ArticlePoultry science2026
Opportunities and challenges of modern mobile housing systems for laying hen welfare - an observational study.
Article in Poultry science, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A variety of commercial mobile houses for laying hens are emerging as innovative housing systems. However, only limited research on their potential for animal welfare is currently available. In this study, we compared welfare outcomes between different categories of mobile houses and with stationary systems, and aimed to identify welfare-relevant challenges associated with managing the mobile housing systems. Over a period of two years, animal-based welfare indicators (MTool©) were repeatedly assessed on 42 farms with 48 mobile houses across four size and mobility categories: wheel-based small, medium, large, and skid-based, with 200 to 2,059 hens/house. For the comparison with stationary housing, repeated MTool©-assessments from five farms with and four farms without free-range access with 2,250 to 6,000 hens/flock were used. Prevalences of plumage damage and injuries were significantly lower in mobile housing, while keel bone damage was similarly prevalent across all housing systems. The extent of footpad dermatitis was unaffected by mobile versus stationary systems. More hens had comb and wattle injuries in mobile houses, which warrants further investigation into the influences on agonistic pecking. Among others, adequate feeding space per hen must be guaranteed within the mobile house, even if this entails additional manual labor. Further key challenges of mobile housing include the protection from predators, enrichment when free-range access must be restricted temporarily due to avian influenza, climate control at all times, and optimal relocation frequency of the mobile units. Among the four mobile housing categories, relatively few differences were found. They concerned prevalences of pale combs, footpad dermatitis and slight differences in plumage soiling at the back, possibly reflecting differences in free-range accessibility, perch and litter condition and manure collection. The mostly large range in prevalences of welfare issues between flocks suggest that appropriate management is more important than mobile housing categories which all have the potential to provide for good laying hen welfare.
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.