Figures
1.1 World map of the 50 nations that were assessed through the API index, with the scores obtained for each (WAP, 2024). Source:
2.1 Continuum of Livestock and Poultry Welfare (Fernandes et al., 2021). 32
2.2 Benchmarking pig calluses. 33
3.3 ROVR: A framework for auditing in four steps (Lawlis and Roche, 2024). 38
3.1 Farms, lands in farms, and average acres per farm, 1850-2020. Source: USDA. 47
3.2 Share of disposable personal income spent on food in the United States, 1960-2019. Source: USDA. 48
3.3 Share of consumer expenditure spent on food, 2016. Source: USDA. 48
3.4 Food spending and share of disposable income spent on food across U.S. households, 2019. 49
3.5 Covid-19 Impact on Meat-Power of Meat. 51
3.6 Sentiment of Social Media Mentions - Animal vs. Plant Protein (Center for Food Integrity, 2020). 51
3.7 Approximated State-Level Average Own-Price Pork Elasticities, Bacon. Source: Tonsor & Lusk, 2021. 53
3.8 Fresh Meat Affinity Scores-Total U.S. National. 55
4.1 Historical timeline of the development and implementation of the Beef Quality Assurance program. Vertical black arrows indicate when Beef Quality Audits (BQA) were conducted by the beef industry to self-evaluate progress toward their own goals and to provide transparency regarding beef production practices, and to educate the public. 71
6.1 Phases of broiler production. 105
6.2 Broiler handling during catching and loading. Image created in Biorender. 131
7.1 Phases of production. Phases are color-coded to correspond with each phase of production: breeder farm (red), hatchery (orange), pullet grow-out (yellow), hen productive lifespan (green), egg products (cyan), catching and loading (light blue), transportation (dark blue), and processing (purple). Image Created in Biorender. 144
7.2 Drinkers for hens. Image Created in Biorender. 154
7.3 Hen transportation from the laying period to processing. Image Created in Biorender. 156
7.4 Automatic cutting of the hen. Image Created in Biorender. 161
7.5 Hen handling during catching. Image Created in Biorender. 163
7.6 Water bath stunning (WBS). Image Created in Biorender. 164
7.7 Non-penetrative captive bolt stunning (CBS). Image Created in Biorender. 165
9.1 Non-slip floor for handling cattle. This design with deep grooves works well for extensively raised cattle. 193
9.2 Non-slip floor for sheep, pigs, and goats. It is made by stamping the pattern of expanded metal into the wet concrete. It will also work well for intensively raised cattle. 194
10.1 Example of a stunning system design. Image Created in Biorender. 221
10.2 Example of Controlled Atmospheric Stunning equipment design. Image created in Biorender. 222
10.3 Captive bolt stunning procedure. Image Created in Biorender. 222
13.1 Examples of the systems covered by the on-farm inspection of the ICA protocol. It should be noted that the images are indicative and that the Colombian farms with-in each system exhibit varying degrees of technological advancement. The systems are classified as follows: A) cage systems (battery or pyramid); B) floor systems (with traditional or automatic nest boxes); C) free range systems or barn-raised hens with outdoor access; and D) broiler chickens. 267
13.2 The images illustrate the methodology employed in the assessment of animal welfare in broilers and chickens in ICA protocol. A) Explanation of the scientific advisor’s role in guiding farm technicians through the audit process; B) Sampling point in battery cages; C) Sampling point in broilers and also compatible with floor hens (ABM measures); D) Initiation of the assessment process, whereby each animal is randomly selected for sampling (ABM measures); E) Assessment of beak condition (ABM measures); F) Assessment of drinker functionality (RBM measures); G) Inspection of water treatment facilities (RBM measures); and H) Documentary verification of animal welfare management (MBM measures). 279
13.3 Pictures of the training process. A) Expert trainer during theoretical phase of the first inspectors training; B) Students during practical phase on laying hens; C) Students during theoretical phase on broilers; D) Entry screen for continuing education in animal welfare of the Poultry Farmers’ Guild, available for government and guild staff; and E) The 2.0 or final version has been published by the ICA on February 2024. 281
14.1 Cattle transport truck. 293
14.2 Cattle pens in TIFs. 294
14.3 Cattle aisles in TIFs. 295
14.4 Showering before stunning. 296
14.5 The location of the shot is determined by the shape of the head (A. Bos indicus; B. Bos taurus). 297
14.6 Evaluation of the cattle corneal reflex. 298
14.7 A hematoma caused by the guillotine door. 300
14.8 Transportation of pigs in Mexico. 302
14.9 Inappropriate height on the upper level of the pig transport truck. 302
Tables
1.1 The four principles and cross-cutting criteria for cattle, pigs, broilers and laying hens (Welfare Quality®, 2009). 16
4.1 Evolution of the assessment approach used by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Beef Quality Assurance Program. 72
4.2 Beef audit tools that are used throughout the beef industry. 73
4.3 Point distribution for the different assessment categories included in the U.S. Cattle Industry Feedyard Audit (USCIFA). 75
4.4 Point and component distribution for the metrics within the U.S. Cattle Industry Feedyard Audit (USCIFA). 76
4.5 Sample size and selection process for the live observations conducted as part of the USCIFA. 77
4.6 Animal-based and human-animal interaction-based metrics that are measured as part of the USCIFA assessment of animal handling and the home pen environment. 77
5.1 Evolution of the FARM-Animal Care program from 2002 to 2022. 87
5.2 Summary of measures included in the FARM-Animal Care Program (items in italics in FARM Version 4 are required to be corrected/developed within 9 months). 89
5.3 Descriptions and acceptability thresholds for animal-based measures included in the FARM Audit. 93
6.1 Global Animal Partnership (GAP) step-based broiler welfare audit program. 103
6.2 Comparison of the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, FACTA, FAC, and AWA program broiler welfare hatchery standards. Green=Yes, Red=No, Black=Not mentioned in the audit form. 108
6.3 Comparison of the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, FACTA, FAC, and AWA program broiler welfare grow-out standards. Green=Yes, Red=No, Black= Not mentioned in the audit form, Yellow= The standard is partially present depending on numerous factors (e.g., approval from program needed, specific values not stated but description of standard is provided). 113
6.4 NCC and FACTA program maximum stocking density standards for broilers during grow-out. 119
6.5 Broiler gait scoring guide used by the NCC, AHC, and GAP programs. 125
6.6 CHRH Gait Scoring guidelines adopted from the University of Bristol six-point scoring system. 126
6.7 Comparison of the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, FACTA, FAC, and AWA program broiler welfare catching and loading standards. Green=Yes, Red=No, Black=Not mentioned in the audit form, Yellow=The standard is partially present depending on numerous factors (e.g., approval from program needed, specific values not stated but description of standard is provided, etc.). 128
6.8 Comparison of the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, FACTA, FAC, and AWA program broiler welfare transportation standards. Green=Yes, Black= Not mentioned in the audit form, Yellow=The standard is partially present depending on numerous factors (e.g., approval from program needed, specific values not stated but description of standard is provided, etc.). 132
6.9 Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) stocking density requirements for broilers during transport to slaughter. 134
7.1 Global Animal Partnership (GAP) step-based layer welfare audit program. (Partnership, 2020a). 142
7.2 The color scheme for criteria required (green), prohibited (red), partially required (grey), or not mentioned (black) in the audit program. 145
7.3 Audit structure. 146
7.4 Personnel and Training. 149
7.5 Records and Documentation. 149
7.6 Input Resources. 151
7.7 Facilities and Equipment. 153
7.8 Environmental conditions. 157
7.9 Time Allotment. 159
7.10 Animal-based hen audit criteria. 161
7.11 Animal Handling Practices. 162
7.12 States with cage-free regulations for laying hens. 166
7.13 Animal welfare indicators in cage-free systems. 166
8.1 Animal- and resource-based measures in the Swine Welfare Assurance Program. 171
8.2 Evolution of the PQA Plus program from 2007 to 2019. 172
8.3 Descriptions and acceptability thresholds for animal-based measures included in the 2023 Common Swine Industry Audit. 175
8.4 A list of behavioral measures identified as useful for assessment of pig welfare by EFSA (2012). 180
10.1 Comparison of the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, FACTA, FAC, and AWA program broiler welfare processing standards. Green=Yes, Red=No, Black= Not mentioned in the audit form, Yellow= The standard is partially present depending on numerous factors (e.g., approval from program needed, specific values not stated but description of standard is provided, etc.). The percentages mentioned under heading D can be found in table 10.2. 216
10.2 Processing outcomes and animal health scoring metrics for the NCC, AHC, GAP, CHRH, and FACTA broiler welfare assurance programs 223
10.3 American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP) paw (foot pad) scoring guide. 224
10.4 Paw scoring guide used in the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) standards, originally developed by Ekstrand et al., (1998). 224
10.5 Paw scoring guide used in the Certified Humane Raised and Handled (CHRH) standards, originally developed by the University of Bristol. 225
10.6 American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP) leg bruising and injury scoring guide. 225
10.7 American Association of Avian Pathologists (AAAP) wing break and dislocation scoring guide. 226
12.1 Top 5 countries by chicken (meat) and egg production in Latin America. 252
12.2 Animal welfare and poultry-specific legal frameworks in the top five poultry producers in LAC. 256