ABSTRACTS

The 'sustainability gap' of US broiler chicken production: trade-offs between welfare, land use and consumption

In2018, over nine billion chickens were slaughtered in the United States. As the demand for chickens increases, so too have concerns regarding the welfare of the chickens in these systems and the damage such practices cause to the surrounding ecosystems. To address welfare concerns, there is large-scale interest in raising chickens on pastureand switching to slower-growing, higher-welfare breeds as soon as 2024. We created a box model of US chicken demographics to characterize aggregate broiler chicken welfare and land-use consequences at the countryscale for US shifts to slower-growing chickens, housing with outdoor access, and pasture management. The US produces roughly 20 million metric tons of chicken meat annually.Maintaining this level of consumption entirely with a slower-growing breed would require a 44.6 per cent-86.8 per cent larger population of chickens and a 19.2 per cent-27.2 per cent higher annual slaughter rate, relative to the current demographics of primarily 'Ross 308' chickens that areslaughtered at a rate of 9.25 billion per year. Generating this quantity of slower-growing breeds in conventional concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) would require 90 582-98 687 km2,an increase of 19.9-30.6 per cent over the 75 577 km2 of land used for current production of Ross 308. Housing slower-growing breeds on pasture, the more individually welfare-friendly option, would require 108 642-121 019 km2, a43.8-60.1 per cent increase over current land use. Allowing slower-growing breeds occasional outdoor access is an intermediate approach that would require 90 691-98 811 km2,an increase of 20-30.7 per cent of the current land use, a very minor increase of land relative to managing slower-growing breeds in CAFOs. In sum, without a drastic reduction in consumption, switching to alternative breeds will lead to a substantial increase in the number of individuals killed each year,an untenable increase in land use, and a possible decrease in aggregate chicken welfare at the country-level scale. Pasture-based management requiressubstantial additional land use. These results demonstrate constraints and trade-offs in animal welfare, environmental conservation and food animal consumption, while highlighting opportunities for policies to mitigate impacts in an integrated manner using a One Health approach. Iris Chan1,Becca Franks1,Matthew N Hayek1 RSoc Open Sci. 2022 Jun 1;9(6): 210478.doi: 10.1098/rsos.210478. 1Department of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA.

Free PMC article

Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in pig-hunting dogs from north Queensland, Australia

The causative agent of Q fever, Coxiella burnetii,is endemic to Queensland and is one of the most important notifiable zoonotic diseases in Australia. The reservoir species for C. burnetii are classically ruminants, including sheep, cattle and goats. Thereis increasing evidence of C.burnetii exposure in dogs across eastern and central Australia. The present study aimed to determine if pig-hunting dogs above the Tropic of Capricornin Queensland had similar rates of C.burnetii exposureto previous serosurveys of companion dogs in rural north-west New South Wales. A total of 104 pig-hunting dogs had serum IgG antibody titres to phase Iand phase 2 C.burnetii determined using an indirect immunofluorescence assay test. Almost one in five dogs (18.3 per cent; 19/104; 95 per cent confidence interval 9.6 per cent-35.5 per cent) were seropositive to C.burnetii,with neutered dogs more likely to test positive compared to entiredogs (P = 0.0497). Seropositivity of the sampled pig-hunting dogs was one of the highest recorded in Australia. Thirty-nine owners of the pig-hunting dogs completed a survey, revealing 12.8 per cent (5/39) had been vaccinated To page 30

Animal performance and stress at weaning when dairy cows suckle their calves for short versus long daily durations

Calves in most dairy farms are separated from their dams either immediately or within a few hours after birth, prompting increasing concern of the society for reasons of animal welfare. The aim of this study was to identify systems to maintain cow-calf contact (CCC) that balance the benefits for calf growth and health against the negative impacts on sellable milk and stress at weaning. We tested reuniting cows and calves for 20 min before (Before-group) or 2.5 h after (After-group) morning milking (in Trial 1) or for a 9 h period between the morning and evening milkings (Half-day-group, in Trial 2). In Control-groups, calves were separated from their dam at birth and fed with artificial nipple with tank milk provided daily at 13 per cent (Trial 1) and 14 per cent (Trial 2) of their BW. In both trials, each practice was applied on a group of 14 dam-calf pairs (7 Holstein [Ho] and 7 Montbéliarde [Mo]). All calves were weaned at a BW of at least 100 kg. In Trial 1, the After-group was prematurely stopped when the calves were eight weeks of age as calf growth became limited (340 g/d) due to low milk intakes (2.97 kg/d). During the first eight weeks of lactation, milk yield at the parlour was 29 per cent, 51 per cent and 42 per cent lower in After-, Before- and Half-day-cows respectively compared to Controls. From week 14 to 16 when all calves were separated from their dam, Before-cows still produced 25 per cent less milk than Control-cows while Half-day-cows reached the milk yield of Control-cows within a week. There were no significant differences in milk somatic cell count and in frequency of health disorders (cows and calves) between suckling and Control-groups. Compared to Control-calves, calf growth until weaning was higher in the suckling calves in Trial 1 (861 vs 699 g/d) and similar in Trial 2 (943 vs 929 g/d). At weaning, Beforeand Half-day-calves started to vocalise earlier and continued to vocalise longer than Controls. In conclusion, the best compromise between cow milk yield and calf growth is a long period of CCC (9 h) between the morning and evening milkings. Still abrupt weaning stresses both cows and calves even if CCC has been restricted beforeseparation. ANicolao1,I Veissier2,M Bouchon3,E Sturaro4,B Martin2 , DPomiès5 Animal. 2022 Jun;16(6):100536.doi: 10.1016/ j.animal.2022.100536. 1Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France; DAFNAE, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy. 2Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France. 3Herbipôle, INRAE, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France. 4DAFNAE, University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy. 5Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France. Electronic address: dominique.pomies@inrae.fr.

Free article

Anaesthesia of decapod crustaceans

Decapod crustaceans (crabs, hermit crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimps, prawns) aresentient beings, not only responding to noxious stimuli but also being capable of feeling pain, discomfort, and distress. General anaesthesia aims at producing analgesia, immobilization, and unconsciousness, while sedation reduces consciousness, stress, and anxiety,though without analgesia. Anaesthesia is recommended to ensure animal welfare and suppress nociception, pain, and suffering in painful and distressing practice that impairs decapods' welfare. These include long termrestrain, surgical procedures, pain control, examination, diagnostic, sampling, treatment, transportation, and euthanasia. To page 30