Animal-based welfare indicators of 4 slow-growing broiler genotypes for the approval in an animal welfare label program.

Helen Louton, Christiane Keppler, Michael Erhard, Otto van Tuijl, Josef Bachmeier, Klaus Damme, Sven Reese, Elke Rauch
Author Information
  1. Helen Louton: Department of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13/R, 80539 Munich, Germany.
  2. Christiane Keppler: Christiane Keppler, Gallicon, Geflügelberatung, Burgstraße 24, 34593 Knüllwald Wallenstein, Germany.
  3. Michael Erhard: Department of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13/R, 80539 Munich, Germany.
  4. Otto van Tuijl: Aviagen EPI, Elmpterweg 47, 6042 KJ Roermond, Netherlands.
  5. Josef Bachmeier: Brüterei Süd ZN of the BWE-Brüterei Weser-Ems GmbH & Co. KG, Peter-Henlein-Strasse 1, 93128 Regenstauf, Germany.
  6. Klaus Damme: Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Lehr-, Versuchs- und Fachzentrum für Geflügel- und Kleintierhaltung, Mainbernheimer Straße 101, 97318 Kitzingen, Germany.
  7. Sven Reese: Department of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, Germany.
  8. Elke Rauch: Department of Veterinary Sciences, Chair of Animal Welfare, Ethology, Animal Hygiene and Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13/R, 80539 Munich, Germany.

Abstract

For broiler genotypes to be merchandized under the animal welfare label of the German Animal Welfare Federation, several animal-based welfare indicators with upper limits are listed in a criteria catalog. We compared the prevalence of animal-based welfare indicators in 4 slow-growing broiler genotypes [Ranger Classic (RC), Ranger Gold (RG), Rowan Ranger (RoR), and Rambler Ranger (RaR)] in terms of potential approval of these genotypes for a German animal welfare label program. Chicks were housed in 16 floor pens, of which 8 had access to a winter garden. With 4 replications of each genotype, animal-based welfare indicators were assessed in 160 broilers (10 broilers per pen) on fattening days (FD) 36 and 44. The body weight of the 4 broiler genotypes differed on both examination days in decreasing order for RC, RG, RoR, and RaR (P < 0.001). The walking ability was within the scope of the animal welfare label in all genotypes; it was better in genotypes with a lower mean body weight and correlated positively with the body weight in RG, RoR, RaR, and in the pooled data of the 4 genotypes. Hock burns were only observed at a low severity score, with male broilers being affected more often than female broilers. A positive correlation of the development of hock burn with the weight of the broilers was observed on FD 44 when data of all genotypes were pooled. The footpads of all examined broilers were without lesions at both examinations. Skin scratches were observed in all genotypes at both examinations, and RC broilers differed on FD 36 from the other 3 genotypes by showing a higher prevalence of more severe scratches. Broilers of pens with access to a winter garden were affected by skin scratches more often than broilers without. With the exception of weight gain in 2 genotypes, the investigated indicators showed that all genotypes met the requirements of the animal welfare label.

Keywords

References

  1. Poult Sci. 2000 Jun;79(6):864-70 [PMID: 10875769]
  2. Vet Rec. 2001 Feb 17;148(7):195-7 [PMID: 11265995]
  3. Poult Sci. 2005 Aug;84(8):1332-8 [PMID: 16156220]
  4. Br Poult Sci. 2005 Aug;46(4):407-14 [PMID: 16268097]
  5. Br Poult Sci. 2006 Jun;47(3):257-63 [PMID: 16787848]
  6. Poult Sci. 2006 Aug;85(8):1342-8 [PMID: 16903463]
  7. Br Poult Sci. 2007 Jun;48(3):264-75 [PMID: 17578688]
  8. Poult Sci. 2008 Jun;87(6):1012-21 [PMID: 18492987]
  9. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2009 Jul-Aug;122(7-8):264-70 [PMID: 19681399]
  10. Br Poult Sci. 2009 Jul;50(4):407-17 [PMID: 19735009]
  11. Animal. 2016 Feb;10(2):302-8 [PMID: 26278785]
  12. Res Vet Sci. 2016 Aug;107:75-79 [PMID: 27473978]
  13. Poult Sci. 2018 Aug 1;97(8):2754-2767 [PMID: 29762773]
  14. Avian Dis. 1978 Jan-Mar;22(1):122-30 [PMID: 646753]
  15. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 [PMID: 843571]
  16. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9 [PMID: 8501467]
  17. Avian Dis. 1996 Jul-Sep;40(3):690-8 [PMID: 8883802]

MeSH Term

Animal Welfare
Animals
Body Weight
Chickens
Female
Foot Diseases
Genotype
Housing, Animal
Male
Poultry Diseases
Seasons
Sex Factors
Walking

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0genotypeswelfarebroilersbroileranimallabelindicators4weightanimal-basedRCRangerRGRoRRaRFDbodyobservedscratchesGermanprevalenceslow-growingapprovalprogrampensaccesswintergardengenotypedays3644differedpooleddatascoreaffectedoftenwithoutexaminationsmerchandizedAnimalWelfareFederationseveralupperlimitslistedcriteriacatalogcompared[RangerClassicGoldRowanRambler]termspotentialChickshoused16floor8replicationsassessed16010perpenfatteningexaminationdecreasingorderP<0001walkingabilitywithinscopebetterlowermeancorrelatedpositivelyHockburnslowseveritymalefemalepositivecorrelationdevelopmenthockburnfootpadsexaminedlesionsSkin3showinghighersevereBroilersskinexceptiongain2investigatedshowedmetrequirementsAnimal-basedrangergaitslowgrowthindicator

Similar Articles

Cited By