Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:23:52.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behaviour of free-range laying hens in distinct outdoor environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

H Larsen ,
G Cronin ,
CL Smith ,
P Hemsworth  and
J-L Rault
H Larsen
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
G Cronin
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Rd, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
CL Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, 209 Culloden Rd, Marsfield, NSW 2109, Australia
P Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
J-L Rault*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The outdoor range in free-range, egg-production systems contains features that aim to promote the performance of natural behaviours. It is unclear what features of the range laying hens prefer and how these influence hen behaviour. We hypothesised that hens would demonstrate a preference for features of the environment in which their ancestor evolved, such as relatively dense vegetation, within the outdoor range and that the behavioural time budget of hens will differ between distinct environments. Characteristics of the outdoor range in one free-range commercial egg farm were mapped and four distinct environments (‘locations’) were identified based on ground substrate and cover (Wattle Tree, Gum Tree, Bare Earth and Sapling). The number of hens accessing each location and behavioural time budget of these hens was recorded over a three-week period during the southern hemisphere summer (January-February). Hens showed a clear preference for the Wattle Tree and Gum Tree locations; however, a significant interaction between location and time of day suggested that the hens’ preference for different locations changed throughout the day. The most common behaviours displayed by hens were foraging, preening, locomotion, resting and vigilance, and most behaviours were influenced by the interaction between location and time of day. Overall, a wider variety of behaviours were performed in the highly preferred environments, but not all behaviours were performed equally within each environment throughout the day. Understanding what features hens prefer in the outdoor range and how this influences the performance of natural behaviours is important in promoting the welfare of hens in free-range production.

Keywords

animal welfarelaying hennatural behaviourpreferencerangeshelter
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 2017 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2015 Climate data online. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/Google Scholar
Bestman, M, Wagenaar, JP and Nauta, W 2002 Shelter in poultry outdoor runs. Proceedings of the 14th IFOAM Organic World Congress pp 78. 21-24 August 2002, Victoria, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M, Spruijt, B and Metz, J 1999 Overall animal welfare assessment reviewed Part 1: Is it possible? Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47: 279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, A and Joret, AD 2012 Laying hens go undercover to improve production. Veterinary Record 170: 228. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.100503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chielo, LI, Pike, T and Cooper, J 2016 Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals (Basel) 6: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6050028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collias, EC and Collias, NE 1996 Social organization of a red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, population related to evolution theory. Animal Behaviour 51: 1337–1354. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collias, NE and Collias, EC 1967 A field study of the red jungle fowl in North-Central India. The Condor 69: 360–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collias, NE and Saichuae, P 1967 Ecology of the red jungle fowl in Thailand and Malaya with reference to the origin of domestication. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 22: 189–209Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1989 Time budgets in red junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90126-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004 Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: S3–S8Google Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1998 Behaviour and behavioral needs. Poultry Science 77: 1766–1772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1766CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fumihito, A, Miyake, T, Sumi, S, Takada, M, Ohno, S and Kondo, N 1994 One subspecies of the red junglefowl (Gallus gal-lus gallus) suffices as the matriarchic ancestor of all domestic breeds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 91: 12505–12509. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.26.12505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fumihito, A, Miyake, T, Takada, M, Shingu, R, Endo, T, Gojobori, T, Kondo, N and Ohno, S 1996 Monophyletic origin and unique dispersal patterns of domestic fowls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 6792–6795. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.13.6792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilani, AM, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2014 Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens. British Poultry Science 55: 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.889279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, J and Jensen, P 2004 Behavioural and morphologi-cal variation between captive populations of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus): possible implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 122: 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio-con.2004.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT and Hermansen, JE 2006 Welfare and productivity of laying hens in commercial organic egg production systems in Denmark. Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT, Kjaer, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005 Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660400023813CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P 2006 Domestication: from behaviour to genes and back again. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97: 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RA 1963 Habitat preference and behavior of breeding jungle fowl in central western Thailand. The Wilson Bulletin 75: 270–272Google Scholar
Larsen, H, Cronin, GM, Hemsworth, PH, Smith, C and Rault, J-L 2015 What are hens looking for? Preference testing for structural elements in free-range chickens. Proceedings of the International Ethological Conference pp 178. 9-14 August 2015, Cairns, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Larsen, H and Rault, J-L 2014 Go outside and play? Behavioural time budget of free-range laying hens in a natural shrub structure. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium pp 113–116.16-19 February 2014, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Martin, P, Bateson, PPG and Bateson, P 1993 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, G, Parer, IP and Foenander, F 1969 The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour Monographs 2: 125–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0066-1856(69)80003-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, D 1985 Animal Behaviour. Longman Scientific and Technical: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S, Boissy, A, Bouix, J, Faure, J-M, Fisher, AD, Hinch, GN, Jensen, P, Neindre, PL, Mormede, P, Prunet, P, Vandeputte, M and Beaumont, C 2005 Genetics of adaptation and domestication in livestock. Livestock Production Science 93: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagle, TAD and Glatz, PC 2012 Free range hens use the range more when the outdoor environment is enriched. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25: 584–591. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.11051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ 1987 Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80063-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Pötzsch, C, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003 Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44: 515–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660310001616255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, EO 1984 Behavioural aspects of animal domestication. Quarterly Review of Biology 1: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/413673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, EO 1999 Behavioural development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00087-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, EO 2002 Animal Domestication and Behavior. CABI: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995977.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainy, HJ, Zuberbühler, K and Slater, PJB 2004 Hornbills can distinguish between primate alarm calls. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271: 755. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rault, J-L, van de Wouw, A and Hemsworth, P 2013 Fly the coop! Vertical structures influence the distribution and behaviour of laying hens in an outdoor range. The Journal of the Australian Veterinary Association 91: 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/avj.12099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G 1996 Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Animal Behaviour 51: 1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C 1980 Diurnal feeding patterns in domestic fowls: a review. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(80)90095-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C, Wood-Gush, D and Duncan, I 1978 Feeding behav-iour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(78)90090-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawai, H, Kim, HL, Kuno, K, Suzuki, S, Gotoh, H, Takada, M, Takahata, N, Satta, Y and Akishinonomiya, F 2010 The ori-gin and genetic variation of domestic chickens with special refer-ence to junglefowls Gallus g. gallus and G. varius. PLoS ONE 5: e10639https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Liere, DW 1992 The significance of fowls’ bathing in dust. Animal Welfare 1: 187–202Google Scholar
Verhoeven, KJ, Simonsen, KL and McIntyre, LM 2005 Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 108: 643–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13727.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Baumgartner, J, Kiley-Worthington, M and Niebuhr, K 2004 Applied ethology: the basis for improved animal welfare in organic farming. In: Vaarst, M, Roderick, S, Lund, V and Lockeretz, W (eds) Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture pp 117–161. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996684.0117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006 Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 62:296–307. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D 1959 Time-lapse photography: a technique for studying diurnal rhythms. Physiological Zoology 32: 272–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.32.4.30155404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2003 Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free-range system. British Poultry Science 44: 533–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660310001616264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2008 Factors involved in the improve-ment of the use of hen runs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114:395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuberbühler, K 2000 Interspecies semantic communication in two forest primates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 267: 713–718. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed