Effects of Induced Molting on the Well-Being of Egg-Laying Hens

McCowan, Brenda; Schrader, Joan; DiLorenzo, Ann Marie; Cardona, Carol J.; Klingborg, Donald J.

doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0901_2

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increased preening may be due to sensitivity from the loss of feathers (Webster, 2000) or displacement behavior (an unrelated behavioral response to anxiety) as a result of frustration (Duncan and Wood-Gush, 1972). The increase in nonnutritive pecking agrees with research by McCowan et al (2006), who reported an increase in cage pecking for hens assigned to an FW and a non-FW molt during the molt period compared with the premolt period. This increase may be due to hunger or a redirection of foraging behaviors (Webster, 2003).…”

Section: Pre-vs Postmoltsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Anderson et al (2004) reported that feather pecking increased during a 2-wk FW for hens kept in a cage system (6 hens/cage at 361 or 482 cm 2 /hen), but the frequency of aggressive and submissive acts was lower during the same time period. Webster (2000) and Biggs et al (2004;housed 3 hens/cage at 460 cm 2 /hen) reported no differences in aggressive pecking behaviors when comparing WM and FW molt treatments, but McCowan et al (2006) noted that cage pecking increased in hens (housed 3 hens/cage at 417 cm 2 /hen) assigned to an FW molt, and aggression increased in hens assigned to an FW and a non-FW molt during the molt period. Webster (2000), Anderson et al (2004), and Biggs et al (2004) reported in agreement across studies that FW birds did not show an increase in aggression, nonnutritive pecking, or sitting when compared with birds that still had access to a low-energy feed during molt.…”

Section: Low-energy Molt Diets Pre-and Postmoltmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Therefore, the differences observed in aggressive behaviors may be due to the type of bird used in any given experiment, and can make comparisons and general assumptions about bird behavior challenging. Biggs et al (2004) and McCowan et al (2006) used Single Comb White Leghorn hens of the Dekalb White strain, whereas Webster (2000) and Anderson et al (2004) used Hy-Line W-36 hens, the same line used in the present study.…”

Section: Low-energy Molt Diets Pre-and Postmoltmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biggs et al (2004) found no differences in social behaviors or H:L between hens subjected to a 10-d FW and hens that were fed a WM molt diet. Alternatively, McCowan et al (2006) reported increased aggression in both fasted and nonfasted hens during molt compared with their behaviors before molting. Therefore, the nonfasting molt programs have not shown conclusively what effects they may have on laying hen behavior or physiology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Traditionally, molt has been induced by feed withdrawal (FW) ranging from 4 to 14 d accompanied by light restriction or total removal of water for up to 3 d (Cunningham and Mauldin, 1996;Berry, 2003). However, this practice has raised societal concerns about its possible effects on the overall well-being of the laying hen (Holt, 1992;Webster, 2003;McCowan et al, 2006). In the United States, industry groups have recommended that after January 1, 2006, producers implement only nonfasting molt programs, which have been defined as having available water and a feed source suitable for nonproducing hens (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2005;United Egg Producers, 2008), and some fast-food chains (McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King) have stated that their companies will no longer purchase eggs that are produced from a laying operation that uses an FW molting program (Anonymous, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of a premolt calcium and low-energy molt program on laying hen behavior and heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratios

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to compare the behaviors, postures, and heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (H:L) of laying hens housed in a cage system when offered a Ca premolt treatment and low-energy molt diets vs. a traditional feed withdrawal (FW) treatment during and after molt. A total of 144 Hy-Line W-36 hens (85 wk of age), housed 3 hens/cage (413 cm(2)/hen), were used. Hens were allotted to treatments according to a randomized complete block design, with the cage location and initial BW as the blocking criteria. Six treatments were compared in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement with 2 Ca premolt treatments (fine or coarse) and 3 low-energy molt diets (FW, soybean hulls, or wheat middlings). The 2 Ca premolt treatments differed only in Ca particle size (fine was 0.14 mm and coarse was 2.27 mm mean diameter). Two postures and 5 behaviors were recorded and H:L was measured. Data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS, with P < 0.05 considered significant. There were no differences in behaviors, postures, or H:L during the premolt baseline period. The Ca premolt treatment had no carryover effects during or after molt for behaviors or postures. During molt, hens in the FW treatment were more active, and they ate and drank less compared with hens fed soybean hulls or wheat middlings, but there were no differences in aggression, nonnutritive pecking, or sitting. Drinking and aggression during and after molt were not different, but hens postmolt engaged in more sitting and feeding and less activity, nonnutritive pecking, and preening compared with during molt. There were no differences in H:L during or after molt. In conclusion, a Ca premolt treatment did not affect the behavior of the laying hen. The low-energy molt diets did not adversely affect behavior compared with FW and did not increase H:L; therefore, they could be useful alternatives for inducing molt in laying hens.

show abstract