Virginia Tech® home

Auditing Tools and Animal Welfare Indicators for Broiler Chickens

ID

APSC-205P

Authors as Published

Authored by Samantha Vitek, Graduate Student; and Leonie Jacobs, Associate Professor, School of Animal Sciences, Virginia Tech

Introduction

Animal welfare audits evaluate whether a hatchery, farm, or processing plant is meeting the specific animal welfare standards of a certification program. Audits may be internal to a certain company, or they could be a requirement for animal welfare certification. Certification programs have their own set of standards and audits, which are typically created in collaboration with producers, veterinarians, industry professionals, and scientists. Audits in the United States are generally voluntary, as producers can decide which program and audit standards to follow, if any.

Audit standards incorporate science-based animal welfare measures that mainly focus on housing and management conditions, which refer to what is provided to them in their environment. Audit standards also include animal-based measures, which refer to the experiences of the animal. Animal-based measures are direct measures of welfare based on the animals’ responses to housing and management conditions.

Audits are typically performed annually and assure customers and consumers that animal welfare standards are being met.

A group of broiler chickens.
Broiler chickens. Photo courtesy of Leonie Jacobs.
An auditor holding a reference sheet at a chicken farm.
Photo courtesy Man Alone Media.

Audit Types

Three types of audits are commonly performed. First- party audits are internal and performed by a hatchery, producer, or processor at their own integrated site.

These audits are useful for self-evaluation, allowing a company to make continual improvements within its organization. Second-party audits are performed by a company’s customer. The goal of a second-party audit is to ensure that the customer’s requirements are being met. Third-party audits are performed by an audit organization independent of the supplier-customer relationship. The goal of a third-party audit is to ensure that animal welfare standards are being met for a certain certification. Various certification programs for broilers exist in the United States (see PEC article vol. 22). For information about them, see Volume 22 of the Poultry Extension Collaborative Poultry Press (http://bit. ly/4jxX6jc).

The Audit Process

During an audit, animal welfare standards are measured using inputs (resource-based measures) and animal- based indicators (animal-based measures). Inputs are aspects related to the environment the birds are raised in, including the resources and management that poultry are reared with. These inputs can impact animal welfare, but do not give direct insights into the welfare state of an individual animal. Some examples of inputs include stocking density, litter quality, handling techniques, and veterinary care practices.

While these inputs are valuable in assessing the animals’ living conditions and identifying potential risks and opportunities for animal welfare, they should be used in conjunction with direct measures of welfare, based on the animals’ responses to their housing and management conditions. Animal-based indicators focus on the health, behavior, and affective experiences of an animal, which more directly reflect their actual animal welfare state. These indicators give us insight into how animals survive in the conditions they are provided with. To identify a welfare problem and its associative risk factors, both animal-based indicators and inputs need to be collected. This information can then be used to determine corrective or preventive actions needed within the flock.

Examples from U.S. Broiler Welfare Certification Programs

Tables 1-3 show examples of animal welfare certification programs and the animal-based indicators for broilers recorded during their audits (American Humane Certified 2019; Certified Humane, n.d.; Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing, n.d.; and Global Animal Partnership 2025). Each indicator includes the sample size, scoring method, and pass/fail threshold (tables were adapted from: Better Chicken Commitment, 2023. The National Chicken Council (2022) auditing guidelines with specific compliance standards are also included in the tables. Producers can use this information to evaluate different certification programs to see which might be the best fit for their operations.

Table 1. On-farm and pre-slaughter animal-based animal welfare indicators for five common U.S. audit tools.

Animal-based indicator

Audit detail

American Humane Certified

Certified Humane

Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing

Global Animal Partnership (G.A.P.) Level 1

National Chicken Council audit guidelines

Footpad dermatitis

Sample size

Flock

Flock

Flock

Flock

Flock

Scoring system

Not specified

Any bird found dead

Not specified

Any bird dead, missing, or culled

Not specified

Pass/fail threshold

>1.5%/24h

requires investigation

>6% total requires investigation

<5% total

<4% total

None

Gait score (lameness)

Sample size

25 birds/flock

Not specified

Whole flock

≥100 birds/ flock

Not specified

Scoring system

3-point scale (Webster et al. 2008)

6-point scale (Kestin et al. 1992)

3-point scale (Webster et al. 2008)

3-point scale

(Webster et al. 2008)

3-point scale (Webster et al. 2008)

Pass/fail threshold

>85% of birds with a score of 0

No more than a few overtly lame birds

<5 birds with a score of 2

Weighted sum

≤20

None

Dead on arrival

Sample size

Flock

Flock

Flock

Flock

Flock

Scoring system

Any bird that died during transport to slaughterhouse

Not specified

Not specified

Any bird found dead at the time of unloading

Not specified

Pass/fail threshold

>0.2%/3 months investigated

>0.3%/3 months investigated

>0.5%/weekly requires correction

<0.5%

>0.4%/weekly requires investigation

Shackling effectiveness

Sample size

500 birds

Not specified

Not specified

500 birds

500 birds

Scoring system

Ineffective shackle: shackled by one leg

Ineffective shackle: shackled by one leg

Not specified

Ineffective shackle: shackled by one leg

Ineffective: shackled by one leg or paws from previous birds in shackle

Pass/fail threshold

<2/500 birds shackled by one leg; <5/500 birds high on shackle

None

None

No birds shackled by one leg

<4/500 birds shackled by one leg or paws from previous birds in shackle

Electric water bath stunning effectiveness

Sample size

500 birds

Not specified

Not specified

500 birds

500 birds

Scoring system

Effective stun: neck arched, head vertical, open eyes, wings close to body, body tremors

Effective stun: neck arched, head vertical, open eyes,

wings close to body, body tremors

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Pass/fail threshold

<5/500

ineffectively stunned

All birds effectively stunned

990/1,000

birds effectively stunned

495/500 birds effectively stunned

495/500 birds effectively stunned

Controlled atmoshpere stunning effectiveness

Sample size

500 birds

Not specified

1,000 birds

500 birds

500 birds

Scoring system

Ineffective: eye, wing, or leg movement

Ineffective: eye, wing, or leg movement

Not specified

Not specified

Not specified

Pass/fail threshold

0/500 birds ineffectively stunned

All birds effectively stunned

990/1,000

birds effectively stunned

495/500 birds effectively stunned

495/500 birds effectively stunned

Table 2. Animal welfare indicators recorded during slaughter for five commonly used audit.

Animal-based indicator

Audit detail

American Humane Certified

Certified Humane

Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing

Global Animal Partnership (G.A.P.) Level 1

National Chicken Council audit guidelines

Slaughter effectiveness

Sample size

500 birds

Not specified

1,000 birds

Not currently recorded

500 birds

Scoring system

Ineffective: uncut cartoid arteries

Not specified

Ineffective: uncut blood vessels

Not currently recorded

Ineffective: uncut blood vessels

Pass/fail threshold

<5/500 birds ineffectively slaughtered

None

990/1,000

birds effectively slaughtered

Not currently recorded

495/500 birds effectively slaughtered

Scalding effectiveness

Sample size

500 birds

Not currently recorded

1,000 birds

Not specified

500 birds

Scoring system

Not specified

Not currently recorded

Not specified

Not specified

Red carcass and uncut arteries

Pass/fail threshold

0/500 birds enter the scalder live

Not currently recorded

0/1,000 birds enter the scalder live

No live birds enter the scalder

0/500 birds enter the scalder live

Table 3. Animal welfare indicators specifically related to injuries, which are recorded during slaughter for five commonly used audit tools in the United States.

Animal-based indicator

Audit detail

American Humane Certified

Certified Humane

Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing

Global Animal Partnership (G.A.P.) Level 1

National Chicken Council audit guidelines

Broken wings

Sample frequency

Annually

Not currently recorded

Annually

Every 15 months

Annually

Sample size

500 birds

 

500 birds

Not specified

500 birds

Scoring system

Not specified

 

Not specified

2-point scale (AAAP, 2017)

2-point scale (AAAP, 2017)

Pass/fail threshold

<15/500 birds with broken wings

 

<15/500 birds with broken wings

<1% of birds with broken wings

≤15/500 birds with broken wings

Broken legs

Sample frequency

Annually

Not currently recorded

Not currently recorded

Every 15 months

Annually

Sample size

500 birds

 

 

500 birds

500 birds

Scoring system

Not specified

 

 

Any bird with a broken leg

2-point scale (AAAP, 2017)

Pass/fail threshold

<2/500 birds with broken legs or hemorrhaging

 

 

0/500 birds with broken legs

≤2/500 birds with broken legs

Leg bruising

Sample frequency

Annually

Not currently recorded

Annually

Every 15 months

Annually

Sample size

500 birds

 

500 birds

Not specified

500 birds

Scoring system

Not specified

 

Not specified

Not specified

2-point scale (AAAP, 2017)

Pass/fail threshold

<2/500 birds with bruised legs

 

<2/500 birds with bruised legs

<1% of birds with bruised

≤2/500 birds with bruised legs

Footpad dermatitis

Sample frequency

Annually

Annually

Annually

Every 15 months

Annually

Sample size

500 birds

Not specified

200 paws

≥100 birds

200 paws

Scoring system

3-point scale (AAAP, 2015)

5-point scale (Welfare Quality, 2009)

3-point scale (AAAP, 2015)

3-point scale (Berg 1998)

3-point scale (AAAP, 2015)

Pass/fail threshold

<50/500 birds with a score of 1

All birds with a footpad dermatitis score more than 1

95/200 paws with a score of 0

Total footpad dermatitis sum

≤20

180/200 paws with a score of 0 or 1

Farms or processors may pass or fail an audit based on how they scored for all indicators assessed. This pass/ fail threshold differs between programs. For American Humane Certified, the audit is passed when the score is ≥ 832.15/979 points, or 85% compliance. For Certified Humane and G.A.P Level 1, the audit outcome needs to comply 100% with the audit standards. For Farm Animal Care Training & Auditing, the audited companies need a score of ≥ 888/1,110 points, or 80% compliance. When audited with the National Chicken Council audit guidelines, the audit needs to have ≥ 985/1,160 points, or 85% compliance to pass.

Summary

Third-party animal-welfare audits are used in the poultry industry to ensure integrated hatcheries, farms, and processing plants are meeting certification standards of a program. These audits incorporate animal-based indicators and inputs that can help producers identify welfare issues and their associated risk factors.

Comparisons of animal-welfare indicators between certification programs shows that there are different methods of scoring and sampling, as well as different compliance standards. Poultry producers should consider comparing these animal welfare certification programs to determine which is the best fit for them.

Additional Resources

Main, D. C. J., H. R. Whay, C. Leeb, and A. J. F. Webster. 2007. “Formal Animal-Based Welfare Assessment in UK Certification Schemes.” Animal Welfare 16, no. 2 (2007): 233–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600031419.

Manning, L., S. A. Chadd, and R. N. Baines. 2007. “Key Health and Welfare Indicators for Broiler Production.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 63 (1): 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001262.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). n.d. “Animal Welfare Audits and Certification Programs.” Accessed January 27, 2025. https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-audit-and-certification-programs.

References

American Association of Avian Pathologists. 2017. Broiler Wing Condition Scoring Guide. https://aaap.memberclicks.net/assets/AWC/2022_Broiler%20 wing%20condition%20scoring%20guide_ approved_Mar%202022.pdf.

American Association of Avian Pathologists. 2017. Broiler Leg Condition Scoring Guide. https://aaap.memberclicks.net/assets/AWC/2022_Broiler%20 leg%20condition%20scoring%20guide_approved_ Mar%202022.pdf

American Humane Certified. 2019. “American Humane Certified Animal Welfare Standards for Broiler Chickens.” https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2021/08/Broiler-Chickens-Audit-Tool.pdf.

Berg, Charlotte. 1998. Foot-Pad Dermatitis in Broilers and Turkeys. Doctoral Thesis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30072965_Foot-pad_ dermatitis_in_broilers_and_turkeys.

Better Chicken Commitment. 2023. “Better Chicken Commitment Comparisons.” https://betterchickencommitment.com/BCC-comparisons.pdf.

Certified Humane. n.d. “Humane Farm Animal Care Animal Care Standards Edition 22.” Accessed January 27, 2025. https://certifiedhumane.org/wpcontent/uploads/Standard_Chickens.pdf.

Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing. n.d. “FACTA Humane Certified – Animal Welfare Audit Program – Broiler Tool and Standards.” Accessed January 27, 2025. https://factallc.com/wp-content/ uploads/2016/10/Broiler-Audit-Program-FACTA- Humane-Certified-Animal-Welfare.pdf.

Global Animal Partnership. 2025. “G.A.P.’s 5-Step Animal Welfare Standards for Chickens Raised for Meat.” https://globalanimalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/GAP-Standards-for- Chickens-Raised-for-Meat-v4.0.pdf.

Kestin, S. C., T. G. Knowles, Alan Tinch, and N. G. Gregory. 1992. “Prevalence of Leg Weakness in Broiler Chickens and Its Relation to Genotype.” The Veterinary Record 131 (9): 190–94. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.131.9.190.

National Chicken Council. 2022. “National Chicken Council Broiler Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist.” https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NCC-Broiler-Welfare-Guidelines_Final_Dec2022-1.pdf.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). n.d. “Animal Welfare Audit and Certification Programs.” Accessed January 27, 2025. https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-audit-and-certification-programs.

Webster, A. B., B. D. Fairchild, T. S. Cummings, and P.A. Stayer. 2008. “Validation of a Three-Point Gait- Scoring System for Field Assessment of Walking Ability of Commercial Broilers.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 17 (4): 529–39. https://doi. org/10.3382/japr.2008-00013.

Welfare Quality®. 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands. https://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/media/1293/poultry-protocol- watermark-6-2-2020.pdf.

Broiler chicks outside on open forest grounds.
Photo courtesy Leonie Jacobs.
QR Code

Scan for more resources about poultry.

https://bit.ly/41AqRFT




Virginia Cooperative Extension materials are available for public use, reprint, or citation without further permission, provided the use includes credit to the author and to Virginia Cooperative Extension, Virginia Tech, and Virginia State University.

Virginia Cooperative Extension is a partnership of Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments. Its programs and employment are open to all, regardless of age, color, disability, sex (including pregnancy), gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, ethnicity or national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, or military status, or any other basis protected by law.

Publication Date

February 25, 2025