Differences between feather pecking and non-feather pecking laying hen flocks regarding their compliance with recommendations for the prevention of feather pecking – A matched concurrent case-control design

Jung, Lisa; Knierim, Ute

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104839

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Less is known about the welfare consequence of not having access to a covered veranda, although this is likely to contribute to ‘group stress’ and ‘soft tissue and integument damage’ as withholding veranda access increases the risk of feather pecking (Jung and Knierim, 2019). Furthermore, a high percentage of hens using the veranda is associated with lower mortality (Jung et al., 2020).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is currently no scientific evidence to support that more drinking points per hen than required by the legislation would improve laying hen welfare. In fact, providing more drinking space may even affect welfare negatively: a positive association between drinking space and feather pecking was reported (Jung and Knierim, 2019), although there is a need to validate this result further before concluding. Drinker space requirements may have to be revisited as climate change gives rise to more heat stress events, as heat stress can double drinking times (Mack et al., 2013).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To assess the welfare of laying hens, resource- and management-based indicators or animal-based indicators may be used ( Knierim et al, 2016 ; Jung et al, 2020 ). A variety of plumage scoring systems has been used for scientific research in the past to deduce the occurrence of feather pecking or cannibalism or both ( Tauson et al, 2005 ; Blokhuis et al, 2007 ; Campe et al, 2018 ; Jung and Knierim, 2019 ). There is a broad range of systems for individual scoring, modified according to the respective scientific question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual plumage and integument scoring of laying hens on commercial farms: correlation with severe feather pecking and prognosis by visual scoring on flock level

Schwarzer¹,

Rauch²,

Erhard³

et al. 2022

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Non-beak-trimmed hens may be kept without major outbreaks of SFP if their housing and management conditions are adequate. In recent years, many influencing factors of this multifactorial problem have been identified [ 3 , 4 , 27 , 29 , 31 ] and incorporated into husbandry guidelines [ 19 , 24 , 74 ]. The experiences in some European countries, such as Austria and Germany, show that SFP in non-beak-trimmed flocks can be prevented if housing and management are adequate [ 62 , 69 , 75 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effect of stocking density and flock size during the laying period has not been analyzed thoroughly. Some authors found an influence of these factors [ 23 , 24 ]; others did not [ 25 , 26 ]. Although the provision of a litter area and a winter garden or free range may have a positive effect on reducing SFP [ 27 ], these areas must be attractively designed [ 28 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feather Pecking in Non-Beak-Trimmed and Beak-Trimmed Laying Hens on Commercial Farms with Aviaries

Schwarzer¹,

Plattner²,

Bergmann³

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a major animal welfare problem in layers. It results in pain and injuries in the affected animal. It was the aim of this study to gain insight into the actual pecking behavior of laying hens kept on commercial farms with flock sizes common in practice. We observed aggressive pecking and SFP in non-beak-trimmed and beak-trimmed flocks of laying hens and investigated possible influencing factors. The study took place on eight conventional farms in Germany with aviaries, including three farms with a free range and a winter garden, one with a free range and one with a winter garden. Pecking behavior was observed during three observational periods (OPs): OP 1, at the peak of the laying period between the 28th and 33rd week of life; OP 2, in the middle of the laying period between the 42nd and 48th week of life; and OP 3, at the end of the laying period between the 63rd and 68th week of life in one laying period. Videos were analyzed using behavior sampling and continuous recording. We found that SFP occurred in all flocks, but the pecking rate differed significantly between the flocks. SFP correlated positively with the number of hens per square meter of usable area, with statistical significance in the litter area (r = 0.564; p = 0.045). The multivariate analysis revealed that access to a winter garden or free range significantly reduced the SFP rate on perches (p = 0.001). The stocking density (number of birds per usable square meter) had a significant influence on the SPF rate in the nest-box area (p = 0.001). The hybrid line had a significant effect on the SFP rate on perches and in the nest-box area (p = 0.001 each). Lohmann Brown hens in mixed flocks had a higher SFP rate (significant in OP 2) than those in homogeneous flocks, indicating that mixed flocks may be a risk factor for SFP. Lohmann Brown hens pecked significantly less than Dekalb White hens in the litter area (p = 0.010) and in the nest-box area (p = 0.025) and less than Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens in the litter area (p = 0.010). Lohmann Brown and Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens showed increasing SFP rates during the laying period. All hybrid lines had significantly higher SFP rates in the litter area, followed by the nest-box area and perches. These findings emphasize the importance of providing enough litter, litter areas and environmental enrichment. We found a significant positive correlation between aggressive pecking and SFP—in OP 1: rho (Spearman) = 0.580, p < 0.001; OP 2: rho = 0.486, p = 0.002; and OP 3: rho = 0.482, p = 0.002 (n = 39) —indicating that SFP may lead to a higher stress level in the flock. Beak trimming reduced pecking rates but did not entirely prevent SFP. Instead of subjecting chicks to this potentially painful procedure, reasons for SFP should be addressed. In conclusion, our data suggest a positive influence of a lower stocking density and the provision of a winter garden or free range for additional space. The hybrid line had a significant influence on the feather-pecking rate on perches and the nest-box area. Aggressive pecking and severe feather pecking correlated positively. We assume that vigorous and painful AP were an additional stress factor, especially in non-beak-trimmed flocks, leading to more SFP in due course. Beak trimming had a reducing effect on SFP. However, our results showed that non-beak-trimmed flocks could be kept without major outbreaks of SFP.

show abstract

Differences between feather pecking and non-feather pecking laying hen flocks regarding their compliance with recommendations for the prevention of feather pecking – A matched concurrent case-control design

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Individual plumage and integument scoring of laying hens on commercial farms: correlation with severe feather pecking and prognosis by visual scoring on flock level

Feather Pecking in Non-Beak-Trimmed and Beak-Trimmed Laying Hens on Commercial Farms with Aviaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About