Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:15:56.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feather-pecking and injurious pecking in organic laying hens in 107 flocks from eight European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M Bestman ,
C Verwer ,
C Brenninkmeyer ,
A Willett ,
LK Hinrichsen ,
F Smajlhodzic ,
JLT Heerkens ,
S Gunnarsson  and
V Ferrante
M Bestman*
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, 3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands
C Verwer
Affiliation:
Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, 3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands
C Brenninkmeyer
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstraße 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
A Willett
Affiliation:
ADAS UK Ltd, Battlegate Road, Boxworth, Cambridgeshire CB23 4NN, UK
LK Hinrichsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, PO Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
F Smajlhodzic
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, A-1210 Vienna, Austria
JLT Heerkens
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Scheldeweg 68, B-9090 Melle, Belgium
S Gunnarsson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), PO Box 234, S-532 23 Skara, Sweden
V Ferrante
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Via Celoria, 10 20133 Milan, Italy
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: m.bestman@louisbolk.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feather-pecking and cannibalism may reduce the potential of organic husbandry to enhance the welfare of laying hens. We report risk factors for these issues based on a large survey of 107 commercial flocks in eight European countries. Information was collected regarding housing, management and flock characteristics (age, genotype). Near the end of lay, 50 hens per flock were assessed for plumage condition and wounds. Potential influencing factors were screened and submitted to a multivariate model. The majority of the flocks (81%) consisted of brown genotypes and were found in six countries. Since white genotypes (19%) were found only in the two Scandinavian countries, a country effect could not be excluded. Therefore, separate models were made for brown and white genotypes. Feather damage in brown hens could be explained by a model containing a lower dietary protein content and no daily access to the free range (30% of the variation explained). For feather damage in white hens, no model could be made. Wounds in brown hens were associated with not having daily access to free range (14% of the variation explained). Wounds in white hens were explained by a model containing not topping-up litter during the laying period (26% of the variation explained). These results suggest that better feeding management, daily access to the free-range area and improved litter management may reduce incidence of plumage damage and associated injurious pecking, hence enhancing the welfare of organic laying hens. Since this was an epidemiological study, further experimental studies are needed to investigate the causal relationships.

Keywords

animal welfareclinical scoringfree rangelayersmanagementpoultry
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2017 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Bestman, M and Wagenaar, J 2014 Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals 4: 374–390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4020374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking damage in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80: 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00314-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 1986 Feather-pecking in poultry: its relation with ground-pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90040-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ and van der Haar, JW 1992 Effects of pecking incentives during rearing on feather pecking of laying hens. British Poultry Science 33: 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669208417440CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Lethey, H, Aerni, V, Jungi, TW and Wechsler, B 2000 Stress and feather pecking in laying hens in relation to housing conditions. British Poultry Science 41: 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660086358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission 2007 EC No 834/2007 on organic pro-duction and labelling of organic products; implemented by EC No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking damage in laying hens in alternative systems and its association with manage-ment and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.9.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matuschek, A, Piepho, HP and Bessei, W 2006 The effect of feather eating on feed passage in laying hens. Poultry Science 85: 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Soerensen, 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(2): 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Audigé, L 1999 Analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen growers. British Poultry Science 40: 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669986963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1997 Feather pecking in domestic: its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Animal Behaviour 54: 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feath-er pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenstra, F, Maurer, V, Bestman, M, van Sambeek, F, Zeltner, E, Reuvekamp, B, Galea, F and van Niekerk, T 2012 Performance of commercial laying hen genotypes on free range and organic farms in Switzerland, France and The Netherlands. British Poultry Science 53(3): 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.703774CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahboub, HDH, Müller, J and von Borell, E 2004 Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45: 738–744. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660400014267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marktinfo Eier und Geflügel 2015 http://www.marktinfo-eier-gefluegel.de/EU-Mehr-als-jede-zweite-Henne-in-Kaefigen,QUlEPTQ4Mjg1MTYmTUlEPTcyNzY3.html?UID=125772D88E5B3AFF7472BC4792EB2DD2E402C6F8F65B95Google Scholar
McAdie, TM and Keeling, LJ 2000 Effect of manipulating feath-ers of laying hens on the incidence of feather pecking and canni-balism. Applied Animal Behavior Science 68: 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00107-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Gregory, NG, Knowles, TG, Parkman, ID and Wilkins, LJ 1999 Differential effects of increased stocking densi-ty, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00057-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Pötzsch, C, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003 Matched con-current case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking damage in hens on free range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44: 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660 310001616255CrossRefGoogle 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 dam-age, management and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74:259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00167-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, van der Poel, JJ, Arendonk, JAM and Bovenhuis, H 2004 Genetic and phenotypic correlations between feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Behavior and Genetics 34: 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BEGE.0000023646.46940.2dCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, van Krimpen, MM, de Jong, IC, de Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Riedstra, BJ, Nordquist, RE, Wagenaar, JP, Bestman, M and Nicol, CJ 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, CJ, Mann, JS and Macleod, MG 1999 Incidence of pecking damage in growing bantams in relation to food form, group size, stocking density, dietary tryptophan concentrations and dietary protein source. British Poultry Science 40: 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669986936CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SPSS 2010 IBM Corp Released 2010. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 19.0. IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, GA, Cepero, R and Holm, KE 2005 Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers Reports 23(1): 153–159Google 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
Thapa, S, Hinrichsen, LK, Brenninkmeyer, C, Gunnarsson, S, Heerkens, JLT, Verwer, C, Niebuhr, K, Willett, A, Grilli, G, Thamsborg, SM, Soerensen, JT and Mejer, H 2015 Prevalence and magnitude of helminth infections in organic laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) across Europe. Veterinary Parasitology 214: 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vet-par.2015.10.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA, Keatinge, R and Roderick, S 2009 A review of key health-related welfare issues in organic poultry pro-duction. World's Poultry Science Journal 65: 649–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933909000464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hierden, Y, de Boer, M, Sietse, F, Koolhaas, JM and Korte, SM 2004 The control of feather pecking by serotonin. Behavioral Neuroscience 118(3): 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.118.3.575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Krimpen, MM, Kwakkel, RP, Reuvekamp, BFJ, van der Peet-Schwering, CMC, den Hartog, LA and Verstegen, MWA 2005 Impact of feeding management on feather-pecking in laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 61: 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Heaven, G, Howell, H, Morgan, M, Pearson, A and Webster, AJF 2007 Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free range units. Veterinary Record 161: 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.161.4.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2003 Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free range system. British Poultry Science 44(4): 533–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660310001616264CrossRefGoogle Scholar