To date, information about reasons to select and kill poultry on-farm and which method veterinarians and poultry producers preferably use is scarce. Little is also known about their knowledge of the legislation regarding on-farm killing methods and of methods alternative to the one(s) they use, as well as their perception of those alternatives. In this study, Flemish poultry veterinarians (n = 13), broiler chicken producers (n = 27), and turkey producers (n = 4) were surveyed on killing methods they currently use in practice and alternative methods, on their opinion about what constitutes an appropriate method for on-farm killing of poultry, and on their reasons for killing. All poultry veterinarians and chicken producers who filled out the survey kill poultry by manual cervical dislocation (CD), whereas some turkey farmers also indicated killing by percussive blow to the head (n = 1) or exsanguination (n = 1). Turkey producers seem to be more inclined not to kill animals with injuries or symptoms of disease as compared to veterinarians or chicken producers, such that moribund turkeys are more likely to remain in the flock. Veterinarians considered the following properties of a killing method important: animal friendliness, applicability inside the stable, a high success rate, and time efficiency. Producers ranked the properties similarly, but for them, ease of performance and cost-efficiency were more important than applicability inside the stable. Producers scored those killing properties rather positively for manual as well as mechanical CD. Veterinarians and chicken producers considered the captive bolt method to be easy to perform, to have a high success rate, to be feasible to perform in the stable, and to be animal-friendly. Turkey producers, however, had doubts about the latter 2 properties. Gas, injection, and electrocution were inferior methods to kill poultry according to producers. In conclusion, manual CD is the most common method for killing broiler chickens and turkeys, and knowledge of, and experience with, alternative methods is very limited, both among veterinarians and producers. Informing them about legislation and training for the use of alternative killing techniques are recommended.

Competent authorities of many countries, including Belgium, impose control measures (preventing wild bird access to feeders and water facilities, indoor confinement of captive birds, or fencing off outdoor ranges with nets) on professional and non-professional keepers of birds to prevent the spread of avian influenza (AI). Flemish laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) and private keepers of captive birds (PRI, n = 263) were surveyed about their opinion on and compliance with AI measures legally imposed during the most recent high-risk period before this survey in 2021. Participants answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = the worst, 3 = neutral, and 5 = the best). FAR indicated better compliance with the AI measures than PRI, except for net confinement. FAR indicated that they and other poultry farmers complied better with AI measures than PRI. Additionally, PRI indicated that they better complied than other PRI keepers. FAR regarded the AI measures as more effective than PRI. To prevent the spread of AI more effectively, national authorities could focus on information campaigns explaining to private bird keepers the need for the various control measures that they impose. If these campaigns fail, local authorities may need stricter enforcement or alternative ways to increase compliance.

The pre-transport phase induces stress, fear, and injury in poultry, but management choices greatly influence this. Pre-transport practices for spent hens and broilers in Flanders (Belgium) were studied. Poultry farmers (31 of 156 layers and 48 of 203 broiler farmers completed the survey) were surveyed on the selection of unfit chickens, catching and crating, and farmer opinion. A minority of farmers made a specific selection of chickens unfit for transport prior to catching (layers 25%: 5.1 ± 5.9 h, broilers 39%: 6.8 ± 7.0 h). More layer (69%) than broiler farmers (19%) withdrew feed too early (EU regulations stipulate max. 12 h before expected slaughter time). Layer farmers withdrew water earlier than broiler farmers (47.9 ± 51.1 min vs. 20.6 ± 23.3 min). More broiler than layer farmers believed that the container type affects the birds’ welfare (48% vs. 27%; p < 0.05). On broiler farms, mechanical catching was preferred for catchers’ well-being, while upright catching was considered better for animal welfare than catching more than three chickens by one/two legs, wings, or mechanically. Poultry farmers should be sensitized about the need for additional selection before catching, including clear guidelines about judging which birds are fit for transport.

The humane killing of individual broiler chickens on-farm requires a minimum of suffering. In this regard, rapid and irreversible loss of consciousness are important determinants. This can be verified by cerebral and spinal reflexes. Also, on-farm feasibility determines whether producers will apply the method. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and animal welfare impact of two different methods for killing individual broilers of varying ages (2, 4, and 6 weeks): manual cervical dislocation (CD) and captive bolt (CB). The evaluation of CD and CB was based on effectiveness and on time to onset (convulsions) or cessation (pain response, pupillary light reflex, convulsions, heartbeat) of non-invasive indicators. In addition, a pilot study was conducted on-farm to assess the feasibility of two alternative methods, CB and nitrogen gasification (N2), and to survey farmers’ opinions on them. The onset of convulsions was almost immediate for both methods in the first study. No differences between CD and CB were observed for the cessation of pain response for chickens at age of 2 weeks (5.0 and 7.5 s, respectively) and 6 weeks (14.0 and 14.1 s, respectively). However, at 4 weeks a longer pain response was measured after CD (11.3 s) than after CB (4.7 s). For the three age categories, the pupillary light reflex disappeared later after CD (54.9 - 80.7 s) compared to CB (8.3 - 13.7 s). The same was observed for cessation of convulsions in 2- and 6-week-old chickens (185.3 and 172.0 s for CD and 79.0 and 82.9 s for CB). This suggests that brain death occurred faster after CB compared to CD. No difference between the methods was found for the cessation of the heartbeat. After the pilot study, the producers preferred N2 over CB in terms of animal-friendliness, time-efficiency, ease of use, and effectiveness. However, both methods were found rather expensive and required some experience. CB and N2 are good killing alternatives to CD due to rapid and irreversible insensibility. However, more information and support for chicken producers will be needed for these to become routine killing methods.

Pre-transport management activities can cause stress, injuries, and mortality in poultry. This study aimed to gather information about the current pre-transport practices (selection of unfit chickens, catching preparations, catching, and crating) for spent hens and broilers by questioning Flemish poultry farmers. The results showed that catching preparations such as an extra selection of chickens unfit for transport was performed by a minority of the poultry farmers, and that layer farmers were less in line with the EU-legislation for water and feed withdrawal than broiler farmers. All birds were caught inverted except for one broiler farmer who used mechanical catching (not yet common in Flanders). Additionally, mechanical catching may involve extra costs, increased biosecurity risks, and specific recommendations for the stable (height and width). The broiler farmers preferred mechanical catching for broiler catchers' well-being, while upright catching was considered better for animal welfare than catching more than three chickens by one/two legs, mechanically, or by wings. Awareness of the need to perform an extra selection by the poultry farmers before catching is required. Preparations like closing areas under the aviary system and removing litter (layers) can further streamline the process and reduce animal suffering.

Competent authorities of many countries, including Belgium, impose control measures (preventing wild bird access to feeders and water facilities, indoor confinement of captive birds, or fencing off outdoor ranges with nets) to professional and non-professional keepers of birds to prevent the spread of avian influenza (AI). Flemish laying hen farmers (FAR, n = 33) and private keepers of captive birds (PRI, n = 263) were surveyed about their opinion on, and compliance with, AI-measures legally imposed during the most recent high-risk period before this survey in 2021. Participants answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = the worst, 3 = neutral, and 5 = the best). FAR indicated better compliance with the AI-measures compared to PRI, except for confinement with nets. PRI and FAR perceived the level of compliance with AI-measures by other private bird keepers to be lower compared to themselves. FAR regarded the AI-measures as more effective than PRI. To prevent the spread of AI more effectively, national authorities could focus on information campaigns explaining to private bird keepers, in particular, the need for the various control measures that they impose, implement alternative control measures that have broader support or implement stricter enforcement of the control measures.