Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:23:27.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feather eating and its associations with plumage damage and feathers on the floor in commercial farms of laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2016

A. B. Riber*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
L. K. Hinrichsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
Get access

Abstract

Feather eating has been associated with feather pecking, which continues to pose economic and welfare problems in egg production. Knowledge on feather eating is limited and studies of feather eating in commercial flocks of laying hens have not been performed previously. Therefore, the main objective was to investigate feather eating and its association with plumage damage and floor feather characteristics in commercial flocks of layers in barn and organic production systems. The study was performed in 13 flocks of barn layers and 17 flocks of organic layers. Each flock was visited at around 32 and 62 weeks of age. During both visits, the plumage condition was assessed and the density of floor feathers recorded. In week 62, droppings and floor feathers were collected. Droppings were examined for presence of feather content, whereas length, downiness and pecking damage were recorded for each floor feather. In week 62, a higher prevalence of hens with poor plumage condition was found in barn (22.2%) compared with organic production systems (7.4%; P<0.001), but the prevalence of droppings with feather content did not differ between the two production systems (8.5% in barn v. 4.3% in organic; P=0.99). Our hypothesis about a positive correlation between feather eating and plumage damage was not supported as no correlation was found between the prevalence of poor plumage condition and the prevalence of droppings with feather content. However, the prevalence of pecking damaged floor feathers was positively correlated both with prevalence of droppings with feather content (P<0.05) and poor plumage condition (P<0.01), indicating a possible association between feather eating and feather pecking. In conclusion, it was confirmed that feather eating occurs on-farm, but feather eating was only found to be positively correlated to the number of floor feathers with pecking damage and not as expected to the prevalence of plumage damage. More research is needed into the sources from where feathers are selected for ingestion, that is, whether they are picked from the floor litter, plucked directly from other hens or dislodged during preening of own feathers.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appleby, MC, Hughes, BO and Elson, AH 1992. Poultry production systems: behaviour, management and welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, CT, USA., 238pp.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S 2014. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. Retrieved on 14 July 2015 from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 Google Scholar
Bestman, M, Koene, P and Wagenaar, JP 2009. Influence of farm factors on the occurrence of feather pecking in organic reared hens and their predictability for feather pecking in the laying period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121, 120125.Google Scholar
Bilcik, B and Keeling, LJ 1999. Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 40, 444451.Google Scholar
Bogelein, S, Harlander-Matauschek, A, Egerer, U, Neumann, M, Bessei, W and Amselgruber, W 2010. Identification of feather peckers via faecal examination. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 74, 210213.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, JE, Ellen, ED, Van Reenen, CG, De Groot, J, Ten Napel, J, Koopmanschap, R, De Vries Reilingh, G, Uitdehaag, KA, Kemp, B and Rodenburg, TB 2009. Effects of genetic group selection against mortality on behaviour and peripheral serotonin in domestic laying hens with trimmed and intact beaks. Physiology & Behavior 97, 470475.Google Scholar
Commission Regulation 2008/889/EC 2008. Laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Retrieved on 9 December 2015 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2008.250.01.0001.01.ENG Google Scholar
CORE Organic HealthyHens Project 2014. HealthyHens, good health and welfare in organic laying hens depends on good management. Retrieved on 11 August 2015 from http://www.Coreorganic2.Org/healthyhens Google Scholar
Council Directive 1999/74/EC 1999. Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Retrieved on 9 December 2015 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31999L0074 Google Scholar
de Haas, EN, Bolhuis, JE, de Jong, IC, Kemp, B, Janczak, AM and Rodenburg, TB 2014. Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 7585.Google Scholar
Drake, KA, Donnelly, CA and Dawkins, MS 2010. Influence of rearing and lay risk factors on propensity for feather damage in laying hens. British Poultry Science 51, 725733.Google Scholar
Forkman, BA 2003. Feather pecking and feather eating in laying hens. Proceedings of the 37th International Congress of the ISAE, Abano Terme, Italy, 69pp.Google Scholar
Fox, J and Weisberg, S 2011. An {R} companion to applied regression, 2nd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Retrieved from http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion Google Scholar
Gentle, MJ and Hunter, LN 1990. Physiological and behavioural responses associated with feather removal in Gallus gallus var domesticus . Research in Veterinary Science 50, 95101.Google Scholar
Gilani, A-M, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2012. The effect of dark brooders on feather pecking on commercial farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 4250.Google Scholar
Gilani, A-M, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2013. The effect of rearing environment on feather pecking in young and adult laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148, 5463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Baes, C and Bessei, W 2006a. The demand of laying hens for feathers and wood shavings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 102110.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Benda, I, Lavetti, C, Djukic, M and Bessei, W 2007a. The relative preferences for wood shavings or feathers in high and low feather pecking birds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 107, 7887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A and Bessei, W 2005. Feather eating and crop filling in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 69, 241244.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A and Feise, U 2009. Physical characteristics of feathers play a role in feather eating behavior. Poultry Science 88, 18001804.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A and Häusler, K 2009. Understanding feather eating behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117, 3541.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Häusler, K and Bessei, W 2007b. A note on the relative preferences of laying hens for feathers from different body parts. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108, 186190.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Piepho, HP and Bessei, W 2006b. The effect of feather eating on feed passage in laying hens. Poultry Science 85, 2125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlander-Matauschek, A and Rodenburg, TB 2011. Applying chemical stimuli on feathers to reduce feather pecking in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 132, 146151.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Wassermann, F, Zentek, J and Bessei, W 2008. Laying hens learn to avoid feathers. Poultry Science 87, 17201724.Google Scholar
Hughes, BO and Duncan, IJH 1972. The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13, 525547.Google Scholar
Hughes, BO and Michie, W 1982. Plumage loss in medium-bodied hybrid hens: the effect of beak trimming and cage design. British Poultry Science 23, 5964.Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Blokhuis, HJ and Beuving, G 1995. Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of 2 genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36, 525530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjaer, JB 2009. Feather pecking in domestic fowl is genetically related to locomotor activity levels: implications for a hyperactivity disorder model of feather pecking. Behavior Genetics 39, 564570.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB and Sørensen, P 2002. Feather pecking and cannibalism in free-range laying hens as affected by genotype, dietary level of methionine plus cystine, light intensity during rearing and age at first access to the range area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Würbel, H and Schrader, L 2015. Perseveration in a guessing task by laying hens selected for high or low levels of feather pecking does not support classification of feather pecking as a stereotypy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 168, 5660.Google Scholar
Leeson, S and Morrison, WD 1978. Effect of feather cover on feed efficiency in laying birds. Poultry Science 57, 10941096.Google Scholar
Matauschek, AH, Beck, P and Rodenburg, TB 2010. Effect of an early bitter taste experience on subsequent feather-pecking behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 127, 108114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF and Savory, CJ 1999. Feather eating in layer pullets and its possible role in the aetiology of feather pecking damage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 7385.Google Scholar
McKeegan, DEF and Savory, CJ 2001. Feather eating in individually caged hens which differ in their propensity to feather peck. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 131140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, GW and Elvehjem, CA 1947. Nutritive value of keratin; effect of source, particle size, and method of grinding. Journal of Nutrition 33, 673683.Google Scholar
Ramadan, SGA and von Borell, E 2008. Role of loose feathers on the development of feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science 49, 250256.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on 28 July 2015 from http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Savory, CJ and Mann, JS 1997a. Behavioural development in groups of pen-housed pullets in relation to genetic strain, age and food form. British Poultry Science 38, 3847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savory, CJ and Mann, JS 1997b. Development of pecking damage in growing bantams in relation to floor litter substrate and plumage colour. British Poultry Science 38, S13–S14.Google Scholar
Savory, CJ and Mann, JS 1999. Feather pecking in groups of growing bantams in relation to floor litter substrate and plumage colour. British Poultry Science 40, 565572.Google Scholar
Schaible, PJ, Davidson, JA and Bandemer, SL 1947. Cannibalism and feather picking in chicks as influenced by certain changes in a specific ration. Poultry Science 26, 651656.Google Scholar
Tauson, R 2005. Management and housing systems for layers-effects on welfare and production. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61, 477490.Google Scholar
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, G, Cepero, R and Holm, K 2005. Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23, 153159.Google Scholar
Tauson, R and Svensson, SA 1980. Influence of plumage condition on the hen’s feed requirement. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 3539.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Kruijt, JP and Hogan, JA 1993. Feather pecking and chronic fear in groups of red junglefowl: their relations to dustbathing, rearing environment and social status. Animal Behaviour 45, 11271140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality Consortium 2009. Welfare quality assessment protocol for poultry. Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar