The art of poultry catching: balancing welfare, efficiency, and economics

Broiler chickens and end-of-lay hens are reared intensively with a focus on high productivity to meet commercial demand. To obtain high-quality products during the production cycle, it is essential to strive for healthy poultry flocks. Furthermore, animals fit for transport are required to avoid unnecessary suffering due to the changes they endure at the end of their productive commercial cycle. They are removed from their familiar environment by catching, crating, loading, and transporting them before slaughter. Prior to transport, chickens are exposed to several situational changes, such as feed and water withdrawal, and unfamiliar humans, in addition to handling and crating, which can result in severe animal welfare impairments and production losses. In manual catching, chickens are caught manually by a catching team. During this critical moment, catchers can experience uncomfortable working conditions owing to repeated bending, poor air quality, and reduced visibility in the stables. Mechanical catching is an alternative method for catching broiler chickens, in which some of the human catchers are replaced by a machine. Compared with inverted and mechanical catching, upright catching requires more time, is more costly, and is more demanding for catchers. More catchers are needed and fewer birds can be caught simultaneously. However, a comparison between inverted, upright, and mechanical catching in terms of animal welfare, catcher well-being, and specific financial concerns has not been found in the literature. Therefore, the general aim of this thesis is to optimise the pre-transport phase, including selecting, catching, crating, and loading, based on animal welfare, human well-being, and economics.
This research involved conducting an online survey to obtain more information about the current pre-transport practices (i.e., selecting unfit animals during the production cycle and before catching, catching preparations, catching, and crating procedures) on farms in Flanders for broilers and end-of-lay hens. The findings showed that a minority of farmers performed catch preparation, such as selecting chickens unfit for transport. Procedures on laying hen farms were less aligned with the EU legislation for water and feed withdrawal than those on broiler chicken farms. All birds were caught inverted, with the exception of one broiler farmer, who used mechanical catching. Although mechanical catching may lead to extra costs, increased biosecurity risks, and specific minimum requirements for the stable (height and width), it has been reported to be the preferred method for the well-being of broiler catchers. Upright catching (one or two birds) was considered more beneficial for animal welfare than catching more than three chickens by one or two legs, mechanically, or by the wings. Poultry farmers should be sensitised to the need for pre-catch selection, including clear guidelines for estimating which birds are fit for transport. Pre-catch measures (e.g., closing the area under the aviary system, removing litter, and closing laying nests) can streamline the catching process and reduce animal suffering.
Thereafter, three experiments were conducted on commercial broiler chicken and laying hen farms. Animal-based measurements were performed during and after catching on-farm and in the slaughterhouse. In addition, catchers’ opinions were gathered via a survey covering the comparison between upright and inverted catching and the utilisation of newly designed add-on prototypes for the standard container in end-of-lay hens. Furthermore, an ergonomist conducted an ergonomic analysis to assess inverted and upright catching. Economic-based measures were also analysed between upright and inverted catching for both broilers and end-of-lay hens, while comparisons with mechanical catching were only examined in broilers.
Manual (inverted and upright) and mechanical catching in broiler chickens were studied with a focus on animal welfare, catcher well-being, and financial concerns on 15 commercial broiler chicken farms. The results showed that upright-caught broilers flapped less with their wings and experienced a better catcher-bird interaction than inverted-caught broilers. Mechanically caught broilers had a higher prevalence of catch damage than upright-caught broilers. However, upright catching required more time and led to increased working hours for catchers as opposed to inverted and mechanical catching. Consequently, an additional cost of € 0.012 and € 0.006 per kg of live weight, in contrast to inverted and mechanical methods, respectively, will need to be compensated. Catchers preferred inverted catching to upright catching, and mentioned that upright catching was more labour-intensive. Nevertheless, ergonomic analysis concluded that manual catching in both approaches is too demanding for catchers and that working conditions should be optimised.
Manual (inverted and upright) catching in end-of-lay hens was evaluated based on animal welfare, catcher well-being, and financial concerns on seven commercial laying hen farms. It was noted that inverted-caught hens flapped their wings more than upright-caught hens did. In addition, the animals were exposed to a worse catcher-bird interaction. Upright catching resulted in fewer bruises on the wings than inverted catching did. However, upright catching took longer, generated more man-hours, and was more expensive than inverted catching. Ultimately, this ended up in an additional cost of € 0.0005 per egg. Regarding the ergonomics of catchers, a similar outcome was notified as in broiler chickens.
Additionally, the design and utilisation of two newly developed add-on prototypes to be placed on the container drawer of end-of-lay hens were examined. The first add-on prototype is a tube with small, individually movable flaps, and the second prototype is a frame with fixed and flexible flaps. Previous studies have indicated that the design of the crate or container, where poultry is placed after being caught, influences efficiency, animal welfare, and catcher well-being. These add-on prototypes were tested on five commercial laying hen farms and compared with a standard container (without add-on). The goal was to prevent hens from escaping from the drawer and to prevent entrapment of their body parts. However, no significant improvement was observed in these parameters. Nevertheless, the examined hens were calmer with add-on prototype 1 than with add-on prototype 2, but no difference in behaviour was observed in relation to the standard container. In addition, crating was less efficient with add-on prototype 2 than with the standard container. However, the hens had fewer bruises on the breast crated with add-on prototype 1 compared to the standard container. After testing the add-on prototypes during the catching and loading of the hens, catchers indicated that they preferred add-on prototype 1 over add-on prototype 2, mentioning the user-friendliness and less stressful behaviour of the hens.
The pre-transport phase can be improved by optimising the current procedures. An initial advancement can be achieved by increasing awareness and better training on selecting and catching poultry to procure a superior understanding of the pre-transport phase. To gain further insight, supplementary factors and evaluations must be performed on a larger scale.
Practical recommendations include the accessibility and utilisation of clear guidelines for the poultry sector, especially for poultry farmers and catchers. Therefore, this thesis developed a poster to identify unfit chickens during the production cycle and immediately prior to catching,
to avoid unnecessary suffering of unfit animals during catching, crating, and transport. This is one of the main tasks of poultry farmers. Finally, a poster providing guidance on working conditions for all people directly involved in catching, crating, and loading was designed. Future research should investigate upright catching procedures in broiler chickens and end-of-lay hens on a larger scale, including their practical effects on animal welfare, catcher well-being, and economics. Scientists should pay more attention to blood sampling and sound measurements. These are regarded as valuable research tools for the analysis of additional behavioural aspects for poultry and the loudness experienced by catchers to improve working conditions. Eventually, increased testing of add-on prototype 1 is recommended to gather more information and data regarding its practical use and potential limitations.
While it is generally acknowledged that catching, crating, and loading are stressful and painful for both poultry and catchers, it is essential to prevent suboptimal working conditions and injuries. Research should continue to develop more favourable and economically viable catching, crating, and loading procedures for poultry while focusing on both animals and catchers.
Ultimately, efficient collaboration within the poultry sector is fundamental for balancing welfare, efficiency, and economics.