Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35990274›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Welfare issues and potential solutions for laying hens in free range and organic production systems: A review based on literature and interviews.

Claire Bonnefous, Anne Collin, Laurence A Guilloteau, Vanessa Guesdon, Christine Filliat, Sophie Réhault-Godbert, T Bas Rodenburg, Frank A M Tuyttens, Laura Warin, Sanna Steenfeldt and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MicroencapsulatedVeterinary world · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Floor Eggs in Australian Cage-Free Egg Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Microorganisms · 2023
    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

20 authors at 13 institutions in 7 countries.

Claire BonnefousINRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, Nouzilly, France.
Anne CollinINRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, Nouzilly, France.
Laurence A GuilloteauINRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, Nouzilly, France.
Vanessa GuesdonJUNIA, Comportement Animal et Systèmes d'Elevage, Lille, France.
Christine FilliatVETOPOLE 26, Châteauneuf-sur-Isère, France.
Sophie Réhault-GodbertINRAE, Université de Tours, BOA, Nouzilly, France.
T Bas RodenburgFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Frank A M TuyttensILVO, Instituut voor Landbouw-, Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek, Melle, Belgium.
Laura WarinITAVI, Nouzilly, France.
Sanna SteenfeldtDepartment of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lisa BaldingerThuenen Institute of Organic Farming, Westerau, Germany.
Martina ReAIAB, Associazone Italiana per l'Agricultura Biologica, Rome, Italy.
Raffaella PonzioSlow Food, Bra, Italy.
Anna ZulianiVeterinari Senza Frontiere Italia, Sede c/o Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie viale dell'Università, Padova, Italy.
Pietro VeneziaVeterinari Senza Frontiere Italia, Sede c/o Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie viale dell'Università, Padova, Italy.
Minna VäreNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Helsinki, Finland.
Patricia ParrottHarper Adams University, Newport, United Kingdom.
Keith WalleyHarper Adams University, Newport, United Kingdom.
Jarkko K NiemiNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment, Seinäjoki, Finland.
Christine LeterrierCNRS, IFCE, INRAE, Université de Tours, PRC, Nouzilly, France.
Biologie des Oiseaux et Aviculture · FRHarper Adams University · GBIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITNatural Resources Institute Finland · FIAarhus University · DKAssociazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica · ITGhent University Hospital · BEInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FRInstitut Technique de l'Aviculture · FRPhysiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements · FRUniversité de Tours · FRUtrecht University · NLWorld Food Programme · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In free-range and organic production systems, hens can make choices according to their needs and desires, which is in accordance with welfare definitions. Nonetheless, health and behavioral problems are also encountered in these systems. The aim of this article was to identify welfare challenges observed in these production systems in the EU and the most promising solutions to overcome these challenges. It is based on a review of published literature and research projects complemented by interviews with experts. We selected EU specific information for welfare problems, however, the selected literature regarding solutions is global. Free range use may increase the risk of infection by some bacteria, viruses and parasites. Preventive methods include avoiding contamination thanks to biosecurity measures and strengthening animals' natural defenses against these diseases which can be based on nutritional means with new diet components such as insect-derived products, probiotics and prebiotics. Phytotherapy and aromatherapy can be used as preventive and curative medicine and vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics and pesticides. Bone quality in pullets and hens prevents keel deviations and is favored by exercise in the outdoor range. Free range use also lead to higher exposure to variable weather conditions and predators, therefore shadow, fences and guard animals can be used to prevent heat stress and predation respectively. Granting a free range provides opportunities for the expression of many behaviors and yet many hens usually stay close to the house. Providing the birds with trees, shelters or attractive plants can increase range use. Small flock sizes, early experiences of enrichment and personality traits have also been found to enhance range use. Severe feather pecking can occur in free range production systems, although flocks using the outdoor area have better plumage than indoors. While many prevention strategies are facilitated in free range systems, the influence of genetics, prenatal and nutritional factors in free range hens still need to be investigated. This review provides information about practices that have been tested or still need to be explored and this information can be used by stakeholders and researchers to help them evaluate the applicability of these solutions for welfare improvement.

Indexed as

free rangehealthhenorganicpoultrypulletwelfare

Identifiers

PMID35990274
PMCPMC9390482
OpenAlexW4290097423

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.