1
|
Coutant T, Lair S, Fitzgerald G, Perret-Thiry C, Vergneau-Grosset C. Risk Factors and Prognosis for Humeral Fractures in Birds of Prey: A Retrospective Study of 461 Cases from 2000 to 2015. J Avian Med Surg 2022; 36:2-13. [DOI: 10.1647/20-00093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
2
|
Leishman EM, van Staaveren N, Osborne VR, Wood BJ, Baes CF, Harlander-Matauschek A. The Prevalence of Integument Injuries and Associated Risk Factors Among Canadian Turkeys. Front Vet Sci 2022; 8:757776. [PMID: 35071378 PMCID: PMC8777054 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.757776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Accepted: 12/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Injurious pecking can cause a wide range of damage and is an important welfare and economic issue in turkey production. Aggressive pecking typically targets the head/neck (HN) area, and feather pecking typically targets the back/tail (BT) area; injuries in these separate areas could be used as a proxy for the level of aggressive and feather pecking in a flock. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for integument injuries in Canadian turkey flocks. A survey containing a questionnaire about housing and management practices and a scoring guide was distributed to 500 turkey farmers across Canada. The farmer scored pecking injuries in two different body areas (HN and BT) on a 0-2 scale on a subset of birds within each flock. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to identify factors associated with the presence of HN and BT injuries. The prevalence of birds with integument injuries ranged widely between the flock subsets (HN = 0-40%, BT = 0-97%), however the mean prevalence was low (HN = 6%, BT = 10%). The presence of injuries for logistic regression was defined as flocks with an injury prevalence greater than the median level of injury prevalence in the dataset (3.3% HN and 6.6% BT). The final logistic regression model for HN injuries contained five variables: flock sex, flock age, number of daily inspections, number of different people during inspections, and picking up birds during inspections (N = 62, pR2 = 0.23, α = 0.05). The final logistic regression model for BT injuries contained six variables: flock sex, flock age, litter depth, litter condition, inspection duration, and use of hospital pens for sick/injured birds (N = 59, pR2 = 0.29, α = 0.05). Flock age, and to a lesser extent, sex was associated with both types of injuries. From a management perspective, aggressive pecking injuries appear to be influenced by variables related to human interaction, namely during inspections. On the other hand, the presence of feather pecking injuries, was associated with litter condition and other management factors like separating sick birds. Future research on injurious pecking in turkeys should focus on these aspects of housing and management to better describe the relationship between the identified variables and the prevalence and severity of these conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily M. Leishman
- Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Nienke van Staaveren
- Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Department of Animal Biosciences, The Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Vern R. Osborne
- Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Department of Animal Biosciences, The Centre for Nutrition Modelling, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| | - Benjamin J. Wood
- Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Hybrid Turkeys, Kitchener, ON, Canada
- School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, Australia
| | - Christine F. Baes
- Department of Animal Biosciences, Centre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- Vetsuisse Faculty, Institute of Genetics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
- Department of Animal Biosciences, The Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rana MS, Campbell DLM. Application of Ultraviolet Light for Poultry Production: A Review of Impacts on Behavior, Physiology, and Production. Front Anim Sci 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fanim.2021.699262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The application of ultraviolet (UV) light in poultry production is garnering increased interest with the drive toward improved poultry welfare and optimized production. Poultry can see in the UV spectrum (UVA wavelengths: 320–400 nm) thus inclusion of these shorter wavelengths may be viewed as more natural but are typically excluded in conventional artificial lights. Furthermore, UVB wavelengths (280–315) have physiological impact through stimulation of vitamin D pathways that can then improve skeletal health. However, better understanding of the effects of UV supplementation must occur before implementation practically. This non-systematic literature review aimed to summarize the impacts of UV supplementation on the behavior, welfare, and production of laying hens, meat chickens (breeders and growers), and other domestic poultry species including directions for future research. The literature demonstrated that UVA light has positive impacts on reducing fear and stress responses but in some research, it significantly increases feather pecking over age during the production phase. UVB light will significantly improve skeletal health, but an optimum duration of exposure is necessary to get this benefit. Supplementation with UVB light may have more distinct impacts on egg production and eggshell quality when hens are experiencing a dietary vitamin D3 deficiency, or if they are at the terminal end of production. The relative benefits of UVB supplementation across different ages needs to be further verified along with commercial trials to confirm beneficial or detrimental impacts of adding UVA wavelengths. Further research is warranted to determine whether adding natural light wavelengths to indoor poultry production is indeed a positive step toward optimizing commercial housing systems.
Collapse
|
4
|
James C, Asher L, Herborn K, Wiseman J. The effect of supplementary ultraviolet wavelengths on broiler chicken welfare indicators. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2018; 209:55-64. [PMID: 30510331 PMCID: PMC6222521 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2018] [Revised: 09/19/2018] [Accepted: 10/01/2018] [Indexed: 10/29/2022]
Abstract
Qualities of the light environment are important for good welfare in a number of species. In chickens, UVA light is visible and may facilitate flock interactions. UVB wavelengths promote endogenous vitamin D synthesis, which could support the rapid skeletal development of broiler chickens. The aim of the study was to investigate the impacts of Ultraviolet wavelengths (UV) on welfare indicators in broiler chickens. Day-old Ross 308 birds reared under commercially representative conditions were randomly assigned to one of three lighting treatments: A) White Light Emitting Diode (LED) and supplementary UVA LED lighting (18-hour photoperiod); B) White LED with supplementary UVA and UVB fluorescent lighting providing 30 micro watts/cm2 UVB at bird level (on for 8 h of the total photoperiod to avoid over-exposure of UVB); C) White LED control group, representative of farm conditions (18-hour photoperiod). Welfare indicators measured were; feather condition (day 24, n = 546), tonic immobility duration (day 29, n = 302), and gait quality, using the Bristol Gait Score (day 31, n = 293). Feather condition was improved in male broilers in the UVA treatment (A), compared to the control treatment (C). Birds in the UVA treatment had shorter tonic immobility durations compared to the control treatment (C), suggesting lower fearfulness. Broilers reared in UVA (A) and UVA + UVB (B) had better Bristol Gait Scores compared to the control (C). Together these results suggest UV may be beneficial for broiler chicken welfare. While treatment A and B both provided UVA, the improvements in welfare indicators were not consistent, which may be due to exposure time-dependent beneficial effects of UVA. The modification of commercial lighting regimes to incorporate UVA wavelengths for indoor-reared broiler chickens would be an achievable change with significant positive impacts on bird welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte James
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, UK
| | - Lucy Asher
- Centre for Behaviour and Evolution IoN, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Newcastle, UK
| | - Katherine Herborn
- Centre for Behaviour and Evolution IoN, Newcastle University, Henry Wellcome Building, Newcastle, UK
| | - Julian Wiseman
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Leicestershire, UK
| |
Collapse
|