Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:26:29.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible risk factors for keel bone damage in organic laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2019

L. Jung ,
K. Niebuhr ,
L. K. Hinrichsen ,
S. Gunnarsson ,
C. Brenninkmeyer ,
M. Bestman ,
J. Heerkens ,
P. Ferrari  and
U. Knierim
L. Jung*
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
K. Niebuhr
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
L. K. Hinrichsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Foulum, Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
S. Gunnarsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), P.O. Box 234, S-532 23 Skara, Sweden
C. Brenninkmeyer
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
M. Bestman
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Kosterijland 3-5, 3981AJ Bunnik, The Netherlands
J. Heerkens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Animal Sciences Unit, Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
P. Ferrari
Affiliation:
CRPA Research Centre for Animal Production, Viale Timavo 43/2, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
U. Knierim
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Keel bone damage (KBD) in laying hens is an important welfare problem in both conventional and organic egg production systems. We aimed to identify possible risk factors for KBD in organic hens by analysing cross-sectional data of 107 flocks assessed in eight European countries. Due to partly missing data, the final multiple regression model was based on data from 50 flocks. Keel bone damage included fractures and/or deviations, and was recorded, alongside with other animal based measures, by palpation and visual inspection of at least 50 randomly collected hens per flock between 52 and 73 weeks of age. Management and housing data were obtained by interviews, inspection and by feed analysis. Keel bone damage flock prevalences ranged from 3% to 88%. Compiled on the basis of literature and practical experience, 26 potential associative factors of KBD went into an univariable selection by Spearman correlation analysis or Mann–Whitney U test (with P<0.1 level). The resulting nine factors were presented to stepwise forward linear regression modelling. Aviary v. floor systems, absence of natural daylight in the hen house, a higher proportion of underweight birds, as well as a higher laying performance were found to be significantly associated with a higher percentage of hens with KBD. The final model explained 32% of the variation in KBD between farms. The moderate explanatory value of the model underlines the multifactorial nature of KBD. Based on the results increased attention should be paid to an adequate housing design and lighting that allows the birds easy orientation and safe manoeuvring in the system. Furthermore, feeding management should aim at sufficient bird live weights that fulfil breeder weight standards. In order to achieve a better understanding of the relationships between laying performance, feed management and KBD further investigations are needed.

Keywords

welfarekeel bone fractureskeel bone deviationpalpationepidemiological study
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 10 , October 2019 , pp. 2356 - 2364
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Aeres University of Applied Sciences, De Drieslag 4, 8251JZ Dronten, The Netherlands.

References

Bestman, M and Wagenaar, JP 2014. Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals 4, 374–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bestman, M, Verwer, C, Brenninkmeyer, C, Willett, A, Hinrichsen, LK, Smajlhodzic, F, Heerkens, JLT, Gunnarsson, S and Ferrante, V 2017. Feather-pecking and injurious pecking in organic laying hens in 107 flocks from eight European countries. Animal Welfare 26, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey-Trott, T, Heerkens, JLT, Petrik, M, Regmi, P, Schrader, L, Toscano, MJ and Widowski, T 2015. Methods for assessment of keel bone damage in poultry. Poultry Science 94, 2339–2350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J, Cohen, P, West, SG and Aiken, LS 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Donaldson, CJ, Ball, MEE and O’Connell, NE 2012. Aerial perches and free-range laying hens: the effect of access to aerial perches and of individual bird parameters on keel bone injuries in commercial free-range laying hens. Poultry Science 91, 304–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EU 2008. Commission regulation no. 589/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union 250, 1–84.Google Scholar
Fleming, RH, McCormack, HA, McTeir, L and Whitehead, CC 2004. Incidence, pathology and prevention of keel bone deformities in the laying hen. British Poultry Science 45, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, RH 2008. Nutritional factors affecting poultry bone health. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 67, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG and Fröhlich, KF 2015. Early onset of laying and bumblefoot favor keel bone fractures. Animals 5, 1192–1206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heerkens, JLT, Delezie, E, Rodenburg, TB, Kempen, I, Zoons, J, Ampe, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2016. Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poultry Science 95, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kämmerling, D, Döhring, S, Arndt, C and Andersson, R 2017. Tageslicht im Stall – Anforderungen an das Spektrum von Lichtquellen bei Geflügel. Berliner und Münchner Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 130, 210–221.Google Scholar
Käppeli, S, Gebhardt-Hinrich, SG, Fröhlich, E, Pflug, A, Schäublin, H and Stoffel, MH 2011. Effects of housing, perches, genetics, and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol on keel bone deformities in laying hens. Poultry Science 90, 1637–1644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohmann Tierzucht GmbH without year. Layer management guide – Lohmann Brown Classic. Retrieved on 22 December 2018 from http://www.morrishatchery.com/mngmt_guides/lohmann_brown_classic_commercials.pdf.Google Scholar
Menard, S 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 106, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Nasr, MAF, Nicol, CJ and Murrell, JC 2012a. Do laying hens with keel bone fractures experience pain? PLoS One 7, e42420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasr, MAF, Murrell, JC, Wilkins, LJ and Nicol, CJ 2012b. The effect of keel fractures on egg-production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individual laying hens. Animal Welfare 21, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasr, MAF, Brownea, WJ, Caplena, G, Hothersalla, B, Murrell, JC and Nicol, CJ 2013a. Positive affective state induced by opioid analgesia in laying hens with bone fractures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 147, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasr, MAF, Murrell, JC and Nicol, CJ 2013b. The effect of keel fractures on egg production, feed and water consumption in individual laying hens. British Poultry Science 54, 165–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Brown, SN, Glen, ES, Pope, JF, Short, JP, Warriss, D, Zimmerman, PH and Wilkins, LJ 2006. Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in floor aviaries. British Poultry Science 47, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrik, MT, Guerin, MT and Widowski, TM 2013. Keel fracture assessment of laying hens by palpation: inter-observer reliability and accuracy. Veterinary Record 173, 500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrik, MT, Guerin, MT and Widowski, TM 2015. On-farm comparison of keel fracture prevalence and other welfare indicators in conventional cage and single tier-housed laying hens in Ontario, Canada. Poultry Science 94, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riber, AB and Hinrichsen, LK 2016. Keel-bone damage and foot injuries in commercial laying hens in Denmark. Animal Welfare 25, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riber, AB and Hinrichsen, LK 2017. Welfare consequences of omitting beak trimming in barn layers. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4, 222–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17, 363–373.Google Scholar
Scholz, B, Rönchen, S, Hamann, H, Hewicker-Trautwein, M and Distl, O 2008. Keel bone condition in laying hens: a histological evaluation of macroscopically assessed keel bones. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 121, 89–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010. Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51, 488–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staack, M, Gruber, B, Keppler, C, Zaludik, K, Niebuhr, K and Knierim, U 2009. Brustbeindeformationen bei Legehennen aus ökologisch wirtschaftenden Betrieben in Deutschland und Österreich. In Praxis trifft Forschung - Neues aus der Ökologischen Tierhaltung (ed. G Rahmann and U Schumacher), pp., 47–54, Braunschweig, Germany. Retrieved on 22 September 2018 from www.thuenen.de/media/publikationen/landbauforschung-sonderhefte/lbf_sh332.pdf.Google Scholar
Stratmann, A, Fröhlich, EKF, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Harlander-Matauschek, A, Würbel, H and Toscano, MJ 2015a. Modification of aviary design reduces incidence of falls, collisions and keel bone damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 165, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, A, Fröhlich, EKF, Harlander-Matauschek, A, Schrader, L, Toscano, MJ, Würbel, H and Gebhardt-Henrich, SG 2015b. Soft perches in an aviary system reduce incidence of keel bone damage in laying hens. PLoS One 10, e0122568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlton, JF, Wilkins, LJ, Toscano, MJ, Aver, NC and Knott, L 2013. Reduced bone breakage and increased bone strength in free range laying hens fed omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplemented diets. Bone 52, 578–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, GA, Cepero, R and Holm, KE 2005. Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers Reports 23, 153–159.Google Scholar
Taylor, PE, Scott, GB and Rose, SP 2003. The ability of domestic hens to jump between horizontal perches: effects of light intensity and perch color. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, CC 2004. Overview of bone biology in the egg-laying hen. Poultry Science 83, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, LJ, Pope, S, Leeb, C, Glen, E, Phillips, A, Zimmerman, P, Nicol, C and Brown, SN 2005. Fracture rate in laying-strain hens at the end of the rearing period and the end of the laying period. In 7th European symposium on Poultry Welfare, 15–19 June 2005, Lublin, Poland.Google Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, McKinstry, JL, Avery, NC, Knowles, TG, Brown, SN, Tarlton, J and Nicol, CJ 2011. Influence of housing system and design on bone strength and keel bone fractures in laying hens. Veterinary Record 169, 414–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar