20,000 broilers. Compared to inverted catching, fair compensation would increase by €0.012 (upright) and €0.006 (mechanical) per kg of live weight. An ergonomics expert rated manual catching as very demanding, but catchers (n = 16) disliked upright catching (more labor-intensive). This study revealed animal welfare benefits of upright versus inverted (less wing flapping, better catcher-bird interaction) and mechanical catching (less catch damage), whereas mechanical catching provided the best labor conditions. Widespread application of upright catching would require testing of entire flocks and collaboration with the poultry sector to determine fair compensation, improve labor conditions and identify strategies to minimize catch and load duration.

Poultry ScienceVol. 104(2)
Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (BE), Ghent University (BE)
Vlaamse Overheid, Vlaamse regering, Instituut voor Landbouw-, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek, Vlaamse Overheid
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Animal Nutrition and Physiology
0.68
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.