Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42096908›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2026

Research note: Gentle versus severe feather pecking: effects of synbiotic feed supplementation under chronic stress in laying hens.

Nienke van Staaveren, Emily M Leishman, Gillian Hughes, Anna Lea Nicklas, Paul Forsythe, Alexandra Harlander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Nienke van StaaverenDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Emily M LeishmanDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Gillian HughesDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Anna Lea NicklasDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Paul ForsytheFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Alexandra HarlanderDepartment of Animal Biosciences, Campbell Center for the Study of Animal Welfare, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: aharland@uoguelph.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feather pecking in laying hens is a complex behavior influenced by stress and the gut microbiota, with severe feather pecking (SFP) posing a major welfare concern and gentle feather pecking (GFP) representing a non-injurious, socially mediated behavior. This study investigated the effects of a commercial synbiotic supplement on SFP, GFP, and feather damage (FD) in hens exposed to chronic social and physical stressors. A total of 394 White Leghorn hens from high, low, and unselected feather pecking lines were housed in twelve floor pens. Pens received either synbiotic-supplemented or control feed, and within each feed treatment half of the pens were exposed to stressors including social mixing, perch removal, and litter reduction over a four-week period. Behavioral observations and plumage assessments were conducted before and after stress exposure. Synbiotic supplementation did not significantly affect SFP or FD scores. However, stressors alone doubled SFP rates and tripled the likelihood of severe FD. GFP was significantly influenced by an interaction between feed and stress treatments; however post hoc comparisons indicated a trend toward higher GFP in stressed synbiotic-fed hens compared with their non-stressed counterparts, with no differences observed in control birds. These findings indicate that synbiotic supplementation via feed did not mitigate stress-induced SFP or FD, while subtle differences in GFP expression highlight the sensitivity of non-injurious pecking behaviors to behavioral context under stress. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of considering social and environmental context when evaluating microbiota-targeted interventions for laying hen behavior.

Indexed as

AggressionBehavior, AnimalChickensFeathersStress, PhysiologicalSynbioticsAnimal FeedAnimalsDietDietary SupplementsFemaleRandom AllocationSocial BehaviorFructooligosaccharidesPrebioticsProbioticsSocial bufferingStress resilience

Identifiers

PMID42096908
PMCPMC13157132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.