Effects of different floor materials on the welfare and behaviour of slow- and fast-growing broilers

Abstract

Litter quality and fast growth rate are the two main issues in broiler welfare. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of genotype and floor material on broiler welfare and behaviour. In the study, slow-growing (Hubbard JA57) and fast-growing (Ross 308) broilers on a slatted floor and deep litter were used; there were four main groups (2 genotype × 2 housing) and each treatment group consisted of 5 replicates. Each replicate group consisted of 10 male chicks, and 200 birds were used in total. The experiment lasted for 8 weeks. The welfare parameters were recorded in weeks 6, 7, and 8, whereas behaviour data were collected in week 8 only. Results showed that welfare parameters of broiler chickens were affected by genotype and floor type. Slow-growing broilers had better welfare parameters than fast-growing broilers. The slatted floor had a positive effect on main welfare parameters of the birds. Slower-growing broilers had a longer distance in the avoidance distance test. Tonic immobility reaction was longer in slow-growing broilers compared to fast-growing broiler. On the other hand, floor type did not affect behaviour parameters. As a conclusion, slow-growing broilers had better welfare parameters than fast-growing broilers and slat flooring could be beneficial to improve broiler welfare, but further behavioural investigations are needed such as dust bathing and walking behaviour.

Effects of a partially perforated flooring system on animal-based welfare indicators in broiler housing

“…From day 14, foot pad health status for animals kept on the partially perforated flooring system was higher compared to those kept on litter at each day of life. This result is in line with several studies which have also observed a higher foot pad health status for animals kept on perforated flooring systems compared to litter flooring ( Cengiz et al., 2013 , Çavuşoğlu et al., 2018 , Çavuşoğlu and Petek, 2019 ). In addition, Tahamtani et al.…”

“…Results for hock burn showed a higher hock health for animals kept on the partially perforated flooring system compared to litter flooring toward the end of the fattening period. Similar results regarding hock health were observed in several studies, all showing a higher hock health for animals kept on a perforated compared to a littered flooring system ( Almeida et al., 2017 , Çavuşoğlu et al., 2018 , Çavuşoğlu and Petek, 2019 ). In addition, Li et al.…”

“…Interestingly, foot pad dermatitis scores of animals kept on the partially perforated flooring system remained almost constant from day 14. Although the recording periods differed between several studies, a similar trend could be observed by Cengiz et al., 2013 , Li et al., 2017 , and Çavuşoğlu and Petek (2019) .…”

“…(2017) showed no effect of a totally (100%) perforated floor on general fearfulness during the ADT. Also, Çavuşoğlu and Petek (2019) showed no effect of a totally (100%) perforated floor on general fearfulness, using the avoidance distance method by Graml et al. (2008) and the tonic immobility test by Jones and Faure (1981) .…”

How Are Information Technologies Addressing Broiler Welfare? A Systematic Review Based on the Welfare Quality® Assessment

“…Locomotor problems in broilers are often correlated with litter quality [84][85][86][87][88][89][90], since the ammonia excreted by the animals can provoke lesions in their feet. Additionally, they can be consequence of the high growth rate of animals [91][92][93][94] and of the increasing genetic selection for heavier major pectoralis muscle [56,65,95]. Clark et al [96] proposed that leg problems are an animal welfare issue as a result of animals being pushed beyond their physiological limits.…”