No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Vigilance and roosting behaviour of laying hens on different perch heights
Abstract
Laying hens prefer roosting on high compared to low perches during night time. According to the antipredator hypothesis, hens on high perches can afford to be less vigilant while roosting at night. A total of 120 LSL hens in groups of five were presented a single perch, which was varied in height throughout two subsequent experiments each. In experiment 1, an acoustic noise was played back in the middle of the night. Hens’ latencies until reaction and their roosting behaviours shown before disturbance were analysed depending on perch height (30, 90, or 150 cm). In addition, roosting behaviours were recorded throughout the entire experimental nights and differences were analysed in relation to perch height. Experiment 2 focussed on night-time use of single perches offered at ten different heights ranging from 20 cm to 180 cm. In experiment 1, perch height and hens’ body orientation towards the source of acoustic noise did not influence reaction latencies (P > 0.05). Surprisingly, hens resting with their head forward immediately before playbacks showed a slower reaction (LS-means = 1.27 s) to the acoustic noise than hens resting with their head under the wing (LS-means = 0.71 s, P = 0.004). In contrast, the percentage of hens perching with their head forward during the entire night was higher on low (LS-means = 55.48%) compared to high perches (LS-means = 33.44%, P = 0.001) in experiment 1. In both experiments, perch use increased with rising height up to 90 cm. In experiment 2, hens did not show a preference for roosting on the perch compared to resting on the floor at a perch height of 80 cm or lower. Although hens showed a clear preference to roost on perches higher than 90 cm, their reactions to an acoustic disturbance during night time did not clearly support the antipredator hypothesis. Possibly, perch height may be a crucial factor when hens are searching for an appropriate roosting place before the dark period but may have limited influence on roosting behaviour during the night.
... Vasdal et al. 15 compared a selection of perch designs under commercial conditions in four flocks, finding a preference for steel square perches over round steel or round wooden perches when placed on the nesting platform. Plastic mushroom shaped perches added later then became the most preferred, although these were slightly higher which is often the most important factor affecting perch choice in domestic fowl 8,20,44 . Indeed, they found in a separate study that offered both 5 cm high plastic mushroom perches and 15 cm high steel plates on top of feeder lines, the feeder lines became the most preferred 14 . ...
... Broilers were observed perching on platform perches (a), round metal perches (b) or rubber-coated perches (c) over 24 h periods in three time periods across the production cycle. The time period consisted of either early lay (weeks 24-27), peak lay (weeks[28][29][30][31] or late lay (weeks[43][44][45][46]. Lights came on in the houses at around 04 00 h and turned off at around 17 00 h. ...
... The mean number of pecks directed at the gazing ball pecking objects by broiler breeders over 5 min focal periods in early (weeks 25 and 27), peak (weeks 28-31) and late lay (weeks[44][45][46]. of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved ...
There is a recognised need for environmental enrichment strategies to be developed for broiler parent stock. We evaluated the use and tested preferences for three forms of enrichment in commercial broiler breeder housing: (1) perches (platform perches, round metal perches, round rubber-coated metal perches), (2) pecking enrichments (silver reflective gazing balls, multi-coloured reflective gazing balls, non-reflective gazing balls), and (3) dust baths (oat hulls, sawdust, 50:50 mix). Observations from video footage were conducted during early, peak and late lay of a 44 week production phase on one farm. There was a clear preference for platform perches over both round perches, and for rubber-coated perches over metal perches until late lay. Perching was highest at night but reduced over the cycle. We found a drop off in perching once 23 cm of linear space per bird had been reached, suggesting this represented comfortable maximum capacity. All pecking enrichments attracted interest, with no difference between the three types, although pecking rate reduced across the cycle. House litter was well maintained and dustbathing was widely observed throughout the house, making additional dustbathing areas largely superfluous on this farm. We suggest platform perches and suspended gazing balls to be suitable environmental enrichments for commercial breeder housing.
... Weeks and Nicol (2006) interpreted nighttime roosting on high perches as a behavioral priority, even in commercial indoor housing systems where laying hens are protected from predation. Experimental studies indicate that perch heights of more than 90 cm are preferred by Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens (LSL; Brendler et al., 2014) and that height matters more to LSL and Lohmann Brown hens than graspable perches over flat plastic grids for roosting (Schrader and Müller, 2009). In commercial aviaries, various white and brown strains of laying hens use higher perches for nighttime roosting to a greater extent than lower ones (Odén et al. 2002;Brendler and Schrader, 2016;Campbell et al., 2016). ...
... Hens may perceive perch height as distance from the house floor, or they may view perch height as distance from the wire tier floor. In experimental studies, LSL hens preferred perches at or greater than 90 cm above the ground (Brendler et al., 2014), and all elements of the middle and upper tiers in the present study were above these heights. Height of the nighttime roost-ing site from the house floor appeared to be important to both W1 and W2 hens in ours study, suggesting that they do perceive height from the floor despite the complexity of the system. ...
... The lower tiers, in contrast, were never found to be overoccupied (Figure 3-5 and Table 1; and see Ali et al., 2016;). Together our results agree with findings from Odén and colleagues (2002) that hens only occupied lower perches when the upper ones were filled as hens prefer higher roosting sites at night (Olsson and Keeling, 2000;Brendler et al., 2014). In the present study, W1 and W2 hens were observed tightly packed together in the top tier, in some cases lying on top of each other, which made it visually difficult to distinguish between individual hens in the dark (Ali, personal observation). ...
Multi-tiered aviaries for laying hens are designed to provide resources, such as perches, that allow birds to perform natural behaviors, thus improving their welfare. This research examined nighttime roosting heights and substrates used by laying hens of 4 genetic strains (Dekalb White: W1, Hy-Line W36: W2, Hy-Line Brown: B1, Bovans Brown: B2), in multitier aviaries (144 hens/unit, 4 units/strain) at 25 to 28 wk of age (peak lay). Influence of litter provision on roosting patterns of the strains was also tested. Direct observations of hens' nighttime roosting patterns on wire floors, ledges and perches across tiers were conducted before (PRE), immediately after (IMM), and 3 wk after (ACC) hens gained access to litter. During all periods, more W1 and W2 hens roosted on middle and upper ledges than B1 and B2 hens (all P≤0.05), while more B1 and B2 hens used perches throughout the aviary than W1 and W2 hens (all P≤0.05). W1 (15±1.9, 14±3.36) and W2 (19±2.1, 18±2.6) hens occupied perches in the upper tier in greater numbers than B1 (7±3.2, 3±4.6) and B2 (11±2.1, 5±3.36) hens during PRE (P = 0.01) and ACC (P = 0.02) periods, respectively. B1 and B2 hens occupied wire floors in larger numbers than W1 and W2 hens during PRE (P = 0.02) and IMM (P = 0.03) periods, though this difference disappeared in the ACC period. During the IMM period, more W1 and W2 roosted in the lower tier, while more B1 and B2 hens were observed in the middle and upper tiers (all P ≤ 0.05). These findings demonstrate the importance of perches for B1 and B2 hens and space to roost higher in aviary units for W1 and W2 hens during the night, and underscore the need to consider aviary design, management practices, and preferences of different hen strains to ensure good hen welfare in aviaries.
... Because of the rather low number of papers, this descriptive analysis was not able to account for lack of independence, differences in sample size and other important sources of heterogeneity. Three papers (Struelens et al., 2008b;Tuyttens et al., 2013;Chen et al., 2014) referred to cage systems and the three others (Cordiner and Savory, 2001;Newberry et al., 2001;Brendler et al., 2014) referred to non-cage systems. ...
... When perch access was made easier, the most preferred heights were 50 and 90 cm, with very few birds using perches of 130 cm. The two other non-cage studies found a positive effect: Brendler et al. (2014), who investigated the effect of heights ranging from 20 to 180 cm on night time use, and Newberry et al. (2001), who investigated the effect of heights ranging from 20 to 60 cm on daytime use. Newberry et al. (2001) found the 60cm perches were used significantly more than perches at20cm or 40cm. ...
... Newberry et al. (2001) found the 60cm perches were used significantly more than perches at20cm or 40cm. Brendler et al. (2014) found that nearly all birds roosted on perches at heights of 90cm or above. When perches were lower than 80cm birds were as likely to use the floor as the perches for night-time roosting. ...
This opinion investigated the use of perches for laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. It is based on various activities reviewing the effects of perch height and design on hen health and welfare. Systematic and extensive literature reviews were conducted to assess the scientific evidence about hen motivation to grasp and seek elevation, and the appropriate height of perches as well as other features (position, material, colour, temperature, shape, width and length). In addition, an expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) exercise was run with technical hearing experts to discuss and prioritise the various design aspects of perches. Overall, the body of literature on perches is limited. Relevant features of perches are often confounded with others. In the literature, the most commonly used animal-based measures to assess perch adequacy are keel bone damages, foot pad lesions and perch use by hens. Overall, hens seek elevation during the day as well as during the night, when they select a site for roosting. Elevated perches allow hens to monitor the environment, to escape from other hens, avoid disturbances and improve thermoregulation. For night-time roosting hens show a preference for perches higher than 60cm compared with lower perches. However, elevated perches can have negative consequences with increased prevalence of keel deformities and fractures. The risk of injury increases when hens have to jump a distance of more than 80cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally to reach or leave a perch, or jump an angle between 45 and 90° (measured at the horizontal plane). Material, shape, length and width of the perch also influence perch preference by hens. The EKE exercise suggests that an adequate perch is elevated, accessible and functional (providing sufficient overview). The opinion concludes that for the design of an adequate perch, different features of perches need to be further investigated and integrated.
... In fact, hens must navigate easily between the different levels of the aviary to reach feed and water for their health and body development; they must distribute homogeneously in all levels of the aviary for full space use; they must quickly identify the different areas of the aviary for the full and safe expression of all their specie-specific behaviors and for functional use of the different areas to prevent floor egg laying. In this regard, perches allow birds to exercise and use the vertical space within the housing system; they allow for vigilance and roosting at night (Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014); they contribute to muscle development and bone mineralization, which can reduce bone damages, besides improving feather plumage, and foot and nail health (Hester, 2014;Hemsworth and Edwards, 2020). ...
... Previous studies in laying hens also found that the preference for different levels of the aviary or perches depended on genotype, besides the daily observation time (Odén et al., 2002;Brendler et al., 2014;Brendler and Schrader, 2016;Campbell et al., 2016a). On the whole, these results confirm the preference we found in young White hens for the upper levels of the aviary both at daily and nightly observations compared to Brown hens. ...
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 weeks of age in 8 pens of an experimental aviary, according to a bi-factorial arrangement with two genotypes (Brown vs. White) × two types of pens (enriched or not enriched with additional perches besides those of the aviary). Data collected between 17 and 20 weeks 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 to 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 two 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.
... Hens demonstrate a strong motivation to seek elevation at night for resting or sleeping (Odén et al., 2002;Wichman et al., 2007;Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014;Brendler and Schrader, 2016) and they become agitated if roosting is prevented (Olsson and Keeling, 2000). Pullets also seek elevated locations during the day to monitor their environment in safety (Newberry et al., 2001) to preen (Skånberg et al., 2021) to escape from other hens (Cordiner and Savory, 2001). ...
... When perches were offered at different heights, laying hens preferentially roosted on the perches of a height above 90 cm. At lower heights there was no difference in the number of hens roosting on the perch and at the floor (Brendler et al., 2014). Based on three studies, EFSA AHAW Panel (2015) recommended that the perch height should be at least 60 cm above the ground in non-cage systems. ...
This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non-cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non-beak-trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non-cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.
... The perch should be placed at suitable angles (depending on the perch design) and should not be placed too far horizontally or vertically from another perch. Ideally, a perch design should be constructed to reduce poor landings or KBD at a significant level [65]. ...
... The perch height has several benefits that allow hens to avoid disturbances, escape from predictors, environment monitoring, and improve thermoregulation [32]. Perch usage in laying hens was found to be increased as the height increased up to 90 cm [65]. In addition, the height of the perch may be a crucial factor affecting a bird's roosting preference before the dark period and may have less influence during the nighttime. ...
Perching is one of the essential natural behaviors for avian species. Providing an optimal perching design (e.g., shape, dimension, and materials) for commercial poultry production is critical for maintaining bird health, welfare, and production efficiency. This review paper summarized poultry perching studies and discussed the relationship between perch design, bird welfare, and production efficiency. Providing perches at an early stage may ensure optimum use during adulthood, reduce perching accidents, and lower the risk of floor eggs in cage-free (CF) hen houses. Therefore, a perch space of 15 cm per bird is recommended for the CF hen house. Similarly, rectangular perches are preferred to circular perches as the rectangular perch provides hens with an excellent tendon-locking mechanism to prevent slipping. In addition, perches with softer materials such as polyurethane and rubber coverings are recommended to increase the contact surface on the chicken’s toes. Perching behavior (PB) promotes a musculocutaneous system and reduces the incidences of footpad dermatitis and lesions. Generally, providing perching may reduce aggression and stress in birds and improve welfare and production efficiency. In the case of broilers, it is found that the broiler perches less during the latter stage of their lives because they are comparatively heavier and exhibit a more inactive lifestyle. Studies have investigated the effect of the surface temperature of the perch on broilers’ welfare. Perches with lower temperatures help improve performance and welfare by relieving heat stress and leg issues. Overall, PB is required to improve bird health and welfare.
... Olsson and Keeling, 2000;Newberry et al., 2001), such that perches are a key resource provided in both enriched cages and loose housed aviary systems. Perching is an anti-predatory behavior and perching on a high perch may give a greater feeling of safety compared to lower perches (Brendler et al., 2014). Despite being the same species as laying hens, there is currently no requirement for perches for broilers or broiler breeders in the EU and the provision of perches in breeder houses is limited. ...
... There may be several reasons for this. First, the Siesta perch was higher (15 cm) then the other four perches (5 cm) on the slats, and the height of the perch is known to be an important factor for perch preferences (Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014). In addition, the Siesta perch was wider (8 cm) Fig. 3. Percentage distribution of footpad dermatitis scores across the three hybrids (Gold n = 1, Hubbard n = 1, Ross n = 2) during the health visit at end of lay. ...
Unlike for laying hens in most European countries, few broiler breeders have access to perches, and there is a need for more knowledge on perching behaviour in broiler breeders. The aim of this study was to investigate the overall use of perches by broiler breeders throughout the production period and to investigate preferences for different perch materials in a commercial setting. Four breeder flocks (Ross 308, n=2, Ranger Gold, n=1, Hubbard JA 757, n=1) were each given five different perches. Four of the perches (each 6 m long) were placed on the elevated slats; steel round, steel square, plastic and wooden perch, while the three Siesta perches (plastic, 15 cm high) were placed in the litter area. From week 30, one of the Siesta perches (3 m long) was placed on the elevated slats. Perch use was recorded by counting number of birds on the perches during the last hour before the light went off, once in week 20, 25, 30, 40, 45 and 50. Footpad dermatitis were scored at end of lay in 100 random hens across the house. Overall, perching behaviour was constant with age, and there were no significant differences between the flocks with regards to perch use (birds/m perch). At 20 weeks of age, the square steel perches were most used (0.90 birds/m perch) and the wooden perches were the least used (0.41 birds/m perch) (P=0.09). From week 30, more birds were perching on the Siesta perches on the slats (1.6 birds/m perch) compared to all other types of perches (P < 0.003). There was no relationship between body weight and footpad score (P > 0.05). The average perch use in the present study was only 0.44 birds/m perch which is a capacity utilization of less than 10%. The Siesta perch on the elevated slats was the most popular perch, possibly due to its height. In conclusion, broiler breeders use perches, but perch type and placement of the perches must be considered carefully.
... In our study, chickens with slower growth (LB and Dual) additionally showed mostly a preference for the highest grids both during the day and night time. This preference corresponds to the preference for layers for high perches (9,(27)(28)(29) and can be explained by the antipredator hypothesis (4) suggesting that chickens experience better protection from predators if they stay on elevated structures. Although a preference for high resting areas is particularly pronounced in adult fowl for night roosting (27,28,30), already growing chickens show a high motivation to stay at high levels overnight (9,31), which indicates that elevated areas may offer shelter for growing chickens, as well. ...
... This preference corresponds to the preference for layers for high perches (9,(27)(28)(29) and can be explained by the antipredator hypothesis (4) suggesting that chickens experience better protection from predators if they stay on elevated structures. Although a preference for high resting areas is particularly pronounced in adult fowl for night roosting (27,28,30), already growing chickens show a high motivation to stay at high levels overnight (9,31), which indicates that elevated areas may offer shelter for growing chickens, as well. In contrast to the slow-growing chickens, most of the fast-growing chickens were observed on the lowest level during the light period. ...
Pullets, i. e., chickens of layer lines are often raised in housings equipped with perches. In contrast, broiler chickens most often are raised in a barren environment that lacks any three-dimensional structures, even though broilers also are motivated to use elevated structures. In addition, environmental enrichment may improve welfare problems in broiler chickens, such as skeletal disorders or contact dermatitis. Due to ethical reasons, currently there are attempts to fatten the male chickens of layer strains or to use dual purpose strains. However, there is only limited knowledge on the behavior of these chickens until now. The aim of this study was to test the use of elevated grids and their effect on animal-based indicators (e.g., physical condition). In two successive trials, we kept a total of 1,217 male chickens from three strains (Lohmann Dual, Lohmann Brown Plus, Ross 308) that show differences in growth performance in 24 pens (two trials × three strains × eight pens). In half of the pens, grids were offered at three different heights (enriched groups); in the other half of the pens, no elevated structures were installed (control groups). We recorded the number of birds using the grids at the different heights as well as locomotor activity, walking ability, plumage cleanliness, and the footpad health of chickens. Chickens with low and medium growth performance preferred the highest grids during both the light and dark periods. In contrast, fast-growing chickens used the lowest grid more frequently. Fast-growing chickens kept in the enriched pens tended to have a higher level of locomotor activity and reduced chest cleanliness. Chickens from the medium growth performance strain showed better walking ability when kept in the enriched pens. Enrichment did not affect any of the welfare measures in the slow-growing chickens. These findings suggest that elevated structures may improve chicken welfare, particularly for medium growing chickens. For fast-growing chickens we found evidence for an improvement of animal-based indicators although they used the elevated structures less. However, regardless of growth performance, elevated grids offer the birds an opportunity to rest in a species-specific manner.
... Litter-area overcrowding at peak use can restrict hen movement (Carmichael et al., 1999) and might prevent some hens from performing dust bathing effectively (Odén et al., 2002). Finally, hens preferentially roost on higher perches at night (Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2016c), simulating the roosting of ancestral jungle fowl high in trees to avoid predators (Wood-Gush and Duncan, 1976;Wood-Gush et al., 1978); thus, hens perching lower in the system due to space limitations may be frustrated (Olsson and Keeling, 2002). In summary, diurnal rhythms of hens indicate times when high demand may potentially be placed on specific aviary resources. ...
... Furthermore, for all strains of hens, the average number of hens occupying the upper tier in the dark period was at or above the combined capacity (Figure 3), suggesting that overcrowding of the upper tier at night was a regular phenomenon. Therefore, this system design does not adequately accommodate hens' preference for roosting at night (Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2016c), and it could be expected that hens perching lower in the system due to space limitations might be frustrated (Olsson and Keeling, 2002). ...
Many laying hen producers are transitioning from conventional cages to new housing systems including multi-tier aviaries. Aviary resources, such as litter areas, are intended to encourage hens’ expression of natural behaviors to improve their welfare. Little research has examined the influence of laying hen strain on distribution and behavior inside aviaries, yet differences could influence a strain's suitability for an aviary design. This research examined how laying hens of 4 strains (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovans Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line W36) distributed themselves among 3 enclosed aviary tiers and 2 litter areas at peak lay (25 to 28 wk of age) and after gaining access to litter on the floor (26 wk). Observations of hens’ spatial distribution were conducted immediately before and after, and 3 wk after hens gained access to litter. More HB and BB hens were in upper tiers in morning compared to DW and W36 (all P ≤ 0.05). However, DW and W36 hens roosted in upper tiers in larger numbers than HB and BB during evening (all P ≤ 0.05). More DW and W36 hens were on litter compared to BB and HB, particularly when litter was first accessible (all P ≤ 0.05). The number of hens on litter increased over time for all strains (P ≤ 0.06). White hens on litter occupied open areas in higher numbers (P ≤ 0.05), while more brown hens occupied litter under the aviary after acclimation (P ≤ 0.05). In the dark period, W36 and DW hens were present in higher numbers in upper tiers than HB and BB, while HB and BB showed higher tier-to-tier movement than DW and W36 (P ≤ 0.05). In general, more white hens roosted higher at night and explored litter sooner, while more brown hens were near or in nests in the morning and moved at night. Distinct strain differences indicate that attention should be paid to the match between configuration of the aviary design and strain of laying hen.
... Further, hens prefer higher perches for roosting at night (Olsson and Keeling, 2000;Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014), and have been reported to only use lower perches after upper tiers are filled (Odén et al. 2002). Perching by hens housed in a group is often synchronous (Appleby, 2004) and, thus, perch space guidelines are frequently based on hen body width to ensure accommodation of all hens in a system, with 15 cm/hen being the common recommendation. ...
... Expected preferences of hens for perching in elevated levels were observed, leading to crowding on the middle and upper enclosure levels and empty space on the lower tier. In particular, the perching patterns observed during the 'dark' period, were consistent with previous laboratory experiments and observations at commercial facilities confirming hen preferences for elevated roosting overnight (Olsson and Keeling, 2000;Odén et al., 2002;Wichman et al., 2007;Streulens et al., 2008;Schrader and Müller, 2009;Brendler et al., 2014). The 'dark' period was also the time of highest perching synchrony. ...
Non-cage housing systems, such as the aviary, are being implemented by the laying hen industry, including in North America, in an attempt to improve the welfare of hens. Perches are a resource that is consistently included in aviaries. Hens are strongly motivated to perch, and perching can improve leg bone strength. However, hens may prefer elevated perches, particularly at night, and thus simply providing perches is not enough to improve welfare; they must be provided in a way that allows all hens to access them. Observations of laying hens using perches and ledges (flat, solid metal shelves to assist hens’ movement between tiers) in a commercial aviary revealed variation in where hens roosted within the tiered aviary enclosure across the flock cycle (peak, mid and end of lay; P < 0.001 for all age points). Hens most often preferred roosting in the highest enclosure levels, leading to crowding on upper perches and ledges while perch space remained available on lower levels. Restricted access to preferable perches may cause frustration in hens, leading to welfare issues. Hens roosted more on perches at peak lay than mid and end lay (P < 0.001) but roosted less on ledges at peak lay than mid and end lay (P < 0.001). Additionally, more hens roosted on both perches and ledges in the ‘dark’ observation period compared with the number of hens roosting during the ‘light’ observation period (P < 0.001). Further research should look at all structural elements within the system that are used by hens for roosting, such as edges of tiers and upper wire floors, to evaluate how changes in perching preferences across the lay cycle may correlate with system design and bird-based parameters.
... When focusing on the plastic perches, fewer hens were observed on these compared to the feeder perches at all ages (average 1.4 birds vs. 5.3 birds/m perch), and the use of the plastic perch was reduced with age. Previous studies have found that the height of the perch is important (Brendler et al., 2014;Brandes et al., 2020;Vasdal et al., 2022b), and the present results clearly show that the breeder hens preferred the 15 cm high feeder perch compared to the 5 cm high plastic perch. In fact, more hens on the control side perched directly on the steel netting on the feeders (3.6 birds/m perch) than on the plastic perch. ...
There is a need for more knowledge about perch use in broiler breeders and the potential effects of perches on health and production outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of perches by commercial broiler breeders, effect of perch access on keel bone fractures (KBF), footpad dermatitis (FPD) and number of floor eggs. Two commercial breeder flocks (Ross 308) reared at the same facility were observed during the production period. Half of each flock was provided with 15 cm perch/bird and the other half had no perches. The perch group had two types of perches; a steel plate mounted on the hen feeder lines “feeder perch” (15 cm high) and elevated plastic perches (5 cm high). Perching by hens and roosters was recorded during the dark period by counting birds on each of the two perch types in 10 sections and in the corresponding patches on the control side at 25, 35 and 45 weeks of age (WOA). FPD was scored in 100 random hens in each group at 30 WOA and end of lay, KBF was scored by postmortem in 100 random hens in each group at end of lay, and number of floor eggs (n) in each treatment was scored daily. More hens perched on the feeder perch with the steel plate mounted, compared to the feeder line without the steel plate, but this difference decreased with age (P < 0.0001). Within the perch treatment, more hens perched on the feeder lines compared to the plastic perches at all ages (P < 0.0001). When combining number of hens on the plastic and feeder perches, on average 6.7 birds perched per meter perch, which is full capacity given an average shoulder width of 15 cm/bird. Perch use among the roosters was low overall, but more roosters perched in the perch group compared to the control group at 35 WOA (P = 0.007). Between 47 to 53 % of the hens had KBF at end of lay. At 30 WOA, birds housed with perches were more likely to have lower FPD. Perch treatment did not affect number of floor eggs. In conclusion, broiler breeder hens perch when the perches are sufficiently high and allow all birds to perch simultaneously, and access to perches may have positive effects on FPD.
... Design and arrangement of elevated structures plays an important role for perching (Schrader and Malchow, 2020). Especially during the night, a high position is strongly preferred by laying hens (Brendler et al., 2014). Our grids as well as perches were offered at the highest reachable point in each pen from the beginning of the observation onwards. ...
Several alternatives to avoid killing male day-old chicks are available. One of these alternatives is to keep dual-purpose chicken strains. The aim of this study was to compare dual-purpose hens (Lohmann Dual, LD) with conventional laying hens (Lohmann Tradition, LT) in terms of performance, animal welfare parameters such as keel bone state and foot pad dermatitis, and perching behavior. We expected a generally equal or even better performance of the dual-purpose hens except for laying performance. Four hundred female day-old chicks were housed in 6 pens (3 pens per strain) and reared until 54 weeks of age. Each pen offered a littered area, elevated slatted manure pit, elevated wooden frame with perches or grids and nest boxes on the manure pit. The wooden frame was alternately equipped with perches or grids. The elevated manure pit as well as the elevated structure were accessible via ramp. Productive performance parameters like mortality, total number of eggs and body weight were assessed periodically. In week 49, 132 hens (66 hens per strain) were randomly selected for radiography of the keel bone and assessment of plumage and foot pad state. Perching behavior was analyzed via scan sampling during rearing and laying period, respectively. Statistical analyzes were done with LME and GLMM. LD had a higher radiographic density than LT hens (p=0.0016), other keel bone parameters (fracture score, p=0.36; deformation, p=0.83) showed no differences. The vast majority of fractures occurring in both strains were located in the caudal part of the keel bone. During the laying period, usage of elevated structures was higher with grids compared to perches (p<0.001) and in LD compared to LT (p=0.01). Some animal welfare problems were less frequent in LD compared to LT hens while other problems did not differ between the two strains or were even more frequent in LD hens. Grids may be more suitable as resting area than perches and may possibly help to decrease the prevalence of keel bone damage.
... Therefore, the ancestors of modern commercial chicken breeds roost during the night in trees where they use branches as roosting places (Wood-Gush et al., 1978;Blokhuis, 1984). Moreover, roosting as high as possible from the ground may give the greatest feeling of safety (Brake et al., 1994;Keeling, 1997;Newberry et al., 2001;Brendler et al., 2014). This is underlined in an experiment where layers on high perches react less fearful towards a stuffed predator than layers on low perches (Keeling, 1997). ...
Roosting on elevated areas is part of natural chicken behaviour, and therefore perches are required for broiler breeders in some countries. However, elevated slats may also meet the behavioural requirements. To date, hardly any research has been done on broiler breeder preferences for roosting on slats or perches. An experiment was conducted between 40 and 60 weeks of age (WOA) to observe the relative preference for elevated roosting places (slats and perches) in female Ross 308 broiler breeders, housed in 24 floor pens with each 26 females and 3 males at start. The birds could choose to roost on elevated wooden slats (30% floor surface) and on 2 plastic rectangle perches with rounded edges (total 4 m). Pens were further equipped with littered floor area, a drinking line above the slats and a nest box. Due to practical limitations, the litter, drinking lines and nest boxes could not be excluded as roosting areas. The number of birds per roosting place (slats, perches, drinking line, inside nest box and litter) were counted weekly, half an hour after lights went off. Three random birds per pen were marked to measure individual preference for roosting place over time. Breast blisters and feather cover of marked birds were scored at 45, 50, 55 and 60 WOA. The majority of the birds roosted on the slats (51.5 ± 1.4%), followed by the perches (23.9 ± 1.2%), drinking line (11.2 ± 0.7%), nest box (9.2 ± 0.7%), and litter (4.2 ± 0.8%). Generally, the preference for a certain roosting place was constant during the laying period and almost 80% of the birds were observed on the same roosting place at 15 of the 20 observations. More and severe breast blisters were found in birds roosting on the drinking line and perches, respectively, compared to the slats. Feather cover of birds roosting on slats was worse compared to the birds on the perches. The results of this study indicate that broiler breeders roosted more on slats rather than on perches, which is also more beneficial for their health. Furthermore, the broiler breeders roost consistently on their preferred place.
... Thus, during the installation of perches in the aviary system, their positioning is very vital to laying hens. For example, toptier perches are used for roosting (Brendler et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2016b), and perches positioned between or across the aviary tiers facilities easy movement of hens between the tiers (Campbell et al., 2016a). It was strongly emphasized that selection of elevated structures such as perches should be done under consideration of the breed although all genotypes prefer elevated structures for roosting (Malchow et al., 2019). ...
To improve hen welfare, several studies have investigated various environmental enrichments that suit different laying hen production systems. The positive results of these studies can enable such environmental enrichments to be utilized in commercial laying hen production. This paper reviewed the effects of environmental enrichments in different laying hen production systems on hen welfare and egg quality. The successfully proven environmental enrichments in free-range production system include forage, shelterbelt, and artificial shade in outdoor area and novel objects and H-shaped perching structures in indoor. These are associated with increased range use that positively affects hen welfare. In aviary system, perches, and litter materials (e.g., straw, sand) as environmental enrichments are linked to improved behavioral expression, reduced stress, and enhanced immune system. Under the litter system, environmental enrichment with substrates (e.g., pecking stones, alfalfa blocks, silage, straw, barley) has been found to increase the foraging behavior of laying hens. This reduces severe feather pecking thus, improving the plumage condition of hens. Although the effects of environmental enrichments on hen welfare have been assessed and scientifically proven in the reviewed studies, significant progress of their impact on egg quality traits has not been reported. The studies have shown that environmental enrichments have no significant effect on egg quality traits. Also, appropriate pasture or plant species as environmental enrichments in free-range production system in relation to hen welfare and egg quality have not been identified. Therefore, it is important to continue studies on environmental enrichments while emphasizing their influence on egg quality since it is a major performance trait in the egg industry. In addition, there is a need for studies to identify ideal pasture or plant species for free-range production system that positively affects hen welfare and egg quality.
... The absence of perches and thwarted access to perches increase frustration in layers, while perch material and physical distribution of perches influence the welfare status of birds. This has led to a large number of studies on perches in multi-tier aviary systems (Käppeli et al., 2011;14 Stratmann et al., 2015;Sirovnik et al., 2018), most of which concluded that during nocturnal rest, hens prefer upper tier perches (Brendler et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2016 b;Ali et al., 2019). Considering the above results and the different preferences and behaviours of hens of different genetic origin, it is recommended that these data should be accounted for in industry guidelines, legal regulations and when designing and stocking poultry houses, so as to satisfy the behavioural needs of layers as much as possible. ...
The currently used poultry farming methods, which aim to maximise economic profit, are based on ever new technological solutions that improve flock management and increase bird performance. However, they do not always meet the natural needs of birds. Every housing method and technological solution currently in use is faced with some issues, such as social stress, adverse temperature/humidity conditions, risk of zoonoses, and behavioural pathologies, which determine poultry performance and welfare. Disregard for animal welfare involves not only ethical but also practical aspects, because well-being and housing comfort translate into better weight gains, health and productivity of the birds. The studies reported here suggest that every production system, despite the many welfare-improving aspects, causes numerous behavioural, productivity and health abnormalities in laying hens. Therefore, further research is needed to identify various risk factors for the purpose of improving housing systems and increasing the welfare of hens.
... Aerial perches are among the most valued resources of chickens and are thus required for laying hens e.g. in Europe (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) (2010)) and Switzerland (TSch, 2008). Especially at night, chickens use perches (Blokhuis, 1984;Olsson and Keeling, 2000;Odén et al., 2002) while they prefer high structures over low structures (Brendler et al., 2014). Despite the requirements, housing of broiler breeders commonly does not include perches (Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2017;Riber et al., 2017;Gebhardt-Henrich et al., 2018). ...
Broiler breeders are kept for the production of fertile eggs. They face serious welfare problems like aggressive behaviour of the males towards females during mating. Furthermore, broiler breeders are usually kept without perches which are a highly valued resource in chickens. The aim of the study was to investigate how the provision of aerial perches and perches on aviary tiers influenced the mating behaviour in a fast growing (Ross 308) and a more slowly growing (Sasso) hybrid. Control pens (C) were equipped with a litter area, raised slats leading to nestboxes, male and female feeders and a drinking line. Pens with perches had 8 aerial perches arranged in a reverse ‘V’ on the slats (P). Pens with aviaries contained a low 4-tier aviary with wooden perches (A) on the slats. We employed a full factorial design with the factors hybrid and treatment (C, P, A) with 3 replicates. Mating behaviour was analysed from 24 h video recordings at 35 and 40 weeks of age (WOA). Data were analysed with generalized linear models corrected for over dispersion. The experimental unit was the pen nested in treatment and hybrid. The number of matings was not affected by the treatment but the location of matings differed between treatments (F2,13 = 6.37, P = 0.01) and hybrids (F1,13 = 12.45, P = 0.004). Ross 308 mainly mated on the litter and Sasso on the slats but Sasso in A mainly mated on the litter. Crouching by the hen and thus waiting for the male to mount was shown more in A than C and more in P than in C (t13 = 2.2, P = 0.047; t13 = 2.18, P = 0.048) and was more frequent in the Ross than in the Sasso hybrid (F1,99 = 11.57, P = 0.001). Likewise, Ross 308 hens struggled less than Sasso hens during mating (F1,98 = 5.93, P = 0.02). Sasso hens appeared to actively avoid the areas where males were present, possibly caused by the sexual size dimorphism which was much greater in the Sasso than in the Ross 308 hybrid. In conclusion, aviaries and perches did not reduce mating behaviour. On the contrary, aviaries favoured acceptance of copulations in the female.
... The height of the perch may be of particular importance to feather pecking, especially for vent pecking (Sandilands et al., 2009). Perches should not be spaced too far vertically or horizontally from one another, and perch angles are also essential to reduce poor landings and keel bone damage (Brendler, Kipper, & Schrader, 2014). For this reason, producers should carefully consider the design of housing, including ramps to facilitate movement between different tiers in non-cage housing systems (Jung et al., 2019;Sandilands & Schrader, 2014;Stratmann et al., 2015;Widowski, Hemsworth, Barnett, & Rault, 2016). ...
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of keel bone deviations and feather damage of laying hens in two different free-range housing systems under commercial conditions. Both of the free-range systems had an indoor barn and an outdoor range area. The floor of the indoor barn consisted of litter and either perches (litter and perch, LP) or slats (litter and slats, LS). The hens of both flocks were raised under identical conditions in the same house during the rearing period and then divided and transferred to two different free-range housing systems for the laying period. Examinations were conducted on the flocks at the end of the production cycle. Hens from the LP group had a greater prevalence of keel bone deviation and feather damage compared to hens from the LS group. The highest percentage of severe feather damage was found in the back and tail body regions in both flocks. The findings of this study are based upon the evaluation of two Turkish laying flocks. Therefore further research with more replicates of these treatments is needed to reach a general conclusion.
... Domestic hens also perch [18][19][20], and they prefer to rest on the highest perch [21,22]. Some evidence indicates reduced fearfulness and vigilance when birds are sitting on a perch [23,24]. As expected, our results showed that all hens were willing to perch at night. ...
This study was conducted to investigate behavioral changes in laying hens
(Hy-Line Brown) after transfer to a multi-tier system from the floor system and
to examine their production performance. The hens were randomly divided into two
groups and were allocated to the multi-tier system and the floor system at a
commercial farm. Behavior of the laying hens was recorded by CCD (charge-coupled
device) cameras and a digital video recorder. The data were scanned every 2 min
to obtain an instantaneous behavioral sample or were immediately counted
whenever the hens exhibited a designated behavior. Behavior changed dramatically
during the first seven days. Egg production was higher in the multi-tier system,
while cracked and dirty eggs were more frequent in the floor system
(p < 0.05). No differences in mortality rate or egg
quality were observed between the groups. In conclusion, the hens needed at
least seven days to adapt to the multi-tier system. The multi-tier system was
more efficient than the floor system in terms of production performance.
... Internal temperature loggers were also used in these studies to demonstrate stress-induced hyperthermia as a measurable physiological temperature response to the threat while under pharmacological influence (Lee et al., 2018;Monk et al., 2018aMonk et al., , 2018b. In laying hens, observations of vigilance have been made in individual or group settings to assess the fear or stress status of birds in response to different environmental conditions (e.g., group size during perching : Newberry, Estevez & Keeling, 2001;perch height: Brendler, Kipper & Schrader, 2014; presence of cockerels: Odén et al., 2005; a novel arena: Rutherford et al., 2003; presence of predator odors: Zidar & Løvlie, 2012), including differences in vigilance in response to an acoustical disturbance (Brendler, Kipper & Schrader, 2014). Favati, Leimer & Løvlie (2014) also measured vigilance following playback of an alarm call and correlated this with dominance in male domestic fowl. ...
Fear is a response to a known threat, anxiety is a response to a perceived threat. Both of these affective states can be detrimental to animal welfare in modern housing environments. In comparison to the well-validated tests for assessing fear in laying hens, tests for measuring anxiety are less developed. Perception of a threat can result in an attention bias that may indicate anxious affective states in individual hens following playback of an alarm call. In Experiment 1, an attention bias test was applied to hens that differed in their range access to show that hens that never ranged were more vigilant (stretching of the neck and looking around: P < 0.001) and slower to feed following the second alarm call playback (P = 0.01) compared with hens that ranged daily. All hens showed a reduction in comb temperature following the first alarm call (P < 0.001). In Experiment 2, an open field test was used to determine an effective dose of 2 mg/kg for the anxiogenic drug meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP) in adult laying hens. Hens dosed with 2 mg/kg showed reduced locomotion compared with a saline solution (P < 0.05). In Experiment 3, 2 mg/kg m-CPP or saline was administered to adult hens previously habituated to the open field arena to pharmacologically validate an attention bias test as a measure of anxiety. Hens dosed with m-CPP were slower to feed (P = 0.02) and faster to vocalize following a second alarm call playback (P = 0.03) but these hens did not exhibit the same vigilance behavior as documented in Experiment 1. The m-CPP hens also spent more time stepping and vocalizing (both P < 0.001) than the saline hens. An attention bias test could be used to assess anxiety. However, behavioral responses of hens may vary depending on their age or test environment familiarity, thus further refinement of the test is required. In these tests, 2 mg/kg of m-CPP resulted in motionless behavior when the environment was novel, but more movement and vocalizing when the environment was familiar. The extreme behavioral phenotypes exhibited by individually-tested birds may both be indicators of negative states.
... Red jungle fowl (Collias & Collias, 1967) and laying hens (Blokhuis, 1984;Cordiner & Savory, 2001) perch during day and night. Red jungle fowl usually select high trees (Collias & Collias, 1967;Arshad & Zakaria, 2009), while laying hens choose the highest perches available (Newberry et al., 2001;Brendler et al., 2014), probably as an evolutionary trait to avoid predation and disturbance during rest (Collias & Collias, 1967;Schrader & Müller, 2009). Rest can be defined as a prolonged period of inactivity that is clearly distinguishable from other maintenance behaviours. ...
Perching is important for broiler welfare, however, hampered by body weight. In a mixed flock, resting behaviour and location were compared between three broiler hybrids (Rowan Ranger, Hubbard CYJA57 & Ross 308; n = 100/hybrid), differing in growth. Rearing was in a large littered pen (1.84 birds/m²), with perches. Behaviour and position was observed in focal birds on daytime and as group scans on daytime (days 11, 45, 61 and 80) and night-time (days 63, 70 and 77). Birds were slaughtered at 84 days and accumulated mortality in fast-growing birds was 20% and 2% in slow-growing. Resting frequency did not differ though fast-growing broilers perched less and lower, at night (P < .01) and day (P < .01). On daytime, males disturbed birds resting on the floor more than females did (P < .05). Disrupted rest is a potential welfare issue in broilers, hence perches or other elevated structures would improve welfare.
... Perches are important to laying hens (Olsson and Keeling, 2000) and their positioning in housing systems influence their utility and function. Specifically for aviaries, perches positioned between and/or running alongside the aviary tiers help hens to move between the tiers (Campbell et al., 2016a) while those at the top would normally be used for roosting (Brendler et al., 2014;Campbell et al., 2016b). Additionally, some aviary systems allow birds to access the feeder by standing on perches (hereafter referred to as perch feeders) (Odén et al., 2002;Fröhlich, 2010). ...
Some commercial aviary systems for laying hens allow birds to access feed by standing on perches instead of platforms. Despite reports that providing laying hens with perches relates to reduced aggression and cannibalism, and increased prevalence of keel bone damage, the impact of feeding from perches on behaviour, health, and production has not been investigated. The current work studied the effects of feeding either from perches (Perch Treatment) or platforms (Platform Treatment) on behaviour, health, and production. The experiment was conducted in a quasi-commercial barn divided into 20 identical pens with 196 hens per pen to compare treatment (Perch vs. Platform) and hybrid (Nick Chick vs. Brown Nick) in a 2 × 2 factorial design. We analysed behaviour (from video recordings taken at 30, 37, and 51 weeks of age), health (at 29 and 65 weeks of age), feather condition (at 21, 44, and 65 weeks of age) and productivity parameters (collected daily from 18 to 65 weeks of age). Hens of the Perch Treatment showed less aggression at the feeder (z-value = - 1.942, p = 0.05), less jostling followed by feeding (at 30 weeks of age: z-value = - 4.191, p < 0.001; and 37 weeks of age: z-value = - 3.059, p = 0.022; but not at 51 weeks of age: p = 0.823) and followed by a behaviour other than feeding (z-value = - 7.075, p < 0.001), as well as more body instability (balance movements and falls combined) behaviours (Brown Nick: z-value = 4.338, p < 0.001, Nick Chick: z-value = 7.550, p < 0.001) than hens from the Platform Treatment. There was no difference in keel bone fractures between the treatments (p = 0.555). In the Perch Treatment, we recorded a tendency for lower overall mortality (t-value = - 1.807, d.f.= 17, p = 0.089) and the Brown Nick hybrid had lower mortality resulting from cannibalism (t-value = - 2.955, d.f = 8, p = 0.021), laid more eggs (z-value = - 2.853, p = 0.022), and had a greater feed conversion ratio (z-value = 3.947, p < 0.001) than in the Platform Treatment. Due to reduced aggression and jostling, as well as a tendency for lower overall mortality, we conclude that the Perch Treatment is a superior alternative with improved welfare to the Platform.
ESTÁN INCLUIDOS LOS TRABAJOS DE 18 UNIVERSIDADES MEXICANAS EN RECURSOS ZOOGENÉTICOS DE ESPECIES DOMÉSTICAS Y SILVESTRES
At 17 weeks 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 weeks 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 weeks, four combinations of nest curtains were adopted to evaluate the effects on hens" distribution, i.e., 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 weeks, 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.
Objective:
The objective of this study was to determine the effects of different social ranking order (SRO) and the enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (EA) on behavior of laying hens in furnished cages.
Methods:
A total of 4 weeks in experiment period. 216 Hy-line brown layers beak-trimmed at 1 d of age were selected randomly at 14 weeks of age from a commercial farm, and randomly divided into 36 cages with 6 hens in each cage. High enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (HEA) and low enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (LEA) were provided. Video observations of behavior were obtained from the focal hens between 14 and 18 weeks of age and perching, dust-bathing and other general behaviors of the hens with different social orders were measured.
Results:
Perching behavior of high social ranking order hens (HSR) were significantly higher than that of medium social ranking order hens (MSR), and that of the MSR were significantly higher than that of low social ranking order hens (LSR) (P < 0.01), except for lying on perch (P > 0.05). The hens in the high enrichment allocation cage (HEAC) showed more lying behavior on perch than those in the low enrichment allocation cage (LEAC) (P < 0.01). The different SRO and EA did not affect dust-bathing behavior except vertical wing-shaking behavior (P < 0.05). The LEA did not affect general behaviors (P > 0.05), except standing and preening behaviors (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05), of which the hens in the HEAC showed less standing (P < 0.01) and more preening behavior than the hens in the LEAC.
Conclusion:
The SRO of laying hens has a significant effect on the perching behaviors, but SRO and EA have little effect on dust-bathing and general behaviors.
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 (P = 0.03) and stepped less (P = 0.02) in the open field test. 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 7% of indoor hens ate following playback of the alarm call, compared with 36% of outdoor hens. This repetition of an attention bias test for laying hens highlights the challenges in assessing hens with extreme fearful/anxious responses and that information may be missed when non-performing hens are excluded from behavioural tests. We suggest that latency to eat in a novel arena without any alarm call playback is an informative measure of How to cite this article Campbell DLM, Dickson EJ, Lee C. 2019. Application of open field, tonic immobility, and attention bias tests to hens with different ranging patterns. PeerJ 7:e8122 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8122 anxious state that can be applied to all hens but consideration must be made of potential differences in food motivation.
Perching preference in laying hens is well analysed in several experimental studies. However, information about perch use on farm is scarce. The present study highlights perching preferences at daytime and night-time in 19 laying hen flocks on 18 farms with symmetric (n = 9) and asymmetric (n = 10) aviary systems. Perch use was higher during night than daytime and perches on high tiers were preferred compared to perches on low tiers. Within the low tier hens preferred the higher perches compared to lowest perches. These findings indicate that in order to fulfil the behavioural priorities of laying hens for perching not only the perch length but also the height of perches within the house should be considered.
Domestic fowl still tend to exhibit very similar behavior such as perching, nesting and dust-bathing to their ancestor, Red Jungle Fowl (Gallus gallus), even though they have been domesticated for 8,000 years. If given the opportunity, they choose high place for staying at night, a dark place for laying eggs and do dust bath in litter area. Therefore, these behaviors are considered for very important role in improving the welfare of laying hens. In EU and some countries, farmers must provide perches, nests and litter for the housing of laying hens. An understanding of behavior can lead to enhance physical health, emotional condition and welfare of laying hens. Unfortunately, there is little information on behavior of laying hens in Korea. Therefore, we researched the literature on certain behavior of laying hens.
Cover is a structural feature of the environment that animals can use to conceal themselves from predators or conspecifics or to gain shelter from inclement weather. Cover may also form a physical barrier limiting movement. It was hypothesized that domestic fowl,Gallus gallus domesticuswould use visual cover for concealment. Use of cover was examined in two strains of domestic fowl kept indoors in four groups of 110–112 birds each. In each pen, cover was provided by four rigid vertical panels, one in each of four quadrants. Four similar quadrants were without cover. To investigate use of cover for concealment, the four cover structures varied in continuity of visual cover: (1) transparent (0% cover), (2) transparent with four equidistant vertical green stripes (33% cover), (3) transparent with eight such stripes (67% cover) and (4) solid green (100% cover). Scan samples of quadrant use were made weekly when the birds were 24–52 days of age. Both strains of domestic fowl (1) used areas with cover more than areas without cover, (2) showed increased resting and preening behaviour in areas with cover and (3) showed increased use of cover as continuity increased from 0 to 67%. These results could not be explained by thermoregulatory or physical barrier effects of the cover structures. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that a preference for concealment motivates the use of visual cover by domestic fowl, and suggest a ‘Venetian blind’ effect for visually discontinuous security cover.
Birds have overcome the problem of sleeping in risky situations by
developing the ability to sleep with one eye open and one hemisphere of
the brain awake. Such unihemispheric slow-wave sleep is in direct
contrast to the typical situation in which sleep and wakefulness are
mutually exclusive states of the whole brain. We have found that birds
can detect approaching predators during unihemispheric slow-wave sleep,
and that they can increase their use of unihemispheric sleep as the risk
of predation increases. We believe this is the first evidence for an
animal behaviourally controlling sleep and wakefulness simultaneously in
different regions of the brain.
Individuals in groups are often thought to scan their surroundings for threats independently of one another. Models, however, suggest that foragers should monitor the vigilance level of their neighbours to prevent cheating, and to gather information about incipient predation risk. Evidence for monitoring of vigilance is scant. Here, I examined changes in vigilance levels in sleeping gulls (Larus sp.) surrounded by neighbours in various states of alertness. Controlling for group size and neighbour density, gulls interrupted sleep more often to scan their surroundings, and were therefore more vigilant, when their neighbours were alert rather than sleeping or preening. The results provide evidence for copying of vigilance within groups of birds, suggesting a complex flow of information about predation risk in groups.
1. The objective was to investigate the effect of cage height on perch height preference and perching behaviour in laying hens. Twelve groups of two hens and 12 groups of 14 hens were tested in furnished cages equipped with two wooden perches. These stepwise perches were designed such that hens could choose between 7 different heights (6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31 and 36 cm). Day- and night-time perching behaviour was observed on 4 consecutive days with a different cage height each day: 150, 55, 50 and 45 cm.
2. Given that a minimum perch-roof distance of 19 to 24 cm was available, hens preferred to roost on the highest perches at night.
3. Lowering cage height not only forced hens to use lower perches, but also reduced time spent on the perches during the day (two-hen and 14-hen test) and night (14-hen test). Moreover, it affected daytime behavioural activities (more standing and less preening) on the perches in the two-hen tests (but not in the 14-hen tests).
4. During the day lower perches were used more for standing and walking, higher perches more for sitting and sleeping. This behavioural differentiation was most pronounced in the highest cages.
5. Perch preference and perching behaviour depend on both the floor-perch distance and the perch-roof distance. Higher cages provide more opportunity for higher perches (which hens prefer), for better three-dimensional spacing (and consequently reduced density at floor level) and for behavioural differentiation according to perch height.
1. In White Leghorn laying hybrids aged 14 to 399 d the effects were measured of ambient temperature (Ta) and wind speed (WS) on heat production (HP), evaporative heat loss (EHL), nonevaporative heat loss with or without considering heat storage (NEHL1 or NEHL2), conductance (c), total insulation (I) and colonic temperature (Tc) as well as on biological optimum temperature (BOT), thermoneutral temperature (TNT) and threshold temperature for evaporative heat loss (Te). 2. All thermal balance variables were affected by age, Ta and WS. 3. The relationships between Ta and HP or NEHL2 were best expressed in terms of a polynomial function at low WS, and in terms of a linear function at medium and high WS; the relationship between Ta and NEHL1 at all WS studied was best described in terms of linear functions, the slope of which increased with decreasing Ta and rising WS; those between Ta, EHL and c were best described in terms of exponential functions and between Ta and I in terms of quadratic functions, the rate of increase of which was higher at low Ta and medium and high WS. 4. The description of relationships between the age of birds and their HP, EHL, NEHL1 and NEHL2 was performed after logarithmic transformation and yielded a linearly decreasing function with advancing age. 5. Threshold temperatures increased as WS increased from 0.2 to 1.2 m/s; for EHL (Te) by up to 7.5 K, for Tc (BOT) and for HP (TNT) by 10 K. 6. The effects of age, Ta and WS on HP and both forms of NEHL were summarised by multiple regression equations.
Sleep in birds involves a period of eye closure interrupted by short ‘peeks’ of eye-opening. These peeks allow a bird to scan the sleeping site for predators. Peeking and eye closure were recorded for eight focal birds in flocks of 1, 2, 3 and 6 doves. Half these doves were high risk (predator presented before the sleeping bout) and half low risk (no predator). Individual vigilance fell with increasing flock size, and was higher in high-risk birds. However, corporate vigilance increased with flock size. High-risk flocks were more vigilant than low-risk flocks. These results are discussed with reference to the costs and benefits of eye closure and peeking.
Resting behaviour as well as other maintenance behaviours were studied in a group of Jungle Fowl (10 ♀♀, 1 ♂) and in a group of a medium hybrid commercial laying strain (9 ♀♀, 1 ♂). Observations were carried out under spacious and varied housing conditions. Both groups were observed for seven 24-h periods. Sleeping and dozing are defined and described and 24-h patterns of rest and other maintenance behaviours are shown. Results and differences between groups are discussed.
For night-time roosting domestic fowl show a strong priority for high perches. Following the anti-predator hypothesis the height of a resting site should however be more important for the fowl than roosting on a perch. Here we tested whether laying hens prefer high resting areas without perches compared to low resting areas with perches. In three trials a total of 36 groups with 9 laying hens balanced for two strains (Lohmann Brown, Lohmann Selected Leghorn) were kept in compartments (1.6m×3.8m) in which they were offered two different resting areas each. Resting areas consisted of elements with an area of 90cm×65cm of two heights (L: 15cm or H: 60cm) with either a plastic grid (G) or perches (P) on top of the elements. Preferences for perches vs. grid were tested with the combinations HP/HG and LP/LG, preferences for high vs. low resting area with the combinations LP/HP and LG/HG, and preferences for the height vs. perch with the combination LP/HG. The combination LG/HP served as a control. Video-recordings were done in week 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 30 of life after the hens were housed in the experimental compartments at an age of 20 weeks. From these recordings the number of hens on the resting areas was counted in 1h-intervals throughout two consecutive nights for 8h each. From the 28th to the 30th week of life the hens did not significantly change their preference for the resting area and, thus, data from the 30th week of life were subjected to a detailed statistical analysis. The LSQ-means of the differences between the proportions of hens on the different elements were estimated with an ANOVA, and t-values were used to test whether these differences were unequal 0. At an age of 30 weeks the hens significantly preferred the high vs. low resting areas (ΔH-L: 74%, t=4.1, P
Laying hens usually select an elevated position for resting at night-time. A previous study showed that the position a hen takes during resting was affected by perch material, most probably due to its thermal conductivity. The aim of the present study was to analyse the effect of perch surface temperature on resting behaviour and resting comfort in laying hens. In each of two identical trials, three groups of five Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens were housed in each of three compartments in turn (n = 30 birds in six groups). Compartments were equally equipped with one smooth, round galvanised steel perch of 34 mm external diameter. The surface temperatures of perches were controlled by passing water through them, giving temperatures of 15 °C, 18 °C (room temperature) and 28 °C respectively in the three compartments. Hen behaviour was observed at night-time by investigating the proportion of active behavioural patterns and resting (standing or sitting), either with ‘head forward motionless and neck withdrawn’ or ‘head tucked backwards into feathers above wing base or behind a wing.’ The number of hens perching and the time spent perching were unaffected by perch temperature. Hens’ resting postures, however, were strongly influenced. On the warmest perch, hens rested more with their head forward in a standing position and showed more active behavioural patterns compared to both cooler perches (P < 0.001). On the cooler perches, hens rested more with their head covered by feathers in a sitting and standing position (P < 0.05). Our data show that perch temperature strongly affects laying hens’ resting behaviour. In this context, hens are confronted with arising trade-offs between thermoregulatory adjustment of behaviour, optimisation of energy budget, restful roosting and vigilance behaviour.
Fear can be a damaging stressor, resulting in impaired animal welfare and poor production economy. Often fear reactions are elicited in situations that are in some way related to predator defence. As males have a guarding role, mixing the sexes might be a way of reducing fear in large groups of laying hens. Tonic immobility (TI) and vigilance are anti-predator behaviours shown by poultry. They have been used in several studies to measure the level of fear or stress. The influence of males on duration of TI, vigilance and total number of behaviour transitions in female laying hens was studied on an egg production farm. Eight groups of 1200 white LSL layers each were used and 25 focal birds in each group were studied. In half of the groups one male per 100 females was added. The presence of males had a significant effect on TI-duration and frequency and duration of vigilant behaviour (P < 0.001); females in the mixed-sex groups had shorter TI-duration and showed less and shorter vigilance than females in the all-female groups. There was no significant effect on observed agonistic behaviour or the total number of behaviour transitions. However, significantly fewer females in the mixed groups had peck wounds on the comb. These results indicate that female laying hens show less signs of fear if the flock also contains males. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Attempts to form a feral population of domestic fowl with artificially reared birds on an island nature reserve are described. The birds were subjected to predation by mink, but some hens produced broods and successfully reared their young, a few of which were more than 6 months old at the end of the study period. Factors leading to survival of the population in the face of certain selection pressures are discussed.
Cited By (since 1996): 37, Export Date: 18 November 2011, Source: Scopus
Free-living hens perch on branches in trees and domestic hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) show signs of unrest if they cannot reach a perch, suggesting that night-time perching is a behaviour that hens are motivated to perform. This motivation was quantified in two experiments using a weighted push-door that hens had to push open in order to gain access to a perch. First, the motivation of individual birds to perch, and second, the effect of a companion bird on perching motivation, were measured. Eight adult laying hens (Lohmann Selected Leghorn) were trained to push through the door at increasing resistances, and the individual capacity of each hen was determined. Hens were then tested once per day, at lights-off, in a test pen where pushing through the push-door gave access to the resource. Two consecutive series of increasing resistances were used in the experiment: 25, 50, 75 and 100 per cent of each bird's maximum capacity. In the first experiment, the resources offered were either a perch (treatment) or a 'sham perch' that could not be used for perching (control). Hens opened significantly heavier doors in order to gain access to a perch than to gain access to the sham perch. In the second experiment, pushing through the door gave access either to a perch with a companion hen already perching on it (treatment) or to a perch and a companion hen roosting on the floor (control). In this comparison, four of the hens did not push through the door, probably because of aggressive interactions with the companion, and no significant differences between treatments were found. We conclude that hens are motivated to use a perch for night-time roosting and that they should be housed in systems with perches.
To test the hypothesis that young domestic fowl perform less perch-related antipredator behaviour with increasing group size, White Leghorn pullets were reared in four replicate groups of 15, 30, 60 and 120 at a constant density of 5 birds/m(2). Each pen contained perches 20, 40 and 60cm above the ground. Perch space per bird per perch level was the same for all groups. It was predicted that, with increasing group size, domestic fowl would (1) spend less time on perches (i.e. more time down on the floor); (2) be less vigilant while perching; (3) spend relatively more time preening down on the floor. As predicted, the proportion of 3- to 18-week-old birds roosting on perches during scans throughout the photoperiod decreased with increasing group size, from 41+/-1.7% in groups of 15 birds to 33+/-1.6% in groups of 120 birds. This effect was due to reduced use of the lower perches; use of the highest perches was high at all group sizes. The proportion of birds vigilant on the highest perches of those present on that perch level decreased with increasing group size. The proportion of birds engaged in the vulnerable activity of preening down on the floor increased with group size. The frequency of transitions between floor and perches was not affected by group size but birds received more disturbances from other birds when on the top perch level in the larger groups. Thus, the decline in vigilance on the top perch level with increasing group size was not due to reduced disturbance from other birds. In conclusion, despite domestication and protection from non-human predators, changes in the use of perches by young domestic fowl with increasing group size were consistent with the antipredator hypothesis.
1. Fifty-one flocks of laying hens in two high-density loose-housing systems were studied on 25 commercial farms in Sweden as part of a government test programme for evaluating new systems for laying hens. Six different hybrids were used in group sizes ranging from 250 to 5 000 birds. Stocking-densities varied from 10.2 to 19.1 birds per m2 floor area. No birds were beak trimmed. 2. The distribution of birds in the system, the frequency and location of aggressive pecks and feather pecks, the dust bathing activity and the birds' fear reaction to the keeper and to a novel object were measured. Direct behaviour observations were carried out twice per flock, at weeks 35 and 55. 3. The proportion of birds at the different locations was relatively constant across the 8-h observation period in the tiered system, but changed over time in the perch system, which may reflect a difference in access to resources between the systems. At night the top perches/tiers were preferred although when stocking-density increased, other sites were also used. 4. Aggression occurred mainly on the litter or in the nest areas. It did not differ between hybrids, but increased with age in the tiered system. Feather pecks occurred mainly on the litter. Brown hybrids feather pecked more than white ones, while white hybrids reacted more both to the keeper and to a novel object than did the brown hybrids. 5. It was concluded that access to nests was insufficient in both systems, as was litter space. Feed space was insufficient in the tiered system if food requirements increased. Design of the top perches, in the perch system, should be improved to allow birds to perch high up in the system without blocking access to feed etc. for others.
Four observers performed a standard clinical examination of finisher pigs in two commercial finisher herds. In herd 1,600 finisher pigs in 44 pens were examined. The observers assessed clinical signs of lameness, umbilical hernia and tail bite according to a standardized procedure. The prevalence of the clinical signs was estimated at the pen level. The procedure was repeated after 3 months in another herd, where 730 finisher pigs in 69 pens were examined. The agreement between observer pairs was assessed using prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) and proportionate-agreement estimates (Ppo) and Pneg). Observer bias was present despite training and standardization of the participating observers. The highest pen level agreement for the observer pairs was found for pens that had one or more pigs with tail bite (PABAK = 0.82-1.00) and umbilical hernia (PABAK = 0.77-1.00). The agreement was fair-to-moderate for identification of pens holding one or more lame pigs (PABAK = 0.27-0.7). In general, the average agreement of observer pairs on absence of clinical signs (Pneg) was higher than for presence (Ppos). The observer bias varied between observer pairs and with the clinical signs.
A comparison of two basic characteristics of a perch for laying hens Sleeping and vigilance in birds. II. An experimen-tal study of the Barbary dove (Streptopelia risoria)
- L J Keeling
Keeling, L.J., 1997. A comparison of two basic characteristics of a perch for laying hens. In: Hemsworth, P.H., Spinka, M., Kostal, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of the ISAE, 13–16 August. Research Institute of Animal Production, Prague, CZ, p. 83. Lendrem, D.W., 1984. Sleeping and vigilance in birds. II. An experimen-tal study of the Barbary dove (Streptopelia risoria). Anim. Behav. 32, 243–248.
R: A Language and Environment for Sta-tistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Half-awake to the risk of predation
- R Development
- Core Team
- N C Lima
- S L Amlaner
R Development Core Team, 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Sta-tistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, see http://www.R-project.org/ Rattenborg, N.C., Lima, S.L., Amlaner, C.J., 1999. Half-awake to the risk of predation. Nature 397, 397–398.
The creation of a common scoring system for the integument and health of laying hens Effects of ambient tem-perature, age and wind speed on the thermal balance of layer-strain fowls
- R Tauson
- J Kjaer
- G A Maria
- R Cepero
- K.-E Holm
Tauson, R., Kjaer, J., Maria, G.A., Cepero, R., Holm, K.-E., 2004. The creation of a common scoring system for the integument and health of laying hens. In: Applied Scoring of Integument and Health in Laying Hens. http://www.laywel.eu Tzschentke, B., Nichelmann, M., Postel, T., 1996. Effects of ambient tem-perature, age and wind speed on the thermal balance of layer-strain fowls. Br. Poult. Sci. 37, 501–520.
A comparison of two basic characteristics of a perch for laying hens
- Keeling
The creation of a common scoring system for the integument and health of laying hens
- Tauson