WELFARE ▶▶▶


“Dual-use poul- try with male chicks in free- range husband- ry is the best al- ternative to the current culling practice,” was the response of 27% of the consumers.


because of the pictures provided. Screening at day 9 and day 21 (hatching time) was less preferred when pictures were in- cluded. There was also a decrease in willingness-to-pay for the implementation of the technology if the screening is per- formed at day 9. Willingness was highest at day 1, followed by day 4. The suggested reason for this was that pictures say more than words – besides providing information, they can quickly evoke associations and feelings, and are remembered better and for a longer time than text. In a mass media envi- ronment pictures are readily available and move rapidly through digital channels, which makes them drivers of wider debates in society. It was also stated that the way the pictures are taken and how systems and animals are depicted influ- ences overall perceptions, especially among people who are not familiar with the subject matter.


Screening errors The survey showed that a high error rate of in-ovo gender determination or the lack of a meaningful use for incubated eggs decreases the approval rate for in-ovo gender determi- nation to an extent, such that no positive willingness-to-pay for implementation of the technology remains. Both a meaningful use of by-products and a high rate of accura- cy are crucial factors for the acceptance of in-ovo gender determination. This study presented three uses of screened-out eggs: the chemical industry, as pet food and livestock fodder. The results showed that the use of screened-out eggs in the chemical industry was the least desirable, while use as pet food was the most preferred. It was suggested that this could be because consumers are more familiar with these uses or that their utilisation as a nutrient is considered superior to utilisation as an industry product.


10 ▶ POULTRY WORLD | No. 8, 2021


Technology and animal welfare Among the respondents, 20% were referred to as ‘technolo- gy-savvy’ as they were more concerned with technological advances in agriculture and animal welfare improvements. This group was also strongly against chick culling and greatly favoured the use of screened-out eggs as pet food but disap- proved of their use in the chemical industry. In addition, this group was more focused on legislation to include these new developments.


Alternative use of male chicks As found in this study, a comparison of in-ovo gender deter- mination and dual-use poultry production reveals a willing- ness-to-pay for the implementation of both alternatives, but with the willingness-to-pay being higher for in-ovo gender determination. “Dual-use poultry with male chicks in free- range husbandry is the best alternative to the current culling practice” was the response of 27% of the consumers. In ad- dition, 20% of the respondents indicated that they might ac- cept chick culling under certain circumstances, for example, the use of male chicks as pet food. In conclusion, the development of a technology which ena- bles chicken embryos to be sexed at an early stage of devel- opment may be promising to meet consumer preferences. The results of this survey revealed a considerable willing- ness-to-pay for the in-ovo technology on the part of the con- sumers. The preference becomes clearer when consumers are presented with pictures of incubated eggs or a chick. The findings further imply that a high level of screening accuracy and the meaningful use of screened-out eggs should be clearly communicated to consumers, as these are crucial fac- tors for the acceptance of in-ovo screening as an ethically acceptable alternative to chick culling.


PHOTO: HANS BIJLEVELD


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44