Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:56:05.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the effect of housing on feather damage in laying hens using IR thermography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2016

K. Pichová ,
B. Bilčík  and
L’. Košt’ál
K. Pichová*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Moyzesova 61, 90028 Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6842 15 Bratislava 4, Slovakia
B. Bilčík
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Moyzesova 61, 90028 Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia
L’. Košt’ál
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Biochemistry and Genetics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Moyzesova 61, 90028 Ivanka pri Dunaji, Slovakia
*
†E-mail: Katarina.Pichova@savba.sk
Get access

Abstract

Plumage damage represents one of the animal-based measures of laying hens welfare. Damage occurs predominantly due to age, environment and damaging pecking. IR thermography, due to its non-invasiveness, objectivity and repeatability is a promising alternative to feather damage scoring systems such as the system included in the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry. The aim of this study was to apply IR thermography for the assessment of feather damage in laying hens kept in two housing systems and to compare the results with feather scoring. At the start of the experiment, 16-week-old laying hens (n=30) were divided into two treatments such as deep litter pen and enriched cage. During 4 months, feather damage was assessed regularly in 2-week intervals. One more single assessment was done nine and a half months after the start of the experiment. The feather damage on four body regions was assessed by scoring and IR thermography: head and neck, back and rump, belly, and underneck and breast. Two variables obtained by IR thermography were used: the difference between the body surface temperature and ambient temperature (ΔTB) and the proportion of featherless areas, which were defined as areas with a temperature >33.5°C. Data were analyzed using a GLM model. The effects of housing, time, region and their interactions on feather damage, measured by the feather scoring and by both IR thermography measures, were all significant (P<0.001). The ΔTB in all assessed regions correlated positively with the feather score. Feather scoring revealed higher damage in enriched cages compared with deep litter pens starting from week 6 of the experiment on the belly and back and rump regions, whereas ΔTB from week 6 in the belly and from week 8 on the back and rump region. The proportion of featherless areas in the belly region differed significantly between the housings from week 8 of the experiment and on the back and rump region from week 12. The IR thermography assessment of the feather damage revealed differences between hens kept in different housing systems in agreement with the feather scoring. In conclusion, it was demonstrated that the IR thermography is a useful tool for the assessment of poultry feather cover quality that is not biased by the subjective component and provides higher precision than feather damage scoring.

Keywords

feather scoringwelfarepoultry housingIR thermographylaying hens
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 661 - 669
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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.)

References

Abrahamsson, P 1996. Furnished cages and aviaries for laying hens. Effects on production, health and use of facilities. Report No. 9157650829, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Bilčík, B and Keeling, L 1999. Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science 40, 444–451.Google Scholar
Cangar, Ö, Aerts, J-M, Buyse, J and Berckmans, D 2008. Quantification of the spatial distribution of surface temperatures of broilers. Poultry Science 87, 2493–2499.Google Scholar
Cook, N and Schaefer, A 2013. Infrared thermography and disease surveillance. In Thermography: current status and advances in livestock animals and in veterinary medicine (ed. F Luzi, M Mitchell, L Nanni Costa and V Redaelli), pp. 79–92. Fundazione Iniziative Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche – Brescia, Brescia, Italy.Google Scholar
Cook, N, Smykot, A, Holm, D, Fasenko, G and Church, J 2006. Assessing feather cover of laying hens by infrared thermography. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 15, 274–279.Google Scholar
Forkman, B and Keeling, L (eds) 2009. Assessment of animal welfare measures for layers and broilers. Report No. 1902647793, School of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff, Wales, p. 176.Google Scholar
Glatz, P 2001. Effect of poor feather cover on feed intake and production of aged laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 14, 553–558.Google Scholar
Hughes, B 1983. The effects of methionine deficiency and egg production on feather loss in caged layers. British Poultry Science 24, 549–553.Google Scholar
Hughes, BO and Michie, W 1982. Plumage loss in medium-bodied hybrid hens: the effect of beak trimming and cage design. British Poultry Science 23, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 1995. Feather pecking and cannibalism in layers. Poultry International 34, 46–50.Google Scholar
Leonard, M, Horn, A and Fairfull, R 1995. Correlates and consequences of allopecking in White Leghorn chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43, 17–26.Google Scholar
Mills, A, Faure, J and Williams, J 1988. Feather loss and egg production in broiler breeders and layers. Annales de Zootechnie 37, 133–142.Google Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Rodenburg, T, Bokkers, E, Koene, P and De Boer, I 2005. On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 277–291.Google Scholar
Nääs, IA, Romanini, CEB, Neves, DP, Nascimento, GR and Vercellino, RA 2010. Broiler surface temperature distribution of 42 day old chickens. Scientia Agricola 67, 497–502.Google Scholar
Nichelmann, M, Baranyiova, E, Goll, R and Tzschentke, B 1986. Influence of feather cover on heat balance in laying hens (Gallus domesticus). Journal of Thermal Biology 11, 121–126.Google Scholar
Nicol, C, Bestman, M, Gilani, A, De Haas, E, De Jong, I, Lambton, S, Wagenaar, J, Weeks, C and Rodenburg, T 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal 69, 775–788.Google Scholar
Nicol, C, Caplen, G, Edgar, J and Browne, W 2009. Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78, 413–424.Google Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G, Vestergaard, K and Simonsen, H 1993. Effects of rearing experience and stimulus enrichment on feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 345–352.Google Scholar
Savory, C 1995. Feather pecking and cannibalism. World’s Poultry Science Journal 51, 215–219.Google Scholar
Sherwin, C, Richards, G and Nicol, C 2010. Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51, 488–499.Google Scholar
Tao, X and Xin, H 2003. Surface wetting and its optimization to cool broiler chickens. Transactions of the ASABE 46, 483–490.Google Scholar
Tauson, R 1984. Plumage condition in SCWL laying hens kept in conventional cages of different designs. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34, 221–230.Google Scholar
Tauson, R, Ambrosen, T and Elwinger, K 1984. Evaluation of procedures for scoring the integument of laying hens – independent scoring of plumage condition. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34, 400–408.Google Scholar
Taylor, AA and Hurnik, JF 1994. The effect of long-term housing in an aviary and battery cages on the physical condition of laying hens: body weight, feather condition, claw length, foot lesions, and tibia strength. Poultry Science 73, 268–273.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wolfenson, D 1986. The effect of acclimatization on blood flow and its distribution in normothermic and hyperthermic domestic fowl. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 85, 739–742.Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D and Rowland, C 1973. Allopreening in the domestic fowl. Revue du Comportement Animal 7, 83–91.Google Scholar
Yahav, S, Luger, D, Cahaner, A, Dotan, M, Rusal, M and Hurwitz, S 1998. Thermoregulation in naked neck chickens subjected to different ambient temperatures. British Poultry Science 39, 133–138.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y, Xin, H and Dong, B 2013. Use of infrared thermography to assess laying-hen feather coverage. Poultry Science 92, 295–302.Google Scholar