J Agric Environ Ethics (2015) 28:1033–1051

DOI 10.1007/s10806-015-9576-5

ARTICLES

The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare

Certification at Farm Level to Enhancing Overall
Animal Welfare: The Case of Brazil

Ana Paula Oliveira Souza1 • Carla Forte Maiolino Molento1

Accepted: 22 September 2015 / Published online: 1 October 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract The intensification of farm animal welfare debate has led to an

increasing number of certification schemes covering this issue; however, there are
concerns about the contribution of these schemes in improving welfare. The aims of
this study were to identify certification schemes for broiler chicken welfare at farm
level in Brazil, to investigate the extent of nutritional, environmental, health and
behavioral indicators within the schemes and to analyze the content of scheme and
the capacity to promote continuous improvement on certified farms.
GLOBALG.A.P. and Certified Humane were the only schemes observed, cor-
responding to 2.1 % of broiler chicken farms in Brazil. Environmental and health
indicators were in greater number, and the requirements classified as behavioral
indicator were commonly related to the resolution of low levels of animal welfare.
Both schemes were in accordance with the European Food Safety Authority rec-
ommendations for farmer training, birds and buildings inspection, temperature
control, air and litter quality, stocking density and lighting. The selection of breeds
and the use of animal-based indicators needs to be improved, as well the inclusion
animal welfare objectives and management review as part of continuous improve-
ment. Welfare certification is a potential market to be developed in Brazil. Overall,
assessed schemes may potentially enhance animal welfare at farm level by including
new concepts and practices. It is desirable to increase the number of certified farms

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9576-5)

contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

& Ana Paula Oliveira Souza

[email protected]
Carla Forte Maiolino Molento
[email protected]
1
Animal Welfare Laboratory, Federal University of Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540,
Curitiba, Paraná 80035-050, Brazil

123
1034 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

in Brazil and that certification schemes be critically analyzed on a regular basis

regarding their content to meet new demands and to include updates from scientific
research.

Keywords Animal welfare
Continuous improvement
Five freedoms

Indicators
Poultry
Protocol

Introduction

Debates on farm animal welfare are increasing worldwide. Concerns for animal
welfare (AW) expressed by citizens have led to the development of regulation at
farm level, and to retailer demands for their suppliers to be certified by a protocol
that includes AW indicators (Ingenbleek et al. 2012). The European Union (EU)
employs approximately 67 animal welfare certification schemes (Areté 2010). In the
United States, there are eight schemes on the welfare of farmed animals (USDA
2014), which makes the private sector the main animal welfare program source in
that country (Blandford 2013). In this regard, it seems relevant to consider technical
information about the content of welfare certification schemes and to monitor their
adequacy in comparison to scientific updates in order to evaluate if protocols are
effective to deliver the level of animal welfare expected by consumers.
Brazil is the leading broiler chicken exporter and the third producer in the world
(APBA 2014). Despite the economic relevance of broiler chicken production in this
country, animal welfare regulation at farm level is scarce. There are also
international demands for information about broiler chicken welfare in Brazil, as
observed on recent reports (ITAVI 2012; Van Horne and Bondt 2013). Private
certification schemes may mitigate lack of specific welfare regulation, partially
filling in the gap in countries where regulation is in development. These schemes
may help aligning production conditions between countries, and are used mainly
when local policies maintained by importers on AW are higher than those employed
by exporters. Thus, certification schemes have been implemented in Brazil due to
client requirements, but there is no accurate information about the number of
certified farms as well the schemes in use. This information is also relevant to a
developing internal market for AW certified products by consumers in Brazil.
Certification schemes frequently base their core principles on the concept of the
Five Freedoms (Webster 2009). These freedoms are freedom from hunger and thirst;
from discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; to express normal behavior; and
from fear and stress (FAWC 2009). Due to growing interest on positive welfare, the
next steps seem to be to provide a life worth living, more than simply protecting
animals from unnecessary suffering (Lundmark et al. 2014). It is also desirable that
certification schemes go beyond the verification of compliance with the require-
ments. They should demonstrate credibility and independence, and promote
continuous improvement of farm processes (Main et al. 2014). Thus, it has been
recognized that AW schemes should include quality assurance concepts (FAWC
2001, 2005).

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1035

According to FAWC (2001), compiling certification schemes information and

sharing it with stakeholders is an important learning process that may increase
animal welfare. This study aimed to identify certification schemes for broiler
chicken welfare at farm level in Brazil; to investigate the extent of nutritional,
environmental, health and behavioral welfare indicators within the schemes; to
analyze the content of schemes and their capacity to promote continuous
improvement on certified farms.

Materials and Methods

Identification of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certifying Schemes

In Brazil, the Inmetro (National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology) is

the accreditation body recognized by Federal government, and is responsible for
verifying both managing and technical competences of certifying bodies (CB).
Thus, the CB are accredited by Inmetro according the ISO/IEC 17021:2011 and
17065/2012 for system and product certification, respectively. The identification of
broiler chicken welfare schemes was done in three steps: (1) Identification of CB
accredited by Inmetro on the food quality management system scope (animals and
perishable animal products sub scopes), quality management system scope (food,
agriculture and livestock sub scopes) and product certification scope (animal
production sub scope); (2) Availability of animal welfare certification on CB
identified; (3) Identification of schemes that could be audited by international CB,
non-accredited by Inmetro, based on schemes identified on international scientific
papers (Mench 2008; Veissier et al. 2008; Robins and Phillips 2011; Rushen et al.
2011; Grandin 2014) and technical reports (Bock and van Leeuwen 2005; CIWF
2012; FAWC 2005, 2013). Steps 2 and 3 were followed by contact with CB and
scheme owners to obtain information about certified farms in Brazil. The search was
on national level, with no restriction related to geographical region. Data was
collected in September and October, 2014.

Analysis of Farm Animal Welfare Certification Schemes in Brazil

Requirements of each scheme were analyzed according to their content to

investigate the extent of nutritional, environmental, health and behavioral welfare
indicators within the schemes. They were also analyzed according to their capacity
to promote continuous improvement on certified farms. To perform AW indicators
analysis, keywords for each indicator were extract from technical reports (EFSA
2010, 2012a, b) and regulations (European Commission 2007; DEFRA 2009). Thus,
a standardized classification was expected, also excluding items that were not
related to AW in schemes of multiple scopes (e.g. farm worker health and safety,
sustainability, etc.). A requirement could also be classified in one or more welfare
indicators. Descriptive statistics was used to verify the frequency of each indicator
within the scheme. The content of each scheme was also analyzed according to the

123
1036 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

Table 1 Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes, adapted from Main et al.
(2014)
Principles Practice promoted by certification schemes on certified farms

Principle 1: Dynamic welfare Plan (step 1):

management system Definition of welfare policy, objectives, standards and
supporting strategies
Do (step 2):
Management of responsibilities, competence, communication
and documentation
Check (step 3):
Monitoring outcomes, compliance with process and
performing internal audit
Improve (step 4):
Management review and corrective action
Principle 2: Progressive higher Compliance with, at least, regulation and code of practices
standards Promotion of continuous improvement at farm level, based on
principle 1
Promotion of the use of outcome-based requirements

Scientific Report Updating the EFSA Opinion on the Welfare of Broilers and
Broilers Breeders, from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2012a).
Certification scheme capacity to promote continuous improvement on certified
farms was analyzed based on Main et al. (2014) study, that proposed a best practice
framework for AW certification schemes (Table 1). Principle 1, dynamic welfare
management system, was used to evaluate continuous improvement capacity; and
Principle 2, progressive higher standards and targeted assessment and support, to
assess best practices in AW.

Results and Discussion

Identification of Broiler Chicken Welfare Scheme

We found two CB on food quality management system scope (animals and

perishable animal products sub scopes), 11 on quality management system scope
(agriculture and livestock sub scopes), 16 on quality management system scope
(food sub scope) and eight on product certification scope (animal production sub
scope). Only three of all identified CB performed AW certification for the broiler
chicken production chain. We identified two schemes in use at farm level in Brazil,
GLOBALG.A.P. and Certified Humane.
The GLOBALG.A.P. scheme was initially developed on EU and is an assured
farm certification, which means that it complies with minimum local regulation; it
includes one module on AW, but focuses on other issues, such as food safety,

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1037

product quality and traceability (Bock and van Leeuwen 2005). Breeder farms,
hatchery and poultry farms were covered by this scheme. The Certified Humane
scheme was developed in the United States. It is specific for AW and includes
poultry farms, animal transport and processing at the slaughterhouse. We identified
846 farms GLOBALG.A.P certified and 26 Certified Humane, corresponding to
2.1 % of the 41,458 poultry farms of Brazil identified on national agricultural
census (IBGE 2012). The percentage of certified farms may be even lower, since the
census was performed in 2006 and the estimated update number of poultry farms is
45,000 only in Southern Brazil (ABPA 2014).
The number of certified broiler chicken farms in Brazil represents an extremely
low proportion of the total number of broiler chicken units. For example, in the
United Kingdom (UK), 90.0 % of broiler chicken producers are certified by Assured
Food Standards (AFS 2012), which is an assured quality scheme that includes food
safety, traceability and animal welfare throughout the production chain (AFS 2014).
The significant number of farms reached by AFS scheme may be a consequence of
retailer demands in UK (Veissier et al. 2008). The Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is a specific animal welfare certification and covers
approximately 3.0 % of broiler chickens reared in UK (RSPCA 2012). In Australia,
broiler chicken farms certified by RSPCA increased from 8.7 in 2012 to 78.0 million
birds in 2013, reaching 13.0 % of all farms (RSPCA 2013). In France, Label Rouge
certification for free-range broiler chickens includes animal welfare and is managed
by the Ministry of Agriculture. A total of 90.2 million birds were certified Label
Rouge in 2013 (Label Rouge 2013), which represents 11.4 % of birds slaughtered in
2013 (France 2013).
The low number of certified broiler chicken farms in Brazil suggests poor
demand from local retailers, differing from EU countries, which is in accordance
with Maciel (2015) findings. According to Bonamigo et al. (2012), main
spontaneous concerns of Brazilian consumer of broiler chicken meat are price
and meat quality, and this is closely related to the lack of knowledge on animal
production. In the same study, when pictures of industrial and free-range systems
were presented to respondents, animal welfare became an attribute as important as
meat quality. Thus, as also supported by EU experience, consumer education seems
crucial to instigate demands for better quality of life for farmed animals (Spoolder
et al. 2011; Ingenbleek et al. 2012). Similarly to Grandin (2014), it is our perception
that companies in Brazil need to be more transparent regarding their production
chain, so that consumers be informed about the products they buy.
GLOBALG.A.P. scheme has been implemented in Brazil to meet demands
from food companies located in EU, such as Tesco and McDonald’sTM. Previous
studies have shown that european citiziens are concerned about animal welfare,
sustainability, food quality and safety on animal production (Eurobarometer 2007;
DEFRA 2011). Thus, GLOBALG.A.P. certification has potential to increase in
Brazil as long as bilateral agreements with EU enhances. Important retailers and
food companies also work to avoid problems that may negativelly affect both
product and company reputation (Assiouras et al. 2013). Thus, besides product
quality, the concept of social corporative responsability has been increasingly
adopted by companies (Swanson 2008; De Jonge and Van Trijp 2012), which

123
1038 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

normally includes items related to environment protection, animal and human

welfare (Schröder and McEachern 2005).
In Brazil, there is no local poultry certification scheme. The Brazilian
Association of Animal Protein (ABPA), which represents the national poultry
sector, organized a technical committee with representatives from companies,
universities, non-governmental organizations, Ministry of Agriculture and govern-
mental research bodies. The committee published two technical documents, Broiler
Chickens and Turkeys Welfare Protocol (UBABEF 2008a) and the Technical
Standard for Broiler Chicken Integrated Production (UBABEF 2008b). They were
based on local good agricultural practice (GAP) guidelines, companies practices and
the GLOBALG.A.P.. In UBABEF (2008a), items on environment, handling,
biosecurity and animal welfare throughout the production chain were established.
Additionally, the UBABEF (2008b) included worker health and safety, training and
traceability requirements, and also classified items as mandatory, recommended,
allowed with restriction and forbidden in broiler chicken production. Both ABPA
protocols have no legal value, but they represent Brazilian poultry sector view on
GAP and animal welfare. In the United States, the National Chicken Council
(NCC), the entity that represents broiler chicken industry in that country, also
developed an animal welfare guideline that may be implemented by farmers or
companies and audited by an independent CB (NCC 2010), promoting a local
voluntary animal welfare certification scheme. This is particulary interesting
because private schemes may play an important role in countries with low levels of
local regulation on animal welfare. In the United States, for example, farm AW
regulations are growing at State level, but the private sector has been the major actor
in developing and promoting higher welfare standards, also pushed by important
food companies (Blandford 2013). Due to low level of AW regulation at farm level
in Brazil, the development of an auditable local welfare scheme, voluntary and
supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, may provide a dynamic strategy to include
welfare requirements in this country. Additionally, this may colaborate to the
development of the necessary regulation for broiler chicken welfare at farm level.

Analysis of Farm Animal Welfare Certification Schemes in Brazil

This process was applied to GLOBALG.A.P. and Certified Humane schemes.

Both schemes maintain free-access to their documents. General regulation of
certification process and the list of requirements that farms must fulfill to be
certified were analyzed. We assessed original English versions to avoid variations
due to translation to Portuguese.

Analysis of Animal Welfare Indicators

We analyzed GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a) modules All Farm Base (AF), Livestock

Base (LB) and Poultry (PY). There were 316 requirements, 203 (64.2 %) of them
included animal welfare issues. Considering the nutritional, environmental, health
and behavioral groups of indicators, we identified 53.2 % of requirements classified
in only one of them; but there were also 9.5 % of requirements classified in two

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1039

groups of indicators, 1.3 % in three groups and 0.3 % were classified in four groups
(Fig. 1). Total percentages of requirements within each group of indicators are
presented on Fig. 2.
The 113 GLOBALG.A.P requirements considered as others included environ-
ment, worker health and safety, records, corrective actions, traceability, product
segregation and food safety. We also considered here items not related to poultry
scope, such as LB 9.2.3, which prohibits the use of electric goads during animal
loading and unloading. About 81.4 % of requirements classified as others were
described on AF and LB modules, which was expected since in AF module
requirements are predominately about environmental and working regulation; and in
LB module there are general handling requirements for any farm animal.
There were 136 requirements on Certified Humane (2009), 96 (70.6 %) were
related to animal welfare at farm level. Considering the nutritional, environmental,
health and behavioral groups, we identified 57.4 % of requirements classified in
only one of them; but there were also 12.5 % of requirements classified into two and
0.7 % in three groups (Fig. 3). Total percentage of requirements withing each group
is presented in Fig. 2. A total of 40 requirements classified as others included items
such as to have and to understand the protocol, to establish a complaining procedure
and items about the slaughter process. The latter was not evaluated since the scope
of this study was at farm level.
In both schemes, we observed higher number of requirements classified within
the health and environmental groups (Fig. 2). Items related to animal health are
normally convergent to animal welfare, since health is fundamental to AW
(Dawkins 2008). In this case, actions to improve animal health will also improve
AW and productivity, which may be easily implemented by companies. However,
some items may present incompatibility between AW and productivity on
environmental indicators. Improvements on thermal comfort and litter quality will
be positive for both AW and productivity; but items such as stocking density and
lighting intensity may have the opposite effect. As observed by Veissier et al.
(2008), the Five Freedoms influenced UK and EU to regulate some aspects of
animal production, like health conditions and available space. Based on this, we

Fig. 1 Requirements of GLOBALG.A.P. version 4.0-2 for poultry scope, classification according to the
nutritional, environmental, health and behavioral groups of indicators

123
1040 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

Fig. 2 Percentage of welfare requirements classified within the nutritional, environmental, health and
behavioral groups of indicators for GLOBALG.A.P. version 4.0-2 and Certified Humane version 2009
certification schemes at farm level, broiler chicken scope; values exceed 100 % because results overlap
within indicator groups

emphasize the importance of certification schemes especially on items where AW

and productivity are divergent.
Requirements classified as behavioral indicators were commonly related to the
resolution of poor welfare conditions, like abnormal behavior or procedures to
reduce animal stress and suffering. Policies based on the prevention of these
negative items have promoted important progress on the welfare of farmed animals
(Yeates and Main 2008). However, AW is not only the abscence of negative
feelings, but also the presence of positive ones (Boissy et al. 2007). We observed
that the requirement PY 5.4.5 of GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a), that could promote
positive emotions through environmental enrichment, is not described with this

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1041

Fig. 3 Requirements of Certified Humane version 2009 for poultry scope, classification according to
the nutritional, environmental, health and behavioral indicators

purpose, but to reduce abnormal behavior. On Certified Humane (2009) scheme,

the environmental enrichment is mandatory (requirement Part 3F E28).
According to FAWC (2009), the Five Freedoms focused on animal suffering and
needs. McCulloch (2012) observed that the prohibition of poor welfare items are
emphasized on the concept, as stated by the expression ‘free from’, presented in four
of the five freedoms. But, still according McCulloch (2012), the Five Freedoms do
not limit the promotion of positive emotions because the concept presents basic
items to be considered on the life of an animal. It is acceptable that protocols should
include the assessment of physical and emotional elements of animal welfare
(Webster 2009). Thus, certification schemes may go beyond the assessment of basic
needs of animals. It is important to develop requirements that include items to
promote positive emotions, not only to limit suffering or poor welfare situations that
are intrinsic of industrial farming.
The EFSA (2012a) recognizes the difficulty in promoting positive emotions on
broiler chickens, like the application of environmental enrichment on commercial
scale farms. Since research on commercial scale is limited (Dawkins 2012), a
mandatory requirement on certification schemes to the implementation of enviro-
mental enrichment on poultry houses may make the companies more active to
develop a more complex and stimulating environment to the birds. Additionally, the
FAWC (2009) report recommended the definition of assessment methods of positive
and negative emotions on certification schemes. The Qualitative Behavioral
Assessment (QBA) is a validated tool to assess broiler chickens emotions (Welfare
Quality 2009; Wemelsfelder et al. 2009), which could be added on certification
schemes.

Analysis of Requirements Content

Both schemes are in accordance with the EU directive 43/2007 (European

Commission 2007) and the EFSA (2012a) recommendations, such as farmer
training, bird and building inspection, temperature control, air and litter quality,
stocking density, lighting intensity and photoperiod. Further detailed analysis of
requirements are presented on Online Resource.

123
1042 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

The maximum stocking density of 30 kg m-2 determined by Certified Humane

(2009) is lower than European Directive 43/EC/2007 and EFSA (2012a) recom-
mendation. However, the scheme is under review and tends to allow higher stocking
densities if producers demonstrate compliance with items related to flock health and
poultry house environment (requirement Part 3D E20). This is in accordance with
Dawkins et al. (2004), who concluded that limiting stocking density is less
important to animal welfare than improving environment and genetics. However, as
an animal welfare specific scheme, it is desirable that strict animal-based limits be
established to ensure that increasing stocking density will not lead to lower animal
welfare. Consideration should be given to behavioral activities that may be
negatively affected by an increased stocking density, such as disturbance of rest, and
may not be properly assessed. Overall comparisons of AW in different poultry
contexts suggest that lower densities may be associated to higher welfare (Tuyttens
et al. 2015). Thus, animal density seems an important variable to control if animal
welfare is to be improved in industrial poultry systems.
Indicators in the nutritional group are environmental-based, characterized by the
birds:drinker (Certified Humane 2009; GLOBALG.A.P. 2013a) and birds:feeder
(GLOBALG.A.P. 2013a) ratios. Bell drinker ratio of 150:1 observed on
GLOBALG.A.P. is less strict than the recommended by EFSA (2012a) 100:1,
and the Certified Humane does not provide an indicator for absence of hunger
(Online Resource, item 11). Indicators based on environment may be less efficient
to assess the freedom from hunger or thirst since defective equipment will lead to
higher number of birds per equipment, decreasing water or feed availability. Thus,
additionally to bird:feeder or bird:drinker ratios, it is desirable that equipment
functioning be monitored during the assessment of nutritional indicators. Animal-
based indicators have been developed to assess thirst (Sprenger et al. 2009;
Vanderhasselt et al. 2014) and hunger (Welfare Quality 2009), which may
represent a significant improvement. However, the use of these indicators is not
disseminated on assessments at farm level and there may be constraints for their use
across countries with different climatic conditions. Thus, animal-based thrist and
hunger indicators deserve further studies.
Considering animal health, the schemes included two main broiler chicken
welfare problems, lameness and contact dermatitis (Weeks and Butterworth 2004).
Both schemes include requirements to cull birds with severe difficulty to walk and
establish lameness monitoring according to a six-point gait score method described
by Kestin et al. (1992) and Garner et al. (2002), where 0 is normal walking and 5 is
unable to walk. According to GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a), gait score must be
assessed on later stages of production (PY 8.2.3), without a specific date, but this
information lacks on Certified Humane (2009). The Welfare Quality (2009)
recommends that lameness monitoring should be done in the last five days prior
slaughter. This is important because age of birds affects gait score results (Knowles
et al. 2008), since at the end of the growing period, leg problems are more evident
due to great body mass and unbalanced body conformation on modern broiler
chickens breeds (Caplen et al. 2012).
Both schemes presented several requirements that impact on contact dermatitis.
They included litter quality, drinker regulation and maintenance, ventilation, animal

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1043

diet, being all in accordance with scientific information (Berg 2004; Bessei 2006;
Robins and Phillips 2011). Schemes also presented requirements to monitor contact
dermatitis, but they were limited by the fact that the maximum level of acceptance
was also not determined. According to GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a), hock burn and
footpad dermatitis must be monitored (PY 8.2.4) and they must comply with
applicable legislation (PY 8.2.5), but there is no available legislation that includes
these animal-based parameters. There is a perspective to include animal-based
indicators to support animal welfare regulation and to develop more effective
standards in EU (European Commission 2012). Reduction on contact dermatitis and
lameness prevalence may not be effective when maximum levels are not clearly
defined on schemes, as observed by Souza et al. (2015) in a study where the number
of broiler chickens with contact dermatitis in GLOBAG.A.P. certified farms did
not differ from non-certified farms. The need to include thresholds for AW
indicators was also identified in three of the six certification schemes evaluated by
the Compassion in World Farming (CIWF 2012), and we suggest it is an important
item to be improved on schemes assessed in the present study.
Most fast growing broiler chicken breeds do not allow birds to have a satisfactory
level of welfare and health (SCAHAW 2000; EFSA 2010), and this should be
considered by companies when choosing a commercial broiler chicken breed (OIE
2013). In GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a), the requirement LB 6.16 states that companies
should use breeds stress stable and tolerant to important diseases. As it is a
recommendation, no sanction would be applied to companies when they are non-
compliant with the requirement. Similarly, when birds with gait score higher than
one are detected, the Certified Humane (2009) recommends companies to establish
corrective actions to address possible causes of lameness (requirement 5A H7).
Since gait score higher than one have been reported in an average prevalence of
71.2 % in fast growing chicken broilers (Knowles et al. 2008), choosing a more
resistant breed may be one of the most effective actions to be taken by companies to
reduce lameness in commercial flocks. It is in agreement with CIWF (2012)
recommendation of prohibition of fast growing lines in certification schemes to
improve animal welfare. The Farm Animal Welfare Council report (FAWC 2001)
concluded that the animal welfare criteria on farm assured schemes are more related
to environment and procedures, and that there are few requirements to the use of
appropriate genetics. It is our understanding that this may also occur in some
specific welfare schemes, thus we suggest that genetics should be better addressed in
certification schemes in general to further improve animal welfare.
According to the OIE (2013), painful interventions should not be routinely done
in broilers. Certified Humane (2009) prohibits any mutilation (Part 5A H10). In the
GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a) scheme, beak trimming and castration are allowed with
written justification, and other mutilations are not allowed (requirements PY 10.1,
10.2). However, prohibition of some mutilations such as dubbing, de-spurring,
declawing, toe removal and female beak trimming in broiler breeder is only a
recommendation (PY 10.3, 10.4), which conflicts with requirements PY 10.1 and
10.2. Lundmark et al. (2014) also observed this kind of divergence about painful
processes in certification schemes and European regulations that were not specific
for animal welfare. There are arguments against beak trimming, because birds will

123
1044 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

be prevented from performing natural behavior like foraging and preening; but there
are arguments in favor, as prevention for abnormal behaviors, like feather pecking
and cannibalism (Gentle 2011). Based on this, the acceptance of this practice may
be influenced by the weight of those arguments (Lundmark et al. 2014). Anyway,
ambiguity on certification protocols is probably detrimental to their effectiveness.
In 2013, GLOBALG.A.P. (2013b) published a voluntary module specific for
broiler chicken welfare. It includes mandatory requirements for environmental
enrichment and establishes maximum levels of contact dermatitis and maximum
stocking density of 33 kg m-2. Some requirements are still recommendations, such
as performing gait score test in the last week of broiler chickens growing period,
encouraging the use of natural lighting and slow growing breeds. This module is an
advance in animal welfare since it may be mandatory by customer demands or as
part of natural evolution of animal welfare theme in broiler chickens production
chain. To our knowledge it has not been applied in Brazil yet.

Analysis of Certification as a Continuous Improvement Tool

Individual producers and producer groups can be certified by Certified Humane

and GLOBALG.A.P.. The difference between these two options is that a producer
group must have a quality management system in place to standardize procedures
among producers. In Brazil, more than 90.0 % of broiler chicken producers work in
an integration system (UBA 2012). Thus, companies have chosen for a certification
at group level, being the company the certificate holder and also responsible for the
quality management system (QMS).
Annual certification process includes internal audits, third part announced and
unannounced audits, as presented on Fig. 4. In both schemes, certification process
begins with an internal audit performed by company on the QMS and all farms that
are part of the producer group, followed by a third part certification audit performed
by an independent CB. According to the GLOBALG.A.P. (2013c), the CB must
audit in a year, as a minimum, the square root of the number of producers registered

Company
Third part
Internal
audit
Quality Managment System audit

Monitor and standardize

UN
CB production process

Internal
Producer Group audit
Third part
audit

Fig. 4 Certified Humane and GLOBALG.A.P. producer group certification process, broiler chicken
scope; CB and UN means Certification Body and Unannounced Audits, respectively; adapted from
GLOBALG.A.P. (2013c) and Certified Humane (2014)

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1045

as members. In Certified Humane (2014), there is an information that the CB

audits up to 100 % of producer members. In addition, both schemes determine that
unnanounced audits must be performed.
Continuous improvement is the recurring activity to increase the ability to fulfill
requirements (ISO 2000). According to Main et al. (2014), animal welfare
management must be dynamic to promote continuous improvement of process so
that companies may enhance animal welfare (Table 1, principle 1). The first step
proposed by Main et al. (2014) is planning, which requires the definition of
standards, welfare policy and objectives (Table 1). GLOBALG.A.P. (2013c) and
Certified Humane (2014) require companies to have policies and detailed
procedures to demonstrate compliance with the certification requirements; but
welfare objectives are not required. In general, it seems that inclusion of AW on
quality policy of food companies must still be improved. According to the Business
Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare report about practices of 70 of the world’s
leading food companies, 56.0 % maintain a formal AW policy and 41.0 % maintain
AW objectives (Amos and Sullivan 2014). Objectives are important since they help
companies to evaluate both adequacy and implementation of defined policy (ISO
2000). Thus, we suggest the inclusion of AW objectives as a mandatory requirement
on certification schemes.
All items of the second step, which includes management of responsibilities,
competence, communication and documentation (Table 1), were observed on
assessed schemes. GLOBALG.A.P. (2013d) and Certified Humane (2014)
included requirements for establishing competences and trainings (Online Resource,
item 16), as well document control and responsibilities for quality management,
certification scheme implementation, internal audits and technical issues. The third
step of principle 1 refers to process monitoring, which includes outcomes,
compliance with process and internal audit (Table 1). Both schemes include
requirements for monitoring productivity, flock performance and health (Online
Resource, item 14). In addition, companies should provide corrective action to
address any fail to comply with determined limits (Certified Humane 2009;
GLOBALG.A.P. 2013a). The fact that the assessed schemes do not provide limits
for outcomes does not prevent continuous improvement assessment, since
companies must establish their own process limits and monitor them.
Internal audits are mandatory on schemes to assess quality management system
and producer groups (Fig. 4). Closing out non-conformities is also mandatory
(GLOBALG.A.P. 2013d; Certified Humane 2014), which is completely
addressed on Certified Humane and partially on GLOBALG.A.P. . In the latter,
each requirement is classified as minor must, major must or recommendation.
According to GLOBALG.A.P General Regulation (2013c), item 6.2, to obtain
certification companies must achieve 100.0 % of compliance with all applicable
major musts, 95.0 % of compliance with all applicable minor musts and no
minimum percentage of compliance of applicable recommendations. Thus, a non-
conformity, that must be closed out, is raised only when any major must or more
than 5.0 % of minor musts are not complied by companies. This is not in accordance
with the quality management principle as, according to the ISO (2000), non-
conformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement, independent of its classification

123
1046 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

as major or minor. In GLOBALG.A.P., this process is effective on quality

management system audits because all requirements are major musts. However,
effectiveness of on farm audits, which are most impacting for animal welfare, may
decrease since the checklist includes major must, minor must and recommendations.
As an example, requirement PY 5.4.4, that establishes minimum of 20 lux as
lighting intensity inside poultry houses, is classified as minor must. Thus, companies
outside EU may apply lower lighting levels. The same occurs to requirement PY
15.2, which establishes that all birds classified as gait score 4 and 5 must be culled;
requirement 10.2 that prohibits mutilations and PY 12.1, that establishes poultry
barns must have an available emergency power supply source. A company may be
certified even if the mentioned requirements are not fulfilled, provided that they fall
within the 5 % of non-compliances allowed by the scheme. These items have a
potential to decrease animal welfare when they are non-compliant, leading to animal
suffering and poor welfare.
The fourth step, which was not identified on assessed schemes, includes
management review as a tool to improve welfare management system in companies.
According to ISO (2008), the management review is an evidence of top
management commitment to the quality system implementation and the continuous
improvement. Since top management engagement on AW issues is fundamental to
develop policies to improve farm animal quality of life (Grandin 2013), including
this item on certification schemes may be an important tool to promote AW
discussion at higher corporate levels in companies.
Main et al. (2014) also proposed actions to progressively increase standards in an
AW certification schemes, such as including at least the relevant legislation and
codes of practice, defining outcome-based indicators and addressing non-compli-
ances against the scheme (Table 1, principle 2). GLOBALG.A.P. tends to base
some requirements on regulation, and the Certified Humane presents stricter
requirements, such as lower stocking densities and the use of environmental
enrichment. Certification schemes, even those with parameters based exclusively on
regulations, have been important to spread AW concepts without appealing to the
local authorities (FAWC 2001). However, using regulation as the main standard
may limit AW improvement since laws may result from political negotiations and
not from scientific research (Rushen et al. 2011). Even when laws are based on
research, interpretations may change according to pressure put on government
(Fraser 2008; Webster 2013), mainly when pressures are related to economic
aspects for consumers and producers (Croney and Millman 2007). Another
limitation is that regulations are unable to follow development and change of
production systems (Hatanaka et al. 2005). Thus, certification may be a more
dynamic process to update AW issues on farms if other indicators and information
sources are considered in addition to regulation.
Using animal-based indicators will enhance AW goals (Main et al. 2014), and it
has been fully encouraged on technical reports (FAWC 2005; FAWF 2011; EFSA
2012a, b), scientific papers (Veissier et al. 2008; Grandin 2010; Rushen et al. 2011)
and code of practices (OIE 2013). The Welfare Quality (2009) and the Assurewel
(2014) projects are some initiatives that have developed outcomes for broiler
chickens, such as contact dermatitis, lameness, plumage cleanliness, mortality, culls

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1047

on farm, thermal comfort, positive emotional state and slaughterhouse condemna-

tions. To further increase AW, it is desirable to join animal-based indicators to
continuous improvement process (Webster 2009), which may be an important item
to be considered on assessed schemes. Maximum daily mortality rate of 0.5 % was
the most clear defined outcome on GLOBALG.A.P. (PY 8.2.6) and Certified
Humane (Part 5A H11), but some outcomes are suggested in other requirements.
As an example, farmers must be able to recognize thermal comfort in birds, to
identify birds with gait score 3 or higher and monitor contact dermatitis (Online
Resource items 5, 12 and 13). Practical application of these requirements will
depend on thresholds established for each indicator, which may be used by farmers,
companies and CB to assess AW on farm. We observed on assessed schemes that
companies are responsible for establishing limits for animal-based indicators, and
this may lead to reduced uniformity among certified companies. It is also known
that environmental-based indicators are fully used by certification schemes
(Webster 2009), which is in agreement with our study (Fig. 3). The ideal situation
is when different types of indicators are combined to assess AW (Rushen et al.
2011), and is an important item to be improved on schemes.

Conclusion

Animal welfare certification on broiler chicken farms is scarce in Brazil.

GLOBALG.A.P. e Certified Humane are in use, and they include important
animal welfare items related to poultry house environment, animal handling and
health. Environmental and health indicators were in greater number, and the
requirements classified as behavioral indicators were commonly related to the
resolution of low levels of animal welfare. The selection of breeds and the use of
animal-based indicators need to be improved to increase animal welfare on certified
farms. The inclusion of requirements to establish animal welfare objectives and to
perform management review of process may also benefit continuous improvement
promoted by certification schemes. Overall, assessed schemes may potentially
enhance animal welfare at farm level by including new concepts and practices. In
order to further improve broiler chicken welfare, it is desirable to increase the
number of certified farms in Brazil and that certification schemes be critically
analyzed on a regular basis regarding their content to meet new demands and to
include updates from scientific research.

Supplementary Technical Material

Online Resource. Comparative chart of animal welfare indicators on

GLOBALG.A.P. (2013a) and Certified Humane (2009) certification schemes,
according to the report updating the European Food Safety Authority opinion on the
welfare of broilers and broilers breeders (EFSA 2012a).

123
1048 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

Acknowledgments This research was funded by Capes (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel) and Araucária Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
ABPA. (2014). Relatorio anual 2014. Relatorio Anual. http://www.ubabef.com.br/files/publicacoes/
8ca705e70f0cb110ae3aed67d29c8842.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2014
AFS. (2012). Red tractor assurance annual review. Assured food standard. http://www.redtractor.org.uk/
contentfiles/RedTractor-522.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2015
AFS. (2014). Red tractor assurance. Red tractor assurance safe haven and post-farm schemes. http://
assurance.redtractor.org.uk/rtassurance/schemes/aboutschemes/content.eb. Accessed 26 November
2014
Amos, N., & Sullivan, R. (2014). The 2013 Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. Investor
Briefing. http://www.bbfaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Briefing-No12-Business-Benchmark-
2013.pdf. Accessed June 01, 2015
Areté Research & Consulting in Economics. (2010). Inventory of certification schemes for agricultural
products and foodstuffs marketed in the EU Member States. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/quality/certification/inventory/inventory-data-aggregations_en.pdf. Accessed June 01,
2015
Assiouras, I., Ozgen, O., & Skourtis, G. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility in food
industry in product-harm crises. British Food Journal, 115(1), 108–123.
AssureWel. (2014). AssureWel—Advancing Animal Welfare Assurance. Broilers. http://www.assurewel.
org/broilers. Accessed September 29, 2014
Berg, C. (2004). Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. In C. A. Weeks & A. Butterworth
(Eds.), Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (1st ed., pp. 37–49). London: CABI Publishing.
Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(03), 455–466.
Blandford, D. (2013). Humane treatment of farm animals. In W. J. Armbruster & R. D. Knutson (Eds.),
US programs affecting food and agricultural marketing (1st ed., pp. 471–504). Texas: Springer.
Bock, B. B., & van Leeuwen, F. (2005). Animal welfare schemes. In J. Roex & M. Miele (Eds.), Welfare
quality reports no. 1: Farm animal welfare concerns—Consumers, retailers and producers (1st ed.,
pp. 125–142). Cardiff: Welfare Quality Consortium.
Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M. B., Moe, R. O., Spruijt, B., Keeling, L. J., et al. (2007). Assessment
of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behavior, 92(3), 375–397.
Bonamigo, A., Bonamigo, C. B. S. S., & Molento, C. F. M. (2012). Atribuições da carne de frango
relevantes ao consumidor: foco no bem-estar animal. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41(4),
1044–1050.
Caplen, G., Hothersall, B., Murrell, J. C., Nicol, C. J., Waterman-Pearson, A. E., Weeks, C. A., &
Colborne, G. R. (2012). Kinematic analysis quantifies gait abnormalities associated with lameness in
broiler chickens and identifies evolutionary gait differences. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e40800.
Certified Humane. (2009). Human Farm Animal Care—Animal care standards (chickens). (C. Humane,
Ed.) (February 2.). Herndon: Humane Farm Animal Care.
Certified Humane. (2014). Humane Farm Animal Care—program/policy manual. (Certified Humane,
Ed.) (April 11). Herndon: Humane Farm Animal Care.
CIWF. (2012). Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare: How the standards compare. Edinburgh:
Compassion in World Farming.
Croney, C. C., & Millman, S. T. (2007). Board-invited review: The ethical and behavioral bases for farm
animal welfare legislation. Journal of Animal Science, 85(2), 556–565.
Dawkins, M. S. (2008). The science of animal suffering. Ethology, 114(10), 937–945.
Dawkins, M. S. (2012). Commercial scale research and assessment of poultry welfare. British Poultry
Science, 53(1), 1–6.

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1049

Dawkins, M. S., Donnely, A. E., & Jones, T. A. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing
conditions than by stocking density. Nature, 427, 342–343.
De Jonge, J., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2012). Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal
Welfare: A reflection on existing knowledge and implications for the meat sector. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(3), 629–661.
DEFRA. (2009). Code of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Meat chickens and breeding
chickens. London: Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs.
DEFRA. (2011). Attitudes and behavious around sustainabe food purchasing. London. https://www.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/137733/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-
attitudes-report-110406-mainreport.pdf. Accessed May 01, 2015.
EFSA. (2010). Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance
to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal, 8(7), 1–82.
EFSA. (2012a). Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler
breeders. Brussels: EFSA.
EFSA. (2012b). Scientific opinion on the use of animal-based measures to assess welfare of broilers.
European Food Safety Authority Journal, 10(7), 2774.
Eurobarometer. (2007). Attitudes os EU citizens towards animal welfare. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/
public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf. Accessed May 01, 2015
European Commission. (2007). 43/2007/EC Laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens
kept for meat production. Pub. L. No. 2007/43/EC. Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the
council and the European economic and social committee on the European Union strategy for the
protection and animal welfare 2012–2015. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/
actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
FAWC. (2001). Interim report on the animal welfare implications of farm assurance schemes. London.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325201/FAWC_
report_on_the_welfare_implications_of_farm_assurance_schemes.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2015
FAWC. (2005). Report on the Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. London: FAWC.
FAWC. (2009). Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and future. London. https://www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_
in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2015.
FAWC. (2013). Review os the implications for animal welfare of farm assurance schemes. London:
FAWC.
FAWF. (2011). Labelling food from farm animals—method of Production Labels for the European
Union. Godalming: Farm Animal Welfare Forum. http://www.fawf.org.uk/documents/FAWF_
Labelling_Food_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 09, 2015.
France. (2013). Ministère de L’Agriculture, de L’Agroalimentaire et de La Forêt. Aviculture. http://www.
agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/conjoncture/aviculture/?debut_articles_contenu_rubrique=8#pagination_
articles_contenu_rubrique. Accessed August 26, 2014
Fraser, D. (2008). Selecting and combining criteria of animal welfare. In J. K. Kirkwood & R.
C. Hubrecht (Eds.), Understanding animal welfare (1st ed., pp. 241–259). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garner, J. P., Falcone, C., Wakenell, P., Martin, M., & Mench, J. A. (2002). Reliability and validity of a
modified gait scoring system and its use in assessing tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. British
Poultry Science, 43(3), 355–363.
Gentle, M. J. (2011). Pain issues in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135(3), 252–258.
GLOBALG.A.P.. (2013a). Control points and compliance criteria: integrated farm assurance—poultry.
(GLOBALG.A.P., Ed.) (4.0–2nd ed.). Cologne: GLOBALGAP. http://www.globalgap.org/export/
sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/130315_gg_ifa_cpcc_af_lb_py_v4_0-2_en.pdf
GLOBALG.A.P.. (2013b). Animal welfare add-on module for poultry/broiler chicken. (FoodPLUS, Ed.)
(1st ed.). Cologne: GLOBALGAP. http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/
documents/130214_gg_add-on_aw_py_cl_v1_0_protected_en.pdf
GLOBALG.A.P.. (2013c). GLOBALG.A.P. general regulation part I—general rules.
(GLOBALG.A.P., Ed.) (4.0–2_MAR2 ed.). Cologne: FoodPLUS GmbH. http://www.globalgap.
org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/130315_gg_gr_part_i_v4_0-2_en.pdf
GLOBALG.A.P.. (2013d). GLOBALG.A.P. general regulations part II—Rules for option 2 and option 1
multisites with QMS. (GLOBALG.A.P., Ed.) (4.0–2_mar2 ed.). Cologne: FoodPLUS GmbH.
http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/130315_gg_gr_part_ii_
v4_0-2_en.pdf

123
1050 A. P. O. Souza, C. F. M. Molento

Grandin, T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science, 86(1), 56–65.
Grandin, T. (2013). Recommended animal handling guidelines and audit guide: A systematic approach to
animal welfare (American Meat Institute Animal Welfare Committee, Ed.) (July 2013).
Washington: American Meat Institute Foundation. http://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/04/2013.AMI_.Guidelines.pdf
Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the missing link. Meat Science, 98(3),
461–469.
Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., & Busch, L. (2005). Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food
Policy, 30(3), 354–369.
IBGE. (2012). Censo Agropecuário 2006—Segunda Apuração. Rio de Janeiro. http://ibge.gov.br/home/
estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/2006_segunda_apuracao/default.shtm. Accessed
August 8, 2015.
Ingenbleek, P., Immink, V. M., Spoolder, H. A. M., Bokma, M. H., & Keeling, L. J. (2012). EU animal
welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework. Food Policy, 37(6), 690–699.
ISO. (2000). ISO 9000: Quality management systems—fundamentals and vocabulary. Geneva: ISO.
ISO. (2008). ISO 9001:2008. Sistemas de gestão da qualidade. Geneva: ISO.
ITAVI. (2012). La compétitivité agricole du Mercosur - le cas des filières d’élevage brésiliennes. France:
Institut Technique de L’Aviculture.
Kestin, S. C., Knowles, T. G., Tinch, A. E., & Gregory, N. G. (1992). Prevalence of leg weakness in
broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record, 131(9), 190–194.
Knowles, T. G., Kestin, S. C., Haslam, S. M., Brown, S. N., Green, L. E., Butterworth, A., et al. (2008).
Leg disorders in broiler chickens: Prevalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1545.
Label Rouge. (2013). Key figures of the sector. Paris. http://www.volaillelabelrouge.com/fr/chiffres-cles-
volailles. Accessed June 10, 2015.
Lundmark, F., Berg, C., Schmid, O., Behdadi, D., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2014). Intentions and values in
animal welfare legislation and standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(4),
29.
Maciel, C. (2015). Farm animal welfare governance on the rise: a case study of Brazil Public morals in
private hands? A study into the envolving path of farm animal welfare governance. Wageningen:
Wageningen University.
Main, D. C. J., Mullan, S., Atkinson, C., Cooper, M., Wrathall, J. H. M., & Blokhuis, H. J. (2014). Best
practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
37(2), 127–136.
McCulloch, S. P. (2012). A critique of FAWC’s five freedoms as a framework for the analysis of animal
welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 959–975.
Mench, J. A. (2008). Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education,
regulation, and assurance programs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 298–312.
NCC. (2010). Animal welfare guidelines and audit checklist for broilers. Washington: NCC.
OIE. (2013). Animal welfare and broiler chicken production systems. In OIE (Ed.), Terrestrial animal
health code (22nd ed., p. 8). Paris: OIE. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=
chapitre_aw_broiler_chicken.htm
Robins, A., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2011). International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. World’s
Poultry Science Journal, 67(2), 351.
RSPCA. (2012). Freedom food impact report 2012. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals. London. http://www.freedomfood.co.uk/media/50805/ImpactReport_2012.pdf. Accessed
May 22, 2015.
RSPCA. (2013). RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme—giving farm animals a better quality of life. Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Australia. http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/
files/website/what-we-do/working-with-farming-industry/2014_Impact_Report_web.pdf. Accessed
May 22, 2015.
Rushen, J., Butterworth, A., & Swanson, J. C. (2011). Farm animal welfare assurance: Science and
application. Journal of Animal Science, 89(4), 1219–1228.
SCAHAW. (2000). The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Brussels: Report of the
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare.
Schröder, M. J. A., & Mceachern, M. G. (2005). Fast foods and ethical consumer value: A focus on
McDonald’s and KFC. British Food Journal, 107, 212–224.

123
The Contribution of Broiler Chicken Welfare Certification… 1051

Souza, A. P. O., Sans, E. C. O., Müller, B. R., & Molento, C. F. M. (2015). Broiler chicken welfare
assessment in GLOBALGAP certified and non-certified farms in Brazil. Animal Welfare, 24(1),
45–54.
Spoolder, H., Bokma, M., Harvey, D., Keeling, L., Majewsky, E., de Roest, K., & Schmid, O. (2011).
EconWelfare findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning effective policy instruments in
the route towards higher animal welfare in the EU. Lelystad, The Netherlands. http://www.
econwelfare.eu/publications/EconWelfareD0.5_Findings_conclusions_and_recommendations.pdf.
Accessed May 22, 2015.
Sprenger, M., Vangestel, C., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Measuring thirst in broiler chickens. Animal
Welfare, 18(4), 553–560.
Swanson, J. C. (2008). The ethical aspects of regulating production. Poultry Science, 87(2), 373–379.
Tuyttens, F. A. M., Federici, J. F., Vanderhasselt, R. F., Goethals, K., Duchateau, L., Sans, E. C. O., et al.
(2015). Assessment of welfare of Brazilian and Belgian broiler flocks using the Welfare Quality
protocol. Poultry Science, 94, 1758–1766.
UBA. (2012). The integrated system, a benchmark. Brazilian Poultry Magazine, 1, 7–9.
UBABEF. (2008a). Protocolo de bem-estar para frangos e perus. (Z. S. D’Avila & A. A. Mendes, Eds.)
(1st ed.). São Paulo: União Brasileira para Avicultura. http://www.ubabef.com.br/files/publicacoes/
641b2593d2fd403c0b420a3525c0ad14.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2015.
UBABEF. (2008b). Protocolo de Boas Práticas de Produção de Frango. (A. A. Mendes & Z. S. D’Avila,
Eds.). São Paulo: União Brasileira para Avicultura. http://www.ubabef.com.br/files/publicacoes/
c0b265b96f89355016b3882d5976fc49.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2015.
USDA. (2014). Animal welfare audits and certification programs. Certification Programs. United States
Department of Agriculture. http://awic.nal.usda.gov/farm-animals/animal-welfare-audits-and-
certification-programs/animal-welfare-audits-and-2. Accessed May 22, 2015.
Van Horne, P. L. M., & Bondt, N. (2013). Competitiveness of the EU poultry meat sector. Wageningen:
Wageningen UR.
Vanderhasselt, R. F., Goethals, K., Buijs, S., Federici, J. F., Sans, E. C. O., Molento, C. F. M., et al.
(2014). Performance of an animal-based test of thirst in commercial broiler chicken farms. Poultry
Science, 93(6), 1327–1336.
Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal
welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 279–297.
Webster, A. J. F. (2009). The Virtuous Bicycle: A delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare.
Animal Welfare, 18, 141–147.
Webster, J. (2013). International standards for farm animal welfare: Science and values. The Veterinary
Journal, 198(1), 3–4.
Weeks, C. C., & Butterworth, A. (2004). Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. London: CABI.
Welfare Quality. (2009). Welfare Quality  Assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens) (p.
116). Lelystad, The Netherlands: Welfare Quality Consortium. http://www.welfarequality.net/
network/45848/7/0/40. Accessed May 12, 2015.
Wemelsfelder, F., Knierim, U., Schulze-Westerath, H., Lentfer, T., Staack, M., & Sandilands, V. (2009).
Qualitative behaviour assessment. In B. Forkman & L. Keeling (Eds.), Welfare quality reports no.
9—Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers an broilers (1st ed., pp. 113–119). Uppsala:
Welfare Quality Consortium.
Yeates, J. W., & Main, D. C. J. (2008). Assessment of positive welfare: a review. Veterinary Journal
(London, England: 1997), 175(3), 293–300.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.