Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679670›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2022

Differences and variation in welfare performance of broiler flocks in three production systems.

Ingrid C de Jong, Bram Bos, Jan van Harn, Pim Mostert, Dennis Te Beest

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A framework for a comprehensive animal welfare label: scientific, logistic, and ethical challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Impact of Growth Rate on the Welfare of Broilers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evolutions in Commercial Meat Poultry Breeding.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Welfare of broilers on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ingrid C de JongWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ingrid.dejong@wur.nl.
Bram BosWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Jan van HarnWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Pim MostertWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University & Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Dennis Te BeestBiometris, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a trend toward broiler production systems with higher welfare requirements, that use slower growing broiler strains, apply a reduced stocking density and provide environmental enrichment. Although these separate factors each contribute to increased broiler welfare, there is little information on their combined effect on broiler welfare under commercial conditions, and on the variation in welfare performance of flocks within production systems. The aim of this study was to compare the welfare performance and the between-flock variation in welfare of 3 Dutch commercial broiler production systems differing in welfare requirements: Conventional (C), Dutch Retail Broiler (DRB) and Better Life one star (BLS). We applied a welfare assessment method based on the Welfare Quality broiler assessment protocol, in which we used 5 animal-based welfare measures collected by slaughterhouses and hatcheries (mortality, footpad dermatitis, hock burn, breast irritation, scratches), and 3 resource- or management-based measures (stocking density, early feeding, environmental enrichment). Data were collected for at least 1889 flocks per production system over a 2-year period. To compare the different measures and to generate an overall flock welfare score, we calculated a score on a scale from 0 to 100 (bad-good) for each measure based on expert opinion. The overall flock score was the sum of the scores of the different welfare measures. The results showed that with increasing welfare requirements, a higher total welfare score was found across production systems (BLS > DRB > C; P < 0.0001). Regarding individual measures, C generally had lower (worse) scores than BLS and DRB (P < 0.05), except for scratches where C had highest (best) score (P < 0.001). Both welfare measure scores and the total welfare score of flocks showed large variation within and overlap between systems, and the latter especially when only the animal-based measures were included in the total flock score. Total flock score ranges including animal-based measures only were: 112.1 to 488.3 for C, 113.0 to 486.9 for DRB, 151.3 to 490.0 for BLS (on a scale from 0 [bad]-500 [good]), with median values of 330.8 for C, 370.9 for DRB, and 396.1 for BLS respectively. This indicates that factors such as farm management and day-old chick quality can have a major effect on the welfare performance of a flock and that there is room for welfare improvement in all production systems.

Indexed as

ChickensPoultry DiseasesAbattoirsAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnimal WelfareTarsus, Animalanimal-based measurebroilerproduction systemresource-based measurewelfare assessment

Identifiers

PMID35679670
PMCPMC9189189
OpenAlexW4225005990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.