Farmer attitudes to injurious pecking in laying hens and to potential control strategies

PublishedFarmers' 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.Tubney Charitable Trus

Serological survey using ELISA to determine the prevalence of <i>Coxiella burnetii </i>infection (Q fever) in sheep and goats in Great Britain

A survey of Coxiella burnetii infection (Q fever) in sheep flocks and goat herds in Great Britain was undertaken. A total of 5791 sheep (384 flocks) and 522 goats (145 herds) were examined for C. burnetii antibodies using an ELISA. Overall, 53 sheep (37 flocks), and four goats (four herds), tested positive. Estimates of individual animal, between-flock/-herd and within-flock/-herd crude prevalences were 0·9%, 10·2% and 9·0%, respectively, for sheep, and 0·8%, 3% and 26·3%, respectively, for goats. With sheep, the likelihood of an animal testing positive increased with total flock size (P = 0·002) and number of breeding ewes in the flock (P = 0·021). It also increased with number of goats within a 10 km radius (P = 0·038). There was no evidence for spatial clustering of positive herds above that expected by chance alone. No analysis of risk factors was attempted for goats because of the paucity of positives

What is being measured, and by whom?:Facilitation of communication on technical measures amongst competent authorities in the implementation of the European Union Broiler Directive (2007/43/EC)

The European Union (EU) Broiler Directive (2007/43/EC) is unique amongst current EU Directives, which address animal welfare, in that it uses outcome data collected at abattoirs and on farm to monitor on-farm broiler welfare and vary the maximum permitted stocking density on farm. In this study, we describe how, by bringing together personnel from the competent authorities in 22 member states (MSs) who have responsibility for implementing the Directive, and engaging in exchange of information and technical methods regarding the Broiler Directive, it has been possible to identify differences in approach with regard to ‘what data is being collected, and by whom’ across EU MSs. Online questionnaires and workshop exercises enabled us to identify priority areas for knowledge transfer and training. For example, foot pad dermatitis, hock burn, dead on arrival and total rejections (birds rejected as unfit for human consumption by the meat inspection staff at slaughter) were identified by the MSs as measures of medium-to-low priority in terms of knowledge transfer because there are assessment methods for these conditions that are already well accepted by competent authorities. On the other hand, breast lesions, cellulitis, emaciation, joint lesions, respiratory problems, scratches, wing fractures and a number of environmental measures were identified as having high priority in terms of knowledge transfer. The study identified that there is significant variability in the stage of implementation between MSs, and responses from the participating MSs indicated that sharing of guidance and technical information between MSs may be of value in the future set-up process for those MSs engaged in implementation of the Directive