Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:16:55.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterisation of footpad lesions in organic and conventional broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2019

A. B. Riber Open the ORCID record for A. B. Riber [Opens in a new window] ,
L. Rangstrup-Christensen ,
M. S. Hansen ,
L. K. Hinrichsen  and
M. S. Herskin
A. B. Riber*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. Rangstrup-Christensen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Hansen
Affiliation:
National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kemitorvet, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
L. K. Hinrichsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Herskin
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: anja.riber@anis.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

Recent data suggest that organic broilers often score worse on footpad lesions than conventional broilers but also that the current scoring of organic broiler feet may be misleading. In order to characterise footpad lesions in organic broilers, this study assessed and compared footpad lesions in a sample of 2987 conventional and 3578 organic broiler feet obtained from a large Danish abattoir during summer and winter. The feet were scored according to two scoring systems: the modified Danish surveillance scoring system and a histopathology-based new scoring system specifically developed to target the ability to differentiate between broiler feet with hyperkeratosis and ulcers. For both systems, all broiler feet with visible lesions were cross-sectionally incised. Significant differences between the two production systems were found for both scoring systems (χ2 = 710; P < 0.001 and χ2 = 247; P < 0.001 for the new and the surveillance systems, respectively), showing that a larger proportion of the organic feet compared to conventional feet – summer and winter – exhibited signs of hyperkeratosis. In addition, a smaller fraction of the organic feet than of the conventional feet were given the outermost scores, that is, normal or ulcerated; 13.4% v. 25.3% broiler feet were given score 0 for organic v. conventional production systems, respectively (χ2 = 152; P < 0.001), and 18.4% v. 23.8% feet were given score 4 for organic v. conventional production systems, respectively (χ2 = 308; P < 0.001). Thus, the results suggest that surveillance scoring systems such as the one used in Denmark are useful for the examination of footpad lesions in broilers from both types of production systems. However, the results have also raised attention to a typical characteristic of the feet of organic broilers, that is, profound hyperkeratosis, which may underlie potential misclassifications in surveillance scoring systems like the one used in Denmark. Among the possible solutions to this challenge to the correctness and fairness of the scoring system are improved procedures (such as mandatory incision), training of technicians and calibration of results (especially for the organic footpads).

Keywords

animal welfarebroilersfootpad dermatitishistopathologyhyperkeratosis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 119 - 128
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.)

References

Allain, V, Mirabito, L, Arnould, C, Colas, M, Le Bouquin, S, Lupo, C and Michel, V 2009. Skin lesions in broiler chickens measured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science 50, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnould, C, Butterworth, A and Knierim, U 2009. Standardisation of clinical scoring in poultry. In Welfare quality report 9 (ed. Forkman, B and Keeling, L), pp. 7–30. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ask, B 2010. Genetic variation of contact dermatitis in broilers. Poultry Science 89, 866–875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BEK 2010. Bekendtgłrelse om hold af slagtekyllinger og rugeægsproduktion. [In Danish: Act on keeping broilers and broiler breeders]. BEK No. 757 of 23 June of 2010. Retrieved on 9 March 2018 from = https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id = 132693Google Scholar
Berg, C 2004. Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chicken. In Measuring and auditing broiler welfare (ed. Weeks, C and Butterworth, A), pp. 37–49. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, van Harn, J, Gunnink, H, Hindle, VA and Lourens, A 2012. Footpad dermatitis in Dutch broiler flocks: prevalence and factors of influence. Poultry Science 91, 1569–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devitt, C, Boyle, L, Teixeira, DL, O’Connell, NE, Hawe, M and Hanlon, A 2016. Pig producer perspectives on the use of meat inspection as an animal health and welfare diagnostic tool in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal 69, 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC 2007. Laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production. Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007. Retrieved on 13 January 2019 from = https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri = celex%3A32007L0043Google Scholar
Ekstrand, C, Carpenter, TE, Andersson, I and Algers, B 1998. Prevalence and control of foot-pad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. British Poultry Science 39, 318–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamer, M, Lemon, J, Fellows, I and Singh, P 2012. Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. R package irr version 0.84. Retrieved on 13 January 2019 from = https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = irrGoogle Scholar
Gouveia, KG, Vaz-Pires, P and Martins da Costa, P 2009. Welfare assessment of broilers through examination of haematomas, foot-pad dermatitis, scratches and breast blisters at processing. Animal Welfare 18, 43–48.Google Scholar
Greene, JA, McCracken, RM and Evans, RT 1985. A contact dermatitis of broilers – clinical and pathological findings. Avian Pathology 14, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herskin, MS, Bonde, MK, Jørgensen, E and Jensen, KH 2011. Decubital shoulder ulcers in sows: a review of classification, pain and welfare consequences. Animal 5, 757–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, HE 2009. Investigation the pathology of shoulder ulcerations in sows. Veterinary Record 165, 171–174.Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, HE, Bonde, MK, Bådsgaard, NP, Dahl-Pedersen, K, Andersen, PH, Herskin, MS, Jørgensen, E, Kaiser, M, Lindahl, J, Nielsen, JP, Rhymer-Friis, C, Stege, H and Jensen, KH 2011. En enkel og valideret skala for klinisk vurdering af skuldersår [In Danish: A simple and validated scale for clinical evaluation of shoulder ulcers]. Dansk Veterinærtidsskrift 9, 8–14.Google Scholar
Kaukonen, E, Norring, M and Valros, A 2016. Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathology 45, 667–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjær, JB, Su, G, Nielsen, BL and Sørensen, P 2006. Foot pad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens and degree of inheritance. Poultry Science 85, 1342–1348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyvsgaard, NC, Jensen, HB, Ambrosen, T and Toft, N 2013. Temporal changes and risk factors for foot-pad dermatitis in Danish broilers. Poultry Science 92, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, VP, Nielsen, LR, Oliveira, ARS and Christensen, JP 2017. Evaluation of the Danish footpad lesion surveillance in conventional and organic broilers: misclassification of scoring. Poultry Science 96, 2018–2028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meluzzi, A, Fabbri, C, Folegatti, E and Sirri, F 2008. Effect of less intensive rearing conditions on litter characteristics, growth performance, carcase injuries and meat quality of broilers. British Poultry Science 49, 509–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, V, Prampart, E, Mirabito, L, Allain, V, Arnould, C, Huonnic, D, Le Bouquin, S and Albaric, O 2012. Histologically-validated footpad dermatitis scoring system for use in chicken processing plants. British Poultry Science 53, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, SS, Nielsen, GB, Denwood, MJ, Haugegaard, J and Houe, H. 2015. Comparison of recording of pericarditis and lung disorders at routine meat inspection with findings at systematic health monitoring in Danish finisher pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 57, 18.Google ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, C 2016. Danish achievement on foot pad lesions in broilers. In Proceedings of XXV World’s Poultry Congress, 5–9 September 2016, Beijing, China, p. 483.Google Scholar
Pagazaurtundua, A and Warriss, PD 2006a. Levels of foot pad dermatitis in broiler chickens reared in 5 different systems. British Poultry Science 47, 529–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pagazaurtundua, A and Warriss, PD 2006b. Measurements of footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens at processing plants. The Veterinary Record 158, 679–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riber, AB, van de Weerd, H, de Jong, IC and Steenfeldt, S 2018. Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens. Poultry Science 97, 378–396.Google ScholarPubMed
Rioja-Lang, FC, Seddon, YM and Brown, JA 2018. Shoulder lesions in sows: a review of their causes, prevention, and treatment. Journal of Swine Health and Production 26, 101–107.Google Scholar
Thomsen, PT and Baadsgaard, NP 2006. Intra- and inter-observer agreement of a protocol for clinical examination of dairy cows. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 75, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Qualityfi Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Winder, CB, Miltenburg, CL, Sargeant, JM, LeBlanc, SJ, Haley, DB, Lissemore, KD, Godkin, MA and Duffield, TF 2018. Effects of local anesthetic or systemic analgesia on pain associated with cautery disbudding in calves: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 1–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Riber et al. supplementary material

Riber et al. supplementary material 1

Download Riber et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4.4 KB