Examinations on the prevalence of footpad lesions and breast skin lesions in B.U.T. Big 6 fattening turkeys in Germany. Part II: Prevalence of breast skin lesions (breast buttons and breast blisters)

Abstract

This project involves the prevalence of breast skin alterations (breast buttons, blisters, purulent bursitis) in male and female fattened turkeys (British United Turkeys Big 6) from conventional intensive farming. In this case, 24 turkey farms across Germany and 11,860 turkeys (5,740 toms, 6,120 hens) were clinically examined, and 16,200 birds (8,400 hens, 7,800 toms) were evaluated on slaughter lines at 7 turkey abattoirs. Each turkey farm included examination of at least 3 consecutive fattening cycles. Especially in the meat examinations, breast skin alterations were a frequent discovery, particularly in the form of breast buttons. The turkey toms exhibited a prevalence of 27.15%, and the toms were affected significantly more frequently (P < 0.001) by these variations than the turkey hens (7.77%). It is possible that the higher BW of the male specimens leads to increased lying times and is therefore connected with more severe strain on the breast region. The increased fattening period of the turkey toms (slaughtering at wk 21 to 22 of life) vs. the female specimens (slaughtering at wk 15 to 17 of life) must be discussed as a cause. Breast blisters and bursitis sternalis were discovered with a prevalence of 7.36 and 1.24% in toms and more seldom in hens, at 0.30% and 0.15%. Large differences in prevalence were partially recognizable between individual farms as well as between the 3 fattening cycles on a farm. Breast buttons and breast blisters are pathological skin variations for which the etiology is multifactorial. Clear correlations between the prevalence of breast skin alterations and the manner of rearing the birds were not able to be determined. An improvement in this situation, which is considered very problematic from the perspective of bird protection and economics, may be achieved only via cooperation to achieve optimized rearing methods, management, and breeding practices.

Prevalence of skin lesions in turkeys at slaughter

“…In conclusion, although all the lesions mentioned here have already been studied by other authors Mitterer-Istyagin et al, 2011), this is the first time that correlations between all of them have been investigated. The results suggest that welfare cannot be assessed using a single type of lesion, but should be based on multiple criteria to provide a meaningful overview of the status of turkey welfare.…”

“…Other lesions, regarded as being linked to animal welfare and visible at the macroscopic level, were observed at the slaughter-line, such as breast blisters, abnormal colour of the breast, arthritis, injury from feather pecking, wounds, skin rupture, scratches and bruises. These lesions have already been described and are known to be relevant for welfare assessment (Kamyab, 2001;Hocking et al, 2008;Krautwald-Junghanns et al, 2011;Mitterer-Istyagin et al, 2011). Their scoring is also relatively easy to standardise.…”

“…One of the main methods for assessing animal welfare is based on the measurement of body lesions, as proposed in the Welfare Quality project for broilers and laying hens (Welfare Quality, 2009). In turkey production, some of these body lesions have been studied previously as footpad dermatitis (Martland, 1984;Ekstrand and Algers, 1997;Clark et al, 2002;Mayne, 2005;Hocking et al, 2008;Youssef et al, 2010;Krautwald-Junghanns et al, 2011), other leg and foot abnormities (Swarbrick, 1966;Nestor, 1971;Buffington et al, 1975;Krautwald-Junghanns et al, 2011) and breast lesions (Miner and Smart, 1975;Gonder and Barnes, 1987;Kamyab, 2001;St-Hilaire et al, 2003;Mitterer-Istyagin et al, 2011). As proposed in previous studies, these recordings may be carried out at the farm or at the slaughterhouse (Hocking et al, 2008).…”

“…Breast buttons were more frequent, with an average of 30Á1%, irrespective of severity, which is in line with the literature estimates of 22Á6% (St-Hilaire et al, 2003) and 27Á1% . A previous review (Kamyab, 2001) reported that the development of these breast lesions could be due to various factors: sex (Gonder and Barnes, 1987;Mitterer-Istyagin et al, 2011), genotype (Miner and Smart, 1975;Tilley et al, 1996), body weight (Kamyab, 1997), stress (Kamyab, 2001), photoperiod (Newberry, 1992) and flock management such as litter type (Tilley et al, 1996;Kamyab, 2001).…”

“…A breast button was defined as a button on unfeathered skin over the keel of the breast(Gonder and Barnes, 1987;Mitterer-Istyagin et al, 2011).…”