4.1. Housing Design and Management
This study provides results on a cross-sectional survey of 83 commercial turkey farmers, giving detailed information on housing and management practices in Canada. The response rate was approx. 20%, which is higher than a previous survey conducted in Canada on turkey euthanasia methods [
20].
Turkey flocks in Canada are typically kept in indoor floor systems with bedding (e.g., straw, wood shavings) on a concrete/wooden floor. A small number of farmers reared turkeys on a dirt floor, which has been reported before for turkey or broiler production, in the US, South America and Europe [
21,
22,
23,
24]. The Code of Practice makes no recommendation regarding floor type, however it does place emphasis on bedding and litter management [
17]. All farmers in the study provided some kind of bedding substrate, with straw and wood-shaving being the most commonly used. When details on the type of wood shaving used were requested, most farmers were unable to provide this information. However, more important than the type of bedding, good litter management is needed to maintain litter quality and keep litter loose, dry and friable [
23,
25]. Litter quality is impacted by environmental factors, such as ventilation, diet, and bedding material, and litter that is too dry or too wet should be avoided [
16]. Martrenchar et al. [
23] cautioned that adding too much bedding could potentially increase the risk of footpad dermatitis, as it would be more difficult to keep dry. Farmers in the current study estimated their litter depth to be around 10 cm, but no Canadian recommendations for litter depth are available. Farmers mostly reported good litter quality (low moisture content and loose), although some felt that the litter was very dry or damp/tacky. It should be acknowledged that this is a self-reported and subjective assessment of litter quality that may not necessarily reflect the actual litter quality. More comprehensive measures of litter moisture, pH, and nitrogen content could have provided more accurate insights into the litter quality, but were not feasible in the current study. Different techniques were employed by farmers to maintain litter quality, with the main ones being methods to deal with wet litter (e.g., adding dry bedding, heating, tilling, moving water lines, and adjusting ventilation). The greater emphasis on managing wet litter suggests that wet litter was more of an issue for farmers than too dry litter at the time of the survey, which covered a range of flock ages and seasons. The large proportion of farmers who use multiple methods to check and maintain litter quality emphasizes the importance farmers place on good litter management in turkey production. Finally, while the Code of Practice requires fresh bedding for poults at placement, this is not necessarily a requirement for the grow-out barns [
17]. This explains why approx. 15% of farmers used the same litter for consecutive flocks in the current study (in the grow-out barns). Though not specifically asked, it is also likely that a fresh layer of bedding was applied before flock placement in the grow-out barns. The reuse of litter is a practice used in several countries, though not common in Europe [
26,
27]. Possibly the farmers in the current study used a similar approach as observed in 85 Australian turkey farms, where 82% added fresh bedding for each batch, but only 27% removed old litter/manure [
27]. Interestingly, depending on the type of litter, the reuse of litter over consecutive flocks has been shown to both increase or reduce the risk of different types of condemnations in broilers [
28]. All in all, the reuse of litter is not well understood, and further research on its potential benefits or drawbacks, in terms of the productivity, health, and welfare of turkeys is required. The reported bird stocking densities were generally well in line with the recommendations for certain weight groups in the Canadian Code of Practice [
17], however, it should be acknowledge that these stocking densities were based on estimated values for average body weight, number of birds, and space available, and as such, should be treated as rough estimates.
Nearly one quarter of farmers said they provided environmental enrichment to their flocks, typically in the form of hay/straw bales or nets. Environmental enrichment is a modification of the environment that should improve the biological functioning of animals [
29]. The provision of hay/straw is considered biologically relevant, as it is a form of substrate and is thought to help improve animal welfare by reducing injurious pecking [
14]. However, very little scientific research is available on enrichment for turkeys, and the research that is available has conflicting results [
30,
31,
32].
The majority of farmers provided feed in a pelleted form from an external supplier, while only a few farmers indicated that they home-milled mashed feed. The number of feed changes (i.e., feed phasing) increased as birds got older, with 3–6 changes being common. It is recommended that feed changes are introduced gradually [
17]. Pelleted feed is suggested to improve feed conversion compared to mashed feed [
33] or crumble [
34]. Feed form, however, may also impact bird behaviour, with pellets typically thought to reduce time spent feeding [
35]. As this study was aimed at commercial turkey farmers, we did not ask any questions regarding the practice of feed restriction which occurs in breeder populations [
16,
35] (only a small proportion of breeder flocks participated in the survey). The majority of farmers used a closed watering system as opposed to open water drinkers. Closed watering systems limit bacterial growth and spillage [
17,
36], thereby impacting litter quality. Interestingly, it was suggested that birds might prefer open watering systems (e.g., bell drinkers) from a behavioral point of view, as it allows a more natural scooping motion. Research in broilers showed no preferences for different drinker types, and indicated instead that the height of the drinkers was more critical [
36]. However, limited research has been done in turkeys on their preferred drinking behaviour. The height of bell drinkers can be individually adapted and so might help farmers manage flocks that are not very uniform in size. Variation in body size is an issue, according to the surveyed turkey farmers, and this could potentially be linked to the problem of mortality seen due to dehydration [
37]. Improving flock uniformity or designing closed drinker systems that can be adapted to different heights might provide a way to counter this potential issue. Farmers were asked to estimate the number of birds per feeder and drinker system; however, these results should be interpreted with caution, as they are likely not very accurate, given the relatively large interquartile range. Nearly all farmers flushed, cleaned, or sanitized the water lines and performed regular inspections of the water quality, as recommended in the Code of Practice [
17].
The most common type of lighting provided was LED, with reported light intensities ranging between less than 10 to 30 lux in most flocks (with nearly 23% of farmers unable to provide an estimate). While light intensity can be reduced to correct for unwanted behaviors, such as injurious pecking, this should only be temporary [
17]. One-third of farmers indicated that they had adjusted light intensity in the barn for this reason, but it is unclear whether this was a temporary measure. Nearly all farmers provided birds with a dark period, which averaged at about 6 h of darkness. The Code of Practice requires a minimum of 4 h of darkness per day [
17], as continuous light can have negative impacts on bird development and welfare [
14]. Many of the recommendations regarding lighting regimes come from broiler production, and further research on lighting in turkeys is needed [
16].
Open-sided barns with curtains were used to house approx. 37% of the flocks. Approx. 32% of turkey farms in the US were estimated to use tunnel ventilation in the grow-out period [
38], while the proportion of farmers in the current study that used tunnel flow ventilation was much lower (~18%). The majority used cross flow ventilation (~70%); however, not all farmers were able to indicate the type of ventilation being used. The average temperature and relative humidity reported by farmers was within the recommended range in the Canadian Code of Practice for the different age ranges of the flocks [
17]. However, more variability was observed in the reported relative humidity, and approx. 28% of respondents did not provide an answer to this question. This could suggest that either not all staff regularly measure relative humidity, or that they are unsure of where this information can be found in the barn, or, finally, that the measurement is simply not available within the system. Similarly, only a few farmers (~38%) were able to provide the ventilation rate when using mechanical ventilation, and a large range was reported, thereby putting the accuracy of the responses into question. However, the average values for temperature, relative humidity and ventilation were within the range of values reported by Reynolds et al. [
21], who also reported large differences between hen, tom, or brooder barns depending on the season (summer/winter). This could also explain the large variation seen in the current cross-sectional study, for which data were collected across different flock sexes, ages and seasons. Furthermore, Canada’s provinces can differ widely when it comes to weather [
39], and these differences will impact management practices, such as, e.g., ventilation, barn climate, and litter management.
4.2. Flock Characteristics and Management
To the authors’ knowledge, this study provides the first indication on the proportion of flocks that are raised conventionally or under different certification programs, such as ‘Raised Without Antibiotics/Antibiotic Free’ or ‘Responsible Use of Antibiotics’. Interestingly, the data represented more or less equal numbers of each flock certification program. This could represent the increasing interest of the public for programs that lower the antibiotic usage in animal production [
40,
41]. Alternatively, it is possible that the farmers pursuing these certifications were more inclined to participate in research. Farmers and veterinarians in the US indicated that the switch to these programs was mostly market-driven, and expressed concerns that it could negatively impact animal health and welfare [
40]. Karavolias et al. [
41] found that broilers raised without antibiotics were more likely to have more severe eye burns, footpad dermatitis, or airsacculitis compared to broilers that were given antibiotics. No literature is available on how different antibiotic programs influence productivity, health, and welfare of turkeys, underlining the lack of knowledge in this area.
The main turkey breeds in the flocks studied were Hybrid Converter and Aviagen Nicholas Select, with a larger proportion being the Hybrid Converter strain. Due to the cross-sectional design of the study, a wide range of flock ages (in part due to the small number of breeder flocks within the responses) were included, with flocks being on average 10–11 weeks old. The age of the flock also depended on the type of production, sex, and final target weight. Our data mostly represented hen flocks, while approx. 36% of farmers provided information for tom flocks. This likely influenced the management practices, as well as the potential welfare-related issues seen in these flocks [
42]. For example, while both sexes were beak trimmed, toe treatment was more common in hen flocks and snood removal in tom flocks. These physical alterations at the hatchery are intended to avoid injuries in birds, and the need for these practices should be evaluated regularly [
17]. Toe treatment is associated with changes in behaviour and pain in hens and toms [
43,
44]. The procedure is performed to avoid scratches on the carcass, particularly in hens [
16,
44], and used for the whole bird market, while, in toms, it is not effective, due to their heavier weight [
45]. However, processors can also require both tom and hen flocks to have toe treatment and dew claw removal performed, and dew claw removal can also occur in breeder hen flocks to avoid injuries in automated nest systems. This could explain the occurrence of these procedures in surveyed flocks. Fournier et al. [
45] also suggested that toe treatment might still reduce scratching behaviour at younger ages in toms, which could have implications for bird welfare. Finally, it cannot be ruled out that some farmers might have grouped dew claw removal and toe treatment together. The removal of the snood is a typical treatment in tom flocks to reduce the risk of injury [
17,
31,
46], and has been additionally associated with a lower risk of mortality at 7 and 14 days of age [
46]. However, the scientific committee of the Canadian Code of Practice for turkeys has cautioned that research on the effects of physical alterations is limited or dated, and may not reflect current genetics or production practices, thus, more recent studies are needed in this area [
16].
A survey of turkey veterinarians in the United States indicated that single-age brooding was increasingly implemented from 35% in 2010 to 53% in 2018, to help manage disease on farms [
38]. In Australia, 85% of turkey farmers indicated that they had single-age classes on their farm, likely due to the high level of integrated ownership within the sector [
27]. In contrast, Canadian turkey production is less integrated, and only 30% of farmers in the current survey indicated that they had one age class on their farm. However, where multiple age classes were present, most birds were inspected age-wise (i.e., youngest to oldest), as recommended [
17]. Farmers typically performed 2–3 inspections per day, which is in line with the requirement of at least two inspections per day in the Canadian Code of Practice [
17]. Additionally, the majority of farmers reported using several cleaning and disinfecting methods to prepare barns for bird arrival, as well as using several biosecurity practices, as similarly observed in a small sample of Ontario poultry farms [
47]. However, a large proportion of farmers indicated the presence of other poultry species present on their farm, in contrast to only 2 out of 81 turkey farms in Australia [
27]. East [
27] suggested that, with less integrated ownership, there is more variation in the use of biosecurity practices. The presence of other poultry species could form a biosecurity risk [
48]. It should also be noted that a small proportion of flocks included in the survey were mature birds (i.e., breeder flocks), which would have influenced management practices, particularly in regard to stricter biosecurity practices.
In general, nearly all farmers indicated that they had an existing relationship with a veterinarian, who typically came to the farm only as needed. Nearly 30% of the farmers reported disease within the flock at some point in time, which approximates the 40% of farmers that considered disease an issue on their farm [
37]. However, it should be noted that this is a self-administered questionnaire, and it is not clear whether disease or issues indicated by farmers were supported by veterinary diagnosis, slaughterhouse reports, or were self-diagnosed by the farmer. The reported vaccinations and medications by the farmers aimed to target the most commonly mentioned diseases, e.g., colibacillosis, coccidiosis, and hemorrhagic or necrotic enteritis. These diseases were also frequently identified by veterinarians in Canada and the US as important issues for the turkey production sector [
38,
49]. Since 40% of farmers did not record culling and mortality separately, the cumulative mortality rate presented in this study included both culled birds and mortalities. The Code of Practice requires that culls and mortalities are recorded daily, and states that the recording of culls and the reason for them can help identify areas for improvement [
17]. All in all, the median cumulative mortality rate was approx. 3.6% which, albeit difficult to compare across flock sexes and ages, is in agreement with other studies [
50]. A little over 10% of farmers indicated that staff had not been certified by a veterinarian/professional to perform euthanasia. This lack of on-farm training can be a risk, as the proper training of personnel is necessary to properly and confidently execute on-farm euthanasia in a timely manner [
16,
17].
Despite the reasonable response rate, it must be acknowledged that this study reflects a subset of turkey farmers in Canada, and the results should not be generalized to the whole sector. However, the study population did represent the turkey production sector in Canada in terms of the type of production and the province of the farm [
5]. As previously mentioned, this is a self-administered and cross-sectional study which could have influenced responses through subjective responses and the variation in age and sex of the flocks. Housing and management conditions inform important aspects of turkey health and welfare. The results of the current study can provide information about Canadian practices in regards to several of the research priorities identified by the scientific committee of the Code of Practice for the care and handling of turkeys [
16]. In particular, it sheds light on practices that are relevant to issues such as feather pecking and cannibalism, air and litter quality, stocking density, lameness, lighting regimens, methods of on-farm euthanasia, and physical alterations in turkeys [
16]. Similarly, US veterinarians found that welfare and management ranked as the most important priorities for the turkey sector after food safety and disease [
38]. Furthermore, a small sample of predominantly European turkey farmers and veterinarians indicated that they believed ‘environment’ and ‘feeding’ was important for turkey welfare [
51], which is also linked to management. However, the authors cautioned that the limited response of turkey stakeholders could reflect that they were not overly willing to share ideas regarding turkey welfare, possibly due to the emphasis on production in regards to turkeys compared to some of the other species (i.e., small ruminants) included in their study [
51]. The reasonable response rate in the current study suggests that turkey farmers in Canada are, in fact, willing to share their ideas and housing and management practices in efforts to inform research to reduce pecking injuries or footpad dermatitis. This can help improve consumer knowledge and the relationship between farmers and consumers [
7,
11].