Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T04:55:53.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Observational cohort Study of the Effects of Catching Method on Carcase Rejection Rates in Broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Ekstrand
C Ekstrand*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Section of Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE - 532 23 Skara, Sweden
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Automatic broiler catching machines have been developed for several reasons. Manual catching is expensive, often rough and may cause injury to the birds. Apart from animal welfare considerations, the demand for good quality meat means that rejection rates must be kept at a low level. The poor working conditions for manual catching teams are also an important factor. Only a few scientific studies on the effects of catching machines on bird health and welfare have been published. In this study, the carcase rejection rates in relation to manual and mechanical catching were compared at a poultry abattoir following a change of loading and unloading systems. The effect on the level of birds found ‘dead on arrival’ at the slaughterhouse initially varied considerably, regardless of catching method. During the last 3-month period of the study however, mechanically caught flocks showed significantly higher frequencies of dead birds on arrival than manually caught flocks. During the same last period, when running-in problems should be regarded as solved, the prevalence of bruises was also still significantly higher in the mechanically caught flocks, whereas the prevalence of fractures did not differ significantly between the two groups. This suggests that there are still opportunities for further improvements of the machine, although in Sweden it has now been accepted for commercial use in accordance with Swedish animal welfare legislation, under the supervision of the National Board of Agriculture.

Keywords

animal welfareautomaticdowngradingharvestermachinemanual
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
© 1998 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 1983 Broiler Collector. Poultry World 137(27): 23Google Scholar
Anonymous 1986 Modules cut costs and improve bird comfort with Thornhill’s catchers. Poultry World 140(3): 14Google Scholar
Anonymous 1988 Tamdev’s three-part system. Poultry World 142(9): 19Google Scholar
Aitken, G 1985 Poultry meat inspection as a commercial asset State Veterinary Journal 39: 136–140Google Scholar
Bay liss, P A and Hinton, M H 1990 Transportation of broilers with special reference to mortality rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, P S, Kettlewell, P J and Moran, P 1990 The AFRC Mark I experimental broiler harvester. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 47: 153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, A N 1986a Automation of broiler harvesting. Poultry International 25(1): 41–42Google Scholar
Bingham, A N 1986b Harvesting broilers. British Poultry Science 27: 150.Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1989 The assessment of welfare during the handling and transport of broilers. In: Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 93–107. World Poultry Science Association/European Federation of the World’s Poultry Science Association’s Working Group 9 on Poultry Welfare: Nouzilly, FranceGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Slee, G S, Kettlewell, P, Berry, P and Carlisle, A J 1986 Comparison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand. British Poultry Science 27: 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elson, H A 1986 Careful handling key to downgrades. Poultry World 140(1): 16Google Scholar
Gerrits, A R, de Koning, K and Mighels, A 1985 Catching broilers. Poultry 1(5): 20–23Google Scholar
Gracey, J F 1986 Meat Hygiene, 8th edition pp 455–458. Baillière Tindall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G and Wilkins, L J 1990 Broken bones in chickens: effect of stunning and processing in broilers. British Poultry Science 31: 53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, G L and Nairn, M E 1984 Carcase downgrading of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 25: 441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jee, D 1985 Broiler sweeper marks another step in auto-collection. Poultry World 139(10): 10Google Scholar
Jee, D 1986 UK processors opt for modular systems. Poultry World 140(19): 18–20Google Scholar
Kettlewell, P J and Turner, M J B 1985 A review of broiler chicken catching and transport systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 31: 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, T G and Broom, D M 1990 The handling and transport of broilers and spent hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayes, F J 1980 The incidence of bruising in broiler flocks. British Poultry Science 21: 505–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M A and Kettlewell, P J 1993 Catching and transport of broiler chickens. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, pp 219–229. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Moran, P and Berry, P S 1988 New developments in broiler harvesting. In: Science and the Poultry Industry pp 26–27. Agricultural and Food Research Council: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Moran, P and Berry, P S 1992 Mechanised broiler harvesting. Farm Buildings and Engineering 91: 24–27Google Scholar
Parry, R T 1989 Technological developments in pre-slaughter handling and processing. In: G C Mead (ed) Processing of Poultry pp 65–101. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Reed, M J 1974 Mechanical harvesting of broiler chickens. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering 17: 74–77, 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G B 1993 Poultry handling: a review of mechanical devices and their effect on bird welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal 49: 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, C 1985 Ways to reduce downgrading. World Poultry Science 41: 16–17Google Scholar
Yogaratnam, V 1995 Analysis of the causes of high rates of carcase rejection at a poultry processing plant. Veterinary Record 137: 215–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar