 |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation
|| Home || Search || Contact || Publications Eshop || Privacy Statement ||
Implementation of the RIRDC broiler welfare audit to industry
by Dr John L Barnett
December 2003
RIRDC Publication No 03/093 RIRDC Project No DAV-185A
The documents that comprise the project were put together by a Management Group comprising representatives of commercial companies, farmer groups, animal welfare and legislative groups, and teaching and research organisations. There were three types of questions addressed in the development of these materials: i) Critical questions which are defined as those where ‘if something goes wrong the birds are irrevocably damaged’. These questions refer to actions that must be complied with to pass an audit.
ii) Good practice questions (two types) that reflect the current state of knowledge and its practical implementation in the industry. The purpose of a number of these good practice questions is, in part, educational, but also to provide an indication of changed practices for the future. For example, few poultry farmers directly measure gas and dust levels. However, there is an increasing requirement for this overseas and it is occurring in some pig farms in Australia.
Thus, it is likely to be a requirement in Australia in the future and information is provided on what these levels may be and how they can be measured.
There are two types of good practice questions addressed:
• Those that can be measured or directly observed. These questions refer to actions that must be complied with to pass an audit.
• Those which indicate practices which should be observed, but are difficult to verify. These questions refer to actions that do not have to be complied with to pass an audit.
Wherever possible, targets have been developed for specific issues, such as temperature requirements, stocking density, inspection frequency, feed and light regimes, transport times and handling. In most cases these targets reflect good industry practice and are considered achievable by the majority of industry. However, in some individual cases the targets will not be achievable and thus may not be applicable to individual enterprises. For example, it is recognised that in some older sheds when outdoor temperatures are low overnight, the shed temperature may fall below the target recommendation to about 14 °C. This is unlikely to have any welfare significance because older birds are tolerant of cold temperatures, although there will be a cost in terms of increased feed intake. In such a situation it will be necessary to specify a revised target that does not compromise welfare, and revised targets will need to be negotiated with company veterinarians and technical advisers. For those farms not achieving compliance to an agreed standard, procedures need to be put in place that specify actions and the time frame to achieve compliance.
Supporting information is provided on the purpose of the individual audit questions and some explanatory material that provides information on the impact of various issues on welfare. The ‘purpose’ of the audit questions indicates both the relevant parts of the Codes of Practice that set minimum standards that should be complied with, and additional objectives that the questions are designed to achieve, although these may not be specifically mentioned in the Codes of Practice. As indicated above, many questions are designed to have standards that are higher than those in the Codes of Practice, reflecting industry’s current practices and these ‘target recommendations’ are described and discussed. The audit documentation has been pilot-tested, part of the ‘broiler’ documentation has been evaluated and all the documentation was circulated to a number of individuals and companies with an interest in the chicken meat industry. The feedback obtained from the participants has been incorporated into the final documentation.
The five audit booklets are provided for industry in a ring-bound folder as well as on CD. The five booklets are independent documents for the hatchery, broiler, breeder rearer, broiler breeder and pickup, processing and transport sectors of the chicken meat industry. Each booklet is comprised of the following:
• A preface, purpose and background, including information on what growers/unit managers are responsible for and notes for auditors.
• A set of audit questions for the different aspects of the enterprise and record keeping checklists.
• The purpose, rationale and background information on audit questions including relevant sections of the Codes of Practice and the impact of issues on welfare.
• Appendices on further reading and training courses, perspectives on the chicken meat industry, members of the Management Group and example recording sheets for farmers/pick-up crews/unit managers.
In the current project, an attempt was made to introduce the welfare audit on commercial farms. The research team worked with five commercial companies to this effect. Two national companies (at the time, representing over 70% of the birds in Australia) indicated that they saw few barriers that would prevent them from adopting the audit nationally. Two predominantly State-based companies (at the time of conduct of this project) indicated they will also adopt the audit. Another State based company also intended to incorporate the welfare audit into their in-house QA program.
There was general agreement among all participants on the value of the welfare audit. Some of the barriers to adoption were seen to be a lack of incentives to be involved in a voluntary scheme, the level of record keeping required, confidentiality issues, penalties for non-compliance and fear of change.
Some suggestions to overcome the barriers were: simple record keeping that covers all aspects of QA, the use of external auditors to provide credibility, developing an agreed and proactive position by company and grower representatives on implementation, providing incentives, at least in the form of some recognition for participation and compliance, if not monetary, and to commence with a voluntary scheme that moves towards a compulsory scheme. While most of the above are company issues, there are also some industry issues that need to be discussed collectively, particularly industry versus company adoption, developing a welfare logo and the keeping of industry statistics.
The issue of non-compliance is a complex issue. The scheme is voluntary and the intention of the audit is to both improve welfare and to maintain high standards of welfare across the whole industry. This is to be achieved on the basis of a continual improvement program that meets a set of industry-agreed targets. It needs to be recognised that the targets cannot be and should not be seen as being immoveable and that circumstances in particular companies or at different times of year may preclude targets being met. Thus, there needs to be flexibility in determining compliance. Providing companies can show due diligence in relation to the intent of the welfare audit, by recognising problems and putting in procedures that attempt to solve problems, they should be seen as complying, although it may not be possible to meet the standards. It needs to be considered if the recording sheets should include a statement of due diligence as a way of overcoming the problem of not meeting certain targets, while at the same time providing evidence of working towards achieving them.
Based on the experiences in implementing the audit there is one major recommendation. This is that:
• RIRDC organise a workshop to examine some of the barriers to national adoption of the ‘Welfare
Audit for the Chicken Meat Industry’ and to provide the impetus for industry-wide adoption.
In the opinion of the author, it is anticipated that only a little further encouragement is required to achieve wide industry implementation. It is recognised that it may not be possible to achieve 100% uptake of any initiative in a deregulated market. The chicken meat industry is not alone in grappling with this issue, but initiative uptake by major companies that represent the majority of birds should be both encouraged and promoted to ensure the industry remains sustainable.
It is hoped that the audit documentation will fulfil several aims. Most importantly, it will serve to demonstrate high standards of animal welfare. However, in achieving this objective there are also a number of subsidiary aims, including improved awareness by industry personnel of the interactions between production and welfare, an improved ability by industry participants to act as spokespersons for their industry on both welfare and other quality assurance issues, and a recognition that welfare is not static and can be continually improved.
Finally, it is to be hoped that, in time, the achievement of welfare objectives will not be seen as a separate, albeit important, ‘chore’. Instead, welfare will automatically be taken into account when it becomes integrated into farm and animal management, which are the predominant activities of farmers that have an impact on welfare.
 
|
