Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: Effects of design on behaviour and welfare

Abstract

1. Laying hens (192 ISA Brown medium hybrids) were housed from 18 to 72 weeks as groups of 4 in conventional or experimental cages. The main area of all cages provided 675 cm2/hen. All experimental cages had perches, dust baths and nest boxes, which were of three types: litter (L), artificial turf (A) or plastic rollaway (P). These facilities provided an additional 375 to 480 cm2/hen. The nest boxes and dust baths occupied either high or low positions. Behaviour, physical condition and production of the birds were regularly recorded. 2. Mortality was low (1.6% overall) and egg production very good in all treatments. The proportion of cracked and dirty eggs was slightly (but not significantly) higher in the experimental cages. In the experimental cages 90% of eggs were laid overall in the nest boxes and 3% in the dust baths. The proportion laid in the nest boxes was lower early in the laying cycle and increased with time, reaching 99% in A. 3. The facilities were heavily used. Birds spent about 25% of day time on the perches and 10-15% in or near the nest box and dust bath. At night, the majority of birds (90 to 94%) roosted on perches, but most of the remainder were on the lips of the nest box or dust bath, fouling the interiors. 4. Pre-laying behaviour was much more settled in the experimental cages (45 min spent in the eventual laying position) than in the conventional ones (20 min) and total duration varied from 68 min in A to 87 min in P. The number of nest entries varied from 3.0 (A and P) to 4.3 (L); disturbance to sitting birds was correspondingly greater in L. 5. Dust bathing in the experimental cages generally took place during the afternoon in a single bout of about 5 min duration, whereas in the conventional cages it was brief and fragmented (3 bouts of 10 s each). The dust bath was also used for foraging behaviour (pecking and scratching). The treatments with small dust baths (A and P) caused problems for the birds. 6. Feather, foot and claw damage all tended to be less in the experimental than in the conventional cages, though only in the last case was the difference significant. Keel bone depressions appeared to be associated with perches; they were present in 43% of hens in the experimental cages but only 4% in conventional cages.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Effect of Genotype and Husbandry System on Blood Parameters, Oxidative and Native Immune Status: Welfare and Implications on Performance of Organic Laying Hens

“…The welfare of laying hens raised in commercial cages has been placed under intense scrutiny. The housing of egg-type chickens in cages is now widely considered to have a negative effect on the welfare of hens [7][8][9][10][11]. Throughout Europe, concern for the welfare of laying hens in conventional cages has prompted changes in housing systems [12].…”

Behavioural restriction.

“…However, while this interpretation may be true, the findings could perhaps equally be explained in terms of bodyrotation pre-lay being simply a habit-like 'fixed action pattern', triggered by a suitable nest but not necessarily rewarding. Consistent with this view, hens offered an enclosed nest box with a ready-made, non-mouldable Astroturf surface accept this readily as a nesting location (Appleby et al, 1993), and lay soon after entering the box (c. 40 minutes; Struelens et al, 2008), suggesting that the simple non-functional nesting movements possible on Astroturf do not frustrate the hen. Furthermore, when hens are offered a choice, substrates such as peat, which allow the creation of a nest hollow and can be manipulated, seem no more preferred than artificial turf, which does not allow this.…”

“…The provision of unsuitable nest boxes might explain why some cages furnished with nests fail to have the benefits one might expect. Barnett et al (2009), for example, found that providing a nest box did not reduce corticosteroid levels, nor enhance immunity, compared with control hens in barren cages -but only half to two-thirds of their experimental birds chose to lay their eggs in the provided nest boxes, compared with the 99-100% 'approval rating' seen in other experiments (Appleby et al, 1993;Weeks and Nicol 2006).…”

Influência do sistema de criação nos parâmetros comportamentais de duas linhagens de poedeiras submetidas a duas condições ambientais

“…Talvez o sistema de criação em cama, por proporcionar ambiente mais rico e oferecer outras opções além de comer, possa ter contribuído para esta diferença, haja vista a maior distribuição nas porcentagens de tempo gasto em outras atividades; beber -as diferenças nas porcentagens deste comportamento podem também ser explicadas, em parte, pela falta de enriquecimento do ambiente, ou seja, a gaiola é um ambiente com poucos atrativos às aves e um dos poucos, senão o único, é o bico do bebedouro tipo Nipple, que, muitas vezes, é utilizado não somente para saciar a sede das aves, mas também como uma "distração" em meio a uma condição muito propícia à ocorrência de estresse; investigar penas -por ser natural das aves, esse comportamento aparece em todas as condições ambientais e em todos os sistemas de criação, variando somente em intensidade de execução. Esse comportamento de bemestar das aves é muito importante, pois, a partir dele, as aves ou organizam suas penas e espalham o óleo proveniente da glândula uropigiana; Tabela 3 -Tempo médio, em porcentagem, em que as aves expressaram seus comportamentos na condição de estresse térmico banho de areia -comprovando o que foi verificado por Appleby et al (1993), este é um comportamento que as aves apresentam ou tendem a apresentar sob qualquer condição de criação, sendo observado até mesmo no sistema em gaiolas, onde não há espaço nem material de cama, podendo ocasionar frustração, causando estresse e gerando comportamentos fora dos padrões.O sistema em cama favoreceu a expressão e o maior período de duração deste comportamento, pois possuía uma área com cama, atraindo as aves e aumentando o período de expressão deste comportamento. Segundo Petherick et al (1995), a cama exerce um estímulo visual muito importante às aves, constituindo-se um dos principais fatores que desencadeiam os processos do comportamento de banho de areia.…”