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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.