Reaction of laying hens to humans in the home or a novel environment

Graml, Christine; Niebuhr, Knut; Waiblinger, Susanne

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.10.004

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fear is an adaptive response, but it can also be undesirable if it results in extreme distress or injury or if it is chronic (Jones, 1996). Several studies have been conducted to compare levels of fear in different housing systems as an indicator of hen welfare in those systems (Hansen et al, 1993;Colson et al, 2005;Campo et al, 2008;Graml et al, 2008). However, such studies are very difficult to interpret and extrapolate to commercial housing conditions.…”

Section: Welfare Concerns During Depopulation Of Specific Housing Sysmentioning

confidence: 95%

Hen welfare in different housing systems

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Egg production systems have become subject to heightened levels of scrutiny. Multiple factors such as disease, skeletal and foot health, pest and parasite load, behavior, stress, affective states, nutrition, and genetics influence the level of welfare hens experience. Although the need to evaluate the influence of these factors on welfare is recognized, research is still in the early stages. We compared conventional cages, furnished cages, noncage systems, and outdoor systems. Specific attributes of each system are shown to affect welfare, and systems that have similar attributes are affected similarly. For instance, environments in which hens are exposed to litter and soil, such as noncage and outdoor systems, provide a greater opportunity for disease and parasites. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to clean, and the larger the group size, the more easily disease and parasites are able to spread. Environments such as conventional cages, which limit movement, can lead to osteoporosis, but environments that have increased complexity, such as noncage systems, expose hens to an increased incidence of bone fractures. More space allows for hens to perform a greater repertoire of behaviors, although some deleterious behaviors such as cannibalism and piling, which results in smothering, can occur in large groups. Less is understood about the stress that each system imposes on the hen, but it appears that each system has its unique challenges. Selective breeding for desired traits such as improved bone strength and decreased feather pecking and cannibalism may help to improve welfare. It appears that no single housing system is ideal from a hen welfare perspective. Although environmental complexity increases behavioral opportunities, it also introduces difficulties in terms of disease and pest control. In addition, environmental complexity can create opportunities for the hens to express behaviors that may be detrimental to their welfare. As a result, any attempt to evaluate the sustainability of a switch to an alternative housing system requires careful consideration of the merits and shortcomings of each housing system.

show abstract

Section: Welfare Concerns During Depopulation Of Specific Housing Sysmentioning

confidence: 95%

Hen welfare in different housing systems

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 10 shows hen avoidance distance from the RMH-test at 36 week of age. There was no significant difference in the median (Graml et al, 2008) …”

Section: Feather Conditionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Comparative Evaluation of Light-emitting Diode (LED) vs. Fluorescent (FL) Lighting in Commercial Aviary Hen Houses

Long¹,

Zhao²,

Wang³

et al. 2014

2014 ASABE Annual International Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this ongoing study, indoor environment, production performance, egg quality, and some welfare aspects of laying hens in two commercial aviary houses installed with light-emitting diode (LED) lights are compared with those in two aviary houses of similar hen age with fluorescent (FL) lights. To date the study (covering 18 -44 weeks of hen age) shows the following preliminary results. The daily mean temperature and relative humidity (RH) in all houses were generally maintained within 20-25°C and 50-80%, respectively. The holders of LED and FL light bulbs had similar temperatures, approximately 40°C. There were no significant differences in hen production performance parameters between the LED and FL houses. Egg weight, yolk weight, yolk percentage and yolk color factor increased as hen age increased. The Haugh unit (HU) values of fresh eggs in all four houses at 27 and 40 weeks of age were 90 or higher, i.e., much greater than the "AA grade" egg threshold of 72.

show abstract

“…An inanimate model owl was presented to some of the hens in the current study to assess if this may be a better threat than an alarm call playback but no visible reaction from the hens could be detected (these hens were excluded from the subsequent auditory playback testing). Ultimately individual hen responses may depend on where they are tested (Graml et al, 2008) and the decision for individual testing in isolation or not could be factored into the research question of interest. Similarly, a different positive stimulus such as a foraging/dust bathing substrate could be used to avoid any confounds of appetite on bird responses to food.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Application of open field, tonic immobility, and attention bias tests to hens with different ranging patterns (v0.1)"

Gebhardt-Henrich¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of negative affective states is a key component of animal welfare research. In laying hens, excessive fearfulness results in reduced production and increased sensitivity to stress. Fearfulness can be defined as a response to a known threat, but anxiety is a response to an unknown threat and may have similar negative consequences. The open field test and tonic immobility test are commonly applied to measure fearfulness in laying hens. An attention bias test that measured individual hen's responses to playback of a conspecific alarm call in the presence of food was recently pharmacologically validated using an anxiogenic drug but was confounded by the hen's typical motionless response in a novel environment. The current study used 56-week old free-range layers to further assess the validity of an attention bias test to differentiate ranging treatment groups in comparison with the open field and tonic immobility tests. The selected hens varied in their range use patterns as tracked by radio-frequency identification technology. 'Indoor' hens did not access the range and 'outdoor' hens ranged daily; previous research has confirmed higher fearfulness in hens that remain indoors. The tonic immobility test did not differentiate ranging groups (P = 0.34), but indoor birds were slower to first step and stepped less (P = 0.02) in the open field test (P = 0.03). The attention bias test occurred in an isolated wooden box using a conspecific alarm call playback (a threat) and mixed grain (a positive stimulus). The behavioural response of latency to resume eating following playback of the alarm call was measured to differentiate the anxiety states of the indoor and outdoor ranging birds. Before the attention bias test could occur, birds had to be habituated to the test box across three separate 5 minute sessions to increase the willingness to feed within the novel test environment. All birds ate faster across time (P < 0.001) but the indoor birds were slower to eat than the outdoor birds (P < 0.001). In this study, the latency to resume eating following an alarm call was determined to be a poor measure for highly anxious birds as they failed to eat at all. Forty-six percent of indoor hens were excluded for not eating across the 5-minute test. Of the birds that did eat, only

show abstract

Reaction of laying hens to humans in the home or a novel environment

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Hen welfare in different housing systems

Hen welfare in different housing systems

Comparative Evaluation of Light-emitting Diode (LED) vs. Fluorescent (FL) Lighting in Commercial Aviary Hen Houses

Peer Review #1 of "Application of open field, tonic immobility, and attention bias tests to hens with different ranging patterns (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About