Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40693129›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025

Design and testing of add-on prototypes for transport containers to improve the loading process for end-of-lay hens and catchers.

Femke Delanglez, Anneleen Watteyn, Bart Ampe, Gunther Antonissen, Jan Detand, Wout Verroens, Frank Tuyttens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Femke DelanglezAnimal Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Melle, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1925-4006
Anneleen WatteynAnimal Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Melle, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9097-704X
Bart AmpeAnimal Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Melle, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8223-2870
Gunther AntonissenDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8832-1498
Jan DetandFaculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3857-7513
Wout VerroensFaculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University, Belgium.
Frank TuyttensAnimal Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Melle, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1348-218X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Depopulation of end-of-lay hens can result in stress and injury for both hens and catchers. A pilot study was assessed to optimise hen and catcher well-being during loading. Two add-on prototypes for attaching to transport container drawers were tested on five commercial aviary farms: prototype 1 (metal tube with vertical flaps); and prototype 2 (frame with horizontal flaps). Per flock, a subset of 800 end-of-lay hens was assigned to one of three treatments: Standard container with 15 drawers; Standard container plus prototype 1; and Standard container plus prototype 2. Parameters (filling duration, number of escapes, number of body part entrapments, restlessness, and loading inefficiency in container) were scored during the catch, supplemented by a post-loading catcher survey, and at the slaughterhouse (loading damage prevalence, number of dead-on-arrivals). The three treatments were compared using a 1-7 Likert scale. Hens were significantly calmer with prototype 1 compared to prototype 2 with no significant difference relative to the standard container. Loading was less efficient for prototype 2 vs the standard container. Catchers preferred prototype 1 and the standard container over prototype 2 for ease of use and hen calmness and prototype 2 showed no advantages for efficiency or animal and catcher well-being. Prototype 1 resulted in fewer breast bruises than the standard container with no difference in loading efficiency and requires larger-scale testing for enhancing effectiveness, animal and catcher well-being.

Indexed as

Animal welfarecatchingcontainer systemcrating systemdepopulationpoultry

Identifiers

PMID40693129
PMCPMC12277091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.