Factors Affecting Poultry Producers' Attitudes towards Biosecurity.

Poultry producers' attitudes towards biosecurity practices were assessed by using the ADKAR® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) behavioral change model. Conventional poultry producers (n = 155) from different production types including broilers (n = 35), layers (n = 22), breeders (n = 24), turkeys (n = 19), ducks (n = 23), free-range broilers (n = 11), free-range layers (n = 11), and hatcheries (n = 10) from seven European countries were scored for each ADKAR element (1 = total absence to 5 = perfect fulfilment). Each country performed selected interventions (e.g., coaching, participatory meetings, etc.) to improve biosecurity compliance. After the interventions, significant change was observed in three of the four attitude elements. The overall mean scores (x¯ ± SD) obtained during the initial assessment (n = 130) were 4.2 ± 0.6 for Awareness, 4.1 ± 0.7 for Desire, 3.8 ± 0.8 for Knowledge, and 4.0 ± 0.7 for Ability, whereas after intervention, the scores were A = 4.3 ± 0.6, D = 4.2 ± 0.7, K = 4.1 ± 0.7, and Ab = 4.1 ± 0.7. The Reinforcement component was only evaluated after the change and obtained a score of 3.7 ± 0.7 on average. Identifying the elements influencing poultry producers and their behavior related to farm management decisions was useful in guiding our educational interventions to effectively change their behavior.

Development and use of Biocheck.UGent™ scoring system to quantify biosecurity in conventional indoor (turkey, duck, breeder) and free-range (layer and broiler) poultry farms.

To assess and enhance the application of biosecurity measures in poultry farming, an objective measurement tool (Biocheck.UGent™) was already available for broiler and layer. This study describes the development, validation and application of a risk-based weighted scoring tool for breeder, turkey, duck, free-range layer and free-range broiler production. In collaboration with an expert panel (n= 38), five different questionnaires were developed, following the format of the existing Biocheck.UGent scoring tools. Weights were attributed to external (7-9 subcategories) and internal (3-4 subcategories) biosecurity categories, as well as to the corresponding individual questions within each subcategory. The biosecurity measures were prioritized and weighed based on their relative importance in preventing disease transmission. Upon completion of the questionnaire, and upload of all answers to the Biocheck.UGent website, the algorithm generates a biosecurity score varying between ''0'' which equals the total absence of any biosecurity measure up to ''100'' which refers to full application of all biosecurity measures. The final scoring systems are available online (https://biocheckgent.com/en) for free and have been used to assess biosecurity in 70 breeders, 100 turkeys, 23 ducks, 16 free-range broilers, and 15 free-range layer farms originating from 12 countries so far. On average, the overall biosecurity score (mean ± std. dev) was 78 ± 7 % for breeders, 73 ± 11 % for turkeys, 71 ± 8 % for ducks, 73 ± 8 % for free-range layers and 70 ± 13 % for free-range broilers. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in biosecurity (both at the overall and subcategory levels) across different poultry types. The overall farm biosecurity score for breeders was significantly higher than that for turkey (p <.001) and duck production (p = 0.001). External biosecurity levels were highest in breeders in comparison to turkeys (p < 0.001), ducks (p = 0.008) and broiler free-range (p = 0.005). There was a notable difference in internal biosecurity levels between duck and turkey (p = 0.041) production as well. The study contributed to the poultry biosecurity database which allows benchmarking of the biosecurity levels of the users' farm results to national or international averages, indicating room for improvement and aiding to motivate stakeholders to enhance their biosecurity levels.

Upright versus inverted catching and crating end-of-lay hens: a trade-off between animal welfare, ergonomic and financial concerns.

This study explores upright versus inverted catching and crating of spent laying hens. Both catching methods were compared using a cost-benefit analysis that focused on animal welfare, ergonomic, and financial considerations. Data were collected on seven commercial farms (one floor system and six aviary systems) during depopulation of approximately 3,000 hens per method per flock. Parameters such as wing flapping frequency, catcher bird interaction, incidence of catching damage and hens dead on arrival (DOA) were measured and compared between catching methods. Ergonomic evaluations were performed via catcher surveys and expert assessment of video recordings. The wing flapping frequency was lower (3.1 ± 0.6 vs. 4.0 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) and handling was gentler (1.9 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), both on a 7-point Likert scale, for upright versus inverted catching. However, more person-hours per 1000 hens were required for upright than inverted catching (8.2 ± 3.2 h vs. 4.8 ± 2.0 h, P = 0.011), with only wing bruises being significantly less common for upright than inverted catching (1.1 ± 0.6 % vs. 1.7 ± 0.7%, P = 0.04). Upright catching was 1.8 times more expensive than inverted catching; compensation for this cost would require a premium price of approximately €0.0005 extra per egg. Ergonomically, both catching methods were considered demanding, although catchers (n = 29) preferred inverted catching. In conclusion, this study showed animal welfare benefits of upright vs. inverted catching. Industry adoption of upright catching will depend on compensation of the additional labor costs, adjustments to labor conditions and shorter loading times.