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.
Keywords: Welfare Quality®; conventional; outdoor area; poultry.