Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33518091›Full record

SynthesisPoultry science2021

A meta-analysis on the effect of environmental enrichment on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens.

Nienke van Staaveren, Jennifer Ellis, Christine F Baes, Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Poultry science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Welfare of ducks, geese and quail on farm.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nienke van StaaverenCentre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1; The Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1. Electronic address: nvanstaa@uoguelph.ca.
Jennifer EllisCentre for Nutrition Modelling, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
Christine F BaesCentre for the Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1; Institute of Genetics, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 3001.
Alexandra Harlander-MatauschekThe Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feather pecking (FP) is a significant issue in laying hens, which impacts societal acceptance of poultry farming, farm productivity, and bird welfare. Environmental enrichment-modifications of the environment to stimulate biological functioning and psychological well-being of animals-is one management strategy farmers can use to mitigate FP. However, inconsistent results of environmental enrichment are reported across studies questioning its value. A meta-analysis was used to determine the effect of environmental enrichment on FP and feather damage (FD) in laying hens. A systematic review of published literature from 4 databases resulted in 23 publications that met inclusion criteria. Feather pecking and FD outcomes were standardized between studies using different scoring systems. Driving variables included the presence of enrichment, production period when the enrichment started, housing type, beak trimming, bird strain, and age of the birds when FP and FD was measured. Considering the experiment as a random effect, linear mixed model analysis was used in a 2-step approach, whereby variables with a P < 0.30 in univariate analysis were included within the subsequent multivariate analysis. Variables with P < 0.05 in the multivariate analysis were retained in the final models. Model selection and evaluation were based on corrected Akaike information criteria, the root mean square prediction errors, and concordance correlation coefficients. A higher frequency of FP was observed in flocks lacking enrichment (P < 0.001), with increased age (P = 0.001), and in cage housing systems (P = 0.002). Similarly, FD increased in flocks lacking enrichment (P = 0.018), with increased age (P < 0.001), in the absence of beak trimming (P = 0.001) and in cage housing systems (P = 0.042). This meta-analysis confirmed the effectiveness of environmental enrichment in reducing FP and FD. Nevertheless, the modest ability of enrichment to dampen FD (-0.14 ± 0.06, 1-4 scale) suggests that other management strategies must be implemented in conjunction with environmental enrichment to successfully manage FP and resulting FD.

Indexed as

FeathersHousing, AnimalAnimalsAnimal WelfareBehavior, AnimalChickensFemaleModels, Theoreticalenrichmenthousinginjurious peckingplumagepoultry

Identifiers

PMID33518091
PMCPMC7858155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.