Antimicrobial Use in Broilers Reared at Different Stocking Densities: A Retrospective Study
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Statistical office of the European Union, EUROSTAT. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Kralik, G.; Kralik, Z.; Grčević, M.; Hanžek, D. Quality of Chicken Meat. Anim. Husb. Nutr. 2018, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavárez, M.A.; De los Santos, F.S. Impact of genetics and breeding on broiler production performance: A look into the past, present, and future of the industry. Anim. Front. 2016, 6, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abudabos, A.M.; Samara, E.M.; Hussein, E.O.S.; Al-Ghadi, M.Q.; Al-Atiyat, R.M. Impacts of Stocking Density on the Performance and Welfare of Broiler Chickens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartcher, K.M.; Lum, H.K. Genetic selection of broilers and welfare consequences: A review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2020, 76, 154–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, M.S.; Donnelly, C.A.; Jones, T.A. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 2004, 427, 342–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ritz, C.; Fairchild, B.D.; Lacy, M.P. Litter Quality and Broiler Performance. University of Georgia, extension bulletin. 2009. Available online: https://secure.caes.uga.edu/extension/publications/files/pdf/B%201267_5.PDF (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Buijs, S.; Keeling, L.; Rettenbacher, S.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A. Stocking density effects on broiler welfare: Identifying sensitive ranges for different indicators. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1536–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, A.L. The Effect of Stocking Density on the Welfare and Behaviour of Broiler Chickens Reared Commercially. Anim. Welfare 2001, 10, 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- EU Council Directive 2007/43/EC. Laying down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens Kept for Meat Production. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32007L0043 (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Bessei, W. Welfare of broilers: A review. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2006, 62, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortané, N. Veterinarian ‘responsibility’: Conflicts of definition and appropriation surrounding the public problem of antimicrobial resistance in France. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EMA. Principles on Assignment of Defined Daily Dose for Animals (DDDvet) and Defined Course Dose for Animals (DCDvet). 2015. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/principles-assignment-defined-daily-dose-animals-dddvet-defined-course-dose-animals-dcdvet_en.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country/106 (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- EMA. Guidance on Collection and Provision of National Data on Antimicrobial Use by Animal Species/Categories. 2018. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/guidance-collection-provision-national-data-antimicrobial-use-animal-species/categories_en.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Caucci, C.; Di Martino, G.; Dalla Costa, A.; Santagiuliana, M.; Lorenzetto, M.; Capello, K.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Gavazzi, L.; Bonfanti, L. Trends and correlates of antimicrobial use in broiler and turkey farms: A poultry company registry-based study in Italy. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 2784–2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nota del Ministero Della Salute Prot. n. 0010365 del 28/04/2016 con Oggetto: Piano Nazionale Benessere Animale (PNBA) 2016—Protezione dei Polli Allevati per la Macellazione di Carne (d. lgs 181/2010)—Monitoraggio del Benessere Animale al Macello. Available online: https://www.alimenti-salute.it/doc/nota_10365_del_28_apr_2016_pnba_polli_da_carne.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application of Directive 2007/43/EC and Its Influence on the Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production, as well as the Development of Welfare Indicators. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-181-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF (accessed on 11 August 2020).
- Shepherd, E.M.; Fairchild, B.D. Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 2043–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petracci, M.; Bianchi, M.; Cavani, C.; Gaspari, P.; Lavazza, A. Preslaughter mortality in broiler chickens, turkeys, and spent hens under commercial slaughtering. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 1660–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Martino, G.; Capello, K.; Russo, E.; Mazzucato, M.; Mulatti, P.; Ferrè, N.; Garbo, A.; Brichese, M.; Marangon, S.; Bonfanti, L. Factors associated with pre-slaughter mortality in turkeys and end of lay hens. Animal 2017, 11, 2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunlop, M.W.; Moss, A.F.; Groves, P.J.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Stuetz, R.M.; Selle, P.H. The multidimensional causal factors of ‘wet litter’ in chicken-meat production. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marangon, S.; Capua, I.; Rossi, E.; Ferrè, N.; Dalla Pozza, M.; Bonfanti, L.; Mannelli, A. The control of avian influenza in areas at risk: The Italian experience 1997–2003. In Avian Influenza Prevention and Control; Schrijver, R., Koch, G., Eds.; Springer: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 33–39. [Google Scholar]

| Variables | Stocking Density (kg/m2) | N | Q1 | Median | Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| overall (N = 344) | |||||
| Antimicrobial use (DDDita/kg) | 33 | 87 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 1 |
| 39 | 257 | 0.13 | 0.47 | 1.39 | |
| Feed conversion ratio | 33 | 87 | 1.68 | 1.72 | 1.75 |
| 39 | 257 | 1.68 | 1.71 | 1.74 | |
| Mortality (%) | 33 | 87 | 3.5 | 4.1 | 5 |
| 39 | 257 | 3.6 | 4.3 | 5.2 | |
| sex: Female (N = 46) | |||||
| Antimicrobial use (DDDita/kg) | 33 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.53 |
| 39 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0.41 | |
| Feed conversion ratio | 33 | 18 | 1.63 | 1.69 | 1.74 |
| 39 | 28 | 1.68 | 1.72 | 1.77 | |
| Mortality (%) | 33 | 18 | 2.9 | 3.45 | 4 |
| 39 | 28 | 2.75 | 3.45 | 3.8 | |
| sex: Male (N = 130) | |||||
| Antimicrobial use (DDDita/kg) | 33 | 32 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.69 |
| 39 | 98 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 1.21 | |
| Feed conversion ratio | 33 | 32 | 1.68 | 1.71 | 1.74 |
| 39 | 98 | 1.68 | 1.71 | 1.73 | |
| Mortality (%) | 33 | 32 | 3.75 | 4.5 | 5.75 |
| 39 | 98 | 3.9 | 4.9 | 6 | |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tarakdjian, J.; Capello, K.; Pasqualin, D.; Cunial, G.; Lorenzetto, M.; Gavazzi, L.; Manca, G.; Di Martino, G. Antimicrobial Use in Broilers Reared at Different Stocking Densities: A Retrospective Study. Animals 2020, 10, 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101751
Tarakdjian J, Capello K, Pasqualin D, Cunial G, Lorenzetto M, Gavazzi L, Manca G, Di Martino G. Antimicrobial Use in Broilers Reared at Different Stocking Densities: A Retrospective Study. Animals. 2020; 10(10):1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101751
Chicago/Turabian StyleTarakdjian, Jacopo, Katia Capello, Dario Pasqualin, Giovanni Cunial, Monica Lorenzetto, Luigi Gavazzi, Grazia Manca, and Guido Di Martino. 2020. "Antimicrobial Use in Broilers Reared at Different Stocking Densities: A Retrospective Study" Animals 10, no. 10: 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101751
APA StyleTarakdjian, J., Capello, K., Pasqualin, D., Cunial, G., Lorenzetto, M., Gavazzi, L., Manca, G., & Di Martino, G. (2020). Antimicrobial Use in Broilers Reared at Different Stocking Densities: A Retrospective Study. Animals, 10(10), 1751. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101751

