The effect of foraging material and perch height on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00137-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Feather pecking in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) may not only cause welfare problems, but also result in economic losses due to feather damage and increased mortality. The present study aimed at testing whether foraging material and perch height have significant effects on feather pecking and feather damage. From week 19 to week 30 after hatching, groups of 14 hens (white `Lohman Selected Leghorn' hybrids) were kept in pens with or without access to polystyrene blocks as foraging material and with low or high perches (45 cm or 70 cm above floor level; 2×2 factorial design; four pens each per housing condition). Time since introduction of the hens into the experimental pens (P<0.0001) and provision of foraging material (P<0.002), but not perch height, had significant effects on the rate of feather pecking interactions. Feather pecking was less frequent in pens with than without polystyrene blocks. On the other hand, feather damage in week 30 was significantly more pronounced in pens with low than with high perches (P<0.05), but not significantly influenced by the provision of foraging material. Hens sitting or standing on the floor were especially likely to elicit feather pecking. Individuals characterised by relatively high rates of feather pecking showed more severe forms of this behaviour. It is concluded that hens should be provided with foraging material and high perches during the laying period to reduce feather pecking and feather damage.

Introduction

Over the last years, there has been much debate as to whether feather pecking in laying hens is related to the motivational system for dustbathing behaviour (Vestergaard and Lisborg, 1993; Vestergaard et al., 1993; Vestergaard, 1994) or to that for feeding behaviour (Blokhuis and Arkes, 1984; Blokhuis, 1986, Blokhuis, 1989; Martin, 1986; Baum, 1995). Recently, we have shown that providing chicks with a sand area for dustbathing does not prevent them from developing high rates of feather pecking (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997), and Nørgaard-Nielsen (1997)reported that chicks reared with or without access to sand do not differ in the number of feather pecks received or performed during dustbathing. On the other hand, we found that provision of foraging material is efficient in reducing feather pecking in chicks (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, in press). In a series of experiments we demonstrated that the time the chicks spend on exploratory and manipulative foraging behaviour away from the feeder is inversely related to the rate of feather pecking. We therefore concluded that feather pecking should be considered as redirected foraging behaviour (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, in press).

The present study aimed to verify whether adult laying hens also show less feather pecking when provided with foraging material. As with previous experiments with chicks (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, in press), groups of hens were kept in pens with or without polystyrene blocks as foraging material. Polystyrene blocks were chosen, as they elicit foraging behaviour but do not have nutritive value and, unlike wood-shavings or straw, do not elicit dustbathing behaviour. In addition, we tested whether perch height (45 cm or 70 cm above floor level) has an effect on feather pecking and feather damage. It was expected that feather damage would be more pronounced in hens that can not withdraw to high perches and are hence continuously available to feather pecking groupmates.

In a study with laying hen chicks (Wechsler et al., in press) we also found that there were qualitative differences in feather pecking between individuals characterised by high and lower rates of this behaviour. The percentage of feather pecking interactions classified as `plucking' (severe pecks) was significantly higher in chicks defined as `high rate peckers'. In the present study, we examined whether adult hens with high rates of feather pecking also show more severe forms of this behaviour. In addition, we tested whether the two factors varied between the pens (provision of foraging material, perch height) had significant effects on the quality of feather pecks. Finally, we investigated whether hens situated at specific locations within the pen or engaged in specific activities were especially likely to receive feather pecks.

Section snippets

Animals and housing conditions

A total of 224 white laying hens (`Lohman Selected Leghorn' hybrids) were used in this experiment. They were not beak-trimmed and had been reared in a flock of 700 birds on a farm at a density of 10.8 birds/m2. The room in which the hens were kept for the first 18 weeks of life was illuminated by both artificial light and daylight. The floor was covered with wood-shavings. In addition, the birds had access to a sand area (200×200 cm) and two bales of straw that were replaced now and then. There

Results

The provision of foraging material had the intended effect on the behaviour of the birds. The percentage of hens that were foraging in the `scan' samples was significantly higher in pens with than without polystyrene blocks (average values 15 and 10%, respectively; F(1,12)=9.47, P=0.01). Perch height had no significant effect on foraging behaviour (F(1,12)=0.00002, P=0.99), and there was no significant difference in the amount of foraging material the hens removed from the blocks between pens

Discussion

The results of the present study with adult hens are in accordance with observations made in previous studies with laying hen chicks (Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, 1997Huber-Eicher and Wechsler, in press). Hens provided with polystyrene blocks showed significantly lower rates of feather pecking interactions than hens kept without such foraging material. Once again, we found an inverse relationship between foraging behaviour and feather pecking. The conclusion we had drawn from the experiments with

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Federal Veterinary Office of Switzerland, the Schweizer Tierschutz STS, the Kanton Zürich, The Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund and the Meta und Willi Eichelsbacher Stiftung for their financial support of the research project (No. 014.94.1). We also would very much like to thank Rolf Eggler who constructed the experimental pens. David Nash made valuable comments on the manuscript.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (71)

  • Effect of Stocking Density on Growth Performance, Feather Quality, Carcass Traits, and Muscle Chemical Component of Geese from 49 to 70 Days of Age

    2019, Journal of Applied Poultry Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    The areas which were scored included the head, neck, back, wing, tail, and thoracoabdominal area of each selected goose, and a scoring system from 0 (completely clean) to 4 (more than 1/2 of the area is contaminated) was used [12]. The damage of feather was scored at the end of the experiment, using a scoring system from 0 (perfect plumage) to 4 (complete visible skin) points for back region [13]. The scoring criteria are shown in Table 2.

  • The influence of stocking density and enrichment on the occurrence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking behavior in laying hen chicks

    2018, Journal of Veterinary Behavior
    Citation Excerpt :

    This may have led to frustration and therefore to feather pecking. Because the floor of the commercial aviary system was wired, the results of this study support previous studies that found an effect of the absence of litter during rearing on the development of feather pecking (Blokhuis and Arkes, 1984; Blokhuis and Van Der Haar, 1989; Johnsen et al., 1998; Wechsler and Huber-Eicher, 1998; Huber-Eicher and Sebö, 2001). Although the laying hen chicks in this study had access to a litter area, it is possible that the lack of visual and tactile stimuli of the substrate in the commercial aviary system, even for short durations, may have led to a redirecting of pecking behavior toward flock mates.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text