Our cookies

We use cookies, which are small text files, to improve your experience on our website.
You can allow or reject non essential cookies or manage them individually.

Reject allAllow all

More options  •  Cookie policy

Our cookies

Allow all

We use cookies, which are small text files, to improve your experience on our website. You can allow all or manage them individually.

You can find out more on our cookie page at any time.

EssentialThese cookies are needed for essential functions such as logging in and making payments. Standard cookies can’t be switched off and they don’t store any of your information.
AnalyticsThese cookies help us collect information such as how many people are using our site or which pages are popular to help us improve customer experience. Switching off these cookies will reduce our ability to gather information to improve the experience.
FunctionalThese cookies are related to features that make your experience better. They enable basic functions such as social media sharing. Switching off these cookies will mean that areas of our website can’t work properly.

Save preferences

Animal Welfare - Recent Reports and Comments

Animal Welfare vol 19 issue 4 Volume 19
Issue 4
November 2010

Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish

Ask most people with an interest which animal’s welfare merits the most attention, the answer is likely to be the chicken, because of the number farmed each year. This report by Alison Mood of FishCount makes a compelling argument that it is fish we should be more concerned about. The report, which details the welfare of fish in commercial fishing, makes for grim reading as the author gives statistic after statistic that highlights the extent of the problem, not least of which is the sheer number of individual fish affected.

Although the amount of fish caught annually is only reported in tonnage, the report has tried to estimate likely numbers based on mean weights of the fish species caught and their length. The number calculated is staggering and dwarfs that of all farmed animals. Compared to the 3 billion mammals and 57 billion birds reported by the Food and Agriculture Organisations (FAO) of the United Nations as farmed in 2008, FishCount estimated that between 970,000,000,000 and 2,740,000,000,000 (ie 0.97–2.74 trillion) individual fish are caught each year, with a conservative best estimate in the order of a trillion fish! (Those interested in how this number was arrived at are advised to read the separate document at the FishCount website which details the assumptions made). Further, the report points out that these figures take no consideration of fish caught illegally, or as bycatch or caught and used as feed for others.

As one attempts to grasp the scale of individuals affected, the report moves on to detail the different methods by which fish are commonly caught and the welfare challenges and insults of each. Trawling, purse seining, gill, tangle and trammel nets, rod and line and hand-line fishing, trolling, pole and line and long-line fishing, trapping and harpooning are all covered in this section. Of all these, it is trawling — and shrimp trawling in particular — that comes out as the most problematic; those in which capture and landing are swift and where the fish is most likely to be landed alive, such as rod and line, as the most humane.

According to the report, fish caught by trawling suffer many insults; fish caught in trawl nets are funnelled back towards a narrow closed end — the ‘cod end’ — where they are trapped. As a trawl continues and further fish are caught, those in the cod end are increasingly forced together and suffer skin and scale damage, from contact with other fish and the net itself, and crushing. Average figures of 29% of fish dying before landing in a 2-hour trawl and 61% in a 4-hour trawl are given. Deep-caught fish with swim bladders further suffer during the landing process as, as they are raised to the surface, changes in pressure cause parts of the gut to be forced out of the mouth and anus, eyes to bulge and swim bladders to burst.

For the survivors, death does not come quickly. In common with most of the other methods of fishing, most fish landed are left to suffocate in air, despite the fact that they are conscious. The report quotes studies that have shown that the time for fish to become insensible is between 55–250 minutes. Indeed, this time may be even longer if the fish are chilled on landing as the process of chilling slows metabolic rate, in addition to the additional distress it causes. For those methods of fishing which target larger fish, such as line fishing, gutting is more common and time to insensibility quicker — between 25–65 minutes. It should be pointed out, however, that such gutting commonly occurs whilst the fish is conscious, ie without stunning. As the report states, such methods of killing ‘would fail any standard of humane slaughter’ and would be unthinkable as commercial practice for animals such as cows or pigs.

There is much more of note in the report. Issues to do with the lack of selectivity of some of the methods of fishing and survival rates in this non-targetted ‘bycatch’ are discussed. Bycatch levels can be high: 40–60% of fish caught by trawlers in the mixed fishery of the North Sea, and the FAO estimates that 8% of the recorded landed global catch is discarded. This is of concern because whilst the assumption has been that discarded individuals usually survive, studies have shown that the death rate may be much higher — a rate of 77–100% is mentioned with regard to an observed herring trawl.

In the later sections of the report, the author moves from highlighting the concerns to suggesting ways by which these can be alleviated. Most simply, the report calls for a reduction in the number of fish caught. It gives several examples of how this could be achieved, eg by adopting more selective methods of fishing that reduce bycatch and through greater control of illegal fishing. As it states, because the numbers involved are so great, even a small reduction in fishing of 0.1% would mean 1 billion fewer deaths. Another measure highlighted is to increase the size fish are allowed to grow before being caught, as this would mean fewer fish would need to be caught to produce the same yield. A fourth is to reduce the numbers of fish caught not directly for food, but which are used, for example, to feed other fish. Such ‘fishmeal’ makes up between a quarter and a third of total annual recorded fish tonnage, and because of their small number, a much larger proportion of the individual fish caught (NB To produce 1 kg of farmed salmon, 3–4 kg of wild fish have to be caught).

Refinements to reduce fish suffering are also detailed; through the speeding up of the capture process, the modification to fishing gear and handling, the adoption of methods for humane slaughter, through avoiding the use of live-bait fish and purpose-killed bait fish, and the choice of more humane capture methods, eg not fishing below 20 m for fish with swim bladders. Such modifications, the report argues, could be sold to the fisherman and the consumer under the banner of ‘higher quality’ as fish which are captured and dispatched swiftly and more humanely produce a better quality flesh.

It finishes by calling on animal welfare and environmental groups to become more involved in raising awareness of the welfare issues concerning fishing and lobbying retailers, fisheries and governments to develop and adopt more humane and sustainable practice.

This important report is not without fault however. It is at its weakest when dealing with the issue of fish sentience. Here, the author lays out some of the evidence in support of the fish’s ability to feel pain and suffer. Too much of what is cited here comes from secondary rather than primary sources, and is dated. For example, an RSPCA report from the early 1980s is cited as evidence that fish feel pain, as are the BBC news website and a report from a UK national newspaper, the Daily Mail; this despite the fact that there is more up-to-date research on the issue. Nonetheless, few would argue that fish don’t at least deserve the benefit of doubt on these matters. More problematic is when the author addresses the issue of fish feeling fear and panic as the supporting evidence is somewhat superficial. Certainly its brevity distracts from the otherwise persuasive arguments and evidence offered elsewhere in the report.

It is to be hoped that this report marks an important turning point in our use of fish — a sea change in our attitude towards them if you will — and that all those involved in their capture and harvesting take note of it. As it points out, at present the sentience of fish is little acknowledged by the commercial fishing industry; similarly the concept of fish suffering is not covered by existing codes of practice, including the laudable Marine Stewardship Council standards for well-managed fisheries.  This report, one trusts, should help to change this.

Worse Things Happen at Sea: Report on the Welfare of Wild-Caught Fish (August 2010). A4, 139 pages. By Alison Mood, fishcount.org.uk. Available to be downloaded from: http://fishcount.org.uk

S Wickens,

Good Practice Guide for animals used in scientific purposes

The aim of this guide is to promote the humane and responsible use of animals for scientific purposes and to encourage the highest standard of husbandry and animal care. It encompasses all aspects of the care and use of animals in medicine, biology, agriculture, veterinary and other animal sciences, industry and teaching. Split into 8 sections, covering the acquisition of animals, facilities, responsibilities of investigators and teachers amongst others, it is well written and clear and incorporates the latest thinking and recommendations on animal use. Grounded in the principle that animals should always be given the benefit of any doubt concerning pain relief, and with a specific appendix that address the pain, this guide can perhaps be regarded as a model for others looking for guidance on this subject or seeking to draft their own guide.

Good Practice Guide for the Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching (2010). A4, 40 pages. National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Copies of these documents can be obtained from: The Secretary, National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140 New Zealand. It is also available for download from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/pubs/naeac/guide-for-animals-use.pdf

S Wickens,

New Zealand code of welfare for dogs

For those of us concerned about companion animal welfare, this Code of Welfare for Dogs from the New Zealand Government will be of interest. Following, as it does, the recently published England, Wales and Scotland Codes, it provides an opportunity to compare the issues of concern between these countries and look at how they have been addressed.

Under New Zealand legislation any individual or organisation can draft a code of welfare, and this one was drawn up by a group convened by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council, which included representatives from the Royal New Zealand Society for the Protection of Animals, New Zealand Veterinary Association and Vet Nurses Association, Federated Farmers of New Zealand, Companion Animal Society, Unitec, New Zealand Kennel Club and the Institute of Animal Control Officers.

The Code is split into 10 sections and details 21 minimum standards that New Zealand dog owners must meet. In addition, each section and sub-section of the Code thereof, contains an introduction to the area of concern and further outlines recommended best practice and other general information deemed relevant.

Amongst the minimum standards are those that address expected issues such as food and feeding, access to water, euthanasia and ill-health and injury. Other standards are more specific and cover concerns that include debarking, removal of dew claws and aids for behavioural modification; as such these may be less anticipated but perhaps no less welcome.

In drawing up this Code, the group have also been able to incorporate some of the recommendations that recent reports, such as the UK’s Bateson Inquiry (see Reports and Comments, Animal Welfare 19[ii]) have made regarding the better safeguarding and regulation of the genetic health of dogs. The Code therefore requires that:

‘Breeders must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the genetic make-up of both sire and dam will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of known inherited disorders.’ (Minimum standard No7 — Breeding); and

‘…..(b) People supplying puppies must, at the time of supply, disclose to persons receiving them, any known inherited disorders that the puppy or adult dog may be predisposed to which may cause health and/or welfare problems during the dog’s lifetime.’ (Minimum standard No9 — Supply of Puppies).

This swiftness of implementation is in contrast to the UK, where there is continuing debate about how to best address the recommendations of these reports.

Supporting the Code, is an accompanying document which outlines some of the considerations and debate that took place during its drafting and which makes for interesting reading (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/animal-welfare/req/codes/dogs/dogs-code-of-welfare-report.pdf) Prominent in this is the section on tail docking. In the Code, tail docking (or banding) is allowed without analgesia before the pups eyes open. That this recommendation wasn’t arrived at without much debate is revealed by the amount of attention devoted to the subject in the report. Indeed, from this it is clear that this advice remains under review, and there is a desire to conduct further research on the issue. A contract for this research was put out to tender but, in the end, not awarded.

Another interesting point is the decision taken by the Code to set both a lower and upper limit on body condition, making it an offence to keep a dog that is too thin but also that is ‘grossly obese’. The weight of pets, and increasingly levels of obesity, has been a popular focus of attention in the veterinary press in recent years but to my knowledge this is the first time it has been specifically legislated for.

Finally, and perhaps surprisingly given some of requirements of the other standards, is the omission to require dogs to be routinely vaccinated. Although recommended as best practice, the accompanying standard simply requires that “dogs known to be infected with an infectious disease must be…. securely isolated so as to prevent infecting other dogs (Minimum Standard 11)”. No doubt others will have their own opinions as to whether this is an oversight or not.

Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010 (2010). A4, 51 pages. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand.  Copies of these documents can be obtained from: Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140 New Zealand. It is also available for download from: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes/dogs

S Wickens,

New Zealand code of animal welfare 2010: commercial slaughter

The New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 came into force on 1 January 2000 This established the basic obligations relating to the care of animals but the detailed requirements were set out in separate Codes. The Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare was issued in 2002. This was revoked when the new Code came into force on 28 May 2010. Failure to meet the minimum standards set out in the Code may be used as evidence to support a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act. Alternatively, someone charged with an offence under the Animal Welfare Act may use as a defence evidence that they have equalled or exceeded the minimum standards in the Code.

The Code covers all farmed mammals, birds (including ostriches and emus), finfish (including eels), crustaceans and other species defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, that are slaughtered to provide animal products for trade. Also included are wild mammals and birds caught alive and taken into a person’s care and later killed. Finally, the Code applies to finfish (including eels), crabs, lobsters and crayfish caught from the wild and kept alive onshore, until slaughtered for sale as food.

The publication is divided into eight chapters plus appendices. Chapter 1 is the Introduction and outlines the purpose of the Code, to whom and to what animals it applies, what happens if the Code is not followed and how the Code relates to other welfare codes. Chapter 2 deals with the required training, competences and supervision of personnel involved in stunning and slaughter, and sets out the minimum levels of knowledge and competence required of management and personnel involved in the stunning and slaughter of animals.

Chapters 3 through 6 deal with large and small mammals, birds and aquatic species. Each Chapter is divided into sections dealing with the handling, restraint, stunning and bleeding of the various species, and in each section the minimum standards required are specified. Many sections also include a paragraph outlining the recommended best practice. The Chapter on birds relates mainly to poultry, but includes a section dealing with the specific requirements for ostriches and emus. Chapter 6 on aquatic species is divided into two sections, one covering farmed and wild-captured finfish and eels, and the other dealing with farmed and wild-captured crabs, rock lobsters and freshwater crayfish.

Chapter 7 sets the minimum standards for the slaughter of animals outside slaughterhouses by home-kill service providers and pet food operators. The responsibilities and obligations of the individuals involved in the restraint, stunning and slaughter of the animal are defined, and the minimum standards set out in relation to those for animals killed in a slaughterhouse.  In Chapter 8 the need for a quality assurance programme with written procedures is emphasised, and the minimum standards for the document set out.

Appendix I provides diagrams showing the optimum position on the skull of the animal for the use of a captive-bolt gun or a free-bullet firearm. Diagrams are given for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, equines and deer. Appendix II details the signs of an effective stun in farmed mammals when a penetrating/non-penetrating captive bolt gun, a head-only electrical stunner or a head-to-body electrical stunner is used. Interpretations and definitions of terms used in the Code are given in Appendix III, and the legislative requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with particular reference to the Code are set out in Appendix IV. Finally, Appendix V outlines the process for developing and revising codes of animal welfare in New Zealand, and provides a list of the current animal welfare codes.

Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010 (2010). Available from National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Animal Welfare Directorate, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, P O Box 2526, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-478-36341-8 (print), ISBN 978-0-478-36342-5 (online). http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare

AC Hughes,

New Zealand welfare code for sheep and beef cattle

The New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), together with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Council (NAWAC), has recently published a new code of welfare for sheep and beef cattle. Welfare codes play a key role in improving the care of animals by describing how best to keep and manage animals and by laying out minimum standards. Codes also provide extra detail about areas covered by animal welfare legislation and, although not legally binding in themselves, may be used as evidence to support a prosecution for an offence under the relevant legislation. It is a requirement that all codes are reviewed at least every 10 years.

The Sheep and Beef Cattle Code of Welfare applies to all sheep and cattle in New Zealand which are principally farmed for meat, fibre and/or offspring, rather than milk. It also covers animals of recognised dairy breeds if they are being reared and farmed for meat production.

Twenty minimum standards are listed under six main headings: Stockmanship and Animal Handling; Food and Water; Shelter; Behaviour; Health, Injury and Disease; and Husbandry Practices. Each section follows a similar format, including a general introduction, background information, the relevant minimum standard and, in some sections, recommended best practice. Also included for useful reference are body condition score charts for sheep and beef cattle, a list of interpretations and definitions of terms used within the code and a section on legislative requirements.

Animal Welfare (Sheep and Beef Cattle) Code of Welfare 2010 (June 2010). A4, 49 pages. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand. ISBN: 978 0 478 363531. The guidelines are available at the MAF Biosecurity website: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/stds/codes, or by emailing: animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz.

E Carter,

FAO animal welfare guidelines on cattle identification

 The Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has produced a working document for consultation purposes on the identification of beef cattle. It is intended that, Guidelines for Animal Welfare: Identification of Beef Cattle, will form the first publication of an FAO series focused on animal welfare during key livestock husbandry practices.

Individual identification of animals is necessary to define ownership, to enable traceability and to aid disease control. Additionally, identification allows farmers to monitor the performance of individual animals, the herd as a whole, and enables review of management practices. However, the process of animal identification often involves handling, herding and restraint, followed by a marking procedure which may be painful. Identification can therefore be a stressful event in an animal’s life and it is important that handlers give due care and consideration to animal welfare when carrying out the procedure. 

A number of permanent and temporary identification methods are available to farmers. The guidelines recognise that there is no one ‘ideal’ method and rate twelve possible methods (ear tattooing; ear tagging [plastic and electronic]; fire, freeze and chemical branding; intra-ruminal bolus; injectable transponder; nose printing; retinal scanning; ear notching; and paint marks) against six desired characteristics: (1) permanence, (2) ease of application, (3) low cost, (4) legibility at a distance, (5) safety for operators, and (6) animal welfare. 

A summary chart illustrates how well each identification method meets the six criteria and a further table expands on risks to animal welfare by scoring the potential for each method to cause: pain, stress/distress, infection, parasite infestation, extra handling, later site lesions, or allergic reaction. Detailed explanations are then given on how best to carry out the five most commonly used identification procedures (ear tattooing, ear-tagging (visual and electronic), fire branding, freeze branding and paint marking) to ensure that risks to animal welfare are minimised.

Throughout the guidelines there is emphasis on the capacity of cattle to learn and handlers are reminded that cattle will remember people, facilities and places, and any positive or negative incidents associated with them. It is recommended that habituation and operant conditioning, together with positive reinforcement, are used when training and handling cattle to minimise negative reactions. Advice and practical tips are given on how best to achieve this.

The FAO hopes that the guidelines will serve as a general training tool and that they will be of use to farmers, veterinarians, animal scientists and cattle handlers.

Guidelines for Animal Welfare: Identification of Beef Cattle (2010). Working document for consultation purposes. FAO (eds) MJR Paranhos da Costa, F Galindo Madonado, X Manteca i Vilanova, SM Huertas Canén, D Dahlanuddin, C Phillips,and D Battaglia. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines. No 4. Rome. Available for download at: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/animal-welfare/aw-awhome/detail/fr/item/42766/icode/.

E Carter,

Animal welfare, ethics and the 3Rs — an online teaching resource

The concept of the 3Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, was devised by William Russell and Rex Burch at UFAW, and propounded in their 1959 book: The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Since then they have been adopted internationally to improve the welfare of laboratory animals through changing the way in which laboratory animal experiments are designed and carried out. 

In 2007, a report entitled, In vivo sciences in the UK: sustaining the supply of skills in the 21st Century, and published by the Bioscience Federation and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), highlighted a need for future in vivo scientists to receive greater training in animal welfare, ethics and the 3Rs. With the support of the National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA), Dr David Lewis, University of Leeds, undertook a project to evaluate the provision of training in animal welfare, ethics and law within UK Higher Education and to gather and disseminate good practice and teaching materials.

The project culminated in the publication of Animal Welfare, Ethics and the 3Rs: Training materials and resources. The booklet, which is freely available online, covers a range of strategies for teaching students about animal experimentation, animal welfare, the 3Rs, legislation, and other associated topics. Twenty-two lesson plans are included in total, all of which are clearly laid out and encourage the audience to consider the use of animals in research from various standpoints through a variety of teaching approaches, such as group discussions, role play, individual and group presentations, workshops and self-directed learning. Guidance notes for both students and tutors are incorporated, together with many useful website links to other constructive resources. Lessons are predominantly aimed at teaching undergraduate and postgraduate students, although Key Stage 4 & 5, Schedule 1 users, Personal Licence Holders, Animal Care and Welfare Staff, and others are also catered for. The lesson plans may be used as they are or modified to suit individual requirements.

The online publication is intended to be a living document that is updated as and when new information is available.  

Animal Welfare, Ethics and the 3Rs: Training Materials and Resources (2009). A4, 65 pages. Dr David Lewis, University of Leeds. Available from:  3Rs@leeds.ac.uk, or at:  http://www.bps.ac.uk/uploadedfiles/Education/3RsResourceeVersionDec09.pdf.

E Carter,


EFSA publishes two Scientific Opinions on broiler chickens  

 Many billions of chickens are raised and slaughtered annually to supply the commercial meat market and meat chickens (broilers) have undergone increasingly intense selective pressure to grow faster and convert feed more efficiently. In 2000, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) published a report that reviewed in detail the welfare of chickens kept for meat production and concluded that: “Most of the welfare issues that relate specifically to commercial broiler production are a direct consequence of genetic selection for faster and more efficient production of chicken meat, and associated changes in biology and behaviour”. The report describes a number of disorders that compromise the welfare of broiler birds including leg problems, contact dermatitis conditions, ascites and sudden death syndrome. Additionally, it was concluded that the welfare of broiler breeders is adversely affected due to severe feed restriction.

Following the SCAHAW report, the European Union put forward a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. This Directive, published in 2007, became the first piece of legislation to address the welfare of broiler birds across all European Union (EU) member states. Council Directive 2007/43/EC set out minimum standards for chicken holdings, such as maximum stocking densities, lighting levels, litter quality and feed requirements, as well as introducing a condition that people attending chickens must have either suitable experience or training. Member states were required to incorporate these standards into domestic legislation by 30 June 2010. Additionally, the Directive requires the EU Commission to submit a report to the European Parliament by 31 December 2010 regarding the influence of genetic parameters resulting in poor welfare of chickens.

The European Commission therefore requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to produce two scientific opinions covering: (i) the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercials broilers, and (ii) the welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. Following a two-tier consultation process, involving a Technical Meeting of relevant stakeholders in 2009 and a web-based public consultation in early 2010, the EFSA AHAW Panel published both Scientific Opinions (outlined below) in June of this year. These will assist the European Commission in preparing the report for the European Parliament later in the year.

Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers

The welfare of commercial broiler birds may be compromised through a variety of means. The EFSA Scientific Opinion provides an overview of the welfare of broiler birds in general and describes eleven common conditions that result in poor welfare, including musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory diseases, thermal discomfort and behavioural restriction. This section is followed by a discussion of a range of indicators which could be used to record and assess welfare on-farm and at the slaughterhouse.

The Opinion then reviews the genetic selection of broiler birds for: production; reproduction; and health, fitness, and welfare traits. The interaction between genotype and environment is also examined and a risk assessment undertaken on the probability of exposure to a hazard, and the magnitude of poor welfare effects of that exposure. Factors which scored the highest risk were unbalanced body conformation, high stocking density, fast growth rate, low light intensity and wet litter.

EFSA closes the report by listing its main conclusions and twenty-three recommendations. Additionally, the following three issues were recommended as areas for further research: causes of reduced mobility and associated welfare problems, eg pain and social interactions; the interaction of environmental factors and genetics with regard to welfare; and the development of practical methods for independent health and welfare surveillance and objective assessment and recording of welfare indicators in broiler flocks.

Scientific Opinion on the welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes.

The Opinion begins by providing an overview of current husbandry and management practices during hatching, rearing, production and slaughter of breeding stock. This section is followed by a review of factors which may compromise the health and welfare of breeding birds, such as: severe feed restriction, mutilations (de-toeing, de-spurring, comb dubbing and beak trimming), leg weakness, stocking density, and cage housing.

The results of a risk assessment show the impact of housing and management on the welfare of broiler breeders, including genetic selection influences. The top five hazards according to risk scores were: barren environments, high stocking density, fast growth rate, feed restriction and low light intensity.

The report concludes with twenty-five recommendations on: husbandry and housing systems; feed restriction; mating aggression; mutilations; slaughter and culling; and disease and biosecurity. A number of areas requiring further research are also put forward.

Scientific Opinion on the Influence of Genetic Parameters on the Welfare and the Resistance to Stress of Commercial Broilers (2010). A4, 82 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1666. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.

Scientific Opinion on the Welfare Aspects of the Management and Housing of the Grand-Parent Stocks Raised and Kept for Breeding purposes (2010). A4, 81 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1667. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.

Outcome of the Stakeholders and Public Consultation on Health and Welfare Aspects of Genetic Selection in Broilers (2010). A4, 87 pages. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW). EFSA Journal 2010 8(7): 1670. Available online at: www.efsa.europa.eu.

The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) (2010). A4, 150 pages. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission. 2000. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf.

E Carter,

Return to Reports and Comments index