https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7954-3531
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
We compared broiler chicken welfare in free-range (FR) and intensive indoor (IN) systems using the Welfare Quality® 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.
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers for the valuable comments on this manuscript, and all the professionals, farmers, and the poultry meat industry, who contributed to this study. We thank Rodrigo Alonso Fiedler and Jessica Joenck for an English review.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).