{"id":26726,"date":"2025-11-17T08:10:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T06:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/?p=26726"},"modified":"2025-11-17T09:54:55","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T07:54:55","slug":"broiler-chickens-and-transport-when-more-space-doesnt-mean-more-welfare","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/en\/broiler-chickens-and-transport-when-more-space-doesnt-mean-more-welfare\/","title":{"rendered":"Broiler Chickens and Transport: When More Space Doesn’t Mean More Welfare"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Even when transporting broiler chickens, reality is more complex than slogans, and more space does not necessarily mean better animal welfare.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we talk about animal welfare<\/strong>, we generally also think about space<\/strong>. For example, in common perception, more space per chicken<\/strong> automatically means less stress, fewer injuries, and better health. This intuitive logic has also inspired the most recent European recommendations<\/a> on broiler chicken transport<\/strong>. Yet, reality, as often happens, is far less straightforward and more space doesn’t mean more welfare<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Surprising results of the Hungarian study: more space, more problems<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two Hungarian researchers, Dr Attila Csorbai<\/strong>, Director at Hungary’s Poultry Product Council (BTT), and Dr L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Sz\u0151ll\u0151si<\/strong>, Associate Professor at the University of Debrecen, put this assumption to the test through a comparative study<\/a> in collaboration with two industrial slaughterhouses. The experiment was simple: load two trucks with broilers from the same farm, travelling under identical conditions of distance, staff, and timing. The only difference was the loading density: one truck followed current EU rules, while the other complied with the new recommendations of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) <\/strong>that prescribe more space per bird.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The expectation was to see improvements in welfare indicators<\/strong>: fewer bruises, fewer fractures. Instead, the data revealed the opposite<\/strong>. In trucks loaded with reduced density, mortality and injury rates actually increased. The reason lies in movement dynamics: with more room available, chickens tended to move around more during transport, losing balance, slipping, or hitting the sides of the crates<\/strong>. This resulted in more wing and leg fractures as well as a higher number of bruises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study found a correlation between increased space during transport and the frequency of bruising: the likelihood of bruising exceeding 4% increased linearly, from about 20% (for 180 cm\u00b2\/kg space) to 60% (for 230 cm\u00b2\/kg space)<\/strong>. Based on this, the study suggested that transport containers with less space per individual could be more effective at preventing bruising, as the birds support each other’s bodies<\/strong>, reducing the risk of falling and minimising the need to spread wings and legs to maintain balance. In other words, increased freedom of movement became an additional risk<\/strong>, especially on roads where braking, curves, and vibrations are unavoidable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Impact of fewer birds per trip: a heavy bill for the environment and rising economic costs<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a logistical perspective, the consequences are immediate: neither the environment nor the parties benefit<\/strong>. With more space per chicken, a truck can carry 20\u201330% fewer birds compared to standard capacity. This means more trips are required (a 30-40% increase) to transport the same number of animals<\/strong>. More journeys mean higher fuel consumption and more greenhouse gas emissions<\/strong>, and a larger ecological footprint for the activity. According to the study’s data, carbon dioxide emissions per kilogram of live weight transported increased by more than 20% <\/strong>when loading was conducted under the new rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On top of that, water consumption for vehicle and container washing inevitably increases as the number of trips grows<\/strong>. The study also reported efficiency losses on slaughter lines<\/strong>. In highly automated plants, hooks along the processing line are calibrated to achieve a minimum number of birds per crate. With fewer birds being loaded, some hooks remain empty, slowing down the entire process and raising fixed costs<\/strong> per bird processed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the economic side, reduced density translates into a double disadvantage. On one hand, more animals die or get injured<\/strong>, reducing the amount of usable raw material. On the other hand, fewer birds per trip raises the transport cost per kilogram of meat<\/strong>. To this, one must add the higher costs of water, detergents, and disinfectants<\/strong> needed to wash trucks and crates, which increase in proportion to the number of journeys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The lesson to be learned: welfare is a matter more complex than space<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Hungarian case study<\/strong> does not claim to offer definitive answers, but it questions the idea that animal welfare can be measured solely in square centimetres. Many other factors are at play: climatic conditions<\/strong> (for example, in cold weather, higher density may help birds keep each other warm), loading and unloading techniques, container design, and handler training<\/strong>. Ignoring these variables risks turning a well-intentioned reform into a counterproductive measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core message is clear: EU policies on animal welfare must consider not only ethical goals but also practical and economic consequences<\/strong>. A measure that worsens animal health, raises producers’ costs, and increases environmental impact cannot be considered sustainable<\/strong>. More movement may be associated with greater stress on the animals, which should be avoided from an animal welfare perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before introducing structural changes, broader studies are needed<\/strong>, conducted across different climates, transport distances, and crate designs, to achieve a truly comprehensive picture. Therefore, similar studies are recommended to be conducted not only at the Hungarian level but also internationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":26728,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[675],"tags":[6781,6782,2889,6780,6783],"class_list":["post-26726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-animal-welfare-en","tag-attila-csorbai-2","tag-chicken-transport","tag-efsa-en","tag-laszlo-szollosi-2","tag-live-animal-transport"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t