Pictures of the feet, now scored by the modified algorithm, were evaluated again. According to these results, the algorithm of the automated system was modified, aiming to improve color detection and the distinction of the metatarsal footpad from the background. In 41.3% of the feet, the foot was not presented straight to the camera. The reference area (metatarsal footpad) was not detected correctly in 55.0% of the feet, and false detections of the alteration on the footpad (FPD) were found in 32.9% of the feet. Therefore, pictures of 3,000 feet scored by the automated system were evaluated systematically to detect deficiencies. The results were not acceptable, with an agreement coefficient of 0.44 in the initial situation.
The observer reliability between both was calculated (Krippendorff's alpha). In this study, the feet of turkeys were scored for FPD by both an automated camera system and a human observer, using a five-scale score. However, using automated systems requires that they reliably assess the incidence. Automated systems for assessing FPD at slaughter can present a useful tool for objective data collection. In conclusion, a new scoring system is required, as the size of the FP cannot be clearly defined and different tissue textures, as well as valid sample sizes are not currently sufficiently considered.įootpad dermatitis (FPD) is an indicator of animal welfare in turkeys, giving evidence of the animals' physical integrity and providing information on husbandry management. Furthermore, with regard to an increase in camera-based assessments, the boundary of the metatarsal pad needs to be clarified.
GREENFOOT SCOREBOARD MANUAL
FPD affected areas were given lower Scores and assessed to be healthier when evaluated by an image system, compared to a manual assessment. the success of management measures that were already implemented. The applied assessment scheme should distinguish first alterations and scar tissue as separate scores to differentiate the need for management intervention vs. Histopathological findings showed normal and non-affected structures of a macroscopic Score 0 and a moderate ulcer of the macroscopic Score 1 and Score 2. The sample size of monitored birds within a flock should differ and depend on flock size and expected FPD prevalence. As an exemplary sample size for on-farm FPD assessment, 77 turkey poults were calculated in a flock of 4,000 birds with an expected FPD prevalence of 40% and α = 0.1. Thus, both feet of a bird should be monitored, while the worse foot should be evaluated. The scores of both feet of an individual turkey correlated between r = 0.252 and r = 1.000. To align manual macroscopic FPD evaluations with a technical system, 20 photographic images of FPD were measured using the ImageJ program. To compare macroscopic to histological findings, ten excised FPs were histopathologically investigated by hematoxylin & eosin staining. Sample size for FPD monitoring was calculated for several flock sizes, considering expected FPD prevalence and the error and confidence level (α = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1). Spearman's rho was calculated between the foot pad dermatitis (FPD) score of both feet of an individual turkey. Therefore, in a field study, 11,400 turkeys, i.e., 22,800 feet, were macroscopically scored at 4-week intervals, 60 birds per flock per date, in accordance with the scale system of Hocking et al. Currently, there is no consistent approach to on-farm and post-mortem foot pad (FP) assessment in turkey husbandry in sampling of both feet, sample sizes of birds and scoring schemes during the production period.
0 kommentar(er)
