Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:59:35.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can a Modified Latency-to-Lie Test be Used to Validate Gait-Scoring Results in Commercial Broiler Flocks?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Berg  and
G S Sanotra
C Berg*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
G S Sanotra
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Grønnegårdsvej 8, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Bodily contact with water is a novel and aversive experience for broiler chickens, and this has been used when designing the Latency to Lie (LTL) test. The original testing procedure, in which the birds are tested in groups, involves a certain settling period, which makes the test time-consuming to carry out on commercial broiler farms. Our modifications of the LTL test for on-farm use mean that a) the birds are tested individually without visual contact with other birds; and b) the water tub is already filled with water when the birds are placed in it. The results from the LTL tests can then be compared with the scores achieved for each individual bird on the commonly used ‘gait scoring’ procedure. At 14 farms participating in a larger survey, we used three birds of each gait score from 0 to 4 (when available) for LTL testing. The time spent standing before making the first attempt to lie down was recorded. The results show a clear negative correlation (r = -0.86, P < 0.001) between time spent standing and gait score. The mean LTL values for the different gait scores were all significantly (P < 0.01) different. There was no significant difference in LTL results between flocks. The method described appears to be well suited for on-farm use. If further developed, it could become a useful tool in monitoring programmes for the ongoing efforts aiming at decreasing the levels of leg weakness in modern broiler production.

Keywords

animal welfarechickenlamenesslatency to lieleg weaknesspoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 655 - 659
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2000 The welfare of chickens kept for meat production (broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A 1999 Infectious components of broiler lameness: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 55: 327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, D A 1978 Socially facilitated behaviour. The Quarterly Review of Biology 53: 373–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S C, Knowles, T G, Tinch, A E and Gregory, N G 1992 Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, S C, Su, G and Sørensen, P 1999 Different commercial broiler crosses have different susceptibilities to leg weakness. Poultry Science 78(8): 1085–1090CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M, Thorp, B H and Whitehead, C C 1992 Avian tibial dyschondroplasia as a cause of bone deformity. Avian Pathology 2: 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennie, J S and Whitehead, C C 1996 The effectiveness of dietary 25- and 1-hydroxy cholecalciferol in preventing tibial dyschondroplasia in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 37: 413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G S, Lawson, L G, Vestergaard, K S and Gaardbo Thomsen, M 2001 Influence of stocking density on tonic immobility, lameness, and tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Stat User's Guide 1990 Version 6, Edn 4. SAS Institute Inc: Cary NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Sørensen, P and Kestin, S C 1999 Meal feeding is more effective than early feed restriction at reducing the prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 78: 949–955CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, G, Sørensen, P and Kestin, S C 2000 A note on the effects of perches and litter substrate on leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 79: 1259–1263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorp, B H, Whitehead, C C, Cick, L, Bradbury, J M, Jones, R C and Wood, A 1993 Proximal femoral degeneration in growing broiler fowl. Avian Pathology 22: 325–342CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vestergaard, K S and Sanotra, G S 1999 Relationships between leg disorders and changes in the behaviour of broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144: 205–209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, C A 2001 Development of a new method for quantitatively assessing lameness in broilers. British Poultry Science 42: S79–S80Google Scholar
Weeks, C A, Danbury, T S, Davies, H C, Hunt, P and Kestin, S C 2000 The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 111–125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, C A, Kerr, A E and Tilbrook, T 2001 Effect of settling period on the LTL test for lameness in broilers. British Poultry Science 42: S80–S81Google Scholar
Weeks, C A, Knowles, T G, Gordon, R G, Kerr, A E, Peyton S T And Tilbrook, N T 2002 New method for objectively assessing lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 151: 762–764Google ScholarPubMed