Housing and dustbathing effects on northern fowl mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) and chicken body lice (Menacanthus stramineus) on hens

Abstract

Hen housing (cage or cage-free) did not impact overall abundances of northern fowl mites, Ornithonyssus sylviarum (Canestrini & Fanzago) (Acari: Macronyssidae), or chicken body lice, Menacanthus stramineus (Nitzsch) (Phthiraptera: Menoponidae). Cage-free hens received a dustbox with sand plus diatomaceous earth (DE), kaolin clay or sulphur. Weekly use varied from none to 100% of hens; 73% of hens used the dustbox at least once. Ectoparasite populations on dustbathing hens (users) were compared with those on non-user cage-free and caged hens. All materials reduced ectoparasites on user hens by 80-100% after 1 week of dustbox use. Diatomaceous earth and kaolin failed to reduce ectoparasites on non-user hens, and ectoparasites on user hens recovered after dustbox removal. A sulphur dustbox eliminated mites from all hens (including non-users) within 2-4 weeks. Residual sulphur controlled mites until the end of the experiment (up to 9 weeks), even after the dustbox was removed. Louse populations on hens using the sulphur dustbox were reduced in 1-2 weeks. Residual sulphur effects were less evident in lice, but the use of a sulphur dustbox by a higher proportion of hens extended louse control to all hens. This is the first experimental study to show that bird dustbathing in naturally and widely available dust materials (particularly kaolin) can suppress ectoparasites and thus the behaviour is probably adaptive.

Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

“…A recent study showed that hen dustbathing in natural dust materials (particularly kaolin) can suppress ectoparasites (Martin and Mullens, 2012) that offers opportunities for reducing the use of medication. Trained conspecifics are also important for facilitating the consumption of new feed pellets (Oostindjer et al, 2011) or the learning of self-feeding devices (Noble et al, 2012), but further studies are required to quantify the consequences on production efficiency.…”

Dustbathing behavior: Do ectoparasites matter?

“…Hoffman and Hogan (1967) demonstrated that sand did not affect lice populations when it was available for dustbathing, although they did not observe whether the hens actually used the dustbox. Martin and Mullens (2012) showed that hens that used dustboxes filled with sand and inorganic inert dusts like kaolin or diatomaceous earth, or with sand and sulphur, had reduced northern fowl mite and chicken body louse populations compared to hens that did not use the dustboxes. Kilpinen and Steenberg (2009) and Martin and Mullens (2012) suggested that, due to their fine size and oil absorption capacity, inorganic inert dusts like kaolin clay and diatomaceous earth might abrade the cuticle, or more likely absorb the lipid on the cuticle leading to desiccation of the ectoparasites.…”

“…Martin and Mullens (2012) showed that hens that used dustboxes filled with sand and inorganic inert dusts like kaolin or diatomaceous earth, or with sand and sulphur, had reduced northern fowl mite and chicken body louse populations compared to hens that did not use the dustboxes. Kilpinen and Steenberg (2009) and Martin and Mullens (2012) suggested that, due to their fine size and oil absorption capacity, inorganic inert dusts like kaolin clay and diatomaceous earth might abrade the cuticle, or more likely absorb the lipid on the cuticle leading to desiccation of the ectoparasites. Perhaps either the size or nature of sand grains causes sand to be ineffective for in abrading or absorbing oil from the mite cuticle.…”

“…Sulphur and inert dusts like kaolin and diatomaceous earth have been demonstrated to increase ectoparasite mortality (Creighton et al, 1943;Furman, 1952;Kilpinen and Steenberg, 2009). Martin and Mullens (2012) found that the hens that used these dustboxes had significantly fewer chicken body lice (Menacanthus stramineus) and northern fowl mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) than hens that did not use them, and also fewer ectoparasites than caged hens without access to dustboxes. Two older studies (Hoffman and Hogan, 1967;Hoffman and Gingrich, 1968) evaluated the effect of a chemical (Zytron) and a microbial (Bacillus thuringengis) insecticide mixed with sand in dustboxes on three species of lice in infested hens in a non-cage system.…”

“…Clay, 1952;de Jong et al, 2007;Clayton et al, 2010), however there is only one study evaluating this presumed function. Martin and Mullens (2012) provided hens housed on litter with dustboxes filled with sand and sulphur, sand and kaolin (clay) or sand and diatomaceous earth. Sulphur and inert dusts like kaolin and diatomaceous earth have been demonstrated to increase ectoparasite mortality (Creighton et al, 1943;Furman, 1952;Kilpinen and Steenberg, 2009).…”