The impact of infrared beak treatment on turkey tom and hen beak length and performance to 12 weeks of age

Controlling injurious pecking in commercial turkeys remains a significant challenge to producers and the industry. Infrared beak treatment is an effective method of controlling injurious pecking in chickens; however, the effects of infrared beak treatment on turkey performance are still largely unknown. Two experiments were conducted to determine the impact of infrared beak treatment on the beak length and performance of turkeys raised to 12 wk of age. Experiment 1 tested both toms (n = 236) and hens (n = 324), while Experiment 2 focused on hens (n = 608). Poults for each experiment were assigned to 1 of 2 beak treatments: infrared beak treated (IR) on the day of hatch at a commercial hatchery or sham untreated control (C). Data collected included beak length, body weight, feed intake, feed efficiency, and mortality. Data were analyzed using a 1 or 2-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's range test for mean separation when interactions were found. Results showed that beak length (Experiment 1 only) was significantly shorter in IR poults from 2 to 12 wk of age. In the same experiment, IR toms had lighter body weight than C toms, but IR hens were heavier than C hens from 2 to 4 wk of age. By 12 wk, IR poults were heavier than C poults, regardless of gender. In experiment 2, IR hens had lighter body weight from 2 to 4 wk of age. In conclusion, infrared beak treatment had minimal effects on feed intake, feed efficiency, or mortality over the 12-wk periods of both experiments.

Review: Key tweaks to the chicken's beak: the versatile use of the beak by avian species and potential approaches for improvements in poultry production

The avian beak is a multipurpose organ playing a vital role in a variety of functions, including feeding, drinking, playing, grasping objects, mating, nesting, preening and defence against predators and parasites. With regards to poultry production, the beak is the first point of contact between the bird and feed. The beak is also manipulated to prevent unwanted behaviour such as feather pecking, toe pecking and cannibalism in poultry as well as head/neck injuries to breeder hens during mating. Thus, investigating the beak morphometry of poultry in relation to feeding and other behaviours may lead to novel insights for poultry breeding, management and feeding strategies. Beak morphometry data may be captured by advanced imaging techniques coupled with the use of geometric morphometric techniques. This emerging technology may be utilized to study the effects of beak shape on many critical management issues including heat stress, parasite management, pecking and feeding behaviour. In addition, existing literature identifies several genes related to beak development in chickens and other avian species. Use of morphometric assessments to develop phenotypic data on beak shape and detailed studies on beak-related behaviours in chickens may help in improving management and welfare of commercial poultry.

Research Note: Beak morphology of infrared beak-treated laying hens and its impact on production and welfare

Despite previous research on the impacts of beak treatment on laying hens, little information exists regarding how variation in beak morphology that can occur following beak treatment affects production, behavior, and welfare. Following infrared beak treatment (IRBT), variations in beak shape, such as a shovel beak (bottom beak longer than top), cracks (Cr), or bubbles (B) may occur if the IRBT equipment is damaged or if a quality control program is not followed at the hatchery. This study aimed to determine if variations in beak morphology post-IRBT impacted laying hen production or welfare. Infrared beak-treated Lohmann LSL-Lite hens (n = 80) were selected from a 56-wk-old flock and randomly assigned into 1 of 8 treatments: flush beak (control), shovel beak extending 0–1 mm (SB0-1), 1–2 mm (SB1-2), 2–3 mm (SB2-3), 3–4 mm (SB3-4), or >4 mm (SB > 4), Cr, or B. Hens were housed in individual cages for 4 wk and production (body weight, feed intake, egg production, and egg quality), and welfare (behavior and histology) parameters were evaluated. Consumption of different particle sizes was assessed by measuring feed particle size of refused feed. Data were analyzed as a one-way ANOVA, in a completely randomized design using PROC GLM (SAS 9.4). The results indicated that the beak morphologies examined had minimal effects on the production or welfare of the hens. Histological assessment did not show the presence of neuromas in the beak tissue, suggesting that the hens were not experiencing chronic pain from the IRBT procedure.

The impact of beak tissue sloughing and beak shape variation on the behavior and welfare of infrared beak-treated layer pullets and hens

This research examined how infrared beak treatment (IRBT), sloughing of the treated beak tissue, and the variations in beak shape that can occur post-IRBT impact the welfare and mortality of Lohmann LSL-Lite (LW) and Lohmann Brown (LB) pullets and hens. Two experiments were conducted and birds for both experiments were treated on the day of hatch. IRBT equipment settings were adjusted to create 4 specific beak shapes: shovel (SHV), step (STP), standard (STAN), and an untreated sham control (C). Experiment 1 pullets (n = 80 per strain) were reared in bioassay cages from 1 to 29 D of age (4 replicates per treatment). Data collected included time and presence of beak sloughing, pecking force, behavioral expression, and mortality. Experiment 2 pullets (n = 320 per strain) were reared in floor pens from 1 D to 18 wk of age (2 replicates per treatment) and then conventional cages from 18 to 60 wk of age (6 replicates per treatment). Data collected for Experiment 2 included behavioral expression, feather cover, comb damage, and mortality. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS® 9.4) with Tukey's test to separate means. Differences were significant when P ≤ 0.05. IRBT and sloughing had no effect on pecking force or mortality throughout rearing. The variations in post-IRBT beak shape had minor effects on behavior. During rearing, STAN pullets were more active than C pullets but STP and STAN pullets performed less exploratory pecking. During the laying period, SHV and STP hens preened more than C hens. The IRBT treatments, regardless of beak shape, reduced feather loss, comb damage, and cannibalism-related mortality during the laying period. Overall, the results indicate that LW and LB pullets and hens can cope with the change in beak shape that occurs with IRBT, and that welfare is not negatively impacted if some variation in beak shape occurs.

The effect of beak tissue sloughing and post-treatment beak shape on the productivity of infrared beak-treated layer pullets and hens

Infrared beak treatment (IRBT) results in a change in beak shape; however, it is unclear what effect variations in post-treatment beak shape have on young pullets. Additionally, the impact of sloughing of the treated beak tissue is not fully understood. Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of beak tissue sloughing and post-treatment beak shape on the productivity of infrared beak-treated Lohmann Brown (LB) and Lohmann LSL-Lite (LW) pullets and hens. Birds were treated on day of hatch and IRBT equipment settings were adjusted to create 4 specific beak shapes: shovel (SHV), step (STP), standard (STAN), and an untreated sham control (C). Experiment 1 pullets (n = 160) were housed in cages from 1 to 29 d of age and had access to water through chick founts or 360° nipple drinkers (2 replicate cages per treatment). Data collected included body weight (BW), feed intake (FI), feed efficiency (FE), and water disappearance (WD). Experiment 2 pullets (n = 640) were housed in floor pens from 1 d to 18 wk of age (2 replicate pens per treatment) then conventional cages during the laying period (6 replicate cages per treatment). Data collected included BW, FI, egg production, and egg quality. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS® 9.4) and differences were significant when P ≤ 0.05. During early life, the IRBT treatments and sloughing had minor effects on FI, FE, and BW. At 4 wk of age, STAN pullets were lighter than C pullets; however, differences were no longer apparent after this age. Pullets with STP or STAN beak shapes had lower WD than C pullets when allowed access to water via nipple drinkers but this did not result in reduced growth. Throughout the laying period, SHV hens laid more saleable eggs than C hens, with no other effects on production. Overall, variations in beak shape and sloughing of the beak tissue had minimal impacts on the productivity of LW and LB pullets and hens.

Can Non-Beak Treated Hens be Kept in Commercial Furnished Cages? Exploring the Effects of Strain and Extra Environmental Enrichment on Behaviour, Feather Cover, and Mortality

Commercial laying hens are prone to injurious pecking (IP), a common multifactorial problem. A 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design assessed the effects of breed (Lohmann Brown Classic (L) or Hyline Brown (H)), beak treatment (infra-red treated (T) or not (NT)), and environment (extra enrichment (EE) or no extra enrichment (NE)) on mortality, behaviour, feather cover, and beak shape. Hens were allocated to treatments at 16 weeks of age and data were collected every four weeks from age 19 to 71 weeks. Data were analysed in Genstat using mixed models. L hens had higher all and IP-related mortality than H hens (p < 0.003), whilst NT hens had higher mortality than T hens but only due to culling of whole cages (p < 0.001). Feather cover for L hens deteriorated more quickly with age at most body sites than H hens (age × breed × body site p < 0.001). For NT hens, feather cover was worse at most body sites (beak treatment × body site p < 0.001), and worsened more quickly with age (age × beak treatment p = 0.014) than T hens. L and NE hens performed more bird-to-bird pecking than H and EE hens, respectively (breed p = 0.015, enrichment p = 0.032). More damage to mats and ropes was caused by L and NT hens than by H and T hens, respectively (age × breed p < 0.005, beak treatment p < 0.001). Though H hens had fewer mortalities and better feather cover, breed effects may have been influenced by farm management practices, as they may have been better suited to H than L hens. Though EE hens performed less bird-to-bird pecking, the enrichments were less effective at reducing feather cover damage and mortality than expected.