Daytime occupancy of resources and flooring types by 4 laying hen strains in a commercial-style aviary

Providing elevated structures in the pullet rearing environment affects behavior during initial acclimation to a layer aviary

Spatial abilities of hens are particularly sensitive to development during early life. Experiences in pullet housing may have lasting consequences on adult hens' movements in cage-free environments. We tested whether opportunities to access elevated spaces during rearing improved hens' use of a multitiered aviary. Female Dekalb White pullets were reared in either floor pens (FL), single-tiered aviaries (ST), or 2-tiered aviaries (TT; n = 5 pens/environment) through 16 wk of age. Rearing structures were replaced with identical multitiered aviaries at 17 wk. The distribution of the flock within the aviary and the vertical transitions of 10 focal hens/pen across the aviary were determined from videos recorded during their first (D1) and seventh (D7) day of aviary access, as well as at 19, 23, and 27 wk of age. Prevalence of floor eggs was recorded weekly from 17 to 28 wk of age. On D1, more ST and TT hens utilized the aviary during the daytime (P = 0.0077), made more vertical transitions when searching for a roosting spot in the evening (P = 0.0021), and maintained a consistent distance traveled during transitions compared to FL hens (P = 0.02). These differences disappeared by D7, except that ST and TT hens continued to roost on the highest perches of the aviary more (P < 0.0001) than FL hens through 27 wk of age. FL hens laid more floor eggs than ST and TT hens for the first 2 wk of lay (P < 0.0001). The majority (97.9%) of vertical transitions was controlled. Uncontrolled transitions were highest at D1 and decreased by D7 (P = 0.0009) and were not affected by rearing (P = 0.33). The results suggest that hens reared with minimal height are hesitant to use the laying hen aviaries when they are first transferred. They acclimate within 1 to 2 wk, but continue to roost less in the highest accessible level.

A wing-assisted incline running exercise regime during rearing increases initial flight velocity during descent in adult white- and brown-feathered laying hens

Domestic laying hens rely primarily on their hindlimbs for terrestrial locomotion. Although they perform flapping flight, they appear to use maximal power during descent and thus may lack control for maneuvering and avoiding injuries on landing. This in turn may result in injury in open rearing systems. Wing-assisted incline running (WAIR) requires a bird to use its wings to assist the hindlimbs during climbing of an incline, and training in WAIR may therefore provide a useful method to increase a hen's power reserve and control for flight. We subjected hens to an exercise regimen involving inclines to induce WAIR for 16 wk during rearing. We then measured wing and body kinematics during aerial descent from a 155 cm platform. We hypothesized that birds reared with exercise would be better able to modulate their wing and body kinematics for making slower, more-controlled descent and landing. Brown-feathered birds exhibited greater wing beat frequencies than white-feathered birds, which is consistent with the higher wing loading of brown-feathered birds and WAIR-trained birds exhibited greater initial flight velocities compared to control birds. This may indicate that WAIR training provided an improved capacity to modulate flight velocity and strengthen the leg muscles. Providing incline exercises during rearing may therefore improve welfare for adult laying hens as greater initial flight velocity should reduce the power required for supporting body weight in the air and allow a hen to direct her excess power toward maneuvering.

Space use and navigation ability of hens at housing in the aviary for the laying phase: effect of enrichment with additional perches and genotype

The present study tested the hypothesis that increased availability of perches could favor the adaptation and navigation ability of pullets of different genotypes at housing in a new aviary system for the laying phase. To this purpose, 900 Lohmann White-LSL and 900 Hy-line Brown were randomly allocated at 17 wk of age in 8 pens of an experimental aviary, according to a bifactorial arrangement with 2 genotypes (Brown vs. White) × 2 types of pens (enriched or not enriched with additional perches besides those of the aviary). Data collected between 17 and 20 wk of age showed that the enrichment with additional perches decreased the use of the aviary perches while the rate of successful landings/take-offs was unaffected. As for the effect of genotype, during the night a lower rate of hens on the floor (0.15 vs. 6.63%) and a higher rate of hens on the additional perches (2.47 vs. 0.98%) was found in White compared to Brown hens (P < 0.001); the former hens also used the third tiers for sleeping on the aviary uppermost perches (P < 0.001). During the day, White hens used more the third tier (32.8 vs. 15.6%; P < 0.001) and the additional perches (3.88 vs. 0.91%; P < 0.01) compared to Brown hens, while they stood less on the floor (18.3 vs. 22.6%; P < 0.05). White hens performed a significantly higher number of landings (80.7 vs. 21.9; P < 0.001) and of take-offs (74.3 vs. 10.0; P < 0.001) per pen compared to Brown hens. The risk of unsuccessful landings was higher in Brown compared to White hens (odd ratio: 6.65; 95% confidence interval: 4.36-10.1; P < 0.001). In conclusion, the enrichment with additional perches played a major role in hen distribution and space use than in their navigation ability. At the same time, the significant differences between the 2 genotypes call for a careful evaluation of the aviary design and animal management to optimize welfare at housing and possibly productive results of laying hens.

Factors affecting space use by laying hens in a cage-free aviary system: effect of nest lighting at pullet housing and of curtain nest color during laying

At 17 wk of age, 1,800 Lohman brown hens were housed in 8 pens of an experimental aviary system, specifically set up for the purposes of the present study, and kept until 26 wk without or with nest lighting (lights inside the nest 1.5 h before the lighting of the installation) for training in the nest use. Then, at 27 wk, 4 combinations of nest curtains were adopted to evaluate the effects on hens' distribution, that is, nests with red (RR) or yellow (YY) curtains at all tiers; nests with red and yellow curtains at the first and second tier, respectively (RY); or nests with yellow and red curtains at the first and second tier, respectively (YR). The use of enlightened compared to dark nests at housing increased the oviposition rate (P < 0.001) and decreased the rate of broken (P < 0.001) and dirty eggs (P < 0.05) from 27 to 45 wk, while increasing the rate of eggs laid inside the nests (P < 0.001). The presence of yellow nest curtains increased the rate of hens on the floor in pens YY and YR compared to pens RR and RY (35.3 and 35.5% vs. 34.1 and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.05) and the rate of floor eggs in pens YR (2.23% vs. 1.63 and 1.65% in pens RR and RY; P < 0.05). In pens RY, a higher rate of eggs was always found on the second tier compared to the first one with the most inhomogeneous distribution compared to pens RR, YY, and YR (+10.8 vs. +3.4, +1.9, and +4.6 percentage points of eggs laid on the second tier compared to the first one, respectively). In conclusion, nest lighting at housing trained hens to the use of nests while improving egg production in terms of quantity and quality. The use of yellow curtains on nests moved hens between the different levels of the aviary but this was not associated with an increased nest use for laying.

Feather Pecking in Non-Beak-Trimmed and Beak-Trimmed Laying Hens on Commercial Farms with Aviaries

Simple Summary

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a major animal welfare problem in layers. It results in pain and injuries in the affected animal. SFP is a behavioral disorder and should not be confused with aggressive pecking. The aim of our study was to observe the pecking behavior of layers on farms with flock sizes common in practice and to identify possible influencing factors. We found that SFP occurred in all flocks, but the pecking rate varied widely between flocks. A low stocking density and the provision of a winter garden or free range (or both) had a positive effect and reduced SFP. Keeping mixed flocks of brown and white layers was a risk factor for SFP. SFP occurred mainly in the litter area and only rarely on perches. This finding emphasizes the importance of providing enough litter, litter areas and environmental enrichment. Aggressive pecking and SFP were correlated, which may indicate a higher stress level in the flock. Beak trimming reduced pecking rates but did not entirely prevent SFP. Instead of subjecting chicks to this potentially painful procedure, reasons for SFP should be addressed. SFP remains a multifactorial problem, but in recent years, many risk factors have been identified and included in best-practice recommendations, allowing the housing of non-beak-trimmed layers.

Abstract

Severe feather pecking (SFP) is a major animal welfare problem in layers. It results in pain and injuries in the affected animal. It was the aim of this study to gain insight into the actual pecking behavior of laying hens kept on commercial farms with flock sizes common in practice. We observed aggressive pecking and SFP in non-beak-trimmed and beak-trimmed flocks of laying hens and investigated possible influencing factors. The study took place on eight conventional farms in Germany with aviaries, including three farms with a free range and a winter garden, one with a free range and one with a winter garden. Pecking behavior was observed during three observational periods (OPs): OP 1, at the peak of the laying period between the 28th and 33rd week of life; OP 2, in the middle of the laying period between the 42nd and 48th week of life; and OP 3, at the end of the laying period between the 63rd and 68th week of life in one laying period. Videos were analyzed using behavior sampling and continuous recording. We found that SFP occurred in all flocks, but the pecking rate differed significantly between the flocks. SFP correlated positively with the number of hens per square meter of usable area, with statistical significance in the litter area (r = 0.564; p = 0.045). The multivariate analysis revealed that access to a winter garden or free range significantly reduced the SFP rate on perches (p = 0.001). The stocking density (number of birds per usable square meter) had a significant influence on the SPF rate in the nest-box area (p = 0.001). The hybrid line had a significant effect on the SFP rate on perches and in the nest-box area (p = 0.001 each). Lohmann Brown hens in mixed flocks had a higher SFP rate (significant in OP 2) than those in homogeneous flocks, indicating that mixed flocks may be a risk factor for SFP. Lohmann Brown hens pecked significantly less than Dekalb White hens in the litter area (p = 0.010) and in the nest-box area (p = 0.025) and less than Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens in the litter area (p = 0.010). Lohmann Brown and Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens showed increasing SFP rates during the laying period. All hybrid lines had significantly higher SFP rates in the litter area, followed by the nest-box area and perches. These findings emphasize the importance of providing enough litter, litter areas and environmental enrichment. We found a significant positive correlation between aggressive pecking and SFP—in OP 1: rho (Spearman) = 0.580, p < 0.001; OP 2: rho = 0.486, p = 0.002; and OP 3: rho = 0.482, p = 0.002 (n = 39) —indicating that SFP may lead to a higher stress level in the flock. Beak trimming reduced pecking rates but did not entirely prevent SFP. Instead of subjecting chicks to this potentially painful procedure, reasons for SFP should be addressed. In conclusion, our data suggest a positive influence of a lower stocking density and the provision of a winter garden or free range for additional space. The hybrid line had a significant influence on the feather-pecking rate on perches and the nest-box area. Aggressive pecking and severe feather pecking correlated positively. We assume that vigorous and painful AP were an additional stress factor, especially in non-beak-trimmed flocks, leading to more SFP in due course. Beak trimming had a reducing effect on SFP. However, our results showed that non-beak-trimmed flocks could be kept without major outbreaks of SFP.

The impact of management, husbandry and stockperson decisions on the welfare of laying hens in Australia

The present review examines the impact of management and husbandry decisions on the welfare of laying hens in Australia. The literature on many of these aspects is lacking for the Australian egg industry, and, indeed, for the egg industry in general. Management decisions that can affect hen welfare relate to the initial farm design, husbandry routines, and staff selection and training. As modern laying houses represent a considerable financial investment, the decisions made during the design phase are likely to affect both the hens and stockpeople for substantial periods. Hens in cage systems may benefit from fewer tiers and greater space allowances. In non-cage systems, the brown genotypes used in the Australian egg industry may benefit from lower structures that accommodate their heavier and less agile bodies. Keel fractures can be reduced by improving the skeletal health and spatial cognition of laying hens during the rearing period, in addition to minimising the distances they need to jump when navigating aviary structures. The addition of a wintergarden to fixed free-range systems appears to be beneficial. Housing hens in mobile units on free-range farms may challenge their welfare, particularly in relation to heat stress. There is also room for improvement in biosecurity practices and health monitoring of hens, as these appear to be lacking at some farms. The current strains of hen used in free-range systems may not be best suited to these conditions, on the basis of their body condition and flock uniformity. Feed quality may also need to be monitored for quality assurance and optimal hen nutrition. Hen welfare during depopulation can be improved through staff training and by reducing staff fatigue. Euthanising spent hens on farm offers welfare benefits over transporting spent hens to an abattoir. Both hen welfare and working conditions for stock people should be considered when designing laying houses to provide suitable conditions for both hens and stockpeople. This will help improve the job satisfaction of stockpeople, which may translate into better care for the hens and may aid in retaining quality staff. Stockpeople must be recognised as vital contributors to hen welfare in the egg industry, and it is important for the egg industry to continue to attract, train and retain skilled stockpeople to ensure that they enjoy their job and are motivated to apply best-practice care for their flocks. Promoting the animal-care aspect of stockmanship in combination with a supportive managerial environment with optimal working conditions may increase the attractiveness of the egg industry as a place to work.

Natural behaviours, their drivers and their implications for laying hen welfare

Some believe that farm animals need to be kept in conditions that provide ‘natural’ aspects in the animal’s environment and, thus, provide the opportunity for the animals to perform their full ‘behavioural repertoire’. Captivity may restrict either behaviours that animals have instinctive, intrinsic propensities to perform whatever the environment or behaviours that are elicited by deficits in the animals’ environment. Behavioural restriction may also thwart general motivation to seek variety and/or avoid monotonous conditions. Appreciating whether an animal suffers if deprived of the opportunity to perform natural behaviour requires, first, an understanding of how the behaviour in question is elicited and controlled, the effects of early experience and genetics on the behaviour and the behaviour of the species in the wild, and, second, the behavioural, physiological and fitness effects of deprivation of the behaviour. Housing laying hens in conventional cages compromises their behavioural repertoire, such as nesting in a nest box, dust bathing, perching and foraging, and the present review focuses on the welfare implications if these natural behaviours are thwarted in modern poultry production. A floor space of &lt;561 cm2/hen increases physiological stress, reduces egg production and increases mortality in laying hens. There is also evidence of behavioural restriction in terms of reduced wing stretching, leg stretching, tail wagging, locomotion, floor and object pecking and preening with floor space in the range of 542–750 cm2/hen. Preference and motivation research has indicated that laying hens value resources such as nest boxes for oviposition, substrates for foraging and dust bathing, and perches for roosting. However, there is no convincing evidence that deprivation of these resources results in physiological stress. Furthermore, apart from adverse effects of the absence of perches on bone strength, there is no evidence that deprivation of nest boxes, perches, and foraging and dust-bathing substrates results in reduction in fitness such as reduced egg production or health. Nevertheless, preference research has indicated that the opportunity to utilise these resources, particularly nest boxes, may elicit positive emotional states in laying hens. Therefore, it is important to understand both how motivated the animal is to choose an option or perform a behaviour as well as the consequences of depriving the animal of this opportunity.

Why Do Hens Pile? Hypothesizing the Causes and Consequences

Piling is a behavior in laying hens whereby individuals aggregate in larger densities than would be normally expected. When piling behavior leads to mortalities it is known as smothering and its frequent but unpredictable occurrence is a major concern for many egg producers. There are generally considered to be three types of piling: panic, nest box and recurring piling. Whilst nest box and panic piling have apparent triggers, recurring piling does not, making it an enigmatic and ethologically intriguing behavior. The repetitive nature of recurring piling may result in a higher incidence of smothering and could have unconsidered, sub-lethal consequences. Here, we consider the possible causes of recurring piling from an ethological perspective and outline the potential welfare and production consequences. Drawing on a wide range of literature, we consider different timescales of causes from immediate triggers to ontogeny and domestication processes, and finally consider the evolution of collective behavior. By considering different timescales of influence, we built four hypotheses relevant to the causes of piling, which state that the behavior: (i) is caused by hens moving toward or away from an attractant/repellent; (ii) is socially influenced; (iii) is influenced by early life experiences and; (iv) can be described as a maladaptive collective behavior. We further propose that the following could be welfare consequences of piling behavior: Heat stress, physical injury (such as keel bone damage), and behavioral and physiological stress effects. Production consequences include direct and indirect mortality (smothering and knock-on effects of piling, respectively), potential negative impacts on egg quality and on worker welfare. In future studies the causes of piling and smothering should be considered according to the different timescales on which causes might occur. Here, both epidemiological and modeling approaches could support further study of piling behavior, where empirical studies can be challenging.

A risk assessment of health, production, and resource occupancy for 4 laying hen strains across the lay cycle in a commercial-style aviary system

Different strains of commercial laying hens have been molded by varying selection pressures, impacting their production, health, and behavior. Therefore, assumptions that all laying hen strains use the given resources within aviary systems similarly and maintain equal health and performance may be false. We investigated interactions among patterns of aviary resource use by 2 strains of white and 2 strains of brown laying hens (4 units per strain, 144 hens per unit) with daily egg production, location of egg laying, keel fractures, and footpad damage across the lay cycle. Hens' distribution among resources (litter, nest, wire floor, ledge, and perch) was recorded during light and dark periods at 28, 54, and 72 wk of age. Daily egg production and location were recorded, and 20% of hens per unit were randomly selected and assessed for keel bone damage, foot health, and plumage quality. Production and health risks associated with hens' resource use were assessed using multivariable regression. During the day, more brown hens occupied wire floors, while larger numbers of white hens were on perches and litter. More brown hens were on lower-tier wire floors in the dark, while more white hens occupied top tiers. Brown hens laid more eggs outside nests, showed lower incidence of keel fractures, and had better plumage quality than white hens. White hens had higher odds of keel fractures (4.2) than brown hens. Odds of keel fractures were 3.7 and 5.7 times higher at 54 and 72 wk than at 28 wk in all strains (P ≤ 0.05). Occupying the upper tier at night increased odds of keel fractures by 5.4 times. Occupying perches was associated with lower odds of foot lesions and poor plumage quality in all strains across the lay cycle (P ≤ 0.05). Finally, white hens were associated with lower odds of non-nest laying (0.76), whereas higher nest use by brown hens resulted in higher odds of non-nest egg laying (1.56) across the lay cycle (P ≤ 0.05). Distinct strain differences in resource use in an aviary were associated with different risks to hens' production, health, and welfare.

Dust bathing in laying hens: strain, proximity to, and number of conspecifics matter

As housing laying hens in aviaries becomes more common, understanding relationships between social context and performance of key behaviors, such as dust bathing (DB), is important. Expression of behaviors may be increased or repressed by the presence of conspecifics, and degree of behavioral synchrony can affect per hen resource allocation. We investigated relationships between number of hens on litter, number of hens simultaneously DB, and interbird distances (IBD) on space used to DB and duration of DB bouts across 4 laying hen strains (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovan Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line [W36]) at 28 wk of age. Brown hens needed more space to DB than white hens (HB 1125.26; BB 1146.51 vs. DW 962.65; W36 943.39 cm²; P < 0.01). More white hens occupied litter at once (43 DW, 41 W36 vs. 28 HB, 31 BB; P < 0.01), and more white hens DB simultaneously than brown hens (11 DW, 19 W36 vs. 4 HB, 4 BB; P < 0.01). Brown hens had larger average IBD (HB 13.99, BB 15.11 vs. DW 8.39, W36 7.85 cm; P < 0.01) and larger minimum IBD (HB 6.76, BB 7.35 vs. DW 1.63, W36 1.79 cm; P < 0.01) but shorter DB durations than white hens (HB 7.37, BB 9.00 vs. DW 13.91, W36 15.16 min; P < 0.01). White hens' DB area decreased if number of hens on litter increased (DW 0.85; W36 0.79 cm; P < 0.05) or minimum IBD decreased (DW 3.66, W36 2.98 cm; P < 0.01). Brown hens' DB bout duration decreased as number of hens on litter increased (HB 0.87, BB 0.95 min; P < 0.01), number of other hens DB increased (HB 0.75, BB 0.69 min; P ≤ 0.02), or minimum IBD decreased (HB 2.39, BB 2.31 min; P < 0.01). In response to smaller IBD and more hens on litter simultaneously, DW and W36 hens minimize DB area while BB and HB hens shorten DB bouts, potentially terminating bouts before fulfilling their needs. Variations in DB behavior among strains should be considered when planning and stocking laying hen aviaries.