DOCSLIB.ORG

Feather Pecking Behaviour and Associated Welfare Issues in Laying Hens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feather Pecking Behaviour and Associated Welfare Issues in Laying Hens See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233704556 Feather pecking behaviour and associated welfare issues in laying hens Article in Avian biology research · September 2008 DOI: 10.3184/175815508X363251 CITATIONS READS 19 877 1 author: Laura M. Dixon Scotland's Rural College 12 PUBLICATIONS 204 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Investigating appetite regulation and growth in chickens View project All content following this page was uploaded by Laura M. Dixon on 05 October 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. AVIAN BIOLOGY RESEARCH 1 (2), 2008 73–87 Feather pecking behaviour and associated welfare issues in laying hens Laura Marie Dixona,b aDepartment of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 bPresent address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park, Lincoln, LN2 2LG, UK E-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT Feather pecking, the pecking at or removal of feathers from one bird by another, is a problem in the poultry industry. Elimination of damaging feather pecking from flocks is made especially difficult by the numerous factors that appear to influence its prevalence. This review outlines the various contributors to feather pecking organised around Tinbergen’s four questions on causation, ontogeny, phylogeny and function. There is growing evidence that feather pecking (especially severe feather pecking) is related to foraging motivation and gut function. However, other factors, such as improper early experiences, strain and individual differences and perseveration of the behaviour help explain its continued occurrence, even if the birds are kept in enriched environments. To date, methods of dealing with feather pecking are inadequate and involve welfare concerns of their own and alternate solutions, such as provision of forages, are not usually successful in abolishing feather pecking behaviour. The problems of excessive pelage/plummage removal or redirected oral/foraging related behaviour are not unique to poultry and seem to occur in other species in which foraging and forage intake is important. Between species comparisons of related behaviour patterns may improve our understanding of feather pecking and help to design effective solutions. In order to solve the problem of feather pecking, the factors discussed in this review need to be accounted for or we risk applying ‘band-aid’ solutions, which may appear outwardly to be solving the problem. However, the underlying cause(s) may still be present and the animal’s welfare may still be compromised. Keywords: feather pecking, causation, ontogeny, function, phylogeny, stereotypic behaviour, poultry welfare 1. INTRODUCTION also prevent the birds from performing behaviour patterns, such as foraging and dustbathing (Dawkins, Modern day chickens (Gallus domesticus) were origin- 1977; Baxter, 1994). If captive animals are motivated to ally domesticated from the Red Jungle fowl (Gallus perform natural behaviours patterns that are not gallus) over eight thousand years ago. Initially, they possible (see for example Hughes and Duncan, 1988; were used for religious sacrifice or cockfighting until Mason et al., 2001), this may both cause stress and lead around Roman times when they began to be developed to stereotypic behaviour, defined as ‘‘repetitive beha- for food production (Wood-Gush, 1971). The modern viour induced by frustration, repeated attempts to cope poultry industry began in the early nineteenth century, andyor C.N.S. (brain) dysfunction’’, regardless of the with most producers having small flocks of dual degree of variation or repetition (cf. Mason, 2006). purpose (egg and meat) birds raised extensively with Since approximately five billion laying hens are used access to outdoors and with hens brooding their young. for production worldwide each year (estimated from As technology advanced, this changed; leading to more FAOSTAT, 2008), the welfare of a large number of intensive systems with all birds being raised indoors individuals may be compromised. Many countries are and brooded artificially, the use of dual purpose birds starting to ban the use of conventional wire or ‘battery’ decreased and selection for two different types of birds cages. For example, Switzerland has banned egg (high egg or meat production) increased (Appleby et al., production in cages for many years, whilst the EU 1992). will require all wire cages to provide perches, nest In contrast to their free ranging ancestors, modern boxes and foraging material from 2012. However, the egg layers tend to be housed in small wire cages enriching or banning of cages does not eliminate all (battery cages) which increase ease of egg collection, welfare problems and hens in alternative husbandry decrease the incidence of certain diseases and allow for systems also experience several of these (Appleby and large numbers of birds to be fed economically and Hughes, 1991; Baxter, 1994; Duncan 2001; Appleby housed (CARC, 2003). However, these cage systems et al., 2004). doi: 10.3184/175815508X363251 74 Laura Marie Dixon A welfare problem that often occurs more frequently 2. WHAT AFFECTS THE FEATHER PECKING BEHAVIOUR in alternative husbandry systems is the stereotypic OF DOMESTIC FOWL? behaviour of feather pecking (Blokhuis, 1986, 1989), the pecking at and possible removal of feathers from Over 40 years ago, Tinbergen wrote an influential one bird by another (Hoffmeyer, 1969). Feather paper describing methods that could be used to inves- pecking can be divided into two distinct types, gentle tigate behaviour patterns by dividing the study of feather pecking and severe feather pecking. Gentle behaviour into four questions relating to causation, feather pecking involves the feathers being gently ontogeny, phylogeny and function (Tinbergen, 1963). pecked at or nibbled and can be sub-divided into These levels of explanation are still thought to be useful pecks to various feather targets that are thought to be today (e.g. Olsson and Keeling, 2005) and thus will be driven by exploration and repeated pecks to a single used to organise this review of factors affecting feather location on a feather (Newberry et al., 2007). By pecking behaviour. contrast, severe feather pecking involves the vigorous pecking at and possible removal of feathers (McAdie 2.1 Causation and Keeling, 2002). It is unclear if gentle and severe feather pecking stem from different motivational Causation refers to what produces the behaviour systems (Kjaer and Vestergaard, 1999). However, it is pattern, taking into account both internal and external severe feather pecking that constitutes the greater stimuli and the mechanisms by which these produce welfare concern (e.g. Blokhuis and Wiepkema, 1998), the behaviour (Tinbergen, 1963). The two main moti- and thus will be the main focus of this review. vational hypotheses behind feather pecking involve Since feather pecking has been associated with redirected dustbathing motivation or redirected fora- barren and stressful environments, its occurrence ging motivation due to lack of appropriate litter may be an indicator of reduced welfare (Green substrates. The term ‘motivational’ refers to what et al., 2000; Huber-Eicher and Sebo, 2001). causes an animal to perform a particular behaviour However, the primary welfare concern is that it can pattern and the amount of effort put into performing lead to cannibalism, which can be divided into two that behaviour (Toates, 1986; Mason et al., 2001). types: (1) cloacal cannibalism in which the vent area Dustbathing and foraging behaviour patterns would of the bird is pecked and which may lead to the normally (i.e. in free living birds) be directed to pecking out of abdominal organs; and (2) tissue substrates but instead may get redirected or transferred pecking in denuded areas where the exposed skin to an alternative stimulus (feathers of other birds) when is pecked, leading to haemorrhage (Savory, 1995). the animal’s response is inhibited or frustrated With both kinds of cannibalism, the damage can be (Dawkins, 1990). In this paper frustrated will refer to severe enough that the bird has to be euthanised. instances where the behaviour pattern is not possible or Hughes and Duncan (1972) did not find a correlation is being thwarted in some way (i.e. the bird is housed between cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking but with no substrate or can see but not access a substrate). severe feather pecking leading to blood on the Redirected will refer to instances where the behaviour feathers stimulates increased pecking of that area pattern is being directed to an inappropriate stimulus, and potentially leads to other types of cannibalism such as dustbathing or foraging behaviour being trans- (Allen and Perry, 1975; Cloutier et al., 2000). ferred to the feathers of other birds. This transference Feathers that have been damaged, but that are not can continue even if the original motivated behaviour bloody, also attract increased pecking (McAdie and is no longer frustrated (for example, the bird has access Keeling, 2000). to a substrate) due to habit formation or perseveration This review will describe the known factors that of the behaviour (see below). contribute to feather pecking behaviour organised Vestergaard (1994) proposed that feather pecking is around Tinbergen’s four questions on causation, onto- redirected dustbathing due to lack of appropriate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Mother Hens' Uropygial Secretion Analogue) Sur Le Stress Des Poulets
    TTHHÈÈ SSEE En vue de l'obtention du DOCTORAT DE L’UNIV ERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE Délivré par L'Institut National Polytechnique Discipline ou spécialité : Pathologie, Toxicologie, Génétique & Nutrition Présentée et soutenue par Iltud MADEC Le 19 mai 2008 Titre : Effets du sémiochimique MHUSA (Mother Hens’ Uropygial Secretion Analogue) sur le stress des poulets de chair. Approches zootechnique, physiologique et comportementale. JURY Pr Jean DAYDE, Président. Pr Xavier MANTECA, Rapporteur. Pr Giovanni RE, Rapporteur. Pr Patrick PAGEAT, Tuteur. Dr Jean-François GABARROU, Tuteur. Pr Xavier FERNANDEZ, Membre. Dr Anne-Marie LESENEY, Membre. Ecole doctorale : Sciences Ecologiques, Vétérinaires, Agronomiques et Bioingéniéries Unité de recherche : Institut de Recherche Phérosynthèse, Ecole d'Ingénieurs de Purpan Directeur(s) de Thèse : Pr Vassilia THEODOROU Rapporteurs : MM. les Pr X. MANTECA et G. RE SOMMAIRE Remerciements Liste des publications Liste des sigles et abréviations Liste des illustrations INTRODUCTION Partie I : contexte de l’étude Partie II : objectifs de travail et résultats Partie III : discussion générale CONCLUSION Bibliographie Table des matières 1 « On aime sa mère presque sans le savoir, et on ne s’aperçoit de toute la profondeur des racines de cet amour qu’au moment de la séparation dernière. » Guy de Maupassant 2 Remerciements Ce mémoire n’est pas un aboutissement, mais une étape. Néanmoins ce moment marque, comme tous les moments forts d’une vie. Il faut maintenant passer à autre chose en se servant de cette dernière comme d’un atout. Cette étape m’a vu grandir et évoluer vers une certaine forme de maturité, j’espère en faire partager mon entourage. C’est ce dernier, tant professionnel que personnel (parfois les deux sont conjugués), que je souhaite remercier dans ce message.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickens As Patients - UEP2013 - VIN
    7/27/2020 Chickens as Patients - UEP2013 - VIN Chickens as Patients AAVAC-UPAV 2013 Anna Meredith, MA, VetMB, PhD, CertLAS, DZooMed, MRCVS Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Introduction The keeping of non-commercial backyard poultry is increasing greatly in popularity. Ducks, geese, pheasants, guinea fowl and other species may all be kept, but chickens are probably the most common species presented in general practice. People keep chickens for different reasons, including just having a few hens for private egg production and consumption, breeding of exhibition or "fancy" birds, small layer or meat bird flocks, or as true pets that also help to weed the garden. Chicken owners will vary from very experienced to complete novices. For these types of poultry, the local small animal or mixed veterinary practitioner is likely to be called upon rather than an experienced commercial poultry vet, although this may well be after advice has been sought from the breeder, agricultural merchant or internet first and various treatments applied. Many owners become very attached to their birds and invest time and money in their care, and will expect their veterinary surgeon to be knowledgeable, able to advise on general husbandry and management and to treat any problems effectively. The domestic chicken is descended from the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), but has been domesticated into a large variety of breeds. Choice of breed usually depends on the purpose of keeping the chicken. Bantams are often kept if space is limited; these are small varieties with correspondingly small eggs, and most large breeds have a bantam (miniature) version.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Laying Hens Without
    CONTROLLING FEATHER PECKING & CANNIBALISM IN LAYING HENS WITHOUT BEAK TRIMMING A Compassion in World Farming Report by Heather Pickett MSc BSc (hons) October 2009, revised March 2011 Registered Charity No. 1095050 Compassion in World Farming is grateful to The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation whose funding made this research possible. www.rufford.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hens are often beak trimmed to reduce the risk of welfare problems caused by feather pecking and cannibalism. The consequences of beak trimming for welfare include trauma during the procedure, pain due to tissue damage and nerve injury, loss of normal function due to reduced ability to sense materials with the beak, and loss of integrity of a living animal. This report reviews the evidence from the scientific literature and from practical experience, which demonstrates that feather pecking and cannibalism can be controlled in non-cage systems without beak trimming through (i) the use of appropriate strains and selective breeding to further reduce the hens’ propensity to feather peck and (ii) good design of non-cage systems and implementation of a range of preventive management practices. Experience in other European countries where beak trimming has been prohibited indicates that, with experience, laying hens can be successfully managed in non-cage systems without beak trimming. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has repealed the ban on the beak trimming of laying hens in England, which was due to come into force on 1st January 2011. Instead, the government has merely banned the use of the hot blade method for beak-trimming, except in emergencies on-farm, while allowing beak-trimming by the infra-red (IR) beam method to continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Nutritional Factors on Feather Pecking Behaviour of Laying Hens in Non-Cage Housing Systems
    Impact of nutritional factors on feather pecking behaviour of laying hens in non-cage housing systems 1* 2 1 1 M.M. VAN KRIMPEN , R.P. KWAKKEL , G. ANDRÉ , C.M.C. VAN DER PEET-SCHWERING , L.A. 3,4 2 DEN HARTOG and M.W.A. VERSTEGEN 1Animal Production, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, PO Box 65, NL-8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands; 2Animal Nutrition Group, 3Animal Production Systems Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, NL-6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands and 4Nutreco R&D, PO Box 220, NL-5830 AE Boxmeer, The Netherlands *Corresponding author: [email protected] The expected bans on battery cages (EU) and beak trimming (e.g. The Netherlands) may cause an increased risk of feather pecking and cannibalism in layers. Many factors influence feather pecking behaviour, but in this review we will focus on nutritional factors. Dietary deficiencies, resulting in inaccurate delivery of nutrients, may increase feather pecking behaviour and cannibalism. Severe feather pecking has been demonstrated in birds that were fed too low mineral levels, protein levels or amino acid levels (methionine, arginine). Feeding high-NSP diets, low energy diets, or roughages reduced feather pecking. Providing additional grain or straw in the litter during rearing could result in lower levels of feather pecking behaviour in adult stages. Nutritional factors seem to reduce feather pecking behaviour in laying hens if these factors increase the time related to foraging, feed intake and satisfying. Laying hens may spend more time on these behaviours when they are fed 1) mash diets in stead of crumbles or pellets, 2) low energy diets, 3) high (in-)soluble fibre diets or 4) roughages.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Feather Cover a Guide to Reducing the Risk of Injurious Pecking Occurring in Non-Cage Laying Hens
    Improving Feather Cover A guide to reducing the risk of injurious pecking occurring in non-cage laying hens 2013 © University of Bristol Introduction This guide summarises strategies available to reduce the risk of injurious pecking occurring in non- cage laying hens during both rearing and laying. Beak-trimming and alterations to lighting are commonly practised to control injurious pecking, but these are not ideal in terms of bird welfare. The strategies discussed in this guide offer many ways of reducing the risk of injurious pecking occurring, which may also offer other benefits. Injurious pecking (IP) is an umbrella term covering a group of behaviours; gentle and severe feather pecking, vent pecking, and cannibalistic pecking. Gentle feather pecking (GFP) consists of gentle pecks to the tips of the feathers. This type of feather pecking (FP) usually does not result in much damage and is often ignored by the recipient. It can indicate a welfare problem in the bird performing the behaviour, and precede more serious pecking. Severe feather pecking (SFP) causes the most damage to Cannibalistic pecking occurs when SFP the recipient; it consists of forceful pecks and pulls of has led to feather loss and bald feathers that are frequently eaten and results in feather patches. Pecking can then continue on loss especially on the back, vent and tail area. Victims of the skin, leading to wounds and may SFP often initially move away, squawk or confront the eventually lead to the victim’s death pecker in response to receiving SFP, which are painful. If due to excessive blood loss, tissue SFP continues, however, victims have also been observed damage & infections.
    [Show full text]
  • Chów I Hodowla Zwierząt Gospodarskich Na Przestrzeni 70 Lat - Problemy I Wyzwania
    70 LAT g | 1950-2020 { m x z b Chów i hodowla zwierząt gospodarskich na przestrzeni 70 lat - problemy i wyzwania Zakład Hodowli Drobiu Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza Instytutu Zootechniki PIB MONOGRAFIA Kraków 2020 Chów i hodowla zwierząt gospodarskich na przestrzeni 70 lat – problemy i wyzwania Zakład Hodowli Drobiu Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza Instytutu Zootechniki PIB MONOGRAFIA Kraków 2020 1 INSTYTUT ZOOTECHNIKI PAŃSTWOWY INSTYTUT BADAWCZY 32-083 Balice, ul. Krakowska 1 tel. 12 3572500 fax 12 422 8065 www.izoo.krakow.pl facebook.com/IZOO.PIB twitter.com/iz_pib [email protected] Monografia pod redakcją: prof. dr hab. Dorota Kowalska dr hab. Katarzyna Połtowicz, prof. IZ PIB Recenzenci: prof. dr hab. Grażyna Jeżewska-Nitkowska prof. dr hab. Stanisław Socha Opracowanie redakcyjne: mgr Danuta Dobrowolska Opracowanie graficzne, projekt okładki i skład tekstu: mgr Bogusława Krawiec Fot. na okładce: archiwum Zakładu Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza J. Calik, K. Anders ISBN 978-83-7607-353-8 © Copyright by Instytut Zootechniki PIB Ark. wyd. 15,1 Ark. druk. 14,4 Druk: Zespół Wydawnictw i Poligrafii IZ PIB 2 PRACE NAUKOWE Z ZAKRESU HODOWLI DROBIU I DROBNEGO INWENTARZA W INSTYTUCIE ZOOTECHNIKI PAŃSTWOWYM INSTYTUCIE BADAWCZYM 3 Spis treści Zakład Hodowli Drobiu ..................................................................... 5 Zakład Hodowli Drobnego Inwentarza ............................................. 121 4 Zakład Hodowli Drobiu 5 Spis treści rozdziału Zakład Hodowli Drobiu 1. Eugeniusz Herbut, Katarzyna Połtowicz: Rys historyczny ……………………………………………..…………… 7 2. Józefa Krawczyk, Jolanta Calik: Genetyka i bioróżnorodność drobiu …..………………………………… 17 3. Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka, Iwona Skomorucha: Systemy utrzymania a produkcyjność i dobrostan drobiu …….………..... 38 4. Iwona Skomorucha, Ewa Sosnówka-Czajka: Wpływ różnych technologii chowu na produkcyjność i dobrostan kurcząt brojlerów ………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Feather Pecking in Organic Rearing Hens
    Feather pecking in organic rearing hens M. Bestman and J.P. Wagenaar Abstract – Feather pecking is the main welfare prob- METHODS lem in organic laying hens. Several studies showed For our study we concentrated on 10 different rear- that rearing factors are of crucial importance for ing farms, who were contracted by 3 hatcheries. We feather pecking not only during rearing, but also monitored 29 flocks of pullets on these 10 farms. during the laying period. In order to collect back- However, some of our 29 flocks have spend their ground information for our handbook about organic first weeks on another farm. Therefore, in our study pullet rearing, we collected data from 29 flocks from week 1 to week 30. We wanted to know the degree of 19 different farms were involved that did warm feather pecking during rearing, risk factors for feather rearing and 10 different farms that did cold rearing. pecking and the persistence of feather pecking There was some overlap between the 19 warm and throughout the whole life. Feather pecking was seen the 10 cold rearing farms, formed by the farms that in 54% of the rearing flocks, although symptoms could do both. Finally, the hens raised on our ‘study’ were very subtle. The main risk factor was high den- farms went to 29 different laying farms. sity during the first 4 weeks of life. Finally, feather We collected data from week 1 to week 30 about pecking once started during rearing, seems to be very management, housing and feather pecking damage. persistent throughout the whole life.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Kepro January 2017
    NEWSLETTER KEPRO JANUARY 2017 FEATHER PECKING AND CANNIBALISM IN POULTRY Feather pecking and cannibalism remain major welfare issues in the laying hen industry. In large flocks of birds with intact beaks, feather pecking and cannibalism are much more difficult to control, which will probably result in more feather damage and increased mortality levels. Different forms of bird-to-bird pecking can be distinguished: - Gentle feather pecking: gentle pecks to the tips of the feathers. - Severe feather pecking: this is the more damaging form, which includes forceful pecks and vigorous pulls. This often results in removal of the feathers. The plucked feathers are frequently eaten by the pecker. In the denuded body areas of the victim, cannibalistic tissue pecking can develop, resulting in the wounding and death of the victim. - Aggressive pecking: these pecks are directed to the head or neck of the bird and are used to maintain the dominance hierarchy. Aggressive pecking usually results in little damage in laying hens. Feather pecking can result in poor plumage, patches of feather loss, skin damage and even death. Where feather pecking develops into injurious pecking and the protective function of the bird’s plumage is lost, cannibalism can be triggered. There are different causes of feather pecking behavior: - Stress. Some breeds are more prone to stress and are more likely to show feather pecking behavior. - Sudden, unexpected changes in ration. - Parasites, like red mite and chicken lice. - Suboptimal nutrition intake. - Lighting variations. Treatment and management If you come across a flock with feather pecking behavior, there a few things which need to be checked: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Stocking Density on Feather Pecking and Aggressive Behavior in Thai Crossbred Chickens
    Agriculture and Natural Resources 50 (2016) 396e399 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Agriculture and Natural Resources journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/agriculture-and- natural-resources/ Original Article Effects of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behavior in Thai crossbred chickens * Xin Huo,a Pongchan Na-Lampangb, a Veterinary Technology Program, Faculty of Science and Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand b School of Animal Production Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand article info abstract Article history: The influence of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behavior of Thai crossbred chickens Received 22 March 2015 was investigated from age 4e12 wk. In total, 900 day-old mixed sex Thai crossbred chickens were Accepted 12 April 2016 assigned to three replicates of 100 birds per pen, at stocking densities of 8 birds/m2, 12 birds/m2 and 16 Available online 27 December 2016 birds/m2, respectively. The frequency of feather pecking, the number of pecks per bout, pecking intensity and the frequency of aggressive behavior were recorded once a week by scanning all the birds in the pen. Keywords: It was found that the stocking density had no effect on the frequencies of feather pecking on body areas Aggressive except on the wings area (p < 0.05). The stocking density had no effect on the occurrence of 1e4 pecks Feather pecking e fi fl Stocking density per bout or 5 9 pecks per bout. The stocking density had no signi cant in uence on the pecking, Thai crossbred chicken pinching or plucking intensity, except on the intensity of pulling.
    [Show full text]
  • Beak Trimming Methods -Review
    1619 Beak Trimming Methods -Review - P. C. Glatz* Pig and Poultry Production Institute, South Australian Research and Development Institute Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia ABSTRACT : A review was undertaken to obtain information on the range of beak-trimming methods available or under development. Beak-trimming of commercial layer replacement pullets is a common yet critical management tool that can affect the performance for the life of the flock. The most obvious advantage of beak-trimming is a reduction in cannibalism although the extent of the reduction in cannibalism depends on the strain, season, and type of housing, flock health and other factors. Beak-trimming also improves feed conversion by reducing food wastage. A further advantage of beak-trimming is a reduction in the chronic stress associated with dominance interactions in the flock. Beak-trimming of birds at 7-10 days is favoured by Industry but research over last 10 years has shown that beak-trimming at day-old causes the least stress on birds and efforts are needed to encourage Industry to adopt the practice of beak-trimming birds at day-old. Proper beak-trimming can result in greatly improved layer performance but improper beak-trimming can ruin an other wise good flock of hens. Re-trimming is practiced in most flocks, although there are some flocks that only need one trimming. Given the continuing welfare scrutiny of using a hot blade to cut the beak, attempts have been made to develop more welfare friendly methods of beak-trimming. Despite the developments in design of hot blade beak-trimmers the process has remained largely unchanged.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress in Chickens Effects of Domestication and Early Experience on Behaviour and Welfare
    Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertation No. 1755 Stress in chickens Effects of domestication and early experience on behaviour and welfare Maria Ericsson IFM Biology Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden Linköping 2016 Stress in chickens: Effects of domestication and early experience on behaviour and welfare Maria Ericsson Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertations, No. 1755 ISSN: 0345-7524 ISBN: 978-91-7685-796-0 Front cover: Red Junglefowl chicks Photo: Maria Ericsson Copywright © Maria Ericsson unless otherwise noted Printed by LiU-Tryck, Linköping, Sweden, 2016 Till mina stjärnor Abstract The domestication is the process where animals have adapted to human conditions. A prerequisite for domestication is tame behaviour towards humans and subsequently, selection for other desirable traits took place which led to changes in several behavioural and physiological parameters. The domestication of chickens (Gallus gallus) was initiated around 8000 years ago, and today we see clear phenotypic and genotypic alterations when comparing domestic breeds with the wild ancestor. Our modern domestic production breeds have been selected for, and still undergo heavy selection for high meat and egg yields. Beside obvious morphological changes, studies investigating behavioural differences between the ancestral Red Junglefowl and domestic breeds show, for example, differences in fearfulness, foraging strategies, exploratory behaviour and sociality. The modern production environments are intense and already from hatch chicks are exposed to harsh conditions. From an animal welfare perspective, the production environment contain many stressful aspects. The shift in stressor types between wild and captive conditions have likely contributed to alterations in stress tolerance when comparing domestic breeds to the wild ancestors.
    [Show full text]
  • April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4
    93 April 2014 Volume 93, Number 4 S R Y C T I E L N U C O E P A 11908908 S N S O O C I AT I ISSN 0032-5791 Official Journal of the Poultry Science Association Inc. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF ® T. E. Porter (2016) POULTRY SCIENCE SECTION EDITORS ASSOCIATE EDITORS (2013–2014) Environment, Well-Being, ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ I. Hanning (2016) M. Pines (2014) Ȳȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱ ěȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ T. Poole (2016) I. Estevez (2014) H. Ahmadi (2013) R. M. Hulet (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ M. M. Beck (2016) W. Alali (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Pradhan (2014) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ A. Jackson-Davis (2016) ǯȬ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ Genetics C. Ashwell (2016) D. Jackwood (2014) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŚǼ J. Dodgson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ P. A. Johnson (2016) ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ¢ǰȱ ǰ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗŜǼ C. Jones (2016) K. Reed (2016) Ȳȱ M. R. Bakst (2014) P. Kaiser (2014) T. B. Rodenburg (2014) R. L. Taylor Jr. (2016) R. Beckstead (2016) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. J. M. Rosa (2016) B. R. Behrends (2016) N. Kansaku (2016) W. B. Roush (2013) ȱȱ L. Berghman (2014) E. Kebreab (2013) I. Rozenboim (2014) G. Cherian (2014) W. Berry (2014) E. J. Kim (2016) C. Ruiz-Feria (2013) M. Rodehutscord (2016) D. Biswas (2014) W. Kim (2016) ǯȱǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ E. Esteve-Garcia (2014) J. Brake (2013) ǯȱ ȱǻŘŖŗśǼ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ K. Bregendahl (2014) K. W. Koelkebeck (2013) C. Schmidt (2016) ǰȱǰ B. Brehm-Stecher (2016) M. H. Kogut (2014) P. Selle (2013) ȱȱȱ¢ J. Buyse (2014) A. Kollanoor-Johny (2016) ǯȱ ǯȱȱǻŘŖŗśǼ G. Bedecarrats (2016) D. Caldwell (2014) B.-W. Kong (2013) D. H. Shah (2016) ¢¢ǰȱ¢ǰȱ F.
    [Show full text]