If you can't read please download the document
Upload
hewitt
View
29
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Impact of nutrition and management on the occurrence and severity of foot pad dermatitis. Luc Maertens Evelyne Delezie. Huvepharma Seminar, Bruges 20-21/11/2013. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research Animal Science Unit, Melle (Belgium) www.ilvo.vlaanderen.be. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
PowerPoint Presentation
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries ResearchAnimal Science
Unit, Melle (Belgium)www.ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Impact of nutrition and managementon the occurrence and severity of
foot pad dermatitis
Huvepharma Seminar, Bruges 20-21/11/2013
Luc MaertensEvelyne Delezie
Foot pad dermatitis (FPD) ... wet litter
*
Different names: Foot pad dermatitis (FDP) Contact dermatitis
Pododermatitis Foot burn or - lesions Ammonia burn: > 50% of
manure N NH3)
(uric acid +H20+02: NH3 and C02)
What: erosion (necrotic lesions) of the foot skin
Cause: wet and sticky litter (FPD and wet litter: r = 0.9)
Intro
Development of broiler weight
?
Weight (g) at 42 days (males)
*
Reasons: Selection 80-90% Feed 10-20%
With increasing performance increasing FPD
Consequences: - Very high increase in daily feed and water intake -
From d25 onwards: >150 g feed or > 0.25 l water litter
quality - Fragile intestinal balance, quicker gut passage
Intro
Grafiek1
1700
2000
2400
2750
3100
Oost
Sheet1
198019902000201020152020
Oost170020002400275031003250
Foot pad dermatitis ... assessment
*
Excellent unacceptable
Intro
Scale 0 ...
....2 (3)
Intro: prevalence on farms
*
FPD farm score=100 x (0 x class 0 + 0.5 x class 1 + 2 x class 2)/ n
(= number of feet)
Broiler farms (cumulative %)
Situation in The Netherlands between April 2010 and April 2011
(Source WUR)
Intro
(Productschap Pluimvee en Eieren)
Adverse effects of foot pad dermatitis
*
Animal welfare (pain, move less, eat and drink less)Links with
prevalence of breast blisters & rejections at
slaughterhouseDirty broilers, catching ...A gateway for bacteria
(secondary infections)Reduced use of antibiotics (link with gut
health, litter quality)Economical value of feet (Asia)Reduced
performances (DWG & FCR) because of reduced mobility
(Audenaert, 2012)
Intro
Litter moistureDWGFCRProb. (P) with litter moisture, % 0.0360.001Corr. (R) with litter moisture, % -0.3730.544
FPD a multifactorial problem
*
Water: balance: intake, -losses, -system, -pressure Litter
material: type, thickness, Litter: wet, sticky, capped, caked
...Ventilation and floor: temperature, concrete,, ...Light:
distribution, colour, program, ... Density (33 -39 - 42 kg/m);
partial unloadingAnimal: age, weight, breed, sex, Gut health:
dysbacteriosis coccidiosis - ...NutritionRaw materials (vegetarian
vs animal origin, cereals ) Nutrients (minerals, protein content,
fat )Physical feed form (mash, pellet, whole wheat )Enzymes (NSP,
proteases, ....)Additives (acids, clay minerals, )Biotin, Zn
Management at farm level !
Overview
Wet litter . disturbed water balance
*
WATER BALANCE broiler:
SUPPLY LOSSES Feed ( 88% DM) Urinary (50%)+ drinking water (75% of supply)Faeces (water content 75-80%)+ Oxidation of nutrientsEvaporation (skin + exhaled gasses)(0.6 g H2O/g glucose; 1.7g H2O/g fat; 0.1g H2O/g protein)
Note: selection for extreme DWG (feed intake): loading of litter
E.g. Quickly growing (Ross 308) vs slower growing broiler (Sasso
T451)
Water
Litter of broilers: water balance
Ratio water/feed: 1.7 - 2.0; Feed cons. 0-40d/br: 4.25 kg
7.25 l
8.50 l
2.0 l
2.0 l
5.25 l
6.5 l
25-30% fixed in the body
50-75% by evaporation
3.60 l
1.65 l
3.5 l
3.25 l
For a house with 40 000 br or 2 500 m)
25 l/m or 65 000 l
50 l/m or 130 000 l
Or 3 000 to 6 000 l/day after the age of 25 days ! Ventilation!
Release of water!
Note: wood shavings: max. water retention 3.4 l/kg ; 2 kg/m or 7l/m
or 17 500 l/house
Optimal situation
Bad situation
Water
15 br/m
Wet litter dirty broilers FPD
Drinker height and water pressure
*
Drinking line height: appropriate to bird height (when standing
birds have to reach for the nipple): avoids water spillage or
playingMobile drinking lines: less FPD (more homogeneous
litter)Water pressure: age dependent (low for young birds, higher
with increasing age); FPD score: better with low pressure BUT
performances ...
FPD score
Weight, d 38
(Petersen, 2006)
Water pressure
Water
Grafiek1
2351
2380
2369
Kolom1
Blad1
Kolom1
Low2351
Medium2380
High2369
Als u de afmetingen van het gegevensbereik van de grafiek wilt wijzigen, versleept u de rechterbenedenhoek van het bereik.
Grafiek1
8
42
60
Kolom1
Blad1
Kolom1
Low8
Medium42
High60
Als u de afmetingen van het gegevensbereik van de grafiek wilt wijzigen, versleept u de rechterbenedenhoek van het bereik.
FPD and drinker types
*
Water spillage: drinking cups > nipples > nipples with drip
cups
(Van Harn et al., 2009)
Water
ParameterDrinking nippleDrip cupBody weight, d 35 (g)FCRWater/feed ratio2047 b1.603 b1.81 b2093 a1.595 a1.78 aDry matter litter (%)FPD Score 0 Score 1 Score 248.7 a
04 a9552.8 b
418 b78
Acidifying of drinking water
*
(Van Harn & De Jong, 2012)
FPD scores
Water
Control+ AcidifierControlled to the same water intake as with acidifierWeight, d 35FCR2106 a1.5841961 b1.5971974 b1.592Water/feed ratioDM litter (%)1.82 b60.7 a1.74 a65.6 b1.71a65.2 b
Grafiek1
38.547.514
3550.514.5
5.52866.5
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2
Controlled water38.547.514
With acidifyer3550.514.5
Control5.52866.5
Water binding capacity of litter material
*
* DM of 85-90%
(De Baere & Zoons, 2004)
(Youssef et al., 2010)
Litter
Litter *Specific gravity (kg/m3)WBC (g H2O/g litter)Wood shavings1203.4Wood (sawdust)1601.0-1.5Wheat straw602.6Barley straw601.9
FPD and litter material
*
Most used: wood shavings, chopped straw, peat, coconut fibers ....
Flax straw, chopped corn plant, rice hulls, sand, recycled paper,
...Peat > wood shavings (fine coconut)> chopped straw but if
straw if chopped in small pieces: improved litter and less
FPDPhysical form: soft (lignocellulose: water release!) and no
sharp edges (barley straw !)short (chopped straw: 2-4 cm): WBC and
stimulate scratchingDM of litter at start has to be high (85-90%)
and ventilate enough to maintain a good litter quality (DM>55%,
no crust on the top)
Litter
FDP and litter material
*
Average of 6 flocks, De Baere & Zoons, 2004
Litter
Grafiek1
56.73211.20.1
39.245.315.30.1
(1,5 kg/m)
(1,5 kg/m)
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Blad1
Score 1Score 2Score 3Score 4
Wood shavings56.73211.20.1
Straw39.245.315.30.1
Als u de afmetingen van het gegevensbereik van de grafiek wilt wijzigen, versleept u de rechterbenedenhoek van het bereik.
*
FDP and litter material
FDP and litter material
Litter
Litter material and FPD in turkeys
*
Litter
Litter material and FPD in turkeys
*
Van Harn & De Jong, 2012
(Youssef et al., 2010)
Wet litter challenge: 8h/d at a continuously 27% DM , by adding
water
Litter
Wood shavingsLigno celluloseChopped strawDried mais silageDWG (d 15-42)FCR68.8 1.5167.1 1.6372.41.6172.01.60DM litter, %76.7 a83.2 b68.8 c75.0 a
FPD and bedding amount litter depth
*
Contrasting results: more bedding material does not necessary
result in improved FDP (1.0 vs 1.5 kg/m wood shavings or 1.25 vs
2.5 kg/m straw)Interactions with floor isolation, heating (e.g.
under ground), ventilation?If floor is well isolated: with a thin
layer of litter (0.5 1 kg/m) 1 cmIncreased scratching and turning
of the litter by the chicks Increased aeration, drier and friable
litterBut floor temperature! Pre-warmingSpreading of litter
material after pre-warming to avoid condensation If a cold floor: a
ticker layer of litter is required (>2-3 cm)
Litter
Effect of lava or clay minerals
*
Lava: 2 times/week: 70 g/m)
Clay minerals: 2 times/week: 70 g/m)
(De Baere, 2012)
Litter additions
Grafiek1
2266120
1562230
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2Score 3
extra lava2266120
Wood shavings1562230
Grafiek1
1766170
1462240
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2Score 3
Clay minerals1766170
Wood shavings1462240
FPD and lighting
*
EC regulation: min. 6h dark/24h with a 4h uninterrupted dark period
and at least 20 lux during lighting periodsImportant: uniform
distribution (also of feed, water, ventilation) promotes a
homogeneous distribution of birds and avoids bad zones Light bulbs
> fluorescent lighting (TL): less friable litter, decreased
FPDLED light: energy saving, homogeneous and interestingColour :
limited effect on FPD , but ... on behaviour (yellow: promotes
walking; blue: promote sitting and standing; green: promotes
intake, ... ) Intermittent > day - night: drier litter, less
FPDAfter a long dark period: peak in water intake!
Light
Effect of lighting regime on FPD
*
(De Baere & Zoons, 2004)
But if TL lamps are placed higher, a more homogeneous light
distribution, better spreading of broilers and litter ... less
FPD
Light
Grafiek1
51.636.811.60
56.136.86.80.4
5237.710.10.3
41.941.715.70.6
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2Score 3
Bulbs 5 lux51.636.811.60
Bulbs 10 lux56.136.86.80.4
Bulbs 20 lux5237.710.10.3
Fluorescent (TL)41.941.715.70.6
Effect of lighting regime on FPD
*
(Van Harn, 2009)
FPD scores
Light
18L:6DIntermittent: 4L:4D: 3L:1D:3L:1D:3L:1D:3L:1DWeight, d 35FCR2029 a1.5722061 b1.566Water/feed ratioDM litter (%)1.68 b58.6 a1.65 a61.2 b
Grafiek1
61.435.82.8
50.742.37
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2
Intermittent61.435.82.8
Day/night50.742.37
Effect of stocking density on FPD
*
EC regulation: 33 or 39 or 42 kg/mNot always clear in trials ...
but faecal load on the litter increases with increasing densities
After an early and partial depopulation ( at d 30): increased
litter quality
FPD scores
(De Baere & Zoons, 2004)
Stocking density
Grafiek1
39.737.220.12.9
54.329.714.21.8
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2Score 3
20/m39.737.220.12.9
16/m54.329.714.21.8
Comparison of 2 temperature schedules and FPD
*
(Van Harn & De Jong, 2012)
Temperature
Age (days)Rapid declineSlower decline-5-4-3-2-10171421283542---2830333328252221201925253030333333302825222019
Effect of temperature scheme on FPD
*
(Van Harn & De Jong, 2012)
Temperature
Control (rapid) temperature declineSlow temperature declineWeight, d 35FCR21081.566 a21081.536 bWater/feed ratioDM litter (%)1.75 a65.5 b1.79 b67.0 a
Grafiek1
86.211.22.6
69.123.57.4
Score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Blad1
Score 0Score 1Score 2
Slow decline86.211.22.6
Rapid decline69.123.57.4
Effect of age, breed, gender on FPD
*
Age (weight): clear increase of severity and prevalence with age
(of litter quality??Between standard commercial breeds: no clear
differences, sometimes Ross 308 less sensitive compared to Cobb
FFHowever: slower growing breeds (more active ?): less FPDMales
> females: weight effect?
Animal
FPD and feeding
*
All dietary factors that increase water consumption: risk
factorsOversupply of nutrients (excretion with water via the
kidneys)High dietary protein contentMinerals (Na, K)Fat (source
content), highly condensed feedsRaw materials with high NSP
content, whole wheatFeed form: mash pellet; particle size: coarse -
fineAdditions (Zn, Biotin, clay minerals, lignocellulose...)
...
N- retention in broilers
*
Inefficient: only 40% converted to muscle tissue in broilers
Undigested N: draws water for excretion through liver, kidneys
(uric acid) and faeces Stimulates water intake and urine volume If
excess: disturbs microbial gut balance, absorption 2% CP = 12,5% N
= 18% N excretion (Collett, 2012) Because of the high growth and
high breast meat %: high N (AA) requirements Duality : maximize
growth or gut health Vegetable protein sources: high content of
non-digestible CH (SBM 12%)) Avoids an excess of indigestible
protein by:Using well digestible sourcesSynthetic AA
Oversupply
Effect of protein level and source
*
Effect on severe lesions at d 54
H
L
VEG + ANI
VEG
P