ArticlePloS one2024
Can the assessment of skin injuries and keel bone damage at the slaughterhouse replace on-farm assessments?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Opportunities and challenges of modern mobile housing systems for laying hen welfare - an observational study.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Assessing good physical health and resilience as a foundation for positive welfare in chickens.Poultry science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two major welfare problems in laying hen farming are keel bone damage (KBD) and cannibalism. Their assessment is time-consuming, needs well-trained assessors, and prevalence estimates are often imprecise due to small sample sizes. Here, the bottleneck slaughterhouse comes into focus where large numbers of animals can be inspected. However, this is only an option if the prevalences recorded at the slaughterhouse reasonably agree with on-farm assessments. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of KBD and skin injuries in 20 commercial laying hen flocks (i) before depopulation on-farm (ii) after transport and lairage time at arrival at the slaughterhouse, and (iii) at the slaughter line. Bland-Altman plots and equivalence tests were conducted. In addition, the consistency of welfare evaluations of the results according to a traffic light scheme was investigated. Cloacal injuries could not technically be recorded on the slaughter line. With an arbitrary precision of ± 2% for dorsal skin injuries and ± 5% for KBD, the results from farm and slaughter line did not reach equivalence. For dorsal skin injuries, the detected mean prevalence across all flocks examined increased numerically from the farm (15.1%) to the slaughter line (22.8%). In addition, the traffic light evaluations changed between farm and slaughter line in 80% of cases in different directions. Therefore, it cannot be recommended to derive evaluations of on-farm welfare from assessments of skin injuries at the slaughter line. In contrast, the mean detected prevalence of KBD across all flocks decreased consistently (r = 0.794) from the farm (56.0%) to the slaughter line (41.7%). It can be concluded that the assessment of KBD at the slaughter line consistently underestimates KBD prevalences compared to on-farm assessments, but this can be taken into account in the interpretation of the results. Slaughter line assessment of KBD may be a feasible option for monitoring severe welfare problems due to KBD in commercial practice.
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.