The preference for high-fiber feed in laying hens divergently selected on feather pecking

Abstract

Earlier studies in laying hens have demonstrated a negative correlation between feather pecking and the dietary fiber content of the feed. However, the factors underlying this relationship are not fully understood. In the present experiment, we hypothesized that birds prone to feather pecking would prefer a diet supplemented with dietary fiber. Thus, the aim was to investigate the voluntary consumption of a wheat-soy control diet (CON) and a diet supplemented with 8% spelt hulls (FIB) on the expense of wheat in 20 individually caged hens selected for high feather pecking (HFP) behavior and 20 individually caged hens selected for low feather pecking (LFP) behavior. The proportional intake of FIB was 0.39 and significantly different from 0.50 (P<0.001). As hypothesized, HFP had higher proportional intake of FIB (0.43) than LFP hens (0.36; P<0.05). The HFP hens had inferior plumage condition (P<0.001), higher BW (P<0.001), and higher feed intake (P<0.01) than LFP. The HFP hens plucked more feathers from a simple inanimate feather-pecking model, but the number of feathers being pulled out did not correlate with the proportional intake of FIB. It was concluded that the preference for feed supplemented with spelt hulls was different between hens displaying different feather-pecking behavior. The underlying reason for such a difference needs further investigation.

Can Non-Beak Treated Hens be Kept in Commercial Furnished Cages? Exploring the Effects of Strain and Extra Environmental Enrichment on Behaviour, Feather Cover, and Mortality

“…The extent to which the management affected the outcome variables is uncertain, as inherent breed differences have been reported to exist in other research, with significant differences in overall activity levels as well as feather pecking behaviour [ 36 ]. Not only do commercially available breeds behave differently, but there is evidence to suggest that feather pecking is a heritable trait [ 37 ], as two divergent lines with different propensities for feather pecking have been developed in recent years [ 9 , 38 ]. In addition, certain breeds may be more suited to certain housing environments than other breeds and in our case, the H hens appeared to be better suited to a large furnished cage environment than the L hens, for which the maximum all mortality (8.5%) exceeded the expected rate of 4.9% based on the breed guideline [ 39 ].…”

Gut-Brain Axis: Probiotic,Bacillus subtilis, Prevents Aggression via the Modification of the Central Serotonergic System

“…In response to growing pressures, housing environments of laying hens have been modified and/or various dietary supplementations have been provided in attempts to prevent social stress and stress-associated injurious behaviors. For instance, modifications include reducing light intensity, changing the nutritive value or taste of diets [263][264][265], providing straw or grain [266,267] or pelleted diets [263], housing hens in floor-pens [268], and developing enriched cages [269,270]. However, these methods have had limited success and provide no guarantee of preventing these injurious behaviors.…”

The effect of storage temperature and water activity on aflatoxin B1 accumulation in hull‐less and hulled spelt grains

“…production of pillows and mattresses, 11 as a renewable source of energy [12][13][14] and as animal feed. 15 There is a general agreement that hull-less cultivars of a crop can be more susceptible than hulled cultivars to mechanical damage and infection by storage fungi and storage insects. 16 Hard adherent spelt hulls seem to pose an effective barrier for mycelial filaments of fungi thus protecting and reducing contamination of spelt grains with fungi and mycotoxins.…”

“…The hulls, as well as other (the threshing offal) materials left after spelt grain cleaning and dehulling, may be used for various purposes, e.g. production of pillows and mattresses, as a renewable source of energy and as animal feed . There is a general agreement that hull‐less cultivars of a crop can be more susceptible than hulled cultivars to mechanical damage and infection by storage fungi and storage insects .…”