Search

Your search keyword '"Inga Wolff"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Inga Wolff"
2 results on '"Inga Wolff"'

1. The welfare impacts of mechanical and manual broiler catching and of circumstances at loading under field conditions

Author

Julia Mönch, Elke Rauch, Sandrina Hartmannsgruber, Michael Erhard, Inga Wolff, Paul Schmidt, Angela R. Schug, and Helen Louton

Subjects
broiler, manual loading, mechanical loading, injury, DOA, Animal culture, SF1-1100
Abstract

Loading of broilers for transport to the processing plant poses a notable injury risk for broilers. Therefore, the poultry industry has developed mechanical methods as alternatives to manual loading methods. Our objective in the present study was to compare manual loading (MAN) of broilers with the mechanical loading (MECH). We assessed the injuries of broilers of 12 MAN and 12 MECH flocks on-farm before and immediately after loading, documented the numbers of broilers dead on arrival reported by the processing plant, and assessed the circumstances at loading. A smaller number of broilers with a hematoma (≥0.5 cm in diameter) on the wing were observed after MAN compared with MECH using the examined harvester (MAN vs. MECH odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.28). The number of broilers with severe wing injuries did not differ between the loading methods. The number of broilers dead on arrival was greater in mechanically loaded flocks (MAN vs. MECH odds ratio: 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.10, 0.68), but lower than in comparable studies. We observed a lower average stocking rate than targeted in the drawers of MECH containers, most likely because the used harvester can adapt to short-term changes in weight and adjust the stocking rate during the loading process. A longer total loading duration in MAN was associated with an increase of wing hematomas, and the involvement of more working people per 10,000 broilers during MAN was associated with a lower occurrence of hematomas. The total loading duration in MECH had no notable influence on the occurrence of injuries. Physical conditions of the involved personnel might play a larger role in MAN than in MECH. The harvester that was examined should be further developed to reduce the occurrence of hematomas. Our results indicate that the choice of loading method alone does not determine the injury risk, and multiple factors are associated with broiler welfare during loading. It is important that the chosen method is performed under the most adequate conditions.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Harvesting-induced stress in broilers: Comparison of a manual and a mechanical harvesting method under field conditions

Author

Julia Mönch, Helen Louton, Sonja Härtle, Inga Wolff, Elke Rauch, Sandrina Klein, Paul Schmidt, and Michael Erhard

Subjects
business.industry, Body weight, Confidence interval, Light intensity, Animal science, Induced stress, Food Animals, Medicine, Animal Science and Zoology, Statistical analysis, Flock, business, Blood parameters, Field conditions
Abstract

Harvesting of broilers is a stressful event, whether done mechanically or manually. The use of harvesting machines might compromise animal welfare less than manual harvesting methods because it is less influenced by environmental and flock-specific factors. In this paper, a mechanical and a manual harvesting method are compared in regard to stress-induced behavioural and physiological reactions. The stationary person test and the avoidance distance touch test were applied before harvesting to estimate pre-treatment fear of humans in the flocks. We then recorded the behaviour of the flocks during harvesting and evaluated stress-induced behaviour such as wing flapping and escape behaviour. Furthermore, we took blood samples at the abattoir and analysed the corticosterone concentration and heterophil/lymphocyte ratio. In a statistical analysis, all assessed parameters were related to environmental and flock-specific factors, as well as to the risk of lesions such as haematomas and fractures. Our aim was to figure out if the use of a harvesting machine, in this case the Apollo Generation 2, puts less stress on broilers during harvesting than manual catching. The applied behaviour tests indicate the excitability and fear of humans of the flocks but are complex to interpret. Compared with mechanical harvesting, manual harvesting was more influenced by environmental and flock-specific factors such as average weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.11; 2.22]) or catching duration (OR = 1.79; 95% CI [1.44; 2.19]). The results verified a correlation between stress-induced behaviour and the occurrence of lesions. The risk for haematomas was influenced by escape behaviour during manual harvesting (OR = 1.07; 95% CI [1.02; 1.13]) and by bumps against the containers (OR = 1.06; 95% CI [1.05; 1.07]) and flips (OR = 6.23; 95% CI [3.99; 9.27]) during mechanical harvesting. The risk for fractures during mechanical harvesting was influenced by the occurrence of flips (OR = 2.74; 95% CI [1.07; 5.67]). The risk for wing flapping was twice as high during manual harvesting as during mechanical harvesting (OR = 2.11; 95% CI [1.82; 2.44]). The blood parameters showed no correlations with the initial behaviour test results and the assessed stress-induced behaviour during harvesting. Corticosterone concentration was strongly influenced by light intensity (beta = 3.75; 95% CI [2.55; 4.95]) and outdoor temperature (beta = 46.34; 95% CI [39.18; 53.27]) during manual harvesting. The results showed weak points of both harvesting methods, and we offer suggestions to improve animal welfare during harvesting.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results