Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-03T23:46:57.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring foot-pad lesions in commercial broiler houses. Some aspects of methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

IC de Jong ,
J van Harn ,
H Gunnink ,
A Lourens  and
JW van Riel
IC de Jong*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
J van Harn
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
H Gunnink
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
A Lourens
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
JW van Riel
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
* 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.

For monitoring purposes there is a need for a protocol to measure foot-pad dermatitis (FPD) on-farm. Therefore, we studied the effect of number of birds sampled, number of locations sampled and sampling location in a broiler house on the accuracy of measurement, in order to construct a protocol that can be applied in practice. Samples were taken from eight commercial flocks (Ross 308) at up to ten locations with up to 25 birds sampled per location. Foot-pad lesions were scored in all birds for both feet using the Swedish scoring method. No significant differences in FPD score were found between the first five birds and all birds sampled at a particular location. Although locations near the walls did not differ in FPD score from locations in the central area of a house, the severity of foot-pad lesions was unevenly distributed over the house. A model was constructed showing the inaccuracy related to the number of locations sampled in the house and the number of birds sampled per location. The model shows that in situations with at least five locations differences in inaccuracy are relatively small when a total of 100 birds or more is sampled. Inaccuracy is largest in a flock with variation in foot-pad scores, as compared to flocks with little variation. The results of this experiment can be used to determine the optimal sample size in a commercial broiler house.

Keywords

animal welfarebroilerfoot-pad dermatitisinaccuracyon-farm monitoringsampling method
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 325 - 330
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anonymous 2009 Afsprakenkader Vleeskuikenrichtlijn. http://www.minlnv.nl/txmpub/files/?p_file_id=43482. [Title translation: Agreement within the framework of the Broiler Directive]Google Scholar
Algers, B and Berg, C 2001 Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in Sweden. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A-Animal Science Supplement 30: 88–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/090647001316923135Google Scholar
Arnould, C and Faure, JM 2003 Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Applied animal Behaviour Science 84: 281–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2003.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, C and Algers, B 2004 Using welfare outcomes to control intensification: the Swedish model. In: Weeks, CA and Butterworth, A (eds) Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare pp 223–229. CABI: Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851998053.0223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 2007/43/EC 2007 Council Directive 2007/42/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDFGoogle Scholar
Ekstrand, C, Carpenter, T, Andersson, I and Algers, B 1998 Prevalence and control of foot pad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. British Poultry Science 39: 318–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669888845CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genstat 2002 Reference Manual, Release 6.1. VSN International: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Greene, JA, McCracken, RM and Evans, RT 1985 A contact-dermatitis of broilers: clinical and pathological findings. Avian Pathology 14: 23–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03079458508436205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, AL 2001 The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare 10: 23–4010.1017/S096272860002323XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, SM, Knowles, TG, Brown, SM, Wilkins, LJ, Kestin, SC, Warriss, PD and Nicol, CJ 2007 Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science 48: 264–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660701371341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, A 2001 Procedure IRCLASS. In: Goedhard, PW and Thissen, JTNM (eds) Biometris GenStat Procedure Library Manual. http://www.biometris.nl/genstatGoogle Scholar
Keen, A and Engel, B 1997 Analysis of a mixed model for ordinal data by iterative re-weighted REML. Statistica Neerlandica 51: 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9574.00044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, P and Nelder, JA 1989 Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall: London,UK10.1007/978-1-4899-3242-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, EM and Fairchild, BD 2010 Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science 89: 2043–2051. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00770CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar