Broiler Chicks’ Motivation for Different Wood Beddings and Amounts of Soiling

Monckton, Valerie; Staaveren, Nienke van; Harlander-Matauschek, Alexandra

doi:10.3390/ani10061039

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, a smaller proportion of turkeys than expected pushed 40% to access FP, SP, TSP and NS, although this proportion was near to the expected value to access SP and NS. Hence, these findings agree with studies performed with laying hens [25,36] and broiler chickens [37] that found that Galliformes worked harder for feed than floor substrates. Additionally, selection for more muscle and faster growth rate [7] may mean that, similar to broilers [38], turkeys could have disrupted satiety mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Are Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) Motivated to Avoid Excreta-Soiled Substrate?

Monckton

Staaveren

Baes

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The soiling of bedding on modern turkey farms combined with turkeys’ reduced ability and opportunity to perch and roost at elevation, forces them to spend most, if not all, of their time in contact with their excreta. To determine turkeys’ perspective on these conditions and the value they place on unsoiled bedding vs. soiled litter (collectively, substrates), we used twenty-four eleven-week-old turkey hens divided into six two-compartment pens. In the “home” compartment (H), we placed soiled wood shavings, while the “treatment” compartment (T) contained no substrate (NS), fresh pine and spruce wood shavings (FP), soiled pine and spruce wood shavings (SP), ammonia reductant-treated soiled pine and spruce wood shavings (TSP), or a feed treatment. One-way push-doors separated the two compartments. The door leading to T weighed an additional 0%, 20% or 40% of the turkeys’ body weight while the door to H remained unweighted. All birds were exposed to each resource and door weight combination in a systematic order. We measured the turkeys’ motivation based on the number of birds that pushed the maximum weight to access each resource, the amount of time spent in T, and the number of visits to T. Our findings show that turkeys worked harder to access feed compared to all the floor substrate treatments. Additionally, they were equally motivated to access all the substrate treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Are Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) Motivated to Avoid Excreta-Soiled Substrate?

Monckton

Staaveren

Baes

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even when regularly fed, semi-wild junglefowl foraged for 61% of the time they spent active, as well as spent 34% of their time scratching, a behavior considered to be associated with foraging 34 . Without access to a preferred substrate or environment, domestic fowl forage in feces 35,36 , suggesting that this behavior is highly motivated. Commercial broilers can be deprived of all three of these high-motivation behaviors; they do not have access to perches or proper substrate to dustbathe and forage in.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental complexity positively impacts affective states of broiler chickens

Anderson

Campbell

Crump

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective state can bias an animal’s judgement. Animals in positive affective states can interpret ambiguous cues more positively (“optimistically”) than animals in negative affective states. Thus, judgement bias tests can determine an animal’s affective state through their responses to ambiguous cues. We tested the effects of environmental complexity and stocking density on affective states of broiler chickens through a multimodal judgement bias test. Broilers were trained to approach reinforced locations signaled by one color and not to approach unreinforced locations signaled by a different color. Trained birds were tested for latencies to approach three ambiguous cues of intermediate color and location. Broilers discriminated between cues, with shorter latencies to approach ambiguous cues closest to the reinforced cue than cues closest to the unreinforced cue, validating the use of the test in this context. Broilers housed in high-complexity pens approached ambiguous cues faster than birds in low-complexity pens–an optimistic judgement bias, suggesting the former were in a more positive affective state. Broilers from high-density pens tended to approach all cues faster than birds from low-density pens, possibly because resource competition in their home pen increased food motivation. Overall, our study suggests that environmental complexity improves broilers’ affective states, implying animal welfare benefits of environmental enrichment.

show abstract

“…The effect of substrates on the behavior and preferences of other commercially farmed Galliformes such as pheasants, guinea fowl, Japanese quail, bobwhite quail, and turkeys is therefore unknown. Nevertheless, the stimulating and motivating qualities of substrates for dustbathing, pecking, and foraging is expected to be similar, if not the same, for other commercially relevant Galliformes (36,(52)(53)(54).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floor Substrate Preferences of Chickens: A Meta-Analysis

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental enrichment promotes sensory and motor stimulation for species-typical behaviors, which in turn enhance animal well-being. For farmed Galliformes, housing systems often limit enrichment to bedding and litter, that simultaneously act as material for dustbathing and foraging. Therefore, this meta-analysis sought to systematically review and synthesize the substrate preference test literature for Galliformes. Data based on the following four welfare-related behaviors were extracted for analysis: (1) dustbathing, (2) foraging, (3) pecking, and (4) time spent on a given substrate. Literature searches in CAB Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar yielded 239 articles, and hand searching yielded an additional five articles. Ten publications that used different chicken strains as test subjects, met the criteria to be included in the systematic review. The effects of bedding type, the number of days birds had access to tested substrates, enclosure area, and substrate area, on the examined behaviors were determined. We found that birds preferred dustbathing in sand and peat moss more than on any other substrates. The bedding type, size of the enclosure, and size of the substrate area affected the amount of time that birds spent on the tested substrates. When provided the choice between bedding materials, birds spent more time on sand or peat moss than on any other substrate or on no substrate. Notably, most studies did not report relevant physical or chemical characteristics of substrate that may influence birds' preferences, such as grain size, moisture content and the level of soiling. Focusing future studies on identifying substrate characteristics that influence preferences can lead to the discovery of new, practical, enriching beddings that can be easily implemented in housing systems for Galliformes.

show abstract

Broiler Chicks’ Motivation for Different Wood Beddings and Amounts of Soiling

Cited by 11 publications

References 60 publications

Are Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) Motivated to Avoid Excreta-Soiled Substrate?

Are Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) Motivated to Avoid Excreta-Soiled Substrate?

Environmental complexity positively impacts affective states of broiler chickens

Floor Substrate Preferences of Chickens: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About