Marchewka Joanna, Estevez Inma, Vezzoli Giuseppe, Ferrante Valentina, Makagon Maja M
Neiker-Tecnalia, Animal Production, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Neiker-Tecnalia, Animal Production, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, Bilbao, Spain.
Poult Sci. 2015 Jan;94(1):7-16. doi: 10.3382/ps/peu026.
Currently, no animal-based protocol for on-farm welfare assessment of commercial turkeys is available. The birds' size and flighty nature make obtaining a representative sample using traditional methods difficult. The transect walks (TW) approach provides a potential alternative for on-farm assessments of turkey welfare. We compared the TW approach with a traditional method, and data collected as the birds were moved out of the house during the load out process (L). Ten commercial 19- to 20-week-old Hybrid turkey flocks were evaluated (1 flock/house/farm). Half of the flocks were housed on farms deemed as "faring well" by the company, the other half were on "suboptimal" farms. Each house was subdivided longitudinally into 4 transects. Two observers walked the transects in random order, recording the total number of birds per transect that were immobile; lame; aggressive towards a mate; interacting with humans; with visible head, vent, or back wounds; engaging in mounting behaviors; small; featherless; dirty; sick; terminal; or dead. Flocks were re-evaluated on the same day using the individual sampling method (S), where randomly selected birds were scored as they took 10 steps. Flocks were re-assessed within 48 h of the transect evaluation, as birds were funneled out of the house during load out. Using ANOVAs we determined the effects of observers, method, management, and their interactions on proportions of turkeys per house within each category. Outcome parameters were not affected by management (P>0.05 for all) or observer (P>0.05 for most), but an assessment method effect was detected (P<0.05). S differed from the 2 other methods (P<0.05) for most parameters except aggression towards a mate, back wounds, dirty, sick, and vent wounds. Differences were not detected between data collected using TW and during L, except for dead (P=0.0007) and immobile (P=0.007). Results suggest that the TW method is a promising tool for on-farm turkey welfare assessment as it produced results similar to those obtained at L when all birds could be scored individually.
目前，尚无用于商业火鸡农场福利评估的基于动物的方案。火鸡的体型和易惊的天性使得使用传统方法获取具有代表性的样本变得困难。样带行走（TW）方法为农场中火鸡福利评估提供了一种潜在的替代方法。我们将TW方法与传统方法进行了比较，并在装栏过程（L）中将火鸡赶出鸡舍时收集了数据。对10个19至20周龄的商业杂交火鸡群进行了评估（每个农场/鸡舍/群1个）。一半的鸡群饲养在公司认为“经营良好”的农场，另一半饲养在“次优”农场。每个鸡舍纵向细分为4个样带。两名观察者以随机顺序沿着样带行走，记录每个样带中静止不动、跛行、对配偶有攻击性、与人类互动、头部、泄殖腔或背部有可见伤口、进行爬跨行为、体型小、无毛、脏污、生病、濒死或死亡的火鸡总数。同一天使用个体抽样方法（S）对鸡群进行重新评估，在随机选择的火鸡走10步时对其进行评分。在样带评估后的48小时内，当鸡群在装栏过程中被赶出鸡舍时，对鸡群进行重新评估。我们使用方差分析确定观察者、方法、管理及其相互作用对每个类别中每个鸡舍火鸡比例的影响。结果参数不受管理（所有P>0.05）或观察者（大多数P>0.05）的影响，但检测到评估方法的效应（P<0.05）。除了对配偶的攻击性、背部伤口、脏污、生病和泄殖腔伤口外，S方法与其他两种方法在大多数参数上存在差异（P<0.05）。除了死亡（P=0.0007）和静止不动（P=0.007）外，使用TW方法和在装栏过程中收集的数据之间未检测到差异。结果表明，TW方法是一种有前景的农场火鸡福利评估工具，因为当所有火鸡都能单独评分时，它产生的结果与在装栏过程中获得的结果相似。
