Veterinary coaching was tested to assess its efficacy in promoting adherence to biosecurity procedures. Poultry farmers (n = 13) in Belgium were profiled using ADKAR^®, coached and audited prior to and 6 months after coaching. The ADKAR^® (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) profiling technique identified 5/13 participating farmers with relatively low scores (≤3) for one or more elements that block change (biosecurity compliance in this case). Education was the only demographic variable that influenced knowledge scores. Through the Biocheck.Ugent^TM methodology, farm biosecurity was assessed and benchmarked to allow for tailored guidance. The farmer, farm veterinarian, and coach defined a farm-specific action plan that covered infrastructure, site access, staff/visitors, purchase policies, transport and depopulation, feed and water supplies, flock management, cleaning and disinfection between flocks, and measures between houses. From a total of 49 proposed actions, 36 were adopted. Purchasing policy had the highest (100%) and cleaning and disinfection had the lowest compliance (38%). Time, cost, and feasibility (e.g., inadequate farm layout) were the main reasons cited for not implementing action points. Overall, biosecurity improved significantly (p = 0.002) from 67.1 ± 5.7% to 70.3 ± 5.7% (mean ± Std. dev). The study, hence, presents convincing proof of how coaching can lead to new solutions not previously considered.

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

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.

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.