Evaluating the effects of bedding materials and elevated platforms on contact dermatitis and plumage cleanliness of commercial broilers and on litter condition in broiler houses

Abstract

1. Experiment 1, comparing wood shavings and ground straw bedding with peat, was performed on 7 broiler farms over two consecutive batches during the winter season. Experiment 2, assessing the effect of elevated (30 cm) platforms, was conducted in three farms replicated with 6 consecutive batches. 2. Footpad lesions were inspected at slaughter following the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment and official programme. Hock lesions, plumage cleanliness and litter condition were assessed using the WQ assessment. Litter height, pH, moisture and ammonia were determined. 3. Footpad condition on wood shavings appeared to be worse compared with peat using both methods of assessment and was accompanied by inferior hock skin health. WQ assessment resulted in poorer footpad and hock skin condition on ground straw compared with peat. Farms differed in footpad and hock skin condition. Footpad and hock lesions were not affected by platform treatment. Peat appeared more friable than ground straw. The initial pH of wood shavings was higher and moisture was lower than in peat, but at the end of production period there were no differences. Ground straw exhibited higher initial and lower end pH, and was drier in the beginning than peat. Litter condition and quality were not affected by platform treatment. 4. This study provides new knowledge about the applicability of peat as broiler bedding and shows no negative effects of elevated platforms on litter condition or the occurrence of contact dermatitis in commercial environments. The results suggest a complicated relationship between litter condition, moisture and contact dermatitis. Furthermore, it is concluded that the farmer's ability to manage litter conditions is important, regardless of the chosen litter material. Peat bedding was beneficial for footpad and hock skin health compared with wood shavings and ground straw.

Remedying Contact Dermatitis in Broiler Chickens with Novel Flooring Treatments

“…For all treatments, the mean plumage soiling scores were low, as 0 on the ordinal scale (no soiling) was scored most frequently (71% of the scores; data not shown). These low scores are not in-line with a previous study under comparable stocking density conditions, where 99% of birds showed slight soiling irrespective of the litter treatment [ 24 ]. PREV-POS resulted in lower (better) soiling scores compared to PREV-MAT and PREV-SLAT, suggesting that the best strategy to avoid soiling is early access to clean litter that is regularly replaced.…”

“…Every four days, the mats were removed from the pen, cleaned, and refilled with the disinfectant solution. The second novel flooring treatment entailed the provision of the MAT treatment (mat plus disinfectant solution), with the additional provision of a black plastic slatted floor (SLAT; Figure 1 b) (60 × 120 cm, DURA-SLAT ® Black Poultry & Kennel Flooring, Southwest Agri-Plastics Inc. Addison, TX, USA), placed on top of the litter but not elevated from the ground, as commonly done for laying hens and broiler breeders [ 24 ]. The mat was placed on top of the slatted floor, and both were placed in the back middle of the pen under the drinker, provided on day 1 (PREV) or day 29 (REM).…”

“…Some possible currently applied interventions could include adapting ventilation, thinning the flock, and resolve leaking drinkers. The use of a partially slatted floor was hypothesized to result in good footpad conditions when provided from day one until slaughter [ 23 ], although another study found no effect of elevated platform access on FPD scores [ 24 ]. The addition of such flooring could potentially remediate lesions, although a remedial approach has not yet been assessed.…”

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

“…Numerous studies showed results with a higher plumage cleanliness for animals kept on a perforated flooring system compared to litter flooring ( Akpobome and Fanguy, 1992 , Almeida et al., 2017 , Li et al., 2017 , Çavuşoğlu et al., 2018 , Çavuşoğlu and Petek, 2019 ). As reported by Kaukonen et al. (2017) , the use of perforated platforms (10% of the floor area) had no effect on plumage cleanliness.…”

Pathomorphological investigations on the prevalence of contact dermatitis lesions in broiler chickens

“…Epidemiological surveys linked the increased prevalence of the condition to various production aspects, including increased population density, slaughter at a higher age and bigger male to female ratio in the flock (Bruce et al 1990). The appearance of contact dermatitis lesions has also been linked to bad litter conditions, particularly when it occurred suddenly or within a short period of time (McIlroy et al 1987;Bruce et al 1990;Kaukonen et al 2017). Lesions similar to those observed in broiler chickens were encountered in turkeys, housed on wet litter (Martland 1984).…”