Exploring perch provision options for commercial broiler chickens

Abstract

Two related experiments involving broiler chickens are presented. Experiment 1 evaluated the use of six perch types: (1) an A-frame design (incorporating a platform and ramps), (2) a 'flat top' ramp, (3) a curved ramp, (4) a suspended bar, (5) a fixed bar and (6) a suspended platform. Two of each perch type was provided in one commercial house on each of two farms over two 6-week production cycles. Each perch was videoed for a 24 hour period in weeks 1-6 of cycle 1, and weeks 1-5 of cycle 2. Scan sampling was used to assign an occupancy score to different perch components (platform, bar and ramp, where appropriate), and an overall weighted occupancy score also calculated. Counts were made of perching and failed perching attempts following selected scans in cycle 1. There were significantly higher occupancy scores for platform than for bar or ramp components, and this was apparent across the production cycle. This resulted in a higher overall weighted occupancy score for suspended platforms. The percentage of failed perching attempts was significantly greater with fixed and suspended bar perches than with the curved ramp. Three treatments were assessed in Experiment 2: (1) provision of six suspended platform perches (P), (2) provision of six suspended platform perches and four peat-filled dust baths (PD), and (3) control treatment with no platform perches or dust baths. Treatments were applied in one of three houses on each of two farms, and replicated over three cycles. Two perches in each of the P and PD treatments were videoed for a 25 min period in weeks 3, 4 and 5, and number of birds using the perches recorded. The severity of angular leg deformities, hock burn and pododermatitis lesions, and walking ability were scored in weeks 3, 4 and 5, and prevalence of pododermatitis and hock burn recorded at slaughter. Litter moisture and production-related measures were also taken. On average, 26 birds (12.6 birds/m 2) occupied the perches, and this was not affected by provision of dust baths or age. Treatment did not significantly affect any of the measures taken. It is concluded that broilers prefer to perch on platforms rather than bars or ramps, and thus that platforms better cater for an important behavioural need. However, provision of platform perches, even in combination with dust baths, did not improve leg health, and future research should investigate greater levels of provision of these enrichments.

Play behaviour, fear responses and activity levels in commercial broiler chickens provided with preferred environmental enrichments

“…There was also no effect of treatment on broiler activity levels in unenriched areas. Measures of leg health were also taken during this study and have been published elsewhere (Bailie et al, 2018); these measures were similarly unaffected by treatment. This indicates that any differences in play behaviour were unlikely to be related to physical ability in this study.…”

“…These systems typically provide broilers with a combination of natural light, single-bar perches and/or straw bales. However, straw bales are primarily used by broilers as resting areas (Kells et al, 2001) and traditional bar perches are poorly used (Bailie et al, 2018). Recent research has found that broilers show a preference for platform perch designs (Bailie et al, 2018), and that a dustbathing substrate can more successfully stimulate active foraging and dustbathing behaviours than straw bales (Baxter et al, 2017).…”

“…However, straw bales are primarily used by broilers as resting areas (Kells et al, 2001) and traditional bar perches are poorly used (Bailie et al, 2018). Recent research has found that broilers show a preference for platform perch designs (Bailie et al, 2018), and that a dustbathing substrate can more successfully stimulate active foraging and dustbathing behaviours than straw bales (Baxter et al, 2017). One aim of this experiment was to assess the effects of these preferred enrichments on broiler behaviour in a commercial house, and whether the presence of perches and/or dust baths would result in improved activity levels.…”

Literature update on effective environmental enrichment and light provision in broiler chickens

“…Effective environmental enrichment stimulates natural behaviour, can reduce negative feelings such as anxiety, and contributes to experiencing positive emotions (Riber, et al, 2018) and thus potentially contributes to broiler chickens' welfare. Although much research is currently being done on effective environmental enrichment for broiler chickens, the majority of previous and current research focused on regular, fast-growing breeds (Bailie, et al, 2013;Bailie, et al, 2018a;Bailie, et al, 2018b;Bailie and O'Connell, 2014;Baxter, et al, 2018b;De Jong and Gunnink, 2019;Riber, et al, 2018). A one-to-one translation of effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and other welfare indicators of fast-growing broiler chickens into slow-growing breeds is not possible, because the behavioural needs of slow-growing breeds may differ, and they are usually much more active and have a different time budget than fast-growing broiler chickens (Bokkers and Koene, 2003;Rothschild, et al, 2019).…”

The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production

“…As a way of including positive welfare criteria, assessment should extend to the measurement of environmental enrichment and behavioural expressions of the positive Bemotions^of animals, including: play, interaction with enrichment (e.g. perches), exploration, affiliative behaviour, self-grooming, and vocalisations (Bailie et al 2018;Fontana et al 2015;Riber et al 2018). Unfortunately, research is still needed in this area of animal welfare and there are currently no feasible measures indicative of positive welfare that would easily be included in a large-scale S-LCA alongside the negative welfare indicators included in this study.…”