7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Edible Environmental Enrichments in Littered Housing Systems: Do Their Effects on Integument Condition Differ Between Commercial Laying Hen Strains?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Feather pecking can occur in laying hens. It is considered a behavioral disorder and can be triggered by a variety of factors. Feather pecking leads to plumage damage, which is detrimental to the welfare and performance of the animals. The behavior of allopecking is assigned to foraging and exploration behavior. Therefore, a possible approach to reduce feather pecking is to provide manipulatable, edible objects to direct the hens’ pecking to these substrates. Previous studies could not clearly answer the question of the effects of providing such environmental enrichment materials on plumage condition and performance. In order to clarify this question and investigate possible differences between different breeding lines, 4000 pullets were kept during rearing and 2808 hens were kept during the laying period with or without additional enrichment materials (pecking stones and alfalfa bales). The results showed that the effect of enrichment materials on plumage condition and also on pecking injuries of the skin differed between genetic strains. Therefore, the recommendations for the use of enrichment materials should be revised and specified for the hybrid lines.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of additional enrichment materials (EMs; pecking stones and alfalfa bales) on the occurrence of plumage damage, skin injuries, and toe injuries, with an emphasis on the possible differences between commercial hybrid strains of laying hens. During rearing (weeks 1–18, 16 compartments, 4000 pullets) and laying periods (weeks 21–72, 24 compartments, 2808 hens) in a littered housing system, EMs were permanently provided to the study groups (EXP), while control groups (CON) did not receive additional EM. In a two-factorial study design (two groups with four strains) with 351 hens per variant, the brown egg-laying Lohmann Brown classic (LB) and Bovans Brown (BB) strains as well as the white egg-laying Lohmann Selected Leghorn classic (LSL) and Dekalb White (DW) strains were investigated. Compared to the CON, the EXP showed reduced body mass during rearing ( p < 0.001) and reduced albumen consistency in the laying period ( p < 0.001). Regarding integument condition, the LSL in the EXP showed more toe injuries than in the CON ( p = 0.018). Remarkably, genotype-environment interactions between strains and groups were evident ( p < 0.001). In groups with an EM supply, plumage damage decreased in LB ( p ≤ 0.033) and LSL ( p ≤ 0.005) but increased in BB ( p ≤ 0.003). Moreover, there were fewer skin injuries in LSL ( p = 0.001) but more in BB ( p = 0.001) in groups with access to EM. In view of the diverging effects between strains, future practical recommendations for laying hen husbandry should be strain-specific.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens

            Laying hens may face a number of welfare problems including: acute and chronic pain caused by beak trimming; exaggerated fearfulness that may cause stress and suffocation; difficulties in locating resources, resulting potentially in emaciation and dehydration; frustration and boredom, caused by an environment that is barren; feather pecking; cannibalism; foot lesions; and bone fractures. In Europe, a greater proportion of laying hens are housed in non-cage systems compared to the rest of the world. The extent of the different welfare problems may therefore vary between countries as the type of housing system influences the risk of suffering. More generally, many of these welfare problems are influenced by the rearing environment of the pullets. This article therefore focuses on welfare problems in laying hens that can be traced back to rearing. Factors that have been studied in relation to their effects on bird welfare include beak trimming, housing type, furnishing, enrichment, feeding, stocking density, flock size, sound and light levels, concentration of gasses, age at transfer from rearing to production facilities, similarity between rearing and production facilities, competence of staff, and interactions between bird strain and environment. The present review aims to summarize rearing-related risk factors of poor welfare in adult laying hens housed according to European Union legislation. It aims to identify gaps in current knowledge, and suggests strategies for improving bird welfare by improving rearing conditions. Two main conclusions of this work are that attempts should be made to use appropriate genetic material and that beak trimming should be limited where possible. In addition to this, the rearing system should provide constant access to appropriate substrates, perches, and mashed feed, and should be as similar as possible to the housing system used for the adult birds. Finally, young birds (pullets) should be moved to the production facilities before 16 weeks of age. The measures outlined in this review may be useful for improving the welfare of pullets and adult laying hens.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles

              Feather pecking (FP) in laying hens remains an important economic and welfare issue. This paper reviews the literature on causes of FP in laying hens. With the ban on conventional cages in the EU from 2012 and the expected future ban on beak trimming in many European countries, addressing this welfare issue has become more pressing than ever. The aim of this review paper is to provide a detailed overview of underlying principles of FP. FP is affected by many different factors and any approach to prevent or reduce FP in commercial flocks should acknowledge that fact and use a multifactorial approach to address this issue. Two forms of FP can be distinguished: gentle FP and severe FP. Severe FP causes the most welfare issues in commercial flocks. Severe FP is clearly related to feeding and foraging behaviour and its development seems to be enhanced in conditions where birds have difficulty in coping with environmental stressors. Stimulating feeding and foraging behaviour by providing high-fibre diets and suitable litter from an early age onwards, and controlling fear and stress levels through genetic selection, reducing maternal stress and improving the stockmanship skills of the farmer, together offer the best prospect for preventing or controlling FP.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                18 December 2020
                December 2020
                : 10
                : 12
                : 2434
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ZAFT e.V. Centre for Applied Research and Technology, D-01069 Dresden, Germany; markus.freick@ 123456htw-dresden.de
                [2 ]Bavarian State Farms, Research and Education Center for Poultry, D-97318 Kitzingen, Germany; klaus.damme@ 123456baysg.bayern.de
                [3 ]Faculty of Agriculture/Environment/Chemistry, HTW Dresden—University of Applied Sciences, D-01326 Dresden, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: ruben.schreiter@ 123456htw-dresden.de ; Tel.: +49-73-734-51-13
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2695-8316
                Article
                animals-10-02434
                10.3390/ani10122434
                7767138
                33353146
                214905f3-c6f0-4c8a-b3a3-ffb6406e94d9
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 03 December 2020
                : 16 December 2020
                Categories
                Article

                egg production,animal welfare,layers,pullets,feather pecking,genotype-environment interaction

                Comments

                Comment on this article