Final Report Summary - EAWP (European animal welfare platform: adding welfare quality to food)
Farming has changed significantly over the last six decades and consumers became disconnected from the process. However, farm animal welfare is now a matter of growing public concern. Consumers' preferences and purchasing choices basically underpin the societal and economic sustainability of agro- and food-chains so it is very important for the industry, both from a corporate social responsibility and a market point of view, to rebuild and maintain consumer trust in how food animals are kept across Europe. These concerns and requirements were addressed in the present EAWP project where major stakeholders worked together to safeguard and progress farm animal welfare. This is the first project in this field to harness the efforts of principal stakeholders throughout the supply chain. EAWP partners represented major companies in the animal production sector (producers, processors, retailers, food service), animal welfare organisations and academia; all the participants had considerable practical experience of welfare issues and were recognised leaders in their field. The platform was able to exploit outcomes of the European Commission (EC)-funded WELFARE QUALITY project on welfare assessment protocols, product information and improvement strategies by building on and complementing them in a commercial environment.
Working in an atmosphere of openness and trust the platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, expertise, resources and networks in order to:
i) effectively support the continued development and implementation of scientifically based welfare assessment systems, information systems and practical welfare improvement strategies;
ii) identify and prioritise key welfare issues / problems in several animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
iii) identify legislation regarding key welfare issues;
iv) describe ways of monitoring and measuring the various welfare issues;
v) describe existing best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues;
vi) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vii) list research and development (R&D) priorities.
This output was central to the development of a set of strategic approach documents (SADs) for each of the product groups which had become a major and overarching objective of the EAWP.
The EAWP also communicated the results of its activities to a broader audience using several dissemination tools; these included the EAWP website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online), newsletters, leaflets, press releases, etc. By defining research priorities the platform contributed to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing. Its activities therefore fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the community action plan and strategy on the welfare of animals.
In conclusion, this platform is a unique, timely and important achievement. Together with the partners' global business links the EAWP represents a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and cultures to ensure that it speaks with a powerful and international voice on the welfare of farmed animals.
Project context and objectives:
The last 60 years has seen tremendous changes in animal farming with production systems and management practices becoming more and more mechanised and conditions for the animals becoming increasingly barren and crowded (Blokhuis et al., 1998 and 2010). Furthermore, not only are many more animals now kept per farm but intense genetic selection for production traits, like growth, food conversion, milk and egg production, has often been associated with the appearance of harmful behavioural and physiological characteristics. In a nutshell, despite offering welfare benefits such as minimal risk of predation, shelter from bad weather, and increased hygiene, animal production became highly industrialised with its own unwittingly created set of welfare problems. Unfortunately, while these changes were taking place a number of cultural, attitudinal and commercial barriers prevented constructive communication between farmers / producers and consumers (Buller and Morris, 2002). Sociological studies had already shown a very real lack of transparency and understandable information about welfare in the market for animal products (Harper and Henson, 2000). This meant that many consumers were simply unaware of the realities of modern animal production. However, recent crises, such as swine fever, BSE and bird flu, as well as the activities of animal welfare organisations have led to farm animal welfare becoming an issue of significant public concern. Indeed, recent surveys by the EC revealed that European citizens are strongly committed to animal welfare, that they attach an economic value to that commitment and that most of them perceive a clear need for further improvements in animal welfare (Eurobarometer, 2005 and 2007).
Since consumers are the end-users, their preferences and purchasing choices basically underpin the societal and economic sustainability of agro- and food-chains. Thus, it is clearly very important for the industry, both from a corporate social responsibility and a market point of view, to regain and maintain consumer trust in how food animals are kept and handled across Europe. There is also growing international recognition that high standards of food safety and of animal health and welfare are interrelated and critical components of the move towards more sustainable agriculture. This was convincingly illustrated by the good practice note on animal welfare issued by the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank which describes the creation of business opportunities through improved animal welfare and cites several cases where better welfare resulted in increased productivity and profitability.
The above issues, concerns and requirements were addressed in the present project by the establishment of EAWP where major stakeholders were committed to working together to safeguard and progress farm animal welfare. This is the first project in the area of the welfare of farmed animals to harness the efforts of principal stakeholders throughout the supply chain. The EAWP was designed to contribute to the European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) by bringing together industry, research and other stakeholders to exploit new opportunities that address social and economic challenges. The partners in this multi-stakeholder EAWP represented major companies in the animal production sector (producers, processors, retailers, and the food service sector), animal welfare organisations and academia (all the participants had considerable practical experience of welfare issues and were recognised leaders in their field). The timing of the platform was extremely apposite because it was able to exploit many of the outcomes of the EC-funded WELFARE QUALITY project on welfare assessment protocols, product information and improvement strategies by building upon and complementing them in a commercial environment.
The platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, experience, expertise and networks in order to:
i) effectively support the continued development and implementation of scientifically based welfare assessment systems, information systems and practical welfare improvement strategies;
ii) identify and prioritise key welfare issues in the various animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
iii) identify legislation regarding key welfare issues;
iv) describe ways of monitoring and measuring these issues;
v) describe existing best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues;
vi) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vii) list research and development (R&D0 priorities.
The collation of much of the latter output into a set of SADs for each of the product clusters became a major and overarching objective of the EAWP (see below).
The community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals adopted by the EC in 2006 aimed to ensure that animal welfare is addressed in the most effective manner possible in all European Union (EU) sectors and through EU relations with third countries. Clearly, the EAWP not only addressed many stakeholder concerns about farm animal welfare but it also supported the implementation of the community action plan and its proposed follow-up (the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015). For example, the EAWP not only stimulated and continues to facilitate interaction and the exchange of knowledge and resources between the major European stakeholders within the project itself but it also communicated the results of its varied activities to a much broader audience. Furthermore, by analysing some pressing knowledge needs and defining research priorities the EAWP contributed to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and current and proposed welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing. The activities of the EAWP therefore fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the community action plan.
Specific key objectives of the EAWP included:
1. to interchange information, experience and knowledge between different stakeholders on how to progress animal welfare in the food supply chain;
2. to define and disseminate 'best practices' for safeguarding and improving animal welfare in the food supply chain;
3. to facilitate the testing and implementation of WELFARE QUALITY outcomes, (i.e. assessment and product information schemes, improvement strategies);
4. to contribute to the integration of emerging science-based animal welfare assessment systems with existing quality assurance schemes;
5. to develop information tools and communication strategies in the animal welfare field (e.g. connect to consumers, producer organisations etc);
6. to identify and prioritise needs for animal welfare research of interest and importance to Europe, (this also relates to areas within current and proposed animal welfare legislation where more knowledge is necessary).
A number of these objectives as well as the output of work packages 1 and 2 were integrated within the SADs mentioned above.
The work of the platform was organised into four work packages (WPs):
1. WP1: Best practices and implementation
The main objectives of this WP were to interchange information, experience and knowledge on animal welfare and to contribute to the integration of high welfare production into the food chain. The work in this WP included the identification of best practices and their most effective implementation for each product chain / cluster. Best practice was defined as the most appropriate and efficient procedure or practice for improving a particular aspect of welfare and or its communication.
2. WP2: R&D needs and priorities
WP2 was designed firstly to identify the top welfare issues in each product cluster and then to prioritise R&D needs related to each of these welfare issues. A subsequent cross-cutting activity was carried out to indicate R&D priorities that overarched the different product clusters (because some clusters may have more urgent problems than others) and to identify synergies and possible harmonisation in problem solving and regulatory action.
3. WP3: Information and communication
Efforts in WP3 aimed to support not only the communication of information within the project but also the dissemination of existing and emerging information to a wider external audience (through a public website, press releases, EAWP newsletter etc). An in-house editing desk was established to contribute to the quality, clarity and effectiveness of communicated materials.
4. WP4: Project management
The management structure and activities (see below) were designed to ensure that the EAWP achieved its objectives within the defined conditions of time, budget, control and quality.
A management committee (MC) was established to ensure that the project ran efficiently and that objectives were achieved. Members of the MC represented different stakeholders in the chain (farming, retail, food services, animal protection and research). An independent scientific adviser and a financial administrator also worked with the MC. This group which was supported by a project office, corresponded frequently and met approximately four times a year.
In order to accommodate the specific nature of different animal production chains, e.g. species, production and marketing characteristics, the activities of the EAWP were grouped in 'product clusters'. These clusters addressed similar general questions and issues but in the framework of a product specific 'environment'. The term 'cluster' is used here to illustrate that various stakeholders and participants from different segments in a specific product chain, (including industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academia) worked closely together in order to achieve informed input on all aspects relevant to the economically viable, animal friendly production of that product. Thus, each cluster consisted of those EAWP partners (and sometimes external advisors) who possessed the most appropriate expertise for that task. The members of each cluster also elected a leader who was tasked with organising the activities of that cluster and reporting to the MC. The member of the MC with the most relevant expertise also worked with a particular cluster and thereby provided support for the cluster leader (CL) as well as a direct link between the MC and that cluster group. For practical, efficiency and budgetary reasons the clusters beef and dairy and the clusters poultry meat and eggs were operationally combined and then met and operated as two instead of four clusters.
Not only do the partners in the EAWP partners represent major European companies in their own right, but they also have business links with many other organisations both within and outside the EU. In conclusion, the EAWP is considered to represent a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and culture to ensure that it speaks with a truly European voice.
Project results:
Description of the main science and technology (S&T) results / foregrounds
Established management structure
The management structure of the EAWP project was designed to accommodate an effective and efficient management and to ensure that the project objectives are realised within the set time and budgetary constraints.
The general management of the project is entrusted to the MC. The members of the MCrepresent different stakeholders in the food animal production chain including primary production, retail, food services, animal protection and research. These organisations and the networks they link to have the necessary skills, contacts and resources to ensure the successful development and execution of the proposed activities.
The members of the MC are:
- Harry Blokhuis, Professor of Ethology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (project coordinator and chairman)
- Keith Kenny, Senior director, Quality Assurance Europe, McDonald's Europe, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Sonja van Tichelen, Director, Eurogroup for Animals, Brussels, Belgium
- Aldin Hilbrands, Senior product safety and integrity manager, Corporate Centre, Royal Ahold, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Paul Cook, Farm Animal Initiative, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (UK)
- Paolo Montagna, Quality Director, Amodori, Italy.
An independent expert (Bryan Jones, animal behaviour and welfare consultant, Edinburgh, UK) also attends all MC meetings, advises on scientific and other matters and takes the minutes.
All WPs have a coordinator and each is a member of the MC. The WP coordinator is responsible for the daily organisation and execution of the WP and for communication within the project. The work of the MC and WP coordinators is further supported by a financial administrator and an editing facility.
Established dissemination tools
In WP 3, task 3.4 was designed to inform a wider audience (industry, assurance schemes, academia, policy makers, NGOs and the general public) about the activities of the EAWP and related welfare developments. This task was (and remains) ongoing and its importance increased and evolved as the cluster groups generated results and conclusions. Central messages include the ultimate goals of the platform ('What is EAWP about?'); its internal organisation (WPs, cluster group meetings); and the processes used to achieve the objectives (map the supply chain, identify key welfare issues; consult interested stakeholders; define best practices for dealing with key welfare issues, identify R&D priorities for the EU). The independent advisor to the project also contributed to the formulation and editing of dissemination material. Currently, our achievements include the following:
- A unique EAWP logo was created.
- A press release in 2008 informed the general public about the project, its aims, and the involvement of stakeholders from many different sectors and backgrounds.
- A dedicated website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online) was established and contains a general presentation of the EAWP project and its organisation; an overview of farm animal welfare issues; a news section with a selection of articles, publications and press releases. It also refers to and shows the logo of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The website was created by a professional design bureau, the content is written by a professional editor, and the site is regularly updated as results emerge.
- Platform members describe and discuss the EAWP when speaking at or attending conferences. They also promote the Platform within their own organisations.
- A double page, full colour leaflet describing the EAWP project and providing contact details was produced and is routinely distributed at relevant conferences or public events.
- An attractive, 2 m high banner presenting the EAWP and its central message: (progressing animal welfare throughout the food chain) is displayed at conference or public event venues.
- A PowerPoint presentation of the platform, its aims and activities has been developed and is used to target the general public.
Reports on consumer perceptions and attitudes and marketing and communication
There have been extensive discussions in the MT regarding this task. Within the budgetary constraints of the EAWP project we produced an overview of the available knowledge on consumer perceptions and attitudes ('Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare', Miele, 2010). This report presented some key findings on European consumers' knowledge and attitudes to animal welfare based on the WELFARE QUALITY focus group research and population survey, which were the largest investigations of this type regarding farm animal welfare carried out in Europe to date. Of course, practices and strategies regarding marketing and communication typically play an important (and often confidential) role in the profiling of companies and thus competition. This means that it is difficult to address this issue in a particularly specific and meaningful way in the context of the EAWP. This task was therefore focussed on a general description of issues and contexts relevant for defining best practices for marketing and communication on animal welfare. This resulted in a report 'The Marketing and Communication of Animal Welfare a review of existing tools, strategies and practice' (Buller, 2010). Some of the main conclusions were that the use of welfare will, like other components of a product's quality, always be a component of segmentation (of products, brands or retailers), and thereby an element of exclusivity, but that it can only legitimately do so if there are agreed procedures for its evaluation. Competition over the level of welfare in various systems / farms etc. is valid but competition over the definition and the parameters of welfare assessment and improvement is likely to confuse rather than reassure consumers, producers and other food chain actors. For this reason, it is important that harmonised assessment procedures are used across the different sectors.
Prioritisation of welfare issues in different product chains
An important result achieved in EAWP was the identification of the most important (key) welfare problems (in terms of severity and animals affected). Each cluster worked through a series of steps designed to identify the key welfare issues for each species group as agreed by a range of stakeholders. These steps were:
a. scoping the production system;
b. mapping the production chain;
c. agree all possible welfare issues within the chain;
d. consult stakeholders and ask them to grade these issues;
e. analyse the data to generate a list of key issues.
a. Scoping the production chain
The groups agreed the following key points:
- Only mainstream production systems would be covered. This meant that free range systems were not considered for poultry meat, but were covered within the egg sector.
- The systems would be examined from primary breeding through to slaughter.
- Only broiler production would be considered within the poultry meat cluster.
- Only farmed salmon would be considered within the fish cluster.
b. Mapping the production chain
Each chain was initially mapped in overview.
c. Agree all possible welfare issues within the chain
Within each cluster, the group then expanded each stage of the production chain and identified all possible welfare issues associated with that particular production system.
For ease of presentation the following example represents only the broiler growing stage within the poultry meat cluster. The potential issues identified by the cluster are highlighted in blue type.
d. Consult stakeholders and ask them to grade these issues
In 2009, all clusters produced an agreed list of main welfare issues within each of the respective sectors. This was then distributed for comment and consultation with external stakeholders, categorised in four groups: farmers and integrators, retailers, NGOs and scientists. These stakeholders were asked to grade these issues in terms of:
- the relative severity of the issue (score 1-5);
- the number of animals affected in everyday production (score 1-3).
This consultation was carried out in each of the cluster groups and feedback was received from over 200 interested stakeholders.
e. analyse the data to generate a list of key issues
The analysis of this feedback was then carried out as follows:
- For each issue the score given for the severity of issue (1-5) was multiplied by the score given for the number of animals affected (1-3). This yielded an overall score for each issue from each stakeholder; thus the maximum score for an issue was 5 x 3 = 15, minimum = 1 x 1 = 1.
- The stakeholder scores per issue were summed and an average score was then calculated for each issue.
- The issues were then ranked numerically from the highest to the lowest, with the highest average score indicating the most important welfare issue.
- The data was further analysed (using the methodology described above) to reflect the prevailing perceptions within each of the stakeholder groups: farmers and integrators, retailers, NGOs, scientists.
- The final list of key issues was an amalgamation of: any issue that appeared in the top 10 'overall' ranking plus, any issue that appeared in the top 5 ranking of any stakeholder group.
- The issues were then reassessed by the stakeholder groups to ensure that no topical issues had been overlooked. Three such issues were identified and included in the appropriate lists of top welfare issues: pododermatitis in broilers, bone strength in end of lay caged egg layers, provision of shade / shelter in beef production.
These 'priority' lists were then used as the bases for the next phase of the project, i.e. writing the SADs.
SADs
For this second phase of the project, the EAWP MC and each product cluster worked through a series of four steps to generate a SAD for each of the key welfare issues that had been identified in their cluster in the first phase. These steps were:
a. generation of a template for the best practice questionnaires;
b. second consultation with stakeholders;
c. drafting of SADs;
d. editing of SADs.
a. Generation of a template for the best practice questionnaires
The MC initially devised a template to ensure that the best practice questionnaires would be constructed in a similar way across clusters. Within this template, it was agreed that every SAD should identify and comment on the following aspects of each welfare issue:
- current situation with regard to the issue;
- the cause of the issue;
- how the issue should be monitored in the field;
- existing legislation that relates to the issue;
- existing best practice in dealing with the issue;
- short-term goals to address the issue;
- long-term goals to address the issue;
- R&D requirements to achieve the long term goals.
The clusters were charged with writing these strategic approach documents based on information derived from three main sources:
- expertise from within the cluster and their companies / contacts;
- external experts brought in to advise on specific issues;
- information received from further consultation with stakeholders.
b. Second consultation with stakeholders
All the stakeholders who took part in the consultation exercise in the first phase of the project were again consulted. This time they were provided with a list of the top welfare issues that had been identified in each cluster and asked to answer a series of questions (in the questionnaire) about each of these issues:
- What is current best practice?
- What should be the short term actions to address this issue - please list any barriers to implementation?
- What should be the longer term strategy to solve this problem?
- What are the key parameters that should be used to monitor and measure progress on this issue?
- What R&D is required to generate improved practice?
c. Drafting of the strategic approach documents
As the completed questionnaires were returned by the stakeholders, the information was collated and fed back to the clusters to inform them of the range of stakeholder ideas that should receive further consideration for eventual incorporation in the SADs.
A new template was then formulated for the SADs in an attempt to minimise the risk of repetition and to make the documents more concise. This new template required comments on the following points:
- the problem(s)
- legislation
- measuring and monitoring
- existing best practice
- short-term goals
- long-term goals
- R&D requirements.
The strategic approach documents were completed by the clusters and returned to the MC. A series of exchanges between the editing team, the MC and the cluster groups then followed and the content of each SAD was thoroughly discussed and agreed.
d. Editing of strategic approach documents
In the final stage, each SAD was edited further by the editing team and the MC to ensure that the documents were all presented in a similar format and harmonised as much as possible. Of course, it was recognised that best practice sections could not be equally prescriptive in all clusters; for example, areas such as beef and dairy are particularly difficult to harmonise because of the huge variation in production systems in this sector. Best practice, goals and R&D requirements also tended to be larger and more diverse in relatively young product groups such as farmed salmon.
Catching practices
There are three types of equipment used in the catching of laying hens:
- modular systems e.g. Stork, Anglia Autoflow, Linco;
- loose crates;
- vehicles with fixed containers, commonly referred to as 'side-loaders'.
Depending on the equipment used and the type of housing system that is being depopulated, there are two basic ways of organising the catching. In a minority of cases modules or baskets are taken to the birds; this is sometimes possible in extensive systems where house access is feasible. More commonly, the birds are carried out of the building to the modules / loose baskets (which remain on the vehicle) or to side-loader vehicles. This is always the case when depopulating caged systems.
When removing the birds out of the cages, care must be taken not to damage them through collision with the doors or the feed track which typically runs along the front of the cage.
Commonly, the problems associated with manual catching manifest themselves as carcase bruising or limb dislocations. Issues include:
- breast bruising, caused by collision with the feed trough in cage systems;
- wing bruising / dislocation, caused when the birds collide with the cage structure (doors, feed trough) and by flapping when the birds are inverted for carrying;
- leg bruising, caused by poor catching technique, e.g. if single leg catching is use. This is more common when filling the top drawers of a module.
Care must also be taken not to trap and injure the birds when the drawers are closed in modular systems.
Legislation
Currently, there is no specific legislation regarding catching other than the basic animal welfare recommendations regarding the handling of animals. There is, however, legislation relating to the number of birds placed in each transport basket; this is covered in the SAD, EAWP - EGG 05, which relates to the transport of laying birds.
Monitoring and measuring
There are two main types of measures: resource and animal-based. The animal based measures (e.g. yes / no, how much, how often, when) can be taken at different levels according to the interest group, perhaps in greater depth for research purposes. The standard of management / husbandry also plays a key role.
Resource-based measures:
- catching team identity;
- birds / hour / man;
- type of equipment - modules / loose baskets;
- stocking density per basket (cm2 / kg);
- catching technique - number of birds per hand, single leg or two leg catching;
- supervision - is there a farm representative present?
- use of a breast support slide?
- lighting.
Animal-based measures:
- weight of bird;
- percentage wing bruising / dislocation caused by catching;
- percentage leg bruising / dislocation caused by catching;
- percentage dead on arrival.
Monitoring of all resource based measures can take place at the farm. Data should be collected separately for each house and related to the loads caught from that house. In this case, the animal based measures should be recorded at the slaughterhouse. For many of the animal based measures, a sample of birds is normally assessed from within the load; a sample of 100 birds for each welfare issue is typical. All data collected is typically recorded by 'vehicle-load' of birds delivered to the slaughterhouse. This data is then related to the house of origin.
Camera grading systems (image analysis) are available to measure carcase quality and these can generate useful data for the assessment of bruising. However, as with visual assessment, interpretation of the data is often problematic because it is difficult to determine the exact time that the bruising occurred. For instance, the bird could have suffered bruising at the farm, during catching or transport, when hung on the shackles or at stun.
Existing best practice
There are several practical measures that can be taken to minimise problems during the process of manual catching.
In cage systems best practice would be to:
- grasp the birds by both legs when removing them from the cage;
- use a 'breast support slide'. This is a device which fits into the feed trough and forms a slide for removing the birds from the cage;
- carry no more than six birds at a time (three per hand);
- ensure two teams work in tandem from either side of the cage. Due to the size of enriched cages it is not actually possible to catch the birds from only one side;
- the system should be designed to incorporate a fully opening cage-front. This maximises access and reduces the likelihood of damaging the bird on removal.
In extensive systems best practice would be to:
- ensure as much equipment as possible is removed from the house before the start of the catching process;
- ensure that the lights are dimmed to minimise bird disturbance;
- bring the equipment as close as possible to the birds;
- catch the birds by both legs;
- carry no more than six birds at a time (three per hand).
In all systems, it is recommended that a representative of the farm staff is present to supervise the catch and to deal with any issues that may arise. The supervisor must ensure that all the birds are adequately ventilated and that their behaviour is monitored to avoid the risk of smothering and injury.
Short term goals:
- Effectively disseminate guidance as to best catching practice
- Improve recording systems in slaughterhouses to measure the extent of the problem accurately and relate data back to the farmer and the catching teams
- Establish international benchmarking of performance
- Improve training, including the certification of catchers to promote best practices.
Long term goals:
- To develop catching systems where the equipment is brought to the birds thus negating the requirement to carry them over long distances.
R&D requirements:
- Develop and test catching systems that eliminate the need to carry the birds over long distances between cage and vehicle.
- Currently, most R&D is carried out by the companies developing automated catching systems. It is suggested that funding should be made available to support independent integrated projects involving researchers, equipment manufacturers and other stakeholders to develop practical welfare-friendly solutions to the problems caused by manual catching.
Established network and trust among partners
The EAWP is the first multi-stakeholder organisation in the field of farm animal welfare. The establishment of this Platform is not only an unique but also a very important and timely achievement. The EAWP ultimately consisted of representatives from 21 partner organisations, all of whom were committed to working together to safeguard and progress the welfare of farmed animals in Europe. Six of these partners joined during the evolution of the project. The partners of this strong network are also linked, through business, with many other organisations throughout Europe and beyond, thereby ensuring that the EAWP speaks with a powerful and international voice.
All members of the EAWP readily signed a code of conduct whereby they agreed to conduct themselves in all activities related to the platform with the highest degree of ethics and integrity. The basic principle of the platform is to openly communicate its work as broadly as possible, though if a partner preferred that a specific piece of their information was not communicated outside the EAWP then this wish was respected. However, as it turned out, from an early stage all knowledge sharing within the EAWP was conducted in a genuine and particularly fruitful atmosphere of openness, friendliness and trust.
In every sense, the EAWP has become much more than the sum of its parts.
Potential impact:
The potential impact and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
Farm animal welfare is a matter of growing and vociferous public concern. Consumers' preferences and purchasing choices underpin the societal and economic sustainability of agro- and food-chains so it is very important for the industry, both from a corporate social responsibility and a market point of view, to rebuild and maintain consumer trust in how food animals are kept across Europe. The EAWP project was established to address these concerns and requirements. In the first project of its kind in the field, major stakeholders worked together in the EAWP to safeguard and progress farm animal welfare, harnessing the efforts of principal stakeholders throughout the supply chain and thereby contributing to a European KBBE. EAWP partners represented major companies in the animal production sector (producers, processors, retailers, food service), animal welfare organisations and academia; all the participants had considerable practical experience of welfare issues and were recognised leaders in their field. The platform was also able to exploit outcomes of the EC-funded WELFARE QUALITY® project on welfare assessment protocols, product information and practical welfare improvement strategies by building on and complementing them in a commercial environment. This relationship offered significant benefits in terms of welfare improvement, better farm management, product placement and targeting, scientific advancement, the satisfaction of consumers' demands, and guidance for the legislative process. Continued realisation of these benefits will have a substantial and positive impact on the sustainability of European agriculture.
Working in an atmosphere of openness and trust the Platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, expertise, resources and networks. This resulted in the following major achievements:
- Identification of knowledge gaps, (as well as strengths), and the prioritisation of research needs based on current and expected legislation as well as existing and emerging welfare problems. This contributes to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing.
- Provision of state-of-the-art advice to guide policy formulation on key R&D priorities, legislation, accreditation, certification, education etc.
- Identification of best practices in the industry and the optimal ways of implementing them.
- Guidance for the animal product industry to shape its policies and initiatives on animal welfare and to thereby safeguard and expand its market share.
- Support for the development of the European Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals and the potential establishment of a European Animal Welfare Centre by establishing a specific information and communication platform on farm animal welfare to nurture a broad, long-term dialogue and the rapid exchange of knowledge. Indeed, the platform's activities fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the Community Action Plan.
- Development of information tools and communication strategies that can be used to effectively engage consumers, producers, policy makers and other important stakeholders.
More specifically, the development of a set of SADs for each of the product groups became not only a major and overarching objective of the EAWP but also a particularly important achievement. Through a series of widespread consultation exercises involving committed stakeholders (and external experts where necessary) these SADs:
i) identify and prioritise key welfare issues / problems in several animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
ii) identify existing legislation regarding each of the key welfare issues;
iii) describe ways of monitoring and measuring the various welfare issues;
iv) discuss existing (and potential) best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues, v) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vi) list the most pressing R&D priorities.
It is clearly in the industry's and the legislators' own interests to satisfy the growing demand by consumers and citizens for reliable, credible and easily understandable information about the welfare status of farm animals as well as ways of improving the animals' quality of life. The members of the EAWP were and remain committed to disseminating information about the platform's work activities and about farm animal welfare developments to a wide audience, including the public. The EAWP therefore communicated the results of its activities to a broader audience using several dissemination tools; these included:
- a dedicated EAWP website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online);
- newsletters, leaflets and, press releases;
- the set of 58 SADs;
- a PowerPoint presentation of the platform, its aims and activities was used to target the general public;
- a booklet describing the project's aims, achievements and recommendations;
- an audio-visual presentation of the platform's efforts.
In conclusion, this platform is a unique, timely and important achievement. Together with the partners' global business links the EAWP represents a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and cultures to ensure that it speaks with a powerful and international voice on the welfare of farmed animals. By contributing to the generation of integrated ('speaking with one voice') rather than fractured viewpoints the project outcomes can also strengthen the European position in global negotiations on farm animal welfare.
Prof Dr Harry J Blokhuis
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Tel: +46-186-71627
Fax: +46-186-73588
E-mail: harry.blokhuis@slu.se
Project website address: http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
Working in an atmosphere of openness and trust the platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, expertise, resources and networks in order to:
i) effectively support the continued development and implementation of scientifically based welfare assessment systems, information systems and practical welfare improvement strategies;
ii) identify and prioritise key welfare issues / problems in several animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
iii) identify legislation regarding key welfare issues;
iv) describe ways of monitoring and measuring the various welfare issues;
v) describe existing best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues;
vi) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vii) list research and development (R&D) priorities.
This output was central to the development of a set of strategic approach documents (SADs) for each of the product groups which had become a major and overarching objective of the EAWP.
The EAWP also communicated the results of its activities to a broader audience using several dissemination tools; these included the EAWP website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online), newsletters, leaflets, press releases, etc. By defining research priorities the platform contributed to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing. Its activities therefore fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the community action plan and strategy on the welfare of animals.
In conclusion, this platform is a unique, timely and important achievement. Together with the partners' global business links the EAWP represents a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and cultures to ensure that it speaks with a powerful and international voice on the welfare of farmed animals.
Project context and objectives:
The last 60 years has seen tremendous changes in animal farming with production systems and management practices becoming more and more mechanised and conditions for the animals becoming increasingly barren and crowded (Blokhuis et al., 1998 and 2010). Furthermore, not only are many more animals now kept per farm but intense genetic selection for production traits, like growth, food conversion, milk and egg production, has often been associated with the appearance of harmful behavioural and physiological characteristics. In a nutshell, despite offering welfare benefits such as minimal risk of predation, shelter from bad weather, and increased hygiene, animal production became highly industrialised with its own unwittingly created set of welfare problems. Unfortunately, while these changes were taking place a number of cultural, attitudinal and commercial barriers prevented constructive communication between farmers / producers and consumers (Buller and Morris, 2002). Sociological studies had already shown a very real lack of transparency and understandable information about welfare in the market for animal products (Harper and Henson, 2000). This meant that many consumers were simply unaware of the realities of modern animal production. However, recent crises, such as swine fever, BSE and bird flu, as well as the activities of animal welfare organisations have led to farm animal welfare becoming an issue of significant public concern. Indeed, recent surveys by the EC revealed that European citizens are strongly committed to animal welfare, that they attach an economic value to that commitment and that most of them perceive a clear need for further improvements in animal welfare (Eurobarometer, 2005 and 2007).
Since consumers are the end-users, their preferences and purchasing choices basically underpin the societal and economic sustainability of agro- and food-chains. Thus, it is clearly very important for the industry, both from a corporate social responsibility and a market point of view, to regain and maintain consumer trust in how food animals are kept and handled across Europe. There is also growing international recognition that high standards of food safety and of animal health and welfare are interrelated and critical components of the move towards more sustainable agriculture. This was convincingly illustrated by the good practice note on animal welfare issued by the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank which describes the creation of business opportunities through improved animal welfare and cites several cases where better welfare resulted in increased productivity and profitability.
The above issues, concerns and requirements were addressed in the present project by the establishment of EAWP where major stakeholders were committed to working together to safeguard and progress farm animal welfare. This is the first project in the area of the welfare of farmed animals to harness the efforts of principal stakeholders throughout the supply chain. The EAWP was designed to contribute to the European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) by bringing together industry, research and other stakeholders to exploit new opportunities that address social and economic challenges. The partners in this multi-stakeholder EAWP represented major companies in the animal production sector (producers, processors, retailers, and the food service sector), animal welfare organisations and academia (all the participants had considerable practical experience of welfare issues and were recognised leaders in their field). The timing of the platform was extremely apposite because it was able to exploit many of the outcomes of the EC-funded WELFARE QUALITY project on welfare assessment protocols, product information and improvement strategies by building upon and complementing them in a commercial environment.
The platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, experience, expertise and networks in order to:
i) effectively support the continued development and implementation of scientifically based welfare assessment systems, information systems and practical welfare improvement strategies;
ii) identify and prioritise key welfare issues in the various animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
iii) identify legislation regarding key welfare issues;
iv) describe ways of monitoring and measuring these issues;
v) describe existing best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues;
vi) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vii) list research and development (R&D0 priorities.
The collation of much of the latter output into a set of SADs for each of the product clusters became a major and overarching objective of the EAWP (see below).
The community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals adopted by the EC in 2006 aimed to ensure that animal welfare is addressed in the most effective manner possible in all European Union (EU) sectors and through EU relations with third countries. Clearly, the EAWP not only addressed many stakeholder concerns about farm animal welfare but it also supported the implementation of the community action plan and its proposed follow-up (the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015). For example, the EAWP not only stimulated and continues to facilitate interaction and the exchange of knowledge and resources between the major European stakeholders within the project itself but it also communicated the results of its varied activities to a much broader audience. Furthermore, by analysing some pressing knowledge needs and defining research priorities the EAWP contributed to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and current and proposed welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing. The activities of the EAWP therefore fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the community action plan.
Specific key objectives of the EAWP included:
1. to interchange information, experience and knowledge between different stakeholders on how to progress animal welfare in the food supply chain;
2. to define and disseminate 'best practices' for safeguarding and improving animal welfare in the food supply chain;
3. to facilitate the testing and implementation of WELFARE QUALITY outcomes, (i.e. assessment and product information schemes, improvement strategies);
4. to contribute to the integration of emerging science-based animal welfare assessment systems with existing quality assurance schemes;
5. to develop information tools and communication strategies in the animal welfare field (e.g. connect to consumers, producer organisations etc);
6. to identify and prioritise needs for animal welfare research of interest and importance to Europe, (this also relates to areas within current and proposed animal welfare legislation where more knowledge is necessary).
A number of these objectives as well as the output of work packages 1 and 2 were integrated within the SADs mentioned above.
The work of the platform was organised into four work packages (WPs):
1. WP1: Best practices and implementation
The main objectives of this WP were to interchange information, experience and knowledge on animal welfare and to contribute to the integration of high welfare production into the food chain. The work in this WP included the identification of best practices and their most effective implementation for each product chain / cluster. Best practice was defined as the most appropriate and efficient procedure or practice for improving a particular aspect of welfare and or its communication.
2. WP2: R&D needs and priorities
WP2 was designed firstly to identify the top welfare issues in each product cluster and then to prioritise R&D needs related to each of these welfare issues. A subsequent cross-cutting activity was carried out to indicate R&D priorities that overarched the different product clusters (because some clusters may have more urgent problems than others) and to identify synergies and possible harmonisation in problem solving and regulatory action.
3. WP3: Information and communication
Efforts in WP3 aimed to support not only the communication of information within the project but also the dissemination of existing and emerging information to a wider external audience (through a public website, press releases, EAWP newsletter etc). An in-house editing desk was established to contribute to the quality, clarity and effectiveness of communicated materials.
4. WP4: Project management
The management structure and activities (see below) were designed to ensure that the EAWP achieved its objectives within the defined conditions of time, budget, control and quality.
A management committee (MC) was established to ensure that the project ran efficiently and that objectives were achieved. Members of the MC represented different stakeholders in the chain (farming, retail, food services, animal protection and research). An independent scientific adviser and a financial administrator also worked with the MC. This group which was supported by a project office, corresponded frequently and met approximately four times a year.
In order to accommodate the specific nature of different animal production chains, e.g. species, production and marketing characteristics, the activities of the EAWP were grouped in 'product clusters'. These clusters addressed similar general questions and issues but in the framework of a product specific 'environment'. The term 'cluster' is used here to illustrate that various stakeholders and participants from different segments in a specific product chain, (including industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academia) worked closely together in order to achieve informed input on all aspects relevant to the economically viable, animal friendly production of that product. Thus, each cluster consisted of those EAWP partners (and sometimes external advisors) who possessed the most appropriate expertise for that task. The members of each cluster also elected a leader who was tasked with organising the activities of that cluster and reporting to the MC. The member of the MC with the most relevant expertise also worked with a particular cluster and thereby provided support for the cluster leader (CL) as well as a direct link between the MC and that cluster group. For practical, efficiency and budgetary reasons the clusters beef and dairy and the clusters poultry meat and eggs were operationally combined and then met and operated as two instead of four clusters.
Not only do the partners in the EAWP partners represent major European companies in their own right, but they also have business links with many other organisations both within and outside the EU. In conclusion, the EAWP is considered to represent a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and culture to ensure that it speaks with a truly European voice.
Project results:
Description of the main science and technology (S&T) results / foregrounds
Established management structure
The management structure of the EAWP project was designed to accommodate an effective and efficient management and to ensure that the project objectives are realised within the set time and budgetary constraints.
The general management of the project is entrusted to the MC. The members of the MCrepresent different stakeholders in the food animal production chain including primary production, retail, food services, animal protection and research. These organisations and the networks they link to have the necessary skills, contacts and resources to ensure the successful development and execution of the proposed activities.
The members of the MC are:
- Harry Blokhuis, Professor of Ethology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (project coordinator and chairman)
- Keith Kenny, Senior director, Quality Assurance Europe, McDonald's Europe, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Sonja van Tichelen, Director, Eurogroup for Animals, Brussels, Belgium
- Aldin Hilbrands, Senior product safety and integrity manager, Corporate Centre, Royal Ahold, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Paul Cook, Farm Animal Initiative, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom (UK)
- Paolo Montagna, Quality Director, Amodori, Italy.
An independent expert (Bryan Jones, animal behaviour and welfare consultant, Edinburgh, UK) also attends all MC meetings, advises on scientific and other matters and takes the minutes.
All WPs have a coordinator and each is a member of the MC. The WP coordinator is responsible for the daily organisation and execution of the WP and for communication within the project. The work of the MC and WP coordinators is further supported by a financial administrator and an editing facility.
Established dissemination tools
In WP 3, task 3.4 was designed to inform a wider audience (industry, assurance schemes, academia, policy makers, NGOs and the general public) about the activities of the EAWP and related welfare developments. This task was (and remains) ongoing and its importance increased and evolved as the cluster groups generated results and conclusions. Central messages include the ultimate goals of the platform ('What is EAWP about?'); its internal organisation (WPs, cluster group meetings); and the processes used to achieve the objectives (map the supply chain, identify key welfare issues; consult interested stakeholders; define best practices for dealing with key welfare issues, identify R&D priorities for the EU). The independent advisor to the project also contributed to the formulation and editing of dissemination material. Currently, our achievements include the following:
- A unique EAWP logo was created.
- A press release in 2008 informed the general public about the project, its aims, and the involvement of stakeholders from many different sectors and backgrounds.
- A dedicated website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online) was established and contains a general presentation of the EAWP project and its organisation; an overview of farm animal welfare issues; a news section with a selection of articles, publications and press releases. It also refers to and shows the logo of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The website was created by a professional design bureau, the content is written by a professional editor, and the site is regularly updated as results emerge.
- Platform members describe and discuss the EAWP when speaking at or attending conferences. They also promote the Platform within their own organisations.
- A double page, full colour leaflet describing the EAWP project and providing contact details was produced and is routinely distributed at relevant conferences or public events.
- An attractive, 2 m high banner presenting the EAWP and its central message: (progressing animal welfare throughout the food chain) is displayed at conference or public event venues.
- A PowerPoint presentation of the platform, its aims and activities has been developed and is used to target the general public.
Reports on consumer perceptions and attitudes and marketing and communication
There have been extensive discussions in the MT regarding this task. Within the budgetary constraints of the EAWP project we produced an overview of the available knowledge on consumer perceptions and attitudes ('Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare', Miele, 2010). This report presented some key findings on European consumers' knowledge and attitudes to animal welfare based on the WELFARE QUALITY focus group research and population survey, which were the largest investigations of this type regarding farm animal welfare carried out in Europe to date. Of course, practices and strategies regarding marketing and communication typically play an important (and often confidential) role in the profiling of companies and thus competition. This means that it is difficult to address this issue in a particularly specific and meaningful way in the context of the EAWP. This task was therefore focussed on a general description of issues and contexts relevant for defining best practices for marketing and communication on animal welfare. This resulted in a report 'The Marketing and Communication of Animal Welfare a review of existing tools, strategies and practice' (Buller, 2010). Some of the main conclusions were that the use of welfare will, like other components of a product's quality, always be a component of segmentation (of products, brands or retailers), and thereby an element of exclusivity, but that it can only legitimately do so if there are agreed procedures for its evaluation. Competition over the level of welfare in various systems / farms etc. is valid but competition over the definition and the parameters of welfare assessment and improvement is likely to confuse rather than reassure consumers, producers and other food chain actors. For this reason, it is important that harmonised assessment procedures are used across the different sectors.
Prioritisation of welfare issues in different product chains
An important result achieved in EAWP was the identification of the most important (key) welfare problems (in terms of severity and animals affected). Each cluster worked through a series of steps designed to identify the key welfare issues for each species group as agreed by a range of stakeholders. These steps were:
a. scoping the production system;
b. mapping the production chain;
c. agree all possible welfare issues within the chain;
d. consult stakeholders and ask them to grade these issues;
e. analyse the data to generate a list of key issues.
a. Scoping the production chain
The groups agreed the following key points:
- Only mainstream production systems would be covered. This meant that free range systems were not considered for poultry meat, but were covered within the egg sector.
- The systems would be examined from primary breeding through to slaughter.
- Only broiler production would be considered within the poultry meat cluster.
- Only farmed salmon would be considered within the fish cluster.
b. Mapping the production chain
Each chain was initially mapped in overview.
c. Agree all possible welfare issues within the chain
Within each cluster, the group then expanded each stage of the production chain and identified all possible welfare issues associated with that particular production system.
For ease of presentation the following example represents only the broiler growing stage within the poultry meat cluster. The potential issues identified by the cluster are highlighted in blue type.
d. Consult stakeholders and ask them to grade these issues
In 2009, all clusters produced an agreed list of main welfare issues within each of the respective sectors. This was then distributed for comment and consultation with external stakeholders, categorised in four groups: farmers and integrators, retailers, NGOs and scientists. These stakeholders were asked to grade these issues in terms of:
- the relative severity of the issue (score 1-5);
- the number of animals affected in everyday production (score 1-3).
This consultation was carried out in each of the cluster groups and feedback was received from over 200 interested stakeholders.
e. analyse the data to generate a list of key issues
The analysis of this feedback was then carried out as follows:
- For each issue the score given for the severity of issue (1-5) was multiplied by the score given for the number of animals affected (1-3). This yielded an overall score for each issue from each stakeholder; thus the maximum score for an issue was 5 x 3 = 15, minimum = 1 x 1 = 1.
- The stakeholder scores per issue were summed and an average score was then calculated for each issue.
- The issues were then ranked numerically from the highest to the lowest, with the highest average score indicating the most important welfare issue.
- The data was further analysed (using the methodology described above) to reflect the prevailing perceptions within each of the stakeholder groups: farmers and integrators, retailers, NGOs, scientists.
- The final list of key issues was an amalgamation of: any issue that appeared in the top 10 'overall' ranking plus, any issue that appeared in the top 5 ranking of any stakeholder group.
- The issues were then reassessed by the stakeholder groups to ensure that no topical issues had been overlooked. Three such issues were identified and included in the appropriate lists of top welfare issues: pododermatitis in broilers, bone strength in end of lay caged egg layers, provision of shade / shelter in beef production.
These 'priority' lists were then used as the bases for the next phase of the project, i.e. writing the SADs.
SADs
For this second phase of the project, the EAWP MC and each product cluster worked through a series of four steps to generate a SAD for each of the key welfare issues that had been identified in their cluster in the first phase. These steps were:
a. generation of a template for the best practice questionnaires;
b. second consultation with stakeholders;
c. drafting of SADs;
d. editing of SADs.
a. Generation of a template for the best practice questionnaires
The MC initially devised a template to ensure that the best practice questionnaires would be constructed in a similar way across clusters. Within this template, it was agreed that every SAD should identify and comment on the following aspects of each welfare issue:
- current situation with regard to the issue;
- the cause of the issue;
- how the issue should be monitored in the field;
- existing legislation that relates to the issue;
- existing best practice in dealing with the issue;
- short-term goals to address the issue;
- long-term goals to address the issue;
- R&D requirements to achieve the long term goals.
The clusters were charged with writing these strategic approach documents based on information derived from three main sources:
- expertise from within the cluster and their companies / contacts;
- external experts brought in to advise on specific issues;
- information received from further consultation with stakeholders.
b. Second consultation with stakeholders
All the stakeholders who took part in the consultation exercise in the first phase of the project were again consulted. This time they were provided with a list of the top welfare issues that had been identified in each cluster and asked to answer a series of questions (in the questionnaire) about each of these issues:
- What is current best practice?
- What should be the short term actions to address this issue - please list any barriers to implementation?
- What should be the longer term strategy to solve this problem?
- What are the key parameters that should be used to monitor and measure progress on this issue?
- What R&D is required to generate improved practice?
c. Drafting of the strategic approach documents
As the completed questionnaires were returned by the stakeholders, the information was collated and fed back to the clusters to inform them of the range of stakeholder ideas that should receive further consideration for eventual incorporation in the SADs.
A new template was then formulated for the SADs in an attempt to minimise the risk of repetition and to make the documents more concise. This new template required comments on the following points:
- the problem(s)
- legislation
- measuring and monitoring
- existing best practice
- short-term goals
- long-term goals
- R&D requirements.
The strategic approach documents were completed by the clusters and returned to the MC. A series of exchanges between the editing team, the MC and the cluster groups then followed and the content of each SAD was thoroughly discussed and agreed.
d. Editing of strategic approach documents
In the final stage, each SAD was edited further by the editing team and the MC to ensure that the documents were all presented in a similar format and harmonised as much as possible. Of course, it was recognised that best practice sections could not be equally prescriptive in all clusters; for example, areas such as beef and dairy are particularly difficult to harmonise because of the huge variation in production systems in this sector. Best practice, goals and R&D requirements also tended to be larger and more diverse in relatively young product groups such as farmed salmon.
Catching practices
There are three types of equipment used in the catching of laying hens:
- modular systems e.g. Stork, Anglia Autoflow, Linco;
- loose crates;
- vehicles with fixed containers, commonly referred to as 'side-loaders'.
Depending on the equipment used and the type of housing system that is being depopulated, there are two basic ways of organising the catching. In a minority of cases modules or baskets are taken to the birds; this is sometimes possible in extensive systems where house access is feasible. More commonly, the birds are carried out of the building to the modules / loose baskets (which remain on the vehicle) or to side-loader vehicles. This is always the case when depopulating caged systems.
When removing the birds out of the cages, care must be taken not to damage them through collision with the doors or the feed track which typically runs along the front of the cage.
Commonly, the problems associated with manual catching manifest themselves as carcase bruising or limb dislocations. Issues include:
- breast bruising, caused by collision with the feed trough in cage systems;
- wing bruising / dislocation, caused when the birds collide with the cage structure (doors, feed trough) and by flapping when the birds are inverted for carrying;
- leg bruising, caused by poor catching technique, e.g. if single leg catching is use. This is more common when filling the top drawers of a module.
Care must also be taken not to trap and injure the birds when the drawers are closed in modular systems.
Legislation
Currently, there is no specific legislation regarding catching other than the basic animal welfare recommendations regarding the handling of animals. There is, however, legislation relating to the number of birds placed in each transport basket; this is covered in the SAD, EAWP - EGG 05, which relates to the transport of laying birds.
Monitoring and measuring
There are two main types of measures: resource and animal-based. The animal based measures (e.g. yes / no, how much, how often, when) can be taken at different levels according to the interest group, perhaps in greater depth for research purposes. The standard of management / husbandry also plays a key role.
Resource-based measures:
- catching team identity;
- birds / hour / man;
- type of equipment - modules / loose baskets;
- stocking density per basket (cm2 / kg);
- catching technique - number of birds per hand, single leg or two leg catching;
- supervision - is there a farm representative present?
- use of a breast support slide?
- lighting.
Animal-based measures:
- weight of bird;
- percentage wing bruising / dislocation caused by catching;
- percentage leg bruising / dislocation caused by catching;
- percentage dead on arrival.
Monitoring of all resource based measures can take place at the farm. Data should be collected separately for each house and related to the loads caught from that house. In this case, the animal based measures should be recorded at the slaughterhouse. For many of the animal based measures, a sample of birds is normally assessed from within the load; a sample of 100 birds for each welfare issue is typical. All data collected is typically recorded by 'vehicle-load' of birds delivered to the slaughterhouse. This data is then related to the house of origin.
Camera grading systems (image analysis) are available to measure carcase quality and these can generate useful data for the assessment of bruising. However, as with visual assessment, interpretation of the data is often problematic because it is difficult to determine the exact time that the bruising occurred. For instance, the bird could have suffered bruising at the farm, during catching or transport, when hung on the shackles or at stun.
Existing best practice
There are several practical measures that can be taken to minimise problems during the process of manual catching.
In cage systems best practice would be to:
- grasp the birds by both legs when removing them from the cage;
- use a 'breast support slide'. This is a device which fits into the feed trough and forms a slide for removing the birds from the cage;
- carry no more than six birds at a time (three per hand);
- ensure two teams work in tandem from either side of the cage. Due to the size of enriched cages it is not actually possible to catch the birds from only one side;
- the system should be designed to incorporate a fully opening cage-front. This maximises access and reduces the likelihood of damaging the bird on removal.
In extensive systems best practice would be to:
- ensure as much equipment as possible is removed from the house before the start of the catching process;
- ensure that the lights are dimmed to minimise bird disturbance;
- bring the equipment as close as possible to the birds;
- catch the birds by both legs;
- carry no more than six birds at a time (three per hand).
In all systems, it is recommended that a representative of the farm staff is present to supervise the catch and to deal with any issues that may arise. The supervisor must ensure that all the birds are adequately ventilated and that their behaviour is monitored to avoid the risk of smothering and injury.
Short term goals:
- Effectively disseminate guidance as to best catching practice
- Improve recording systems in slaughterhouses to measure the extent of the problem accurately and relate data back to the farmer and the catching teams
- Establish international benchmarking of performance
- Improve training, including the certification of catchers to promote best practices.
Long term goals:
- To develop catching systems where the equipment is brought to the birds thus negating the requirement to carry them over long distances.
R&D requirements:
- Develop and test catching systems that eliminate the need to carry the birds over long distances between cage and vehicle.
- Currently, most R&D is carried out by the companies developing automated catching systems. It is suggested that funding should be made available to support independent integrated projects involving researchers, equipment manufacturers and other stakeholders to develop practical welfare-friendly solutions to the problems caused by manual catching.
Established network and trust among partners
The EAWP is the first multi-stakeholder organisation in the field of farm animal welfare. The establishment of this Platform is not only an unique but also a very important and timely achievement. The EAWP ultimately consisted of representatives from 21 partner organisations, all of whom were committed to working together to safeguard and progress the welfare of farmed animals in Europe. Six of these partners joined during the evolution of the project. The partners of this strong network are also linked, through business, with many other organisations throughout Europe and beyond, thereby ensuring that the EAWP speaks with a powerful and international voice.
All members of the EAWP readily signed a code of conduct whereby they agreed to conduct themselves in all activities related to the platform with the highest degree of ethics and integrity. The basic principle of the platform is to openly communicate its work as broadly as possible, though if a partner preferred that a specific piece of their information was not communicated outside the EAWP then this wish was respected. However, as it turned out, from an early stage all knowledge sharing within the EAWP was conducted in a genuine and particularly fruitful atmosphere of openness, friendliness and trust.
In every sense, the EAWP has become much more than the sum of its parts.
Potential impact:
The potential impact and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results
Farm animal welfare is a matter of growing and vociferous public concern. Consumers' preferences and purchasing choices underpin the societal and economic sustainability of agro- and food-chains so it is very important for the industry, both from a corporate social responsibility and a market point of view, to rebuild and maintain consumer trust in how food animals are kept across Europe. The EAWP project was established to address these concerns and requirements. In the first project of its kind in the field, major stakeholders worked together in the EAWP to safeguard and progress farm animal welfare, harnessing the efforts of principal stakeholders throughout the supply chain and thereby contributing to a European KBBE. EAWP partners represented major companies in the animal production sector (producers, processors, retailers, food service), animal welfare organisations and academia; all the participants had considerable practical experience of welfare issues and were recognised leaders in their field. The platform was also able to exploit outcomes of the EC-funded WELFARE QUALITY® project on welfare assessment protocols, product information and practical welfare improvement strategies by building on and complementing them in a commercial environment. This relationship offered significant benefits in terms of welfare improvement, better farm management, product placement and targeting, scientific advancement, the satisfaction of consumers' demands, and guidance for the legislative process. Continued realisation of these benefits will have a substantial and positive impact on the sustainability of European agriculture.
Working in an atmosphere of openness and trust the Platform facilitated the exchange of knowledge, expertise, resources and networks. This resulted in the following major achievements:
- Identification of knowledge gaps, (as well as strengths), and the prioritisation of research needs based on current and expected legislation as well as existing and emerging welfare problems. This contributes to continuing efforts to place welfare policy and welfare legislation on a clear scientific footing.
- Provision of state-of-the-art advice to guide policy formulation on key R&D priorities, legislation, accreditation, certification, education etc.
- Identification of best practices in the industry and the optimal ways of implementing them.
- Guidance for the animal product industry to shape its policies and initiatives on animal welfare and to thereby safeguard and expand its market share.
- Support for the development of the European Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals and the potential establishment of a European Animal Welfare Centre by establishing a specific information and communication platform on farm animal welfare to nurture a broad, long-term dialogue and the rapid exchange of knowledge. Indeed, the platform's activities fitted seamlessly and in a very timely fashion in the priorities of the Community Action Plan.
- Development of information tools and communication strategies that can be used to effectively engage consumers, producers, policy makers and other important stakeholders.
More specifically, the development of a set of SADs for each of the product groups became not only a major and overarching objective of the EAWP but also a particularly important achievement. Through a series of widespread consultation exercises involving committed stakeholders (and external experts where necessary) these SADs:
i) identify and prioritise key welfare issues / problems in several animal product groups (beef and dairy cattle, pigs, laying hens, broiler chickens, and salmon);
ii) identify existing legislation regarding each of the key welfare issues;
iii) describe ways of monitoring and measuring the various welfare issues;
iv) discuss existing (and potential) best practices for dealing with each of the welfare issues, v) propose short- and long-term goals for welfare and economic improvement; and
vi) list the most pressing R&D priorities.
It is clearly in the industry's and the legislators' own interests to satisfy the growing demand by consumers and citizens for reliable, credible and easily understandable information about the welfare status of farm animals as well as ways of improving the animals' quality of life. The members of the EAWP were and remain committed to disseminating information about the platform's work activities and about farm animal welfare developments to a wide audience, including the public. The EAWP therefore communicated the results of its activities to a broader audience using several dissemination tools; these included:
- a dedicated EAWP website (please see http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster) online);
- newsletters, leaflets and, press releases;
- the set of 58 SADs;
- a PowerPoint presentation of the platform, its aims and activities was used to target the general public;
- a booklet describing the project's aims, achievements and recommendations;
- an audio-visual presentation of the platform's efforts.
In conclusion, this platform is a unique, timely and important achievement. Together with the partners' global business links the EAWP represents a sufficiently wide spread of product chains, interest groups, knowledge, expertise, geography, and cultures to ensure that it speaks with a powerful and international voice on the welfare of farmed animals. By contributing to the generation of integrated ('speaking with one voice') rather than fractured viewpoints the project outcomes can also strengthen the European position in global negotiations on farm animal welfare.
Prof Dr Harry J Blokhuis
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Tel: +46-186-71627
Fax: +46-186-73588
E-mail: harry.blokhuis@slu.se
Project website address: http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu(öffnet in neuem Fenster)
