Next Article in Journal
Differences in Weight, Hierarchy, and Incidence of Lameness between Two Groups of Adult Pigs Derived from Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Previous Article in Journal
From Extermination to Conservation: Historical Records of Shark Presence during the Early and Development Phase of the Greek Fishery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 24
10.3390/ani12243577
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Flock Factors Correlated with Elevated Mortality in Non-Beak Trimmed Aviary-Housed Layers

by
Käthe Elise Kittelsen
1,*,
Fernanda Tahamtani
1,
Randi Oppermann Moe
2,
Pall Gretarsson
2 and
Guro Vasdal
1
1
Animalia-The Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, N-0513 Oslo, Norway
2
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, NMBU—Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1433 Ås, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(24), 3577; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243577
Submission received: 30 November 2022 / Revised: 7 December 2022 / Accepted: 15 December 2022 / Published: 17 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Poultry)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

There is increasing use of non-cage housing systems for laying hens in Europe. In Norway, approximately 85% of all hens are housed in aviaries. Such systems are more complex and house larger animal groups. Knowledge of flock level factors that may affect mortality in these systems is important to be able to improve animal welfare, reduce mortality and enhance sustainability. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that may contribute to mortality in non-beak trimmed aviary-housed laying hens in Norway. Overall, the investigations found an association between elevated mortality and increased feather loss, which may be an indication of feather pecking and cannibalism.

Abstract

The use of non-cage housing systems for layers is increasing in Europe and elsewhere. Knowledge of factors that may affect mortality in these systems is important to be able to improve animal welfare, reduce mortality and enhance sustainability. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that may contribute to increased mortality in non-beak trimmed aviary-housed laying hens in Norway. A total of 39 non-beak trimmed commercial flocks (Lohmann LSL (n = 25) and Dekalb White (n = 14)) were visited between week 70 to 76 of life, and factors related to health, behaviour and management were recorded. Mean mortality in the flocks was 3% (range: 0.5–9%) and increased flock mortality was correlated with total feather loss (p < 0.05); feather loss on the breast (p < 0.02) and feather loss on the head (p < 0.003). There was an association between layer hybrid line and mortality (p = 0.055). Furthermore, a low positive correlation between mortality and dust level inside the barn was found (p < 0.04), showing that mortality was higher when dust level was also high. No correlation between mortality and the provision of environmental enrichment was found. In conclusion, this study found an association between flocks with elevated mortality (>3.0%) and increased feather loss which may indicate feather pecking. The results underline the importance of regularly assessment of plumage condition in commercial layer farms, as a tool to detect early signs of feather pecking in commercial aviary-housed layer flocks. This may help to target feather pecking before cannibalism breaks out.

1. Introduction

Due to animal welfare concerns, the European Union implemented a ban on conventional battery cages for laying hens in 2012 [1]. Today, legal housing systems within the EU include enriched cages, floor, aviary, free-range, organic or mobile housing. Aviaries are the most prevalent housing systems in Northern Europe, and their use is increasing elsewhere [2,3]. In Norway, approximately 93% of all eggs originate from aviaries, free-range farms or organic farms [4].
Aviary systems give the hens more opportunity for natural behaviour and freedom of movement [5,6], especially if the systems are designed to promote species-specific behaviour, such as the addition of ramps. However, these systems are also associated with higher mortality rates [7,8,9,10]. Mortality rate is an important measure of animal health and welfare and as such, aviary housing may pose a threat to the welfare of the birds. In 2019, the mortality in enriched cages in Norway, where no birds are beak trimmed according to Norwegian legislation [11], was 1.96% versus 3.44% in aviary-housed layers [4]. Regardless of housing, this is a low number compared to previously reported numbers from other countries, which can range from 5.4 to 11.8% [12,13,14] and extreme cases showing mortality as high as 18% in non-beak trimmed flocks [15]. The combination of increased use of aviary housing along with an elevated mortality in these production systems, makes it imperative to investigate the factors contributing to this mortality.
In general, several factors may affect mortality in layers, e.g., diseases, abnormal behaviours and suboptimal environment, such as poor air quality. Common diseases that may cause mortality in commercial layers are Escherichia coli infections, egg yolk peritonitis, gout, salpingitis, septicaemia, fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome and prolapsed vent [8,14,16,17].
One of the most common abnormal behaviours and welfare concerns in aviary-housed laying hens is feather pecking and cannibalism [5,18]. Severe feather pecking has been estimated to occur in 40 to 50% of loose-housed layer flocks in Europe [13,19] and it may be associated with the genetics of the birds [20]. Feather pecking increases the risk of cannibalism [21], which is defined as death from tissue trauma and haemorrhage inflicted by conspecifics [16]. It has been suggested that feather pecking may indicate unfulfilled needs and hence plumage condition may serve as an indicator of reduced welfare [7]. Poor plumage condition may be an early sign of severe feather pecking [22]. Furthermore, feather pecking and cannibalism is associated with increased mortality [16,18,23] Therefore, it is important to regularly evaluate plumage condition in all layer flocks, as an early warning of feather pecking, reduced welfare and increased mortality risk. This is particularly important in aviary-housed flocks, since feather pecking is more difficult to identify in large aviary-housed animal groups versus small animal groups housed in cages [23]. Feather pecking is largely accepted as redirected ground pecking due to an unsatisfied behavioural need for foraging or dustbathing [24]. Therefore, providing pecking substrates and other environmental enrichment is a management strategy that aims at increasing animal welfare by meeting the birds’ behavioural needs, and reducing the incidence of behavioural problems [25].
European Union legislation requires the farmers to provide dust bathing material for laying hens [1]. While this provision meets behavioural needs, it can negatively affect the aerial environment and potentially the health of the birds. Suboptimal aerial environment with dust and high levels of CO2 and ammonia may impose a threat to health and welfare of layers [26], especially in light of the unique avian respiratory system [27]. Loose housing systems have been found to have higher concentrations of dust than cage systems [26], which may be due to lack of litter and dust bathing material in cage systems. Another cause may be an increased activity and higher litter build up during the production period in non-cage systems. Airborne microorganisms can be attached to dust particles, and dust may as such function as a vector for pathogens, in addition to making the birds more susceptible to infections by irritating their complex avian respiratory system [26]. Furthermore, ammonia is an aversive gas for poultry and high concentrations of gaseous ammonia can have detrimental health effects with lesions in the respiratory tract, in addition to predispose the birds to secondary infections, irritation or mortality [28]. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate how the aerial environment in fully enclosed houses affects mortality in aviary-housed laying hens.
In order to improve animal health and welfare for aviary-housed laying hens, the objective of this study was to gain more knowledge of factors affecting cumulative mortality rates in Norwegian laying hen flocks, measured at the end of lay. To identify risk factors for mortality, the study used clinical observation of the flocks, including plumage condition, along with measures of air quality and the provision of environmental enrichment.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted between April 2020 and June 2021. A total of 39 commercial, non-beak-trimmed flocks (1 flock/farm) were included, summing up to a total of 307,944 laying hens. All birds were of white layer hybrids, either Lohmann LSL (n = 25) or Dekalb White (n = 14), the most commonly used layer hybrid lines in Norway. The studied flocks were randomly selected from the supplier lists of two different egg packing companies. All flocks were housed in fully enclosed, mechanically ventilated houses with multi-tiered aviary-systems, with a maximum stocking density of 9 birds per m2. The aviary systems had 3 tiers above the floor, feed, and water lines on tiers 1 and 2, nest boxes on tier 2, and perches on tier 3. The flocks were fed pelleted feed three times per day via a chain dispersal system, and water was provided ad libitum via drinking nipples. The hens were housed under a 14 h light/10 h dark schedule. The farmers had set temperature and humidity according to breeder manuals, approximately 20 degrees; however, these data were not controlled by the researchers. The houses were about 12 m wide, with wood shavings litter covering a floor area ranging from 385 m2 to 1000 m2 that extended around and under the tiered aviary structures.
The flocks were visited once, between week 70 and 76. Each flock was visited in the morning, approximately 10 a.m. for all farms, by one of three researchers experienced in poultry. To avoid inter observer variability the first four flocks were visited by all three observers to assure equal scoring. During the visit, the observer collected data on mortality rates, hen weight (measured by automatic weights in the barn), feed intake (measured automatically by the barn computer), flock size, red mite infestations, and the environment in the hen room, including provision of environmental enrichment, light intensity (lux) in the hen house, and air and litter quality. The farmers’ provision of the following five types of enrichment were registered during the farm visit: gravel, grains scattered in the litter, pecking stones, oyster shells, and “toys”. The most common examples of “toy” were cut-up pieces of manure belt, plastic balls and pieces of cardboard boxes. Lux was measured at hen height with a luxometer (Extech LED meter LT40, FLIR Commercial Systems Inc., Nashua, NH, USA), in the middle row and middle section of the hen house, and in the middle of the aviary. Colour and light intensity, along with type of light were not recorded. CO2, NH3 and dust was used to evaluate the air quality. CO2 was measured with a CO2 Meter (Extech Inbstruments, CO240, Nashua, NH, USA), NH3 was measured by Dräger Pac 8000 (© Drägerwerk AG & Co., Lübeck, Germany). To evaluate dust, a black cardboard paper was attached to the aviary when the observer first entered the hen house. At the end of the farm visit, the cardboard was evaluated by a touch test to see how much dust had accumulated during the visit, scored on a three-point scale where 0 = low amounts of dust, 1 = intermediate dust level and 2 = high amounts of dust (Welfare Quality®, http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/reports/assessment-protocols, assecedd on 1 April 2020). Litter quality was measured in terms of moisture in the litter, also evaluated in a three-point scale where 0 = dry litter and 2 = very wet litter. Finally, the depth of the litter was measured in centimetres.
In addition, clinical scoring of 50 randomly selected hens was recorded when walking through the barn, according to the method described in detail by Vasdal et al. [29]. The sampling spots were predetermined, so that birds from all heights and all transects were included. At the sampling spot, the second bird from the one that the assessor looked at was selected and scored for a set of welfare indicators (Table 1). Plumage condition was scored for head, back/wings, breast and tail in a 3-point scale (0–2). On the scale, 0 = no feather loss, 1 = feather loss 1–5 cm in diameter, 2 = feather loss above 5 cm in diameter. Scoring was performed visually as from approximately 0.5 to 1 m, without any handling of the birds, to minimize stress and disturbance of the flock.
Because this on-farm study did not involve any animal handling, experimental manipulations, or invasive procedures, it was exempt from approval of animal use by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (Norwegian Regulations on Use of Animals in Research, 2015).
Statistical analyses were performed using the software SAS 9.4. The relationships between mortality, the environmental factors and clinical observation of the birds were assessed using Pearson correlations. The environmental factors were feed intake, ammonia concentration, light intensity, CO2 concentration, dust level score, the number of types of environmental enrichment used, litter quality score and litter depth. The results from the clinical observation were the flock level plumage score for the head, back/wings, breast, tail and a full body (sum) score, and the numbers of birds with wounds on the back and the feet. The results are presented as Pearson correlation coefficient and associated p values (α = 0.05). The prevalence of dirty plumage was negligible and, therefore, this parameter was not statistically analysed. The genotype of the flocks (Lohmann LSL or Dekalb White) was included in the models as a random factor. The relationship between mortality and genotype was analysed using the Glimmix procedure with a binary distribution and logit link function. A mortality score of 1 was given to flocks with mortality <3.0% and a score of 2 was given to flocks with mortality ≥3.0%.

3. Results

3.1. Mortality

Cumulative mortality rate for the 39 flocks on the day of visit ranged from 0.5 to 9.0%, with a mean of 3.0% (Table 2). There was an association between layer hybrid line and mortality (F1,37 = 3.94; P = 0.055), where Dekalb white flocks were more likely to have mortality < 3.0% compared to Lohmann flocks (odds ratio = 5.54). Out of the 39 flocks, 14 of them had mortality above the mean mortality rate in the study (35.9%). A total of 12 out of these 14 flocks where Lohmann (85.7%) and 2 were Dekalb (14.3%), (Figure 1).

3.2. Correlation between Mortality Rate and Environment Factors

Production data are presented in Table 2. Of the 39 flocks, 29 received a dust score of 0, 7 got a score 1 and 3 flocks received the maximum score of 2. Nevertheless, there was a low positive correlation between dust score and mortality (Table 3), showing that mortality was higher when the dust level was also high (p < 0.04). No other correlations were found between mortality rates and aerial environmental factors in the hen room, including the variables ammonia and CO2 concentration and litter condition. Likewise, no correlations were found between mortality rates and hen weight or feed intake. Finally, no parameter related to the use of environmental enrichment were correlated with mortality rates (Table 3). Only two flocks (4.44%) had red mite infestations.

3.3. Correlation between Mortality Rate and Clinical Observation of the Birds

Mean flock score for total feather loss was 1.8 (Table 3) indicating a relatively poor plumage condition in the flocks. Flocks with a higher plumage damage score had a higher mortality (p < 0.05, Table 3). In addition, increased mortality was associated with increased plumage damage score for the breast (p < 0.02) and head (p < 0.003), but not for the back and tail. The prevalence of wounds was low: 3 hens had head wounds, 3 hens had wounds to the back, 2 to the tail and cloaca and 12 to the toes. There was a weak tendency for a correlation with toe wounds and elevated mortality on flock level (p < 0.09, Table 3).

4. Discussion

This is the first systematic study to investigate factors on flock level correlated with mortality in aviary-housed laying hens in Norway. The study examined variables related to air quality, use of environmental enrichment, clinical observation of the birds, including plumage damage score and the correlations with mortality rates on flock level.
Overall, the mean mortality rates for the 39 aviary-housed flocks was 3.0%. This is relatively low compared to numbers reported in other studies, between 5.4 and 11.8% [12,13,14]. One possible explanation for the overall low mortality may be the small flock sizes. The mean flock size for laying hens in Norway is 7500, as regulated by governmental legislation [30]. This can make it easy for the farmers to observe the majority of the birds during their daily routine inspections when walking through the barn and to detect early sings of disease or suboptimal environment. In addition, there is a strong emphasis on biosecurity in Norwegian farms, making outbreaks of severe infectious diseases uncommon [4].
There was a correlation between flocks with increased mortality and increased feather loss. In addition, mortality was also associated with poor plumage on the breast and head, but not on the back and tail. Poor plumage condition may be a sign of severe feather pecking [22] which can lead to cannibalism and, in turn, increased mortality [16,18,23]. Therefore, it could be speculated that the association between poor plumage condition and elevated mortality in the current study was due to feather pecking and cannibalism. This is in line with previous research showing that flocks with better feather cover have lower levels of mortality and a positive correlation between general feather damage and mortality due to cannibalism [21,23]. Indeed, several studies have shown cannibalism to be a dominating cause of mortality in laying hens [12], especially in non-beak trimmed hens [31]. Beak trimming has been found to lower mortality and better plumage condition [32] but has not been performed in commercial Norwegian laying hens since 1974.
Even though the results may indicate feather pecking and cannibalism, no hens with severe pecking injuries were seen during the transect walks. This can have several explanations, one being the small flock sizes and management strategies adopted by the farmers. The farmers walk a minimum of two rounds in the barn each day, one of them in the morning. During these rounds, sick or dead birds are collected and dispensed. This is standard procedure and was conducted at least twice every day also prior to the researchers’ transect walk. Another explanation may be that sick or injured birds hide in the nest boxes and can be difficult to spot, resulting in an underestimation of the number of birds with pecking injuries. There was a weak tendency for a correlation with toe wounds and elevated mortality on flock level. Toe pecking can be regarded as a type of cannibalistic pecking behaviour [33]. The resulting toe injuries act as a trigger for more toe pecking, spreading the problem in the flock. Toe pecking has a low incidence and occurs sporadically, making it difficult to study [33]. Therefore, there is little available information about the effect of toe pecking on mortality, however it is linked with physiological stress and hence reduced welfare [33]. Toe pecking can be attributed to cannibalism, and complications may be lethal [34].
This study also found an association between mortality and genotype. This may be caused by feather pecking and concurring cannibalism, since different strains differ in the tendency to feather peck [20,35]. For instance, Walser (1997) studied two white layer hybrids kept under identical housing conditions and found a significant difference in the feather pecking behaviour [36]. Other causes for the association between mortality and genotype could be different susceptibility to diseases and infections [37,38]. This could not be ruled out in the current study.
The provision of environmental enrichment can reduce the incidence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking. Additionally, it improves plumage condition during both the rearing and laying period [25,31,36]. Especially the provision of litter to adult laying hens has been found to reduce the incidence of severe feather pecking, improve plumage condition and reduce mortality [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] and providing gravel and toys at early age is associated with reduced damage to the tail feathers [47]. No correlation between mortality and environmental enrichment was found in the current study, but a correlation between feather damage and environmental enrichment was found. This indicates that environmental enrichment may have a positive effect on feather pecking; however, it is not strong enough to counteract cannibalism and mortality. Feather pecking and foraging behaviour are related, and early access to litter substrate may influence both behaviours [48]. Information regarding rearing facility was unfortunately not available in the current study.
Air quality was measured as CO2 concentration, ammonia levels and dust. No correlations were found between mortality rates and CO2 or ammonia. This may be due to the overall good air quality in the study population; the mean CO2 concentration was 1590 ppm, for ammonia the mean concentration was 6.2 ppm. Three of the 39 flocks had ammonia levels above the Norwegian legal recommendations of 20 ppm, and two of the flocks had CO2 levels above the legal recommendation of 3000 ppm [11]. Concentrations of ammonia have been found to be higher in loose-house systems in which manure is not regularly removed, compared to cage systems [28]. One possible explanation for the relatively low levels of both ammonia and CO2 may be due the sampling time; the majority of the farm visits were performed during spring, summer or autumn. The reason for this was a lockdown period due to COVID-19 during the winter months of 2021. It could be speculated that the levels of ammonia would be higher if more of the farm visits were performed in the cold months, since ammonia levels are found to increase during the cold season when ventilation flow is often reduced [28]. Dust was measured with a touch-test on a black cardboard. This is not a very sophisticated method, but a practical, non-expensive and sure way to evaluate the dust level in the hen house. Loose housing systems have been found to have higher concentrations of dust than cage systems [26]. This may be due to more activity and more litter build up during the production in non-cage systems. Of the 39 flocks, 31 received a dust score of 0, 11 got a score 1 and three flocks received the maximum score of 2. Still, a low positive correlation between dust score and mortality was found, showing that mortality was higher when the dust level was also high. A dusty environment may impose a threat to health and welfare of layers [26], especially in light of the unique avian respiratory system [27]. Airborne microorganisms can be attached to dust particles, and dust may as such function as a vector for pathogens, in addition to making the birds more susceptible to infections by irritating the complex respiratory system of the birds [26], which may explain the correlation between dust and mortality found in this study.
Bacteriology was not performed; therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the increased mortality in several of the flocks was related to infectious diseases. The pathological findings in dead birds form the 39 flocks are reported in a newly published study [49]. These results indicated that keel bone fractures, fatty liver and salpingitis were the most prevalent post-mortem findings. Other causes, such as nutritional shortcomings and stress may also cause feather loss, these factors cannot be ruled out in this study. Severe feather pecking is still a serious welfare problem in aviary-housed laying hens; it is painful for the recipient [50] and it may indicate unfulfilled needs in the pecker [51], in addition to its association with increased flock mortality [52].

5. Conclusions

This study showed an association between flocks with increased mortality and increased feather loss. There was also a weak tendency for a correlation with toe wounds and elevated mortality on flock level. Both feather loss and toe wounds indicate feather pecking. Therefore, the results underline the importance of regular assessment of plumage condition in commercial layer farms, as a tool to detect early signs of feather pecking in aviary-housed layer flocks. This may help to target feather pecking before cannibalism breaks out.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.E.K., R.O.M. and G.V.; methodology, K.E.K. and G.V.; software, F.T.; validation, K.E.K., G.V. and P.G.; formal analysis, F.T.; investigation, K.E.K., G.V. and P.G.; resources, K.E.K., G.V.; data curation, F.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.E.K.; writing—review and editing, K.E.K., G.V., F.T., P.G. and R.O.M.; visualization, K.E.K., R.O.M. and G.V.; project administration, G.V.; funding acquisition, G.V. and K.E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Norwegian Research Council, NFR project number 309159.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since it did not involve any experimental procedures or indeed any handling of the birds. We only measured the environment and assessed the birds visually, without any interference with the birds. An approval by an ethics committee was therefore not required according to Norwegian legislation (Norwegian Regulations on Use of Animals in Re-search, 2015).

Informed Consent Statement

Participation in the study was voluntary and all farmers agreed upfront. We did not do any experiments on the birds, and no confidential information regarding farmer are disclosed. Therefore, we did not obtain a permission from the birds’ owner (the farmer).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all the participating farmers for sharing their data and allowing us to observe their birds.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Directive, E.U. European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. J. Eur. Commun. 1999, 203, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  2. Shini, A.; Shini, S.; Bryden, W.L. Fatty Liver Haemorrhagic Syndrome Occurrence in Laying Hens: Impact of Production System. Avian Pathol. 2019, 48, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kajlich, A.S.; Shivaprasad, H.L.; Trampel, D.W.; Hill, A.E.; Parsons, R.L.; Millman, S.T.; Mench, J.A. Incidence, Severity, and Welfare Implications of Lesions Observed Postmortem in Laying Hens from Commercial Noncage Farms in California and Iowa. Avian Dis. 2016, 60, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Animalia Kjøttets Tilstand 2021. Kjøttets Tilst. 2021, 11, 172.
  5. Lay, D.C.; Fulton, R.M.; Hester, P.Y.; Karcher, D.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Mench, J.A.; Mullens, B.A.; Newberry, R.C.; Nicol, C.J.; O’Sullivan, N.P.; et al. Hen Welfare in Different Housing Systems. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stadig, L.M.; Ampe, B.A.; Van Gansbeke, S.; Van Den Bogaert, T.; D’Haenens, E.; Heerkens, J.L.T.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Opinion of Belgian Egg Farmers on Hen Welfare and Its Relationship with Housing Type. Animals 2015, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Brantsæter, M.; Nordgreen, J.; Hansen, T.B.; Muri, K.; Nødtvedt, A.; Moe, R.O.; Janczak, A.M. Animal Well-Being and Behavior Problem Behaviors in Adult Laying Hens—Identifying Risk Factors during Rearing and Egg Production. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fossum, O.; Jansson, D.S.; Etterlin, P.E.; Vgsholm, I. Causes of Mortality in Laying Hens in Different Housing Systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet. Scand. 2009, 51, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hartcher, K.M.; Jones, B. The Welfare of Layer Hens in Cage and Cage-Free Housing Systems. Worlds. Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 767–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Weeks, C.A.; Lambton, S.L.; Williams, A.G. Implications for Welfare, Productivity and Sustainability of the Variation in Reported Levels of Mortality for Laying Hen Flocks Kept in Different Housing Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Ten Studies. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Landbruks- og Matdepartementet Forskrift Om Hold Av Fjørfe. 2006. Available online: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2001-12-12-1494. (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  12. Abrahamsson, P.; Fossum, O.; Tauson, R. Health of Laying Hens in an Aviary System over Five Batches of Birds. Acta Vet. Scand. 1998, 39, 367–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Blokhuis, H.J.; Van Fiks Niekerk, T.; Bessei, W.; Elson, A.; Guémené, D.; Kjaer, J.B.; Maria Levrino, G.A.; Nicol, C.J.; Tauson, R.; Weeks, C.A.; et al. The LayWel Project: Welfare Implications of Changes in Production Systems for Laying Hens. Worlds. Poult. Sci. J. 2007, 63, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fulton, R.M. Causes of Normal Mortality in Commercial Egg-Laying Chickens. Avian Dis. 2017, 61, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Flock, D.K.; Laughlin, K.F.; Bentley, J. Minimizing Losses in Poultry Breeding and Production: How Breeding Companies Contribute to Poultry Welfare. Worlds. Poult. Sci. J. 2005, 61, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Tablante, N.L.; Vaillancourt, J.P.; Martin, S.W.; Shoukri, M.; Estevez, I. Spatial Distribution of Cannibalism Mortalities in Commercial Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 705–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, C.; Pors, S.E.; Christensen, J.P.; Bojesen, A.M.; Thøfner, I. Comparison and Assessment of Necropsy Lesions in End-of-Lay Laying Hens from Different Housing Systems in Denmark. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iqbal, Z.; Drake, K.; Swick, R.A.; Taylor, P.S.; Perez-Maldonado, R.A.; Ruhnke, I. Effect of Pecking Stones and Age on Feather Cover, Hen Mortality, and Performance in Free-Range Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2307–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Haas, E.N.; Bolhuis, J.E.; de Jong, I.C.; Kemp, B.; Janczak, A.M.; Rodenburg, T.B. Predicting Feather Damage in Laying Hens during the Laying Period. Is It the Past or Is It the Present? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Klein, T.; Zeltner, E.; Huber-Eicher, B. Are Genetic Differences in Foraging Behaviour of Laying Hen Chicks Paralleled by Hybrid-Specific Differences in Feather Pecking? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 70, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kjaer, J.B.; Sørensen, P. Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Free-Range Laying Hens as Affected by Genotype, Dietary Level of Methionine + Cystine, Light Intensity during Rearing and Age at First Access to the Range Area. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002, 76, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hartcher, K.M.; Tran, K.T.N.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Thomson, P.C.; Cronin, G.M. The Effects of Environmental Enrichment and Beak-Trimming during the Rearing Period on Subsequent Feather Damage Due to Feather-Pecking in Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Heerkens, J.L.T.; Delezie, E.; Kempen, I.; Zoons, J.; Ampe, B.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Specific Characteristics of the Aviary Housing System Affect Plumage Condition, Mortality and Production in Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2008–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Blokhuis, H.J.; Wiepkema, P.R. Studies of Feather Pecking in Poultry. Vet. Q. 1998, 20, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jones, R.B.; Carmichael, N.L. Pecking at String by Individually Caged, Adult Laying Hens: Colour Preferences and Their Stability. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 60, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. David, B.; Moe, R.O.; Michel, V.; Lund, V.; Mejdell, C. Air Quality in Alternative Housing Systems May Have an Impact on Laying Hen Welfare. Part I—Dust. Animals 2015, 5, 495–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Powell, F.L. Respiration. In Sturkie’s Avian Physiology; Whittow, G., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 233–263. [Google Scholar]
  28. David, B.; Mejdell, C.; Michel, V.; Lund, V.; Moe, R.O. Air Quality in Alternative Housing Systems May Have an Impact on Laying Hen Welfare. Part II—Ammonia. Animals 2015, 5, 886–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Vasdal, G.; Marchewka, J.; Newberry, R.C.; Estevez, I.; Kittelsen, K. Developing a Novel Welfare Assessment Tool for Loose-Housed Laying Hens – the Aviary Transect Method. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Matdepartementet, L. Forskrift Om Regulering Av Svine-Og Fjørfeproduksjonen. 2004. Available online: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2004-02-04-448. (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  31. Abrahamsson, P.; Tauson, R. Aviary Systems and Conventional Cages for Laying Hens: Effects on Production, Egg Quality, Health and Bird Location in Three Hybrids. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 1995, 45, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tauson, R.; Wahlstrom, A.; Abrahamson, P. Effect of Two Floor Housing Systems and Cages on Health, Production, and Fear Response in Layers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1999, 8, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Krause, E.T.; Petow, S.; Kjaer, J.B. A Note on the Physiological and Behavioural Consequences of Cannibalistic Toe Pecking in Laying Hens (Gallus Gallus Domesticus). Arch. fur Geflugelkd. 2011, 75. [Google Scholar]
  34. Michel, V.; Berk, J.; Bozakova, N.; van der Eijk, J.; Estevez, I.; Mircheva, T.; Relic, R.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Sossidou, E.N.; Guinebretière, M. The Relationships between Damaging Behaviours and Health in Laying Hens. Animals 2022, 12, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bessei, W.; Bauhaus, H.; Bögelein, S. The Effect of Selection for High and Low Feather Pecking on Aggression - Related Behaviours of Laying Hens. Arch. fur Geflugelkd. 2013, 77, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  36. Walser, P. Einfluss Unterschiedlicher Futterzusammensetzung Und -Aufbereitung Auf Das Auftreten von Federpicken, Das Nahrungsaufnehmeverhalten, Die Leistung Und Den Gesamtstoffwechsel Bei Verschiedenen Legehennenhybriden. Ph.D. Dissertation, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 1997. Nr.12365. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cavero, D.; Schmutz, M.; Philipp, H.C.; Preisinger, R. Breeding to Reduce Susceptibility to Escherichia Coli in Layers. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 2063–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Loudovaris, T.; Fahey, K.J.; Yoo, B.H. Genetic Resistance to Infectious Laryngotracheitis in Inbred Lines of White Leghorn Chickens. Avian Pathol. 1991, 20, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Huber-Eicher, B.; Wechsler, B. The Effect of Quality and Availability of Foraging Materials on Feather Pecking in Laying Hen Chicks. Anim. Behav. 1998, 55, 861–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Jones, R.B.; McAdie, T.M.; McCorquodale, C.; Keeling, L.J. Pecking at Other Birds and at String Enrichment Devices by Adult Laying Hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zepp, M.; Louton, H.; Erhard, M.; Schmidt, P.; Helmer, F.; Schwarzer, A. The Influence of Stocking Density and Enrichment on the Occurrence of Feather Pecking and Aggressive Pecking Behavior in Laying Hen Chicks. J. Vet. Behav. Appl. Res. 2018, 24, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McAdie, T.M.; Keeling, L.J.; Blokhuis, H.J.; Jones, R.B. Reduction in Feather Pecking and Improvement of Feathe Rcondition with the Presentation of a String Device to Chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 93, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tahamtani, F.M.; Brantsæter, M.; Nordgreen, J.; Sandberg, E.; Hansen, T.B.; Nødtvedt, A.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Moe, R.O.; Janczak, A.M. Effects of Litter Provision during Early Rearing and Environmental Enrichment during the Production Phase on Feather Pecking and Feather Damage in Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 2747–2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Green, L.E.; Lewis, K.; Kimpton, A.; Nicol, C.J. Cross-Sectional Study of the Prevalence of Feather Pecking in Laying Hens in Alternative Systems and Its Associations with Management and Disease. Vet. Rec. 2000, 147, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bestman, M.; Koene, P.; Wagenaar, J.P. Influence of Farm Factors on the Occurence of Feather Pecking in Organic Reared Hens and Their Predictability for Feather Pecking in the Laying Period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 121, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Blokhuis, H.J.; van der Haar, J.W. Effects of Floor Type during Rearing and of Beak Trimming on Ground Pecking and Feather Pecking in Laying Hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 22, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tahamtani, F.M.; Kittelsen, K.; Vasdal, G. Environmental Enrichment in Commercial Flocks of Aviary Housed Laying Hens: Relationship with Plumage Condition and Fearfulness. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Huber-Eicher, B.; Sebö, F. Reducing Feather Pecking When Raising Laying Hen Chicks in Aviary Systems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2001, 73, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gretarsson, P.; Kittelsen, K.; Moe, R.O.; Vasdal, G.; Toftaker, I. End of Lay Post-Mortem Findings in Aviary Housed Laying Hens. Poult. Sci. 2022, 102332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gentle, M.J.; Hunter, L.N. Physiological and Behavioural Responses Associated with Feather Removal in Gallus Gallus Var Domesticus. Res. Vet. Sci. 1991, 50, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Weeks, C.A.; Nicol, C.J. Behavioural Needs, Priorities and Preferences of Laying Hens. Worlds. Poult. Sci. J. 2006, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yngvesson, J.; Keeling, L.J.; Newberry, R.C. Individual Production Differences Do Not Explain Cannibalistic Behaviour in Laying Hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2004, 45, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 03577 g001 550
Figure 1. Percentage of Dekalb white (n = 14) and Lohman LSL (n = 25) flocks with mortality <3.0% and with mortality >3.0%.
Figure 1. Percentage of Dekalb white (n = 14) and Lohman LSL (n = 25) flocks with mortality <3.0% and with mortality >3.0%.
Animals 12 03577 g001
Table
Table 1. Description of the 12 welfare indicators assessed during the clinical observation 1 of 50 birds.
Table 1. Description of the 12 welfare indicators assessed during the clinical observation 1 of 50 birds.
Indicator 2Description
FL 2 headMissing feathers on the head, including the neck, ≥5 cm in diameter
FL backMissing feathers on ≥50% of the back, including the wings
FL breastMissing feathers on the breast, ≥5 cm in diameter
FL tailMissing or clearly damaged feathers on the tail, mainly shafts and rachises left
DirtyProminent dark staining of the back, wing, or tail feathers, covering at least 25% of the body; not including light discoloration of feathers from dust.
Wounds headProminent marks on the head and neck, due to fresh or older wounds.
Wounds backProminent marks on the back, including the wings, due to fresh or older wounds.
Wounds tailProminent marks on the tail due to fresh or older wounds.
Wounds feetIncludes bumblefoot (visible dorsally), and prominent marks on the feet due to fresh or older wounds
1 The birds were assessed visually from 0.5–1 m distance; 2 Hens could be classified as belonging to more than one category; Abbreviation: FL, feather loss.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of production data collected in the flocks included in the study.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of production data collected in the flocks included in the study.
VariableMeanMinMax
Flock size7896530019,004
Hen weight, flock level177516021976
Mortality rate, in %3.00.59.0
Feed intake, flock level in grams per day118105143
CO2, in ppm15907513800
NH3, in ppm6.20.228.0
Lux 1, 4.30.915.0
Litter, amount in centimetres3.50.510.0
1 Measured in the middle of the aviary.
Table
Table 3. The relationship between mortality, environmental parameters and clinical observations.
Table 3. The relationship between mortality, environmental parameters and clinical observations.
Descriptive StatisticsPearson Correlation
VariableUnitMeanStd DevMinimumMaximumCoefficientp-ValueN
Hen weightg 11775106.516021976− 0.190.3229
Feed intakeg/hen 2117.628.54105.00138.000.170.3038
NH3ppm 38.4611.510.0057.00− 0.060.7139
Light intensitylux4.662.760.7811.39− 0.270.1039
CO2ppm1650.00994.05766.675472.00− 0.240.1832
DustScore 0–20.330.56020.330.0439
Number of EEsType of EEs 44.270.941.005.000.050.7639
Litter scoreFlock average score0.120.330.001.33− 0.070.6839
Litter depthcm3.912.870.7513.33− 0.190.2538
FL full bodySum of body scores1.801.520.126.200.320.0539
FL headFlock average score 0–20.360.380.001.380.460.00339
FL back/wingsFlock average score 0–20.580.500.001.710.210.2039
FL breastFlock average score 0–20.480.470.001.700.370.0239
FL tailFlock average score 0–20.400.470.001.480.020.9136
Wounds backAverage number0.140.270.001.360.050.7638
Wounds feetAverage number0.070.230.001.000.270.0938
1 gram; 2 gram per hen; 3 parts per millimetre; 4 Environmental enrichment.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kittelsen, K.E.; Tahamtani, F.; Moe, R.O.; Gretarsson, P.; Vasdal, G. Flock Factors Correlated with Elevated Mortality in Non-Beak Trimmed Aviary-Housed Layers. Animals 2022, 12, 3577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243577

AMA Style

Kittelsen KE, Tahamtani F, Moe RO, Gretarsson P, Vasdal G. Flock Factors Correlated with Elevated Mortality in Non-Beak Trimmed Aviary-Housed Layers. Animals. 2022; 12(24):3577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243577

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kittelsen, Käthe Elise, Fernanda Tahamtani, Randi Oppermann Moe, Pall Gretarsson, and Guro Vasdal. 2022. "Flock Factors Correlated with Elevated Mortality in Non-Beak Trimmed Aviary-Housed Layers" Animals 12, no. 24: 3577. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243577

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop