Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 30:11:1452109.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1452109. eCollection 2024.

Animal welfare assessment protocol for quails reared for meat production

Affiliations

Animal welfare assessment protocol for quails reared for meat production

Antoni Dalmau et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: It is estimated that 1.4 billion quails are reared each year for their eggs and meat, but animal welfare assessment protocols for this species have yet to be established. The objective of this study was to devise an animal welfare assessment protocol developed through a multidimensional approach that contained a number of animal-based indicators (ABIs) for quails (Coturnix japonica) reared for meat production.

Methods: During 2021 and 2022, the identical auditor visited and audited 14 Spanish farms in their initial year of integration into an animal welfare certification scheme. The protocol is categorised into 4 principles and 12 criteria. The "good feeding" principle includes 6 indicators (1 ABI), "good housing" includes 10 indicators (5 ABIs), "good health" includes 12 indicators (9 ABIs), and "appropriate behaviour" contains 8 indicators (5 ABIs). The final welfare assessment is calculated at the farm level using scores from the on-farm recordings. The assessment is a step-by-step weighted sum of the scores from the various indicators, with the final score ranging between 0 and 100.

Results and discussion: The main welfare issues found on all farms were a lack of temperature and humidity records, a poor lighting pattern, and the absence of an outdoor range or access to one. To a lesser degree, it was also found that there were excessive numbers of birds per feeder, the presence of improperly functioning drinkers (i.e., not working, inadequate water flow, or dripping water), poor litter quality, and a high prevalence of birds with dirty plumage and lameness. Despite this, the farms achieved a good overall score, being classified as "enhanced" (n = 11) and "acceptable" (n = 3). The tool proved helpful in identifying specific welfare issues at the farm level and conducting benchmarking.

Keywords: animal-based protocol welfare; assessment protocol; behaviour; certification; feeding; health; housing; outputs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pie chart displaying the proportion of the principles (n = 4), criteria (n = 12) and indicators (n = 37) used for assessing the meat quail welfare. The arcs in the doughnut hole represent the principles of Good feeding (orange), Good housing (blue), Good health (purple), and Appropriate behaviour (green). Labels protruding from the chart show the indicators used; in bold, those animal-based indicators. At the outer part are the criteria enclosing each of the indicators included. Superscript 1 designates temperature registers that represent the same proportion as the indicator including the thermal comfort criterion, but with a negative score (from 0 to −100). Superscript 2 designates the risk of injuries due to the surroundings indicator, which represents the same proportion as the indicators included in the absence of injuries criterion, but with a negative score (from 0 to −100). Superscript 3 designates an emergency killing indicator that represents the same proportion as the indicator culling but with a negative score (from 0 to −100).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dot plots representing the score achieved on the 13 criteria utilised for the assessment of animal welfare in 14 meat quail farms. In (A), the criteria for Good Feeding: Absence of prolonged hunger (AH) and the Absence of prolonged thirst (AT). In (B), the criteria for Good Housing: Comfort around resting (CR), Thermal comfort (TC), and Ease of movement (EM). In (C), the criteria for Good Health: Absence of injuries (AI), Absence of diseases (AD), and Absence of pain induced by management (AP). In (D), the criteria for Appropriate Behaviour: Social behaviour (SB), Other behaviour (OB), Human–animal relationship (HA), and Positive emotional state (PE). In the criteria, the grey line represents the median and the black line represents the 95% confidence interval (CI). The dashed lines represent the range of the category where farms are classified: “not acceptable”, from 0 to 19; “acceptable”, from 20 to 54; “enhanced”, from 55 to 79; and z’excellent’, from 80 to 100.

References

    1. Minvielle F. The future of Japanese quail for research and production. Worlds Poult Sci J. (2004) 60:500–7. doi: 10.1079/WPS200433 - DOI
    1. Cheng KM, Bennett DC, Mills AD. The Japanese Quail, The UFAW handbook on the care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals. Wiley; (2010). 655–673
    1. FAOSTAT . Food and agriculture data, Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023)
    1. Ionità L, Pana CO, Stanca C, Marin M. Researches regarding the influence of compound feed on growth replacement of young quails. The International Session of Scientific Communications of the Faculty of Animal Science. Series D, Animal Science: (2010). p. 131–137
    1. EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare) Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, et al. . Scientific opinion on the welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm. EFSA J. (2023) 21:157. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023, - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources