Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:43:50.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canopy cover is correlated with reduced injurious feather pecking in commercial flocks of free-range laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Brigh ,
D Brass ,
J Clachan ,
KA Drake  and
AD Joret
A Brigh*
Affiliation:
FAI Farms Ltd, The Field Station, Wytham, Oxford OX2 8QJ, UK
D Brass
Affiliation:
Meg Bank, Stainton, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 0EE, UK
J Clachan
Affiliation:
McDonald's Restaurants Limited, 11-59 High Road, East Finchley, London N28AW, UK
KA Drake
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
AD Joret
Affiliation:
Noble Foods Ltd, The Moor, Bilsthorpe, Newark NG22 8TS, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ashleigh.bright@faifarms.co.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Injurious feather pecking in non-cage systems is a serious economic and welfare concern for the egg-producing industry. Here, we describe the first results from an ongoing collaborative project to improve range environment and welfare of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) within the McDonald's Restaurants Ltd, UK supply base. The objective of this study was to investigate, in a commercial situation, the correlation between: i) proportion of range cover and ii) proportion of canopy cover, with plumage damage of end-of-lay hens. The assessment of plumage damage due to injurious feather pecking is a key animal-based welfare indicator for laying hens in non-cage systems. In 2007 and 2008, all laying-hen producers within the McDonald's Restaurants Ltd egg-supply base, were required to plant (if not present already), 5% of the total range area with blocks of trees ether side, and between 20-25 m from the laying hen house. Plumage damage at end of lay was positively correlated with mortality and flocks depleted in summer had less plumage damage at end of lay than flocks depleted in autumn or winter, possibly because of weather conditions at the time of placement. There was no correlation between the proportion (5-90%) of range cover and plumage damage at the end of lay, however, plumage damage was negatively correlated with percent of canopy cover within tree-planted areas. Providing a minimum of 5% tree cover, planted close to the house but with good canopy coverage, may be a feasible and practical method enabling producers to reduce plumage damage due to injurious feather pecking in their laying-hen flocks. Tree cover provision may also provide environmental benefits, such as soil stabilisation, reduced nutrient leaching and carbon sequestration.

Keywords

animal welfarecanopy coverfree rangeinjurious feather peckinglaying hensrange cover
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2011 , pp. 329 - 338
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Allen, J and Perry, G 1975 Feather pecking and cannibalism in a caged layer flock. British Poultry Science 16: 441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M, Hughes, B and Arnold Elson, H 1992 Poultry Production Systems. Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock. Production Science 80: 133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestman, MWP, Wagenaar, JP and Nauta, W 2002 Shelter in poultry outdoor runs. Proceedings of the 14th IFOAM Organic World Congress. 21-24 August 2002, Victoria Conference Centre, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Bilčík, B and Keeling, LJ 1999 Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 441–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, H 1989 The effect of a sudden change in floor type on pecking behaviour in chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H and van der Haar, J 1989 Effects of floor type during rearing and beak trimming on ground pecking and feather pecking in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, B 2009 Farmers’ perspectives. In: Butterworth, A, Blokhuis, H, Jones, B and Vessier, I (eds) Proceedings: Delivering Animal Welfare and Quality: Transparency in the Food Production Chain pp 73–75. 8-9 October 2009, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Boshouwers, FMG and Nicaise, E 1993 Artificial light sources and their influence on physical activity and energy expenditure of laying hens. British Poultry Science 34: 11–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bright, A 2007 Plumage colour and feather pecking in laying hens, a chicken perspective? British Poultry Science 48: 253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, A, Jones, TA and Dawkins, MS 2006 A non-intrusive method of assessing plumage condition in commercial flocks of laying hens. Animal Welfare 15: 113–118Google Scholar
Carmichael, NL, Walker, AW and Hughes, BO 1999 Laying hens in large flocks in a perchery system: influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. British Poultry Science 40: 165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channing, CE, Hughes, BO and Walker, A 2001 Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, A and Hogan, JA 2005 The development of feather pecking in Burmese red junglefowl: the influence of early experience with exploratory-rich environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, S, Newberry, RC, Fortster, CT and Girsberger, KM 2000 Does pecking at inanimate stimuli predict cannibalistic behaviour in domestic fowl? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, NJ, Prescott, NB, Savory, CJ and Wathes, CM 1999 Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour. Animal Welfare 8: 193–203Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Cook, PA, Whittingham, MJ, Mansell, KA and Harper, A 2003 What makes free-range broilers range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66: 151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbe, U, Ross, A, Steffens, G, van den Weghe, H and Winckler, C 2005 Organic layers in large flocks: use of the outdoor run and accumulation of nutrients in the soil. In: Hess, J and Rahmann, G (eds) Ende der Nische, Beiträge zur 8, Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau pp 307–310. University Press: Kassel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Fürmetz, A, Keppler, C, Knierim, U, Deerberg, F and Hess, J 2005 Laying hens in a mobile housing system: use and condition of the free-range area. In: Hess, J and Rahmann, G (eds) Ende der Nische, Beiträge zur 8, Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau pp 313–314. University Press: Kassel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M and Hunter, LN 1990 Physiological and behavioural responses associated with feather removal in Gallus gallus var domesticus. Research in Veterinary Science 50: 95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, S, Keeling, LJ and Svedberg, J 1999 Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 12–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, A and Hails, R 2002 Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT, Kjaer, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005 Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46: 1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT and Hermansen, JE 2006 Welfare and productivity of laying hens in commercial organic egg production systems in Denmark. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54: 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, P, Channing, C, Robertson, G, Edmond, A and Jones, RB 2004 Between breed genetic variation for welfare-related behavioural traits in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, L 2006 A study into the effect of tree cover on the range on the welfare of free-range layer hens by observing animal behaviour. Unpublished Report EMS G84, Royal Veterinary College: University of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1997 Feather pecking in domestic chicks: its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Animal Behaviour 54: 757–764CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1998 The effect of quality and availability of foraging materials on feather pecking in laying chicks. Animal Behaviour 55: 861–873CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebö, F 2001 The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B and Duncan, I 1972 The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnsgard, PA 1986 The Pheasants of the World. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RA 1963 Habitat preference and behaviour of breeding junglefowl in central Western Thailand. Wilson Bulletin 75: 270–272Google Scholar
Jones, R, Blokhuis, H, de Jong, I, Keeling, LJ, McAdie, T and Preisinger, R 2004 Feather pecking in poultry: the application of science in a search for practical solutions. Animal Welfare 13: S215–S219Google Scholar
Keeling, L 1995 Feather pecking and cannibalism in layers. Poultry International 6: 47–50Google Scholar
Kjaer, J 2000 Diurnal rhythm of feather pecking behaviour and condition of integument in four strains of loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, S and Morrison, W 1978 Effect of feather cover on feed efficiency in laying birds. Poultry Science 57: 1094–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahboub, H, Muller, J and von Borrell, E 2004 Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotypes. British Poultry Science 45: 738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Shackleton, DM 1997 Use of visual cover by domestic fowl: a Venetian blind effect? Animal Behaviour 54: 387–395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ and Sherwin, CM 2009 A comparative study to assess the welfare of laying hens in current housing systems. Injurious Feather Pecking Workshop. 8 July 2009, FAI Farms Ltd, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Pötzsch, C, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003 Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44: 515–523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oden, K, Keeling, L and Algers, B 2002 Behaviour of laying hens in two types of aviary systems on 25 commercial farms in Sweden. British Poultry Science 43: 169–181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peguri, A and Coon, C 1993 Effect of feather coverage and temperature on layer performance. Poultry Science 72: 1318–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pötzsch, CJ, Lewis, K, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, management and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Praytino, D, Phillips, CJC and Omed, H 1997 The effects of color of lighting on the behaviour and production of meat chickens. Poultry Science 76: 452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, NB and Wathes, CM 2002 Preference and motivation of laying hens to eat under different illuminances and the effects of illuminance on eating behaviour. British Poultry Science 43: 190–195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauw, W, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, E and Grommers, F 1998 Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, K, Oestreicher, U, Peschke, W and Damme, K 2006 Individual use of free range by laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: S597Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, van Hierden, YM, Buitenhuis, A, Riedstra, B, Koene, P, Korte, SM, van der Poel, J, Groothuis, T and Blokhuis, H 2004 Feather pecking in laying hens: new insights and directions for research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C 1995 Feather pecking and cannibalism. World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C and Mann, J 1997 Behavioural development in groups of pen-housed pullets in relation to genetic strain, age and food form. British Poultry Science 38: 38–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R and Rohlf, FJ 1995 Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. WH Freeman and Company: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Svensson, SA 1980 Influence of plumage condition on the hen's feed requirement. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 35–39Google Scholar
Tullett, S, Macleod, M and Jewitt, T 1980 The effects of partial de-feathering on energy metabolism in the laying fowl. British Poultry Science 21: 241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS 1982 Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl: diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2009 The virtuous bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 18: 141–147Google Scholar
Weeks, C and Nicol, CJ 2006 LayWel Deliverable 7.2 Manual that can be used to audit the welfare of laying hens at a farm level in whatever housing system they are held. Report number SSPE-CT-2004-502315. University of Bristol for European Commission: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–207Google Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2008 Factors involved in the improvement of the use of hen runs. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 114: 395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar