Feather pecking and cannibalism

Nicol, Christine J

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100915-4.00009-9

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although beak trimming reduces bird mortality and plumage damage, this practice is continually debated due to the pain inflicted on animals (but see Hughes et al 2020;Struthers et al 2019 for studies on a new technique, the infrared beak treatment, which results in no pain, either acute or chronic, following the procedure). Many countries over the last years have banned beak trimming (Sweden, Norway, Finland, and most recently, The Netherlands) or phased it out through voluntary agreements with the poultry industry (Germany and Denmark) (Nicol 2017). The side effect of these decisions is that, although paradoxical, omitting beak trimming may also be a source of negative welfare consequences: flocks of layers with intact beaks have poor plumage condition, increased prevalence of keel bone fractures and body wounds, and tend to have increased mortality, compared to flocks of non-trimmed hens (Riber and Hinrichsen 2017).…”

Section: Feather Pecking and Cannibalism In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can the research on chicken cognition improve chicken welfare: a perspective review

Ferreira¹,

Guesdon²,

Calandreau

2021

World's Poultry Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent definition of animal welfare states that "the welfare of an animal is its positive mental and physical state related to the fulfilment of its physiological and behavioural needs in addition to its expectations. This state can vary depending on the animal's perception of a given situation'. This definition confirms the importance of taking the individual animal perspective (i.e. its cognition) into consideration, in order to properly assess its welfare. Cognitive abilities of domestic chickens have been extensively studied in recent years, but few of these studies focussed on the relationship between chicken cognition and welfare issues commonly found in chicken production systems. Considering the chickens' cognitive abilities offers new and different perspectives on the welfare problems faced by chicken production. Combined with applied research, cognitive studies can generate impactful and sciencebased strategies to solve these problems better. In this short nonsystematic review, we focus on cognitive research aimed at understanding three widespread welfare issues in poultry production: uneven range use in free-range broiler chickens and laying hens, feather pecking in laying hens, and the unfulfilled behavioural and physiological needs of broiler breeders. Knowledge of chicken cognitive abilities is critical to ameliorate chickens' rearing conditions and develop systems and practices that are more respectful of animal welfare.

show abstract

Section: Feather Pecking and Cannibalism In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can the research on chicken cognition improve chicken welfare: a perspective review

Ferreira¹,

Guesdon²,

Calandreau

2021

World's Poultry Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flock mortality resulting from skin injuries and cannibalism events are also a non-negligible source of financial loss and can negatively impact consumers' trust and acceptance of poultry farming ( 2 ). Current farming practices aim to reduce consequences of the behavior rather than the behavior itself ( 7 ). Such practices, like beak trimming, are under increasing scrutiny because of animal welfare, ethical and societal concerns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such practices, like beak trimming, are under increasing scrutiny because of animal welfare, ethical and societal concerns. Consequently, some commonly used procedures are being banned in multiple countries ( 7 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory T Cell Modulation by Lactobacillus rhamnosus Improves Feather Damage in Chickens

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is currently unclear whether potential probiotics such as lactic acid bacteria could affect behavioral problems in birds. To this end, we assessed whether a supplementation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus JB-1 can reduce stress-induced severe feather pecking (SFP), feather damage and fearfulness in adult birds kept for egg laying. In parallel, we assessed SFP genotypic and phenotypic-related immune responses and aromatic amino acid status linked to neurotransmitter production. Social stress aggravated plumage damage, while L. rhamnosus treatment improved the birds' feather cover in non-stressed birds, but did not impact fearfulness. Our data demonstrate the significant impact of L. rhamnosus supplementation on the immune system. L. rhamnosus supplementation induced immunosuppressive regulatory T cells and cytotoxic T cells in both the cecal tonsils and the spleen. Birds exhibiting the SFP phenotype possessed lower levels of cecal tonsils regulatory T cells, splenic T helper cells and a lower TRP:(PHE+TYR). Together, these results suggest that bacteria may have beneficial effects on the avian immune response and may be useful therapeutic adjuncts to counteract SFP and plumage damage, thus increasing animal health and welfare.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, aggression and cannibalism may be higher in non-beak trimmed flocks, which may result in higher mortality rates, as well as higher rates of egg breakage and feed waste [4,5]. For this reason, beak trimming of hens is widely used [6,7], which solved these problems somewhat [8], both in alternative systems [9] and cage housing [10]. However, it should be mentioned that there are several negative effects of beak trimming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Usage of a New Beak-Abrasive Material in Different Laying Hen Genotypes (Preliminary Results)

Farkas

Orbán²,

Szász

et al. 2021

Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the experiment was to investigate the use and effect of a new beak-abrasive material not yet examined on mortality of non-beak trimmed laying hens of different genotypes housed in an alternative pen. The study was performed on 636 females belonging to three genotypes of Bábolna TETRA Ltd. (a1 = commercial brown layer hybrid (C); a2 = purebred male line offspring group (maternal); a3 = purebfigure ed female line offspring group (paternal)). A total of 318 hens, i.e., 106 hens/genotype distributed in six pens (53 hens/pen), were evaluated. Cylindrical beak-abrasive blocks of 5.3–5.6 kg were suspended (0.1–0.4 mm diameter gravel, limestone grit, lime hydrate, and cement mixture) in six alternative pens. In six control pens without abrasive material, 318 hens, i.e., 106 hens/genotype (2 pens control group/genotype, i.e., C1 = commercial brown layer hybrid, C2 = purebred male line offspring group, C3 = purebred female line offspring group; 53 hens/pen;) were placed where there were no beak-abrasive materials. The rate of change in the weight of the beak-abrasive materials and the mortality rate were recorded daily. In the six pens equipped with beak-abrasive materials, infrared cameras were installed, and 24 h recordings were made. The number of individuals pecking the beak-abrasive material, the time and duration of dealing with the material were recorded. Data coming from one observation day are given. During the 13 experimental weeks of observation, the weight loss of beak-abrasives differed significantly in the different genotypes (a1 = 27.4%; a2 = 29.6%; a3 = 56.6%). During the only day analyzed, the hens from all the genotypes mostly stayed between 17:00 and 21:00 h in the littered scratching area where the beak-abrasive material was placed (a1 = 48.4%; a2 = 49.2%; a3 = 54.4%). In the case of each genotype, the rate of the hens dealing with beak-abrasives in the first two periods of the day was relatively low (0.2%–0.7%). Peaks of the activity were between 17:00 and 21:00 (a1 = 0.8%; a2 = 1.3%; a3 = 1.8%). The a3 dealt with the beak-abrasive materials to a significantly greater extent in the period from 13:00 to 17:00 (0.8%) and from 17:00 to 21:00 (1.8%) than the a1 (0.2% and 0.8%, respectively). Due to the use of the beak-abrasive materials, the mortality rate decreased the most in the genotypes that used them (a1 with beak-abrasive material 0.0% vs. C1 9.4%; a2 with beak-abrasive material 2.9% vs. C2 12.4%; a3 with beak-abrasive material) 15.4% vs. C3 5.7%). It can be concluded that the insertion of beak-abrasive materials increased the behavioral repertoire of hens, which is particularly beneficial from an animal welfare point of view. Further and longer-term research is needed to determine whether the insertion of the beak-abrasive material has a beneficial effect on the mortality data of the experimental groups through enrichment, either through physical abrasion of the beak or both.

show abstract

Feather pecking and cannibalism

Cited by 13 publications

References 120 publications

How can the research on chicken cognition improve chicken welfare: a perspective review

How can the research on chicken cognition improve chicken welfare: a perspective review

Regulatory T Cell Modulation by Lactobacillus rhamnosus Improves Feather Damage in Chickens

Examination of the Usage of a New Beak-Abrasive Material in Different Laying Hen Genotypes (Preliminary Results)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About