Dataset Information

Comparisons of management practices and farm design on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Cage, barn and free range.

ABSTRACT: There are few published studies describing the unique management practices, farm design and housing characteristics of commercial meat chicken and layer farms in Australia. In particular, there has been a large expansion of free range poultry production in Australia in recent years, but limited information about this enterprise exists. This study aimed to describe features of Australian commercial chicken farms, with particular interest in free range farms, by conducting on-farm interviews of 25 free range layer farms, nine cage layer farms, nine barn layer farms, six free range meat chicken farms and 15 barn meat chicken farms in the Sydney basin bioregion and South East Queensland. Comparisons between the different enterprises (cage, barn and free range) were explored, including stocking densities, depopulation procedures, environmental control methods and sources of information for farmers. Additional information collected for free range farms include range size, range characteristics and range access. The median number of chickens per shed was greatest in free range meat chicken farms (31,058), followed by barn meat chicken (20,817), free range layer (10,713), barn layer (9,300) and cage layer farms (9,000). Sheds had cooling pads and tunnel ventilation in just over half of both barn and free range meat chicken farms (53%, n = 8) and was least common in free range layer farms (16%, n = 4). Range access in free range meat chicken farms was from sunrise to dark in the majority (93%, n = 14) of free range meat chicken farms. Over half of free range layer farms (56%, n = 14) granted range access at a set time each morning; most commonly between 9:00 to 10.00am (86%, n = 12), and chickens were placed back inside sheds when it was dusk.

SUBMITTER: Scott AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5699831 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparisons of management practices and farm design on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Cage, barn and free range.

Scott Angela Bullanday AB Singh Mini M Toribio Jenny-Ann JA Hernandez-Jover Marta M Barnes Belinda B Glass Kathryn K Moloney Barbara B Lee Amanda A Groves Peter P

PloS one 20171122 11

There are few published studies describing the unique management practices, farm design and housing characteristics of commercial meat chicken and layer farms in Australia. In particular, there has been a large expansion of free range poultry production in Australia in recent years, but limited information about this enterprise exists. This study aimed to describe features of Australian commercial chicken farms, with particular interest in free range farms, by conducting on-farm interviews of 25 ...[more]

PMID: 29166389

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study investigated the pathways of exposure to low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) virus among Australian commercial chicken farms and estimated the likelihood of this exposure occurring using scenario trees and a stochastic modeling approach following the World Organization for Animal Health methodology for risk assessment. Input values for the models were sourced from scientific literature and an on-farm survey conducted during 2015 and 2016 among Australian commercial chicken farms located in New South Wales and Queensland. Outputs from the models revealed that the probability of a first LPAI virus exposure to a chicken in an Australian commercial chicken farms from one wild bird at any point in time is extremely low. A comparative assessment revealed that across the five farm types (non-free-range meat chicken, free-range meat chicken, cage layer, barn layer, and free range layer farms), free-range layer farms had the highest probability of exposure (7.5?×?10-4; 5% and 95%, 5.7?×?10-4-0.001). The results indicate that the presence of a large number of wild birds on farm is required for exposure to occur across all farm types. The median probability of direct exposure was highest in free-range farm types (5.6?×?10-4 and 1.6?×?10-4 for free-range layer and free-range meat chicken farms, respectively) and indirect exposure was highest in non-free-range farm types (2.7?×?10-4, 2.0?×?10-4, and 1.9?×?10-4 for non-free-range meat chicken, cage layer, and barn layer farms, respectively). The probability of exposure was found to be lowest in summer for all farm types. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the proportion of waterfowl among wild birds on the farm, the presence of waterfowl in the range and feed storage areas, and the prevalence of LPAI in wild birds are the most influential parameters for the probability of Australian commercial chicken farms being exposed to avian influenza (AI) virus. These results highlight the importance of ensuring good biosecurity on farms to minimize the risk of exposure to AI virus and the importance of continuous surveillance of LPAI prevalence including subtypes in wild bird populations.

Project description:Commercial poultry production is growing rapidly in Bangladesh to address the increasing demand for poultry meat and eggs. Challenges faced by producers include the occurrence of poultry diseases, which are usually treated or controlled by antimicrobials. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 57 commercial layer and 83 broiler farms in eight subdistricts of the Chattogram district, Bangladesh, to assess antimicrobial usage in relation to clinical signs observed in chicken flocks on these farms. Of the 140 commercial chicken farms, 137 (97.9%) used antimicrobials and 24 different antimicrobial agents were administered. On layer farms, the most commonly used antimicrobials were ciprofloxacin (37.0% of farms, 20/54), amoxicillin (33.3%, 18/54), and tiamulin (31.5%, 17/54), while on broiler farms, colistin (56.6%, 47/83), doxycycline (50.6%, 42/83), and neomycin (38.6%, 32/83) were most commonly administered. Only 15.3% (21/137) of farmers used antimicrobials exclusively for therapeutic purposes, while 84.7% (116/137) of farmers used them prophylactically, administering them either for prophylactic purposes only (22.6% of farmers, 31/137) or in combination with therapeutic purposes (62.1% of farmers, 85/137). About 83.3% (45/54) of layer farmers were selling eggs while antimicrobials were being administered compared to 36.1% (30/83) of the broiler farmers selling broiler chickens while administering antimicrobials. Overall, 75.2% (103/137) of farmers reported clinical signs for which they administered antimicrobials, while 24.8% (34/137) of farmers reported no clinical signs but still administered antimicrobials. Respiratory signs (71.8% of farms with clinical signs, 74/103) were most commonly reported, followed by enteric signs (32.0%, 33/103) and increased mortality (16.5%, 17/103). About 37.2% (51/137) of farmers bought antimicrobials exclusively from feed and chick traders, followed by veterinary medical stores (35.0%, 48/137). Purchasing antimicrobials from feed and chick traders was more common among broiler than layer farmers. It is recommended that commercial poultry farmers should keep records of antimicrobials used with dosage and duration of administration along with indication of use. This would allow farmers and veterinarians to review if antimicrobial usage had the desired effects and to evaluate the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents under an antimicrobial stewardship approach.

Project description:This study quantified and compared the probability of avian influenza (AI) spread within and between Australian commercial chicken farms via specified spread pathways using scenario tree mathematical modeling. Input values for the models were sourced from scientific literature, expert opinion, and a farm survey conducted during 2015 and 2016 on Australian commercial chicken farms located in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland. Outputs from the models indicate that the probability of no establishment of infection in a shed is the most likely end-point after exposure and infection of low-pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) in one chicken for all farm types (non-free range meat chicken, free range meat chicken, cage layer, barn layer, and free range layer farms). If LPAI infection is established in a shed, LPAI is more likely to spread to other sheds and beyond the index farm due to a relatively low probability of detection and reporting during LPAI infection compared to high-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) infection. Among farm types, the median probability for HPAI spread between sheds and between farms is higher for layer farms (0.0019, 0.0016, and 0.0031 for cage, barn, and free range layer, respectively) than meat chicken farms (0.00025 and 0.00043 for barn and free range meat chicken, respectively) due to a higher probability of mutation in layer birds, which relates to their longer production cycle. The pathway of LPAI spread between sheds with the highest average median probability was spread via equipment (0.015; 5-95%, 0.0058-0.036) and for HPAI spread between farms, the pathway with the highest average median probability was spread via egg trays (3.70 × 10-5; 5-95%, 1.47 × 10-6-0.00034). As the spread model did not explicitly consider volume and frequency of the spread pathways, these results provide a comparison of spread probabilities per pathway. These findings highlight the importance of performing biosecurity practices to limit spread of the AI virus. The models can be updated as new information on the mechanisms of the AI virus and on the volume and frequency of movements shed-to-shed and of movements between commercial chicken farms becomes available.

Dataset Information

Comparisons of management practices and farm design on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Cage, barn and free range.

Publications

Comparisons of management practices and farm design on Australian commercial layer and meat chicken farms: Cage, barn and free range.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets