Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40612153›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2025

A review of existing scientific literature on welfare assessment of farmed species applied in commercial practice: identification of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for further development.

Ingrid C de Jong, Wijbrand Ouweltjes, Pol Llonch, Gerard E Martin Valls, Heng-Lun Ko, Hans Spoolder, Ana C Strappini

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Ingrid C de JongWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Wijbrand OuweltjesWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Pol LlonchDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Gerard E Martin VallsDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Heng-Lun KoDepartment of Animal and Food Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Hans SpoolderWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Ana C StrappiniWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decades, significant progress in welfare assessment of commercially farmed species has been achieved. Since then, various initiatives applied and improved existing protocols, or developed new ones for species like farmed rabbits or fish. This has resulted in a wide range of protocols, indicators and measures potentially lacking standardization and harmonization. However, standardized protocols are crucial for generating quantitative and comparable welfare data. In this literature review we (i) provide the state-of-the-art regarding application of welfare assessment protocols under commercial conditions for farmed species, (ii) their representation of the five welfare domains, and (iii) which animal-based welfare indicators have been applied. Further, (iv) we evaluate the alignment of welfare indicators as applied in scientific publications with highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for dairy cattle, pigs, broilers, and laying hens. Based on this, we (v) identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the domains covered and use of animal-based indicators, and define areas for further development. Most scientific publications focused on dairy cattle, followed by broilers, pigs and sheep. No publications were found for aquatic invertebrates, insects, fish species other than salmonids, and quails, highlighting the need for welfare assessment protocols for these species. Dairy cattle, horses, and sheep accounted for the highest number of unique indicators. Protocols generally covered all five welfare domains, with health indicators dominating. Animal-based welfare indicators were most prevalent. Common indicators across species were extracted and can be a starting point for the development of assessment protocols for novel species. Highly relevant welfare consequences as defined by EFSA were addressed. In conclusion, while welfare assessment protocols have been developed and tested under commercial conditions for many farmed species, assessment protocols for small-scale farmed species need attention. The wide variety of indicators extracted shows a lack of standardization and harmonization, risking divergence in indicators assessed between protocols. Attention should be given to define standardized welfare indicators per species, enabling comparable data collection related to important welfare issues and benchmarking to improve farm animal welfare.

Indexed as

indicatorslivestock farmingprotocolwelfare assessmentwelfare consequences

Identifiers

PMID40612153
PMCPMC12225303

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.