Examining the relationship between different naturally-occurring maxillary beak shapes and their ability to cause damage in commercial laying hens

1. Using chicken models to avoid unnecessary harm, this study examined the relationship between naturally-occurring maxillary (top) beak shapes and their ability to cause pecking damage.2. A selection of 24 Lohmann Brown laying hens from a total population of 100 were sorted into two groups based on their maxillary beak shape, where 12 were classified as having sharp beaks (SB) and 12 as having blunt beaks (BB).3. All hens were recorded six times in a test pen which contained a chicken model (foam block covered with feathered chicken skin) and a video camera. During each test session, the number of feathers removed from the model, the change in skin and block weight (proxies for tissue damage) and the percentage of successful pecks (resulting in feather and/or tissue removal) were recorded.4. SB hens removed more feathers from the model and had a greater change in skin weight than BB hens. The mean number of pecks made at the model did not differ between the beak shape groups; however, SB hens had a greater percentage of successful pecks, resulting in feather and/or tissue removal, compared to BB hens.5. In conclusion, SB hens were more capable of removing feathers and causing damage. Birds performed more successful pecks resulting in feather and/or tissue removal as they gained experience pecking at the model.

Injurious pecking in organic turkey fattening-effects of husbandry and feeding on injuries and plumage damage of a slow- (Auburn) and a fast-growing (B.U.T.6) genotype

Injuries and plumage damage (PD) are important indicators of welfare. First priority in turkey fattening is to reduce injurious pecking, which includes aggressive pecking (agonistic behavior) and additionally severe feather pecking (SFP) and cannibalism with their multifactorial reasons. Still, there are few studies available evaluating different genotypes for their welfare status under organic conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of genotype and husbandry with 100% organic feeding (2 variants with different riboflavin content: V1 and V2) on injuries and PD. During rearing nonbeaktrimmed male turkeys of a slow- (Auburn, n = 256) and fast-growing (B.U.T.6, n = 128) genotype were kept in 2 indoor housing systems (without environmental enrichment (EE) = H1-, n = 144 and with EE = H2+, n = 240). During fattening 13 animals per pen of H2+ were relocated to a free-range system (H3 MS, n = 104). EE included pecking stones, elevated seating platforms and silage feeding. The study included five 4-wk feeding phases. At the end of each phase, injuries and PD were scored to assess animal welfare. Injury scores ranged from 0 (=no damage) to 3 (=severe damage) and PD from 0 to 4. Injurious pecking was observed from the 8th week onward (injuries: 16.5% and PD: 31.4%). Binary logistic regression models showed that both indicators were affected by genotype (each P < 0.001), husbandry (each P < 0.001), feeding (injuries P = 0.004; PD P = 0.003), and age (each P < 0.001). Auburn showed less injuries and PD than B.U.T.6. H1- had the fewest injuries and PD for Auburn animals compared to H2+ or H3 MS. In summary, the use of alternative genotypes (Auburn) in organic fattening improved welfare, but keeping them in free-range systems or in husbandry with EE, does not lead to a reduction of injurious pecking. Therefore, further studies are needed with more and changing enrichment materials, further management measures, changes in housing structure, and even more intensive animal care.

Feather Pecking in Non-Beak-Trimmed and Beak-Trimmed Laying Hens on Commercial Farms with Aviaries

Simple Summary

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a major animal welfare problem in layers. It results in pain and injuries in the affected animal. SFP is a behavioral disorder and should not be confused with aggressive pecking. The aim of our study was to observe the pecking behavior of layers on farms with flock sizes common in practice and to identify possible influencing factors. We found that SFP occurred in all flocks, but the pecking rate varied widely between flocks. A low stocking density and the provision of a winter garden or free range (or both) had a positive effect and reduced SFP. Keeping mixed flocks of brown and white layers was a risk factor for SFP. SFP occurred mainly in the litter area and only rarely on perches. This finding emphasizes the importance of providing enough litter, litter areas and environmental enrichment. Aggressive pecking and SFP were correlated, which may indicate a higher stress level in the flock. Beak trimming reduced pecking rates but did not entirely prevent SFP. Instead of subjecting chicks to this potentially painful procedure, reasons for SFP should be addressed. SFP remains a multifactorial problem, but in recent years, many risk factors have been identified and included in best-practice recommendations, allowing the housing of non-beak-trimmed layers.

Abstract

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a major animal welfare problem in layers. It results in pain and injuries in the affected animal. It was the aim of this study to gain insight into the actual pecking behavior of laying hens kept on commercial farms with flock sizes common in practice. We observed aggressive pecking and SFP in non-beak-trimmed and beak-trimmed flocks of laying hens and investigated possible influencing factors. The study took place on eight conventional farms in Germany with aviaries, including three farms with a free range and a winter garden, one with a free range and one with a winter garden. Pecking behavior was observed during three observational periods (OPs): OP 1, at the peak of the laying period between the 28th and 33rd week of life; OP 2, in the middle of the laying period between the 42nd and 48th week of life; and OP 3, at the end of the laying period between the 63rd and 68th week of life in one laying period. Videos were analyzed using behavior sampling and continuous recording. We found that SFP occurred in all flocks, but the pecking rate differed significantly between the flocks. SFP correlated positively with the number of hens per square meter of usable area, with statistical significance in the litter area (r = 0.564; p = 0.045). The multivariate analysis revealed that access to a winter garden or free range significantly reduced the SFP rate on perches (p = 0.001). The stocking density (number of birds per usable square meter) had a significant influence on the SPF rate in the nest-box area (p = 0.001). The hybrid line had a significant effect on the SFP rate on perches and in the nest-box area (p = 0.001 each). Lohmann Brown hens in mixed flocks had a higher SFP rate (significant in OP 2) than those in homogeneous flocks, indicating that mixed flocks may be a risk factor for SFP. Lohmann Brown hens pecked significantly less than Dekalb White hens in the litter area (p = 0.010) and in the nest-box area (p = 0.025) and less than Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens in the litter area (p = 0.010). Lohmann Brown and Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens showed increasing SFP rates during the laying period. All hybrid lines had significantly higher SFP rates in the litter area, followed by the nest-box area and perches. These findings emphasize the importance of providing enough litter, litter areas and environmental enrichment. We found a significant positive correlation between aggressive pecking and SFP—in OP 1: rho (Spearman) = 0.580, p < 0.001; OP 2: rho = 0.486, p = 0.002; and OP 3: rho = 0.482, p = 0.002 (n = 39) —indicating that SFP may lead to a higher stress level in the flock. Beak trimming reduced pecking rates but did not entirely prevent SFP. Instead of subjecting chicks to this potentially painful procedure, reasons for SFP should be addressed. In conclusion, our data suggest a positive influence of a lower stocking density and the provision of a winter garden or free range for additional space. The hybrid line had a significant influence on the feather-pecking rate on perches and the nest-box area. Aggressive pecking and severe feather pecking correlated positively. We assume that vigorous and painful AP were an additional stress factor, especially in non-beak-trimmed flocks, leading to more SFP in due course. Beak trimming had a reducing effect on SFP. However, our results showed that non-beak-trimmed flocks could be kept without major outbreaks of SFP.