The Scottish Government

Listen

ISBN 0 7559 1281 0 (Web only publication)
This document is also available in pdf format (312k)

NAME OF CONSULTATION:
CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON THE WELFARE OF CHICKENS KEPT FOR MEAT PRODUCTION

ISSUED BY:
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE (ALLAN MCFARLANE)

DATE ISSUED:
22 JULY 2005

DATE CLOSED:
14 OCTOBER 2005

NUMBER CONSULTED:
100

SECTORS:
LOCAL AUTHORITIES, SCOTTISH POLITICAL PARTIES, ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANISATIONS, SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, POULTRY ORGANISATIONS

NUMBER OF RESPONSES:
(including nil returns)
8

LIST OF RESPONDEES:
Aberdeen City Council
Advocates for Animals
East Ayrshire Council
Animal Concern
Scottish Agricultural College
British Poultry Council
Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA)
NFU Scotland

STATUS:
ALL ON BEHALF OF ORGANISATIONS - NO PRIVACY REQUESTS

PREAMBLE

Respondees welcomed the opportunity to comment on, and agree, that the welfare of broilers was very important for all producers regardless of stocking density. Differing views were received on what should be set as a maximum stocking density. There was some disappointment that the proposal excludes broiler breeders.

There were concerns that the Proposal does not go far enough to cover problems, such as leg disorders, and that the length of time given for the Commission to submit a report on the influence of genetics, which will be at lest five years from adoption of the Directive, is far too long.

Beak trimming is not normally practised in chicken reared for meat. Nevertheless, they think that the reference to beak trimming should be amended to beak treatment to allow for new beak treatment methods such as infra-red technology, not just trimming.

The reference to ventilation, heating and cooling should be amended to "ventilation and temperature control" as different climates require different systems.

Common welfare standards for meat chickens across the EU were welcomed, but if farmers are to compete with third country imports they shouldn't be saddled with costs that do not apply to third country producers. Also necessary and desirable to lay down minimum input requirements for farms, but the conditions must not be so prescriptive as to stifle new management approaches and must not deter investment in new or upgraded housing by limiting the productivity gains which can be realised.

Andrew Gilchrist, Aberdeen City Council (10/08/05)

Had no comments to offer.

Peter Stevenson, Advocates for Animals (Advocates)(25/08/05)

Principal concerns:

Stocking density

Advocates believe that the maximum stocking densities (30 kg/m ² and 38 kg/m ²) proposed by the Commission are too high. In their report the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare ( SCAHAW) stressed that the maximum density "must be 25 kg/m ² or lower for major welfare problems to be largely avoided". They added that "above 30 kg/m ² , even with very good environmental control systems, there is a steep rise in the frequency of serious problems".

Other scientific studies show that at high densities there is an increased incidence of: (i) leg problems and (ii) wet and dirty litter which leads to a greater incidence of hock burns, breast blisters and foot pad dermatitis. In addition, at higher densities rest is increasingly disturbed and activity, such as locomotion and ground pecking, is reduced.

In light of the above, Advocates believe that the maximum stocking density should be 25 kg/m ², with the competent authority being able to authorise a maximum density of up to 30 kg/m ² if the requirements of Annex II are met.

Factors used to monitor welfare are too limited

The main indicators that will be used to determine if welfare is satisfactory are foot pad dermatitis and mortality rates. Important though these factors are, they can, on their own, only give a partial picture of welfare conditions on the farm. Advocates believe that, in addition to the slaughterhouse monitoring proposed by the Directive, monitoring must also be carried out on farm as is the case under the Swedish scheme.

Moreover, the food pad dermatitis score that must be reached under Annex IV before the slaughterhouse official veterinarian informs the competent authority is far too high. The scoring formula is complex, but it would, for example, allow up to 24.5% of a consignment to have severe foot pad dermatitis before the requirement for the OV to inform the competent authority is triggered. This means that the Directive considers that it is acceptable for 49 broilers out of 200 to have foot pad dermatitis. This is far too high an incidence of these painful lesions.

Leg problems and fast-growing genotypes

Advocates are disappointed that the proposed Directive makes no attempt to address the problem of leg disorders and the use of fast-growing genotypes despite widespread recognition of the fact that leg disorders are one of the main causes of poor welfare in broilers. Scientific research has established that fast-growing broilers are much more susceptible to leg disorders than slow-growing birds.

The proposed Directive's only response to the problem of leg disorders is to require the Commission to submit a report on the influence of genetics on poor welfare at an unspecified date which will be at least 5 years from the adoption of the Directive. Advocates believe that this is unsatisfactory and that the current state of scientific knowledge is more than sufficient to enable this issue to be addressed by the proposed Directive now, rather being postponed to a fairly distant future date.

Broiler breeders

Broiler breeders are not included in the proposed Directive. Advocates believe they should be included (i) as any effective solution to leg problems must involve the breeding companies and (ii) to enable the use of restrictive feeding regimes that lead to chronic hunger to be addressed.

Comments by Advocates for Animals

Advocates are very disappointed as they feel that the proposed Directive fails to address the key health and welfare problems. In particular it:

• Permits broilers to be stocked at 38 kg/m ² (provided that producers adhere to some relatively undemanding standards; this density is much higher than the maximum of 25-30 kg/m ² recommended by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare ( SCAHAW) in it's report of 21 March 2000 on the Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers).
• Fails to make any attempt to halt or restrict the use of fast-growing broilers despite the high levels of painful leg disorders and heart failure experienced by these birds.
• Excludes broiler breeders altogether from the Directive's scope. As a result the proposed Directive fails to address serious welfare problems such as hunger arising from restricted feeding regimes; the various mutilations sometimes imposed on breeders; and the need to control breeding companies' selection policies.

Advocates urge the UK to work with its partners on the EU Agriculture Council to remedy these defects and produce a much stronger Directive.

Stocking density

Article 3 proposes a two-tier approach to stocking density. It lays down a maximum stocking density of 30 kg/m ², but goes on to provide that Member States may allow a higher density of up to 38 kg/m ² for producers who comply with the additional requirements laid down in Annex II (all producers must comply with the requirements of Annex 1). In practice most producers will meet the relatively undemanding standards of Annex II and so be able to stock at 38 kg/m ².

This two-tier approach is based on the Swedish system. Advocates would prefer a single maximum density (provided that it is 30 kg/m ² or lower). If, however, the two-tier approach is to be adopted, both its levels should be considerably reduced as compared with the Commission's proposal of 30 kg/m ² and 38 kg/m ².

In Sweden the maximum density permitted for producers who do not satisfy the requirements for higher densities is 20 kg/m ² and the maximum permitted for those who do satisfy these requirements is 36 kg/m ².

Germany has a voluntary agreement between the Government and producers that limits stocking densities to a maximum of 35 kg/m ². In Austria legislation specifies a maximum stocking density of 30 kg/m ². In the UK a Government code recommends a maximum density of 34 kg/m ². In short, certain Member States have lower maximum densities than those put forward in the proposed Directive.

The SCAHAW report stressed that the maximum density "must be 25 kg/m ² or lower for major welfare problems to be largely avoided". They added that "above 30 kg/m ², even with very good environmental control systems, there is a steep rise in the frequency of serious problems" (Advocates emphasis).

On the basis of the figures, Advocates believe that the maximum stocking density should be 25 kg/m ², with the competent authority being able to authorise a maximum density of up to 30 kg/m ² if the requirements of Annex II are met.

The importance of avoiding high densities is highlighted by a range of scientific studies that show that higher stocking densities, pathologies (chronic dermatitis and leg disorders), walking ability and the presence of infectious agents are worse than at lower densities. Similarly, at higher stocking densities, locomotor behaviour, preening and general activity are reduced and disturbance of resting is increased.

Two examples of such studies are those by A Hall ¹ and Sanotra ² et al in 2001. Hall (2001) compared the effect of two stocking densities (34 kg/m ² and 40 kg/m ²) on welfare and behaviour in birds kept under commercial conditions. The study found that at the higher density: (i) daily mortality was higher from around day 24 to slaughter age; (ii) there was a greater incidence of leg problems, contact dermatitis and carcase bruising; (iii) the birds' resting behaviour was increasingly disturbed; and (iv) locomotion and ground-pecking decreased.

Sanotra et al (2001) point out that high stocking density leads to wet and dirty litter, which in turn leads to an increased incidence of hock burns, breast blisters and foot pad problems. The authors concluded that "high stocking densities adversely affect the welfare of broilers".

The authors also found that leg problems increase at high stocking densities. At high densities the closeness of other birds produces a "barrier effect" which results in reduced locomotion and exercise and consequently increased leg problems.

In addition, the authors found a significantly prolonged duration of toxic immobility (a measure of fear) at higher stocking densities. They concluded that prolonged toxic immobility duration at high densities suggests that broilers find the environment aversive and so become more fearful.

The recent study by Dawkins and others (2004) ³ runs counter to some degree to the conclusions of the SCAHAW report and the findings of the other studies referred to above. It found fewer defects at higher densities, although it reported poorer gait scores, more jostling and slower growth rates at the highest densities. It concluded that good house environment is crucial to bird welfare, but emphasized that stocking density is also important. It stressed the importance of maintaining low levels of litter moisture and ammonia; Advocates agree that these are key factors.

Advocates wish to stress that maintaining a good environment is not an alternative to reducing stocking density; both are important. Moreover, overcrowding adversely affects the environment; crowded birds can suffer from poorer litter quality, ammonia released from their droppings and increased temperatures and humidity which can lead to heat stress.

The Dawkins study may be relied on by the industry and certain Member States to argue that the maximum stocking densities proposed by the Commission should not be lowered and perhaps should be raised. However, one paper should not be allowed to undermine the SCAHAW report (and the other research referred to above) which reached its conclusions after considering a wide range of scientific studies.

The requirements of Annex II, i.e. the requirements that must be met if a producer wishes to stock up to 38 kg/m ²

Need for independent veterinarian to endorse notification

Point 1 of Annex II requires producers to notify the competent authority if they intend to use a stocking density above 30 kg/m ². It requires the notification to be endorsed by the veterinarian attending the establishment. Advocates believe that the notification should not be endorsed by the veterinarian attending the establishment, but by an independent veterinarian nominated by the competent authority.

Density above 30 kg/m ² should not be permitted without authorisation of competent authority

Although producers who wish to stock at above 30 kg/m ² must notify the competent authority, the proposed Directive does not require the competent authority to consider the notification and decide whether or not to authorise the use of a density above 30 kg/m ² on the farm in question. This is clearly unsatisfactory.

The Directive should stipulate that no farm may use a density above 30 kg/m ² unless the competent authority has granted an authorisation which it may only do once it has inspected the farm and satisfied itself that the farm's equipment and management is suitable to ensure an acceptable welfare level and that the requirements of Annex II are complied with. (Point 1 of Annex III requires the competent authority to carry out inspections when it is notified of severe or repeated deficiencies. Point 1 does not specify at what other times inspections must be carried out. It makes no mention of the need for the competent authority to carry out an inspection when it receives a notification that a farm wishes to stock at above 30 kg/m ²).

Information to be included in documentation

Point 2 of Annex II sets out what must be contained in documentation prepared by any producer who wishes to stock at above 30 kg/m ². Advocates believe that the following aspects should be added to the list of what must be included in the documentation:

• the target maximum levels of ammonia and carbon dioxide
• the litter management strategy.

Maximum ammonia level

Point 3 of Annex II provides that the concentration of ammonia shall not exceed 20 ppm (parts per million). Advocates believe that this should be reduced to 15 ppm; this is the maximum concentration permitted by the RSPCA's Freedom Food standards.

Intervals at which ventilation, heating and cooling systems must be inspected

Point 3 requires these systems to be inspected "at the intervals" indicated in the documentation provided by the producer. Inspection intervals should not be left to the producer's discretion but should instead be laid down in the Directive.

Annex III & IV: Circumstances in which competent authority may order a reduction of stocking density and an action plan to remedy deficiencies

Annexes III & IV are at the heart of the proposed scheme on stocking densities. Annex IV provides that the official veterinarian at the slaughterhouse must inform the competent authority when the incidence of food pad dermatitis or mortality exceeds specified levels. The slaughterhouse official veterinarian must also evaluate the results of post mortems to identify other possible indications of poor welfare on the farm. He must inform the competent authority if this evaluation indicates deficiencies on the farm or if mortality during transport exceeds 0.5%.

When the competent authority receives such a notification of deficiencies from the slaughterhouse official veterinarian or when an inspection reveals breaches of the Annex II requirements, the competent authority may require the farmer to produce an action plan to eliminate the factors that are likely to have contributed to the deficiencies. In addition the competent authority may order the stocking density to be reduced.

Foot pad dermatitis is an important welfare indicator. It is usually caused by poor litter quality which can result from a range of factors including water spillage and overcrowding. Birds with leg disorders are much more vulnerable to contracting foot pad dermatitis than non-lame birds as they spend a greater proportion of their time squatting in the litter which, if it is of poor quality, is likely to cause foot pad dermatitis.

It is clear from the above that food pad dermatitis can indicate the presence of a range of poor welfare factors on a farm.

There are, however, some important defects in the Directive's proposed scheme:

• It relies on only two clearly defined welfare parameters: foot pad dermatitis and mortality. Important though foot pad dermatitis is, monitoring of this condition can only give a partial picture of welfare conditions on the farm. Other factors should also be monitored. Accordingly, there should be monitoring on the farm as well as at the slaughterhouse (see below for details). The Swedish scheme requires monitoring of a broad range of factors on the farm (see below).
• The foot pad dermatitis score that must be reached under Annex IV before the slaughterhouse OV informs the competent authority is far too high. The scoring formula is complex, but it would, for example, allow up to 24.5% of a consignment to have severe foot pad dermatitis before the requirement for the official veterinarian to inform the competent authority is triggered. This means that the Directive considers that it is acceptable for 49 broilers out of 200 to have foot pad dermatitis. This is far too high an incidence of these painful lesions.
• Producers could avoid having too high a foot pad dermatitis score by culling some birds with this condition on farm rather than sending them to the slaughterhouse.
• Mortality rates are scored by the producer (except for birds dead on arrival) without any independent verification and thus a rate lower than the actual rate could be declared.

Monitoring on the farm

Such monitoring must be carried out not by the establishment's veterinarian, but by an independent veterinarian/inspector nominated by the competent authority, who should monitor the points covered by the Swedish scheme. The Swedish scheme requires monitoring of a range of factors on the farm including litter and air quality, lighting levels, the ventilation and heating systems, feeding and watering equipment, mortality rates, the facilities for rapidly and smoothly receiving or catching and loading the birds and how the stockperson moves around among the broilers, how often s/he searches for or culls sick birds and a general evaluation of his/her eye for animals (Check list for assessment of chicken houses published by Svensk Fagel & Berg and Algers, 2004). ⁴

In addition, two categories of lameness should be monitored on a representative sample of birds:

• Birds which can barely walk at all (gait scores 4 & 5)
• Birds which can only walk with moderate difficulty (gait score 3).

Where the inspector finds any birds in the first category of lameness or more than 2.5% in the second category, s/he should report this to the competent authority. S/he should also inform the competent authority of mortality rates exceeding the rate specified in Annex IV or of any other serious problems.

Need for certain matters to be endorsed by an independent veterinarian

The first paragraph of point 2 of Annex III provides that in certain cases a producer must submit an action plan to remedy deficiencies which must be "endorsed by the veterinarian attending the establishment". Similarly point 3 provides that a producer may request a revision of a reduced maximum stocking density if "the veterinarian attending the establishment has given a favourable opinion on the request".

Advocates believe that in both these cases the veterinarian should not be the one attending the establishment, but an independent veterinarian nominated by the competent authority.

Training

Advocates welcome the provision on training in Article 4 but believe it should be strengthened to stipulate that:

• all stockpersons, not just the owner or keeper, must have completed a training course
• before a person can successfully complete a course, their competence must be independently assessed.

Labelling

The provision in Article 5 requiring the Commission to produce a report on mandatory labelling is particularly welcome as such labelling would facilitate informed consumer choice.

Lighting

The provisions on lighting in Annex 1 are partially welcome. These provide for a light intensity of at least 20 lux and, during each 24 hours, periods of darkness lasting at least 8 hours in total, with at least one uninterrupted period of darkness of at least 4 hours. Advocates believe that:

• the continuous darkness period should be at least 6 hours
• the minimum light intensity should be 100 lux.

Surgical interventions

Annex I permits castration and break-trimming to be carried out. Advocates are opposed to this. In their view, all castration and beak-trimming of broilers should be prohibited. It is unnecessary to beak-trim broilers as they are slaughtered before an age at which aggression is likely to rise.

Environmental enrichment

To stimulate the birds' activity, the Directive should require the provision of environmental enrichment, such as straw bales, brassicas ( e.g. cabbages) or the scattering of whole grain. Increased activity would lead to improved leg strength.

Responsibility for welfare

Each farm should be required to have a named individual who is responsible for welfare on that establishment.

Leg disorders and heart failure and the use of fast-growing broilers

Advocates have said that it is extraordinary that the proposed Directive almost totally fails to deal with:

• leg problems as leg disorders are widely acknowledged to be the most serious health and welfare problems facing broilers. The SCAHAW concluded that leg problems "are a major cause of poor welfare in broilers".
• the health and welfare problems arising from the use of fast-growing broilers. The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the proposed Directive acknowledges that the SCAHAW report concludes that most welfare problems encountered in chickens - including leg problems, ascites and sudden death syndrome - are directly linked to selection for higher growth rates and better food conversion. The SCAHAW added: "Most of the welfare issues … are a direct consequence of genetic selection for faster and more efficient production of chicken meat" (Advocates emphasis). Despite this, the Directive fails to address the problems arising from selection for fast growth.

The proposed Directive's only response to the problem of leg disorders and heart failure is to require the Commission to submit a report on the influence of genetics on poor welfare at an unspecified date which will be at least 5 years from the adoption of the Directive.

Furthermore the wording of Article 6 is unsatisfactory in that it could be read as limiting the report to considering the effects of genetics on those deficiencies identified under Annex IV which mainly deals with foot pad dermatitis and mortality. It is essential that:

• the Commission report deals with the impact of genetics on all aspects of health and welfare, and
• the Commission is required to submit its report within 2 years of the adoption of the Directive.

There is, moreover, no need to delay taking action on leg problems as there is already a very substantial body of scientific research that establishes that (i) there is a high incidence of these problems and (ii) these problems to a large extent stem from the use of fast growing genotypes.

There is no generally accepted figure as to the prevalence of leg disorders. However, studies suggest that it is high. A Danish study found that 30.1% of the broilers had gait sores of 3, 4 or 5. ⁵ Birds with these gait scores are likely to be suffering from chronic pain. A Swedish study found that 20.4% of the broilers had gait scores 3, 4 or 5. ⁶

In the UK, the Chair of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, an independent body which advises Government, has pointed out that a UK industry report notes incidences where as many as 28% of birds in one shed were lame and others where, within a production unit ( i.e. across multiple flocks), the incidence was over 11%.

The survey conducted by the UK industry found only 2.5% of broilers to have gait scores 3, 4 of 5. However, Professor Donald Broom of the University of Cambridge has said that the UK industry's data are flawed to such an extent that meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn from this survey.

Although infections are an important cause of leg disorders, scientific research has established that fast-growing broilers are much more susceptible to leg disorders than slow -growing birds (see for example Kisten et al (2001) ⁷, Bradshaw et al (2002) ⁸, Corr et al (2003) ⁹ and the SCAHAW report) ¹⁰.

Advocates believe the Directive must address leg disorders and other health problems that arise from the use of fast-growing broilers. It could do so in the following ways.

1. The Recitals should refer to the provision in paragraph 21 of the Annex to Council Directive 98/58/EC that no animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare. The Recitals should go on to state that, in light of paragraph 21, fast-growing broiler genotypes should not be used where such genotypes lead to a high incidence of painful leg disorders and heart problems.

2. The use of fast-growing broilers could be restricted by providing that:

• only birds of a recognised slow-growing strain may be used, or
• broilers must not gain more than a specified number of grammes in weight per day. For example, a stipulation that the daily growth rate should not exceed an average of 43g per day over the entire growth period would result in birds being around 1.8 kg at 42 days rather than the usual 2 kg or more.
• an alternative approach is to provide that birds must not be slaughtered before a certain age. Even if that age was only a few days higher than the usual slaughter age, it could lead to a worthwhile reduction in leg disorders. Such a requirement would not necessitate the use of slow-growing strains; it could be met by giving the usual fast-growing birds less to eat than normal and/or a diet less rich in protein and energy. Giving broilers, around, say, 15% less to eat than usual would not lead to hunger, but would reduce growth rates with a corresponding improvement in leg health. Increasing the minimum slaughter age to an age substantially above the usual age would lead to greater benefits, but producers would have to use slow-growing strains (which Advocates would welcome) as keeping fast-growing birds alive to a much greater age could lead to an even higher incidence of leg disorders and/or severe feed restrictions resulting in hunger.
• another alternative approach is to prohibit the use of broilers that come from parent stock that have to be restrictively fed to avoid leg and reproductive problems.

Catching

The catching process is not dealt with by Directive 91/628/EC on protection during transport. Therefore it should be included in the proposed Broilers Directive. The proposed Directive appears to include it as Article 4 provides that catchers should receive training, but the Directive contains no further detail. Advocates believe that the Directive should stipulate that:

• sufficient time must be allowed to ensure that birds are handled with care
• a named member of the catching team must be made responsible for maintaining high welfare standards, and
• birds must be caught and carried by both legs and no more that 2 birds should be carried in each hand.

Broiler breeders

Broiler breeders are not included in the proposed Directive. Advocates believe it is essential that they are included so that the following problems can be addressed:

• Any effective solution to leg problems must involve the breeding companies. They believe they should be required to give a much higher priority in their selection policies to selecting for improved health and strength. They should also be required to stop selecting for faster growth rates.
• The use of restrictive feeding regimes should be ended.
• The SCAHAW report condemns the mutilations (de-beaking, dubbing, de-spurring, de-clawing, toe-removal) commonly inflicted on broiler breeder chicks and stresses that the birds should be kept in such a manner that mutilations are not necessary. Advocates believe these mutilations should be prohibited.

John Crawford, East Ayrshire Council ( Received 12/09/2005)

The Council would prefer that the proposal takes the form of a Regulation, rather than a Directive.

The Council say that the stocking density of kilograms per square metre is acceptable. Producers who want to stock to the maximum levels will have to comply with additional standards and use surveillance systems. This will have the effect that they either stick to the 30 kg liveweight per m_ or improve their poultry units. Both of these are ideal from a welfare perspective.

Evaluation and monitoring of chickens at the slaughterhouse could be done by official veterinarians employed by SEERAD. Any welfare complaints found would then be reported to the local authority.

The importance of proper inspection and enforcement regarding premises keeping poultry has been highlighted because of the treat of Avian Flu. The proposal laying down rules regarding the welfare of chickens is therefore a timeous proposal.

John F Robins, Animal Concern (14/09/2005)

Animal Concern would like to see all intensive livestock farming phased out. However, they realise that it is unlikely to become a reality in the near future and it is vital that all livestock farming is controlled by legislation aimed at providing animals with at least minimum welfare standards.

They are concerned that the proposals make much of any extra time and expense which may be caused to broiler producers by the implementation of even very minimal welfare standards, If producers cannot swallow the increased overheads then they must be passed on to the consumer - animal welfare should not be dictated by the ridiculously low profit margins imposed by the mass purchasing power of supermarkets.

They would like to respond to the specific questions raised in the covering letter, the comments are as follows:

1: Mr Robbins wasn't sure of the difference between a Directive or Regulation (he asks if it could be more clearly defined) but would hope that any welfare standards would be encapsulated in enforceable legislation and not in any form of code of conduct or non-enforceable voluntary measure.

2: It is widely recognised that stocking density is a vital component in the welfare of intensively farmed animals and they would like to see maximum stocking densities of 20 to 25 kilos liveweight per square metre.

3: They would prefer a lighting regime to reflect natural daylight instead of artificial lengthening of the day to encourage birds to put on weight faster.

4 and 5: Mr Robins has said he knows a little about the monitoring of carcasses at chicken slaughterhouses having once gone to Wiltshire to apply for the post of poultry meat inspector with the local council. As a Chippenham Chunky Chicken Checker he was expected to insert two fingers in the body cavity of a plucked, very recently deceased chicken. He could not be certain that the bird was dead as most chickens try to peck themselves free from the overhead conveyor belt and miss the electric stun bath and the slaughtering and eviscerating knives and have to be killed and beheaded by employees sitting on a high bar stool and armed with razor sharp knives.

In addition to looking inside the body cavity to check for any sign of disease or contamination it was also the job of the poultry meat inspector to exercise quality control and remove obviously deformed chickens such as those with severe bruising, broken limbs or a third leg growing from the Parson's Nose. Removed diseased chickens were sent for pet food while mutilated or damaged birds went for portioning, pies, pastes or soup where appearance was unimportant.

As a Chippenham Chunky Chicken Checker he was expected to inspect a carcass every 1.5 seconds. It is obvious by the number of broiler carcasses on sale with hock burns and other signs of injury that the current poultry checking regime only removes the most severely damaged birds from the system. Under the current regime you cannot rely on slaughterhouse inspection as a monitor of broiler chicken welfare - the inspectors barely have enough time to ensure birds unfit for human consumption are taken off the conveyor.

Mr Robins suggests that the Council employed poultry meat inspectors not be compelled to fit in with the speed of the chicken slaughter process and that the production line is either slowed down or additional inspectors employed to give a check time of at least 3 seconds per bird. Given closer inspection it should be possible to identify and remove birds with lesser injuries such as hock burns. Once taken off the conveyor and before being sent for processing, details of removed carcasses could be recorded to give an accurate number for those suffering from injuries indicative of poor welfare conditions on the farm. If high levels (say more than 2.5% of birds slaughtered) are found the inspector could order that the carcases be retained and checked by a Council employed veterinary officer and/or that the production unit be subject to a full welfare inspection.

In addition to slaughterhouse inspection all packaging should carry a means of identifying the farm of origin. That way consumers can also act as inspectors by reporting any damaged or injured birds purchased.

There will of course be cost implications for local authorities given the statutory duty to monitor and enforce any new welfare legislation. Mr Robbins has grave doubts that local authorities have the resources to properly police the current animal welfare legislation far less cope with the demands of new laws. Indeed the number of farm animal welfare prosecutions brought by the Scottish SPCA show that farm animal welfare in Scotland relies on a charity which should be protecting animals which are outside the remit of any of the existing official bodies instead of doing the work of local or central government agencies.

To reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of local authority animal welfare inspectors they recommend that this proposed new legislation include a requirement for all broiler chicken producers to install webcams or internet connected CCTV systems in all their chicken rearing units. These camera would allow inspectors to "visit" dozens of farms a day instead of, at best, a dozen farms a month. Monitoring livestock farms via the internet would give inspectors instant access to the livestock and allow them to determine what farms required site visits and advice or assistance in meeting welfare standards.

Animal Concern thinks that simply knowing that they are being monitored would encourage farmers to meet their legal obligations to the welfare of their stock. The system would also give farmers added security and an additional aid in caring for their animals. Such systems can be security coded to allow access only to permitted persons but farmers who meet welfare and hygiene standards may want to allow public access as a means of increasing consumer confidence in the product.

They would ideally like a legal requirement to provide webcam/ CCTV remote monitoring to be extended to all livestock producers.

Dr. Victoria Sandilands, Scottish Agricultural College ( SAC) (23/09/2005)

SAC's comments on whether proposal should be a Directive or Regulation.

• SAC would prefer, particularly to establish a "level playing field", to establish the proposal as a Regulation, rather than a Directive. The reason for this is with the benefit of hindsight, the Directive on laying hen welfare has resulted in different interpretations of the requirement to provide perch space in extensive systems (using raised slats instead of aerial perches), which does not embrace the spirit of the requirement to provide perching space in their opinion. Of the options presented, they would suggest option 5 (adopting the proposal plus the role of Assured Chicken Production).

SAC's comments to the question of whether stocking density levels of 30 and 38 kg per m_ were agreeable.

• SAC have said that the 30 kg per m_ is a slight improvement over 34 kg per m_ (but only by a reduction of 2 birds per m_, assuming a mean liveweight of 2.2 kg), it seems unfortunate to allow producers to stock as higher densities regardless of the additional set of standards. While the additional standards may provide information that can be related to some welfare problems (if they develop) - for example, temperature, humidity and water consumption may be related to food pad dermatitis and hock burn - there is no monitoring of other forms of poor skin condition related to contact with wet litter, such as hock burn or breast blisters. In addition, increased stocking density may increase problems of lameness (although this may be picked up by mortality records kept according to Annex 1, Record Keeping 11 (e)). Since lameness is still a major welfare issue with meat chickens, it would be regrettable to permit stocking density levels that do not attempt to reduce this condition.

SAC's comments on the proposed lighting regime.

• They see the proposed lighting regime to be a positive aspect of the Directive, because it enables broilers to have a reasonable resting period.

SAC's comments on the monitoring arrangements which should take place at the slaughterhouse.

• They have said it seems reasonable for the purposes of comparison, that a sub-set of all broiler flocks (not just those stocked at the higher densities) is inspected at slaughter for contact dermatitis. This would enable the assessment of birds from all stocking densities and housing types, and would provide robust information of how these affect the condition.

On how the Competent Authority should manage the obligation to follow up slaughterhouse reports in practice, and if this could be streamlined.

• They have no additional suggestions here. However, regarding procedures in cases of non-compliance, with reference to the line "the competent authority may decide that the stocking density shall not be reduced when the owner or keeper …shows that the causes lie beyond their sphere of control" (italics added). In these cases, it should be compulsory to reduce stocking density (where this is likely to be beneficial) until the owner can affect change, otherwise bird suffering is likely to increase.

Additional comments from SAC

Although not included in the Directive they have said that one way to improve broiler welfare is to lay down limits on growth rate, through selection for slower growing lines or a reduced plane of nutrition. Many health and welfare problems might be pre-empted if broilers no longer showed increased growth rates year on year. Also, it would more timely for a report concerning the influence of genetic parameters to be published within 2 years instead of five.

Further specific comments

• Annex 1 Drinkers: it should be stipulated that drinkers must be set at a height so that the smallest birds can reach them without difficulty. Also, maximum numbers of birds per drinker should be included.
• Annex 1 Surgical interventions: it should be a requirement that, where beak trimming needs to be carried out, the feed and management system will be analysed for deficiencies and corrective measures taken before the next flock is placed. It should be disallowed to castrate any male chickens.

Peter Bradnock, British Poultry Council (29/09/2005)

Summary

• The British Poultry Council ( BPC) welcomed the proposal to bring the same welfare conditions for chickens throughout the EU.
• They agree with the principle of monitoring welfare outcomes but monitoring should apply to all chicken producers.
• Welfare output monitoring must allow for a less prescriptive approach in setting input parameters for farms.
• On specific input parameters, they are pressing for a maximum planned stocking density of 40 kg/m ² based on scientific evidence; lower light intensity and shorter dark periods during the growing period; and modification of the proposed environmental parameters in houses.
• On output monitoring, they are pressing for increases in the mortality threshold and in the dead-on-arrival threshold; and for the pododermatitis scoring methodology to be removed from this proposal and to be fixed under the committee procedure envisaged under Article 9 after further investigation to find the most appropriate approach.
• On the procedures for notification by establishments wishing to stock above 30 kg/m ² they propose that membership of assurance schemes, such as the Assured Chicken Production ( ACP) Scheme, should be sufficient to indicate compliance with requirements.
• On procedures for dealing with deficiencies indicated by monitoring in the slaughterhouse, they are proposing that a seven flock rolling average be calculated for each of the three parameters monitored for purposes of notification by the Official Veterinarian, instead of current flock by flock requirement.
• They expect requirements in the final EU chicken welfare Directive to be applied equally to producers in both the EU and Third Countries who are exporting chicken meat to the EU.
• The chicken sector represented by the BPC is ready to work closely with SEERAD to ensure the provisions of the final Directive are able to be implemented in the UK to the welfare benefit of the birds and in a practical and cost effective manner.

General Comment

The chicken sector, represented by BPC, welcomes this proposal to have common welfare standards for meat chickens across the whole EU. They note that this proposal goes a long way beyond EU welfare Directives and Regulations for other livestock species. Not only is it proposing fixed specific input requirements for all chicken farms and additional detailed requirements for farms stocking above a very low threshold level, it is proposing a strict independent system of monitoring the welfare outputs of the farms.

They welcome the output-oriented approach because it aims to provide quick and direct feedback of the overall conditions on every farm stocking above the threshold level. There is ample evidence that stocking density is not the main determinant of bird welfare, and they see no reason why these welfare outputs should not be monitored for all establishments covered by the Directive.

While they agree it is necessary and desirable to lay down minimum input requirements for chicken farms, they strongly believe that these conditions must not be so prescriptive as to stifle new management approaches, and most importantly, must not deter investment in or new or upgraded housing by unduly limiting the productivity gains which can be realised. In taking an output-based approach with monitoring and prescribed corrective actions, the EU should have the confidence to allow for some differences and for less prescription in farm requirements and rearing methods. The BPC have elaborated on this in the comments on individual articles below.

They wish to ensure that the same standards are required for rearing all chicken whose meat is placed on the EU market, including imported chicken meat. The proposal fails to address the welfare requirements in respect of chickens from which meat is imported in to the EU.

They have noted that the proposal does not apply to breeding stocks or hatcheries. They agree with the decision to bring in common rules for meat chickens across the EU so that the welfare outcomes of these common rules can be monitored. The large amount of data that this will produce over the five years envisaged under article 6 should provide a useful basis for considering whether any proposals on breeding stocks are needed. They strongly urge SEERAD and the EU to resist any attempt to reduce the five year period for the collection of data.

Until that output data is available across the EU and has been analysed for any genetic implications, then they agree that breeding stocks should remain outside the proposed Directive. They strongly recommend that the input of the breeding companies be sought by the Commission in analysing and interpreting the data and in the preparation of any report.

Comments on specific Articles and Annexes

Articles 3.2 and 3.3

The BPC are firmly of the view that there should be equal treatment across the EU for all farms complying with the Annex II standards. They strongly believe that a planned maximum stocking density of 40 kg/m ² is scientifically justified instead of the 38 kg/m ² proposed.

Given that all establishments would have to meet the same conditions laid down in Annex II, they think that any establishment complying with Annex II should be permitted to grow at the maximum permitted for those conditions. There should be no discretionary powers for individual Member States to impose a lower level for purely political reasons. Fixing different national maximum stocking densities would remove one of the fundamental justifications for the Directive as articulated in Preamble (5), namely the need to remove "differences which may distort conditions of competition interfere with the smooth running of the organisation of the common market in chicken meat".

They strongly disagree with the proposed maximum stocking density of 38 kg/m ². There is sound evidence from the recent major study of the effects of stocking density on chicken welfare (Final Project Report AW0219) by Professor Marian Dawkins et al, to support a planned maximum of 40 kg/m ² at least, and they urge that the proposed reflect this latest scientific information.

In the Dawkins study, stocking densities were not statistically significant in determining the outcomes for almost all of the welfare parameters measured in the project. Rather, company environmental factors were the main influencing effect.

They strongly believe that any maximum must be defined as a target or planned density and not an absolute density, as it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty the growth rate and mortality of an individual flock. The stocking density at point slaughter of any flock can only be based on the historic performance of past flocks.

The current Assured Chicken Production density is a planned 38 kg/m ² maximum. This figure has not yet been adjusted to take account of the findings of the Dawkins study. Imposition of an absolute 38 kg/m ² would require farmers to plan for a maximum of around 35 kg/m ² to ensure they never exceeded the 38 kg absolute. This would be a very considerable extra cost burden in comparison with the current position of the UK chicken sector.

They propose that the text of Article 3.3 be amended to By way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States shall provide that chickens be kept at a planned stocking density not exceeding 40 kg/m ² liveweight in establishments or single units of an establishment provided the owner or keeper complies with the requirements set out in Annex II, in addition to the requirements set out in Annex I.

In respect of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article the Member States shall provide that:

(a) The competent authority ensures that inspections, monitoring and follow up provided for in Annexes III and IV are carried out by the competent authority:

and

(b) The official veterinarian responsible for official controls in the slaughterhouse complies with the requirements set out in Annex IV.

Article 3.4

The article excludes free-range chickens from the stocking density provisions because these are set out in the separate regulations defining free-range, and from lighting requirements set out in Annex I. There are no exclusions in respect of organic chickens, which are not specifically covered by the Poultry Meat Marketing Regulations. As most organic flocks are larger than 100 birds, they will be within the scope of the proposed Directive.

Article 4.2 and 4.4

They agree with the need to ensure proper training for stockmen and catchers. They think the "owners" classification could be unnecessarily broad. The training is relevant to those in contact with the birds, not ultimately who owns them.

In Annex V point (d) the reference to emergency killing could be confused with the emergency killing for control of exotic diseases such as Avian Influenza ( AI) and Newcastle Disease ( ND). This is the responsibility of the competent authority, although it must be exercised in partnership with the farmer. They propose the wording be amended to Culling and care of chickens in an emergency.

They agree that acquired prior learning should be recognised as equivalent to and meeting the training needs set out. They would not like to see this recognition eroded.

Article 5

The provision for possible future mandatory welfare labelling at EU level is welcome but considerable care will be needed to ensure labelling is not based on simplistic notions of welfare. It is evident that good welfare is a combination of several parameters rather than a single measure.

Article 6.2

They agree with the principle that welfare performance outputs on the farms should be assessed by monitoring at the slaughterhouses. The monitoring criteria in Annex IV have been selected to meet this objective. Several years will be required to collect output data from Member States on the consistent basis that this Directive should provide. This data needs to be analysed to discern any genetic implications in the findings and before any proposals concerning breeding flocks are contemplated. At least a five year period is required to discern and take account of seasonal or geographical influences, and to be able to discern and take account of seasonal or geographical influences, and to be able determine the extent of any improvement in these welfare outputs over time. Any attempt to reduce this five year period must be resisted.

ANNEX I

2. Feeding

They do not think it is necessary to have feed available continuously. Feeders are usually turned off during dark periods. Free-range chickens on extended dark periods do not require feed continuously. The proposal would work against any moves to meal feeding. Feed is also withdrawn during periods of extremely high temperatures. They propose that the word continuously be deleted.

6. Light

The 20 lux intensity level proposed is appropriate for brooding and up to 12 days of age but should be reduced to no lower than 5 lux for the remainder of the period. For brooding it is usual to provide spot lighting rather than whole house lighting.

A level of 20 lux as proposed for the whole growing period would have a negative welfare impact on the birds, with excessive and damaging activity, particularly during inspections, and back scratching will occur from around 14 days. More serious pecking associated vices are also more likely to occur.

They are not aware of any studies that demonstrate improved welfare of chickens at the light levels being proposed. In the largest and most recent study of chicken welfare on farms (Final Project Report AW0219), Professor Dawkins observed that "normal" gait fell with increasing light levels.

They Propose that the wording be amended as follows: All buildings shall have light with an intensity of at least 20 lux in the areas occupied by the birds during the light periods in the first 12 days of the flock and at least 5 lux for the remainder of the growing period, measured at bird eye level and illuminating the whole floor area. A temporary reduction in the light level may be allowed when necessary following advice of a veterinarian or other suitably trained person.

7. Dark period timing

They strongly disagree with the proposed timing for dark periods. Lighting programmes at three days will lead to poor early development of the chicks, uneven flocks with poor seven day weights, and less complete early immune system development. All of these deficiencies will impact heavily on the ability of the birds to resist disease, and the flock response to vaccination will be less uniform. The lighting programmes should not commence until after day seven.

Equally to maintain the dark period until three days prior to slaughter will make catching much more difficult and may predispose to increased catching damage to the birds. The lighting programme should cease ten days before slaughter.

Dark period duration - They disagree with the proposed total dark period of "at least 8 hours in total." The Assured Chicken Production Scheme specifies 4 hours of darkness. There is no scientific evidence to support the welfare need for 8 hours of darkness.

The BPC propose the following amendment: Within seven days from the time when the chickens are placed in the building and until ten days before the foreseen time of slaughter, the light must follow a 24-hour rhythm and include periods of darkness lasting at least four hours in total.

8. Inspection

They think it would be useful here to provide for the possible use of remote sensing methods of bird monitoring that do not involve regular disturbance of the birds but could identify problems and trigger a closer human inspection when required. Such systems may not be available yet but when developed could significantly assist welfare of birds. As well they would help to preserve bio-security of the house and enhance food safety. They propose adding or by other effective means at the end of the first sentence.

9.

They think the particular examples in the phrase "such as those having difficulties in walking, severe ascites or severe malformations" adds nothing to the meaning and could be interpreted as restricting reasons for culling only to those listed. They propose that the phrase be deleted.

11. Record Keeping

Under (g) the average weight is usually taken at the time of delivery to the plant and not at the farm of origin. The wording needs to be amended to "estimated average weight" to reflect this fact.

12. Surgical interventions

Beak trimming is not normally practised in chicken reared for meat. Nevertheless, they think that the reference to beak trimming should be amended to beak treatment to allow for new beak treatment methods such as infra-red technology, not just trimming. They oppose the castration of cockerels.

ANNEX II

Notification and documentation

1. The notification should be kept to the minimum necessary for the establishment to be registered by the competent authority. If the establishment is registered under an assurance scheme such as the Assured Chicken Production Scheme, then this notification should be deemed to have been made.

It should not be necessary to "summarise" the information that is required to be kept under paragraph 2. Instead the notification should confirm that it is being kept. Nor should it be necessary for a veterinarian to endorse the notification given that such endorsement does not change the legal obligations of the owner or keeper.

In any event, the implementation of this should provide for the single notification of several farms under the same ownership or management.

2. Much of this notification is already kept for UK farms under the Assured Chicken Production Scheme. Some of this information is already a legal requirement in the UK, such as the provision of back-up generators.

They believe that compliance with this requirement could be deemed to have been fulfilled by those establishments registered under the Assured Chicken Production Scheme.

In the final paragraph the term "substantial change" needs to be qualified as change having a substantial potential impact on chicken welfare.

Requirements for the establishments and the personnel

3. Given that the performance criteria for temperature, humidity, and air quality are specified, they think it is not necessary to stipulate what systems are needed to meet these. For example they do not think it is necessary to require all houses across the EU to have cooling systems as seems to be the requirement proposed. They propose the words "ventilation, heating and cooling" be deleted from the opening paragraph.

(a) They think the concentrations should be the long-term workplace exposure limits laid down by the Health and Safety Executive for human exposures. These are 25ppm for ammonia and 5,000ppm for carbon dioxide.

(b) Housing and equipment needs to be designed within the knowledge of local conditions normally prevailing and taking account of past extremes. For this reason it may not be possible to meet this condition in very exceptional and unforeseen weather conditions.

(c) It would not be appropriate to design all houses the same given the very different climatic conditions across the EU. These different climatic conditions also need to be taken into account in fixing the specific values of relative humidity. For UK conditions they believe the 70% proposed is too low. It should be 80% to reflect the higher humidity of the UK's island climate.

Monitoring and recording in the establishment

4. (a) They question how useful it is to continuously record temperature and relative humidity. Temperature is monitored in most cases automatically and linked to ventilation. However, only daily maximum and minimum temperatures are recorded for each house. Relative humidity is not continuously recorded and nor is it necessary to do so because temperatures serves as (sentence not completed).

ANNEX III

They think that the requirements of this Annex should be adapted and applied to all chicken establishments, in recognition of the fact that poor welfare can occur due to mismanagement and irrespective of the level of stocking density.

1. It needs to be clearer that the inspections envisaged are to take place only after a deficiency has been reported from the slaughterhouse in respect of the criteria set out in Annex IV.

They do not think it is necessary, in addition to the notification under Annex II, for the competent authority to prior-inspect establishments wishing to stock at the higher permitted level. This is bureaucratic and a waste of resources. The outcomes-based monitoring should be the trigger for any investigation (not necessarily an inspection) of the establishment concerned.

Most chicken in the UK is reared according to the Assured Chicken Production Scheme and all farms are independently audited annually. They propose that membership of the ACP would provide sufficient assurance to meet any requirement for prior confirmation of compliance by the competent authority in the UK.

The reference to "severe" deficiency is not clear and is not refined. This is introducing a qualification into the interpretation of the threshold proposed in Annex IV. In their view it is better to adjust the threshold proposed to reflect only severe or exceptional deficiencies rather than relatively usual and minor levels which the proposed thresholds will throw up.

Procedure in case of non-compliance

2. Second paragraph - it is clear that deficiencies in many of the requirements in Annex II, such as in documentation and record keeping, will have nothing to do with stocking density or even with the welfare of the birds. It needs to be made clearer that the action by the competent authority to reduce stocking density must only be taken when it is reasonably certain that stocking density is the cause of the deficiency. Reducing stocking density must not be used as means of punishing owners or keepers for unrelated issues.

Third paragraph - the right of the owner or keeper to provide an explanation should not imply any onus on the owner or keeper to justify why stocking density should not be reduced when the deficiency has nothing to with stocking density. The BPC have already commented on "severe" deficiency.

They believe that deficiencies in Annex I requirements on establishments stocking below 30 kg/m ² should also be subject to corrective action in the same way as establishments stocking above 30 kg/m ².

3. This approach to revising an order of reduction is unnecessarily bureaucratic and impractical to operate. The requirement for an official inspection of the establishment after a request from the owner or keeper would have to take place within a limited time window. On depopulation of the flock the owner or keeper would have to receive confirmation of compliance with Annex IV from the slaughterhouse, make a request with the veterinarian's endorsement, and be inspected by the competent authority all within the space of a week before restocking the next flock. Delays in the inspection process will severely penalise the farmer and the slaughterhouse financially.

They believe that the implementation of the requirements in this section need to be given much more careful thought to reduce the huge bureaucratic implications of the process proposed. They think it is possible to reduce the burden on competent authorities by making use of existing assurance schemes and the inspection carried out under them.

The requirement for the competent authority to act officially on every notification from the official veterinarian in the plant to the farm, needs to be re-considered. They propose that a rolling seven flock average for each of the output measures be maintained in the slaughterhouse. The official veterinarian would report only if seven flock average was above the prescribed threshold.

While this would not lessen the volume of monitoring, it could reduce the frequency of reporting back by the official veterinarian. This is because the farmer would be less likely to be penalised by an unusual problem with a single flock, and could take corrective action himself for the next and subsequent flocks to avoid the average outcomes exceeding the thresholds, and thus by acting himself, avoid triggering official action.

In any event it will be necessary to raise the thresholds for each of the parameters being monitored under Annex IV. Their comments are show below.

Annex IV

Monitoring and follow-up at the slaughterhouse

1. The term "consignment" needs to be defined. They think this should be for all birds delivered from the same house. However, it will be a problem for small consignments to different slaughterhouses from the same farm.

It will be normal that there will be a variance particularly in the incidence of footpad lesions from house to house, and indeed between loads from the same house. They propose that there should be a second confirmatory sample score necessary to trigger formal notification and that in the event of a deficiency, samples are retained to enable the owner to appeal.

They are concerned at the logistics of taking the samples within the slaughterhouse layout. It may be difficult to do this while the feet are attached to the carcase, unless some form of camera scoring is used. The possibility of this should not be ruled out by the wording of this Annex.

Foot pad dermatitis scoring

3. The methodology of the proposed foot pad dermatitis scoring needs to be more fully explained and the criteria for the different degrees of lesions supported by photographic examples for scores to use.

There are various scoring methods available and they think that a fuller appraisal of the merits of each should be undertaken before any particular method is adopted. They note that in Sweden, where this method has been in use for several years, the incidence of serious lesion scores has reduced with a corresponding increase in the moderate lesions scores, while there has been no improvement in the percentage of scores for no minor lesions over a decade.

The BPC think it is important that any scoring system is backed up by proven interventions designed to continually improve the situation over time. For this reason they think the references to the methodology in Annex IV should be removed and the choice of the appropriate method be made by the committee procedure under Article 9.

Mortality

The mortality rates proposed in Table 1 are too low in comparison with the average level prevailing in the industry. Mortality rates have been reducing over recent years but the rates deriving from the proposed levels are too low at 3.4% at 40 days of age. They note that an average mortality of 4.1% (including culls) was record in the Dawkins study.

Bearing in mind that culls are included, it is better to set the threshold at a more realistic level which does not result in very frequent notifications which will occur at the levels currently proposed. They propose 1.5% plus 0.09% multiplied by the slaughter age of the flock in days, which would give 5.1% at 40 days of age. This level will highlight exceptions but stop too frequent and inconsequential referrals from the slaughterhouse.

9. While the average dead-on-arrival rate for the UK is within the proposed level of 0.5%, they think the level is too low and could result in compulsory notifications by the official veterinarian to the farm for an outcome deficiency which most likely has little or nothing to do with the farm. They think that a threshold of 0.8% should trigger and investigation of the likely cause. Official veterinarian notification to the farm should only be made if the cause was due to farm-related condition of the birds rather than due to conditions of transport or to the journey.

ANNEX V

They agree with the need to promote training in the essential elements of welfare for the personnel in contact with the birds and in a direct supervisory role. These elements should also include certifying fitness to travel, catching and the welfare of flocks in transit. This will better ensure an integrated understanding of best welfare practice necessary to fulfil the responsibilities of maintaining birds under care. They have earlier alternative wording to the term "emergency killing".

Leonora Merry, Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA (11/10/2005)

The Scottish SPCA thanked the Scottish Executive for the invitation to respond to the consultation. A brief introduction was given advising that the Scottish SPCA is Scotland's oldest and largest animal welfare organisation, caring for over 13,000 animals annually. The Society campaigns at a European level to end animal suffering through its membership of the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare. The Society also acts as treasurer to the organisation.

Through, Eurogroup, the Scottish SPCA has followed progress towards a proposed Directive on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broiler chickens). The Society has long highlighted the lack of sufficient welfare legislation on the European level for broiler chickens and is pleased to welcome the proposed Directive as an excellent step in alleviating the suffering of millions of birds across the EU.

Would you prefer the proposal to be a Directive or Regulation?

The Scottish SPCA considers that a Directive is preferable in this case. A Regulation would lack the necessary flexibility that such legislation would require. A Directive allows individual Member States to decide whether or not they bolster standards outlined by the European Union. The Scottish SPCA would urge the Executive to implement standards above the minimum required by the Directive.

Do you agree with the stocking density levels of 30 and 38 kilogrammes liveweight per square metre?

The Scottish SPCA understands the benefits of allowing higher stocking densities as an incentive to provide better welfare standards for broiler chickens. However, the Society is concerned both that the stocking density of 38 kg/m ² may still create considerable welfare problems, and that the requirements proposed for those wishing to stock at a density greater than 30 kg/m ² should apply across the board.

The Scottish SPCA regrets that the proposal, which is based on evidence from SCAHAW, does not take the advice of SCAHAW's 2000 report regarding stocking densities. The SCAHAW report stated that any stocking density over 30 kg/m ² would lead to a steep rise in the frequency of serious welfare problems, such as lameness. While those wishing to stock at a density higher than 30 kg/m ² should have to comply with several measures, it appears that according to the SCAHAW report, over a certain density, no amount of extra welfare measures can genuinely suffice. Therefore, the Scottish SPCA has some concerns over the proposal to allow higher stocking densities in cases where other welfare needs can be met.

The Scottish SPCA is also concerned by the fact that the proposed Directive does not set as stringent welfare standards for those wishing to stock chickens at a density of 30 kg/m ² or less. While it is of course important that those stocking at higher densities must meet requirements as defined in Annex II Paragraph 2 of the proposed Directive, the Scottish SPCA considers that many of these requirements should also extend to establishments stocking chickens at lower densities. Specifically, the Society sees no reason why establishments stocking chickens at less than 30 kg/m ² should not have to provide information on alarm systems and backup systems in case of electrical failure, on the numbers of stockmen attending the chickens, and on the veterinarian attending the chickens.

Nonetheless, the Scottish SPCA is pleased to see that the proposed Directive has undertaken to set standards for chickens stocked at high densities.

What are your thoughts on the proposed light regime?

The Scottish SPCA welcomes the proposal to regulate the lighting level for broiler chickens. Low lighting can cause inactivity in broiler chickens, which subsequently leads to lameness and skin disease, stress and eye abnormalities. The 2000 SCAHAW report stated that welfare problems do arise from light intensities below 20 lux, and thus the proposals in the proposed Directive are welcome.

What monitoring arrangements should take place at the slaughterhouse?

The Scottish SPCA considers that monitoring should continue to be carried out both by the SVS and the Meat Hygiene Service ( MHS).

The Society is concerned that the only criterion to be measured at the slaughterhouse are mortality and ammonium burns on the feet. Other welfare problems affecting broiler chickens, such as breast burns, ascites and lameness should also be taken into consideration at the slaughterhouse.

The Scottish SPCA also considers that the maximum permitted level of skin burns as contained in Annex IV of the proposed Directive is too low. The formula as defined in the proposed Directive would consider it acceptable for all birds to have minor skin burns on their feet, or alternatively for 25% to have severe burns.

While in practice, broiler chicken welfare in Scotland is generally of a high standard, the Society feels that legislation should promote best practice rather than a minimum standard.

How should the Competent Authority manage the obligation to follow up slaughterhouse reports in practice? Could the current proposal be streamlined?

The Scottish SPCA believes that if a slaughterhouse investigation discovers that the numbers of chickens affected with welfare problems exceeds the accepted parameter, a report should be sent by the Veterinary Surgeon to the Competent Authority. An SVS inspection should be then carried out within 72 hours of the report being received. This would allow for the chickens in the farm in question to be monitored quickly.

Other comments

Training

The Scottish SPCA welcomes the emphasis placed in the proposed Directive on the importance of the training of stockmen. The Society has long expressed the need for adequate training. However, the Society considers that training should not replace the need for genuine competency in stockmen. Attendance of a course on the keeping of chickens for meat production is no guarantee of improved knowledge.

The Society also has concerns about how the training will be monitored and verified. It might be desirable for a standard training course to be designed by the Scottish Executive with certain required criteria for stockmen to achieve in order to qualify for looking after chickens bred for meat production.

The Scottish SPCA is somewhat concerned by the assumption in the proposed Directive that experience, no matter how minor, is a substitute for competence. While most experienced farmers have competency to match their experience, some experienced farmers have competency to match their experience, some experienced farmers have become used to lower standards of welfare in chickens and need to be challenged by training. The Society thus considers that the Scottish Executive should develop a scheme whereby the training of stockmen is also examined and certified by the State Veterinary Service.

Genetic Selection

The Scottish SPCA would wish to see the European Union commit itself to speedier action on the issue of genetic selection. While the proposed Directive stipulates that the Commission must compile data relating to genetics from the measurement of welfare indicators at the abattoir, with a view to bringing forward a legislative proposal if necessary, the Society would prefer to see a more robust commitment to legislation on genetics.

Inspections by stockmen

The Scottish SPCA considers it regrettable that the maximum distance for inspections of chickens in sheds to take place is three metres from the nearest chicken. Given that three metres is still a considerable distance, it would be preferable if the minimum distance was one metre. This would allow for it to genuinely be seen if chickens were suffering from diseases or lameness.

Labelling

The Scottish SPCA welcomes the commitment given under Article 5 of the proposed Directive that the Commission should produce a report with recommendations for legislative proposals on the labelling of chicken meat. The Society is committed to the principle of consumer education and regards effective labelling of animal related produce as a good way of educating consumers about the origins of their produce.

However, the Society considers that a label of welfare quality should only be applied if the welfare standards are genuine. Therefore the Society would have reservations about meat labelled as being of a high quality if the chickens were stocked to densities higher than 30 kg/m ².

Conclusion

The Scottish SPCA welcomes the proposed Council Directive on the welfare of chickens bred for meat production (broilers). Given that broiler chickens constitute one of the least regulated areas of the livestock industry both in Scotland and beyond, such proposals are overdue and much needed. However, the Society wishes to see the Scottish Executive make the most of the opportunity presented by this proposed Directive to ensure that the welfare of broiler chickens is improved in Scotland.

Peter Loggie, NFU Scotland (14/10/2005)

Summary

1. The NFU Scotland ( NFUS) thanked the Scottish Executive for the opportunity to comment on the Proposal and on the Initial Regulatory Assessment (Scotland).

• NFUS supports welfare friendly management of livestock. Good management is the most important factor affecting welfare.
• NFUS agree that welfare rules should be uniformly applied across the EU but competitiveness must also be assessed against third country imports unless they are subject to the same rules.
• They are not convinced that the proposed lower stocking rates would improve welfare and believe that production at 30 kg/m ² would be unviable.
• They agree that temperature in broiler houses should be controlled but they do not agree that cooling systems should be a universal requirement.
• NFUS believe that the proposed light levels/regime would be contrary to bird welfare.
• They believe that the mortality levels suggested as indicators are too low.
• They suggest that consumer willingness to pay for higher welfare should be measured by actual buying practices, not attitude surveys.

Proposed Directive

2. NFUS supports welfare friendly management of livestock, including chickens kept for meat production. Welfare rules do however need to be based on science. They must also take into account the competitiveness of national and EU production. With the continuing process of removing trade barriers, supported by the UK Government, it is no longer sufficient that a level playing field is established within the EU. If their farmers are to be expected to compete head-to-head with imports they should not be saddled with costs that do not apply to third country producers. Alternatively the rules apply equally to imports.

Explanatory Memorandum

3. Welfare studies have identified a number of problems related to the rearing of chickens for meat production (broilers). The poultry meat industry has taken action to address these issues since the studies referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. They already have high welfare standards for chicken in the UK under the Assured Chicken Production Scheme and Retailer Codes of Practice. It is also clear from previous work that good management is a more important factor than technical standards.

4. They welcome the intention to establish common rules throughout the EU. The proposal will pull several existing welfare rules for chicken and create detailed requirements in a single Directive. It is important however that all Member States should enforce the rules in a uniform manner and that compliance is physically checked by the Commission. This has not been the case in laying hen welfare when rules on stocking density have been largely ignored in some Member States.

5. The proposal goes far beyond other EU welfare legislation, because it not only fixes detailed input requirements for farms, but it lays down official monitoring requirements for every farm stocking density over 30 kg/m ² .

6. The Directive would require each flock from every farm to be monitored by official veterinarians in processing plants against prescribed welfare criteria, with feedback of results above the levels to the farm concerned followed by an official inspection and a compulsory reduction in stocking density if it was found to be the cause of the deficiency. The cost of these extra inspections could fall on the producer and would be an additional inspection beyond the auditing already imposed by assurance schemes etc.

7. They would not want to see innovation and investment in new houses stifled by over specific requirements on the way in which chickens are managed.

8. The UK Government should not make rules more stringent than those eventually adopted EU-wide. Their experience with the early ban of sow stalls in the UK has been that production has been exported to Member States with lower welfare standards.

Articles

9. Article 1 They disagree that there should be any lower limit on the application of welfare related clauses of the Directive. Animal welfare should be respected equally on all sizes of production units. Setting an artificial limit makes for an unlevel playing field while having different rules can cause confusion.

10. Article 3 They believe that the proposed default stocking of 30 kg/m ² is too low for economic production to continue. It is likely that most production will be based on stocking densities above this level. Therefore it would be more sensible to state the maximum stocking density under the Directive as the default, then listing as derogations the parts of the legislation that do not apply at the lower stocking density of up to 30 kg/m ².

11. Article 4(2) The matters listed in Annex V of the draft would be likely to be included in training courses for poultry staff covering more than welfare. The world "focus", which suggests the main purpose of the training, should be replaced by "include".

12. Article 5 They are in favour of country of origin labelling but the main purpose of this article is unclear. Labelling will not resolve the likely trade disadvantage caused by higher production costs as most consumers buy on price and large quantities of poultry meat are sold unlabelled ( e.g. eaten in restaurants). Poultry meat from producers who do not comply with the welfare aspects of the Directive ( i.e. small producers) should not be labelled in the same way as poultry meat produced by those subject to all the rules.

13. Article 7 Leaving the setting of penalties up to Member States is not consistent with the intent of the Directive to ensure consistency throughout the EU. They do of course agree that penalties should be proportionate.

Annex I

14. Drinkers Spillage cannot be completely avoided but it should be "minimised".

15. Ventilation and heating This should be renamed "ventilation and temperature control" as the paragraph is mostly related to overheating. For consistency with later parts of the document the words "or cooling" should be inserted after "heating".

16. Light

The proposed light intensity of at least 20 lux during light periods is well above the current minimum 10 lux requirement. This high light intensity could create issues in relation to the flightiness of birds and make them more nervous and agitated leading to smothering or damage due to scratching and injury. Some studies have shown lower gait scores with increasing light levels.

Maintaining lighting programmes to 3 days prior to processing could lead to similar issues as above, and also raise catching damage with subsequent rejects at the processing plant, together with welfare issues. It could lead to birds panicking and smothering at catching. Maintenance of programmes to 10 days before processing would be better for bird welfare.

Maintaining a period of continuous darkness lasting at least 8 hours would be a major issue in Scotland during long summer days with ventilation requirements allowing light into the buildings. A minimum continuous period of 4 hours would be more appropriate.

17. Surgical interventions Although beak trimming of broilers is not common practice they welcome the continued ability to use beak trimming to counter the adverse welfare impacts of feather pecking and cannibalism. Developing alternatives should also be allowed.

Annex II

18. Notification and documentation

As stated at paragraph 10 above they believe that the default maximum stocking density and related rules should be the higher figure rather than 30 kg/m ² . As long as the keeper meets the requirements of the Directive he should be permitted to stock to the higher level. Otherwise there will be differences in how the rules should be applied between Member States.

There is little evidence to justify a maximum rate of 38 kg/m ² compared with the current 42 kg/m ². Good management is more important than absolute stocking density. If correctly conducted, the monitoring procedures set out in the Directive should bring about the desired improvement in welfare irrespective of stocking density up to 42 kg/m ².

19. Cooling (Paragraphs 2(a)(ii), and 3) The welfare issue behind these paragraphs is temperature control. In parts of the EU such as Scotland outdoor temperatures over 30ºC are extremely rare. It would be an unnecessary expense for every Scottish broiler house to be equipped with a cooling system when temperatures acceptable for chicken welfare can be achieved through ventilation and heating systems alone. Also, cooling systems have to be carefully monitored during periods of high humidity. Otherwise they can be detrimental to welfare rather than a benefit. It would be more sensible and practical if the Directive stated the acceptable range of temperature/humidity at different stocking densities. Alternatively the words "heating and cooling" should be replace by "temperature control".

20. Monitoring and recording in the establishment Monitoring and recording of temperature and relative humidity within each unit on a continuous basis is impractical and would impose a significant financial burden, especially on smaller producers. The recording of maximum and minimum temperature on a daily basis as described in Annex I, plus daily minimum and maximum recording of humidity would be more practical.

Annex III

21. Inspections To ensure consistency across the EU, farms must be subject to annual welfare inspection to lay down standards. To minimise the burden on businesses the inspection should be combined with other official inspections while to prevent distortion in competition and maintain a level playing field with third countries the cost of the official inspections should not be charged to the producers.

22. Procedure in case of non-compliance Prior to any corrective action it should be determined whether welfare problems indicated by inspection, or by monitoring at slaughterhouses, are related to non-compliance with requirements of the Directive or some other factor.

Annex IV

23. Foot pad dermatitis Foot pad dermatitis is far more difficult to assess and measure than mortality. To guarantee uniformity, detailed rules for a scoring system should be introduced simultaneously with the adoption of the Directive. "Minor" and "severe" categories are likely to be too restrictive to ensure uniform assessment: more categories may be needed.

24. Mortality

• The proposed mortality calculations are only applicable to birds grown as hatched or up to around forty days of age. They do not take into account the growing of cockerels to heavier weights.
• There is little connection between welfare and mortality during the first 7 days. The score for mortality should be taken from day 8 onwards at a rate of 0.12% per day. If a standard is set for the first week then 1.5% could be appropriate.
• It is in the keeper's interest that mortality in transport should be as low as possible but he has limited ability to affect it. If veterinary investigation indicates that mortality above 0.5% was the result of factors outwith the keeper's control it would be unreasonable for any reduction in stocking density to be required.

25. Alternatives There could be alternative indicators which could be used instead of foot pad dermatitis, including hock burns and breast blisters. If accepted, these should be alternative, not additional indicators.

Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment ( RIA)(Scotland)

26. They welcome the suggested Option 5 (Paragraph 3.5) as a means to minimise the additional cost of these proposals but they also agree that the "lightest possible touch" (Option 4) should be applied. They reject Option 6 as this would simply result in the export of the UK broiler industry with a probable net reduction in broiler welfare.

27. They also agree that costs and benefits should be fully established prior to determining the final form of the Directive. They believe that the costs of the current proposals would be very significant and that they would put their producers at a significant disadvantage to imports. Indeed, in 2002 the European Commission highlighted that the EU animal welfare legislation imposed additional costs for producers and created distortions of competition with imports form third countries.

28. Estimates by Grampian Country Food Group indicate that stocking at 30 kg/m ² would double the time to recover the cost of investment in new broiler houses, compared with a stocking density of 38 kg/m ². With the degree of competition in our markets already being very strong, UK production cannot afford to be disadvantaged further in this way.

29. Environmental implications will be hard to determine. It is obvious that to maintain current production levels more land would be required for reduced capacity broiler houses. This means that greater resources in terms of land and building materials would be needed. The RIA understates the difficulty in extending buildings (Paragraph 6.6). It is not understood why there should be any net reduction in overall ammonia output (Paragraph 7.5).

30. They believe that the suggested additional requirement for electricity and gas in lower density buildings is understated. Grampian Country Food Group figures suggest increases of up to 24%. This would clearly be an environmental disadvantage, which should be taken into account when assessing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Directive.

31. Paragraph 7.1 of the RIA misses the point. Avoiding disadvantage within the Single Market is important but third country competition is becoming ever more important. The UK Government is supportive of reducing barriers to trade but the inevitable result of this is more competition from third countries. In the WTO negotiations lip service has been paid by EU negotiators to the need to take into account ethical issues such as animal welfare. It is generally, if not publicly, acknowledged that imports are very unlikely to be restricted or financially discouraged by these ethical factors.

32. Assessing consumer willingness to pay is notoriously difficult. They suggest that the major supermarkets should be approached to provide customer-anonymous information on buyer practices through loyalty card data. These can accurately record purchases and prices paid for food considered more ethical as compared with conventional products so that the effects of price differentials can be measured.

33. Surveys, which ask consumers about their ethical practices, are worthless as they are contradicted by actual purchases. Even once a price per kilo difference is established by the means suggested at the paragraph above it would not be valid to simply multiply this differential by current sales of broilers. Consumers who happily consume poultry meat produced to current standards will not consider any increase in price as an advantage. Neither will they regard improved chicken welfare as a quantifiable gain. In a market undistorted by regulation, prices would determine the level of welfare consumers were willing to pay for and production would match customer demand.

34. Quantifying fairness to broilers will be even more difficult. The science on benefits of lower stocking rates is debateable so the main gain could come from monitoring of management which could be achieved by implementation only part of the proposed Directive.

35. As stated above, they do not believe that it is fair to humans or chickens that there should be a lower limit on size of unit subjected to the technical aspects of the Directive. With permeable EU borders fairness and equity cannot be considered in isolation.

36. Although the scale of the effect on profits can be debated it is clear that the broiler sector is already operating at extremely small profit margins. The impact of Directive on operating costs would make the situation worse. In addition, very significant capital investment would be required unless the changeover to lower stocking densities was staged over a prolonged period.

ALLAN J MCFARLANE
21 November 2005

Footnotes

1 Hall A., 2001. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare 10, 23-40

2 Sanotra G. S., Lawson L. , G. and Vestergaard K. S., 2001. Influence of stocking density on tonic immobility, lameness and tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4(1): 71-87.

3 Dawkins M. S., Donnelly C. A. and Jones T. A., 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature, 427, 342-344

4 Berg C. and Algers B., 2004. Using welfare outcomes to control intensification: the Swedish model. In: Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (eds Weeks C. and Butterworth A.). CAB International 2004.

5 Sanotra G. S., Lund J. D., Ersoll A. K., Petersen J.S. and Vestergaard K. S., 2001. Monitoring leg problems in broilers: a survey of commercial broiler production in Denmark. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 55-69.

6 Sanotra G. S. and Berg C., 2003. Investigation of lameness in the commercial production of broiler chickens in Sweden. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Specialarbete 22. Skara 2003.

7 Kestin S. C., Gordon S., Su G. and SØrensen P., 2001. Relationships in broiler chickens between lameness, liveweight, growth rate and age. Veterinary Record 148: 195-197.

8 Bradshaw R. H., Kirkden R. D. and Broom D.M., 2002. A review of aetiology and pathology of leg weakness in broilers in relation to welfare. Avian and Poultry Reviews 13 (2): 45-103.

9 Corr S. A., Gentle M. J., McCorquodale C. C. and Bennett D., 2003(a). The effect of morphology on the musculoskeletal system of the modern broiler. Animal Welfare 12: 145-157.

10 See note 1 below