Explore the vast range of titles available.

Studies on the prevalence of feather pecking in different commercial laying hen systems and its welfare and economic impacts are reviewed in the following paper. Current methods for controlling feather pecking include beak-trimming and alterations to light regimes, but these methods have significant disadvantages from the perspective of bird welfare. A substantial body of research has now identified risk factors for feather pecking during both the rearing and laying periods. It is argued that these findings can be translated into optimised management practices that can prevent and control feather pecking whilst simultaneously conferring welfare benefits. The genetic basis of feather pecking is considered, and studies that suggest group selection techniques could produce birds with a reduced tendency to feather peck in commercial flocks are highlighted.

The current study was conducted to compare the effect of beak trimming and feather spraying with bitter taste compound (almond oil) on feather pecking behavior and duck welfare. A total of 63 healthy male 2-weeks-old Muscovy ducklings were randomly allocated to 3 groups. The first group was the control group (no beak trimming and no feather spraying), ducks in the second group were trimmed by scissors at 3 weeks of age, and birds in the third group were sprayed with bitter almond oil weekly from the age of 3 weeks. Growth performance parameters were evaluated. Some behavioral patterns were recorded by using focal sampling. Feather condition score and serum cortisol level were evaluated. At the end of the experiment, bills were collected for histopathological examination. The results showed that beak trimming with scissors had no negative effects on Muscovy ducks’ growth performance and significantly lowered feather pecking bouts resulting in good feather conditions. Feather spraying with bitter almond oil had adverse effects on growth performance, obviously increased feather pecking resulted in deterioration of feather quality and markedly increased the level of cortisol (p < 0.001) . Bill morphological analysis with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and S100 stains illustrated that the trimmed beak had an increase in the amount of connective tissue (scar tissue formation), numerous blood vessels, fewer nerve bundles, and no neuroma formation. In the Muscovy ducks’ sector, beak trimming with scissors at 3 weeks of age is good practice to control feather pecking and cannibalism without adverse effect on the welfare of ducks.

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

Animal welfare has become an important issue in poultry production. Concern about poultry welfare has mainly been expressed in industrialised countries. Since trade of poultry products is highly internationalised, welfare aspects have to be considered by all countries involved. This paper reviews the changes in the attitude to animal welfare in Western societies and the related development of regulations and standards, the impact of high welfare standards on production costs and on international trade of poultry products and finally, the influence of different stakeholders on poultry production and marketing. From the 1960s onwards, animal welfare activities have been focused on farm animals kept under ‘industrial’ conditions, such as caged laying hens. Consequently, the management conditions for laying hens in Europe have been regulated in detail by national laws and EU-Directives. Meanwhile, conventional cages have been banned in the EU and welfare activities are now directed towards other issues, such as beak-trimming and killing day-old chicks of layer lines. All measures which are considered to improve the welfare of animals increase cost of production. Hence, differences in national welfare regulations are expected to relocate poultry production to countries with low welfare standards. There is a tendency that important retailers and food chains use welfare as a marketing argument and establish high price premium labels. Standards which are established and controlled by stakeholders of the poultry market are independent of national welfare legislation. This will lead to harmonisation of welfare standards on an international level. Most welfare labels have been developed by retailers in cooperation with welfare-oriented NGOs. There is a new trend in Germany where retailers and farmers organisations develop welfare schemes and poultry producers are paid an extra allowance for welfare-friendly production. This system ensures that poultry farmers are reimbursed for the welfare-related costs.

The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of beak trimming age on performance criteria, H-L ratio, antibody production, the percentage of spleen and liver and external appearance. The chicks (Barred Rock) were randomly divided into 4 beak-trimming groups (non-trimmed (control), a trim at 1 d (1D), at 10 d (10D) and at 10 wk (10W)), each of 132 chicks. There were 6 replicate cages at beak trimming groups at rearing period. At 18 wk of age a total of 144 pullets were transferred to the layer house, and the pullets were housed at 323 and 646 cm²/hen with 8 and 4 birds per cage in three-deck layer cages. There were a total of 24 replications with 12 replications equally divided between the high and low density cages, and the beak trimmed treatments were randomly and equally divided within each density. As a result of this experiment differences among groups in body weight in rearing phase were disappear in the laying phase. Low feather condition was found in untrimmed hens. H-L ratio in both pullet and laying phase was higher in hens of untrimmed groups. Cage area affected all examined parameters except that body weight, mortality rate, cracked, broken and unshell egg rates, shell breaking, shape index, shell thickness, meat-blood spot rates, spleen and liver percentages, throat injures and antibody production to SRBC.

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a serious problem in the egg production industry with regard to animal welfare and performance. The multifactorial causes of SFP are discussed in the areas of genetics, feeding, husbandry, stable climate and management. Several studies on the influence of manipulable material on the incidence of SFP in different environments and housing systems have been performed. This review presents current knowledge on the effects of litter and additional enrichment elements on the occurrence of SFP in pullets and laying hens. Because SFP is associated with foraging and feed intake behaviour, the provision of manipulable material in the husbandry environment is an approach that is intended to reduce the occurrence of SFP by adequate exercise of these behaviours. As shown in the literature, the positive effect of enrichment and litter substrate on SFP in a low‐complexity cage environment is evident. On the other hand, consistent results have not been reported on the influence of additional enrichment material in housing systems with litter substrate, which represent the most common type of husbandry in Northwestern Europe. Thus, further research is recommended. Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a serious problem in the egg production industry with regard to animal welfare and performance. This review presents current knowledge on the effects of litter and additional enrichment elements on the occurrence of SFP in pullets and laying hens. While the positive effect of enrichment and litter substrate on SFP in a low complexity cage environment is evident, consistent results have not been reported on the influence of additional enrichment material in housing systems with litter substrate.

Studies on animal behavior and welfare have reported that improving the management practices of pullets can enhance their growth, as well as their physical and mental condition, thus benefiting the productivity of laying hens. There is growing confidence in the international community to abandon the conventional practices of “cage-rearing and beak-trimming” to improve the welfare of chickens. Therefore, in this review, we summarized some of the effective poultry management practices that have provided welfare benefits for pullets. The results are as follows: 1. Maintaining similar housing conditions at different periods alleviates fear and discomfort among pullets; 2. Pullets reared under cage-free systems have better physical conditions and temperaments than those reared in cage systems, and they are more suitable to be transferred to similar housing to lay eggs; 3. Improving flock uniformity in appearance and body size has reduced the risk of pecking and injury; 4. Maintaining an appropriate population (40–500 birds) has reduced flock aggressiveness; 5. A combination of 8–10 h of darkness and 5–30 lux of light-intensity exposure via natural or warm white LED light has achieved a welfare–performance balance in pullets. (This varies by age, strain, and activities.); 6. Dark brooders (mimicking mother hens) have alleviated fear and pecking behaviors in pullets; 7. The air quality of the chicken house has been effectively improved by optimizing feed formulation and ventilation, and by reducing fecal accumulation and fermentation; 8. Complex environments (with litter, perches, straw bales, slopes, platforms, outdoor access, etc.) have stimulated the activities of chickens and have produced good welfare effects. In conclusion, the application of comprehensive management strategies has improved the physical and mental health of pullets, which has, in turn, improved the quantity and quality of poultry products.

Beak trimming is used worldwide as a method of reducing the damage to feathers and skin caused by injurious pecking in laying hens. However, beak trimming also causes some welfare issues as trimming the beak results in pain and sensory loss. Due to this dilemma, there is an ongoing discussion in several European countries about whether to ban beak trimming. In this study, we investigated the welfare consequences of keeping layers with intact beaks and examined for links between injurious pecking damage and keel bone damage on an individual level. A study was conducted on 10 commercial farms housing laying hens in the barn system. Each farm participated with a flock of beak-trimmed hens (T) and a flock of non-trimmed (NT) hens that were visited around 32 and 62 weeks of age. During visits, the condition of plumage, skin, feet, and keel bone of 100 hens was assessed. Mortality was recorded by the producers. NT flocks had a lower prevalence of hens with good plumage condition around 32 weeks of age (94.1 vs. 99.6%,  < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of hens with poor plumage condition at 62 weeks of age (63.6 vs. 15.2%,  < 0.001) compared with T flocks. The prevalence of hens with keel bone deviations, with both keel bone fractures and deviations and with body wounds, was higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks at both ages (  < 0.001). Accumulated mortality from placement to end of production tended to be higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks (14.2 vs. 8.6%;  = 0.06). The prevalence of keel bone damage was higher among hens with poor plumage condition than hens with moderate/good plumage condition (31.5 vs. 22.2%;  < 0.001). Thus, omitting beak trimming had negative consequences for the condition of plumage, skin, and keel bone, and tended to increase mortality, highlighting the risk of reduced welfare when keeping layers with intact beaks. In addition, injurious pecking damage was found to be positively linked to keel bone damage. The causal relation is unknown, but we propose that fearfulness is an important factor.

Feather pecking and cannibalism are behavioral disorders that cause animal-welfare-relevant and economic problems. To mitigate these problems, the beaks of conventionally reared turkeys are usually already trimmed in the hatcheries. To find an alternative to beak trimming, we conducted this study with male turkeys of three breeds: B.U.T. 6, B.U.T. Premium and, Auburn (200 turkeys per breed). Half of the birds had infrared-trimmed beaks; the other half had intact beaks. For each treatment combination (breed, beak status), 25 turkeys were housed in one section. A screed grinding wheel was installed in each feed pan of the non-beak-trimmed turkeys as of week six to facilitate natural beak abrasion until slaughter. Eight randomly selected turkeys per section were regularly examined to record injuries, plumage condition, and beak dimensions. In addition, 96 beaks from randomly slaughtered birds were examined macroscopically and histologically. The results concerning injuries and plumage condition showed in most cases no differences between the beak-trimmed turkeys and the ones provided with the blunting disks. The histological examinations revealed alterations in only the beak-trimmed birds. We can conclude that the blunting method smoothens the beak during feeding and thus may be a possible alternative to beak trimming.

A number of mutilating procedures, such as dehorning in cattle and goats and beak trimming in laying hens, are common in farm animal husbandry systems in an attempt to prevent or solve problems, such as injuries from horns or feather pecking. These procedures and other practices, such as early maternal separation, overcrowding, and barren housing conditions, raise concerns about animal welfare. Efforts to ensure or improve animal welfare involve adapting the animal to its environment, i.e., by selective breeding (e.g., by selecting “robust” animals) adapting the environment to the animal (e.g., by developing social housing systems in which aggressive encounters are reduced to a minimum), or both. We propose adapting the environment to the animals by improving management practices and housing conditions, and by abandoning mutilating procedures. This approach requires the active involvement of all stakeholders: veterinarians and animal scientists, the industrial farming sector, the food processing and supply chain, and consumers of animal-derived products. Although scientific evidence about the welfare effects of current practices in farming such as mutilating procedures, management practices, and housing conditions is steadily growing, the gain in knowledge needs a boost through more scientific research. Considering the huge number of animals whose welfare is affected, all possible effort must be made to improve their welfare as quickly as possible in order to ban welfare-compromising procedures and practices as soon as possible.