Why a tailored approach is key to good feather cover in layers
© Hy-Line UK A major study has concluded there is no one-size-fits-all solution to feather pecking in flocks, and farmers should test a range of measures to assess which help control the problem.Â
The Laying Hen Welfare Forum (LHWF) was set up to develop tools to arm producers with the knowledge and ability to adapt their flock management to keep feather cover at its best.
Over three years, it worked with 29 volunteer poultry farms to develop bespoke plans where certain interventions were trialled to find the best ways to manage feather cover in laying hens.
See also: 8 management tips to help prevent severe feather pecking
The emphasis was on working with farmers to come up with strategies that suit their particular farming system, whether it’s free-range, organic or colony egg production.
Feather cover action plan
Feather cover is an important part of a healthy, high-welfare flock of laying hens.
Poorly feathered birds are more susceptible to disease, can be less productive and look unhealthy, which may lower the perception of a farm in the eyes of the public.
Defra has made it clear that it expects the poultry sector to move towards a future in which beak treatments at one day old are no longer necessary (see box below).
What is beak treatment?
In the UK, hens kept in commercial poultry farms are almost always subject to treatment at one day old to remove the sharp tip of the beak.
Once a hot blade was used to blunt the tip, but this practice is banned now in the UK.
Instead, an infrared machine penetrates the hard outer horn of the chick’s beak, altering a small area of the underlying dermis and subdermal tissue.
One to three weeks later, the tissue behind the treated area heals, and the beak tip drops off.
Without effective management in place, the potential for poor feather cover and mortality caused by injurious pecking would be unacceptable.
The LHWF ultimately suggests that so-called feather cover action plans (FCAPs) become an integral part of the veterinary health and welfare plan that every farm must develop.
But it accepted cost and culture could be a barrier to this.
As Defra moves to a model of farm funding for outcomes such as higher welfare, it may be that support could be offered to producers who keep untrimmed flocks (for cost estimates, see box below).
How successful are beak-trim bans in other countries?
The Netherlands and Austria
The Netherlands and Austria have notably stopped using beak treatments.
Members of the LHWF visited the two countries and found distinct differences between production systems.
The Dutch experience of a ban has been one of higher costs and mortality, and poorer feather cover.
The LHWF reported that additional enrichment measures, a higher quality diet and improved housing added about 0.5 eurocents to the cost of each egg.
Despite this, mortality averaged 9% in untreated flocks, compared to about 5% in hens that had received beak treatment.
And feather cover, in general, was deemed to be poorer than consumers and others in the UK would accept.
Austria
In Austria, a voluntary ban has been in place since 2007.
Flocks tend to be smaller, with a maximum free-range size of 9,600 birds.
The LHWF found that management was an essential factor in keeping birds with untreated beaks, particularly paying attention to the quality of pullets, lighting, feed and water, housing and ventilation.
These efforts are supported by far higher retail price for eggs compared with the UK’s – about a 15p/doz premium on medium free-range, for example.
Despite that, mortality was still estimated to be one-third higher in untreated flocks.
For now, though, the report is a significant step forward in understanding feather cover management on farms in the UK.
How do I measure feather cover?
There is an established methodology for measuring feather cover, designed by a company called AssureWel, which gives producers a way to evaluate their farm.
A sample of 50 birds for each shed is advised – five taken from 10 different areas.
Each hen is scored based on the feather cover on both the back and the vent.
AssureWel feather loss scoring system |
||
|
0 |
No/minimal feather loss |
No bare skin is visible, only single feathers missing |
|
1 |
Slight feather loss |
Two or more adjacent feathers missing, with bare skin up to 5cm maximum dimension |
|
2 |
Moderate/severe feather loss |
Bare skin visible greater than 5cm maximum dimension |
A snapshot of the feather cover can then be created from the data, which can be used as a benchmark.
From this, changes in feather cover, whether improvements or setbacks, could be measured on each farm.
Farmers in the LHWF trial were encouraged to adopt the monitoring and use it as a tool.
Applying the data
Trial farmers worked with Bristol University researchers to develop FCAPs, which were essentially tailored management tactics for each farm to try to improve feather cover.
Key measures that were successful in reducing feather pecking included:
1. Get litter quality rightÂ
Hens need deep, dry and friable litter in their scratch area to perform natural behaviours such as dustbathing, so the right litter quality is very important.
Most farmers in the trials scattered grit on the dustbathing area to help keep it friable, and encouraging birds to forage “worked” the litter, too.
Producers also described forking the litter and removing any capped litter to keep up its quality. Adding straw bales also appeared to help.Â
Verandas, while a relatively expensive addition, were seen to make litter management easier.Â
2. Provide enrichments
A wide range of enrichments were trialled across the farm, and the report suggests that hens like a wide range of things to interact with.
Drums, that offer some audible feedback when pecked were popular, as were enrichments such as blue rope, which birds could tease apart. Pecking blocks were also seen as essential additions.
Lucerne bales were considered valuable by many, with one farmer suggesting their replacement every three weeks.
3. Make shed and range alterations
Increasing the number of ramps was seen as helpful for one producer, while a warmer-glow LED lighting system yielded improvements for another.
Range shelters also appeared to reduce feather pecking.
What’s next?
There was no single solution to improve feather cover across all farms. Instead, a multifactorial approach to management needed to be developed for each unit.
The report suggests this could be integrated into the veterinary health and welfare plan that every producer has with their vet.
It also recommends a funding model to support the additional costs incurred from making changes that help to maintain good feather cover in laying hens.
Read the LHWF’s report in full.