Modification of animals versus modification of the production environment to meet welfare needs

Mutilating Procedures, Management Practices, and Housing Conditions That May Affect the Welfare of Farm Animals: Implications for Welfare Research

A number of mutilating procedures, such as dehorning in cattle and goats and beak trimming in laying hens, are common in farm animal husbandry systems in an attempt to prevent or solve problems, such as injuries from horns or feather pecking. These procedures and other practices, such as early maternal separation, overcrowding, and barren housing conditions, raise concerns about animal welfare. Efforts to ensure or improve animal welfare involve adapting the animal to its environment, i.e., by selective breeding (e.g., by selecting "robust" animals) adapting the environment to the animal (e.g., by developing social housing systems in which aggressive encounters are reduced to a minimum), or both. We propose adapting the environment to the animals by improving management practices and housing conditions, and by abandoning mutilating procedures. This approach requires the active involvement of all stakeholders: veterinarians and animal scientists, the industrial farming sector, the food processing and supply chain, and consumers of animal-derived products. Although scientific evidence about the welfare effects of current practices in farming such as mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions is steadily growing, the gain in knowledge needs a boost through more scientific research. Considering the huge number of animals whose welfare is affected, all possible effort must be made to improve their welfare as quickly as possible in order to ban welfare-compromising procedures and practices as soon as possible.

Beak condition and cage density determine abundance and spatial distribution of northern fowl mites, Ornithonyssus sylviarum, and chicken body lice, Menacanthus stramineus, on caged laying hens

Adult White Leghorn hens (Hy-Line strain W-36) were inoculated with either northern fowl mites or chicken body lice, and the ectoparasite populations were monitored over periods of 9 to 16 wk. Two beak conditions (beak trimmed or beak intact) and 2 housing densities (1 or 2 hens per 25 × 31 cm suspended wire cage) were tested. Populations of both ectoparasites were at least 10 times lower on beak-intact hens compared with populations on beak-trimmed hens. Cage density did not influence mite numbers, but higher numbers of lice (2 to 3 times) developed on hens held at the higher cage density. Louse distribution on the body and louse population age structure were also influenced by host beak condition. Beak-intact hens had a higher proportion of lice under the wings, whereas beak-trimmed hens had the majority of lice on the lower abdomen. Louse populations on beak-trimmed hens also comprised relatively more immature stages than populations found on beak-intact hens. The effects are likely related to decreased grooming efficiency by beak-trimmed hens and, in the case of lice, the higher host density. The high mite and louse populations on most commercial caged laying hens are probably a direct result of beak trimming. However, selection of more docile breeds that can be held without trimming may allow the hens themselves to reduce ectoparasites below economically damaging levels. This could benefit producers, animal welfare advocates, and human health by reducing 1) costs of beak trimming, 2) pesticide treatment costs (including human and bird chemical exposure concerns), and 3) objections to beak trimming from the animal welfare community.