Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:08:04.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Broiler chicken welfare assessment in GLOBALGAP® certified and non-certified farms in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

APO Souza ,
EC de Oliveira Sans ,
BR Müller  and
CFM Molento
APO Souza
Affiliation:
Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
EC de Oliveira Sans
Affiliation:
Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
BR Müller
Affiliation:
Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
CFM Molento*
Affiliation:
Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, 80035-050, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: carlamolento@ufpr.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Regarding broilers, Brazil is the third largest producer and the leading chicken meat exporter in the world. Independent certifications are required by some importers in the European Union (EU) to guarantee compliance with minimum welfare requirements. Our objective was to compare broiler chicken welfare in GLOBALGAP® certified (C) and non-certified (N) intensive farms in the State of Paraná, Brazil, using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Ten farms in each group were evaluated and data were transformed using scores that ranged from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best condition. Results suggested that farms adhered to minimum welfare standards, regardless of certification and that the adoption of standards based on overseas rules may have limitations for the improvement of animal welfare. In order to further improve broiler welfare in Brazil, more rigorous standards should be developed.

Keywords

animal-based assessmentanimal welfarecertificationchickeninternational tradeWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
© 2015 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allain, V, Mirabito, L, Arnould, C, Colas, M, Le Bouquin, S, Lupo, C and Michel, V 2009 Skin lesions in broiler chickens meas-ured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science 50: 407–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660903110901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassler, AW, Arnould, C, Butterworth, A, Colin, L, de Jong, IC, Ferrante, V, Ferrari, P, Haslam, S, Wemelsfelder, F and Blokhuis, HJ 2013 Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poultry Science 92: 2811–2826. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03208CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, C 2004 Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In: Weeks, CA and Butterworth, A (eds) Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare pp 37–49. CABI Publishing: London, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851998053.0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessei, W 2006 Welfare of broilers. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 455–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS2005108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buijs, S, Keeling, LJ, Vangestel, C, Baert, J, Vangeyte, J and Tuyttens, FAM 2010 Resting or hiding? Why broiler chickens stay near walls and how density affects this. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124: 97–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appla-nim.2010.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplen, G, Baker, L, Hothersall, B, McKeegan, DEF, Sandilands, V, Sparks, NHC, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Murrell, JC 2013 Thermal nociception as a measure of non-ste-roidal anti-inflammatory drug effectiveness in broiler chickens with articular pain. Veterinary Journal 198: 616–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb-Vantress 2013 Broiler Management Guide. USA. http://67.43.0.82/docs/default-source/guides/cobb-broiler-mana-gement-guide—-english.pdf?sfvrsn=8Google Scholar
Coelho, LC 2010 Condenações de carcaças de frangos de corte em linha de inspeção federal no norte do Paraná. Masters dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Brazil. [Title translation: Broiler chicken condemnations by Federal Inspection Service in Northern Paraná]Google Scholar
Dawkins, M and Layton, R 2012 Breeding for better welfare: genetic goals for broiler chickens and their parents. Animal Welfare 21: 147–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.2.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2012 Commercial scale research and assessment of poultry welfare. British Poultry Science 53: 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2011.628640CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS, Donnely, AE and Jones, TA 2004 Chicken wel-fare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking den-sity. Nature 427: 342–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA 2009 Code of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: meat chickens and breeding chickens. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, Gunnink, H and van Harn, J 2014 Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23: 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, van Harn, J, Gunnink, H, Hindle, V and Lourens, A 2012 Footpad dermatitis in Dutch broiler flocks: prevalence and factors of influence. Poultry Science 91: 1569–1574. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA 2010 Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic param-eters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal 8: 1–82Google Scholar
Ekstrand, C, Carpenter, TE, Andersson, I and Algers, B 1998 Prevalence and control of foot-pad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. British Poultry Science 39: 318–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669888845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2007 Council Directive 43/2007/EC Laying Down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens kept for Meat Production. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
FAO 2013 Food outlook: biannual report on global food markets. FAO: Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3473e/i3473e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Federici, JF 2012 Bem-estar de frangos de corte no Brasil e na Bélgica: avaliação e impacto nas relações de comércio internacional. Masters dissertation, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil.[Title translation: Broiler chicken welfare in Brazil and Belgium: assessment and impact on international trade]Google Scholar
GLOBALGAP 2013 Control points and compliance criteria: integrated farm assurance: poultry, 4.0–2. GLOBALGAP®: Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Gouveia, KG, Martins da Costa, P and Vaz-Pires, P 2009 Welfare assessment of broilers through examination of haematomas, foot-pad dermatitis, scratches and breast blisters at processing. Animal Welfare 18: 43–48Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2013 Animal welfare audits for cattle, pigs, and chickens that use the HACCP principles of critical control points with animal based outcome measures. http://www.grandin.com/welfare.audit.using.haccp.htmlGoogle Scholar
Haslam, SM, Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Wilkins, LJ, Kestin, SC, Warriss, PD and Nicol, CJ 2007 Factors affecting the pre-valence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broi-ler chicken. British Poultry Science 48: 264–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660701371341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, CAE, Lin, Y, Mullan, S, Browne, WJ and Main, DCJ 2014 Implementing Welfare Quality® in UK assurance schemes: evaluating the challenges. Animal Welfare 23: 95–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.1.095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenbleek, P, Immink, VM, Spoolder, HAM, Bokma, MH and Keeling, LJ 2012 EU animal welfare policy: developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy 37: 690–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19960013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorge, PS 2008 Avaliacão de bem-estar durante o pré-abate e abate e condição sanitária de diferentes segmentos da produção avícola. Masters dissertation, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Brazil. [Title translation: Sanitary conditions and broiler chicken welfare assessment during pre-slaughter and slaughter]Google Scholar
Knowles, TG, Kestin, SC, Haslam, SM, Brown, SN, Green, LE, Butterworth, A, Pope, SJ, Pfeiffer, D and Nicol, CJ 2008 Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk factors and pre-vention. PloS One 3: e1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, D 2008 Providing assurance on welfare. In: Dawkins, MS and Bonney, R (eds) The Future of Animal Farming: Renewing the Ancient Contract pp 129–136. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Cooper, M, Wrathall, JHM and Blokhuis, HJ 2014 Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37: 127–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malleau, AE, Duncan, IJH, Widowski, TM and Atkinson, JL 2007 The importance of rest in young domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 52–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.06.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menezes, AG, Nääs, IA and Baracho, MS 2010 Identification of critical points of thermal. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 12: 21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies, FD, Goodall, E, McConaghy, D and Alcorn, MJ 1998 An update on the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in commer-cial broilers. Avian pathology 27: 174–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03079459808419320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulici, C 2012 Tecnologia leva qualidade e agilidade para granjas. Revista Avicultura Brazil. http://www.ubabef.com.br/files/publica-coes/938d713b69d9f25901b1d810f038272b.pdfGoogle Scholar
Robins, A and Phillips, CJC 2011 International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. World's Poultry Science Journal 67:351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933911000341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2011 RSPCA welfare standards for chickens. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J, Butterworth, A and Swanson, JC 2011 Farm animal welfare assurance: science and application. Journal of Animal Science 89: 1219–1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3589CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SCAHAW 2000 The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. SCAHAW: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
SIMEPAR 2013 Sistema metereológico do Paraná. Curitiba. http://www.simepar.br/Google Scholar
Sprenger, M, Vangestel, C and Tuyttens, FAM 2009 Measuring thirst in broiler chickens. Animal welfare 18: 553–560Google Scholar
Tuyttens, F, Heyndrickx, M, De Boeck, M, Moreels, A, Van Nuffel, A, Van Poucke, E, Van Coillie, E, Van Dongen, S and Lens, L 2008 Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asym-metry in organic versus conventional production systems. Livestock Science 113: 123–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livs-ci.2007.02.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, F, Vanderhasselt, R, Goethals, K, Duchateau, L, Federici, J and Molento, C 2014 The animal welfare status of EU-imported versus locally produced broiler meat. WAFL 2014:6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. 3-5 September 2014, Clermont-Ferrant, FranceGoogle Scholar
UBABEF 2014 Relatório anual 2014. São Paulo. http://www.uba-bef.com.br/publicacoes?m=75Google Scholar
Van Horne, PLM and Achterbosch, TJ 2008 Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade. World's Poultry Science Journal 64: 40–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderhasselt, RF, Goethals, K, Buijs, S, Federici, JF, Sans, ECO, Molento, CFM, Duchateau, L and Tuyttens, FAM 2014 Performance of an animal-based test of thirst in commercial broiler chicken farms. Poultry Science 93: 1327–1336. http://dx.d oi.org/10.3382/ps.2013-03720CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B and Roe, E 2008 European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 279–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W 2009 Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 325–333Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality ® Assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2010 Report n18: the assessment of animal welfare on broiler farms. Welfare Quality Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2013 Welfare Quality Scoring System. http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/index.php?id=farmsGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Souza et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 194.7 KB