Animal Welfare Assessment in Antibiotic-Free and Conventional Broiler Chicken
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals
2.2. Animal Welfare Assessment
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Batches’ Characteristics
3.2. Welfare Quality Scores
3.3. Welfare Principle Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Poultry: Information on an Overview of E.U. In Poultry, Market Measures and Standards, Trade Measures, Market Monitoring, Legal Bases and Committees; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/animals-and-animal-products/animal-products/poultry_en (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- De Jong, I.; Berg, C.; Butterworth, A.; Estevéz, I.; EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Scientific Report Updating the EFSA Opinions on the Welfare of Broilers and Broiler Breeders. In Supporting Publications; EFSA (European Food Safety Authority): Parma, Italy, 2012; Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- McKeith, A.; Loper, M.; Tarrant, K. Research Note: Stocking density effects on production qualities of broilers raised without the use of antibiotics. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 698–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, 6406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe). Relationship between Animal Welfare and the Use of Antibiotics in Food Animals. 2016. Available online: www.fve.org/news/index.php?id=222 (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- Robinson, T.P.; Bu, D.P.; Carrique-Mas, J.; Fèvre, E.M.; Gilbert, M.; Grace, D.; Hay, S.I.; Jiwakanon, J.; Kakkar, M.; Kariuki, S.; et al. Antibiotic resistance is the quintessential One Health issue. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016, 110, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manyi-Loh, C.; Mamphweli, S.; Meyer, E.; Okoh, A. Antibiotic use in agriculture and its consequential resistance in environmental sources: Potential public health implications. Molecules 2018, 23, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Darphorn, T.S.; Bel, K.; Koenders-van Sint Anneland, B.B.; Brul, S.; Ter Kuile, B.H. Antibiotic resistance plasmid composition and architecture in Escherichia coli isolates from meat. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). The OIE Strategy on Antimicrobial Resistance and the Prudent Use of Antimicrobials. 2016. Available online: https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/en-oie-amrstrategy.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, R.S.; Porter, L.J.; Thomson, D.U.; Gage, M.; Beaudoin, A.; Wishnie, J.K. Raising Animals without Antibiotics: U.S. Producer and Veterinarian Experiences and Opinions. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Karavolias, J.; Salois, M.J.; Baker, K.T.; Watkins, K. Raised without antibiotics: Impact on animal welfare and implications for food policy. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2018, 2, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, J.A. Experiences with drug-free broiler production. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2670–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, G.; Zhao, Y.; Purswell, J.L.; Chesser, G.D., Jr.; Lowe, J.W.; Wu, T.-L. Effects of antibiotic-free diet and stocking density on male broilers reared to 35 days of age. Part 2: Feeding and drinking behaviours of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2020, 29, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens); Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; Available online: http://www.welfarequality.net/media/1293/poultry-protocol-watermark-6-2-2020.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- De Jong, I.C.; Hindle, V.A.; Butterworth, A.; Engel, B.; Ferrari, P.; Gunnik, H.; Perez Moya, T.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Van Reen, C.G. Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 2015, 10, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). Introduction to the Recommendations for Animal Welfare. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code; OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health): Paris, France, 2019; Available online: https://www.oie.int/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_introduction.htm (accessed on 26 July 2021).
- Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Federici, J.F.; Vanderhasselt, R.F.; Goethals, K.; Duchateau, L.; Sans, E.C.O.; Molento, C.F.M. Assessment of welfare of Brazilian and Belgian broiler flocks using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1758–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cervantes, H. Antibiotic-free poultry production: Is it sustainable? J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015, 24, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, S.; Ampe, B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: Which factors explain overall classification? Animal 2017, 11, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vasdal, G.; Moe, R.O.; de Jong, I.C.; Granquist, E.G. The relationship between measures of fear of humans and lameness in broiler chicken flocks. Animal 2018, 12, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muri, K.; Stubsjøen, S.M.; Vasdal, G.; Oppermann Moe, R.; Granquist, E.G. Associations between qualitative behaviour assessments and measures of leg health, fear and mortality in Norwegian broiler chicken flocks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 211, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meluzzi, A.; Fabbri, C.; Folegatti, E.; Sirri, F. Survey of chicken rearing conditions in Italy: Effects of litter quality and stocking density on productivity, foot dermatitis and carcase injuries. Br. Poult. Sci. 2008, 49, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Jong, I.C.; Van Harn, J.; Gunnink, H.; Hindle, V.A.; Lourens, A. Footpad dermatitis in Dutch broiler flocks: Prevalence and factors of influence. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1569–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taira, K.; Nagai, T.; Obi, T.; Takase, K. Effect of litter moisture on the development of footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2014, 76, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Swiatkiewicz, S.; Arczewska-Wlosek, A.; Jozefiak, D. The nutrition of poultry as a factor affecting litter quality and foot pad dermatitis—An updated review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 101, e14–e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diaz Carrasco, J.M.; Casanova, N.A.; Fernández Miyakawa, E.M. Microbiota, Gut Health and Chicken Productivity: What Is the Connection? Microorganisms 2019, 7, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Principles | Criteria | Measures (Score Range or Measure Unit) | No. of Birds Tested per Batch |
---|---|---|---|
Good feeding | Absence of prolonged thirst | Drinker space (drinkers/birds) | Whole batch |
Absence of prolonged hunger | Emaciated carcasses at slaughterhouse (%) | Whole batch | |
Good housing | Comfort around resting | Plumage cleanliness (0–3), litter quality (0–4), dust sheet test (0–2) | 100, 5 locations, whole batch |
Thermal comfort | Panting, huddling (%) | 100 | |
Ease of movements | Stocking density (kg/m2) | Whole batch | |
Good health | Absence of injuries | Lameness (gait score 0–2), hock burns (0–2), foot pad dermatitis (0–2) | 125, 100, 100 |
Absence of diseases | On-farm mortality, culls on farm, carcasses at slaughterhouse with signs of disease (%) | Whole batch | |
Appropriate behaviour | Good human–animal relationship | Avoidance distance test (no. of touched animals) | 21 locations |
Positive emotional state | Qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) | Observations at 1–8 points |
Conventional | Antibiotic Free | t-Value | p-Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Condition | Range | Obs | Mean | SD | Obs | Mean | SD | ||
HB | 0–2 | 700 | 0.615714 | 0.627946 | 700 | 0.544286 | 0.611791 | 4.6708 | <0.0001 * |
FPD | 0–2 | 700 | 1.095714 | 0.691857 | 700 | 1.007143 | 0.706565 | 2.3697 | 0.0179 * |
Lameness | 0–2 | 875 | 0.696 | 0.71526 | 875 | 0.485714 | 0.62971 | 6.5274 | <0.0001 * |
Farm | Conventional Batch (%) | SD | Antibiotic-Free Batch (%) | SD | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A(1) | 1.95 | 1.80 | 0.15 | ||
B | 2.07 | 3.27 | −1.20 | ||
A(2) | 3.00 | 2.46 | 0.54 | ||
C | 1.23 | 1.23 | 0.00 | ||
D | 3.11 | 2.42 | 0.69 | ||
E | 2.21 | 2.66 | −0.46 | ||
F | 3.90 | 2.57 | 1.33 | ||
Mean | 2.50 | ±0.89 | 2.34 | ±0.66 | 0.16 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Iannetti, L.; Romagnoli, S.; Cotturone, G.; Podaliri Vulpiani, M. Animal Welfare Assessment in Antibiotic-Free and Conventional Broiler Chicken. Animals 2021, 11, 2822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102822
Iannetti L, Romagnoli S, Cotturone G, Podaliri Vulpiani M. Animal Welfare Assessment in Antibiotic-Free and Conventional Broiler Chicken. Animals. 2021; 11(10):2822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102822
Chicago/Turabian StyleIannetti, Luigi, Sara Romagnoli, Giuseppe Cotturone, and Michele Podaliri Vulpiani. 2021. "Animal Welfare Assessment in Antibiotic-Free and Conventional Broiler Chicken" Animals 11, no. 10: 2822. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102822