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.