J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2009. 18:583-589. doi:10.3382/japr.2009-00023
© 2009 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bilgili, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Sibley, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bilgili, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Sibley, J. L.

Research Reports

Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens

S. F. Bilgili*,1, J. B. Hess*, J. P. Blake*, K. S. Macklin*, B. Saenmahayak* and J. L. Sibley{dagger}

* Department of Poultry Science, and {dagger} Department of Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5416

1 Corresponding author: bilgisf{at}auburn.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Bedding availability issues are arising rapidly in the broiler industry that may alter the type and quality of bedding available to growers to rear broiler chickens. Because birds are in direct contact with the litter, the potential impact of bedding materials on footpad health is of concern. In 3 successive trials, 8 different bedding sources (pine shavings, pine bark, chipped pine, mortar sand, ground hardwood pallets, chopped straw, ground door filler, and cotton-gin trash) were compared in side-by-side experimental pens by rearing mixed-sex birds. In addition to broiler growth performance and litter characteristics (moisture, caking, and ammonia volatilization), the incidence and severity of footpad dermatitis (FPD) was assessed at 6 wk of age. Bedding materials had little influence on the live performance of broilers in 3 successive trials. Prevalence of FPD varied significantly (P < 0.05) among the bedding materials. The incidence of FPD paralleled high litter moisture and caking scores, with chipped pine, chopped straw, cotton-gin trash, and pine shavings showing the highest severity scores and mortar sand and ground door filler showing the lowest. From an FPD etiology standpoint, the ability of the bedding to absorb (i.e., ground door filler) and quickly release (i.e., mortar sand) moisture may be the most important characteristics.

Key Words: broiler • foot • paw • strain-cross


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The incidence and severity of footpad dermatitis (FPD) is of great concern to the broiler industry, not only from a product quality [1–3], but also from an animal welfare standpoint [4]. The FPD lesions are usually superficial in nature, but may result in pain and discomfort to the bird when transformed into deep ulcers. The occurrence of FPD is now used as an objective audit criterion in welfare assessment of poultry production systems in both Europe and the United States [5].

Information on the etiology of FPD is limited and points to a complex interaction of various risk factors, such as production system, stocking density, market BW, litter quality, flock health, nutrition, feeding, and flock management programs [6–14]. Birds spend most of their life in close association with the bedding or litter material. Hence, the most obvious contributor to FPD may be the type, quantity, or substandard quality of bedding material. Bedding materials with sharp edges (large particle-size wood chips, chopped straw, etc.) may contribute to FPD through their abrasive action. Bacterial infection is not usually observed histologically in FPD lesions. Litter management is an ongoing struggle for producers, who must weigh replacement of built-up litter with the cost and availability of alternative bedding sources. As birds grow, increasing amounts of moisture and nutrients are cycled through the litter. Managing litter moisture becomes more challenging in built-up litter, especially as the birds approach market BW. Short downtimes between flocks, marginal flock health programs, high-nutrient-density feeding programs, partial-house brooding, evaporative cooling systems, and poor drinker management are some of the important factors contributing to this moisture cycle in the rearing environment [15, 16]. Although many plant-based materials have been evaluated for rearing broiler chickens, information on their impact on FPD is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of bedding material on FPD in broiler chickens. The incidence and severity of FPD was assessed in broiler chickens grown side-by-side on 8 different bedding materials with 3 successive grow-outs.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
In 3 successive trials, 8 alternative bedding materials [Figure 1Go; pine shaving (PS), pine bark (PB), chipped pine (CP), mortar sand (MS), chopped wheat straw (CS), ground hardwood pallets (GP), ground door filler (DF), and cotton-gin trash (CT)] were compared simultaneously in a completely randomized experiment with 6 replicate pens of 20 birds each per treatment [17]. Most of these materials were periodically available as a bedding source in parts of Alabama. Ground door filler was a wood fiber-based material used in insulating metal doors. Mixed-sex Ross x Ross [18] birds were reared to 42 d of age (September to December) on a 3-phase commercial feeding program consisting of starter (22.6% CP; 1385 kcal of ME/lb), grower (20.5% CP; 1420 kcal of ME/lb), and finisher (18.3% CP; 1450 kcal of ME/lb) feeds. A 12-d downtime was used between each trial to simulate commercial practices. Broiler growth performance (BW gain, feed consumption, and mortality) and the incidence (i.e., proportion of affected birds) and severity (i.e., extent of lesions) of FPD were measured at the end of each trial by examining the footpads of all the birds [19]. Each bedding material was analyzed for bulk density, initial moisture content, and moisture retention capacity [20]. At the end of each trial, litter was analyzed for percentage of moisture [21]. Litter caking (trials 1 and 2) [22] and ammonia volatilization (trials 2 and 3) were also assessed [23]. The data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS [24, 25].


Figure 1
View larger version (99K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Bedding materials used in trials 1 to 3.

 

   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Bulk density, initial moisture content, and moisture retention characteristics of the bedding materials used in this study are presented in Table 1Go. Mortar sand had the highest bulk density, the lowest initial moisture, and the lowest 24- to 48-h moisture retention values compared with all other bedding materials (P < 0.05). In contrast, chopped wheat straw showed the lowest bulk density and one of the highest initial moisture levels. Of all the bedding materials tested, DF and CT showed the highest moisture retention ability. Differences between trials in live performance (i.e., BW gain, FE, and mortality) of broiler chickens in all 3 trials were driven more by weather than by the bedding material (data not shown), indicating that most of these locally available materials can be used to rear broiler chickens, at least for 2 successive flocks.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Physical characteristics of bedding materials
 
Figure 2Go illustrates litter moisture, litter caking (trials 1 and 2), and FPD incidence in each of the trials conducted. Incidence of FPD varied significantly (P < 0.05) among the bedding materials in trials 1 and 2, but not in trial 3. Because PS is the preferred bedding source in the United States, the incidence of FPD on PS may be used as a benchmark to assess other bedding materials. Incidence of FPD on PS increased from 31 and 26.7%, respectively, in trials 1 and 2 to 54.1% in trial 3. Compared with PS, CP and CS (trials 1 and 2) and CT (trial 2) showed a higher incidence of FPD. Litter moisture levels were high in trial 1, ranging from 10.5 (MS) to 39.1% (CP), but stabilized in subsequent trials. In trials 2 and 3, incidence of FPD appeared to parallel litter moisture levels. Mortar sand had the lowest litter moisture levels (3 and 4.7%), followed by DF (8.5 and 14%) in trials 2 and 3, respectively. Both bedding materials showed the lowest incidence and severity of FPD. Bilgili et al. [26, 27] previously reported on the use of MS as bedding for rearing broilers and the beneficial effect it had on FPD as compared with PS. Litter caking scores closely followed FPD incidence in trials 1 and 2 (Figure 2Go). This was not surprising because litter moisture and caking have been identified as major contributing factors to FPD in poultry [15, 16]. Mayne et al. [16] clearly demonstrated that high litter moisture alone was sufficient to cause FPD in young turkeys in as little as 2 to 4 d.


Figure 2
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Incidence of footpad dermatitis (FPD) and litter moisture (trials 1 to 3).

 
Litter ammonia may be another important factor in the etiology of FPD [28] because the ammonia generated because of bacterial action dissolves in high-moisture litter to create an irritant alkaline solution for the footpads. Ammonia volatilization varied from 69 to 99 ppm in trial 2, and from 65 to 105 ppm in trial 3, with no difference (P > 0.05) among the bedding sources (data not shown). Tasistro et al. [29] recently observed a significant interaction between bedding materials and sampling site on ammonia volatilization that was attributed to differences in moisture retention capacity. It was postulated that bedding materials with lower moisture retention would dry and form a crust faster, thus creating a physical barrier to ammonia volatilization. Based on the ammonia levels and caking scores observed in this study, this hypothesis was not confirmed. Nagaraj et al. [12], using high-protein diets, linked high litter nitrogen levels to FPD. In several studies, nutritional and management approaches to reduce nitrogen excretion and control litter ammonia production appeared to alleviate FPD incidence and severity [13, 14].

The severity scores of FPD are presented in Figure 3Go. Overall, FPD severity increased with each successive trial. Proportionately, in addition to CP and CS (trials 1, 2, and 3), CT (trials 2 and 3) and PS (trial 3) bedding materials showed the highest FPD severity. Again, MS and DF were ranked as the bedding materials with the lowest severity. These results are consistent with those recently reported by Berk [30], who showed wide variation among different kinds of litter in the prevalence and severity of FPD. In this study, both CS and CP had the worst FPD scores.


Figure 3
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Severity of footpad dermatitis (FPD; trials 1 to 3).

 
It is clear from this study that the bedding materials tested in this study are acceptable for rearing broilers, at least for several flocks. Pine bark has been used successfully under commercial conditions, with the intent of using the used litter as a substrate component in nursery crop production [31]. Chipped pine, GP, DF, and CT are unique plant-based products that may be available locally to broiler producers as substitute bedding materials. However, based on the results obtained in this study and those reported by others [16, 30], bedding materials can influence the prevalence and severity of FPD in broiler chickens. This effect may be directly associated with the ability of bedding to shield footpads from continuous contact with moisture, thereby minimizing footpad softening and susceptibility to irritation and inflammation. Birds reared on MS and DF showed the lowest PDF scores in all 3 trials. However, both of these bedding materials exhibited significantly contrasting physical characteristics. Although MS had a low (26%) 24-h moisture retention ability and DF had one of the highest (87%; Table 1Go), both bedding materials showed some of the lowest litter moisture and caking levels observed in this study. In terms of FPD control, the capability of the bedding to absorb (i.e., DF) and release (i.e., MS) moisture may be the most important characteristics to seek in a bedding material.


   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. The bedding materials evaluated had little influence on the live performance of broilers in 3 successive trials.
  2. Footpad dermatitis incidence and severity varied significantly (P < 0.05) among the bedding materials and corresponded to high litter moisture and caking scores. Of the bedding materials tested, CP, CS, CT, and PS showed the highest FPD incidence and severity, whereas MS and DF had the lowest.
  3. From the standpoint of FPD etiology, the ability of the bedding to absorb (i.e., DF) and quickly release (i.e., MS) moisture may be the most important characteristics.


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Bilgili, S. F., and J. B. Hess. 1997. Maximizing chicken paw yield and quality. Meat Poult. 5:54.
  2. Bilgili, S. F., M. A. Alley, J. B. Hess, and M. Nagaraj. 2006. Influence of age and sex on foot pad quality and yield in broiler chickens reared on low and high density diets. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 15:433–441.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Bilgili, S. F., D. Zelenka, and J. E. Marion. 2008. Quality standards for chicken feet (paws) during processing. In Proc. World’s Poultry Congress, Brisbane, Australia [CD-ROM]. World’s Poultry Science Association, Beekbergen, the Netherlands.
  4. Bradshaw, R. H., R. D. Kirkden, and D. M. Broom. 2002. A review of the aetiology and pathology of leg weakness in broilers in relation to welfare. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev. 13:45–103.[CrossRef]
  5. National Chicken Council. 2005. National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist. Natl. Chicken Counc., Washington, DC. http://www.nationalchickencouncil.com/aboutIndustry/detail.cfm?id=19 Accessed March 25, 2009.
  6. Menzies, F. D., E. A. Goodall, D. A. McConaghy, and M. J. Alcorn. 1998. An update on the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in commercial broilers. Avian Pathol. 27:174–180.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Ekstrand, C., T. E. Carpenter, I. Andersson, and B. Algers. 1998. Prevalence and control of footpad dermatitis in broilers in Sweden. Br. Poult. Sci. 39:318–324.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Mayne, R. K. 2005. A review of the aetiology and possible causative factors of foot pad dermatitis in growing turkeys and broilers. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 61:256–267.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  9. Pagazaurtundua, A., and P. D. Warris. 2006. Levels of foot pad dermatitis in broiler chickens reared in 5 different systems. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:529–532.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Haslam, S. M., T. G. Knowles, S. N. Brown, L. J. Wilkins, S. C. Kestin, P. D. Warris, and C. J. Nicol. 2007. Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. Br. Poult. Sci. 48:264–275.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Meluzzi, A., C. Fabbri, E. Folegatti, and F. Sirri. 2008. Survey of chicken rearing conditions in Italy: Effects of litter quality and stocking density on productivity, foot dermatitis and carcase injuries. Br. Poult. Sci. 49:257–264.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Nagaraj, M., C. A. P. Wilson, J. B. Hess, and S. F. Bilgili. 2007. Effect of high protein and all vegetable diets on the incidence and severity of pododermatitis in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:304–312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Nagaraj, M., J. B. Hess, and S. F. Bilgili. 2007. Evaluation of a feed-grade enzyme in broiler diets to reduce pododermatitis. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:52–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Nagaraj, M., C. A. P. Wilson, B. Saenmahayak, J. B. Hess, and S. F. Bilgili. 2007. Efficacy of a litter amendment to reduce pododermatitis in broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:255–261.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Wang, G., C. Ekstrand, and J. Svedberg. 1998. Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 39:191–197.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Mayne, R. K., R. W. Else, and P. M. Hocking. 2007. High litter moisture is sufficient to cause footpad dermatitis in growing turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci. 48:538–545.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Each bedding material was placed 4 in. deep in 6 replicate pens (1.22 x 1.52 m in dimension), with a stocking density of 10.8 birds per m2.
  18. Aviagen, Huntsville, AL.
  19. The FPD scoring system was a 3-point visual ranking system, where a score of 0 indicated footpads with no lesions present, and intact dermal ridges within central plantar footpad surface; a score of 1 indicated footpads with mild lesions, and dermal ridges with oval or round ulcers covered with a crust (<7.5 mm); and a score of 2 indicated footpads with severe lesions, with a dark brown crust (>7.5 mm) adhering to the central plantar footpad [14].
  20. Bulk density was determined by calculating grams of dry sample per cubic centimeter. The dry weight of each material was determined after drying for 72 h at 71°C. Five 20-g samples from each bedding material were placed in nylon socks and fully submerged in water for 24 and 48 h. At the end of each interval, the socks were hung, gently massaged to drip, allowed to air-dry for 30 min, and subsequently reweighed.
  21. Litter was collected from the 4 corners and center of each replicate pen and pooled in plastic bags to create a composite sample for moisture analysis. Percentage of moisture was determined by placing 2 g of litter into a drying oven (150°C) for 24 h. Samples were then immediately placed into desiccators, and weighed after equilibration of temperature to calculate percentage of moisture.
  22. Litter caking was evaluated subjectively by stirring the litter with a rod to estimate the caked area as a percentage of the total pen surface.
  23. Ammonia measurements were conducted using a closed container of specified dimensions (36 x 46 x 12 cm) inverted over the litter bed and were determined using a Drager CMS Analyzer (Drager Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) equipped with a remote air-sampling pump and ammonia sampling chip (10 to 150 ppm). The tube from the sampling pump was located in the top center of the container. The sampling pump was evacuated (calibrated) for 60 s, followed by a measurement period of up to 300 s. Most readings were usually achieved within 60 s after evacuation.
  24. The statistical model consisted of a 1-way ANOVA, with pens (treatment) as the error term to test the bedding material main effect. When significant (P < 0.05), means were separated by Tukey’s test. Percentage values were transformed to arcsine values before analysis. Each trial was analyzed separately.
  25. SAS Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT User’s Guide for Personal Computers, Release 6.03. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
  26. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:345–351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Live performance, carcass quality, and deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:352–361.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Haslam, S. M., S. N. Brown, L. J. Wilkins, S. C. Kestin, P. D. Warriss, and C. J. Nicol. 2006. Preliminary study to examine the utility of using foot burn or hock burn to assess aspects of housing conditions for broiler chicken. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:13–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Tasistro, A. S., C. W. Ritz, and D. E. Kissel. 2007. Ammonia emissions from broiler litter: response to bedding materials and acidifiers. Br. Poult. Sci. 48:399–405.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Berk, J. 2008. Effect of different kinds of litter on severity and prevalence of pododermatitis in male broilers. In Proc. XXIII World’s Poult. Congr., Brisbane, Australia [CD-ROM]. World’s Poultry Science Association, Beekbergen, the Netherlands.
  31. Pickens, J. M., J. L. Sibley, C. H. Gilliam, S. F. Bilgili, J. B. Hess, K. S. Macklin, and J. O. Donald. 2009. Evaluation of bark-based poultry litter as a substrate component in nursery crop production. Proc. Southern Nursery Assoc. Res. Conf. 54:121–123.




This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bilgili, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Sibley, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bilgili, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Sibley, J. L.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS