Auditing Tools and Animal Welfare Indicators for Broiler Chickens
ID
APSC-205P
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.


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.
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 |
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 |
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.


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