Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:21:32.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare initiatives improve feather cover of cage-free laying hens in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

S Mullan ,
C Szmaragd ,
MD Cooper ,
JHM Wrathall ,
J Jamieson ,
A Bond ,
C Atkinson  and
DCJ Main
S Mullan*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
C Szmaragd
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
MD Cooper
Affiliation:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
JHM Wrathall
Affiliation:
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
J Jamieson
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Malborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
A Bond
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Malborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
C Atkinson
Affiliation:
Soil Association, South Plaza, Malborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX, UK
DCJ Main
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper describes a case example where initiatives from private assurance schemes, scientists, charities, government and egg companies have improved the welfare of UK cage-free laying hens. The RSPCA and Soil Association farm assurance schemes introduced formal welfare outcome assessment into their annual audits of laying-hen farms in 2011. Feather loss was assessed on 50 birds from each flock on a three-point scale for two body regions: Head and Neck (HN) and Back and Vent (BV). In support of the observations, assessors were trained in feedback techniques designed to encourage change in farmer behaviour to improve welfare. In addition, during Year 2 farmers were asked about changes they had made, and intended to make on their farms. During 2011-2013 there were also wider industry initiatives to improve feather cover. Data were analysed from 830 and 743 farms in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. From Year 1 to Year 2 there was a significant reduction in the prevalence of feather loss from 31.8% (9.6% severe) to 20.8% (6% severe) for the HN region, and from 33.1% (12.6% severe) to 22.7% (8.3% severe) for BV. Fifty-nine percent of 662 farmers reported they had made changes on their farms during Year 1 to improve bird welfare. For such a substantial industry change, attributing causation to specific initiatives is difficult; however, this is the first study to demonstrate the value to animal welfare of certification schemes monitoring the effectiveness of their own and other industry-led interventions to guide future policy.

Keywords

animal welfarefarm assurancefeather losshenindustrypolicy
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 243 - 253
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 2014 FeatherWel: Working with industry. FeatherWel: UK. www.featherwel.org/workingwithindustryGoogle Scholar
BEIC 2015 Industry data. British Egg Industry Council, UK. www.egginfo.co.uk/egg-facts-and-figures/industry-information/dataGoogle Scholar
Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80: 133–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00314-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BPEX 2011 20:20 Pig Health and Welfare. A Vision for 2020. British Pig Executive: Kenilworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Breitsameter, L, Gauly, M and Isselstein, J 2014 Sward botan-ical composition and sward quality affect the foraging behaviour of free-range laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 150: 27–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, A, Brass, D, Clachan, J, Drake, KA and Joret, AD 2011 Canopy cover is correlated with reduced injurious feather pecking in commercial flocks of free-range laying hens. Animal Welfare 20: 329–338Google Scholar
Cacioppo, JT, Petty, RE, Feinstein, JA, Blair, W and Jarvis, G 1996 Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119: 197–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, P 2014 NFU Conference 2014: Government aims for beak trim ban in hens. Farmer's Weekly, UK. www.fwi.co.uk/arti-cles/26/02/2014/143472/nfu-conference-2014-government-aims-for-beak-trim-ban-in.htmGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 99/74/EC 1999 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. European Union: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Defra 2004 Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Defra 2005 A Guide to the Practical Management of Feather Pecking & Cannibalism in Free Range Laying Hens. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Defra 2012 Managing Injurious Pecking Within Acceptable Limits in Non Beak-Trimmed Flocks - AW1145. Department for Environment food and Rural Affairs: London, UK. sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=M ore&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18160Google Scholar
Defra 2014 United Kingdom Egg Statistics - Quarter 1. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/308909/eggs-statsnotice-08may14.pdfGoogle Scholar
Drake, KA, Donnelly, CA and Dawkins, MS 2010 Influence of rearing and lay risk factors on propensity for feather damage in laying hens. British Poultry Science 51: 725–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.528751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FeatherWel 2013 Improving feather cover. University of Bristol, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Gent, R 2014 Chairman's comment June 2014. British Free Range Egg Producer's Association, UK. www.theranger.co.uk/News/Chairman-s-Comment-June-2014_24037.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M and Hunter, L 1990 Physiological and behavioural responses associated with feather removal in Gallus gallus var domesticus. Research in Veterinary Science 50: 95–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0034-5288(91)90060-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glatz, PC 2001 Effect of poor feather cover on feed intake and production of aged laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 14: 553–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2001.553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.9.233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartini, S, Choct, M, Hinch, G, Kocher, A and Nolan, JV 2002 Effects of light intensity during rearing and beak trimming and dietary fiber sources on mortality, egg production, and perform-ance of ISA brown laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11: 104–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/japr/11.1.104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herremans, M, Decuypere, E and Siau, O 1989 Effects of feather wear and temperature on prediction of food-intake and residual food-consumption. British Poultry Science 30: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668908417121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebo, F 2001 The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00173-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feath-er pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Nicol, CJ, Friel, M, Main, DCJ, McKinstry, JL, Sherwin, CM, Walton, J and Weeks, CA 2013 A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose-housed laying hen flocks. Veterinary Record 172: 423–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.101067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maciel, CT and Bock, B 2012 Modern politics in animal welfare: The changing character of governance of animal welfare and the role of private standards. International journal of the Society of Agriculture and Food 20: 219–235Google Scholar
Mahboub, HDH, Muller, J and von Borell, E 2004 Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45: 738–744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660400014267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Leach, KA, Barker, ZE, Sedgwick, AK, Maggs, CM, Bell, NJ and Whay, HR 2012a Evaluating an intervention to reduce lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 2946–2954. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4678CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, DCJ, Mullan, S, Atkinson, C, Bond, A, Cooper, M, Fraser, A and Browne, WJ 2012b Welfare outcomes assess-ment in laying hen farm assurance schemes. Animal Welfare 21:389–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Met Office 2015 Climate summaries. Met Office: Exeter UK. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summariesGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Bestman, M, Gilani, AM, De Haas, EN, De Jong, IC, Lambton, S, Wagenaar, JP, Weeks, CA and Rodenburg, TB 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World's Poultry Science Journal 69:775–788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, van Krimpen, MM, de Jong, IC, de Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Riedstra, BJ, Nordquist, RE, Wagenaar, JP, Bestman, M and Nicol, CJ 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 361–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 2014 Our History. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UK. www.freedomfood.co.uk/aboutus/historyGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimmura, T, Suzuki, T, Azuma, T, Hirahara, S, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2008 Form but not frequency of beak use by hens is changed by housing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 115: 44–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applan-im.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staack, M, Gruber, B, Keppler, C, Zaludik, K, Niebuhr, K and Knierim, U 2007 Importance of the rearing period for laying hens in alternative systems. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 114: 86–90Google ScholarPubMed
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC and House, JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88:698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations. Office of Public Sector Information: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Heaven, G, Howell, H, Morgan, M, Pearson, A and Webster, AJF 2007 Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Veterinary Record 161: 119–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.161.4.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams-Piehota, P, Schneider, TR, Pizarro, J, Mowad, L and Salovey, P 2003 Matching health messages to information-processing styles: Need for cognition and mammography utilization. Health Communication 15: 375–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1504_01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams-Piehota, P, Schneider, TR, Pizarro, J, Mowad, L and Salovey, P 2004 Matching health messages to health locus of control beliefs for promoting mammography utilization. Psychology & Health 19: 407–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440310001652678CrossRefGoogle Scholar