A cross-sectional study on feather cover damage in Canadian laying hens in non-cage housing systems

Decina, Caitlin; Berke, Olaf; Staaveren, Nienke van; Baes, C.F.; Widowski, Tina M.; Harlander-Matauschek, Alexandra

doi:10.1186/s12917-019-2168-2

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rodenburg et al (2008), who compared the welfare of 60-week-old laying hens housed in the barn and furnished cage systems, showed that barn layers are more active, more prone to scratching, make more frequent use of perches, and are less fearful. Decina et al (2019) confirmed the importance of litter access for layer welfare. The researchers found higher incidence of feather damage in layers raised on wire mesh floor and slatted floor compared to litter floor.…”

Section: Single-tier Barn Systemsmentioning

confidence: 61%

The Welfare Status of Hens in Different Housing Systems – A Review

Sosnówka-Czajka

Skomorucha

Herbut

2021

Annals of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The currently used poultry farming methods, which aim to maximise economic profit, are based on ever new technological solutions that improve flock management and increase bird performance. However, they do not always meet the natural needs of birds. Every housing method and technological solution currently in use is faced with some issues, such as social stress, adverse temperature/humidity conditions, risk of zoonoses, and behavioural pathologies, which determine poultry performance and welfare. Disregard for animal welfare involves not only ethical but also practical aspects, because well-being and housing comfort translate into better weight gains, health and productivity of the birds. The studies reported here suggest that every production system, despite the many welfare-improving aspects, causes numerous behavioural, productivity and health abnormalities in laying hens. Therefore, further research is needed to identify various risk factors for the purpose of improving housing systems and increasing the welfare of hens.

show abstract

Section: Single-tier Barn Systemsmentioning

confidence: 61%

The Welfare Status of Hens in Different Housing Systems – A Review

Sosnówka-Czajka

Skomorucha

Herbut

2021

Annals of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This mirrors the conclusions of a self-control study conducted in laying hens where birds anticipated future consequences by displaying high temporal cognitive abilities 35 . It is important to highlight that the present study was conducted solely in adult birds as FP behaviour is more mainly reported and observed in adult birds 7,14,36,37 . As such, there exists the possibility that P birds may indeed have impaired impulse control at a young age; however, they may develop coping strategies that diminish or mask this deficiency over time, thereby allowing P birds to perform Go/No-Go tasks similarly to their NP counterparts as adults.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chickens selected for feather pecking can inhibit prepotent motor responses in a Go/No-Go task

Heinsius

Staaveren

Kwon

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition. We assessed motor impulsivity in female chickens (n = 20) during a Go/No-Go task where birds had to peck (Go) or inhibit pecks (No-Go) appropriately to obtain a food reward, depending on visual cues in an operant chamber. Birds were selected to show divergent fp performance based on their genotype (high predisposition for fp or unselected control line) and phenotype (peckers or non-peckers). Genotype, phenotype, and its interaction did not affect the number of pre-cue responses, percentage of responses during No-Go cues (false alarms), or efficiency (number of rewards over number of responses). We present the first documentation of a Go/no-Go task to measure the ability of birds genetically and phenotypically selected for fp activity to inhibit a prepotent motor response. Results indicate that the repetitive motor action of FP does not reflect impulsivity and is not genetically linked to a lack of behavioural inhibition as measured in a Go/no-Go task.Chickens use pecking as their main action for manipulation of objects, which include e.g., the handling of food, foraging, and exploring or moving items 1 . A similar pattern is seen in feather pecking (FP) -a behaviour where a bird reaches out to peck at the feather of conspecifics, which may or may not result in plucking of feathers and occasionally the consumption of feathers 2,3 . This damages the feather cover of conspecifics which in some cases can lead to cannibalism and ultimately death of the victim 3 . FP is a common behaviour in birds kept for egg-laying with a reported prevalence ranging from 15% to 95% on commercial farms 4-7 . This disruptive behaviour can be induced by adverse, stressful environments 8-10 and is associated with neurobiological changes, such as alterations within the monoaminergic system 11 . This potential link to permanent neurobiological alterations, together with its apparent heritability 12,13 , makes FP difficult to treat and often irreversible 14 . Theoretically, neurobiological alterations can reduce behavioural control, and would explain functionless pecking by birds that engage in this behaviour during operant tasks [15][16][17] . Given the repetitive nature of FP, FP may be more akin to similarly described repetitive behaviour seen in human psychiatric disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 18 . Impulsivity is part of normal behaviour 19 . It is considered a favourable trait when decision making needs to be completed quickly, enabling the individual to seize fleeting opportunities, and when the outcomes of such decisions are positive. However, impulsivity can be detrimental when it is a persistent or a dominant trait (e.g., in people with psychological disorders such as ADHD) 20 . Impulsivity is a multifaceted construct that encompasses quick decision-making fuelled by a lack of forethought, decreased ability to pay attention, and decreased...

show abstract

“…This study was part of a larger epidemiological project to investigate FD in laying hens kept in alternative housing systems on Canadian farms [22]. The study was conducted as described in Decina et al [36], who also presents results for non-caged flocks. In brief, egg farmers were asked to 1) assess FD prevalence in their flock using a visual FD scoring system and 2) complete a comprehensive questionnaire based on housing features and management practices in a national survey.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FD was assessed by farmers using a visual scoring system, which had been specifically designed for this project [36]. The system involved a three-point scale from 0 to 2 according to severity (Table 1) to allow scoring of both extremes of good and poor feather cover along with a more intermediate feather cover.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Associations Between Management and Feather Damage in Canadian Laying Hens Housed in Furnished Cages

Decina

Berke

Staaveren

et al. 2019

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feather pecking is a continuous welfare challenge in the housing of egg-laying hens. Canada is currently making the transition from conventional cages to alternative housing systems. However, feather damage (FD) among laying hens due to feather pecking remains a welfare concern. An explorative approach was taken to assess bird, housing, and management associations with FD in Canadian laying hens housed in alternative systems. A questionnaire focused on housing and management practices was administered to 122 laying farms across Canada in autumn of 2017 (response rate of 52.5%), yielding information on a subset of 26 flocks housed in furnished cages. Additionally, a three-point feather cover scoring system was developed to estimate the prevalence of FD. Farmers assessed FD by sampling 50 birds per flock. Linear regression modeling was applied to explain FD as a function of 6 variables (out of an available 54). Of the 6 modeled variables, “increased age”, “brown feather colour”, “midnight feeding”, and “no scratch area” were associated with higher levels of FD at farm level (R2 = 0.77). The results indicated that FD resulting from feather pecking is a multifactorial problem, and supported existing evidence that FD increases as birds age. These results also suggested that “feather colour”, “midnight feeding”, and “access to (or lack of) a scratch area or additional substrate” play a role in FD prevalence in furnished cages.

show abstract

A cross-sectional study on feather cover damage in Canadian laying hens in non-cage housing systems

Cited by 17 publications

References 49 publications

The Welfare Status of Hens in Different Housing Systems – A Review

The Welfare Status of Hens in Different Housing Systems – A Review

Chickens selected for feather pecking can inhibit prepotent motor responses in a Go/No-Go task

An Investigation of Associations Between Management and Feather Damage in Canadian Laying Hens Housed in Furnished Cages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About