ArticlePoultry science2026
Biosecurity and animal welfare in broiler farms in Mezam division, Cameroon.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biosecurity is fundamental for disease prevention, productivity, and animal welfare in poultry production systems. In low- and middle-income countries, particularly in conflict-affected regions, farm-level biosecurity and its relationship with animal welfare practices remain insufficiently documented. This study assessed biosecurity compliance in broiler farms in Mezam division (North West, Cameroon) and examined its association with mortality rates and farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) regarding animal welfare. A cross-sectional study was conducted between April and September 2025 in 65 commercial broiler farms selected from the lists provided by the regional services in charge of livestock production. Data were collected using structured questionnaires during on-farm face to face interview and technical observations. Biosecurity measures were evaluated using a binary scoring system, and composite scores were expressed as percentages. Animal welfare KAP scores were similarly computed. Overall, 86.2% of farms had a biosecurity score above or equal to 50% and mean biosecurity score of all the surveyed farms was 76.1% (95% CI: 70.5-81.7). The least implemented biosecurity measures were the presence of wheel dips for disinfection, the practice of all-in all-out system, and the removal of carcasses at least twice daily. They were applied by only 35.4%, 35.4% and 47.7% of the farmers, respectively. The average mortality rate per farm was 1.9% by production cycle. Farmers showed a poor knowledge (median score: 38%; 95% CI: 38.1-49.1), negative attitude (median score: 60%; 95% CI: 59.0-67.2) and adequate practices (median score: 70%; 95% CI: 58.9-68.8) toward animal welfare. A moderate positive correlation was recorded between biosecurity implementation and farmers' practices (r = 0.5, p < 0.001) or knowledge (r = 0.5, p < 0.001) about animal welfare. In addition, mortality rate decreased was associated with biosecurity improvement (r = - 0.3; p = 0.020) in farms. The findings emphasize the need for integrated approaches that combine biosecurity and animal welfare education to enhance poultry production sustainability in resource-limited settings.
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.