Beak trimming is used worldwide as a method of reducing the damage to feathers and skin caused by injurious pecking in laying hens. However, beak trimming also causes some welfare issues as trimming the beak results in pain and sensory loss. Due to this dilemma, there is an ongoing discussion in several European countries about whether to ban beak trimming. In this study, we investigated the welfare consequences of keeping layers with intact beaks and examined for links between injurious pecking damage and keel bone damage on an individual level. A study was conducted on 10 commercial farms housing laying hens in the barn system. Each farm participated with a flock of beak-trimmed hens (T) and a flock of non-trimmed (NT) hens that were visited around 32 and 62 weeks of age. During visits, the condition of plumage, skin, feet, and keel bone of 100 hens was assessed. Mortality was recorded by the producers. NT flocks had a lower prevalence of hens with good plumage condition around 32 weeks of age (94.1 vs. 99.6%, P < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of hens with poor plumage condition at 62 weeks of age (63.6 vs. 15.2%, P < 0.001) compared with T flocks. The prevalence of hens with keel bone deviations, with both keel bone fractures and deviations and with body wounds, was higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks at both ages (P < 0.001). Accumulated mortality from placement to end of production tended to be higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks (14.2 vs. 8.6%; P = 0.06). The prevalence of keel bone damage was higher among hens with poor plumage condition than hens with moderate/good plumage condition (31.5 vs. 22.2%; P < 0.001). Thus, omitting beak trimming had negative consequences for the condition of plumage, skin, and keel bone, and tended to increase mortality, highlighting the risk of reduced welfare when keeping layers with intact beaks. In addition, injurious pecking damage was found to be positively linked to keel bone damage. The causal relation is unknown, but we propose that fearfulness is an important factor.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,347,969
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,069
of 6,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,422
of 439,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#22
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
