It has been shown that, in small groups of intact male domestic turkeys, supplementary ultraviolet (UV-A) radiation, visual barriers, and added straw (environmental enrichment) minimize the incidence of injurious pecking under incandescent light at 5 lux. This paper describes two experiments, each involving eight groups of 100 non beak-trimmed birds up to 5 weeks of age, that assessed the effectiveness of these procedures at higher light intensities and with fluorescent light. Experiment 1 examined 5 or 10 lux of incandescent or fluorescent light. Experiment 2 studied responses to 5, 10, 36 or 70 lux of fluorescent light. Individual inspections of the birds, for wing, tail and head injuries due to pecking, were conducted daily.

Fluorescent light significantly reduced the incidence of tail injuries (P = 0.03), and tended to reduce those to the wings (P = 0.08), compared with incandescent light. No difference was observed between 5 and 10 lux for either tail or wing injuries. In Experiment 2, the incidence of tail and wing injuries was significantly and positively correlated with light intensity (tail, P = 0.05; wing, P = 0.02). Injuries to the head were minimal in all treatments. These results suggest that turkey poults may be kept with minimal injurious pecking, under fluorescent light at an intensity of 10 lux, with appropriate environmental enrichment.

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.

Free-range egg producers face continuing problems from injurious pecking (IP) which has financial consequences for farmers and poor welfare implications for birds. Beak-trimming has been practised for many years to limit the damage caused by IP, but with the UK Government giving notification that they intend to ban beak-trimming in 2016, considerable efforts have been made to devise feasible housing, range and management strategies to reduce IP. A recent research project investigated the efficacy of a range of IP-reducing management strategies, the mean costs of which came to around 5 pence per bird. Here, the results of the above project's consumer survey are presented: consumers’ attitudes to free-range egg production are detailed showing that, whilst consumers had a very positive attitude towards free-range eggs, they were especially uninformed about some aspects of free-range egg production. The contingent valuation technique was used to estimate the price premium consumers would be prepared to pay to ensure that hens do not suffer from IP: this was calculated as just over 3% on top of the prevailing retail price of free-range eggs. These findings reinforce other studies that have found that whilst consumers are not generally well-informed about certain specific welfare problems faced by animals under free-range conditions, they are prepared to pay to improve animal welfare. Indeed, the study findings suggest that producers could obtain an additional price premium if they demonstrate the welfare provenance of their eggs, perhaps through marketing the eggs as coming from birds with intact beaks. This welfare provenance issue could usefully be assured to consumers by the introduction of a mandatory, single, accredited EU-wide welfare-standards labelling scheme.

Injurious pecking is a serious concern for commercial turkey production and welfare. The behaviour is thought to represent re-directed ground foraging, but the development and causes are poorly understood with little supporting literature. In the initial development of the behaviour, early lighting regimes and social facilitation may play contributing roles. Other factors such as the availability of foraging material, diet composition, stocking densities, and group dynamics may also affect levels of injurious pecking. Given that commercial turkeys are group-housed, alternative breeding techniques, like group selection based on social effects, might successfully reduce moralities from pecking without detracting selection pressure from economic traits. However, to better suit their behavioural needs, any genetic attempts to adapt turkeys to perform less injurious pecking should be done in combination with environmental and dietary improvements.