4.1 Article

Lameness is consistently better at predicting broiler chicken performance in mobility tests than other broiler characteristics

Journal

ANIMAL WELFARE
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 179-187

Publisher

UNIV FEDERATION ANIMAL WELFARE
DOI: 10.7120/09627286.23.2.179

Keywords

animal welfare; broiler; lameness; latency-to-lie; obstacle test; pain

Funding

  1. BBSRC [BB/G000921/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G000921/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine whether lame broilers are in pain it is necessary to compare measures of lameness and mobility before and after analgesic treatment. Such measures should not be unduly affected by other bird characteristics. This study assessed the performance of lame (gait score, GS 3-4) and non-lame (GS 0-1) broilers using two mobility tests: (i) a novel test to assess broiler ability to access resources when housed in groups (Group Obstacle test); and (ii) a Latency-to-Lie (LTL) test. Outcome test measures included number of obstacle crossings, latency to cross an obstacle, and time taken to sit in shallow water. Associations between outcome test measures and other bird characteristics (established lameness risk-factors), including strain, sex, age, mass, contact dermatitis and pathology, were also investigated. The performance of high-GS and low-GS broilers differed in both mobility tests and no other bird characteristics were as consistent a predictor as lameness. This demonstrates that mobility impairments are closely related to lameness assessed using GS, and that there is a component of lameness that cannot be explained by other bird characteristics (eg being male and heavy). This component may represent pain or discomfort. Both mobility tests are suitable for further application with analgesic testing to classify lameness-associated pain in broilers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available