Design and testing of add-on prototypes for transport containers to improve the loading process for end-of-lay hens and catchers.

IF 2.3
Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) Pub Date : 2025-06-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2025.10020
Femke Delanglez, Anneleen Watteyn, Bart Ampe, Gunther Antonissen, Jan Detand, Wout Verroens, Frank Tuyttens
{"title":"Design and testing of add-on prototypes for transport containers to improve the loading process for end-of-lay hens and catchers.","authors":"Femke Delanglez, Anneleen Watteyn, Bart Ampe, Gunther Antonissen, Jan Detand, Wout Verroens, Frank Tuyttens","doi":"10.1017/awf.2025.10020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Depopulation of end-of-lay hens can result in stress and injury for both hens and catchers. A pilot study was assessed to optimise hen and catcher well-being during loading. Two add-on prototypes for attaching to transport container drawers were tested on five commercial aviary farms: prototype 1 (metal tube with vertical flaps); and prototype 2 (frame with horizontal flaps). Per flock, a subset of 800 end-of-lay hens was assigned to one of three treatments: Standard container with 15 drawers; Standard container plus prototype 1; and Standard container plus prototype 2. Parameters (filling duration, number of escapes, number of body part entrapments, restlessness, and loading inefficiency in container) were scored during the catch, supplemented by a post-loading catcher survey, and at the slaughterhouse (loading damage prevalence, number of dead-on-arrivals). The three treatments were compared using a 1-7 Likert scale. Hens were significantly calmer with prototype 1 compared to prototype 2 with no significant difference relative to the standard container. Loading was less efficient for prototype 2 vs the standard container. Catchers preferred prototype 1 and the standard container over prototype 2 for ease of use and hen calmness and prototype 2 showed no advantages for efficiency or animal and catcher well-being. Prototype 1 resulted in fewer breast bruises than the standard container with no difference in loading efficiency and requires larger-scale testing for enhancing effectiveness, animal and catcher well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":520228,"journal":{"name":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","volume":"34 ","pages":"e45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12277091/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2025.10020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Depopulation of end-of-lay hens can result in stress and injury for both hens and catchers. A pilot study was assessed to optimise hen and catcher well-being during loading. Two add-on prototypes for attaching to transport container drawers were tested on five commercial aviary farms: prototype 1 (metal tube with vertical flaps); and prototype 2 (frame with horizontal flaps). Per flock, a subset of 800 end-of-lay hens was assigned to one of three treatments: Standard container with 15 drawers; Standard container plus prototype 1; and Standard container plus prototype 2. Parameters (filling duration, number of escapes, number of body part entrapments, restlessness, and loading inefficiency in container) were scored during the catch, supplemented by a post-loading catcher survey, and at the slaughterhouse (loading damage prevalence, number of dead-on-arrivals). The three treatments were compared using a 1-7 Likert scale. Hens were significantly calmer with prototype 1 compared to prototype 2 with no significant difference relative to the standard container. Loading was less efficient for prototype 2 vs the standard container. Catchers preferred prototype 1 and the standard container over prototype 2 for ease of use and hen calmness and prototype 2 showed no advantages for efficiency or animal and catcher well-being. Prototype 1 resulted in fewer breast bruises than the standard container with no difference in loading efficiency and requires larger-scale testing for enhancing effectiveness, animal and catcher well-being.

设计和测试用于运输集装箱的附加原型,以改善终端蛋鸡和捕鱼机的装载过程。
产蛋鸡数量的减少会给母鸡和捕鸡者带来压力和伤害。一项初步研究进行了评估,以优化母鸡和捕鸟人在装载期间的健康状况。在五个商业鸟饲养场测试了两种附加原型,用于连接到运输集装箱抽屉上:原型1(带垂直襟翼的金属管);原型2(带水平襟翼的框架)。每群800只产蛋鸡被分配到三种处理方式中的一种:有15个抽屉的标准容器;标准容器加上原型1;标准容器加上原型2。在捕获过程中对参数(填充时间、逃逸数量、捕获身体部位数量、焦躁不安和集装箱装载效率低下)进行了评分,并在装载后对捕集器进行了调查,并在屠宰场对参数(装载损伤发生率、到达时死亡数量)进行了补充。采用1-7李克特量表对三种治疗方法进行比较。与原型2相比,原型1中的母鸡明显更安静,与标准容器相比无显著差异。与标准集装箱相比,原型2的装载效率较低。捕鸟人更喜欢原型1和标准容器,而不是原型2,因为它们易于使用,母鸡的平静和原型2在效率或动物和捕鸟人的健康方面没有任何优势。原型1比标准容器导致更少的乳房瘀伤,装载效率没有差异,需要更大规模的测试,以提高有效性,动物和捕手的福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信