Tag: Risk factor

Towards a common conceptual framework and illustrative model for feather pecking in poultry and tail biting in pigs – 4. Farmer as a risk factor

This is post 4 on “Farmer as a risk factor” of:

Towards a common conceptual framework and illustrative model for feather pecking in poultry and tail biting in pigs – Connecting science to solutions

Marc B.M. Brackea, T. Bas Rodenburgb, Herman M. Vermeera, Thea G.C.M. van Niekerka
a Wageningen Livestock Research
b Wageningen University, Dept. of behavioural ecology

Reading guide

This is one of 8 blog posts under the heading of: “Towards a common conceptual framework and illustrative model for feather pecking in poultry and tail biting in pigs – Connecting science to solutions”. It contains the following sections/posts:

  1. Introduction, specifying the need to compare feather pecking (fp) in layers and tail biting (tb) in pigs
  2. Terminology, specifying the various concepts involved in fp/tb.
  3. Overview of main similarities and differences between feather pecking and tail biting
  4. Farmer as a risk factor, emphasising, perhaps for the first time, that the farmer is a kind of ‘animal’ that is part of the problem (and the solution).
  5. Models, reviewing available conceptual models of fp and tb, as well as presenting a new ‘face model’.
  6. Disease framework, arguing that fp/tb may be regarded as a medical disorder, over and above being an abnormal behaviour per se.
  7. Evolution and domestication, emphasising the need to view fp/tb as a phenomenon an evolutionary and genetic background.
  8. References

The entire text (8 posts) can be downloaded as one pdf here.

4. Farmer as a risk factor

Though not specified in Brunberg et al. (2016) human stakeholders, i.c. the farmer, may also be included in the description of feather pecking (fp)/tail biting (tb). Since the farmer must make management decisions (at many different levels), he/she will affect all other risk factors involved in fp/tb. In fact, it has been proposed that the farmer may be the most important risk factor (Van Dooren, 2013; Zonderland and Zonderland-Thomassen, 2016). Like the animals, farmers will be showing behavioural responses, and farmers may also experience welfare problems in case of fp/tb.

As is the case for the animal, what matters to the farmer is how (s)he perceives the problem (rather than what is the problem in ‘reality’ (Uexküll, 1909)). For example, laying hens living in a multilayer system (volière) may be perceived as having access to litter. However, what matters to welfare is how the animal perceives its environment, e.g. a hen living in the upper tiers may not have access to litter, thus live in an environment without litter (and thus be more prone to fp). Similarly, a farmer who believes that beak treatment/tail docking is painless (a false belief), or who has a strong aversion to pecking/biting wounds may not have the motivation required to (try to) end the practice of routine preventive mutilations. Thus what matters is how the problem is perceived. The farmer’s problem solving in case of fp/tb may be hampered by being ‘allergic’ (e.g. to wounded animals due) to fp/tb, and by being ‘lethargic’ (e.g. being unable to respond adequately when active treatment is called for when fp/tb starts). While the farmer has the end responsibility of how his animals are reared, other stakeholders also play a role, e.g. a farmer’s ability to deal with fp/tb may depend on other farmers (e.g. who are rearing his animals, or who ventilate opinions as to whether ending mutilations is (not) desirable), the market (e.g. the retailer who is buying his eggs/pigs), the government (issuing legislation and taking policy measures to simulate and/or discourage certain practices), and farm advisors (e.g. providing/withholding knowledge and support required to deal with the fp/tb problem). Table 2 lists main farmer-related risk factors and responses involved in fp/tb. Note: we have decided to incorporate the responses in the list of risk factors, because the way a farmer responds to fp/tb (prevention, treatment, early-detection) is itself part of the farm management.

Table 2. Farmer-related risk factors of feather pecking (fp) and tail biting (tb), and farmer-related responses related to the type of factor (environment-based; farmer-based, and response-based (1; curative treatment; 2: prevention; 3. early detection). Red: welfare reducing aspects.

Farmer-related risk factors (management) & responses (prevention & treatment) Type of factor
Economy, market Environment-based
Legislation (and its enforcement), policies
Social support/pressure, sector/chain image
Fp/tb specific farm management regarding (timely/delayed) treatment:
e.g. providing enrichment, identifying & resolving cause(s)/risk factor(s), isolation/removing actor and/or victim, dimming the lights (impaired vision), repellents, mutilation (as a treatment in untreated animals), monitoring (i.e. treatment evaluation).
Pigs: teeth cutting (cf beak treatment in Hens: removing animal’s ‘equipment’ to do harm).		 Response [1]
Hens: spectacles (another form of impaired vision used in the past (before beak trimming was invented, to prevent accurate sight of feathers); culling of peckers (peckers may be identified by their pecking behaviour or perhaps by their relatively unaffected feather cover).
Fp/tb specific farm management regarding prevention:
e.g. mutilation, enrichment, climate, food, health care,
monitoring (early detection)		 Response [2]
Fp/tb specific farm management regarding early detection:
Hens: Reducing feather cover may indicate fp is starting
Pigs: Tucked tails, wet tails (possibly reduced feeder visits; enhanced interest in enrichment materials)		 Response [3]
General farm management (quality; quantity) Farmer-based
Knowledge, education
Personality (reactive, proactive)
Attitudes (towards animal welfare, etc.).

Reading guide

This was blog post nr. 4 under the heading of: “Towards a common conceptual framework and illustrative model for feather pecking in poultry and tail biting in pigs – Connecting science to solutions”. It contains the following sections/posts:

  1. Introduction, specifying the need to compare feather pecking (fp) in layers and tail biting (tb) in pigs
  2. Terminology, specifying the various concepts involved in fp/tb.
  3. Overview of main similarities and differences between feather pecking and tail biting
  4. Farmer as a risk factor, emphasising, perhaps for the first time, that the farmer is a kind of ‘animal’ that is part of the problem (and the solution).
  5. Models, reviewing available conceptual models of fp and tb, as well as presenting a new ‘face model’.
  6. Disease framework, arguing that fp/tb may be regarded as a medical disorder, over and above being an abnormal behaviour per se.
  7. Evolution and domestication, emphasising the need to view fp/tb as a phenomenon an evolutionary and genetic background.
  8. References

The entire text (8 posts) can be downloaded as one pdf here.

Acknowledgements

These blog posts have been made possible by the Hennovation project (HORIZON 2020 ISIB-02-2014 project, Grant no. 652638).