Advanced search
1 file | 2.51 MB Add to list

Welfare of broiler chickens in Brazilian free-range versus intensive indoor production systems

Author
Organization
Abstract
We compared broiler chicken welfare in free-range (FR) and intensive indoor (IN) systems using the Welfare Quality (R) Protocol. Ten FR and 11 IN farms in Brazil were assessed. Results are shown as either scores ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better welfare, or prevalence, where lower prevalence indicates better welfare. In FR, the median prevalence was lower than in IN for mortality (2.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.0262), culling (0.0% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.0168), ascites (0.0% vs. 0.17%, p = 0.0431). Median welfare scores on FR farms were better for plumage cleanliness (100 vs. 59, p = 0.0001), panting or huddling (100 vs. 29, p = 0.0001), lameness (81 vs. 19, p = 0.0001), hock burn (93 vs. 37, p = 0.0001), footpad dermatitis (35 vs. 26, p = 0.0018). However, FR scores were worse for litter quality (34 vs. 100, p = 0.0003), dust (53 vs. 78, p = 0.0002), breast blisters (90 vs. 100, p = 0.0077), touch test (70 vs. 99, p = 0.0082). Better emotional states were observed in FR (p < 0.001). Even though there is room for welfare improvement in both systems, the number of welfare indicators with better results was superior in FR than in IN farms.
Keywords
FARM-ANIMAL-WELFARE, STOCKING DENSITY, CARCASS YIELD, PERFORMANCE, DERMATITIS, CITIZENS, BELGIUM, OUTDOOR, QUALITY, HEALTH, conventional, outdoor area, poultry, Welfare Quality (R)

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 2.51 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
de Oliveira Sans, Elaine Cristina, et al. “Welfare of Broiler Chickens in Brazilian Free-Range versus Intensive Indoor Production Systems.” JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, vol. 26, no. 4, 2023, pp. 505–17, doi:10.1080/10888705.2021.1992280.
APA
de Oliveira Sans, E. C., Dahlke, F., Federici, J. F., Tuyttens, F., & Maiolino Molento, C. F. (2023). Welfare of broiler chickens in Brazilian free-range versus intensive indoor production systems. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 26(4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1992280
Chicago author-date
Oliveira Sans, Elaine Cristina de, Fabiano Dahlke, Juliana Freitas Federici, Frank Tuyttens, and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento. 2023. “Welfare of Broiler Chickens in Brazilian Free-Range versus Intensive Indoor Production Systems.” JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 26 (4): 505–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1992280.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
de Oliveira Sans, Elaine Cristina, Fabiano Dahlke, Juliana Freitas Federici, Frank Tuyttens, and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento. 2023. “Welfare of Broiler Chickens in Brazilian Free-Range versus Intensive Indoor Production Systems.” JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 26 (4): 505–517. doi:10.1080/10888705.2021.1992280.
Vancouver
1.
de Oliveira Sans EC, Dahlke F, Federici JF, Tuyttens F, Maiolino Molento CF. Welfare of broiler chickens in Brazilian free-range versus intensive indoor production systems. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE. 2023;26(4):505–17.
IEEE
[1]
E. C. de Oliveira Sans, F. Dahlke, J. F. Federici, F. Tuyttens, and C. F. Maiolino Molento, “Welfare of broiler chickens in Brazilian free-range versus intensive indoor production systems,” JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 505–517, 2023.
@article{8735814,
  abstract     = {{We compared broiler chicken welfare in free-range (FR) and intensive indoor (IN) systems using the Welfare Quality (R) Protocol. Ten FR and 11 IN farms in Brazil were assessed. Results are shown as either scores ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate better welfare, or prevalence, where lower prevalence indicates better welfare. In FR, the median prevalence was lower than in IN for mortality (2.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.0262), culling (0.0% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.0168), ascites (0.0% vs. 0.17%, p = 0.0431). Median welfare scores on FR farms were better for plumage cleanliness (100 vs. 59, p = 0.0001), panting or huddling (100 vs. 29, p = 0.0001), lameness (81 vs. 19, p = 0.0001), hock burn (93 vs. 37, p = 0.0001), footpad dermatitis (35 vs. 26, p = 0.0018). However, FR scores were worse for litter quality (34 vs. 100, p = 0.0003), dust (53 vs. 78, p = 0.0002), breast blisters (90 vs. 100, p = 0.0077), touch test (70 vs. 99, p = 0.0082). Better emotional states were observed in FR (p < 0.001). Even though there is room for welfare improvement in both systems, the number of welfare indicators with better results was superior in FR than in IN farms.}},
  author       = {{de Oliveira Sans, Elaine Cristina and Dahlke, Fabiano and Federici, Juliana Freitas and Tuyttens, Frank and Maiolino Molento, Carla Forte}},
  issn         = {{1088-8705}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE}},
  keywords     = {{FARM-ANIMAL-WELFARE,STOCKING DENSITY,CARCASS YIELD,PERFORMANCE,DERMATITIS,CITIZENS,BELGIUM,OUTDOOR,QUALITY,HEALTH,conventional,outdoor area,poultry,Welfare Quality (R)}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{505--517}},
  title        = {{Welfare of broiler chickens in Brazilian free-range versus intensive indoor production systems}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1992280}},
  volume       = {{26}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: