Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Opinion of Flemish Poultry Farmers on How Birds Fit for Transport to the Slaughterhouse Are Selected, Caught, and Crated

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Submitted:

07 October 2024

Posted:

10 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Abstract

Pre-transport management activities can cause stress, injuries, and mortality in poultry. This study aimed to gather information about the current pre-transport practices (selection of unfit chickens, catching preparations, catching, and crating) for spent hens and broilers by questioning Flemish poultry farmers. The results showed that catching preparations such as an extra selection of chickens unfit for transport was performed by a minority of the poultry farmers, and that layer farmers were less in line with the EU-legislation for water and feed withdrawal than broiler farmers. All birds were caught inverted except for one broiler farmer who used mechanical catching (not yet common in Flanders). Additionally, mechanical catching may involve extra costs, increased biosecurity risks, and specific recommendations for the stable (height and width). The broiler farmers preferred mechanical catching for broiler catchers' well-being, while upright catching was considered better for animal welfare than catching more than three chickens by one/two legs, mechanically, or by wings. Awareness of the need to perform an extra selection by the poultry farmers before catching is required. Preparations like closing areas under the aviary system and removing litter (layers) can further streamline the process and reduce animal suffering.

Keywords: 
Subject: 
Biology and Life Sciences  -   Animal Science, Veterinary Science and Zoology

supplementary.pdf (98.45KB )

1. Introduction

At the end of the production phase, broiler chickens and laying hens are usually caught, loaded, and transported to the slaughterhouse [1,2]. Poultry are mostly caught and crated manually in containers or crates by a group of catchers. In some parts of the world such as Canada, the US, and in some Scandinavian countries (e.g. Finland), however, spent laying hens are gassed on farms and not used for consumption, e.g. because farms are located too far from slaughterhouses [3,4,5].
This paper focuses on the first phase of the pre-slaughter stage before transporting broiler chickens and laying hens. This phase includes the selection of birds that are not fit to be transported, other preparations carried out by the farm staff before the catching event, and the actual catching, crating, and loading of the birds on the transportation vehicle. This early phase of the pre-slaughter stage has been identified as a high-risk event for potential animal welfare issues such as thermal discomfort, bone lesions (e.g. fractures and dislocations), skin lesions (e.g. subcutaneous hemorrhages), fatigue, mortality, fear, handling stress, restriction of movement, sensorial over/under stimulation, motion stress, and resting problems [1,6,7].
Concerning the fitness of birds for transport, EU-legislation [8] stipulates that "no animal shall be transported unless it is fit for the intended journey, and all animals shall be transported in conditions guaranteed not to cause them injury or unnecessary suffering". Birds not fit for transport should receive appropriate treatment or be immediately culled [8] which is important for ensuring food safety and reducing economic losses [9,10,11]. Animals that are already sick, weak, and injured are more vulnerable to increased suffering and have a higher chance of dying during transportation because of interacting with unfamiliar animals, difficulty maintaining stability during transit, avoiding fatigue, managing restrictions on feed and water, and dealing with extreme thermal environments [2,12,13]. Given the challenge of properly checking birds' fitness to transport during catching and crating, a fit for transport inspection as close as possible to the catching and loading process is recommended [14]. This fit for transport inspection should be carried out on top of the routine flock inspections that farm staff in the EU must do at least twice per day for broiler chickens [15] and at least once a day for laying hens [16] throughout the production cycle. Specifically for fit for transport inspections, farm staff ought to be knowledgeable about which birds are unfit to be transported and what to do with these instead [10,14,17].
In addition to the extra selection of birds just before the catching event, other preparations are necessary, such as litter removal (for laying hens only), feed and water withdrawal, and lighting adjustments. Specific in non-cage systems of laying hens litter ought to be removed in the alleys to enable containers and crates to be brought inside and placed as close as possible to the hens [7]. Feed needs to be withdrawn at the correct time maximizing the chance that the gastrointestinal tract is empty at the time of slaughter but minimizing the risk of starvation for longer than necessary. Withdrawing feed eight to 12 hours before slaughter is necessary to avoid carcass contamination, as otherwise, the carcasses may be rejected for consumption [18,19]. To maximize gastrointestinal evacuation, four hours of light is recommended after feed withdrawal [20]. In broiler chickens feed withdrawal longer than six hours depletes liver glycogen reserves. Extending feed withdrawal beyond 12 hours can cause prolonged hunger and intestinal cell breakdown [21]. For end-of-lay hens, a feed withdrawal longer than 10 hours will result in prolonged hunger [7]. Undue long feed withdrawal and light adjustments can cause significant stress directly impacting meat quality negatively and can result in economic losses [20]. Furthermore, water should remain available to the birds up to just before catching and loading to hydrate the birds and clean their gastrointestinal contents [20]. Thirst must be avoided as it can negatively affect the animals' fitness, increasing the risk of severe dehydration [22].
The actual catching and loading of the birds can cause fear and stress reactions, fractures, and lesions resulting in animal suffering as well as significant economic losses for producers and slaughterhouses because of carcass rejections [23,24]. There are differences between laying hens and broiler chickens during catching and loading. Laying hens are caught and loaded when they are 65-100 weeks old in the EU [7,25], fast-growing broiler chickens are around six to seven weeks old, and slower-growing broilers are 7-12 weeks old [20]. In the EU, laying hens are housed in enriched cages or non-cage systems (floor housing and aviary systems) [1,26], while broiler chickens are usually kept in floor housing systems [27]. Laying hens are always caught manually whereas broiler chickens can be manually or mechanically caught [1,2,28]. In the case of manual catching, both laying hens and broilers are usually caught by one or both legs (although prohibited in the EU by [8]) and carried upside down. Upright catching, by supporting the abdomen and wings against the body, has been recommended though on animal welfare grounds (less agitation, stress, and injuries) [7,24,29]. Manual catching is physically demanding, mostly experienced as unpleasant by the catching teams, and the welfare of the birds may be further compromised by fatigue among the catchers [24,30,31].
Specific to broiler chickens, mechanical harvesting is an alternative to manual catching. There are two main types of mechanical systems: a sweeping system with rotating rubber fingers or lifting conveyor belts transporting the chickens to the containers [32]. Studies that have compared animal welfare during mechanical versus manual catching are not unanimous. One research [33] mentioned better animal welfare for mechanical catching than manual catching, while [34,35] concluded the opposite. Heterogeneity between study outcomes likely relates to differences in the type of mechanical harvester and the experience and attitude of the staff operating the machine. If mechanical catching is operated correctly, it can reduce the risk of injuries compared to manual catching [7].
Chickens that have been caught are subsequently crated in containers (a container consists of several drawers that must be opened and closed to fill the drawers) or crates (a crate has an opening at the top and chickens are placed in the crate through this opening). The design of these containers and crates plays an important role [36]. Crating broilers is easier in containers with wide drawers than in crates with smaller openings, while the last one can cause wing damage. However, containers with wide drawers have a higher risk of broilers escaping [37,38]. According to a recent study on laying hens, crates are associated with a higher prevalence of body part entrapments (0.006 ± 0.021% vs. 0.037 ± 0.041%) but a reduced risk of injuries (0.014 ± 0.020% vs. 0.002 ± 0.040%) in comparison with containers [39].
Fitness for transport selection, catching, and crating have all been studied previously, but there is limited information regarding the opinions and experiences of the poultry farmers. This study aimed to survey Flemish poultry farmers to get an in-depth view of the entire pre-transport process on commercial farms. Moreover, because poultry farmers remain responsible for the chickens during the entire pre-transport phase, it is important to investigate their opinion on selecting poultry unfit for transport, catching, and crating. Their insights on these aspects can indeed be very decisive for the success and ease with which changes can be implemented in practice.

2. Materials and Methods

A quantitative survey about the selection, catching, and crating process (laying hens and broiler chickens) was conducted amongst poultry farmers in Flanders (Belgium) and was based on a prior qualitative farmer (n=5) face-to-face interviews with open questions about the procedures, and farmer opinions on, selecting, catching, and crating poultry. The answers to the open questions were used to formulate appropriate and realistic questions and answer options for the quantitative survey. The survey for laying hen and broiler chicken farmers was created with an online survey tool (LimeSurvey, www.LimeSurvey.org).

2.1. Respondents

Contact details (phone number, address, and e-mail address) of 156 laying hen and 203 broiler chicken farmers were obtained from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Flanders. These were believed to be a random sample of the total population of 177 laying hen farmers and 522 broiler chicken farmers that were registered in Flanders in 2022 [40]. In April 2022, all poultry farmers on the contact list were invited by email to participate, follow-up calls were made at the beginning of June 2022 to increase the response rate and the survey was closed at the end of June 2022. In total, 31 laying hen (20%) and 48 broiler (24%) farmers filled out the questionnaire completely, and another 134 farmers (49 laying hen and 85 broiler chicken farmers) filled it out partially. Depending on the question, the number of responses varied between 84 and 133 for broiler farmers, and between 42 and 80 for laying hen farmers.

2.2. Questionnaires

There were two questionnaires, one for laying hen farmers and one for broiler chicken farmers. In general, the questions were the same for both surveys, only the answering options for some questions could differ (see supplementary material). Both questionnaires were divided into three sections. The first part gathered demographic data about the farmer-respondent (age, gender, highest level of education completed) and general information about the farm, including location, poultry type, slaughter weight (kg), and slaughter age (in days for broilers, and weeks for laying hens) of the most recently completed production cycle. In the second part, multiple choice questions were asked about the procedure for identifying unfit chickens to be culled during the most recent inspection rounds (performer, reasons for culling, bottlenecks, and advantages). Additional questions were asked regarding the most recent extra selection before catching to remove birds unfit for transport. For the third part, farmers were asked to focus on the most recent catching and loading event on their farm and to provide details on (1) the preparations they had made, including the removal of litter (laying hens), the closing of laying nests (laying hens), changes to the light schedule, and the withdrawal of food and water (multiple choice); (2) the timing of the event (start and end time); (3) the used catching method and type of container/crate, and its influence on animal welfare; (4) the presence and role of the poultry farmer; points of attention during catching and loading (multiple choice); (5) bottlenecks (e.g. noise, stress, injuries, and inefficiency linked to the catching team's behavior) (on a scale from 0 to 100%, with 0% = not present at all and 100% = present); (6) communication with the catching team; (7) economic data (price per chicken and method of payment for the catching team). In addition, they were asked to rank (from most preferred to least preferred) nine (laying hens) or 10 (broilers) different catching methods with regards to economy and time efficiency, the well-being of the catcher, and animal welfare. The catching methods were (a) two chickens in one hand by one leg, (b) two chickens in one hand by two legs, (c) three chickens in one hand by one leg, (d) three chickens in one hand by two legs, (e) more than three chickens in one hand by one leg, (f) more than three chickens in one hand by two legs, (g) one chicken upright, (h) two chickens upright, (i) mechanical harvesting (only for broilers), and (j) wing catching. Finally, the participants could fill in their e-mail addresses and confirm whether they were interested in being informed about the survey results and the larger research project on the pre-slaughter phase in poultry.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Response data were analyzed using R (version 4.2.1). Continuous variables (e.g. number of chickens per catching movement, the influence of the type of container/crate on animal welfare, opinion of different catching methods, communication catching team, and price per chicken) were analyzed using linear regression, with the type of livestock farmer (laying hen or broiler chicken) as a fixed effect. Differences were reported as least squares mean. Continuous data were assumed to be normally distributed based on visual inspection of model residuals (graphical assessment using QQ-plot and histogram). Binomial variables for selecting chickens (present or absent; e.g. performer, reasons, bottlenecks, advantages, and extra selection) and catching and loading (present or absent; e.g. preparations, for or against daytime loading, which catching method, presence, and role of the poultry farmer, points of interest, payment of the catcher) were analyzed using logistic regression, with the type of livestock farmer as a fixed effect. Differences were reported as back-transformed least squares mean (the proportions or percentages of occurrence). The answers within the type of livestock farmer were compared and also between the type of livestock farmers (laying hen vs. broiler chicken). P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. General Information

Most laying hen and broiler chicken farmers were older than 45 years (78% and 69% respectively), the majority were male (79% and 80%), and had a high school diploma as their highest degree (70% and 68%) (Table 1). Most laying hen farmers used an aviary (42%) or an enriched cage (37%) system. The number of chickens per stable typically ranged from 10,000 to 30,000 (Table 1). The mean slaughter age and weight of broiler chickens was 28 ± 13 days and 1.70 ± 0.73 kg at the time of thinning, and 38 ± 14 days and 2.44 ± 0.76 kg at the end of the production cycle (n=118). The average slaughter age of the white laying hens was 90 ± 20 weeks (n=11) and for the brown laying hens 85 ± 18 weeks (n=41).

3.2. Selection of Unfit Chickens During The Production Cycle

As part of daily routine inspections throughout the production round, the selection of (moribund) chickens to be removed from the flock was predominantly done by the poultry farmer him-/herself, and on a minority of farms by farm staff (Table 2). Employing staff for selecting chickens was more common for layers than broilers (14% vs. 4%; P=0.03). During the production cycle, birds could be ill or injured [41].
The most commonly reported reasons for removal were leg problems/lameness (57%) or feather-pecked chickens (43%) for layers, with feather-pecking potentially leading to cannibalism and high mortality rates [42,43]. In the EU-legislation for laying hens, no specific criteria are indicated for selecting unfit chickens during the production cycle [16]. Thus, it is difficult for the laying hen farmers to know whether they comply with the legislation. To solve this problem, it is advised that the EU-legislation provides clear guidelines for the laying hen farmers according to the criteria for selecting unfit laying hens during the production cycle. For broilers, leg problems/lameness (85%) and stunted growth (71%) were mentioned the most as reasons for selecting unfit chickens during the production cycle (Table 2), with lameness (86.4%) and broken legs (79.5%) also noted as culling reasons in literature [42]. The EU-legislation for broiler chickens stipulates criteria for selecting unfit chickens during the production cycle e.g. seriously injured animals or evident signs of health disorders including walking difficulties, severe ascites, or severe malformations [15]. Leg problems/lameness can be linked to walking difficulties. Furthermore, severe ascites or severe malformations were not indicated by the surveyed broiler chicken farmers. Although these criteria were not present as options in the survey, the surveyed poultry farmers could mention other criteria by themselves.
Laying hen farmers most commonly reported time constraints (33%) as the primary bottleneck for selection. In contrast, broiler farmers most frequently reported financial (47%) and time (35%) constraints as their main challenges. Selecting unfit birds is time-consuming but cost-saving by reducing feed costs and disease spread [12,44]. Both groups rarely mentioned a lack of knowledge about which poultry to select as a bottleneck (layers: 8% vs. broilers: 7%). Specific knowledge on identifying unfit birds should be the focus of the farmers, with veterinarians advising farm staff in identifying unfit birds [19,45,46]. Concerning the advantages of selection, laying hen farmers prioritized animal welfare over flock uniformity and reduced feed waste (55% vs. 29% & 30%; P=0.03). Broiler farmers prioritized animal welfare over reducing feed waste (74% vs. 47%; P<0.001). Overall, broiler farmers considered animal welfare (74% vs. 55%; P<0.01), flock uniformity (66% vs. 29%; P<0.001), and reducing feed waste (47% vs. 30%; P=0.04) to be more important than laying hen farmers did (Table 2). For both broiler chicken and laying hen farmers, it is essential to have an inspection protocol that is efficient and not time-consuming based on scientific and legislative recommendations.

3.3. Preparations before Catching and Loading

Figure 1 gives an overview of the average timeline of the preparatory phase before the onset of the catching and loading of birds as reported by the laying hen (n=51) and broiler farmers (n=77).

3.1.1. Feed Withdrawal

For feed withdrawal before catching and loading, 19% of broiler chicken and 69% of laying hen farmers withdraw feed earlier than 12 hours and exceed the limit of 12 hours stipulated in EU-legislation [15], causing potential hunger and intestinal cell breakdown in poultry [7,21]. Scientific recommendations suggest six to eight hours before the scheduled loading time [7], this recommendation was met by 54% of broiler chicken and 15% of laying hen farmers. Furthermore, laying hen farmers (13.3 ± 6.0 h) (n=26/51) closed feed lines earlier than broiler chicken farmers did (7.6 ± 3.1 h) (n=59/77) (Figure 1).

3.1.2. Extra selection before catching and loading

A quarter (25%, n=14/57) of laying hen farmers and 39% (n=37/94) of broiler chicken farmers performed an additional selection round shortly before the catching and loading event to remove birds unfit for transport (Figure 1). These broiler and laying hen farmers selected birds unfit for transport based on the selection criteria during the production cycle such as stunted growth, leg problems/lameness, feather pecking, E. coli, and huddled chickens. One broiler farmer only removed the dead birds during this extra selection, sick or ill animals were not selected. The EU-legislation [8] and scientific research [7] stipulate that unfit animals shall not be transported with the following criteria: 1) inability to move independently without pain or to walk unassisted (severe lameness: unable to stand or walk more than a few steps), 2) evident signs of illness, 3) broken bones (legs and wings) and dislocations, 4) presence of a severe open wound and prolapse, 5) cachexia and emaciation, 6) wet plumage in low effective temperature (except for ducks and geese), and 7) poor feather cover in end-of-lay hens [7]. According to these criteria, not all of them were mentioned as options in the survey, however, the surveyed poultry farmers could indicate other criteria by themselves.
Furthermore, the EU-legislation and scientific research recommend an extra selection before catching and loading [7,8], more specifically within 12 hours [7]. Not all poultry farmers performed the extra selection within 12 hours before catching and loading, namely a minority of the broiler (19%) and laying hen (7%) farmers performed this selection too early (>12 hours). According to our survey broiler chicken farmers (6.8 ± 7.0 h) (n=37/77) started earlier with the additional selection just before catching and loading than laying hen farmers (5.1 ± 5.9 h) (n=14/51), and within 12 hours. This lasted on average for about 1.2 ± 0.9 h for laying hen flocks and about 0.9 ± 0.8 h for broiler chicken flocks.
In summary, many chicken farmers did not perform an additional selection before catching, and specific criteria such as the presence of a severe open wound and prolapse, cachexia and emaciation, wet plumage in low effective temperature, and poor feather cover in end-of-lay hens were not mentioned, however, the surveyed poultry farmers could have given these as other options.

3.1.3. Water Withdrawal

Specific for withdrawal of water as preparation, laying hen farmers (47.9 ± 51.1 min before the onset of catching) (n=14/51) withdrew water earlier than the broiler chicken farmers (20.6 ± 23.3 min before the onset of catching) (n=48/77). Water should be provided close to catching stipulated by scientific research, but not mentioned by the EU-legislation to avoid dehydration [7,8,27,44]. This is practiced by 71% of broiler farmers (between 0 and 15 minutes before catching and loading) in contrast only 27% of laying hen farmers (between 15 and 120 minutes before catching and loading).

3.1.1. Other Preparations Specific for Laying Hens

Among the 36 laying hen farmers without a cage system specifically, seven removed the litter (average: 27.6 ± 21.4 h), eight closed the area under the aviary system with fences (average: 9.1 ± 11.6 h), and 14 closed the laying nests (average: 4.9 ± 5.8 h) (Figure 1). These steps simplify the catching process, reduce carrying distances, improve container transport, and reduce slippage, resulting in less stressed chickens and improved working conditions [1,7,45].
In summary, better planning based on the expected slaughter time is needed. Clear guidelines and agreements between the poultry farmer, catching team, transporter, and slaughterhouse are essential, and taking into account differences between layers and broilers especially catching laying hens in an aviary system (catching during dark period because laying hens are on the system and easier to catch). The event planner should specify actions aligned with the slaughter schedule.

3.4. Catching and Crating for Transport

During the catching of laying hens, completely dark (66%) occurred the most according to the lighting schedules with completely dark, dimming lights and no change of the lightning schedules (e.g. when it’s dark outside no chance in lightning schedules is required) as different options. There was no difference in completely dark and dimming lights for broiler chicken farmers as changes in the lighting schedules (Table 3). No poultry farmers indicated using blue light in the stable, which is known to calm chickens and give the catchers more visibility during the catching process to minimize the risk of accidents [1,44,46,47]. For laying hens, catching always began in the evening (from six to 12 p.m.) (Table 3). In contrast, the starting time for catching broiler chickens showed a wide range from the early morning to the late evening. For laying hens, catching and loading typically ended late in the evening or early in the morning, whereas for broilers it extended from late evening until noon (Table 3). Catching, crating, and loading occur predominantly in the dark when the animals are calmer, less stressful, and easier to catch as mentioned in the literature [1,27,48,49,50]. Furthermore, 20% of broiler farmers and 10% of laying hen farmers expressed a preference for daytime loading, with broilers reportedly being calmer during the day compared to laying hens. To facilitate daytime catching, the use of curtains is recommended to reduce sunlight and help keep chickens calm [24,51].
All laying hens were caught manually with 52% caught by one leg and 48% by two legs. Similarly, nearly all broiler flocks (99%) were caught manually with 82% by one leg and 18% by two legs, except for one flock. The Chicken Cat Harvester (Antwerp, Belgium) was used for the single flock of broilers that was caught mechanically. The mean and median for laying hen (range: 2 - 10 chickens) and broiler chicken (range: 2 - 12 chickens) farms is for a catcher to carry and crate five chickens at a time. Remarkably, on 4% of the broiler chicken farms, more than nine chickens were carried and crated at a time (Table 3).
For most catching events, the farmer stated to have been present from the beginning until the end of the catching and loading process (layers: 93% and broilers: 91%). A small percentage was present only at the start (layers: 5% and broilers: 9%) or at the end of the catching process (layers: 2%). During catching and loading, poultry farmers mainly supervised (observing) (layers: 72% and broilers: 77%), and some also gave instructions (layers: 30% and broilers: 23%) or helped with the catching (layers: 12% and broilers: 18%). Poultry farmers stated to prioritize the handling quality by the catchers of the chickens (layers: 89% and broilers: 95%), compared to costs associated with the catching and loading process (layers: 59% and broilers: 36%). Furthermore, scientific research mentioned that the catchers’ attitude impacts animal handling quality [52,53,54]. Notably, more broiler chicken farmers than laying hen farmers mentioned that the type of container/crate influenced animal welfare (48% vs 27%, P<0.05) (Figure 2). The design of the container/crate plays an important role [36], as improper crating can cause harm [45]. Modular systems, which are placed near the chickens, have been shown to reduce DOA rates [55]. Bottlenecks during catching and loading, such as a lot of noise (layers: 28 ± 20% and broilers: 25 ± 19%), injuries due to catching (layers: 20 ± 19% and broilers: 23 ± 23%), and uneven distribution of chickens in containers (layers: 22 ± 20% and broilers: 28 ± 29%) were present to a lesser extent according to the poultry farmers, indicated by the low percentage on a scale from 0 to 100% (0% = not present at all and 100% = present). The communication with the catching team was scored (on a scale from 0 to 100%, with 0% = no communication and 100% = perfect communication) by the laying hen farmers as 84 ± 19% (n=31) and by broiler chicken farmers as 73 ± 26% (n=47), on average. Surveyed poultry farmers reported positive outcomes from the catching process, including good communication with catchers, minimal noise, reduced injuries to the animals, and even distribution of chicken in containers, all contributing to a smoother progression of the catching and loading. The majority of both laying (81%) and broiler chicken (75%) farmers paid the catching team per chicken, with an average price of €0.19 ± 0.06 and €0.034 ± 0.003 per laying hen and broiler chicken, respectively. For a flock of 20,000 chickens, this amounts to €3800 for layers and €680 for broilers.

3.5. Farmers’ Opinion about Catching Methods

Figure 3 shows the farmers’ preference ranking for 10 (broiler) or 9 (layers) different catching methods according to cost and time efficiency, catcher well-being, and bird welfare. In this study, almost all chickens were caught inverted, a common method used by farm staff [7], and preferred for cost and time efficiency, catcher well-being, and bird welfare. More chickens were caught by one leg than by two, on a minority of broiler (8%) and laying hen (9%) farms. More than six birds were carried at once in contrast with the other poultry farmers mentioning worse animal welfare and catcher well-being with more than two birds per hand. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in preference for catching chickens by one or two legs with an equal number of chickens per hand based on cost and time efficiency, catcher well-being, and bird welfare. Regulation 1/2005 [8] prohibits lifting or dragging animals by their legs or causing unnecessary pain. Best practices recommend catching poultry with two legs while supporting the body, with a maximum of three birds at once [7,49,56]. Furthermore, maximizing the weight per lift by 2 kg in laying hens results in less physical strain for the catcher [57].
In addition, according to the surveyed broiler chicken farmers, carrying one chicken upright is considered animal-friendlier than holding more than three birds inverted per hand, but less efficient. Specific for upright catching, no significant difference was found in preference between catching one or two chickens. It is advised to avoid inverted carrying of chickens as it can cause more injuries (e.g. dislocated joints, leg or wing fractures, and bruises) and stimulate wing flapping compared to an upright position [7]. Therefore, upright catching could improve animal welfare, with a reduction of chicken stress and avoidance of discomfort (obstruction of breathing due to the absence of diaphragms) by not being held upside-down [44,58,59]. Furthermore, upright catching results in shorter handling durations than catching by the legs of four or more chickens because only one or two chickens are caught per time [60]. Upright catching reduces stress and injuries but requires 70% more labor and is more exhausting according to catchers [29,57,59]. In addition, the total catching process of upright catching takes longer compared to inverted catching [57,59].
Only one broiler chicken farmer used mechanical catching, which is better for the catcher's well-being but worse for animal welfare and cost and time efficiency compared to manual catching based on the opinion of the surveyed broiler farmers. Mechanical catching reduces stress (limited contact between human and animal) [33,61,62] and injuries [32,33,63] if the catching machine is operated correctly with trained personnel [7], in contrast with other studies [34,64,65]. Mechanical catching has limitations such as extra costs (purchase, transport, and cleaning), elevated biosecurity risks (difficult to clean the machine and can result in a higher chance of contamination), and the requirement for stables to be accessible for large machinery [63,66].
In summary, inverted catching is common in Flanders, with chickens typically caught by one leg, though catching by both legs is recommended as best practice [7,49,56]. Upright catching can improve animal welfare (scientific), but is more time-consuming, costly, and tiring for catchers [57]. Mechanical catching has potential benefits for both catchers and animal welfare (scientific), but it is not widely used in Flanders due to its limitations.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, educating and sensitizing poultry farmers and their staff about culling poorly conditioned animals is vital to prevent birds from suffering during the pre-transport phase. Establishing and using guidelines for selecting chickens throughout the production cycle is essential. Additionally, a minority of the poultry farmers performed an additional selection within 12 hours before catching. Raising awareness about performing this additional selection is essential because it can prevent the suffering of unfit birds during transport. While upright catching improves animal welfare according to scientific research, it is not practiced by the farmers in our survey. Mechanical catching could benefit catchers but is uncommon in Flanders. Effective communication and respect for animal welfare are essential to reduce noise, and injury, and ensure efficient catching and crating.

5. Patents

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.D., A.W., A.G., E.D., N.S., I.K., N.D., H.V.M., G.A., and F.T.; methodology, F.D., A.W., and F.T.; software, B.A.; validation F.D., A.W., A.G., E.D., N.S., I.K., N.D., H.V.M., G.A., and F.T.; formal analysis, F.D.; investigation, F.D.; resources, F.T., G.A., and A.W.; data curation, B.A.; writing—original draft preparation, F.D.; writing—review and editing, F.D., A.W., A.G., E.D., N.S., I.K., N.D., H.V.M., G.A., and F.T.; visualization, F.D.; supervision, F.T., G.A. and A.W.; project administration, F.T., G.A. and A.W.; funding acquisition, F.T., G.A., A.G. and A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Flemish Government (Animal Welfare Division).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Flemish Government for financing this project (DO/SID/DWZ/OO/20/04). Our gratitude goes out to Dana De Wart for the help with the interviews and the survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gerpe, C.; Stratmann, A.; Bruckmaier, R.; Toscano, M.J. Examining the Catching, Carrying, and Crating Process during Depopulation of End-of-Lay Hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2021, 30, 100115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jacobs, L.; Delezie, E.; Duchateau, L.; Goethals, K.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Broiler Chickens Dead on Arrival: Associated Risk Factors and Welfare Indicators. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 259–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Turner, P. V; Kloeze, H.; Dam, A.; Ward, D.; Leung, N.; Brown, E.E.L.; Whiteman, A.; Chiappetta, M.E.; Hunter, D.B. Mass Depopulation of Laying Hens in Whole Barns with Liquid Carbon Dioxide: Evaluation of Welfare Impact. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1558–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Newberry, R.; Webster, A.; Lewis, N.; Arnam, C. Management of Spent Hens. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1999, 2, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Webster, A.B.; Collett, S.R. A Mobile Modified-Atmosphere Killing System for Small-Flock Depopulation. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2012, 21, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herborn, K.A.; Graves, J.L.; Jerem, P.; Evans, N.P.; Nager, R.; McCafferty, D.J.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Skin Temperature Reveals the Intensity of Acute Stress. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 152, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nielsen, S.S.; Alvarez, J.; Bicout, D.J.; Calistri, P.; Canali, E.; Drewe, J.A.; Garin-Bastuji, B.; Gonzales Rojas, J.L.; Gortázar Schmidt, C.; Herskin, M.; et al. Welfare of Domestic Birds and Rabbits Transported in Containers. EFSA J. 2022, 20, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1/2005. 2005, 2001.
  9. Dawkins, M.S. The Science of Animal Suffering. Ethology 2008, 114, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Doonan, G.; Benard, G.; Cormier, N. Livestock and Poultry Fitness for Transport--the Veterinarian’s Role. Can. Vet. J. = La Rev. Vet. Can. 2014, 55, 589–590. [Google Scholar]
  11. Weary, D.M. What Is Suffering in Animals? CABI 2014, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cockram, M.S. Fitness of Animals for Transport to Slaughter. Can. Vet. J. = La Rev. Vet. Can. 2019, 60, 423–429. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nalon, E.; Maes, D.; Piepers, S.; van Riet, M.M.J.; Janssens, G.P.J.; Millet, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Mechanical Nociception Thresholds in Lame Sows: Evidence of Hyperalgesia as Measured by Two Different Methods. Vet. J. 2013, 198, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lenka Valkova Vladimir Vecerek, E.V.M.K.D.T.; Brscic, M. Animal Welfare during Transport: Comparison of Mortality during Transport from Farm to Slaughter of Different Animal Species and Categories in the Czech Republic. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 914–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. European Union COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 Laying down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens Kept for Meat Production. Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, 19–28.
  16. The Council of the European Union Council Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July 1999 Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. Off. J. Eur. Communities 1999, 53–57.
  17. Hester, P.Y. Impact of Science and Management on the Welfare of Egg Laying Strains of Hens1. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rasschaert, G.; De Zutter, L.; Herman, L.; Heyndrickx, M. Campylobacter Contamination of Broilers: The Role of Transport and Slaughterhouse. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 322, 108564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Warriss, P.D.; Wilkins, L.J.; Brown, S.N.; Phillips, A.J.; Allen, V. Defaecation and Weight of the Gastrointestinal Tract Contents after Feed and Water Withdrawal in Broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2004, 45, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kumar, P.; Verma, A.K.; Umaraw, P.; Mehta, N.; Sazili, A.Q. 9 - Processing and Preparation of Slaughtered Poultry. In Postharvest and Postmortem Processing of Raw Food Materials; Jafari, S.M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing, 2022. 281–314ISBN 978-0-12-818572-8.
  21. Gomes, H.A.; Vieira, S.L.; Reis, R.N.; Freitas, D.M.; Barros, R.; Furtado, F.V.F.; Silva, P.X. Body Weight, Carcass Yield, and Intestinal Contents of Broilers Having Sodium and Potassium Salts in the Drinking Water Twenty-Four Hours Before Processing. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2008, 17, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fraser, D.; Duncan, I.J. WellBeing International. 1998, 7, 383–396.
  23. Chauvin, C.; Hillion, S.; Balaine, L.; Michel, V.; Peraste, J.; Petetin, I.; Lupo, C.; Le Bouquin, S. Factors Associated with Mortality of Broilers during Transport to Slaughterhouse. Animal 2011, 5, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Lima, V.A.; Ceballos, M.C.; Gregory, N.G.; Da Costa, M.J.R.P. Effect of Different Catching Practices during Manual Upright Handling on Broiler Welfare and Behavior. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 4282–4289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Molnár, A.; Maertens, L.; Ampe, B.; Buyse, J.; Kempen, I.; Zoons, J.; Delezie, E. Changes in Egg Quality Traits during the Last Phase of Production: Is There Potential for an Extended Laying Cycle? Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 842–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mitchell, M.; Kettlewell, P. Chapter 30: Transport of Chicks, Pullets and Spent Hens. Welf. Lay. Hen. 2004, 361–374. [Google Scholar]
  27. Elkaoud, N.; Hassan, M. Maximize the Utilization of Traditional Cooling Units for Broiler Houses. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 2018, 35, 1515–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cockram, M.S.; Jung Dulal, K.; Stryhn, H.; Revie, C.W. Rearing and Handling Injuries in Broiler Chickens and Risk Factors for Wing Injuries during Loading. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 100, 402–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Langkabel, N.; Baumann, M.P.O.; Feiler, A.; Sanguankiat, A.; Fries, R. Influence of Two Catching Methods on the Occurrence of Lesions in Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1735–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bayliss, P.A.; Hinton, M.H. Transportation of Broilers with Special Reference to Mortality Rates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 28, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kettlewell, P.J.; Turner, M.J.B. A Review of Broiler Chicken Catching and Transport Systems. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1985, 31, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Knierim, U.; Gocke, A. Effect of Catching Broilers by Hand or Machine on Rates of Injuries and Dead-On-Arrivals. Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nijdam, E.; Delezie, E.; Lambooij, E.; Nabuurs, M.J.A.; Decuypere, E.; Stegeman, J.A. Comparison of Bruises and Mortality, Stress Parameters, and Meat Quality in Manually and Mechanically Caught Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mönch, J.; Rauch, E.; Hartmannsgruber, S.; Erhard, M.; Wolff, I.; Schmidt, P.; Schug, A.R.; Louton, H. The Welfare Impacts of Mechanical and Manual Broiler Catching and of Circumstances at Loading under Field Conditions. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 5233–5251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ekstrand, C. An Observational Cohort Study of the Effects of Catching Method on Carcase Rejection Rates in Broilers. Anim. Welf. 1998, 7, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Broom, D.; Knowles, T.G. The Assessment of Welfare during the Handling and Transport of Spent Hens.; 1989.
  37. Elson, A. The Laying Hen: Systems of Egg Production. CABI 2004, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nicol, C.J.; Scott, G.B. Pre-Slaughter Handling and Transport of Broiler Chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 28, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Watteyn, A.; Van Noten, N.; Tuyttens, F. Ontwikkeling van Een Onmiddellijk Implementeerbaar Monitoringssysteem Voor Het Meten van Het Welzijn van Legkippen Aan de Slachtlijn. 2023, 90748.
  40. Rapport, L. 2024_Landbouw Rapport_Agentschap Landbouw En Zeevisserij_rapport. 2024.
  41. Martin, J.E.; Sandercock, D.A.; Sandilands, V.; Sparrey, J.; Baker, L.; Sparks, N.H.C.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Welfare Risks of Repeated Application of On-Farm Killing Methods for Poultry. Anim. an open access J. from MDPI 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rodenburg, T.B.; Komen, H.; Ellen, E.D.; Uitdehaag, K.A.; van Arendonk, J.A.M. Selection Method and Early-Life History Affect Behavioural Development, Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Laying Hens: A Review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 110, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodenburg, T.B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M.; de Reu, K.; Herman, L.; Zoons, J.; Sonck, B. Welfare Assessment of Laying Hens in Furnished Cages and Non-Cage Systems: Assimilating Expert Opinion. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. HSA - Humane slaughter association Poultry Catching and Handling Summary. Tech. Note No 15 2018, 1–8.
  45. Knowles, T.G.; Wilkins, L.J. The Problem of Broken Bones during the Handling of Laying Hens–a Review. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1798–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Belplume Lastenboek. 2021.
  47. Prayitno, D.S.; Phillips, C.J.; Omed, H. The Effects of Color of Lighting on the Behavior and Production of Meat Chickens. Poult. Sci. 1997, 76, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gerpe, C.; Toscano, M.J. Solutions to Improve the Catching, Handling, and Crating as Part of the Depopulation Process of End of Lay Hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2023, 32, 100358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dutra, F.M.; Garcia, R.G.; Binotto, E.; Burbarelli, M.F. de C. What Do We Know about the Impacts of Poultry Catching? Worlds. Poult. Sci. J. 2021, 77, 983–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weeks, C.A. Poultry Handling and Transport. Livest. Handl. Transp. Fourth Ed. 2014, 378–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ross Broiler Management Handbook. Aviagen Ross Manag. Guid. 2018, 1–147.
  52. Cransberg, P.H.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Coleman, G.J. Human Factors Affecting the Behaviour and Productivity of Commercial Broiler Chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2000, 41, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Grandin, T. The Effect of Economic Factors on the Welfare of Livestock and Poultry. Improv. Anim. Welf. A Pract. Approach 2nd Ed. 2015, 278–290. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pilecco, M.; Almeida, I.; Tabaldi, L.; Naas, I.; Garcia, R.; Caldara, F.; Francisco, N. Training of Catching Teams and of Back Scratches in Broilers. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 2013, v.15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Weeks, C.A. Poultry Handling and Transport. CABI 2014, 378–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Committee, A.W.; House, N. Opinion on the Welfare Implications of Different Methods and Systems for the Catching , Carrying , Collecting and Loading of Poultry. 2023.
  57. Delanglez, F.; Watteyn, A.; Ampe, B.; Segers, V.; Garmyn, A.; Delezie, E.; Sleeckx, N.; Kempen, I.; Demaître, N.; Van Meirhaeghe, H.; et al. Upright versus Inverted Catching and Crating End-of-Lay Hens: A Trade-off between Animal Welfare, Ergonomic and Financial Concerns. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 104118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kannan, G.; Mench, J.A. Influence of Different Handling Methods and Crating Periods on Plasma Corticosterone Concentrations in Broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 1996, 37, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kittelsen, K.E.; Granquist, E.G.; Aunsmo, A.L.; Moe, R.O.; Tolo, E. An Evaluation of Two Different Broiler Catching Methods. Anim. an open access J. from MDPI 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Chloupek, P.; Bedanova, I.; Chloupek, J.; Vecerek, V. Changes in Selected Biochemical Indices Resulting from Various Pre-Sampling Handling Techniques in Broilers. Acta Vet. Scand. 2011, 53, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lacy, M.P.; Czarick, M. Mechanical Harvesting of Broilers. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1794–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Scott, G.B.; Moran, P. Fear Levels in Laying Hens Carried by Hand and by Mechanical Conveyors. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1993, 36, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hassan, F.A.A.; Lashin, A.I. Influence of Handling Processes for Broilers on Mortality and Carcass Quality At Slaughterhouse. Misr J. Agric. Eng. 2017, 34, 1923–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Musilová, A.; Kadlčáková, V.; Lichovníková, M. The Effect of Broiler Catching Method on Quality of Carcasses. Mendel Net 2013, 2013, 251–255. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hoorweg, F.A.; Riel, J.W. Van; Gerritzen, M.A. Vang- En Ketenletsel Bij Vleeskuikens Op Verschillende Momenten in de Keten. 2024.
  66. Löhren, U. Overview on Current Practices of Poultry Slaughtering and Poultry Meat Inspection. EFSA Support. Publ. 2017, 9, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 120442 g001
Figure 1. Timeline on how much time before catching the different preparations took for laying hen (n=51) and broiler chicken (n=77) farmers with timeframes indicated by the surveyed poultry farmers. Specific for the extra selection, 57 laying hen farmers and 94 broiler chicken farmers answered the question.
Figure 1. Timeline on how much time before catching the different preparations took for laying hen (n=51) and broiler chicken (n=77) farmers with timeframes indicated by the surveyed poultry farmers. Specific for the extra selection, 57 laying hen farmers and 94 broiler chicken farmers answered the question.
Preprints 120442 g001
Preprints 120442 g002
Figure 2. Opinion on the influence of the container/crate on animal welfare by laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Figure 2. Opinion on the influence of the container/crate on animal welfare by laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Preprints 120442 g002
Preprints 120442 g003
Figure 3. The preference of 10/9 different catching methods based on cost and time efficiency, the well-being of the catcher, and animal welfare by broiler chicken (n = 52) and laying hen (n = 38) farmers ranked from 1 (most preferred) to 10/9 (least preferred). Significant differences (post-hoc test with Tukey correction for all pairwise comparisons) between catching methods per category (cost and time efficiency, the well-being of the catcher, and animal welfare) are indicated with a,b,c,d, and e superscripts.
Figure 3. The preference of 10/9 different catching methods based on cost and time efficiency, the well-being of the catcher, and animal welfare by broiler chicken (n = 52) and laying hen (n = 38) farmers ranked from 1 (most preferred) to 10/9 (least preferred). Significant differences (post-hoc test with Tukey correction for all pairwise comparisons) between catching methods per category (cost and time efficiency, the well-being of the catcher, and animal welfare) are indicated with a,b,c,d, and e superscripts.
Preprints 120442 g003
Table 1. Characteristics of the laying hen and broiler chicken farmers/farms who filled out at least a part of the survey, with NA = Not Applicable.
Table 1. Characteristics of the laying hen and broiler chicken farmers/farms who filled out at least a part of the survey, with NA = Not Applicable.
Characteristics Laying hen farmers Broiler chicken farmers

Age (%)
 <18 – 25 years
 25 - 35 years
 35 - 45 years
 45 - 55 years
 55 - 65 years
 > 65 years		 n=80 n=133

0 (n=0)
2 (n=2)
8 (n=6)
14 (n=11)
25 (n=20)
50 (n=40)
3 (n=3)		 17 (n=22)
14 (n=19)
35 (n=46)
32 (n=42)
2 (n=2)

Gender (%)
 Male
 Female
 X		 n=80 n=132

79 (n=63)
21 (n=17)
0 (n=0)
80 (n=106)
20 (n=26)
0 (n=0)

Highest education level (%)
 Secondary degree
 High school degree
 University degree		 n=74 n=131

70 (n=52)
68 (n=89)
20 (n=15) 25 (n=33)
10 (n=7) 7 (n=9)

Location of farms (Flemish provinces) (%)
 Antwerp
 Limburg
 East-Flanders
 Flemish Brabant
 West-Flanders		 n=80 n=134

39 (n=31)
19 (n=15)
10 (n=8)
1 (n=1)
31 (n=25)
37 (n=49)
11 (n=15)
16 (n=21)
2 (n=3)
34 (n=46)

Housing system (%)
 Aviary
 Cage
 Ground		 n=57
42 (n=24)
37 (n=21)
12 (n=12)		 NA

Breed (%)
 Lohman
 Isa Brown
 Dekalb White
 Nova Brown
 Bovan Brown
 Roman Classic
 Ross 308
 Sasso
 Hubbart		 n=57
26 (n=15)
26 (n=15)
18 (n=10)
12 (n=7)
14 (n=8)
4 (n=2)
NA
NA
NA		 n=110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
95 (n=104)
2 (n=2)
3 (n=4)

# of chickens in stable (%)
 < 10,000
 10,000 – 20,000
 20,001 – 30,000
 30,001 – 40,000
 > 40,000		 n=57
23 (n=13)
33 (n=19)
28 (n=16)
7 (n=4)
9 (n=5)		 n=110
10 (n=11)
41 (n=45)
25 (n=27)
15 (n=16)
10 (n=11)
Table 2. Multiple choice answers (multiple answers are possible and lead to summed percentages higher than 100%) about the performer, reasons, bottlenecks, and advantages of selecting chickens during the production cycle according to laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Table 2. Multiple choice answers (multiple answers are possible and lead to summed percentages higher than 100%) about the performer, reasons, bottlenecks, and advantages of selecting chickens during the production cycle according to laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Selection Laying hen farmers Broiler chicken farmers P-value

Performer (% of respondents)
 Farmer
 Farm staff
 Company veterinarian
 No one		 n=66 n=103

79x
90x
0.04
14y
0xy
21		 4z
15y
29		 0.03
0.10
NA

Reasons (% of respondents)
 Stunted growth
 Leg problems/lame birds
 Feather pecking (victim)
 E. coli
 Huddled chickens		 n=44 n=86

14y
57x
43x
32yz
18yz
71x
85x
3y
26z
13yz
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.45
0.41

Bottlenecks (% of respondents)
Financial
Time
Insufficient knowledge		 n=66 n=103

15y
47x
<0.001
33x 35x 0.83
8y 7y 0.85

Advantages (% of respondents)
Animal welfare
Uniformity of the animals
Preventing of disease
Less feed waste		 n=66 n=103

55x
29y
49xy
30y
74x
66x
63xy
47y
0.01
<0.001
0.06
0.04
Significant P-values (P < 0.05) between laying hen and broiler chicken farmers are indicated in bold and P-values between 0.05 and 0.10 are underlined. Superscripts (x,y,z) indicate pairwise significant differences within the column.
Table 3. Lighting schedules, start and end time catching and loading, number of chickens per catch by the catcher, presence of the poultry farmer during catching and loading, and the task of the poultry farmer during catching and loading according to laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Table 3. Lighting schedules, start and end time catching and loading, number of chickens per catch by the catcher, presence of the poultry farmer during catching and loading, and the task of the poultry farmer during catching and loading according to laying hen and broiler chicken farmers.
Catching and loading Laying hen farmers Broiler chicken farmers

Lighting schedules (% of respondents)
 Completely dark
 Dimming lights
 No change		 n= 35 n=60

66 (n=23)
50 (n=30)
26 (n=9)
9 (n=3)		 50 (n=30)
0 (n=0)

Start time (% of respondents)
0 – 2 a.m.
3 – 5 a.m.
6 – 8 a.m.
9 – 12 a.m.
1 – 3 p.m.
4 – 5 p.m.
6 – 8 p.m.
9 – 12 p.m.		 n=42 n=65

0
0
0
0
0
0
62 (n=26)
38 (n=16)
17 (n=11)
25 (n=16
26 (n=17)
2 (n=1)
0
0
3 (n=2)
28 (n=18)

End time (% of respondents)
0 – 2 a.m.
3 – 5 a.m.
6 – 8 a.m.
9 – 12 a.m.
1 – 3 p.m.
4 – 5 p.m.
6 – 8 p.m.
9 – 12 p.m.		 n=42 n=65

55 (n=23)
12 (n=8)
19 (n=8) 9 (n=6)
2 (n=1)
0
0
0
0
24 (n=10)		 28 (n=18)
37 (n=24)
3 (n=2)
6 (n=4)
0
5 (n=3)

# of chickens per catch (% of respondents)
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 12		 n=42 n=65

17 (n=7)
0
33 (n=14)
12 (n=5)
29 (n=12)
0
5 (n=2)
2 (n=1)
2 (n=1)
0
0
0
25 (n=16)
60 (n=39)
9 (n=6)
2 (n=1)
2 (n=1)
0
2 (n=1)
2 (n=1)

Presence of poultry farmer (% of respondents)
 Start
 End
 Whole process		 n=43
5 (n=2)
2 (n=1)
93 (n=10)		 n=65
9 (n=6)
0
91 (n=59)

Task Poultry farmer (% of respondents)
Supervision
Instructions
Catching		 n=42
72 (n=31)
30 (n=13)
12 (n=5)		 n=65
77 (n=50)
23 (n=15)
18 (n=12)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Alerts
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated