[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”40px”][/vc_column][vc_column][vc_raw_html]JTNDZGl2JTIwY2xhc3MlM0QlMjJmYW5jeV9oZWFkaW5nJTIwZmFuY3lfaGVhZGluZ19saW5lJTIyJTNFJTNDaDIlMjBjbGFzcyUzRCUyMnRpdGxlJTIyJTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJmb250LXNpemUlM0ElMjA1MHB4JTNCJTIwY29sb3IlM0ElMjAlMjM0NDQ0NDQlM0IlMjIlM0VDYW5vcHklMjBDb3ZlciUyMElzJTIwQ29ycmVsYXRlZCUyMFdpdGglMjBSZWR1Y2VkJTIwSW5qdXJpb3VzJTIwRmVhdGhlciUyMFBlY2tpbmclMjBJbiUyMENvbW1lcmNpYWwlMjBGbG9ja3MlMjBPZiUyMEZyZWUtUmFuZ2UlMjBMYXlpbmclMjBIZW5zJTNDJTJGaDIlM0UlM0MlMkZkaXYlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1457604074075{margin-bottom: 80px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]Bright, A.; Brass, D.; Clachan, J.; Drake, K.A.; Joret, A.D. ANIMAL WELFARE 20: 329-338, 2011

Injurious feather pecking in non-cage systems is a serious economic and welfare concern for the egg producing industry. Here, we describe the first results from an on-going collaborative project to improve range environment and welfare of laying hens within the McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd UK supply base. The objective of this study was to investigate in a commercial situation, the correlation between 1) proportion of range cover and 2) proportion of canopy cover, with plumage damage of end of lay hens. The assessment of plumage damage due to injurious feather pecking is a key animal-based welfare indicator for laying hens in non-cage systems.

Providing a minimum of 5% tree cover, planted close to the house but with good canopy coverage may be a feasible and practical method enabling producers to reducing plumage damage due to injurious feather pecking in their laying hen flocks. Tree cover provision may also provide environmental benefits such as soil stabilisation, reduced nutrient leaching and carbon sequestration.

PDF Download  Download and read the full article

In 2007 and 2008, all laying hen producers within the McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd egg supply base, were required to plant (if not present already), 5% of the total range area with blocks of trees either side, and between 20-25m from the laying hen house. Plumage damage at end of lay was positively correlated with mortality. The Dekalb Amberlink had less plumage damage at the end of lay than Bovans Goldline or Lohmann Brown, and flocks depleted in summer had less plumage damage at end of lay than flocks depleted in autumn or winter, possibly because of weather conditions at the time of placement. There was no correlation between the proportion (5-90%) of range cover and plumage damage at the end of lay, however, plumage damage was negatively correlated with percent of canopy cover within tree planted areas.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row]