Effect of Litter Material and Elevated Platform Enrichment on Behaviour and Welfare of Broiler Chickens in Closed-House System

محورهای موضوعی : Camel

K.K.S. Kapuarachchi ¹ (Department of Livestock Production, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya, 70140, Sri Lanka)
R.M.A.S. Bandara ² (Department of Livestock Production, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya, Sri Lanka)
T.I.G. Prabashwari ³ (Department of Livestock Production, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya, 70140, Sri Lanka)

تاریخ دریافت : 1401/12/27 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/02/26 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/03/11

کلید واژه: body weight, sawdust, Foot pad dermatitis, hock burns, paddy husk,

چکیده مقاله :

The present study assessed the effect of litter materials (paddy husk and sawdust) and elevated platform enrichment on welfare (foot pad dermatitis (FPD), hock burns, plumage cleanliness, behaviours, litter quality, and body weight of the broiler chickens living in the cooling pad area of a closed house. A total of 320 Indian River broiler chicks were randomly allocated to four treatments: paddy husk with an elevated platform, paddy husk with no elevated platform, sawdust with an elevated platform, and sawdust with no elevated platform with four replicates for each treatment (n=20). Behaviour of the birds was assessed by scan sampling methods. Welfare indicators were assessed by using a scoring system. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model and Kruskal-Wallis tests. There was no effect of litter material on the prevalence of FPD (P>0.05). Elevated platforms reduced the severity of FPD in the birds in both litters (P<0.05). The birds reared in sawdust regardless of elevated platforms, showed higher (P<0.05) scores for hock burns. Litter quality was lower in sawdust, irrespective of the elevated platforms (P<0.05). There was no effect of the elevated platform on litter quality, hock burns, plumage cleanliness, and behaviours of the birds. A higher frequency of dust bathing was observed in paddy husks (P=0.014). Litter material or elevated platform did not affect body weight of the birds. Results revealed that the provision of elevated platforms and paddy husk litter material enhanced the welfare of broiler chickens in the closed-house system.

منابع و مأخذ:

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 Poult. Sci. 50(4), 407-417.

Baxter M., Bailie C.L. and O’Connell N.E. (2018). An evaluation of potential dustbathing substrates for commercial broiler chickens. Animal. 12(9), 1933-1941.

Bessei W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: A review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 62, 455-466.

Bilgili S.F., Hess J.B., Blake J.P., Macklin K.S., Saenmahayak B. and Sibley J.L. (2009). Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18(3), 583-589.

Bizeray D., Estevez I., Leterrier C. and Faure J.M. (2002). Effects of increasing environmental complexity on the physical activity of broiler chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 79(1), 27-41.

Butterworth A., van Niekerk T.G.C.M., Veissier I. and Keeling L.J. (2009). Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for Poultry. Welfare Quality R Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.

Çavuşoğlu E. and Petek M. (2019). Effects of different floor materials on the welfare and behaviour of slow and fast-growing broilers. Arch. Anim. Breed. 62, 335-344.

Dawkins M.S., Donnelly C.A. and Jones T.A. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature. 427, 342-344.

De Jong I.C., Gunnink H. and Van H.J. (2014). Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 23(1), 51-58.

Estevez I. and Christman M.C. (2006). Analysis of the movement and use of space of animals in confinement: The effect of sampling effort. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 97, 221-240.

Estevez I., Tablante N., Pettit-Riley R.L. and Carr L. (2002). Use of cool perches by broiler chickens. Poul. Sci. 81(1), 62-69.

Gouveia V., Milfont T., Fonseca P. and Coelho J. (2009). Life satisfaction in Brazil: Testing the psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in five Brazilian samples. Soc. Indic. Res.  90, 267-277.

Grimes J.L., Carter T.A. and Godwin J.L. (2006). Use of a litter material made from cotton waste, gypsum, and old newsprint for rearing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 85, 563-568.

Haslam S.M., Brown S.N., Wilkins L.J., Kestin S.C., Warris P.D. and Nicol C.J. (2006). Preliminary study to examine the utility of using foot burn or hock burn to assess aspects of housing conditions for broiler chicken. British Poult. Sci. 47, 13-18.

Hunter J.M., Anders S.A., Crowe T., Korver D.R. and Bench C.J. (2017). Practical assessment and management of foot pad dermatitis in commercial broiler chickens: A field study. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 26(4), 593-604.

Kaukonen E., Norring M. and Valros A. (2016a). Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathol. 45(6), 667-673.

Kaukonen E., Norring M. and Valros A. (2016b). Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathol. 45(6), 667-673.

Kestin S.C., Su G. and Sorensen P. (1999). Different commercial broiler crosses havedifferent susceptibilities to leg weakness. Poult. Sci. 78(8), 1085-1090.

Lehner P.N. (1992). Sampling methods in behaviours research. Poult. Sci. 71(4), 643-649.

Malchow J., Berk J., Puppe B. and Schrader L. (2019a). Perches or grids? What do rearing chickens differing in growth performance prefer for roosting? Poult. Sci. 98(1), 29-38.

Malchow J., Puppe B., Berk J. and Schrader L. (2019b). Effects of elevated grids on growing male chickens differing in growth performance. Front. Vet. Sci. 6, 1-9.

Meluzzi A., Fabbri C., Folegatti E. and Sirri F. (2008). Effect of less intensive rearing conditions on litter characteristics, growth performance, carcass injuries and meat quality of broilers. British Poult. Sci. 49(5), 509-515.

Meluzzi A. and Sirri F. (2009). Welfare of broiler chickens. Italian J. Anim. Sci. 8(1), 161-173.

Norring M., Kaukonen E. and Valros A. (2016). The use of perches and platforms by broiler chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 184, 91-96.

Riber A.B., Van De Weerd H.A., De Jong I.C. and Steenfeldt S. (2018). Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 97(2), 378-396.

SAS Institute. (2004). SAS^®/STAT Software, Release 9.4. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. USA.

Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). (2000). The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) SCAHAW Report. No. SANCO.B.3/AH/R15/2000. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-12/sci-com_scah_out39_en.pdf. Accessed 2007 Dec.

Shepherd E.M. and Fairchild B.D. (2010). Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poult. Sci. 89(10), 2043-2051.

Shields S.J., Garner J.P. and Mench J.A. (2004). Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 87(1), 69-82.

Škrbić Z., Pavlovski Z., Lukić M. and Petričević V. (2015). Incidence of footpad dermatitis and hock burns in broilers as affected by genotype, lighting program and litter type. Ann. Anim. Sci. 15(2), 433-445.

Sørensen P., Su G. and Kestin S.C. (2000). Effects of age and stocking density on legweakness in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 79(6), 864-870.

Turner J., Garces L. and Smith W. (2005). The Welfare of Broiler Chickens in the European Union. Compassion in World Farming Trust, 5a Charles Street, Petersfield, Hampshire, GU32 3EH. United Kingdom.

Ventura B.A., Siewerdt F. and Estevez I. (2012). Access to barrier perches improves behaviour repertoire in broilers. PLoS One. 7(1), e29826.

Villagrá A., Olivas I., Althaus R.L., Gómez E.A., Lainez M. and Torres A.G. (2014). Behaviours of broiler chickens in four different substrates: A choice test. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 16(1), 67-76.

Wall H., Tauson R. and Elwinger K. (2008). Effects of litter substrate and genotype on layers’ use of litter, exterior appearance, and heterophil: Lymphocyte ratios in furnished cages. Poult. Sci. 87, 2458-2465.

Zikic D., Djukic-Stojcic M., Bjedov S., Peric L., Stojanovic S. and Uscebrka G. (2017). Effect of litter on development and severity of footpad dermatitis and behaviours of broiler chickens. Rev. Bras.Cienc. Avic. 19(2), 247-254.