Effects of pecking incentives during rearing on feather pecking of laying hens

Abstract

1. Additional straw or grain was supplied to hens during rearing in floor pens with litter floors. During lay, hens were housed in pens with partly-littered partly-slatted floors. The effects on foraging behaviour and feather pecking were studied and feather damage was scored at 17, 30 and 42 weeks of age. 2. Supply of grain in the litter during rearing caused an increase in ground scratching. Ground pecking also tended to increase. Supply of straw had no significant effect on the observed behaviours. 3. Feather damage in the laying period was significantly reduced by providing grain during rearing. A similar tendency was found for groups that received straw during rearing. On the basis of the behavioural observations it was concluded that this better plumage cover was caused by less feather pecking. 4. The frequency of pecking at food was decreased during rearing by the supply of grain. This could not be explained solely on the basis of a lower food intake. Apparently the efficiency of pecking at food had changed as well. Behavioural data from the laying period suggest that this change was of a more permanent character. 5. The incentive value of the ground and the substrate covering it might be increased by the supply of grain during the rearing period. This causes foraging-related behaviours like scratching and pecking to be directed to the ground. The hens' perception of incentive stimuli for pecking is apparently influenced by experience during rearing. 6. To prevent birds redirecting their ground pecks to the feathers of other birds, not only the peckability/scratchability of the ground seems to be important but also other aspects like nutritive value or taste.

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

“…litter, is absent (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997;Huber-Eicher and Sebo, 2001). As such, litter absence during early life has a strong influence on SFP during rearing (Blokhuis and van der Haar, 1992;Johnsen et al, 1998;Nicol et al, 2001b;Gilani et al, 2013;de Haas et al, 2014). 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).…”

“…of the behaviour Rodenburg et al, 2013). Outbreaks occur mostly during the laying period (Newberry et al, 2007;Bright, 2009) but SFP and consequent damage can develop already at an early age (Blokhuis and van der Haar, 1992;Johnsen et al, 1998;Riedstra and Groothuis, 2002;de Haas et al, 2014). The percentage of laying flocks affected by SFP ranges from 65% and 69% in free range systems and 86% organic systems (Bestman and Wagenaar, 2003).…”

Studies of feather pecking in poultry

“…In experiment 2 all birds were on litter floors. Here the supply of additional straw (about 80 g per group) or additional grain (about 40 g per group), three times a week, was compared with no additional supply of straw or grain (10). Behavioural observations showed more feather pecking during the laying period in hens reared on wire floors compared to hens reared on litter floors (Experiment 1) and a tendency to less feather pecking in hens which received additional straw or grain compared to control hens (Experiment 2).…”

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

“…Further decreases in plumage condition take place between 32 and 48 weeks. Although the rearing environment may play an important role in the later development of pecking problems, generally the plumage condition is perfect and injurious pecking is minimal when birds are transferred from rearing to laying houses (Blokhuis and Van der Haar, 1992;Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1998). All the layers in the control group had feathers that were more or less damaged in the final period of the study, whereas flock prevalence of feather pecking in treatment I and treatment II were 73 and 90 %, respectively.…”