Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:08:23.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A non-intrusive method of assessing plumage condition in commercial flocks of laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Bright ,
TA Jones  and
MS Dawkins
A Bright*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
TA Jones
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
MS Dawkins
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, 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.

Standard techniques for assessing plumage damage to hens from feather pecking typically require capture and handling. Handling of individual birds for plumage assessment is relatively easy in experimental studies; however, close inspection of individual birds in commercial flocks is less feasible because catching birds is difficult, may compromise bird welfare and affect egg production. The aim of this study was to assess a non-intrusive method for scoring plumage damage in a commercial free-ranging flock of laying hens. Plumage damage was scored within a 2 m distance of the birds, without capture or handling, using a 5-point scale for 5 body regions. The feather scores, recorded at a distance, by two independent scorers were compared (distance scores), and were then compared with feather scores recorded by a scorer who caught and handled the birds to examine the plumage damage closely (capture scores). There was a significant and positive correlation between the distance scores and the capture scores, and the mean correlation coefficient for all plumage score traits was 0.89. There was also a significant and positive correlation between scorers, and the mean correlation coefficient for all plumage score traits was 0.84. The standard deviation of the residual mean difference between scorers and between methods was less than 1 point for individual body regions and less than 1.5 points for the total body score. Large variation in feather damage within a flock and small sample size increased the standard error of the mean total feather score. When feather damage variation within flocks is low (ie little observed feather damage), the current industry standard of scoring a sample of 100 birds is likely to provide a reliable estimate of flock feather damage; however, when there is large variation within birds of a flock (ie considerable observed feather damage) ≥200 birds should be inspected to accurately monitor changes in plumage condition. The non-intrusive method of feather scoring described in this paper may be useful for commercial-scale feather pecking studies or for farmers who need to assess the plumage damage of their flocks reliably, quickly and with minimal disturbance or stress to the birds.

Keywords

animal welfarefeather peckingfeather scorenon-intrusive techniqueplumage damagesample size
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 113 - 118
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Adams, A, Craig, J and Bhagwat, A 1978 Effects of flock size, age at housing, and mating experience on two strains of egg-type chickens in colony cages. Poultry Science 57: 48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aerni, V, El-Lethey, H and Wechsler, B 2000 Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science 41: 16–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albentosa, M, Kjaer, J and Nicol, C 2003 Strain and age differences in behaviour, fear response and pecking tendency in laying hens. British Poultry Science 44: 333–344CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J and Perry, G 1975 Feather pecking and cannibalism in a caged layer flock. British Poultry Science 16: 441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestman, M and Wagenaar, J 2003 Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80: 133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilcik, B and Keeling, L 1999 Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 444–451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Lethey, H, Aerni, V, Jung, T and Wechsler, B 2000 Stress and feather pecking in laying hens in relation to housing conditions. British Poultry Science 41: 22–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentle, M, Waddington, D, Hunter, LN and Jones, RB 1990 Behavioural evidence for persistent pain following partial beak amputation in chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, C 2000 Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. The Veterinary Record 147: 233–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, S, Keeling, LJ and Svedberg, J 1999 Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 12–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, I and Braastad, B 1994 Effect of rearing density on pecking behaviour and plumage condition of laying hens in two types of aviary. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40: 263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebo, F 2001a The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebo, F 2001b Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 59–68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B and Duncan, I 1972 The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnsen, PF, Vestergaard, KS and Norgaard-Nielsen, G 1998 Influence of early rearing conditions on the development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R, Blokhuis, H, de Jong, I, Keeling, L, McAdie, T and Preisinger, R 2004 Feather pecking in poultry: the application of science in a search for practical solutions. Animal Welfare 13, Suppl: S215-S219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kestin, S and Knowles, T 2004 Estimating the number of broilers to sample to determine the prevalence of lameness. In: Weeks, C and Butterworth, A (eds) Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare pp 295–297. CAB International: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjaer, J and Sorensen, P 1997 Feather pecking behaviour in White Leghorns, a genetic study. British Poultry Science 38: 333–341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeson, S and Morrison, W 1978 Effect of feather cover on feed efficiency in laying birds. Poultry Science 57: 1094–1096Google Scholar
Nicol, C, Gregory, N, Knowles, T, Parkman, I and Wilkins, L 1999 Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G, Vestergaard, KS and Simonsen, H 1993 Effects of rearing experience and stimulus enrichment on feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38: 345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peguri, A and Coon, C 1993 Effect of feather coverage and temperature on layer performance. Poultry Science 72: 1318–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, T, van Hierden, YM, Buitenhuis, A, Riedstra, B, Koene, P, Korte, SM, van der Poel, J, Groothuis, T and Blokhuis, H 2004 Feather pecking in laying hens: new insights and directions for research? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C 1995 Feather pecking and cannibalism. World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R, Ambrosen, T and Elwinger, K 1984 Evaluation of procedures for scoring the integument of laying hens — independent scoring of plumage condition. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 34: 400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Svensson, SA 1980 Influence of plumage condition on the hen's feed requirement. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 35–39Google Scholar
Tullett, S, Macleod, M and Jewitt, T 1980 The effects of partial defeathering on energy metabolism in the laying fowl. British Poultry Science 21: 241–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vestergaard, KS, Kruijt, JP and Hogan, JA 1993 Feather pecking and chronic fear in groups of red junglefowl: their relations to dustbathing, rearing environment and social status. Animal Behaviour 45: 1127–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, B and Huber-Eicher, B 1998 The effect of foraging material and perch height on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar