By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information.

Information

March 1, 2024

The husbandry conditions have serious consequences for the turkeys. Concrete legal requirements are largely lacking.

Since their domestication, turkeys have been fattened and killed for their low-fat and low-calorie meat. In recent decades, both turkey breeding and turkey fattening have been highly intensified. Breeding is focussed on ensuring that the birds grow faster and have a high muscle mass on the breast.

Selection for fast and high growth has serious health consequences. The skeleton and internal organs cannot keep pace with the rapid muscle growth. The heavyweight turkeys suffer from diseases of the cardiovascular system, the musculoskeletal system and inflammation of the breast and feet.

Turkeys are usually kept on the floor. The further the fattening process progresses, the more crowded the turkeys are. Their housing environment is sparse and offers no variety.

Torture breeding and common husbandry conditions prevent the turkeys from fulfilling their basic needs, such as scratching, running and finding an elevated place to sleep and rest (perching).

Turkey meat production is divided into several stages. At the beginning of the production chain are a few breeding farms. They keep pure-bred turkey lines and breed parent stock from them. The parents are kept in so-called breeding farms, where they lay eggs with the future "fattening turkeys". The eggs are hatched in fully automated incubators. After hatching, the chicks are transported to the fattening farms where they are fattened as "meat turkeys".

Current facts and figures

According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, around 1,900 farms in Germany kept a total of 11.6 million turkeys (1). Around 88 per cent of the animals are kept in fattening farms with 10,000 or more animals (2). As the farms carry out several fattening cycles per year, the number of turkeys recorded differs considerably from the number of turkeys slaughtered.

In 2022, 30.5 million turkeys were slaughtered in Germany (3). After Poland, Germany is the second largest turkey meat producer in the EU. The main focus of German turkey fattening is in Lower Saxony with 42 per cent (2022) (4).

Many turkeys stand close together in a dark barn. Apart from the animals, there are only facilities for food and water in the barn.
© Animal Rights Watch e.V. (ARIWA)

No data on the number of breeding animals in Germany is available from official statistics. This was confirmed by the German government in 2016 in its response to a brief enquiry by the parliamentary group of BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN (5). Although the 2021 coalition agreement (6) provides for "existing gaps" in the Animal Welfare-Farm Animal Husbandry Ordinance to be closed, turkey parent animals are not currently included in this plan.

(1) Federal Statistical Office of Germany (21.07.2021). Betriebe mit Geflügel oder sonstigen Nutztieren - Statistisches Bundesamt (destatis.de).

(2) State Animal Welfare Commissioner Hesse (26.02.2021). Aktuelle Studie zur tierschutzkonformen Haltung von Mastputen vorgestellt. Pressemitteilung.

(3) Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2023). Geflügelschlachtereien, Geschlachtete Tiere, Schlachtmenge: Deutschland, Jahre, Geflügelart. 41322-0001. status 01.03.2024.

(4) German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (o. D.).Geflügelhaltung. BMEL-Statistik. Abgerufen am 17.01.2023, von https://www.bmel-statistik.de/landwirtschaft/tierhaltung/gefluegelhaltung.

(5) Federal Parliament (2016). Weiterentwicklung der Tierschutz-Nutztierhaltungsverordnung. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Friedrich Ostendorff, Nicole Maisch, Harald Ebner, Matthias Gastel und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – (Bundestagsdrucksache 18/987), 14.10.2016, Berlin.

(6) Koalitionsvertrag 2021 – 2025 zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (SPD), Bündnis 90 / DIE GRÜNEN und den Freien Demokraten (FDP).

Selected animal welfare topics

Parent animals

With the introduction of crossbreeding in the 1960s, it was possible to pass on the characteristics of several "specialized turkey lines" to the next generation. The rooster lines are significantly involved in the inheritance of body weight, daily weight gain, feed conversion and breast meat composition. In addition to body weight, the hen lines can be used to influence "reproduction parameters" such as the number of eggs laid, fertilization and hatching rates (7). In Germany, turkeys of the British United Turkey breeding line, "B.U.T. 6", are kept most frequently.

The turkey parents are usually kept for 56 to 60 weeks. The first stage is the rearing phase, which lasts 27 to 30 weeks (8). During this time regular selection takes place. Turkeys with slower growth or skeletal deformities are unsuitable for hatching eggs and are sorted out and killed earlier (9).

The turkey industry uses light programmes to stimulate the reproductive cycles of turkey hens. The first insemination of the females begins around two weeks after the start of the light stimulation programme (10).

In order to achieve high fertilization rates, the turkey hens are inseminated three times in the first week and then once a week thereafter. They are caught and the sperm is injected into their cloaca. The turkey hens should start laying around the 30th week of life (11). During the laying phase, the hens must lay 100 or more eggs (12), (13).  

Artificial insemination of turkey hens has become the standard procedure for the commercial production of turkey hatching eggs. On the one hand, there are economic reasons for this: More inseminations can be carried out with the diluted semen. Secondly, the difference in weight between the male and female "breeding animals" is so immense that natural fertilization is not possible (14), (15).

Semen collection, known as milking the cocks, also takes place once a week. They are caught and – sometimes upside down – restrained. The cloaca is then inverted and the vas deferens are emptied manually by applying pressure. In order to minimize contamination from urine and feces during semen collection, some keepers deprive the birds of food for up to six hours before the procedure (16).

Targeted breeding has resulted in significant differences between wild turkeys and "farmed turkeys". While wild turkeys only become sexually active in their second year of life, the employees in the breeding facilities take semen from the domesticated turkeys at the age of 38 to 40 weeks (17).

Catching (18), manipulation of the cloaca, head restraint and quantitative feed restriction (19) are coercive measures that cause stress and suffering in the turkeys (20). Defense movements during fixation can also lead to injuries.

Beak trimming

Paragraph 6 (1) of the German Animal Welfare Act prohibits beak trimming without a medical reason. Nevertheless, authorities routinely grant exemptions so that the animals do not injure each other in intensive rearing systems (21). The measure is an attempt to adapt the turkeys to the husbandry systems. Parent animals (22), as well as turkeys in conventional fattening systems, are affected by amputation.

With increasing body weight and a growing lack of space, turkeys are unable to fulfill their natural basic needs. Building up, scratching, pecking and running are not or hardly possible with increasingly solid and dirty litter, a lack of raised levels and a high stocking density. The lack of activity opportunities and the low-stimulus environment are considered to be a cause of feather and damage pecking. Other environmental factors (ventilation, light, stocking density), genetics and feeding are cited as further causes (23).

To prevent this undesirable behavior, beak trimming is routinely permitted and carried out. It is carried out directly after hatching in the hatchery (24). In Germany, infrared light is used, the heat of which damages the beak. After a few days, the tip of the beak is sheared off. Macroscopic and microscopic changes occur on the amputation stump that are equivalent to second and third degree burns (25). This causes long-lasting and considerable pain at the tip of the upper and lower beak.

The infrared procedure also destroys the highly sensitive beak tip organ in the lower beak. It consists of numerous nerve fibers and tactile corpuscles, comparable to the lips and fingertips of humans. Among other things, the beak tip organ enables turkeys to feed, groom their feathers, search and make tactile movements (26).

The procedure is intended to prevent the complete closure of the beak tip so that the turkeys cannot reach for the feathers and skin of their conspecifics and injure themselves. This does not eliminate the causes of the behavioral disorders.

Use of antibiotics

Infections spread quickly in the densely occupied turkey sheds. To prevent animal losses, the farms use antibiotics. Sick animals are often not separated on (large) farms. Instead of treating individual animals, livestock farmers treat the entire flock via the drinking water. Healthy animals are also given medication (27).

In 2022, the absolute amount of antibiotics administered to turkeys totalled 65 tonnes (28).

Due to their increased use, more and more bacteria are developing resistance mechanisms. Monitoring by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment confirms the frequent occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in turkey meat (29). This reduces the choice of effective antibiotics in human medicine.

Animal welfare law and legal husbandry requirements

At both national and international level, there are currently no legally binding species-specific requirements for keeping turkeys.

There are currently (status February 2024) no specific legal regulations for the protection of turkeys in Germany.This applies both to turkey parent stock and to turkeys being fattened. The German Animal Welfare Act and the Animal Welfare-Farm Animal Husbandry Ordinance only provide a general legal framework.

In 2013, the German turkey industry published the "Federal Standardised Benchmarks for a Voluntary Agreement on the Keeping of Turkeys for Fattening" (in German: Bundeseinheitlichen Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Mastputen) (30). This is a voluntary commitment initiated by the turkey producers themselves. The benchmarks are based on an agreement from 1999.

Only Lower Saxony adopted the voluntary agreement by decree (31). Hierarchically, the "Federal Standardized Benchmarks" are also subordinate to both the Animal Welfare Act and the Animal Welfare-Farm Animal Husbandry Ordinance in Lower Saxony, despite the decree.

The "Federal Standardized Benchmarks for a Voluntary Agreement on the Keeping of Turkeys for Fattening" mainly contain general formulations and take into account the economic interests of livestock farmers. Therefore, although stocking densities are agreed, they are far too high (see husbandry methods). The health checks and "animal care" are intended to improve animal welfare. However, they do not take into account the fact that overbreeding, rapid growth, high stocking densities and a barren husbandry environment have a negative impact on welfare.

At European level, there are also no binding legal requirements for the protection of turkeys. Only Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 "concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes" (32) provides general guidance.

In 2001, the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes adopted a recommendation concerning turkeys (33). It is intended to create basic conditions for the health and welfare of the animals. Although the recommendation deals specifically with turkeys, it is also very general.

Current political development

In Germany, a draft bill for an amendment to the Animal Welfare-Farm Animal Husbandry Ordinance is currently being prepared. The planned new regulations are to be adopted in the second half of 2024 and enacted by the end of 2024. This will create binding regulations on turkeys for fattening for the first time.

At the end of 2022, the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture presented key points for minimum requirements for turkey farming. According to the ministry, they form the basis for the draft bill. The key points paper does not coincide with the voluntary key points of the turkey industry. According to the federal government, the key parameters of the turkey industry are not sufficient "to ensure animal-friendly husbandry of fattening turkeys in practice" (34). Although the ministry's requirements are to be higher in some areas, many aspects have not been included in the announced changes: The planned regulations only apply to turkey flocks of 50 or more animals, there will continue to be no specific regulations for "breeding animals" and, in addition, terms are not clearly defined, again leaving room for interpretation.

(7) Buddiger, N. & Albers G. (2000). Future trends in turkey breeding. Zootech. Internat. Feb., 24 – 29.

(8) de Jong, I.C. & Swalander, M. (2012). Housing and management of broiler breeders and turkey breeders. In: Alternative systems for poultry. Health, Welfare and Productivity (Eds. Sandilands V., Hocking P.M.).

(9) Marks, J. (2017). Untersuchung der Einflüsse von erhöhten Sitzgelegenheiten auf Tierwohl und Tiergesundheit unter Beachtung von wirtschaftlichen Parametern bei Putenelterntieren (Dissertation, Tiermedizin). Tierärztliche Hochschule, Hannover.

(10) Vehse, K. & Ellendorff, F. (2000). Einfluss des Lichtes auf die Physiologie der Pute: II sexuelle Reife. Arch. Geflügelk. 2000, 65 (1), 1-12, ISSN 0003-9098. Verlag Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co, Stuttgart.

(11) Hoy, S., Gauly, M. & Krieter, J. (2016). Nutztierhaltung und -hygiene. Grundwissen Bachelor. Verlag Ulmer UTB. S. 185.

(12) VKM (2016). Risk assessment on welfare VKM. Risk assessment on welfare in turkeys. Opinion of the Panel of Animal Health and Welfare of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, ISBN: 978-82-8259-192-8, Oslo, Norway.

(13) Aviagen Turkeys. (o. D.).Unsere B.U.T.-Rassen. https://www.aviagenturkeys.com/de-de/products/b-u-t.

(14) VKM (2016). Risk assessment on welfare VKM. Risk assessment on welfare in turkeys. Opinion of the Panel of Animal Health and Welfare of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, ISBN: 978-82-8259-192-8, Oslo, Norway.

(15) Vehse, K. & Ellendorff, F. (2000). Einfluss des Lichtes auf die Physiologie der Pute: II sexuelle Reife. Arch. Geflügelk. 2000, 65 (1), 1-12, ISSN 0003-9098. Verlag Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co, Stuttgart.

(16) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.). S. 14.

(17) Vehse, K. & Ellendorff, F. (2000). Einfluss des Lichtes auf die Physiologie der Pute: II sexuelle Reife.Arch. Geflügelk. 2000, 65 (1), 1-12, ISSN 0003-9098. Verlag Eugen Ulmer GmbH & Co, Stuttgart.

(18) VKM (2016). Risk assessment on welfare VKM. Risk assessment on welfare in turkeys. Opinion of the Panel of Animal Health and Welfare of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety, ISBN: 978-82-8259-192-8, Oslo, Norway.

(19) Hocking, P. M. (1999). Welfare of food restricted male and female turkeys. British Poultry Science..;40(1):19-29.

(20) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.). S. 129 f.

(21) Kulke, K., Spindler, B. & Kemper, N. (2016). Verzicht auf das Schnabelkürzen bei Puten - wo stehen wir in Deutschland?. Züchtungskunde, Vol 88, Issue, S. 456.

(22) Van Niekerk, T. & De Jong, I. C. (2007). Mutilations in poultry European poultry production systems. Lohmann Information, 42(1), 35-46.

(23) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.).

(24) Bavarian State Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism (o.D.). Blunting bei Puten- Praxistest verschiedener Bluntingverfahren.

(25) Schulz, L. C. (1982). Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Pathologie. 9. Aufl., Verlag Enke Stuttgart.

(26) Fiedler, H.-H. & König, K. (2005). Tierschutzrechtliche Bewertung der Schnabelkürzung bei Puteneintagsküken durch Einsatz eines Infrarot Strahls. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.

(27) Richter, A., Hafez, H. M., Böttner, A., Gangl, A., Hartmann, K., Kaske, M., Kehrenberg, C., Kietzmann, M., Klarmann, D., Klein, G., Luhofer, G., Schulz, B., Schwarz, S., Sigge, C., Waldmann, K.-H., Wallmann, J. & Werckenthin, C. (2009). Verabreichung von Antibiotika in Geflügelbeständen. Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe G: Großtiere/Nutztiere, 37(05), 321-329.

(28) German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2022). Therapiehäufigkeit und Antibiotika-Verbrauchsmengen 2022: Entwicklung in zur Fleischerzeugung gehaltenen Rindern, Schweinen, Hühnern und Puten: Bericht des BfR vom 31. August 2023. Bundesbehörde und Einrichtung im Geschäftsbereich des Bundesministeriums für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL).

(29) German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2021). BVL-Report 16.1. Berichte zur Lebensmittelsicherheit. Zoonosen-Monitoring 2020. Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Berlin.

(30) German turkey producers’ association (2013). Bundeseinheitliche Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Mastputen.

(31) Lower Saxony Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (2013). Landwirtschaftsminister Meyer: „Kleine Schritte zur Verbesserung der Putenhaltung”.

(32) Council of the European Union (1998). RICHTLINIE 98/58/EG DES RATES vom 20. Juli 1998 über den Schutz landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere. 20.07.1998.

(33) Council of Europe (2001). Standing Committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purpose. Recommendation concerning turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo ssp.). 21.06.2001.

(34) Federal Parliament (2023). Eckpunkte für die wesentlichen Mindestanforderungen an die Haltung von Mastputen. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Fraktion der CDU/CSU – (Bundestags-Drucksache 20/5434). 12.02.2023, Berlin.

Husbandry methods

Keeping in fattening

In conventional turkey fattening, floor rearing is common practice (35). Males and females are usually kept separately, as the turkey cock grows faster and gains more weight than the turkey hen (36).

The turkeys are placed in the fattening facilities as day-old chicks. A male chick weighs less than 100 grams at this stage. At the end of the fattening period – after around 22 weeks – its body weight is up to 23 kilograms (37).

The further the fattening process progresses, the more crowded the turkeys are. Studies have shown that inappropriate environmental conditions strongly influence the behavior of turkeys. Thus, a high stocking density leads to a deterioration of the gait pattern and to lower activity of the birds. The less space they have, the more frequent they are injured, especially to the wings. There is also a correlation between increasing lack of space and increasing levels of aggression (38).

© Lukas Vincour/ Zvířata Nejíme/ We Animals Media

To date, there are no specific legal regulations for the keeping of turkeys in Germany. The voluntary commitment of the turkey industry stipulates a stocking density of 58 kilograms per square meter of usable floor space for male turkeys. This means that around five large animals must share two square meters of floor space. For turkey hens, the upper limit at the end of fattening is 52 kilograms per square meter (39).

An expert report on minimum animal welfare standards in turkey fattening recommends not exceeding 36 to 40 kilograms of live weight per square meter of usable floor space (40). According to the author, the assessment is based on available scientific literature, but also takes economic interests into account. Other studies recommend a maximum stocking density of 30 kilograms live weight per square meter of usable floor space (41). For organic turkey farming, the stocking density must not exceed 21 per square metre of usable area (42).

According to the "European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes - Recommendation concerning Turkeys", it is recognised "that problems for animal welfare arise from excessive stocking density and that this problem needs to be addressed urgently" (43).

The results of various scientific studies (44), (45) confirm the negative effects of high stocking densities on turkey welfare. The higher the stocking density, the greater their risk of falling ill and disturbing each other's resting behavior.

Keeping of parent animals

Turkey parent stock are kept in floor housing both during the rearing and laying phases. The day-old chicks are housed separately by sex. In order to precisely control daily weight gain, qualitative feed restrictions are applied to the hens and qualitative and quantitative feed restrictions to the cocks. With qualitative feed restriction, the composition of the feed varies in terms of its protein and energy content, while quantitative restrictions involve the withdrawal of feed (46).

During the laying phase, fully automated nests are installed in the hen compartments, which remove the eggs immediately after laying.

The turkey roosters are housed in small groups of 15 to 25 birds in compartments (47). The groups are separated from each other by walls or wire mesh.

Both the male and female turkeys live in a sparse environment. Apart from themselves, there are usually only feeders, drinkers and, in the case of turkey hens, additional nests (48).

© Animal Rights Watch e.V. (ARIWA)

(35) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.).

(36) Animal Welfare Service Lower Saxony. Regional government Weser-Ems (o.D.). Tierschutzrelevante Mindestanforderungen für die intensive Putenmast.

(37) Aviagen Turkeys (2022). Commercial Performance Objectives.

(38) Marchewka, J., Watanabe, T. T. N., Ferrante, V. & Estévez, I. (2013). Review of the social and environmental factors affecting the behavior and welfare of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Poultry Science, 92(6), 1467–1473.

(39) German Turkey Producers’ Association (2013). Bundeseinheitliche Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Mastputen.

(40) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.).

(41) Erasmus, M. A. (2017). A review of the effects of stocking density on turkey behavior, welfare, and productivity. Poultry Science, 96(8), 2540-2545.

(42) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.).

(43) Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (2002). Empfehlung in Bezug auf Puten (Meleagris gallopavo, ssp.). Zweite Bekanntmachung der deutschen Übersetzung.

(44) Krautwald-Junghanns, M.-E. (2020). Anforderungen an eine zeitgemäße tierschutzkonforme Haltung von Mastputen. Sachverständigengutachten. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz der Republik Österreich (Hrsg.). S. 21.

(45) KTBL (2006). Nationaler Bewertungsrahmen Tierhaltungsverfahren, Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. Darmstadt. S. 673 ff.

(46) de Jong, I.C. & Swalander, M. (2012). Housing and management of broiler breeders and turkey breeders. In: Alternative systems for poultry. Health, Welfare and Productivity (Eds. Sandilands V., Hocking P.M.).

(47) Marks, J. (2017). Untersuchung der Einflüsse von erhöhten Sitzgelegenheiten auf Tierwohl und Tiergesundheit unter Beachtung von wirtschaftlichen Parametern bei Putenelterntieren (Dissertation, Tiermedizin). Tierärztliche Hochschule, Hannover.

(48) Hoy, S., Gauly, M. & Krieter, J. (2016). Nutztierhaltung und -hygiene. Grundwissen Bachelor. Verlag Ulmer UTB. S. 185.

Overbreeding

Today's heavy turkeys are the result of years of intensive breeding programmes. Compared to male wild turkeys, the body mass of turkey poults bred for intensive fattening has quadrupled. At the end of the fattening period, the males weigh 23 kilograms, in some cases up to 25 kilograms. Turkey hens weigh around 12 kilograms (49).

Turkey breeding is designed to ensure that the animals grow quickly and put on as much muscle meat as possible on the breast. The breast muscles account for up to 40 per cent of the total body weight. This over-breeding results in serious health problems, such as balance problems and skeletal deformities (50).

(49) Aviagen Turkeys (2022). Commercial Performance Objectives.

(50) Bergmann, S. (2006). Vergleichende Untersuchung von Mastputenhybriden (B.U.T. Big 6) und einer Robustrasse (Kelly Bronze) bezüglich Verhalten, Gesundheit und Leistung in Freilandhaltung. Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.

Transport

Most turkeys are loaded and transported several times in their lives. Regardless of age, transport and loading and unloading into transport containers are stressful for the turkeys (51), (52).  They are exposed to crowding, temperature fluctuations, noise and vibrations caused by the movement of the vehicle.

In Germany, as in other countries, it is common practice to transport turkeys in low containers.The birds are forced to squat in a bent position for hours on end. European law does not specify any minimum sizes for transport containers. Some containers are so low that the turkeys cannot even raise their heads when squatting.

© L214 - Etique & Animaux

Painful injuries such as bruises, broken bones and skin lesions can occur. The stressors can lead to increased mortality in the birds. "Fattening turkeys" are particularly susceptible to thermal stress. In the case of female "breeding animals", mortality during transport is mainly due to their poor general condition and increased bone fragility (53).

There is no specifically defined maximum transport duration for turkeys. According to the EU Regulation on the protection of animals during transport (54), the only requirement for "poultry" is that they must be provided with suitable feed and fresh water in appropriate quantities, unless the journey takes less than 12 hours. This does not include the loading and unloading time. For chicks that are transported within 72 hours of hatching, this requirement only applies if the transport time is 24 hours or more.

Slaughter

Turkey hens reach a "slaughter weight" of around 11 kilograms after around 16 weeks, while the males are usually fattened up to 23 kilograms in 22 weeks (55).

According to the German Animal Welfare Act, the turkeys must be anesthetized before they are killed. This is usually done in an energized water bath. At the slaughterhouse, the turkeys are grabbed again to unload them from the transport crates. The slaughter staff hang the birds upside down by their feet while they are fully conscious. The procedure causes repeated stress to the animals. The slaughter hangers can cause pain, particularly in the case of heavy or already injured animals (56).

From an animal welfare perspective, various problems arise in the energized water bath (57), (58):

● If the birds are not immersed in the electric water bath with their head first, but with another part of their body, they receive one or more electric shocks ("pre-stun-shock") while fully conscious.

● It cannot be guaranteed that all birds will receive the required amount of electricity to be fully anesthetized. Some birds lift their heads and are therefore not (fully) immersed in the electric bath. In this case, they experience the subsequent neck cut while fully conscious.

This shows that it is not possible for every individual to be killed while deprived of consciousness and sensibility and while avoiding pain (paragraph 4 of the German Animal Welfare Act).

Stunning and killing using inert gasses, gas combinations or multiphase systems is used less frequently in practice. With this stunning method, the birds are not hung upside down by their feet while fully conscious, but remain in the transport crates (59). In addition, gas stunning is less sensitive to variations in the size and build of the birds than stunning in a water bath (60). However, it is difficult to maintain the gas concentration in such a way that all birds are stunned (61).

Birds do not have chemoreceptors for inert gases. They therefore feel no aversion when they come into contact with such gases. A lack of oxygen (hypoxia) nevertheless leads to negative effects such as violent wing flapping and convulsions (62). As the studies on stunning methods in "poultry" are mainly based on chickens, conclusions can currently only be drawn about the reactions and feasibility in turkeys.

Carbon dioxide has a pungent effect even at low concentrations when inhaled. It is a strong respiratory irritant that can cause respiratory distress before loss of consciousness (63). Both mammals and birds have chemoreceptors that react to carbon dioxide. Even at relatively low concentrations, birds show defensive behavior such as shaking their heads or gasping (64).

(51) L214 & Expertise for Animals (2023). Transport of turkeys in the EU - Veterinary advice: Ending the transport of turkeys in low crates to comply with the EU legislation and to stop extreme restriction. Position Paper, Berlin.

(52) Nielsen, S. S., Álvarez, J., Bicout, D., Calistri, P., Canali, E., Drewe, J. A., Garin‐Bastuji, B., Rojas, J. L. G., Schmidt, C. G., Herskin, M. S., Michel, V., Chueca, M. Á. M., Padalino, B., Roberts, H. C., Spoolder, H., Ståhl, K., Viltrop, A., Winckler, C., Mitchell, M.,Velarde, A. (2022). Welfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers. EFSA Journal, 20(9).

(53) McKeegan, D. (2018). Mass depopulation. In J.A. Mench (Hrsg.), Advances in poultry welfare. Woodhead Publishing Series in food science, technology and nutrition.

(54) Council of the European Union (2004). Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2005 über den Schutz von Tieren beim Transport und damit zusammenhängenden Vorgängen.

(55) Aviagen Turkeys (2022). Commercial Performance Objectives.

(56) Lühken, S., Nyanzi, C., Kernberger-Fischer, I., Kauselmann, K., Heil, N., Koch, M. & Schrader, L. (2023) Transport und Schlachtung Geflügel: Methodenhandbuch Nationales Tierwohl-Monitoring. Konsortium des Projektes Nationales Tierwohl-Monitoring (NaTiMon), p. 57.

(57) Fernandez, X. (2004). A short overview of the welfare implications of pre-slaughter stunning in poultry. International Society for Animal Hygiene, Saint-Malo.

(58) Raj, M., & Tserveni-Gousi, A. (2000). Stunning methods for poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal, 56(4), 291-304.

(59) Fernandez, X. (2004). A short overview of the welfare implications of pre-slaughter stunning in poultry. International Society for Animal Hygiene, Saint-Malo.

(60) Berg, C., & Raj, M. (2015). A review of different stunning methods for poultry—Animal welfare aspects (stunning methods for poultry). Animals, 5(4), 1207-1219.

(61) EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2006). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related with the welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese. EFSA Journal 2006.

(62) Berg, C., & Raj, M. (2015). A review of different stunning methods for poultry—Animal welfare aspects (stunning methods for poultry). Animals, 5(4), 1207-1219.

(63) Raj, M., & Tserveni-Gousi, A. (2000). Stunning methods for poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal, 56(4), 291-304.

(64) Berg, C., & Raj, M. (2015). A review of different stunning methods for poultry—Animal welfare aspects (stunning methods for poultry). Animals, 5(4), 1207-1219.

Download

[
]

Related
publications

More related articles will follow shortly.

Glossary

In our glossary, we explain our use of language and why we do not use some words, use them differently, or just use them. In addition, technical terms are explained and sometimes illustrated graphically or pictorially.

( Glossary )