ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Comparative Analysis of Animal Welfare in Three Broiler Slaughterhouses and Associated Farms with Unsatisfactory Slaughterhouse Results.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Decade of Evidence on Broiler Chicken Dead-on-Arrival Rates and Risk Factors: A Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Analysis of the main causes of chicken carcass condemnation in slaughterhouses in Mato Grosso, Brazil.Brazilian journal of veterinary medicine · 2026Article
- Emotional Welfare and Its Relationship with Social Interactions and Physical Conditions of Finishing Pigs in Lairage at the Slaughterhouse.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the health and welfare of 70 commercial broiler flocks (transport batches) in three distinct slaughterhouses based on various indicators including emaciation, dirty feathers (DFs), footpad dermatitis (FPD), hock burn (HB), breast burn (BB), breast blister, breast ulcer, ascites, septicemia/abnormal color, cellulitis, extensive traumatisms, dead on arrival (DoA) and condemnation rate. Assessment scales ranging from 0 (absence) to 2 (severe) were used for DFs, FPD, and HB, while a 0 (absence) to 1 (present) scale was applied to BB, breast blisters, and breast ulcers. The prevalence of total condemnation causes (emaciation, ascites, septicemia/abnormal color, cellulitis, and extensive traumatism) and DoA were recorded and presented in percentages. Three flocks presented condemnation rates higher than 4% and 11 flocks presented DoA rates higher than 0.5%. Twenty-one flocks achieved grade 1 (warning) for FPD and 14 achieved grade 2 for FPD (alarm). Extensive trauma was observed in 0.01% of the slaughtered animals, and no flock reached the threshold of 2%. Breast blisters and breast ulcers lesions were not observed in the studied flocks. The significant positive associations observed for the presence of severe footpad dermatitis (FPD2), severe hock burns (HB2), and breast burns (BB1) indicate simultaneous occurrences. Absences of hock burns (HB0) and breast burns (BB0) were also associated. Eleven houses that obtained the worst results for welfare indicators at slaughterhouses were audited. FPD, HB, DoA, and the condemnation rate were the most crucial indicators for identifying farms with inadequate welfare conditions. These indicators should be systematically integrated into the welfare monitoring of broilers in slaughterhouses. Audits conducted on farms detected some noncompliance with regulatory welfare standards and suggested improvements in environmental and structural conditions, as well as the reduction in stocking densities and improvements in the water systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.