The fast growth rate of broiler chickens is a welfare concern that has increased consumer interest in chicken from slower growing (SG) broilers. Replacing conventional (CONV) broilers with SG broilers will reduce chicken supply and SG broilers require different management practices than CONV. This study evaluated the effects of 2 stocking densities on the carcass composition and meat quality of CONV broilers that reach market weight at 42 d and SG broilers that reach market weight at 63 d. Male broilers from each strain were exclusively stocked into 16 pens at a density of either 29 kg/m² or 37 kg/m². Live body, carcass without giblets (WOG), and part weights were recorded and used to calculate yield. Initial and 24-hour pH, color (L*, a*, and b*), cooking loss, and Warner Bratzler shear force of the breast and thigh muscles were measured. Birds from both strains reached similar live body and carcass WOG weights. CONV had 3.4%, 13.0%, and 2.8% greater (P ≤ 0.002), carcass WOG, breast, and tenderloin yields, while SG had 2.7%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 1.2% greater (P < 0.0001) wings, leg quarters, frame, and skin yields, respectively. CONV breast 24-h pH and cooking loss were greater (P ≤ 0.04) than SG. While SG thigh shear force was greater than CONV (P = 0.008), breast shear force was the lowest for CONV stocked at 29 kg/m² and the greatest for SG stocked at 37 kg/m² (P = 0.04). SG had a paler breast than CONV, while CONV had a yellower breast than SG (P < 0.0001). While SG had a redder thigh than CONV (P = 0.002), SG stocked at 29 kg/m² had a redder breast than SG stocked at 37 kg/m², with both CONV groups intermediate (P = 0.04). These results indicate that differences in male broiler meat quality were affected more by strain than by stocking density. Compared with CONV, SG broiler meat quality was more affected by stocking density in this study.

Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.

This study aimed to investigate how stakeholders in the United States beef industry incorporate animal welfare into their sustainability programs. A survey was administered online to the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef membership. Twenty-seven surveys were analyzed. Most respondents (n = 26, 96%) had sustainability programs that incorporated animal welfare. Most respondents believed that welfare positively impacted environmental (n = 25/26, 96%), economic (n = 25/26, 96%), and social (n = 26/26, 100%) sustainability. The thematic analysis of five free response questions identified ten themes: Animal Care, Regulations and Guidelines, Responsibility, Consumers and Stakeholders, Performance and Efficiency, Financial Impact, Connectedness, Critical Component, Animal-based Outcomes, and Employees. When asked to define welfare, the most common themes were Animal Care and Regulations and Guidelines. When asked why welfare was a component of their sustainability program, the top factors from a provided list were: cattle health (n = 20, 74%), cattle performance (n = 12, 44%), and consumer perceptions (n = 12, 44%). Findings suggest a widespread recognition of animal welfare’s importance within sustainable beef production.

Animal welfare has been a priority in the U.S. slaughter industry for decades, and therefore, a particular emphasis has been placed on minimizing fear, stress, and discomfort in beef cattle as they are marketed through the pre-slaughter period. Still, stressors are an inherent component of this period, and little is known about the impact of these stressors on the welfare and meat quality of finished cattle in the U.S. The aim of the study was to track individual cattle throughout the pre-slaughter period to identify factors associated with key welfare and meat quality outcomes. Data were collected on 454 cattle in the winter and summer; most animals were black-hided (n = 286, 63.7%) and steers (n = 287, 63.2%). Pre-slaughter factors (e.g., distance traveled; truck waiting time; lairage density; lairage duration) were recorded for each study animal. Cattle welfare and meat quality indicators were measured on an individual animal basis. In lairage, cattle mobility was scored using the North American Meat Institute’s 1–4 scale (i.e., normal to extremely reluctant to move). Exsanguination blood was collected from cattle and analyzed for lactate, cortisol, and creatine kinase. Carcass bruising was categorized as: no bruise, one bruise ≤ the size of a deck of cards, one bruise > than the size of a deck of cards, and multiple bruises. Muscle pH was analyzed 32 to 36 hours postmortem. Aikake Information Criterion was used to assess multi-predictor models. Mobility and bruising were considered binary variables for analysis. Mixed effects linear and logistic regressions were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Longer truck waiting times increased cortisol (P = 0.04) and lactate (P = 0.02) concentrations. Similarly, longer lairage durations increased creatine kinase concentrations (P = 0.05) and the odds of carcass bruising (OR: 1.01, CI: 1.0007, 1.0122). Cattle allotted more lairage space had decreased odds of impaired mobility (OR: 0.83, CI: 0.73, 0.96). Compared with summer, winter was associated with decreased blood lactate [3.54 ± 0.22 vs. 7.22 ± 0.17 mmol/L (predicted mean ± SE); P < 0.0001] and reduced odds of impaired mobility (OR: 0.26, CI: 0.13, 0.51) and carcass bruising (OR: 0.48, CI: 0.30, 0.78). Muscle pH was not significantly impacted by any measured factor. These findings identify areas for improvement, such as reducing truck waiting times, shortening lairage duration, and providing cattle with more space in lairage. In addition, there may be opportunities for plants to modify their practices at times of the year when cattle may be the most susceptible to adverse welfare events (i.e., summer months). Likely, exposure to multiple stressors during the pre-slaughter period has a compounding effect on cattle welfare and meat quality, and the factors identified in this study are just a few of many important factors requiring further exploration.