Chair of Animal Welfare, Animal Behaviour, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, D-80539 Munich, Germany.
Paul Schmidt, Statistical Consulting for Science and Research, 13086 Berlin, Germany.
Poult Sci. 2020 Nov;99(11):5233-5251. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.030. Epub 2020 Aug 31.
Loading of broilers for transport to the processing plant poses a notable injury risk for broilers. Therefore, the poultry industry has developed mechanical methods as alternatives to manual loading methods. Our objective in the present study was to compare manual loading (MAN) of broilers with the mechanical loading (MECH). We assessed the injuries of broilers of 12 MAN and 12 MECH flocks on-farm before and immediately after loading, documented the numbers of broilers dead on arrival reported by the processing plant, and assessed the circumstances at loading. A smaller number of broilers with a hematoma (≥0.5 cm in diameter) on the wing were observed after MAN compared with MECH using the examined harvester (MAN vs. MECH odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.28). The number of broilers with severe wing injuries did not differ between the loading methods. The number of broilers dead on arrival was greater in mechanically loaded flocks (MAN vs. MECH odds ratio: 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.68), but lower than in comparable studies. We observed a lower average stocking rate than targeted in the drawers of MECH containers, most likely because the used harvester can adapt to short-term changes in weight and adjust the stocking rate during the loading process. A longer total loading duration in MAN was associated with an increase of wing hematomas, and the involvement of more working people per 10,000 broilers during MAN was associated with a lower occurrence of hematomas. The total loading duration in MECH had no notable influence on the occurrence of injuries. Physical conditions of the involved personnel might play a larger role in MAN than in MECH. The harvester that was examined should be further developed to reduce the occurrence of hematomas. Our results indicate that the choice of loading method alone does not determine the injury risk, and multiple factors are associated with broiler welfare during loading. It is important that the chosen method is performed under the most adequate conditions.
将肉鸡装载到加工厂会对肉鸡造成明显的伤害风险。因此,家禽业已经开发出机械方法作为手动装载方法的替代品。我们本研究的目的是比较手动装载(MAN)和机械装载(MECH)对肉鸡的影响。我们在装载前和装载后立即对 12 个 MAN 和 12 个 MECH 鸡群在农场进行了肉鸡损伤评估,记录了加工厂报告的到达时死亡的肉鸡数量,并评估了装载时的情况。使用检查收获机,与 MECH 相比,MAN 后观察到翅膀上有血肿(直径≥0.5 厘米)的肉鸡数量较少(MAN 与 MECH 的比值比:0.16;95%置信区间:0.10,0.28)。两种装载方法之间严重翅膀损伤的肉鸡数量没有差异。到达时死亡的肉鸡数量在机械装载的鸡群中更多(MAN 与 MECH 的比值比:0.26;95%置信区间:0.10,0.68),但低于可比研究中的数量。我们观察到 MECH 容器抽屉中的平均装载率低于目标值,这很可能是因为所使用的收获机可以适应体重的短期变化,并在装载过程中调整装载率。在 MAN 中,更长的总装载时间与翅膀血肿的增加有关,而在 MAN 中,每 10000 只肉鸡参与的工人数量更多与血肿的发生率降低有关。MECH 中的总装载时间对损伤的发生没有显著影响。参与人员的身体状况在 MAN 中可能比 MECH 中更为重要。所检查的收获机应进一步开发,以减少血肿的发生。我们的结果表明,单独选择装载方法并不能确定受伤风险,并且在装载过程中,多个因素与肉鸡福利相关。重要的是,选择的方法在最合适的条件下进行。