You are here

Modern aspects of contact dermatitis in industrial poultry farming

Contact dermatitis is a lesion of the skin of broilers, which leads to a decrease in the quality of the carcass by 15-30 %. It is described as brown-black erosions and ulcers that occur on the breast (breast blisters, BB), hock burns (HB) and on the skin of the central pulp of the foot (food pad dermatitis, FPD). The most commonly affected is the pulp of the foot, followed by the hocks and chest. There are a number of factors that lead to crumb dermatitis. These include: the density of planting birds; type of troughs and the order of their use; feeding; the level of temperature and humidity in the room; type of litter, its quality and quantity; intestinal health. Birds are kept at a density of 8 individuals/m2 suffered less from dermatitis than those kept at a density of 13 individuals/m2 . Moreover, the harmful effects of high density were particularly pronounced at 18 individuals/m2 . The prevalence and severity of this pathology in broilers increases at later stages of fattening. Pododermatitis spread to several layers of skin. The condition of the crumbs worsened when the bird reached slaughter age with up to 64 % of the carcasses affected. In this case, lesions of the hocks and chest were rare. Wet litter (> 30 % moisture) is associated with an increase in the incidence and severity of contact dermatitis in broiler and turkey housing systems. This state of litter is most often registered in the winter-spring and autumn seasons. The quality of the litter, especially taking into account its humidity, has been identified as an important issue of well-being, which has a great negative impact on the condition of feathers, limb health and the frequency of contact dermatitis. Litter temperature is also important. With its growth, the degree of contact dermatitis increases. The reason for the increase in litter temperature is the increase in planting density and the accumulation of more manure, which enhances bacterial fermentation. With wet litter, bird feathers become wet or contaminated with litter, feces and dirt. It loses its protective properties. The level of bird welfare is declining sharply. Diagnosis of contact dermatitis in poultry is based on characteristic clinical signs. These are lameness, impaired mobility and discoloration of the skin, which often develops into an ulcer. The lesions are clearly separated from the intact tissue and often appear as ulcers surrounded by a deep hemorrhagic shaft. Contact dermatitis can develop in less than a week. Characteristic signs at the beginning of the disease are swelling, redness and increase in local temperature, thickening of the skin. Deep ulcers usually lead to abscesses in the underlying tissues and structures. Often the affected area is covered with crusts. If large ulcers develop, they can cause pain, slow growth, obstruct gait, and open bacteria to underlying tissues.

Key words: broilers, contact dermatitis, dermatitis of the central pulp of the finger, dermatitis in the area of the hocks, dermatitis in the chest.

 

  1. Robins, A., Phillips, C.J.C. (2011). International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal. Vol. 67, pp. 351–369. DOI:10.1017/S0043933911000341.
  2. Eshel, G., Shepon A., Makov T., Milo R. (2014). Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reaction nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 111, pp. 11996–12001. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1402183111.
  3. Shepon, A.E.G., Noor, E., Milo, R. (2016). Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environmental Research Letters. Vol. 11, no. 10, 105002 p. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002.
  4. Wong, L., Selvanathan, E.A., Selvanathan, S. (2015). Modelling the meat consumption patterns in Australia. Economic Modelling, Vol. 49, pp. 1–10. DOI:10.1016/j.econmod.2015.03.002.
  5. Corr, S.A., Gentle, M.J., McCorquodale, C.C., Bennett, D. (2003). The effect of morphology on the musculoskeletal system of the modern broiler. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England). Vol. 12, pp. 145–157.
  6. Corr, S.A., Gentle, M.J., McCorquodale, C.C., Bennett, D. (2003). The effect of morphology on walking ability in the modern broiler: a gait analysis study. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England). Vol. 12, pp. 159–171.
  7. Danbury, T.C., Weeks, C.A., Chambers, J.P., Waterman-Pearson, A.E., Kestin, S.C. (2000). Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record. Vol. 146, pp. 307–311. DOI:10.1136/vr.146. 11.307.
  8. Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal. Vol. 62, pp. 455–466. DOI:10.1079/WPS2005108.
  9. Knowles, T.G., Kestin, S.C., Haslam, S.M., Brown, S.N., Green, L.E., Butterworth, A., Pope, S.J., Pfeiffer, D., Nicol, C.J. (2008). Leg disorders in broiler chickens: revalence, risk factors and prevention. PLoS One. Vol. 3, 1545 p. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0001545.
  10. Shim, M.Y., Karnuah, A.B., Mitchell, A.D., Anthony, N.B., Pesti, G.M., Aggrey, S.E. (2012). The effects of growth rate on leg morphology and tibia breaking strength, mineral density, mineral content, and bone ash in broilers. Poultry Science. Vol. 91, pp. 1790–1795. DOI:10.3382/ps.2011-01968.
  11. Kieronczyk, B., Rawski, M., Józefiak, D., Swiatkiewicz, S. (2017). Infectious and non-infectious factors associated with leg disorders in poultry – a review. Annals of Animal Science. Vol. 17, pp. 645–669. DOI:10.1515/aoas2016-0098.
  12. Phibbs, D.V., Groves, P.J., Muir, W.I. (2021). Leg health of meat chickens: impact on welfare, consumer behaviour, and the role of environmental enrichment. Animal Production Science. Vol. 61, pp. 1203–1212. DOI:10.1071/AN19511.
  13. Gupta, S. (2018). Systematic review of the literature: Best practices. Academic Radiology. Vol. 25 (11), pp. 1481– 1490. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2018.04.025.
  14. Greene, J.A., McCracken, R.M., Evans, R.T. (1985). A contact dermatitis of broilers – clinical and pathological findings. Avian Pathology. Vol. 14, pp. 23–38. DOI:10.1080/03079458508436205.
  15. Castañeda, М.P., Hirschler, Е.M., Sams, А.R. (2005). Early postmortem carcass trim effects on the tenderness of broiler breast fillets. Poultry Science. Vol. 84(6), pp. 951– 954. DOI:10.1093/ ps/84.6.951.
  16. Martland, M.F. (1985). Ulcerative dermatitis in broiler chickens: the effect of wet litter. Avian pathology. Vol. 14, pp. 353–364. DOI:10.1080/03079458508436237.
  17. Haslam, S.M., Knowles, T.G., Brown, S.N., Wilkins, l.J., Kestin, S.C., Warriss, P.D., Nicol, C.J. (2007). Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science. Vol. 48, pp. 264–275. DOI:10.1080/00071660701371341.
  18. McFerran, J.B., McNulty, M.S., McCracken, R.M., Greene, J.A. (1983). Enteritis and associated problems. Disease Prevention and Control in Poultry Production. Sydney, Australia, pp. 129–140. DOI:10.1080/03079458508436205.
  19. Mayne, R.K. (2005). A review of the aetiology and possible causative factors of foot pad dermatitis in growing turkeys and broilers. World’s Poultry Science Journal. Vol. 61, pp. 256–267. DOI:10. 1079/WPS200458.
  20. Ekstrand, C., Algers, B. (1997). Rearing conditions and foot-pad dermatitis in Swedish broiler chickens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. Vol. 31, pp. 167–174. DOI:10.1016/S0167-5877(96) 01145-2.
  21. Ekstrand, C., Carpenter, T.E., Andersson, I., Algers, B. (1998). Prevalence and control of foot pad dermatitis in Sweden. British Poultry Science. Vol. 39, pp. 318–324. DOI:10.1080/00071669888845.
  22. De Jong, I.C., Gunnink, H., van Harn, J. (2014). Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. Vol. 23, pp. 51–58. DOI:10.3382/japr.2013-00803.
  23. Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial broilers. European Food Safety Authority J. 2010, Vol. 8 (7), 82 p. DOI:10. 2903/j.efsa.2010.1666.
  24. Kaukonen, E., Norring, M., Valros, A. (2016). Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathology. Vol. 45, pp. 667–673. DOI:10.1080/03079457.2016.1197377.
  25. Thøfner, I.C.N., Poulsen, L.L., Bisgaard, M., Christensen H., Olsen R.H., Christensen J.P. (2019). Correlation between footpad lesions and systemic bacterial infections in broiler breeders. Veterinary Research. Vol. 50, 38 p. DOI:10.1186/s13567-019-0657-8.
  26. Kaukonen, E., Norring, M., Valros, A. (2016). Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian Pathology. Vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 667–673. DOI:10.1080/03079457.2016.1197377.
  27. Wolanski, N.J., Renema, R.A., Robinson, F.E., Wilson, J.L. (2004). End-of-season carcass and reproductive traits in original and replacement male broiler breeders. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. Vol. 13, pp. 451–460. DOI:10.1093/japr/13.3.451.
  28. McIlroy, S.G., Goodall, E.A., McMurray, C.H. (1987). A contact dermatitis of broilers – epidemiological findings. Avian Pathology. Vol. 16, pp. 93–105. DOI:10.1080/03079458708436355.
  29. Thomas, D.G., Ravindran, V., Thomas, D.V., Camden, B.J., Cottam, Y.H., Morel, P.C.H., Cook, C.J. (2004). Influence of stocking density on the performance, carcass characteristics and selected welfare indicators of broiler chickens. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. Vol. 52, pp. 76–81. DOI:10. 1080/00480169.2004.36408.
  30. Ventura, B.A., Siewerdt, F., Estevez, I. (2012). Access to barrier perches improves behaviour repertoire in broilers. PLoS One, Vol. 7, pp. 1–7. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0029826.
  31. Meluzzi, A., Fabbri, C., Folegatti, E., Sirri, F. (2008). Survey of chicken rearing conditions in Italy: effects of litter quality and stocking density on productivity, foot dermatitis and carcass injuries. British Poultry Science. Vol. 49 (3), pp. 257–264. DOI:10.1080/00071660802094156.
  32. Haslam, S.M., Brown, S.N., Wilkins, L.J., Kestin, S.C., Warriss, P.D., 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 Poultry Science. Vol. 47, pp. 13–18. DOI:10.1080/00071660500475046.
  33. Haslam, S.M., Knowles, T.G., Brown, S.N., Wilkins, L.J., Kestin, S.C., Warriss, P.D., Nicol, C.J. (2007). Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. British Poultry Science. Vol. 48, pp. 264–275. DOI:10.1080/00071660701371341.
  34. Golovnij derzhavnij inspektor veterinarnoyi medicini Ukrayini. Pro zatverdzhennya veterinarno-sanitarnih pravil dlya ptahivnichih gospodarstv i vimog do yih proektuvannya [Chief State Inspector of Veterinary Medicine of Ukraine. On approval of veterinary and sanitary rules for poultry farms and requirements for their design]. Order № 53, July 3, 2001. [Accessed November 3, 2021]. Available at: zakon.rada.gov. ua/laws/show/z0565-01#Text.
  35. Kaukonen, E., Norring, M., Valros, A. (2016). Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Аvian pathology. Vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 667–673. DOI:10.1080/03079457.2016.1197377
  36. Dawkins, M.S., Layton, R. (2012). Breeding for better welfare: genetic goals for broiler chickens and their parents. Animal Welfare. Vol. 21, pp. 147–155. DOI:10.7120/09627286.21.2.147.
  37. Mellor, D.J. (2017). Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals. Vol. 7, 60 p. DOI:10.3390/ani7080060.
  38. Kjaer, J.B., Su, G., Nielsen, B.L., Sorensen, P. (2006). Foot pad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens and degree of inheritance. Poultry Science. Vol. 85, pp. 1342– 1348. DOI:10.1093/ps/ 85.8.1342.
  39. Martland, M.F. (1984). Wet litter as a cause of plantar pododermatitis, leading to foot ulceration and lameness in fatteningturkeys. Avian Pathology. Vol. 13, pp. 241–252. DOI:10.1080/ 03079458408418528.
  40. Berg, C. (2004). Pododermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens. Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare. UK, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 37–49. DOI:10.1079/9780851998053.0037.
  41. Martland, M.F. (1985). Ulcerative dermatitis in broiler chickens: the effects of wet litter. Avian Pathology. Vol. 14, pp. 353–364. DOI:10.1080/03079458508436237.
  42. Dinev, I., Denev, S., Vashin, I., Kanakov, D., Rusenova, N, (2019). Pathomorphological investigations on the prevalence of contact dermatitis lesions in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research. Vol. 47 (1), pp. 129–134. DOI:10.1080/09712119.2019.1584105.
  43. Dawkins, M.S., Roberts, S.J., Cain, R.J., Nickson, T., Donnelly, C.A. (2017). Early warning of footpad dermatitis and hockburn in broiler chicken flocks using optical flow, bodyweight and water consumption. The Veterinary Record. Vol. 180, 499 p. DOI:10.1136/vr.104066.
  44. Shepherd, E.M., Fairchild, B.D. (2010). Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poultry Science. Vol. 89, pp. 2043– 2051. DOI:10.3382/ps.2010-00770.
  45. Pichova, K., Nordgreen, J., Leterrier, C., Kostal, L., Moe, R.O. (2016). The effects of food-related environmental complexity on litter directed behaviour, fear and exploration of novel stimuli in young broiler chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Vol. 174, pp. 83–89. DOI:10.1016/j. applanim.2015.11.007.
  46. Hocking, P.M., Wu, K. (2013). Traditional and commercial turkey show similar susceptibility to foot pad dermatitis and behavioural evidence of pain. British Poultry Science. Vol. 54, pp. 281–288. DOI:10.1080/00071668.2013.781265.
  47. Hall, L.E., Shirley, R.B., Bakalli, R.I., Aggrey, S.E., Pesti, G.M., Edwards, H.M. (2003). Power of two methods for the estimation of bone ash of broilers. Poultry Science. Vol. 82, pp. 414–418. DOI:10. 1093/ps/82.3.414.
  48. Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A., Hughes, B.O. (2004). Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI, 276 p.
  49. Sander, J.E., Wilson, J.L., Cheng, I.-H., Gibbs, P.S. (2003). Influence of slat material on hatching egg sanitation and slat disinfection. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. Vol. 12, pp. 74–80. DOI:10. 1093/japr/12.1.74.
  50. Martland, M.F. (1985). Ulcerative dermatitis in broiler chickens: the effects of wet litter. Avian Pathology. Vol. 14, pp. 353–364. DOI:10.1080/03079458508436237.
  51. Bailie, C.L., O’Connell, N.E. (2015). The influence of providing perches and string on activity levels, fearfulness and leg health in commercial broiler chickens. Animal. Vol. 9, pp. 660–668. DOI:10. 1017/S1751731114002821.
  52. Jones, T.A., Donnelly, C.A., Dawkins, M.S. (2005). Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poultry Science. Vol. 84, pp. 1155–1165. DOI:10.1093/ps/84.8.1155.
  53. Bilgili, S.F., Hess, J.B., Blake, J.P., Macklin, K.S., Saenmahayak, B., Sibley, J.L. (2009). Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. Vol. 18, pp. 583–589. DOI:10.3382/japr.2009-00023.
  54. Charles, O.W., Fortune, J. (1977). The influence of diet and litter management on foot pad lesions in turkey poults. Poultry Science. Vol. 56, 1348 p. DOI:10.1016/S0167-5877(96)01145-2.
  55. Wideman, R.F.J. (2016). Bacterial chondronecrosis with osteomyelitis and lameness in broilers: a review. Poultry Science. Vol. 95, pp. 325–344. DOI:10.3382/ps/pev320.
  56. Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J. (2015). Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England). Vol. 24, pp. 241–253. DOI:10.7120/09627286.24.3.241.
  57. Mellor, D.J. (2017). Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals. Vol. 7, 60 p. DOI:10.3390/ani7080060.
  58. Groves, P.J., Muir, W.I. (2016). Hock bruises in broilers are indicative of leg weakness. Australian Poultry Science Symposium. Australia, Sydney: NSW, Vol. 27, 59 p. DOI:10.1071/AN19511.
  59. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry. Netherlands, Lelystad: ASG Veehouderij BV, 2009, 111 p. Available at:edepot.wur.nl/233471.
  60. Shanawany, M.M. (1988). Broiler performance under high stocking densities. British Poultry Science Volume. Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 43–52. DOI:10.1080/00071668808417025.
  61. Bilgili, S.F., Hess, J.B., Donald, J., Fancher, B. (2010). Practical considerations for reducing the risk of pododermatitis. Aviagen Brief, Sept., pp. 1–8. Available at: ru.aviagen.com/assets/Uploads/ AviagenBriefPododermatitis Sept2010.PDF.
  62. Berg, C., Sanotra, G.S. (2003). Can a modified latency-to-lie test be used to validate gait-scoring results in commercial broiler flocks? Animal Welfare. Vol. 12, pp. 655–659. Available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/262862061_Can_a_modified_latency-to-lie_test_be_used_to_ validate_ gait-scoring_results_in_commercial_broiler_flocks.
  63. Wilcox, C.S., Patterson, J., Cheng, H.W. (2009). Use of thermography to screen for subclinical bumblefoot in poultry. Poultry Science. Vol. 88, pp. 1176–1180. DOI:10.3382/ps.2008-00446.
  64. Olsen, R.H., Christensen, H., Kabell. S., Bisgaard, M. (2018). Characterization of prevalent bacterial pathogens associated with pododermatitis in table egg layers. Avian Pathology. Vol. 47 (3), pp. 281–285. DOI:10.1080/0307945 7.2018.1440066.
  65. Dinev, I. (2012). Clinical and morphological investigations on the incidence of forms of rickets and their association with other pathological states in broiler chickens. Research in Veterinary Science. Vol. 92, pp. 273–277. DOI:10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.02.011.
  66. Chen, J., Tellez, G., Escobar, J. (2016). Identification of Biomarkers for Footpad Dermatitis Development and Wound Healing. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. Vol. 6, 26 p. DOI:10.3389/fcimb.2016.00026.
AttachmentSize
PDF icon yemelyanenko_2_2021.pdf457.38 KB