How to assess animal welfare with outcome-based standards

Dr. Temple Grandin advised the poultry industry to use three standards for assessing poultry welfare, as it grows increasingly important to consumers.

Dr. Temple Grandin discusses animal welfare issues at the 2016 National Meeting on Poultry Health, Processing and Live Production. | Terrence O'Keefe
Dr. Temple Grandin discusses animal welfare issues at the 2016 National Meeting on Poultry Health, Processing and Live Production. | Terrence O'Keefe

The poultry industry continues to be challenged to optimize production while facing pressure from consumers calling for the removal of antibiotics and animal rights groups calling for greater poultry welfare. According to Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University, the answer to this challenge starts with going back to the basics and measuring observable outcomes.

Speaking at the 2016 National Meeting on Poultry Health, Processing and Live Production, Dr. Grandin told the audience, “We have to do things that are practical and work.”

She expressed concern that instead of basing animal welfare off of directly observable outcomes, it will turn into a complicated system of audits and paperwork.  

Dr. Grandin pointed to three outcome-based standards on which to gauge animal welfare.

1. Animal-based

Dr. Grandin said animal-based outcomes should be the priority in assessing bird welfare. For example, counting the number of broken wings or number of birds stunned the first time. These are observable measurable outcomes, she said, unlike paperwork that can be faked.

Dr. Grandin also noted the welfare tradeoff between bird discomfort and stunning methods. Electrical stunning works fine, she said, however this relies on the bird being properly positioned entering the stunner. Gas stunning, on the other hand, takes out the human element of handling the birds. In order to decide which is better for bird welfare, Dr. Grandin said you must observe what happens to the bird during gas stunning before it loses posture and falls over. If the birds try to jump out of the box with gas stunning, then that is unacceptable; but, if done correctly, a little discomfort for the bird during gas stunning could be a more humane tradeoff than the stress of hanging an unstunned bird, as happens with electrical stunning.

2. Procedures or practices that are not allowed

By observing what is actually going on in the plant, animal welfare can be gauged through the procedures and practices being followed. Dr. Grandin said that when auditing a poultry plant, it is important to be very clear and specific in documenting what is observed. Vague language such as “handled improperly” can mean different things to different people, so it does not truly describe the welfare situation. Rather, auditors should document exactly what they observe, in language such as “viewed birds being picked up by one wing,” she said.

3. Engineering or input standards

Few engineering standards relating to welfare can be quantified, Dr. Grandin said, but one that can be is air quality, such as measuring the ammonia concentration in the poultry house.

This standard also involves observing the plant's equipment – and management plays a key role in ensuring that what is observed in the plant is positively impacting bird welfare, according to Dr. Grandin.

She gave an example of taking McDonald’s executives through a hatchery, and viewing a sorter for chicks and eggs with broken rollers, throwing chicks and eggs around, and a box of culled baby chicks that were not going to be euthanized properly. As a result of this visit, the company implemented a carbon dioxide euthanasia process for the culled baby chicks. This, she said, was a management issue.

“You need to look at how things are going to fly with the public – it’s that simple,” Dr. Grandin emphasized.

Welfare approach to please consumers, producers

To please consumers but still produce efficiently and profitably, Dr. Temple Grandin advised the poultry industry to take a more middle-of-the-road approach.  

“I don’t want welfare requirements in the future to cripple people to where they can’t be innovative,” she said.

Since there can be a big tradeoff between pleasing consumers and producing efficiently in terms of animal welfare, Dr. Grandin told poultry industry members to look at optimizing their systems.

For example, chickens in the U.S. today are often viewed in consumers’ eyes as being pumped with hormones to grow so big, so quickly and unable to walk, as a result. On the contrary, Dr. Grandin praised the industry for its recent improvements in bird performance and welfare. With better feed conversion now than in chickens of the past, she acknowledged that it was not practical for a producer to take a 20 percent loss in feed conversion just to please consumers with a slower-growing, smaller bird. Instead, she suggested producers consider making more moderate changes that could satisfy consumers while not drastically affecting their bottom line.

Likewise, consumers’ calls for antibiotic-free meat are not totally in line with animal welfare expectations. Diseases in birds, as in sick humans, cause pain and suffering, so it would be inhumane not to treat them with antibiotics if required. Again, Dr. Grandin favored a more moderate response to this, urging the industry to treat sick animals, but not to use antibiotics as a mass medication and use them in moderation.

“Don’t let bad become normal,” she said.

Page 1 of 33
Next Page