Evaluating Broiler Transport Density: Unintended Consequences of New EU Regulations
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently recommended increasing the space for broiler chickens during transport. However, a study conducted in Hungary raises doubts about the real effectiveness of the measure in terms of animal welfare, highlighting significant economic and environmental costs instead.
The European Commission, as part of the “Farm to Fork” strategy, has proposed new rules for the transport of animals, intending to reduce stress and injuries during travel. Among the main measures is the obligation to increase the space available to chickens in transport crates. According to EFSA’s recommendations, for a 3 kg chicken, the minimum space would increase from the current 160 cm²/kg to 201 cm²/kg, with an increase of 26-34%. This change would reduce the number of animals that can be transported per trip, with repercussions on the supply chain’s cost and the sector’s environmental impact.
From Hungary, an assessment of the consequences of reducing chicken transport density
The latest report by Dr Csorbai Attila, Director at BTT, and Dr Szőllősi László, Associate Professor at the University of Debrecen, sheds light on the impacts of the new European regulations regarding broiler chicken transport. Conducted in collaboration with two Hungarian slaughterhouses, the study aimed to assess the consequences of reducing chicken transport density in line with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommendations.
The findings reveal significant economic, environmental, and animal welfare implications. On the economic side, reducing transport density would necessitate increased transportation costs and investments in infrastructure, ultimately driving up poultry meat prices. Environmentally, the increase in transport trips could lead to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption.
Interestingly, the study questions the assumption that lower transport density improves animal welfare. Contrary to expectations, the results showed increased injuries and mortalities during transport, potentially due to increased bird movement and instability within the transport crates. The case study revealed that under the current rules (10 chickens per crate), mortalities per truck were lower, and fewer birds experienced limb injuries and bruised body parts compared to the proposed regulation (7 chickens per crate). The average weight of the transported stock was 2.84 and 2.9 kg, respectively, and the transport distance was 72 km.
Logistical and environmental challenges posed by the proposed changes
Increased space requirements would necessitate more vehicles, prolong unloading times, and surge transport movements, amplifying companies’ environmental impact. Cold weather considerations also play a crucial role, as the specified animal count per crate helps prevent cold stress, particularly for end-of-lay hens and day-old chicks.
Dr Csorbai and Dr Szőllősi’s research calls for a nuanced approach to EU transport regulations, balancing animal welfare with economic and environmental sustainability. Their study highlights the need for further research across diverse climates and transport distances to fully understand the broader implications of these regulatory changes.
Overall, this report serves as a crucial reminder that well-intentioned policies can have unintended consequences. As the EU moves forward with these regulations, a comprehensive evaluation of their real-world impact is essential to ensure that animal welfare improvements do not come at the cost of economic sustainability and environmental responsibility.