Feather-pecking in poultry: Its relation with ground-pecking

Blokhuis, H.J.

doi:10.1016/0168-1591(86)90040-7

Cited by 215 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both foraging and dustbathing behaviours have a groundpecking component. If there is no natural substrate on the ground to peck at, it is thus hypothesized that the feathers of cagemates are used as a substitute (Blokhuis 1986;Johnsen & Vestergaard 1996). However, the evidence for either motivational hypothesis is not entirely conclusive, as past studies do not differentiate between dustbathing ground pecks and foraging ground pecks (e.g.…”

Section: Feather Pecking In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Both hypotheses suggest, in general terms, that the lack of particulate matter on the floor (in which to dustbathe or forage) leads to the development of feather pecking in birds kept in cages with wire mesh floors (Blokhuis 1986(Blokhuis , 1989Vestergaard & Lisborg 1993). Both foraging and dustbathing behaviours have a groundpecking component.…”

Section: Feather Pecking In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What's in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like many captive animals, hens, Gallus gallus, used for agricultural production perform abnormal behaviours. They are particularly prone to feather pecking, the severest form of which involves the pecking at and removal of feathers, which can cause bleeding and even stimulate cannibalism. The two main hypothesized explanations for feather pecking concern frustrated motivations to forage or, alternatively, to dustbathe, leading to redirected behaviour in the form of pecks at plumage. Previous work on pigeons has shown that the detailed morphology of pecks involved in drinking and feeding, or in working for food or water, involves motivationally distinct 'fixed action patterns'. We therefore used methods similar to these fixed action pattern studies to quantify the motor patterns involved in foraging and in dustbathing pecks, for comparison to feather pecking. We videoed 60 chickens pecking at a variety of forages and dustbaths, along with novel objects, water and bird models that could be feather pecked. We recorded the durations of the head fixation before the peck, between the head fixation to beak contact with each stimulus and of the whole peck sequence. We used mixed models to assess whether the motivation underlying a peck affected its morphology and whether severe feather pecks resembled or differed from either dustbath or foraging pecks (or even novel-object pecking or drinking). The motor patterns involved in pecks at forages, dustbaths, novel objects and water all varied significantly; importantly, the motor patterns involved in pecking during dustbathing and foraging differed (P < 0.0001 for all measures). Severe feather pecks proved similar to foraging pecks (NSD: power > 0.95) but different from all other pecks, including dustbathing (P < 0.0001 for all measures). These results indicate that severe feather pecking derives from frustrated motivations to forage, not to dustbathe. More broadly, they suggest that finely analysing fixed action pattern morphology can help elucidate the motivational bases of puzzling abnormal behaviours in captive animals.

show abstract

Section: Feather Pecking In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Feather Pecking In Laying Hensmentioning

confidence: 99%

What's in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence of line differences in FP (Kjaer et al 2001;Uitdehaag et al 2008), and it has been demonstrated that FP is influenced by group size, light intensity, diet and type of litter (Hughes and Duncan 1972;Blokhuis and Arkes 1984;Savory 1995). As for its aetiology, FP has been considered to be redirected ground pecking (Blokhuis 1986), abnormal dustbathing behaviour (Vestergaard and Lisborg 1993), or the consequence of a more general hyperactivity disorder (Kjaer 2009). Most of the evidence point at the redirected ground pecking theory (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler 1997), with active or even hyperactive birds having the highest risk of developing FP (Newberry et al 2007;Kjaer 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Across-Line SNP Association Study for Direct and Associative Effects on Feather Damage in Laying Hens

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An association study between SNP markers and feather condition score on the back, rump and belly of laying hens was performed. Feather condition score is a measure of feather damage, which has been shown to be closely related to feather pecking behaviour in hens housed in groups. A population of 662 hens was genotyped for 1536 SNPs of which 1022 could be used for the association study. The analysis was conducted across 9 different lines of White Leghorn and Rhode Island Red origin. Across lines linkage disequilibrium is conserved at shorter distances than within lines; therefore, SNPs significantly associated with feather condition score across lines are expected to be closer to the functional mutations. The SNPs that had a significant across-line effect but did not show significant SNP-by-line interaction were identified, to test that the association was consistent across lines. Both the direct effect of the individual's genotype on its plumage condition, and the associative effect of the genotype of the cage mates on the individual's plumage condition were analysed. The direct genetic effect can be considered as the susceptibility to be pecked at, whereas the associative genetic effect can be interpreted as the propensity to perform feather pecking. Finally, 11 significant associations between SNPs and behavioural traits were detected in the direct model, and 81 in the associative model. A role of the gene for the serotonin receptor 2C (HTR2C) on chromosome 4 was found. This supports existing evidence of a prominent involvement of the serotonergic system in the modulation of this behavioural disorder in laying hens. The genes for IL9, IL4, CCL4 and NFKB were found to be associated to plumage condition, revealing relationships between the immune system and behaviour.

show abstract

“…The dominant theory proposes that SFP is a form of redirected pecking, whereby birds redirect pecking behaviour normally associated with foraging and food-searching, away from the environment and towards conspecifics instead (Blokhuis, 1986;Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1998). This may occur in environments that lack adequate stimuli (Hughes and Duncan, 1972;Blokhuis, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may occur in environments that lack adequate stimuli (Hughes and Duncan, 1972;Blokhuis, 1986). However, birds also express SFP in housing systems that contain plentiful environmental stimuli, such as deep litter and free-range systems (Bessei and Kjaer, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The association between plumage damage and feather-eating in free-range laying hens

Hartcher

Hemsworth

Wilkinson

et al. 2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe feather-pecking (SFP) persists as a highly prevalent and detrimental behavioural problem in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) worldwide. The present experiment investigated the association between feather-eating and plumage damage, a consequence of SFP, in groups of free-range, ISA Brown laying hens. Single feathers were placed on the floor of the home pens. Feathers were sourced from seven different birds. A total of 50 birds in six pens with extensive plumage damage were compared with birds in six control pens with little plumage damage at 41 to 43 weeks of age ( n = 12 pens, 600 hens). Birds in pens with extensive plumage damage ingested more feathers ( F = 8.1, DF = 1, 8, P = 0.02), and also showed shorter latencies to peck at ( χ 2 = 54.5, DF = 1, P < 0.001), and ingest feathers ( χ 2 = 55.6, DF = 1, P < 0.001). Birds ingested feathers from a bird in the free-range facility, in which the testing took place, more quickly than from a bird housed in a separate cage facility ( χ 2 = 39.0, DF = 6, P < 0.001). A second experiment investigated the predictive relationship between feather-eating and plumage damage. Feathers were presented to 16 pens of 50 pullets prior to the development of plumage damage, at 15 weeks of age, and then to the same hens after plumage damage had become prominent, at 40 weeks of age. Birds had a higher probability of ingesting feathers ( F = 142.0, DF = 1, 231, P < 0.001), pecked feathers more times ( F = 11.24, DF = 1, 239, P < 0.001), and also pecked ( χ 2 = 127.3, DF = 1, P < 0.001) and ingested ( χ 2 = 189.3, DF = 1, P < 0.001) the feathers more quickly at 40 than 15 weeks of age. There was a trend for an interaction, where birds pecked feathers from the rump more times than feathers from the back at 40 weeks of age ( F = 3.46, DF = 1, 237, P = 0.06). However, a lack of variability in plumage damage between pens in this experiment precluded investigation of the predictive relationship. The results from the present study confirm the association between feather-eating and plumage damage, and suggest that birds may prefer feathers from particular body areas and from particular hens. Future experiments should focus on elucidating whether feather-eating may act as a predictor of SFP.

show abstract

Feather-pecking in poultry: Its relation with ground-pecking

Cited by 215 publications

References 4 publications

What's in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour

What's in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour

Across-Line SNP Association Study for Direct and Associative Effects on Feather Damage in Laying Hens

The association between plumage damage and feather-eating in free-range laying hens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About