Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2012 Jul 3;10(7):2774. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2774

Scientific Opinion on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare of broilers

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
PMCID: PMC13092913  PMID: 42016070

Abstract

Animal‐based measures (ABM) can be used effectively in the on‐farm evaluation of broiler welfare in relation to laws, codes of practice, quality assurance schemes, management and also partly for ante‐mortem inspection. Some ABM can also be taken post‐mortem at the slaughterhouse. Non‐animal‐based measures can be used when the association between them and the welfare outcome is strong and when they are more efficient than ABM as a means to safeguard welfare. They can also be useful predictors of welfare in broilers. The choice of animal‐based measures will depend upon the specific objectives of the assessment. The full list is comparable to a ‘toolbox’, from which the appropriate set of measures can be selected. The Welfare Quality® protocol provides information on the majority of the welfare outcomes for the main factors identified in the EFSA Scientific Opinions but not those where time limitation prevents it. There is a lack of research on the use of ABM on‐farm and in the slaughterhouse to assess pain, frustration, boredom and other negative or positive emotional states in the standard broiler. There are limited management options to prevent poor welfare when the flock is still in the house e.g. to improve the ventilation system. The same applies to negative consequences arising from genetic selection. There is a need for more systematic flock monitoring and surveillance programmes in the broiler industry. Visual inspection has a very high potential to improve animal welfare in broiler production when a range of appropriate ABM is used in the slaughterhouse. Benchmarking can be used to document welfare changes over time, including automatic monitoring and assessment systems. Attention should also be paid to initial and ongoing training of assessors in the field and in the abattoir to ensure valid and robust measurements.

Keywords: Broiler welfare, welfare assessment, risk assessment, welfare outcome indicators, slaughterhouse inspection, on‐farm assessment, animal‐based measures

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Scientific Opinion on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare of broilers. EFSA Journal 2012;10(7):2774. [74 pp.] doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2774.

Panel members: Anette Bøtner, Donald Broom, Marcus G. Doherr, Mariano Domingo, Jörg Hartung, Linda Keeling, Frank Koenen, Simon More, David Morton, Pascal A. Oltenacu, Fulvio Salati, Mo Salman, Moez Sanaa, James M. Sharp, Jan A. Stegeman, Endre Szücs, Hans‐H. Thulke, Philippe Vannier, John Webster and Martin Wierup

Correspondence: ahaw@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare of broilers: Jörg Hartung, Cecile Arnould, Lisa Collins, Paul Hocking, Linda Keeling, Pascal A. Oltenacu for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion, the hearing experts: Charlotte Berg, Ingrid De Jong and EFSA staff: Chiara Fabris, Eleonora Bastino, Maria Ferrara, Karen Mackay and Tomasz Grudnik for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Adoption date: 22 June 2012

Published date: 3 July 2012

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2011‐00808

On request from: European Commission

References

  1. Algers B and Berg C, 2001. Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in Sweden. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science Supplementum, 30, 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐Homidan; A, Robertson J and Petchey A, 2003. Review of the effect of ammonia and dust concentrations on broiler performance. World's Poultry Science Journal, 59, 340–349. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allain V, Mirabito L, Arnould C, Colas M, Le Bouquin S, Lupo C and Michel V, 2009. Skin lesions in broiler chickens measured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science, 50, 407–417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnould C and Faure JM, 2004. Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 155–170. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnould C and Colin L, 2009. Evaluation du bien‐être des poulets de chair en élevage commercial. Premiers résultats français issus du projet européen Welfare Quality® . 8e Journées de la Recherche Avicole, St Malo, France, 27. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnould C, Knierim U and Butterworth A, 2009. Standardisation of clinical scoring in poultry. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Eds Forkman B and Keeling L. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 9, Cardiff, UK, 7–30. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arnould C and Butterworth A, 2010. On‐farm evaluation of broiler chicken welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal, 66, supplement. XIIIth European Poultry Conference, Tours, France, 159. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aydin A, Cangar O, Ozcan SE, Bahr C and Berckmans D, 2010. Application of a fully automatic analysis tool to assess the activity of broiler chickens with different gait scores. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 73, 194–199. [Google Scholar]
  9. Aziz T and Barnes HJ, 2010. Harmful effects of ammonia on birds. World Poultry, 26, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  10. Baeza E, Arnould C, Jlali M, Chartrin P, Gigaud V, Mercerand F, Durand C, Meteau K, Lebihan‐Duval; E and Berri C, 2012. Influence of increasing slaughter age of chickens on meat quality, welfare and technical and economic results. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 2003–2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Berg C and Sanotra GS, 2003. Can a modified Latency‐to‐Lie; test be used to validate gait‐scoring results in commercial broiler flocks? Animal Welfare 12, 655–659. [Google Scholar]
  12. Berg C and Algers B, 2004. Using welfare outcomes to control intensification: the Swedish model. In: Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. Eds Weeks CA and Butterworth A. CABI, Wallingford, UK, 223–229. [Google Scholar]
  13. Blokhuis HJ, Jones RB, Geers R, Miele M and Veissier I, 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare, 12, 445–455. [Google Scholar]
  14. Blokhuis HJ, Veissier I, Miele M and Jones B, 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well‐being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, 60, 129–140. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bokkers EAM and Koene P, 2004. Motivation and ability to walk for a food reward in fast‐ and slow‐growing broilers to 12 weeks of age. Behavioural Processes, 67, 121–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bokkers EAM, Zimmerman PH, Rodenburg TB and Koene P, 2007. Walking behaviour of heavy and light broilers in an operant runway test with varying durations of feed deprivation and feed access. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 108, 129–142. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bokkers EAM, de Boer IJM and Koene P, 2011. Space needs of broilers. Animal Welfare, 20, 623–632. [Google Scholar]
  18. Buijs S, Keeling LJ, Vangestel C, Baert J, Vangeyte J and Tuyttens FAM, 2010. Resting or hiding? Why broiler chickens stay near walls and how density affects this. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 124, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  19. Buijs S, Keeling LJ, Vangestel C, Baert J and Tuyttens FAM, 2011. Neighbourhood analysis as an indicator of spatial requirements of broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 129, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
  20. Butterworth A, Arnould C, 2009. Standardisation of measures of broiler lameness. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Eds Forkman B and Keeling L. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 9, Cardiff, UK, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  21. Butterworth A and Niebuhr K, 2009. Measures of poultry health status. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Eds Forkman B and Keeling L. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 9, Cardiff, UK, 39–65. [Google Scholar]
  22. Brenninkmeyer C and Winckler C, 2012. Scientific Report submitted to EFSA Relationships between animal welfare hazards and animal‐based welfare indicators. External report prepared for EFSA, Wien, 21 pp. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/253e.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cornetto T, Estevez I and Douglass LW, 2002. Using artificial cover to reduce aggression and disturbances in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 75, 325–336. [Google Scholar]
  24. Corr SA, Gentle MJ, McCorquodale CC and Bennett D, 2003. The effect of morphology on walking ability in the modern broiler: A gait analysis study. Animal Welfare 12, 159–171. [Google Scholar]
  25. DANMAP (Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme) , 2010. Available from www.danmap.org. [PubMed]
  26. Dawkins MS, Donnelly CA and Jones TA, 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature, 427, 342–344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dawkins MS, Lee HJ, Waitt CD and Roberts SJ, 2009. Optical flow patterns in broiler chicken flocks as automated measures of behaviour and gait. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119, 203–209. [Google Scholar]
  28. DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) . Study to assess the subjective experience, including pain, of broiler chickens with different gait scores ‐ AW1143, online. Available from: randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=uenu&Module=eore&Location=none&Completed=2&ProjectID=16657.
  29. De Jong IC, Gerritzen, M , Reimert, H , Fritsma, E and Pieterse, C , 2008. Automated measurement of foot pad lesions in broiler chickens. In: Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on the assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level. Ed Koene P. Ghent, Belgium, 32. [Google Scholar]
  30. De Jong IC, Reimert HGM, Vanderhasselt R, Gerritzen MA, Gunnink H, Van Harn J, Hindle VA, Lourens A, 2011. Development of methods to monitor foot pad lesions in broiler chickens, Wageningen UR Livestock Research Report 463, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Available from edepot.wur.nl/172545.
  31. De Jong I, Berg C, Butterworth A and Estevéz I, 2012. Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications.
  32. Dinev I and Kanakov D, 2011. Deep pectoral myopathy: prevalence in 7 weeks old broiler chickens in Bulgaria: Revue De Medecine Veterinaire, 162, 279–283. [Google Scholar]
  33. DSTATIS (Statistisches Bundesamt) , online. Available from www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/Wirtschaftsbereiche/LandForstwirtschaft/TierischeErzeugung/Tabellen/Gefluegelfleisch.htm.
  34. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2010a. Scientific opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. EFSA Journal, 8(7):1666, 82 pp. [Google Scholar]
  35. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2010b. Scientific opinion on welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand‐parent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. EFSA Journal, 8(7):1667, 81 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012a. Guidance on risk assessment for animal welfare. EFSA Journal, 10(1):2513, 30 pp. [Google Scholar]
  37. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012b. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare of dairy cows. EFSA Journal, 10(1):2554, 81 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012c. Scientific Opinion on the use of animal‐based measures to assess welfare in pigs. EFSA Journal, 10(1):2512, 85 pp. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) , 2012d. Statement on the use of animal‐based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal, 10(6):2767, 29 pp. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ekstrand C, Carpenter TE, Andersson I, and Algers B, 1998. Prevalence and control of foot‐pad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. British Poultry Science, 39, 318–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) , 2009. Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. 57 pp. Available from www.fawc.org.uk/REPORTS.HTM.
  42. Febrer K, Jones TA, Donnelly CA and Dawkins MS, 2006. Forced to crowd or choosing to cluster? Spatial distribution indicates social attraction in broiler chickens. Animal Behaviour 72, 1291–1300. [Google Scholar]
  43. Forkman B, Heiskanen T, Graml C and Waiblinger S, 2009. Assessment of general fearfulness. In: Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Eds Forkman B and Keeling L. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 9, Cardiff, UK, 91–93. [Google Scholar]
  44. Forkman B and Keeling LJ 2009. Assessment of animal welfare measures for poultry. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 9, Cardiff, UK, 176 pp. [Google Scholar]
  45. Greene JA, McCracken RM and Evans RT, 1985. A contact dermatitis of broilers‐clinical and pathological findings, 14, 23–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Gregory N, 1998. Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CABI, Wallingford, UK, 298 pp. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Gupta AR, 2011. Ascites syndrome in poultry: a review, Worlds Poultry Science Journal, 67, 457–467 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hall AL, 2001. The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare, 10, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
  49. Keeling LJ, 2009. An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® project Assessment Systems. Welfare Quality® Reports No. 12, Cardiff, UK, 97 pp [Google Scholar]
  50. Knierim U and Gocke A, 2003. Effect of catching broilers by hand or machine on rates of injuries and dead‐on‐arrivals. Animal Welfare, 12, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kristensen HH, Cornou C, 2011. Automatic detection of deviations in activity levels in groups of broiler chickens ‐ A pilot study. Biosystems Engineering, 109, 369–376. [Google Scholar]
  52. Leone, EH and Estevez I, 2008a. Use of space in the domestic fowl: separating the effects of enclosure size, group size and density. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1673–1682. [Google Scholar]
  53. Leone EH and Estevez I, 2008b. Space use according to the distribution of resources and level of competition, Poultry Science 87, 3–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. McCune EL and Dellmann HD, 1968. Developmental Origin and Structural Characters of “Breast Blisters” in Chickens. Poultry Science, 47, 852–858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. McGeown D, Danbury TC, Waterman‐Pearson; AE and Kestin SC, 1999. Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record, 144, 668–671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. McLean JA, Savory CJ and Sparks NHC, 2002. Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation to stocking density, as indicated by performance, health and behaviour. Animal Welfare, 11, 55–73. [Google Scholar]
  57. MacRae VE, Mahon M, Gilpin S, Sandercock DA and Mitchell MA, 2006. Skeletal muscle fibre growth and growth associated myopathy in the domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus). British Poultry Science, 47, 264–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. MacRae VE, Mahon M, Gilpin S, Sandercock DA Hunter RR and Mitchell MA, 2007. A comparison of breast muscle characteristics in three broiler great‐grandparent lines. Poultry Science, 86, 382–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Michel V, Prampart E, Mirabito L, Allain V, Arnould C, Huonnic D, Le Bouquin S and Albaric O, 2012. Histologically‐validated footpad dermatitis scoring system for use in chicken processing. British Poultry Science, (in press). [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Presi P and Reist M, 2011. Review of methodologies applicable to the validation of animal based indicators of welfare. Available from www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/171e.htm.
  61. Reiter K and Bessei W, 1997. Gait analysis in laying hens and broilers with and without leg disorders. Equine veterinary journal, 23, 110–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Rowe G and Wright G, 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353–375. [Google Scholar]
  63. Sandercock DA, Barker ZE, Mitchell MA and Hocking PM, 2009. Changes in muscle cell cation regulation and meat quality traits are associated with genetic selection for high body weight and meat yield in broiler chickens. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 8. Available from www.gsejournal.org/content/41/1/8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Savory CJ, Seawright E, and Watson A, 1992. Stereotyped behavior in broiler breeders in relation to husbandry and opiod receptor blockade. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 32, 349–360. [Google Scholar]
  65. Savory CJ, Maros K and Rutter SM, 1993. Assessment of hunger in growing broiler breeders in relation to a commercial restricted feeding programme. Animal Welfare, 2, 131–152. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandilands V, Brocklehurst S, Sparks N, Baker L, McGovern R, Thorp B and Pearson D, 2011. Assessing leg health in chickens using a force plate and gait scoring: how many birds is enough? Veterinary Record, 168, 77–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. SCAHAW (Scientific Committee on Animal health and Animal Welfare) , 2000. The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Report of the scientific committee in animal health and animal welfare. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General, Brussels, Belgium, 149 pp. [Google Scholar]
  68. Spindler B and Hartung J, 2011. Prevalence of pododermatitis in broiler chickens kept according to Directive 2007/43/EC stocking densities. The XVth International Congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene, Vienna, Austria, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sprenger M, Vangestel C and Tuyttens FAM, 2009. Measuring thirst in broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 18, 553–560. [Google Scholar]
  70. Stojcic MD and Bessei W, 2009. The effect of locomotor activity and weight load on bone problems in fast and slow growing chickens. Archiv fur Geflugelkunde, 73, 242–249. [Google Scholar]
  71. Ventura BA, Siewerdt F and Estevez I, 2012. Access to barrier perches improves behavioural repertoire in broilers. Public Library of Science One (PLoS ONE), available online www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Weeks CA, Knowles TG, Gordon RG, Kerr AE, Peyton ST and Tilbrook NT, 2002. New method for objectively assessing lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record, 151, 762–764. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Welfare Quality® , 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 114 pp. [Google Scholar]
  74. Yousuf MI, 2007. Using Experts' Opinions through Delphi Technique. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12, 8 pp. [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES