Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:07:23.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural Responses of Laying Hens to Carriage on Horizontal and Inclined Conveyors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G B Scott  and
P Moran
G B Scott
Affiliation:
Poultry Department, Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, UK
P Moran
Affiliation:
Agricultural Food Research Council, Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe
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.

Groups of end-of-lay (spent) hens were subjected to three different treatments on a short flat-belt conveyor. Observations of bird behaviour indicated that the incidences of wing flapping, loss of balance and alarm calling significantly increased when birds were conveyed up and down slopes in comparison to being conveyed horizontally (P<0.01). Birds were significantly more hesitant when approaching the incline compared to the horizontal (P<0.001). However, differences in behavioural responses were not reflected in times spent in tonic immobility or open-field tests. There were no significant differences for the three treatments. It is possible that human contact, before and after conveying, was a more significant fear stimulus than the treatment itself.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourconveyorsfearhandlinghensinjuryopen-fieldpoultrytonic immobility
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , November 1992 , pp. 269 - 277
Copyright
© 1992 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Duncan, I J H, SIee, G S, Kettlewell, P, Berry, P, Carlisle, A J 1986 Comparison of the stressfulness of harvesting broiler chickens by machine and by hand. British Poultry Science 27: 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, G G 1979 Tonic immobility as a measure of fear in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 27: 316–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G, Wilkins, L J 1989 Broken bones in domestic fowl: handling and processing damage in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1982 Effect of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behavior and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychobiology 15: 105–111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B 1986 The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42: 82–96Google Scholar
Jones, R B, Faure, J M 1982 Open-field behavior of male and female domestic chicks as a function of housing conditions, test situation and novelty. Biology of Behavior 7: 17–25Google Scholar
Reed, M J 1974 Mechanical harvesting of broiler chickens. Transactions, American Society of Agricultural Engineers 17: 74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, S M, Scott, G B, Moran, P (in press) The aversiveness of mechanical conveying to laying hens. British Poultry ScienceGoogle Scholar
Scott, G B, Moran, P (in press) Fear levels in laying hens carried by hand and by mechanical conveyors. Applied Animal Behaviour ScienceGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S 1956 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. International student edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc: New YorkGoogle Scholar