A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose‐housed laying hen flocks

Abstract

This study investigated the protective effects of an on-farm management package designed to reduce injurious pecking (IP) in loose-housed laying hens. A systematic review of scientific literature generated 46 potentially protective management strategies. Bespoke management packages were designed for treatment flocks (TF) using these management strategies. IP in 53 TFs was compared with IP in 47 control flocks (CF) where the management package was not employed. Scoring of plumage damage (PD) and observations of gentle and severe feather pecking (GFP; SFP), and vent and cannibalistic pecking (VP) were completed, and management strategy use was recorded, at 20, 30 and 40 weeks of age. Differences between treatment and CF were examined using multilevel modelling. Compared with CF, TF employed more management strategies (P<0.001), had lower PD (P=0.003) and SFP (P=0.019). Regardless of treatment or control flock status, the more of the 46 management strategies that were employed the lower was the PD (P=0.004), GFP (P=0.021), SFP (P=0.043), mortality at 40 weeks (P=0.025), and the likelihood of VP (P=0.021). Therefore, the provision of a bespoke management package was protective against the majority of forms of IP in commercial laying hen flocks.

Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present?

“…This is in agreement with other studies which show that SFP and feather damage during rearing can increase the risk of feather damage at laying (Nicol et al, 2001a;Bestman et al, 2009;Lambton et al, 2013;Gilani et al, 2013). Feather eating has been repeatedly associated with SFP (HarlanderMatauschek et al, 2006(HarlanderMatauschek et al, , 2007Harlander-Matauschek and Häusler, 2009) and may indicate the presence of SFP.…”

“…Absence of litter during early life does, however, not always lead to SFP or feather damage during the laying period when litter is adequately available for the adult birds (Nicol et al, 2001b;de Jong et al, 2013). Moreover, the availability of litter during lay strongly affects the occurrence of SFP at laying (Potzsch et al, 2001;Nicol et al, 2003;Lambton et al, 2013), indicating that the need of hens to forage can lead to SFP at any time when this behaviour is thwarted. Litter absence during early life may, however, result in a preference for pecking at feathers rather than pecking at litter.…”

“…Apart from the influence of litter, increased SFP has been recorded in hens housed in large groups Bestman et al, 2009;Lambton et al, 2013), under high stocking densities , high light intensities (Mohammed et al, 2010), fed pelleted food (van Krimpen et al, 2009;Lambton et al, 2013), and given immunological challenges (Parmentier et al, 2009). These unfavourable conditions may impose stress in the hens.…”

Effects of age at first access to range area on pecking behaviour and plumage quality of free-range layer chickens

“…A distance scoring system, which is a more animal-friendly, less stressful, and effective and easier way to determine feather damage, was used to assess plumage quality in hens (Bright et al, 2006;Lambton et al, 2013). Three areas of the birds' bodies were scored (neck, back and rump) from 0 (well-feathered body part with no or very little damage) to 4 (severe damage to feathers, several or large naked areas and/or broken skin).…”

“…There have been some on-farm studies on pecking and the welfare of laying hens in the literature (Nicol et al, 2003;Sherwin et al, 2010Sherwin et al, , 2013Gilani et al, 2013). Recently, a set of husbandry advisory tools was developed to reduce injurious pecking in free-range layer chickens in the UK (Weeks et al, 2011;Lambton et al, 2013).…”