No abstract

Smothering in poultry is an economic and welfare-related concern. This study presents the first results from a questionnaire addressing the incidence, location, timing and management of smothering of free-range farm managers from two commercial egg companies (representing 35 per cent of the UK free-range egg supply). Overall, nearly 60 per cent of farm mangers experienced smothering in their last flock, with an average of 25.5 birds lost per incidence, although per cent mortality due to smothering was low (x̄=1.6 per cent). The majority of farm managers also reported that over 50 per cent of all their flocks placed had been affected by smothering. The location and timing of smothering (excluding smothering in nest boxes) tended to be unpredictable and varied between farms. Blocking off corners/nest boxes and walking birds more frequently were identified as popular smothering reduction measures, although there was a wide variety of reduction measures reported overall. The motivation to implement reduction measures was related to a farm manager's previous experience of smothering. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a representative industry estimate on the incidence, location, timing and management of smothering. The results suggest that smothering is a common problem, unpredictable between flocks with no clear, effective reduction strategies. A follow-up study will investigate the correlations among smothering, disease and other welfare problems and may shed further light on management solutions.

Smothering, when birds group together in a way that results in death from suffocation, is a welfare and economic concern for the egg industry. This questionnaire-based study explored correlations between disease, housing, management practices and smothering on free-range farms. A binomial logistic regression approach was used to test whether question responses predicted occurrence of nest box smothers (NBS) and panic and recurring smothers (PSRS) on farms. Breed (P=0.008) and nest box manufacturer (P=0.014) predicted NBS. Breed and nest box design have been previously reported to affect nesting behaviour. The affect of nest box manufacturer found in this study may illustrate the effect of nest box design features or house layouts. Nest box manufacturer (P=0.009), feeding oyster grit or grain on the litter (P<0.001) and range use on a sunny day (P<0.001) also predicted PSRS. Implementing some management practices to encourage desirable behaviours (eg ranging) may contribute to smothering, whereas some management practices such as those aimed at occupying birds may be beneficial, illustrating the delicate balance of factors involved in free-range egg production. It is hoped that these results will stimulate further work exploring the suitability of housing design and management of laying hens in light of smothering.

1. In this study, the calling rates of vocalisations known to indicate distress and aversive events (Alarm calls, Squawks, Total vocalisations) and acoustic parameters of flock noise were quantified from feather and non-feather pecking laying flocks. 2. One hour of flock noise (background machinery and hen vocalisations) was recorded from 21 commercial free-range laying hen flocks aged > or =35 weeks. Ten of the flocks were classified as feather pecking (based on a plumage condition score) and 11 as non-feather pecking. 3. Recordings were made using a Sony DAT recorder and Audio-Technica omni-directional microphone, placed in the centre of the house-1.5 m from the ground. Avisoft-SASlab Pro was used to create and analyse audio spectrograms. 4. There was no effect of flock size or farm on call/s or acoustic parameters of flock noise. However, strain had an effect on the number of Total vocalisation/s; the Hebden Black flock made more calls than Lohmann flocks. Feather pecking flocks gave more Squawk/s and more Total vocalisation/s than non-feather pecking flocks. Feather pecking did not explain variation in alarm call rate or, intensity (dB) and frequency (Hz) measures of flock noise. 5. The differences between Squawk and Total vocalisation call rates of feather and non-feather pecking flocks are a new finding. An increase or change in flock calling rate may be evident before other conventional measures of laying hen welfare such as a drop in egg production or increase in plumage damage, thus enabling farmers to make management or husbandry changes to prevent an outbreak of feather pecking.

Piling is a behavior in laying hens whereby individuals aggregate in larger densities than would be normally expected. When piling behavior leads to mortalities it is known as smothering and its frequent but unpredictable occurrence is a major concern for many egg producers. There are generally considered to be three types of piling: panic, nest box and recurring piling. Whilst nest box and panic piling have apparent triggers, recurring piling does not, making it an enigmatic and ethologically intriguing behavior. The repetitive nature of recurring piling may result in a higher incidence of smothering and could have unconsidered, sub-lethal consequences. Here, we consider the possible causes of recurring piling from an ethological perspective and outline the potential welfare and production consequences. Drawing on a wide range of literature, we consider different timescales of causes from immediate triggers to ontogeny and domestication processes, and finally consider the evolution of collective behavior. By considering different timescales of influence, we built four hypotheses relevant to the causes of piling, which state that the behavior: (i) is caused by hens moving toward or away from an attractant/repellent; (ii) is socially influenced; (iii) is influenced by early life experiences and; (iv) can be described as a maladaptive collective behavior. We further propose that the following could be welfare consequences of piling behavior: Heat stress, physical injury (such as keel bone damage), and behavioral and physiological stress effects. Production consequences include direct and indirect mortality (smothering and knock-on effects of piling, respectively), potential negative impacts on egg quality and on worker welfare. In future studies the causes of piling and smothering should be considered according to the different timescales on which causes might occur. Here, both epidemiological and modeling approaches could support further study of piling behavior, where empirical studies can be challenging.