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

Abstract

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.

Development of a Scoring System to Assess Feather Damage in Canadian Laying Hen Flocks

“…Neither of the researchers had prior experience with assessing FD and, thus, would be more representative of the general farmer who would be scoring the birds. Due to the nationwide data collection required as part of a larger project the scoring system would be implemented in [22], the research team would not be able to collect this scoring data in person due to travel constraints. As farmers would not be trained beforehand, it was important that the scoring system was understandable and accurately applicable during first-time use, and feasibility of the methodology was crucial.…”

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

“…Therefore, housing of large flocks in non-cage systems can contribute to an increased prevalence of FD [36, 37]. In comparison, Decina et al [25] found a FD prevalence of 21.9% in furnished cages compared to the 25.9% prevalence reported here in non-cage systems, which was not different. When comparing the proportion of birds with FD between flocks in conventional cages, furnished cages, free-run barns, and free-range systems, Sherwin et al [32] found proportions of birds with FD within each system (24.7, 24.9, 26.9, and 15.5%, respectively).…”

“…Questionnaire distribution followed the procedures described by Decina et al [25]. In brief, packages containing all documents (i.e., layer questionnaire, feather cover damage scoring guide, scoring sheets, cover letter, and return-addressed envelope) were posted to participating producers and also made available via Qualtrics® online survey software [63].…”

“…Statistical analysis was conducted similarly as for the furnished cage flocks as described by Decina et al [25], but with a focus on the non-cage flocks. In brief, the percentage of birds with a FD score greater than zero was calculated to estimate the FD prevalence within a flock.…”

“…This study was part of a project to investigate FD in the Canadian context where climate, feeding, and management practices can differ considerably from those in Europe and across regions within Canada. Previously, we presented the methodology used to assess FD by farmers [24] as well as research findings of the project in the context of furnished cage systems [25]. In this paper, we present associations between FD and different aspects of management, environment, health, and genetics, which were identified in an effort to provide farmers with strategies to prevent or control FD.…”