Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-lxspr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-05T03:19:26.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmer attitudes to injurious pecking in laying hens and to potential control strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LJ Palczynski ,
H Buller ,
SL Lambton  and
CA Weeks
LJ Palczynski
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
H Buller
Affiliation:
Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK
SL Lambton
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
CA Weeks*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, University of Bristol, School of Veterinary Sciences, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: claire.weeks@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farmers’ recognition of health and welfare problems, and their responses to related intervention programmes, such as those to reduce injurious pecking in hens, directly influence the welfare of animals in their care. Changing those responses can be achieved through a re-positioning of social drivers as well as from individual behaviour. This study begins by considering how certain levels of plumage damage become normalised while others might be considered unacceptable. Drawing upon in-depth farmer interviews, the study investigates how management practices for addressing the issue of injurious pecking are developed and enacted, looking at the relative influence of intrinsic and extrinsic individual behavioural factors. Twelve farmers with varied uptake of evidence-based management strategies designed to reduce levels of injurious pecking were interviewed. Although farmers ranked images of flocks with various levels of plumage damage in a similar order to scientists, their perception of levels of injurious pecking in their own flocks varied, and was not consistently associated with the actual levels measured. Most farmers recognised both financial and welfare implications of injurious pecking and expressed pride in having a good-looking flock. The popular management strategies were those designed to redirect pecking to other objects, whereas a substantial barrier to uptake was the perception of creating other problems: for example, mislaid eggs if early access to litter and range were adopted. To achieve uptake of knowledge that improves animal welfare on-farm, it may be necessary both to shift the norms perceived as acceptable, and to overcome barriers to change that include lack of time and understanding, by providing impartial advice and facilitation of ownership of the issues.

Keywords

animal welfarechanging attitudesinjurious peckinglaying hensmanagement strategiesperception

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 29 - 38
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ajzen, I 1991 The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 1998 Models of human social behaviour and their appli-cation to health psychology. Psychology and Health 13: 735–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazeley, P 2009 Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. The Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research 2: 6–22Google Scholar
Bennett, RM, Jones, PJ, Nicol, CJ, Tranter, RB and Weeks, CA 2016 Consumer attitudes to injurious pecking in free range egg production. Animal Welfare 25: 91–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.1.091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestman, M, Koene, P and Wagenaar, JP 2009 Influence of farm factors on the occurrence of feather pecking in organic reared hens and their predictability for feather pecking in the laying period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 120–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Fiks van Niekerk, T, Bessei, W, Elson, A, Guemene, JB, Kjaer, JB, Maria Levrino, GA, Nicol, CJ, Tauson, R, Weeks, CA and Van De Weerd, H 2007 The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 63: 101–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, J, Tailet, C and Vessier, I 2003 Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479–492Google Scholar
CEC 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities 203: 53–57Google Scholar
Coleman, GJ, Hemsworth, PH and Hay, M 1998 Predicting stockperson behaviour towards pigs from attitudinal and job-related variables and empathy. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58:63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01168-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis-Iversen, J, Cook, AJC, Watson, E, Nielen, M, Larkin, L, Wooldridge, M and Hogeveen, H 2010 Perceptions, circum-stances and motivators hat influence implementation of zoonotic control programs on cattle farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 93: 276–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, MP and Buller, H 2014 P rojecting Social Science into Defra's Animal Welfare Evidence Base: A Review of current research and evidence base on the issue of farmer behaviour. A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2007 Opinion on Beak Trimming of Laying Hens. Government Report. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/beak-trimming.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2009 Beak trimming of laying hens. Letter to Ministers. http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/beaktrimming.pdfGoogle Scholar
Featherwel 2013 Improving Feather Cover. A guide to reducing the risk of injurious pecking occurring in non-cage laying hens. www.featherwel.orgGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B and Paik, MC 2003 Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Third Edition. Wiley & Sons: New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471445428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallgren, KA 2012 Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8: 23–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargreaves, T 2011 Practiceing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture 11: 79–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469540510390500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horseman, SV, Roe, EJ, Huxley, JN, Bell, NJ, Mason, CS and Whay, HR 2014 The use of in-depth interviews to understand the process of treating lame dairy cows from the farmers’ per-spective. Animal Welfare 23: 157–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.2.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Library 2012 Battery Hens. Standard Note: SN/SC/1367. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01367/bat-tery-hensGoogle Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B and Sebö, F 2001 The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00173-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, J, van den Borne, BHP, Renes, RJ, van Schaik, G, Lam, TJGM and Leeuwis, C 2009 Explaining mastitis incidence in Dutch dairy farming: The influence of farmers’ attitudes and behaviour. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92: 210–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H and Vesala, KM 2010 Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative method-ology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare 19: 523–536Google Scholar
Kielland, C, Skjerve, E, Osteras, O and Zanella, A 2010 Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 2998–3006. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010 The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123: 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambton, SL, Nicol, CJ, Friel, M, Main, DCJ, McKinstry, JL, Sherwin, CM, Walton, J and Weeks, CA 2013 A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose-housed laying hen flocks. Veterinary Record 172: 423–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.101067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, JR and Koch, GG 1977 The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manning, RE and Freimund, WA 2004 Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 36: 557–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, JM 1995 The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research 5: 147–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Szmaragd, C, Cooper, MD, Wrathall, JHM, Jamieson, J, Bond, A, Atkinson, C and Main, DCJ 2016 Animal welfare initiatives improve feather cover of cage-free laying hens in the UK. Animal Welfare, in pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Bestman, M, Gilani, A-M, de Haas, EN, de Jong, IC, Lambton, S, Wagenaar, JP, Weeks, CA and Rodenburg, TB 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 775–787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pötzch, CJ, Lewis, K, Nicol, CJ and Green, LE 2001 A cross-sectional study of the prevalence of vent pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with feather pecking, man-agement and disease. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 259–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00167-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, GW and Bernard, HR 2003 Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15: 85–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, van Krimpen, MM, de Jong, IC, de Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Riedstra, BJ, Nordquist, RE, Wagenaar, JP, Bestman, M and Nicol, CJ 2013 The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying priciples. World's Poultry Science Journal 69(2): 361–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaarst, M, Paarup-Laursen, B, Houe, H, Fossing, C and Andersen, HJ 2002 Farmers’ choice of medical treatment of mastitis in Danish dairy herds based on qualitative research interviews. Journal of Dairy Science 85:992–1001. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74159-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006 Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 62:296–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS200598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR 2007 The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare 16: 117–122Google Scholar
Yngvesson, J, Keeling, LJ and Newberry, RC 2004 Individual production differences do not explain cannibalistic behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 45: 453–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660412331286163CrossRefGoogle Scholar