Symposium: Animal welfare challenges for today and tomorrow

Symposium: Animal welfare challenges for today and tomorrow Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton,∗,1 Karen D. Christensen,† Joy A. Mench,‡ Elizabeth R. Rumley,§ Christine Daugherty,# Bruce Feinberg,¶ Molly Parker,∗∗ Paul Siegel,†† and Colin G. Scanes‡‡ ∗

Center for Food Animal Wellbeing, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; † Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; ‡ Department of Animal Science and Center for Animal Welfare, University of California, Davis; § National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR; # Tyson Foods, Inc., Springdale, AR; ¶ McDonald’s Corporation, Oak Brook, IL; ∗∗ Butterball LLC, Garner, NC; †† Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; and ‡‡ Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI

Key words: Welfare, Public perception, Welfare challenges 2016 Poultry Science 00:1–10 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew099

INTRODUCTION

dress the following topics included in the symposium at some detail:

This paper represents a summary of a symposium held at the 2015 annual meeting of the Poultry Science Association. The symposium was designed to expose the audience to the many facets of “Animal Welfare” and was very well attended. Accompanying papers ad-

r Values, trust, and science – building trust in to-

day’s food system in an era of radical transparency (Arnot, 2016) r Immune responses to improving welfare (Berghman, 2016) r The biology of stress (Scanes, 2016) The size of the audience choosing to attend this symposium reflected a desire by poultry scientists to be informed in an arena that is diverse not only in the scientific community but globally in societies concerned

 C

2016 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received September 30, 2015. Accepted February 6, 2016. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected]

1

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

ing to alternatives like enriched colonies or cage-free. While these alternative systems have hen welfare advantages, there are also welfare disadvantages that require the development of mitigation strategies, and it is also essential to address associated issues including economic, environmental, egg safety, and worker health impacts. Concerns on the horizon include euthanasia of surplus male chicks and spent hens as well as beak-trimming. The humaneness of slaughter methods is an important welfare and consumer confidence issue, and the current regulations for poultry slaughter in the USA are discussed and compared to those for livestock. The poultry and allied industries, including retailers, are responding to these concerns by consulting with experts, developing sciencebased animal care standards and auditing programs, strengthening training and oversight programs, promoting research, and improving communication channels. In future, intensifying multi-disciplinary research efforts and developing mechanisms to improve communication between scientists and stakeholders, including the public, will be critical to addressing these issues.

ABSTRACT The increasing separation of the public from production agriculture means there is often a lack of knowledge among consumers about current production practices and a perception that increased productivity and economic efficiency are necessarily associated with a decline in animal welfare. A symposium was organized to present information about animal welfare issues and the challenges they pose for both scientists and the poultry and allied industries. Companion papers provide information about understanding public attitudes and physiological/immunological approaches to welfare assessment, while this paper outlines current and future challenges to egg and meat production and industry responses to those challenges. For broiler chickens, increases in growth rate result in corollary increases in metabolic heat generation and water consumption, leading to the need for continuing improvements in housing, ventilation, and litter management. Stocking densities, lighting programs, muscle myopathies, and use of antibiotics are also areas that require research attention. In the layer industry, the key challenge is housing, with the industry undergoing a shift from conventional cage hous-

2

VIZZIER THAXTON ET AL.

with the production and safety of their supply of poultry products. The present paper and the accompanying papers discussing a range of welfare-related topics ranging from basic science (Berghman, 2016; Scanes, 2016) to challenges to poultry meat (Christensen) and egg industries (Mench) to how industry and retailers approach the issues (present paper) and the views of the consuming public (Arnot, 2016).

Consumer Perception

THE MODERN BROILER Scientific Credibility With Consumers

A History of Broilers

Today, scientific credibility is at risk. By its nature, science is simply a collection of conclusions or “facts” based the aggregate of the research data. These lead to conclusions that may be superseded or disproven, as with advances in technology, advances or new knowledge, and changes in the scientific consensus. This process has unfortunately produced confusion among the general public, who see these changes as indicators of a lack of knowledge. As a result, the scientific community needs to learn to address these issues in language that is widely understood. To do this, it is necessary for scientists to listen to the questions and answer them directly and simply. This same issue must be addressed in communicating with policy makers (e.g., legislators) and opinion leaders (including in the media). It is argued that the controversy over use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is a result of the failure to

Commercial broiler production in the United States has risen meteorically since its beginning in since the middle of the 20th century. Herbert Hoover ran on the platform of “A Chicken in Every Pot,” referring to his plan to elevate the economic status of the nation so people could afford chicken. At that time, chickens were raised primarily to supply eggs, so availability of the meat was only when young male chickens from a layer flock were identified and finished for meat or when hens reached the end of their productive layer life. Because the effect of light on stimulating egg production was not understood yet and vitamin D was not available, chicken production was seasonal and farm-based (National Chicken Council, 2015b). During World War II, chicken and eggs were an important part of the US soldier’s diet and production concomitantly increased five-fold (Reimund et al.,

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

Today, less than 2% of the U.S. population are engaged in agriculture. Within the remaining 98%, there is not a full understanding of food production. This disparity is the result, in part, of the relative silence of both the farmers and agricultural scientists. This silence is not intentional but more commonly the result of a lack of opportunity and a failure to understand the extent of the need. This failure to effectively communicate is the number one challenge to advancing agriculture in general and especially with animal agriculture. Fifteen years ago, Fraser (2001) published a landmark paper that outlined the then-current perception of animal agriculture. This new perception is a roadmap to the challenges for today. The first point in this perception is that modern animal agriculture is detrimental of animal welfare. There is a need to understand this and other perceptions and respond to them rather than simply discount them. Failure to respond to each appropriately with facts is the root of the failure of scientists to communicate with the general public. These are complex issues that need to be addressed with “genuine investigation and analysis,” authenticity, sensitivity, and an ability to communicate empathy for both the animals and the producers. “Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care” Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919).

communicate. This issue has led to a demand that antibiotics not be used for agricultural animals. This demand might have been very different if the use of those antibiotics important to human medicine had been assigned to the treatment-only category while the existing antibiotics used in the poultry and livestock industry were continued but only for animal use. This confusion also led the way to a challenge for agricultural research– the loss of a significant research funding source. Reduction and elimination of animal antibiotic sales will reduce revenue sources for the pharmaceutical companies that have funded research in the past. The likely result will be a decrease in the research needed to continue to improve the health and welfare of farm animals. Changing technology has presented other challenges to the welfare of farm animals. Changes in genetics resulting from targeted selection is changing the management and nutrition of modern poultry. This means that knowledge gained using earlier strains may no longer be applicable and could lead to reduced welfare of these modern birds. The need to perform research on welfare influencing issues such as management (lighting, nutrition, thermoregulation), social interactions, leg health and muscle development, fertility, and mortality with these new strains if critical. At the same time, research on issues such as diseases control, climate change, sustainability, slaughter, and euthanasia is advancing. The changes in the broiler and layer birds along with new housing and management technology present a series of challenges for the welfare of these chickens. It is noted that the combination of public perception, extremist attacks, along with new technology, have led to questions concerning the exclusion of poultry from the U.S.A.’s Humane Slaughter Act, which present another set of challenges for the industry. These are discussed below.

SYMPOSIUM: ANIMAL WELFARE CHALLENGES

Broiler Production The brooding period is of critical importance in managing modern broiler flocks. At d 7, the body weight of the chick must have quadrupled (to 160 g) to insure the bird will have met its genetic potential at marketing; chick weight at d 7 being a good predictor of final body weight (Wilson, 1991; Tona et al., 2005). Early performance also has an impact on final mortality with the best 7-d weights having the highest livability. The brooding period is not only critical to producing the most efficient broilers but due to the ever-increasing growth rate, the brooding period is becoming a greater percentage of the growth period or entire flock. In 1955, the 14-d period defined at the “brooding period” consisted of 20% of the entire flock, while in 2014, the 14-d brooding period represented 30% of the flock. Thus, the brooding period requires intense management and less than perfect environmental conditions for just hours, can have a negative and measurable influence on the performance of the flock. An acronym to help us remember all of the factors that must be addressed during the brooding period is “FLAWS”. FLAWS reminds us that Feed, Litter, Air, Water, and Space are all environmental conditions that must be evaluated regularly during the brooding period and corrections, if needed, must be made immediately when deficiencies are identified.

Challenges to Broiler Production There are several challenges with the modern broiler. Density in the house has a potential impact on welfare. Unfortunately, there are no comprehensive studies on density that include behavior, performance, overall

health, leg health, and mortality rates. It is important that the impact of density should be evaluated across multiple parameters to determine the best density standards. This is not only a welfare concern but could have significant economic impacts on the industry and consumer. Modern broiler housing in most developed countries is now controlled by computers equipped with sophisticated environmental controls to provide a “nearperfect” environment for the broilers. The growth rate of the broiler has increased from 39 g per d in 1985 to 59 g per d in 2014. This would not have been possible without management of the environment for overall welfare of the birds (Dawkins et al., 2004). Improvements in housing have provided an environment that meets the demands of the modern broiler. However, challenges still exist. As the growth rate of broilers has increased, the amount of metabolic heat that must be removed from the birds has increased. It is estimated that the amount of metabolic heat has increased 30% in the last 20 years [M. Czarick (University of Georgia, Athens, GA, personal communication)]. The damaging effects of heat stress include decreased feed intake, decreased final weights, meat quality concerns, and gastrointestinal problems and a decrease in immune function (Cooper and Washburn, 1998; Bartlett and Smith, 2003). To reduce issues of heat stress, there have been major changes in housing from conventional, curtain sided housing to solid sidewall houses with cool cell technology. The wind speed recommendations for broilers has increased from 350–400 cfm in the 1990s to 700 cfm as the current standard (Czarick and Fairchild, 2010b). Thus housing and management will need to continue to evolve with improved genetics of the bird and increased growth rate and feed efficiency. Maintaining the proper environment for the birds will continue to be a challenge. Poor litter management/quality has negative effects on a flock of broilers. Litter quality is important providing a bedding that is soft, gives traction to support leg health and allows for natural behaviors like scratching and dust bathing. Litter that is too wet will result in air quality issues and foot pad and hock lesions (de Jong et al., 2014). Managing litter moisture is a primary function of a ventilation system. This has become more critical as the modern broiler now consumes more water than ever. Water consumption has nearly doubled in the last 25 years and research indicates this increase is more than that due to increased growth rate alone (Czarick and Fairchild, 2010a). Emphasis has been placed on lighting sources over the last several years. There has been a shift to compact fluorescent and more recently, LED lights due to the economic benefit to the farmers of the reduced the electric input costs. The new emphasis is on light intensity and its effects on welfare. Much work has been done on the benefit of dark/night periods or scotoperiods, to improve feed efficiency and control growth rate (Olanrewaju et al., 2006). Many welfare groups have developed criteria that includes minimum standards for

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

1981). Moreover, poultry was the only protein not rationed in the United States during World War II, so the domestic demand for chicken increased. It was not until The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A & P Grocery) sponsored the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest to promote the breeding and production of the ideal meat bird (based on a wax model with a broad, meaty breast) that meat birds became a priority. Many of the participants and winners of the contest are familiar names to the poultry industry today, including Cobb, Van-Tress, Saglio, and Hubbard. The science of poultry genetics was beginning in full swing, and the names of breeders that got their start during this contest are still the leading genetics companies’ of today. No longer dependent upon the laying hen for meat, the broiler industry began to expand along with improving genetics of the birds. The modern broiler has the genetic potential for rapid growth. Although beef and hogs have seen increases in weight and efficiency over the last 30 years, broilers have become very efficient converting feed to muscle at the rate of 1.86 kilograms (or pounds) of feed for every kilogram (pound) of live weight (National Chicken Council, 2015a).

3

4

VIZZIER THAXTON ET AL.

THE COMMERCIAL LAYER The laying hen industry has been undergoing rapid change due to emerging public concerns about hen welfare. In terms of framing, today’s challenges for the US commercial layer industry can be summed up in one word – housing. Currently, about 94% of laying hens in the US are kept in conventional cages, which were adopted beginning in the 1950s. Prior to this time, hens were kept mainly in small to medium-sized flocks in barns or free-range systems. These systems allowed the hens to perform a wide range of natural behaviors but also exposed them to vector- and soil-borne diseases and predation. Eggs laid outside of the designated nesting areas were dirtier and potentially contaminated with bacteria. Moving hens into cages reduced these problems and facilitated the expansion and integration of the laying industry by allowing larger, more concentrated and more automated production. Within a decade, however, conventional cage housing began to be criticized in Europe because of the extent to which it restricted the behavior of the hens (Mench et al., 2011). Not only were hens kept at very high stocking densities, the cages were small, bare wire enclosures that did not provide resources hens needed to carry out important behaviors such as perching, nesting, or foraging. The European Union (EU) initially adopted minimum space standards for conventional cages but then decided to ban them entirely, effective in 2012. A similar sentiment was growing in the United States. In 2008, California voters passed a referendum, Proposition 2

(The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) that, although ambiguously worded, effectively outlawed conventional cages for laying hens as of January, 2015. Legislation that either outlawed or restricted the use of conventional cages was then passed in Michigan, Ohio, Washington, and Oregon during the following 2 years (Rumley, personal communication, 2015). While these legislative efforts were led by animal welfare groups, mainly the Humane Society of the United States, national and multinational retailers were also increasingly committing to sourcing eggs produced in alternative systems, particularly cage-free eggs. Recent research suggests that there will be hen welfare and sustainability challenges associated with the egg industry moving to alternative production systems like enriched colony cages or cage-free systems (Lay et al., 2011; CSES, 2015). There is a need to reduce the risks of problems associated with the following: microbiological contamination of eggs, worker exposure to dust and ammonia, adverse environmental impacts, egg affordability for low-income consumers, and hen health and welfare. This will require sustained efforts directed towards improving system design and pullet and hen management, as well as developing innovative mitigation strategies. It will also require gaining a better understanding of public attitudes about laying hen production and welfare and creating mechanisms to facilitate a more constructive dialogue among stakeholders (Swanson et al., 2011).

Future Challenges for the Commercial Layer Industry Three future challenges are looming on the near horizon, namely: disposal of unwanted male chicks, handling of end-of-lay (spent) hens, and beak-trimming. Male layer chicks are currently euthanized shortly after hatching. The most common euthanasia methods are instantaneous maceration using a purposedesigned macerator and carbon dioxide inhalation. These methods are considered acceptable for newly hatched chicks by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA, 2013), although there has been relatively little research on either method. If properly carried out, maceration minimizes handling of the chicks and should result in instantaneous death; however, this method is aesthetically unpleasant to many people. A systematic study of gas euthanasia of chicks found that both argon and carbon dioxide inhalation could result in rapid loss of consciousness and death (within 3 minutes) without severe respiratory distress, although maintaining low residual oxygen concentrations was critical (Raj and Whittington, 1995), a finding that suggests that research further evaluating gas euthanasia under the large-scale conditions characteristic of commercial hatcheries would be beneficial. Even if methods are considered humane, however, killing surplus male chicks is ethically problematical

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

light intensity. There is increased interest in the effect of dim light on bird welfare. New research is needed to determine the impacts of light intensity and light source and then to establish new standards for the future. Other challenges of current concern include developing muscle myopathies including white striping in the breast muscle and “woody breast.” This is currently under investigation to help researchers understand the underlying etiology. These myopathies have welfare concerns as well as economic considerations as they may impact the appearance or quality of the meat. One of the newest challenge for broiler producers is the consumers’ interest in food products raised without antibiotics. The challenge is how to manage gut microflora to prevent enteric health issues. Ionophores are a class of drugs that are routinely used to treat coccidiosis in poultry flocks (Chapman et al., 2010). Although these drugs have no use in human medicine, there is pressure to prohibit their use. The loss of ionophores for coccidiosis control can result in bird health issues, loss of performance and an economic impact on the broiler industry. The welfare concern that sick flocks will not be adequately treated makes “raised without antibiotics” a controversial topic. The new challenge will be to establish management protocols that can overcome the loss of antibiotics and keep birds healthy and keep the broiler industry competitive around the world.

SYMPOSIUM: ANIMAL WELFARE CHALLENGES

trimmer. However, it is now more common for chicks to be trimmed at the hatchery using infrared beak treatment, which involves directing a high-intensity infrared energy source at the beak that causes the beak tip to erode and slough off beginning about 4 d posttreatment. It has been suggested that this is a “gentler” method than hot-blade trimming (Janczak and Riber, 2015) because it poses less potential for infection, does not cause chronic pain (McKeegan and Philby, 2012), and if properly carried out can result in greater beak uniformity (Carruthers et al., 2012). However, it does still cause acute pain (Janczak and Riber, 2015) and may be perceived to be an unnecessary mutilation that adversely affects the hen’s normal behavior and sensory capacity. Because of this beak-trimming has already been banned in Sweden and will likely be banned within a few years in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. However, despite decades of research there are no reliable methods for preventing feather pecking and cannibalism, although many complex risk factors have been identified (Nicol et al., 2013; Lambton et al., 2015a). In order to reduce or eliminate the need for beak trimming or treatment, continued effort will need to be directed towards identifying management practices and genetic selection programs that are consistently effective in greatly reducing or eliminating injurious pecking behavior (Nicol et al., 2013; Lambton et al., 2015b).

HUMANE SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY AND THE LAW A simple web search on “humane slaughter of poultry” leads to articles by many animal activist groups implying, if not outright stating, that the humane slaughter of poultry is not regulated. True statements, such as “the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. . . doesn’t protect chickens or turkeys” are combined with the innuendo that the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) is the only way humane slaughter is regulated (PETA, 2015). More complete information about the regulation of humane slaughter is helpful, not only for recognizing what protections are already in place, but also, if necessary, outlining a process to modify those protections. A law or statute is passed by a legislative body. Laws include large-scale language, broadly outlining the legislature’s priorities and requirements. On the federal level, laws must be passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then signed into law by the President. Laws are then published, or “codified,” as part of the United States Code. For example, on the federal level, Congress has passed laws such as the HSA. The HSA was written because Congress wanted to protect livestock from “needless suffering” [7 U.S.C. §1901]. As a result, HSA outlined the policy of the United States, “that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods” [7 U.S.C. §1901]. The sweeping

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

because of people’s views about the value of animal life (Bruijnis et al., 2015), and in particular the “waste” of animal life (Leenstra et al., 2010). These considerations led Germany and the Netherlands to fund research on potential alternatives. One proposed alternative is the use of dual-purpose chicken breeds, although this is presently not economically or environmentally viable for large-scale production because these breeds are inefficient as both meat and egg producers (Leenstra et al., 2010). A more likely alternative is the use in ovo sexing techniques that would allow male embryos to be identified and destroyed prior to hatching, or ideally prior to being incubated (Leenstra et al., 2011). Although work still needs to be done to ensure that such techniques are practical, safe for wanted embryos, and cost-effective, the German government considered one method (involving analyzing hormones in allantoic fluid; Weissman et al., 2013) so promising that they announced their intention to stop the killing of hatched male laying-strain chicks by the end of 2016 (Poultry Site, 2015). Flock depopulation methods have been in the spotlight recently because of the need to euthanize large numbers of birds (not only hens, but broiler chickens and turkeys) during the 2015 avian influenza outbreak. However, flock depopulation is actually a recurring issue for the egg industry even in the absence of disease problems, since end-of-lay (spent) hens must often be killed on-farm. Spent hens have a lower meat yield than broilers and the meat is also tougher, which makes it less desirable for human consumption unless it is further processed (Loetscher et al., 2015). Many spent hen processing plants in the US have closed down and thus hens to be processed may have to be transported a long distance to the nearest plant. There are welfare concerns associated with the handling, transport, and slaughter of spent hens, including osteoporosis-related bone breakage and high mortality during transit and lairage (Newberry et al., 1999; Hester, 2005). In the US, hens that cannot be sold are typically euthanized onfarm using carbon dioxide administered in a Modified Atmosphere Killing cart (Newberry et al., 1999). Although this method is considered acceptable (AVMA, 2013), it is relatively slow and it can be challenging to maintain the consistency of gas delivery and ensure death when depopulating tens of thousands of hens (Newberry et al., 1999). Further research is needed on more rapid, humane, on-farm depopulation methods, expanded uses for spent hen meat, and methods for improving hen welfare during transport (Weeks et al., 2012), holding and slaughter to begin resolving these issues. Beak-trimming is performed to reduce the injury and mortality associated with feather pecking and vent cannibalism in flocks. Feather pecking causes reduced feather cover and thus exposes the skin to injury and impairs thermoregulation, while vent cannibalism can be a major source of mortality. Until recently, pullets were trimmed at around 10 d of age using a hot-blade

5

6

VIZZIER THAXTON ET AL.

While “good commercial practices” are required in the PPIA regulations, the specific practices that are included in that definition are not so clearly defined. However, in 2005 the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) released a guidance document that included a suggestion that welfare be ensured by “treating poultry in such a manner as to minimize excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time that live poultry is held in connection with slaughter.” [Federal Register Notice, Docket No. 04–037N, Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter (8/28/05)]. Further, FSIS explained that establishments may do so through a three-step process: 1) Assessing under what circumstances poultry may experience excitement, discomfort, or accidental injury while being handled in connection with slaughter; 2) Taking steps to minimize the possibility of such excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury; and 3) Evaluating periodically how poultry are being handled and slaughtered to ensure a) that any excitement, discomfort, or accidental injury is being minimized; b) that all poultry are slaughtered in a manner that results in thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass; and c) that breathing has stopped before scalding. Id. The guidance document also lists a number of factors that may be used to determine whether the establishment’s approach is effective. These factors are drawn from the National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist. While the “good commercial practices” requirement is codified into regulations, the explanation of good commercial practices is not. The guidance document outlining the recommended approach to humane handling has not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and additionally, is outlined as voluntary steps that an establishment may make to meet the good commercial practices standard. This can be a benefit, as it allows facilities to make changes more quickly as better welfare, handling and slaughter practices evolve (without waiting for a change in regulation to be drafted and move through the notice-and-comment period). As one example, while the stunning of birds before slaughter is not required under either the PPIA or its accompanying regulations, industry routinely stuns birds before slaughter in commercial plants with the exception of those under a religious slaughter requirement (Bilgili, 1992). It can also be a detriment, because without specific requirements, it is more difficult for companies to plan for a consistent approach to welfare across various plants with different inspectors. Further, it may be more difficult to impose regulatory consequences on specific handling practices, unless those particular practices are forbidden within the regulatory scheme.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

language–“needless suffering,” “humane methods”–is very typical of statutory language, which provides the framework around which the enforcement parameters are developed. Regulations, on the other hand, are instituted by agencies. An agency, on the federal level, is part of the executive branch, and is ultimately under the direction and control of the president. In fact, the heads of each agency are members of the President’s cabinet. After being given authority by Congress to do so, agencies are responsible for creating regulations through a process known as “notice-and-comment rulemaking.” In this process a proposed rule is created, public comment is accepted on the proposed rule and, eventually, a final rule is published. Regulations usually provide the details that are necessary to enforce the broad language of the law itself, and may also outline the consequences for disobeying the law. For example, one of the regulations written by the United States Department of Agriculture as a result of the HSA describes acceptable captive bold stunning instruments as “either skull penetrating or nonpenetrating. The latter type is also described as a concussion or mushroom type stunner.” [9 C.F.R. §313.15(b)]. The regulation then explains the precise requirements for a penetrating and stunning systems. “Penetrating instruments on detonation deliver bolts of varying diameters and lengths through the skull and into the brain. Unconsciousness is produced immediately by physical brain destruction and a combination of changes in intracranial pressure and acceleration concussion.” [9 C.F.R. §313.15(b)]. However, the above examples discuss the HSA, which is limited to the slaughter of specific animals including “cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock” [7 U.S.C. §1901]. Poultry is not an included species, and as a result, the slaughter of poultry is not governed by this specific law or regulations. Instead, the slaughter of poultry, including the methods of slaughter, are governed by another federal law–the Poultry Products Inspection Act (“PPIA”) [21 U.S.C. §451— 472]. The PPIA, in the broad language of the statute, holds that it is “essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that poultry products distributed to them are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged. . . ” [21 U.S.C. §451]. Congress delegated authority to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to write the regulations, which outlined and explained what products are “wholesome” and “not adulterated.” The regulations require that “[p]oultry must be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensure that breathing has stopped prior to scalding.” [9 CFR §381.65]. Further, “[c]arcasses of poultry showing evidence of having died from causes other than slaughter shall be condemned.” [9 CFR §381.90].

SYMPOSIUM: ANIMAL WELFARE CHALLENGES

While the HSA is limited to regulating the welfare of livestock during the slaughter process, it does not mean that the welfare of poultry in the same situation is ignored. The PPIA also regulates the welfare of poultry, but does it in terms of regulating food safety rather than protection from “needless suffering.” Knowing the difference between the two while recognizing the benefits and drawbacks of each regulatory method can assist policymakers, welfare activists, and slaughter establishments in identifying the protections and requirements already in place, and if necessary, outlining a process to modify the protections in the future.

A View from Tyson Foods At Tyson Foods, we work with thousands of independent family farmers every day to provide safe, nutritious food for people all over the world. That starts with ensuring the health and well-being of those animals by properly taking care of them–treating them responsibly and with respect. It is simply the right thing to do. We continuously work on improvements and strive to be transparent in sharing the efforts that are being made to protect our animals and consumers. One of Tyson’s Core Values is, “We serve as stewards of the animals, land and environment entrusted to us.” Our commitment to animal well-being help us put that Core Value at the forefront of everything we do to address the needs of our animals, while providing our customers and consumers the quality food they expect. Our Office of Animal Well-Being works to provide a range of animal well-being related services. We work on developing animal well-being training for our team members and are able to advise on animal welfare issues and related science and technical topics. We also perform random audits at plants and analyze the results of third-party audits. Finally, we work with customers, trade groups, non-governmental organizations, and producer groups collaboratively. In 2012, we established the FarmCheckTM program. Through this program, an independent third party audits treatment of animals at the livestock and poultry farms that supply the company. The program is an extension of our long-standing commitment to responsible farm animal care. While we have a great internal staff dedicated to animal well-being, we know that we may not have all the answers, which is why we created as part of our FarmCheckTM an external animal well-being advisory panel consisting of individuals who are leaders in their fields. We listen as they help guide our efforts. As leaders in the industry, we see it as our responsibility to constantly pursue new and improved technology and methods to advance animal well-being. Our efforts relate directly to our Core Values. We expect our Team Members, as well as the independent poultry, cattle,

and hog farmers who supply us, to respect and serve as stewards of the animals we work with every day, treating them in a proper manner at all times. Those of us who have been in this industry for a while are performance-driven, so when we see a problem, a challenge, or a task, we just get it done. We don’t talk about it. We just do it. A few months ago, we announced our decision to eliminate human-use antibiotics in our broiler chicken flocks by the fall of 2017. To stay transparent during this process, we will report our progress annually beginning with our fiscal 2015 Sustainability Report. However, healthy animals mean safe and healthy food, so we’re committed to making sure the livestock and poultry we depend on are raised responsibly. Our philosophy is to use antibiotics only as needed and only when prescribed by a veterinarian. Tyson has formed working groups with independent farmers and others in the company’s cattle, hog, and turkey supply chains to discuss ways to reduce the use of human antibiotics on cattle, hog, and turkey farms. As these changes are being made, upholding the Core Values necessitate focus on continuous improvement to find or develop more effective animal well-being practices. Tyson is dedicated to doing the right thing, finding solutions that last, and looking for new and better ways in everything we do. That is our promise.

A View from McDonald’s Corporation Animal welfare is not a new concept at McDonald’s. In fact, we have been proactive in this space since the mid 1990s as we worked with Dr. Temple Grandin on the development of objective animal welfare measures that were later adopted by the American Meat Institute and that then became the foundation for beef, pork, and sheep welfare auditing globally. In the “early years,” our primary focus was on slaughter practices at our approved facilities located around the world (we have more than 600) at the direction of an animal welfare council, a small group of experts that provided guidance for beef, pork, and poultry. While the initial work was focused on improving slaughter practices to ensure euthanasia, there were other streams of work that also drove improvements in hen housing (increasing cage size for laying hens in 2000), prohibition of forced molting in laying hens, development of 7 guiding principles for animal welfare in 2002, and the implementation of a global antibiotic use policy in 2003, to cite just a few. McDonald’s has a legacy of commitment to animal welfare that is deeply rooted in our values as a global enterprise and our purchasing practices. And yet, for as much change as we have driven through our supply partners, customer sentiment continues to run negative, attributed in large part to our inability to figure out how to share (effectively communicate) what we do in this space in a clear and concise way that resonates with the customer. Clearly, what we say is not

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

INDUSTRY RESPONSES TO THE CONSUMER AND THE SCIENCE

7

8

VIZZIER THAXTON ET AL.

how far away, under what practices were the animals raised, if and how antibiotics were used and why, what’s in the feed, and not how the animal was slaughtered, but assurances that the animal was treated humanely, with compassion and respect–including those slaughtered under religious restriction. At the same time, there is increasing skepticism between the customer and business, particularly “big business.” What is particularly troubling is that for a company that has prided itself on making informed science based decisions and balancing what the science says with what customers expect, the balance is quickly tipping away from the science, fueled by the notion that from the customers’ viewpoint, “Science is what I get from Google, and my truth is not your truth because mine comes from those I trust (Facebook and Twitter), not from big business, which I don’t.” So what influence does this have on expectations for the future? In as much as McDonald’s would like nothing more than to focus on running better restaurants and serving our customers better food, our customers continue to tell us that they expect more of us then they do of our competitors. They expect us to “do the right thing;” they expect us to lead, to drive change, and to use our influence (purchasing power and market presence) to make things better. Some expect us to educate as well. We’d like to see industry take responsibility, to do not only their part, but to do their jobs. I sometimes have to remind the folks that I am speaking to that McDonald’s is not a pharmaceutical company, nor do we raise any livestock or operate any slaughter facilities. And after the almost deafening silence passes, the response is more often than not, “And your point is. . . ?”

A View from Butterball, LLC Butterball is committed to being a leader in responsible animal care and well-being practices to humanely produce wholesome food products for our customers and to analyze our operations to ensure continuous improvements. We emphasize science-based practices with appropriate training and oversight of all employees, contracted associates and suppliers. Our animal care and well-being program covers all aspects of bird care, including hatching, grow-out, loading, transporting and processing. We are committed to providing housing that is designed, maintained, and operated to provide a physical environment that meets the animals’ needs, as well as access to adequate volumes of water and highquality feed to meet the nutritional requirements of the bird. We are committed to identifying and appropriately treating any birds in need of health care, as well as the use of humane American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) approved methods to euthanize sick or injured birds that do not respond to care and treatment.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

what they hear. It’s worth mentioning that conducting business in 100+ countries is both a blessing and a curse. What we do in the local marketplace is informed by global guidance developed at the corporate center and subject to geographic and cultural diversity in each of those markets, making not only what we do, but how we communicate it, challenging. A sea change occurred in late 2013 when, as a result of a global attitudinal survey of McDonald’s customers in 5 countries, we realized that our customers generally did not understand the concept of animal welfare. Ask 5 people and get 7 different definitions, none of which reflected our definition of animal welfare. Shocking to say the least, but at least helpful, as now we were able to understand why we kept talking about our accomplishments regarding animal welfare and customers kept saying, “We have no idea what you are talking about.” While this bit of information proved to be interesting, the really important learning was the correlation in the customer’s mind between healthy animals and safe food. For a brand that is built a reputation of serving safe food for 60+ years, this was an “aha moment.” Like the linkage between food quality and safety, it is difficult to have a conversation about one and not the other, we now frame our work in this space as Animal Health and Welfare, and it’s resonating with our customers. This resulted in a “doubling down” of our efforts in this area, a renewed commitment and the formation of McDonald’s Global Animal Health and Welfare team, 40+ members representing our four geographic business units inclusive of veterinarians, physicians, academicians, clinical pharmacologists, epidemiologists, ethicists, and animal health and welfare experts. This renewed commitment created a bigger table at which all the experts would gather for the purpose of providing a safe haven for sticky conversation, with everyone having an equal voice in identifying the opportunities that a global brand like McDonald’s needed to be aware of. From this group of 40, we formed working groups based on individuals’ specific interests or field of expertise to initially address chicken health and welfare, from the egg through slaughter for laying hens, covering general and specific requirements for 4 different types of housing; for the improvement of beef and dairy cow health entering the food supply; and a working group focused on antimicrobial use, a growing customer concern. Since 2013, these working groups have forced the right conversations and as a result have helped to inform the development of guidance and audit criteria that we have already and will continue to deploy across our business. For as much progress that has been made, there is multiple more work to be done. Concurrent with the work described here over the last dozen years, customer expectations have advanced at an accelerating pace. Customers want to not only know what’s in it, and is it good for me, but from where it came (traceability),

SYMPOSIUM: ANIMAL WELFARE CHALLENGES

CONCLUSION There is a gap between scientific evidence and public perceptions. This may be in part because the science in many cases is interdisciplinary, poorly funded, and addresses a “moving target,” with advancing technologies and a public confused in a setting when opinion may “trump” evidence. These consumers are concerned and in many cases confused, with their main sources of information being the internet. Consumers want transparency and to build trust. Decisions by industry cannot always be based solely on scientific evidence. Rather, they have to be made on what information may be available at that time. Industry is seeking to use science, consumer perception, what’s practical and market issues. For poultry scientists in universities, government laboratories and industry, it is crucial that

we continue to address the challenges poultry welfare today and into the future.

REFERENCES Arnot, C. 2016. Values, trust, and science – building trust in today’s food system in an era of radical transparency. Poult. Sci. submitted. AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 2013. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2015. Bartlett, J. R., and M. O. Smith. 2003. Effects of different levels of zinc on the performance and immunocompetence of broilers under heat stress. Poult. Sci. 82:1580–1588. Berghman, L. R. 2016. Immune responses to improving welfare. Poult. Sci. submitted. Bilgili, S. F. 1992. Electrical Stunning of Broilers – Basic Concepts and Carcass Quality Implications: A Review. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1:135–146. Bruijnis, M. R. N., V. Blok, E. N. Stassen, and H. G. J. Gremmen. 2015. Moral “lock in” in responsible innovation: the ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and its alternatives. J. Agric. Env. Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7. Carruthers, C., T. Gabrush, K. Schwean-Lardner, T. D. Knezacke, H. L. Classen, and C. Bennett. 2012. On-farm survey of beak characteristics in White Leghorns as a result of hot blade trimming or infrared beak treatment. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 21:645–650. Chapman, H. D., T. K. Jeffers, and R. B. Williams 2010. Forty years of monensin for the control of coccidiosis in poultry. Poult. Sci. 89:1788–1801. Cooper, M. A., and K. W. Washburn. 1998. The relationship of body temperature to weight gain, feed consumption and feed utilization in broilers under heat stress. Poult. Sci. 77:237–242 CSES (Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply). Final Research Results. http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/final-results. Accessed September 28, 2015. Czarick, M., and B. Fairchild. 2010. Improved Growth Rates Can Make it Difficult to Control Litter Moisture. Poultry Housing Tips, University of Georgia, October 2010, Vol 27, No. 3. Czarick, M., and B. Fairchild. 2010. Older Fans May Not Be Suitable for a Modern Tunnel House. Poultry Housing Tips, University of Georgia, October 2010, Vol 27, No. 3. Dawkins, M. S., C. A. Donnelly, and T. A. Jones. 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature. 427:342–344. De Jong, I. C., H. Gunnink, and J. Van Harn. 2014. Wet litter not only induces foot pad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance and carcass yield in broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 23:51–58. Fraser, D. 2001. The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 79:634–641. Hester, P. Y. 2005. Impact of science and management on the welfare of egg-laying strains of hens. Poult. Sci. 84:687–696. Janczak, A. M., and A. B. Riber. 2015. Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 94:1454– 1469. Lambton, S. L., T. G. Knowles, C. Yorke, and C. J. Nicol. 2015a. The risk factors affecting the development of vent pecking and cannibalism in free-range and organic laying hens. Anim. Welf. 24:101–111. Lambton, S. L., C. J. Nicol, M. Friel, D. C. J. Main, J. L. McKinstry, C. M. Sherwin, J. Walton, and C. A. Weeks. 2015b. A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose-housed laying hen flocks. Vet. Rec. doi:10.1136/vr.101067. Lay, D. C., R. M. Fulton, P. Y. Hester, D. M. Karcher, J. B. Kjaer, J. A. Mench, B. A. Mullens, R. C. Newberry, C. J. Nicol, N. P. O. Sullivan, and R. E. Porter. 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 90:278–294. Leenstra, F., P. van Horne, and M. van Krimpen. 2010. Dual purpose chicken, exploration of technical, environmental and economical feasibility. In: XIII European Poultry Congress, Tours, France.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

We are dedicated to the humane treatment of animals that enhances their well-being as well as complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We ensure humane handling of birds during loading and transportation to the processing facility through video monitoring, which is reviewed by an independent third-party auditor every night. We utilize scientifically recognized methods for handling and slaughtering birds at the processing facility, including the use of Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) at one of our processing plants. We ensure continuous training and oversight of all employees involved in bird handling and care. All employees who handle live birds undergo appropriate animal care and well-being training prior to ever touching a bird, followed by biannual refresher trainings. We have also gone beyond industry standards and achieved the American Humane Certification, which is given by the American Humane Association (AHA). Extensive third-party audits are required to maintain this certification and are continuously undergone throughout each year, in addition to our own extensive internal audits. Anyone who interacts with our birds is expected to report any violations in accordance with our animal care and well-being program. The preferred method of reporting is to report the violation directly to the supervisor or company representative, as that allows for immediate corrective action. However, if the supervisor or company representative is not available or they do not feel comfortable for any reason, we maintain an animal care and well-being hotline. This hotline allows for employees to anonymously report any violations they may see, and the information goes directly to Butterball for immediate follow-up. Butterball, LLC strives to provide our customers with safe, nutritious, high-quality turkey products. We firmly believe this starts with the health and well-being of our birds. We continue to monitor research and developments in animal welfare to ensure that we are providing the best possible care and well-being for our birds.

9

10

VIZZIER THAXTON ET AL. Poultry Site. 2015 (April 1). Germany aims for chicken sexing in the egg by 2016. http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/ 34741/germany-aims-for-chicken-sexing-in-the-egg-by-2016/. Accessed September 28, 2015. Raj, A. B., and P. E. Whittington. 1995. Euthanasia of day-old chicks with carbon dioxide and argon. Vet. Rec. 135:292–294. Reimund, D. A., J. R. Martin, and C. V. Moore. 1981. The Experience for Broilers, Fed Cattle, and Processing Vegetables in Structural Change in Agriculture, United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economics and Statistics Service Technology and Engineering, Washington, D.C. Rumley, E. R. n.d. State’s farm animal confinement statutes. National Ag Law Center Research Publication. http://nationalaglaw center.org/state-compilations/farm-animal-welfare/. Accessed 19 June 2015. Scanes, C. G. 2016. Biology of stress in poultry. Poult. Sci. submitted. Swanson, J. C., Y. Lee, P. B. Thompson, R. Bawden, and J. A. Mench. 2011. Integration: valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production. Poult. Sci. 90:2110– 2121. Tona, K., V. Bruggeman, O. Onajbesan, K. Mertens, and E. Decuypere. 2005. Day old chick quality: relationship to hatching egg quality, adequate incubation practice and prediction of broiler performance. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 16:109–119. Weeks, C. A., S. N. Brown, G. J. Richards, L. J. Wilkins, and T. G. Knowles. 2012. Levels of mortality in hens by end of lay on farm and in transit to slaughter in Great Britain. Vet. Rec. 170:647. Weissmann, A., S. Reitmeyer, A. Hanh, J. Gottschalk, and A. Einspanier. 2013. Sexing domestic chicken before hatch: A new method for in ovo gender identification. Theriogenology. 80:199– 205. Wilson, H. R. 1991. Interrelationships of egg size, chick size, post-hatching growth and hatchability. Worlds’s Poult. Sci. J. 47:5–20.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on March 24, 2016

Leenstra, F., G. Munnichs, V. Beekman, E. van den Heuvel-Vroman, L. Aramyan, and H. Woelders. 2011. Killing day-old chicks? Public opinion regarding potential alternatives. Anim. Welf. 20:37–45. Loetscher, Y., D. Albiker, R. Stephan, M. Kreuzer, and R. E. Messikommer. 2015. Differences between spent hens of different genotypes in performance, meat yield and suitability of the meat for sausage production. Animal. 9:347–355. McKeegan, D. E. F., and A. W. Philbey. 2012. Chronic neurophysiological and anatomical changes associated with infrared beak treatment and their implications for laying hen welfare. Anim. Welf. 21:207–217. Mench, J. A., D. A. Sumner, and J. T. Rosen-Molina. 2011. Sustainability of egg production in the United States – the policy and market context. Poult. Sci. 90:229–240. National Chicken Council. 2015. Statistics: Broiler Performance http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/ statistics/u-s-broiler-performance/ viewed September, 2015. National Chicken Council. 2015. About the Industry: History. http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/ history/ viewed September, 2015. Newberry, R. C., A. B. Webster, N. J. Lewis, and C. van Arnam. 1999. Management of spent hens. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2:13–29. Nicol, C. J., M. Bestman, A-M. Gilani, E. N. de Haas, I. C. de Jong, S. Lambton, J. P. Wagenaar, C. A. Weeks, and T. B. Rodenburg. 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 69:775–787. Olanrewaju, H. A., J. P. Thaxton, W. A. Dozier, J. Purswell, W. B. Roush, and S. L. Branton. 2006. A review of lighting programs for broiler production. Int. Poult. Sci. 5:301–308. PETA. 2015. http://www.peta.org/features/case-controlledatmosphere-killing/. Accessed September 2015