Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41734671›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2026

Different chick processing holding devices reveal welfare and stress effects via novel down-feather biomarkers.

S Jhetam, T Shynkaruk, C A B Adler, K Buchynski, K Gesy, S Gomis, T G Crowe, A G Van Kessel, S Dridi, K Schwean-Lardner

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

S JhetamDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada; Department of Agriculture, University of the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, BC V2R 5 × 6, Canada.
T ShynkarukDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
C A B AdlerDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
K BuchynskiDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
K GesyClinical Science Research Laboratories, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 5A8, Canada.
S GomisDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, S7N 5A8, Canada.
T G CroweDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
A G Van KesselDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada; Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E3, Canada.
S DridiCenter of Excellence for Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
K Schwean-LardnerDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada. Electronic address: karen.schwean@usask.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infrared beak treatment (IRBT) and s.c. vaccinations are often performed on the Poultry Services Processor (PSP) or Hatchling Support System (HSS). The PSP includes a holding device (HD) where the jaw rests and plastic 'feet' close around the head. The HSS has a modified HD, reduced feet load station pressure, and cradle for body support. The original feet design (F1) was amended for increased head space (F2), and they are interchangeable between HD types. This study tested three HD configurations (treatments (trt)): PSP with F1 (PSP-F1), PSP with F2 (PSP-F2), or HSS with F2 (HSS-F2) at a commercial hatchery. Chicks (120 Lohmann LSL-Lite (W) and 120 Lohmann Brown (B)) underwent standard processing before trt. To isolate HD effects, birds were not IRBT or vaccinated. Heart rate was tested pre- and post-trt. Surface body temperature (SBT), tonic immobility, and disorientation were measured post-trt. Blood was collected post-trt, chicks were euthanized, and down feathers collected to assess heat shock proteins (HSP60, 70, 90), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), C-reactive protein (CRP), and Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 4 (TRPV4) mRNA expression via real-time quantitative PCR. The M. complexus and fascia at the occipital crest were scored for bruising. Data were analyzed as a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with a two-way ANOVA. Heart rate did not differ between HD or strain. Chicks in W-PSP-F1 were more disoriented than all strain-HD trt, and PSP-F1 were more fearful and had the lowest SBT. Head bruising was highest on W chick M. complexus and B chick fascia. In down feathers, HSP60 was higher in PSP-F2 vs PSP-F1; HSP70 was highest in B vs W chicks. TNFα expression was higher in W-PSP-F1 and W-PSP-F2 than W-HSS-F2. Blood biomarkers, except HSP70, demonstrated interactions between HD and strain. The HSS-F2 resulted in improved welfare, and data suggest that adjustments be made for chick head size differences. This study is the first to identify a non-invasive method for measuring stress and inflammatory biomarkers in chick down feathers.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareChickensHousing, AnimalStress, PhysiologicalAnimalsBeakBiomarkersFeathersMaleBiomarkersDisorientationHatchery processingHead bruisingHeart rateHeat shock protein

Identifiers

PMID41734671
PMCPMC12974102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.