Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:48:13.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Enrichment for Laying Hens - Spherical Objects in the Feed Trough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C M Sherwin
C M Sherwin*
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Bristol, Langford House, Bristol BS18 7DU, UK
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 welfare of caged laying hens could be improved by placing objects in the feed trough. Such objects might (a) simulate general ground-litter thus promoting more normal foraging activity and (b) give hens the opportunity to work ‘for feed - a behaviour usually thwarted in conventional cages. Spherical objects with various characteristics were placed in the feed trough of a tier of caged laying hens (n = 16). The hens pecked frequently at the objects, moving them to the trough space of adjacent cages. The mean proportion of hen heads over the trough containing these objects was significantly greater than before the objects were present (35.3 cf 32.9%) and significantly greater than the proportion of heads over a similar trough containing no objects (33.6%). Thirty days later, the mean proportions were still significantly different (33.5 cf 31.0%) showing that there was little habituation. Daily manual scattering of the objects increased the distance they were subsequently moved by the hens (23.0 cf 19.3 cm/day) indicating increased pecking activity. In a second study 12 hens were given a choice of feeding from troughs containing 0, 12 or 36 spherical objects. There was no overall preference to feed from any of the troughs. All the hens fed from troughs containing the objects, possibly indicating that the opportunity to move the objects and forage or work for feed was desired on occasions. Brightly coloured spherical objects are considered to be a promising method of successful environmental enrichment for caged laying hens. Their use to improve the welfare of caged laying hens appears to be practical and reasonably inexpensive.

Keywords

animal welfarelaying hensenvironmental enrichmentforaging
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 41 - 51
Copyright
© 1995 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Blokhuis, H J 1986 Feather pecking in poultry: its relation with ground-pecking. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, H J and van der Haar, J W 1992 Effects of pecking incentives during rearing on feather pecking of laying hens. British Poultry Science 33: 17–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braastad, B O 1985 Effects of group size in rearing cages on plumage, feed consumption and growth. In: Wegner, R H (ed) Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 322–324. World Poultry Science Association: CelleGoogle Scholar
Braastad, B O 1990 Effects on behaviour and plumage of a key-stimuli floor and a perch in triple cages for laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 127–139Google Scholar
Broom, D M 1969 Effects of visual complexity during rearing on chicks’ reactions to environmental change. Animal Behaviour 17: 773–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candland, D K, Nagy, Z M and Conklyn, D H 1963 Emotional behavior in the domestic chicken (White Leghorn) as a function of age and developmental environment. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 56: 1069–1073CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M 1989 Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Hughes, B O 1972 Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls. Animal Behaviour 20: 775–777Google ScholarPubMed
Faure, J M 1991 Rearing conditions and needs for space and litter in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 111–117Google Scholar
Gvaryahu, G, Cunningham, D L, van Tienhoven, A and Mench, J A 1988 Environmental enrichment in laying hens. In: 26th Annual Convention of The World’s Poultry Science Association: Israel p 66Google Scholar
Gvaryahu, G, Cunningham, D L and van Tienhoven, A 1989 Filial imprinting, environmental enrichment and music application effects on behavior and performance of meat strain chicks. Poultry Science 68: 211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gvaryahu, G, van Tienhoven, A, Cunningham, D L, Groosman, E, Terdman, M, Shemesh, Y, Bar-Nir, A, Shoshani, E and Yardeni, Z 1990 The effect of environmental enrichment on egg-layers - final results of six experiments. In: 28th Annual Convention of The World’s Poultry Science Association: Israel p 75Google Scholar
Hothersall, D, Huey, D and Thatcher, K 1973 The preference of rats for free or response-produced food. Animal Learning and Behaviour 1: 241–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglis, I R and Ferguson, N J K 1986 Starlings search for food rather than eat freely-available, identical food. Animal Behaviour 34: 614–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1982 Effects of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behavior and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychology 15: 105–111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B, Harvey, S, Hughes, B O and Chadwick, A 1980 Growth and the plasma concentration of growth hormone and prolactin in chicks (Gallus domesticus): effects of environmental enrichment, sex and strain. British Poultry Science 21: 457–462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B, Mills, A D and Faure, J M 1991 Genetic and experiential manipulation of fear-related behavior in Japanese quail chicks (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 15–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mench, J A, Shea, M M and Kreger, M 1991 Feed restriction and the welfare of poultry. In: Appleby, M C, Horrell, R I, Petherick, J C and Rutter, S M (eds) Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and Future pp 134–135. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Neuringer, A J 1969 Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science 166: 399–401Google ScholarPubMed
Norgaard-Nielsen, G 1989 The effect of access to straw in baskets on feather pecking in laying hens. Faure J M and Mills A D (eds) Proceedings of the Third European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 269–271. World Poultry Science Association: ToursGoogle Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G 1991 Reducing feather pecking in laying hens by behavioural methods. In: Appleby M C, Horrell R I, Petherick J C and Rutter S M (eds) Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and Future p 79. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1991 The preference of hens for pecking simple objects of different colours. In: Appleby, M C, Horrell, R I, Petherick, J C and Rutter, S M (eds) Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and Future pp 155–156. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1993 The pecking behaviour of laying hens provided with a simple motorised environmental enrichment device. British Poultry Science 34: 235–240Google Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Nicol, C J 1992 The behaviour and production of laying hens in three prototypes of cages incorporating nests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 35: 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R R and Rohlf, F J 1981 Biometry, 2nd edition. W H Freeman & Company: New York.Google Scholar
Tind, E 1985 Feather loss: the effects of abrasion. In: Wegner, R H (ed) Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 190–199. World Poultry Science Association: CelleGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, K S, Kruijt, J P and Hogan, J A 1993 Feather pecking and chronic fear in groups of Red Junglefowl: their relations to dustbathing, rearing environment and social status. Animal Behaviour 45: 1127–1140Google Scholar