Effects of Different Scratch Mat Designs on Hen Behaviour and Eggs Laid in Enriched Cages
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Hens and Cages
2.2. Behaviour
2.3. Eggs
2.4. Statistics
- counts of birds observed on the mat (all behaviours) on each cage side at each behaviour observation with and without offset log relative area of the scratch mats.
- counts of birds on the mat on each cage side at each behaviour observation exhibiting different behaviours (standing, sitting, foraging) out of number of birds observed on the same mat at the time of the behaviour observation (thus all reported estimates in the results are on the scale of the proportion (or proportion transformed) of each behaviour on the mat, out of total birds on the mat).
- counts of egg types (clean, dirty, cracked) out of eggs of all types collected from the belt opposite each location in the cage side (nest, scratch, other) on egg assessment days (thus all reported estimates in the results are on the scale of the proportion (or proportion transformed) of each egg type, out of total eggs at each location).
3. Results
3.1. Behaviour
3.1.1. Counts of Birds on the Mats
3.1.2. Standing
3.1.3. Sitting
3.1.4. Foraging
3.2. Eggs
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Council of the European Union. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens; Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 1999; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Defra United Kingdom Egg Statistics—Quarter 4. 2020. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/956301/eggs-statsnotice-28jan21.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2021).
- Appleby, M.C.; Walker, A.W.; Nicol, C.J.; Lindberg, A.C.; Freire, R.; Hughes, B.O.; Elson, H.A. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jendral, M.J. Assessing the Welfare of Laying Hens Housed in Conventional, Modified and Commercially-Available Furnished Colony Cages. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2008. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, document no. NR46339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Chen, D.; Li, J.; Bao, J. Effects of furnished cage type on behavior and welfare of laying hens. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barnett, J.L.; Cronin, G.M.; Tauson, R.; Downing, J.A.; Janardhana, V.; Lowenthal, J.W.; Butler, K.L. The effects of a perch, dust bath and nest box in furnished cages on the welfare of laying hens. In Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Lublin, Poland, 15–19 June 2005; pp. 111–119. [Google Scholar]
- Leyendecker, M.; Hamann, H.; Hartung, J.; Kamphues, J.; Neumann, U.; Sürie, C.; Distl, O. Keeping laying hens in furnished cages and an aviary housing system enhances their bone stability. Br. Poult. Sci. 2005, 46, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wall, H. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2153–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinebretière, M.; Beyer, H.; Arnould, C.; Michel, V. The choice of litter material to promote pecking, scratching and dustbathing behaviours in laying hens housed in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 155, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandilands, V.; McDevitt, R.M.; Sparks, N.H.C. Effects of enriched cage design and colony size on production, health and welfare in two strains of laying hens. Br. Poult. Abstr. 2007, 3, 16–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louton, H.; Bergmann, S.; Reese, S.; Erhard, M.H.; Rauch, E. Dust-bathing behavior of laying hens in enriched colony housing systems and an aviary system. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 1482–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, H.-W.; Louton, H.; Schwarzer, A.; Rauch, E.; Probst, A.; Shao, S.; Schmidt, P.; Erhard, M.H.; Bergmann, S. Effects of multiple daily litter applications on the dust bathing behaviour of laying hens kept in an enriched cage system. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 178, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schütz, K.E.; Jensen, P. Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: A comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 2001, 107, 753–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawkins, M.S. Time budgets in red junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1989, 24, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savory, C.J.; Wood-Gush, D.G.M.; Duncan, I.J.H. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 1978, 4, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savory, C.J. Feather pecking and cannibalism. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 1995, 51, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blokhuis, H.J.; Arkes, J.G. Some observations on the development of feather-pecking in poultry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1984, 12, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodenburg, T.B.; Koene, P. Feather pecking and feather loss. In Welfare of the Laying Hen; Perry, G.C., Ed.; Cabi Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 227–238. [Google Scholar]
- Hunniford, M.E.; Torrey, S.; Bédécarrats, G.; Duncan, I.J.H.; Widowski, T.M. Evidence of competition for nest sites by laying hens in large furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 161, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tactacan, G.B.; Guenter, W.; Lewis, N.J.; House, J.D. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 2005, 88, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onbaşılar, E.E.; Ünal, N.; Erdem, E.; Kocakaya, A.; Yaranoğlu, B. Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages 1. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey-Trott, T.M.; Widowski, T.M. Behavioral differences of laying hens with fractured keel bones within furnished cages. Front. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buijs, S.; Booth, F.; Richards, G.; Mcgaughey, L.; Nicol, C.J.; Edgar, J.; Tarlton, J.F. Behavioural and physiological responses of laying hens to automated monitoring equipment. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 199, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinebretière, M.; Michel, V.; Arnould, C. Dustbathing, pecking and scratching behaviours of laying hens in furnished cages are enhanced by the presence of rubber mats and litter distribution. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 171, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, D.C.; Fulton, R.M.; Hester, P.Y.; Karcher, D.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Mench, J.A.; Mullens, B.A.; Newberry, R.C.; Nicol, C.J.; O’Sullivan, N.P.; et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz, B.; Urselmans, S.; Kjaer, J.B.; Schrader, L. Food, wood, or plastic as substrates for dustbathing and foraging in laying hens: A preference test. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1584–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.L.M.; Ali, A.B.A.; Karcher, D.M.; Siegford, J.M. Laying hens in aviaries with different litter substrates: Behavior across the flock cycle and feather lipid content. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3824–3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinebretiere, M.; Huneau-Salauen, A.; Huonnic, D.; Michel, V. Cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality: The effects of linings and litter provision in furnished cages for laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandilands, V.; Baker, L.; Brocklehurst, S. The reaction of brown and white strains of hens to enriched cages. Br. Poult. Abstr. 2009, 5, 31–32. [Google Scholar]
- Roland, D.A. The ability of young and old hens to change shell deposition with sudden neutral drastic changes in egg size. Poult. Sci. 1980, 59, 924–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wistedt, A.; Ridderstråle, Y.; Wall, H.; Holm, L. Age-related changes in the shell gland and duodenum in relation to shell quality and bone strength in commercial laying hen hybrids. Acta Vet. Scand. 2019, 61, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mat Type | Length × Width (cm) | Mat Area (cm2) | Mat Area/Hen (cm2) | Relative Scratch Mat Area |
---|---|---|---|---|
BD | 35.0 × 26.5 | 927.5 | 15.5 | 0.214 |
K | 30.5 × 19.0 | 579.5 | 9.7 | 0.134 |
V | 44.8 × 18.0 | 806.4 | 13.4 | 0.186 |
Z | 64.0 × 31.5 | 2016.0 | 33.6 | 0.466 |
Behaviour | Description |
---|---|
Stand | At least one foot on the mat, stationary with no other activity |
Sit | Sitting on the mat with no other activity |
Forage | Pecking and scratching at the mat (feet may be off the mat) |
Dustbathe | Dustbathing (or sham dustbathing) on the mat |
Preen | Self-grooming on the mat |
Walk | Moving across the mat |
Other | All other behaviours |
Stand | Sit | Forage | Dustbathe | Preen | Walk | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.720 | 0.250 | 0.021 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
(a) Egg Type | (b) Cage Location | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bird Age | Clean | Dirty | Crack | Bird Age | Nest | Scratch | Other |
30 | 0.991 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 30 | 0.850 | 0.052 | 0.098 |
50 | 0.965 | 0.027 | 0.008 | 50 | 0.878 | 0.054 | 0.068 |
79 | 0.858 | 0.094 | 0.048 | 79 | 0.825 | 0.053 | 0.138 |
Cage Location | |||
---|---|---|---|
Egg Type | Nest | Scratch | Other |
clean | 0.970 | 0.895 | 0.930 |
dirty | 0.011 | 0.086 | 0.043 |
crack | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sandilands, V.; Baker, L.; Donbavand, J.; Brocklehurst, S. Effects of Different Scratch Mat Designs on Hen Behaviour and Eggs Laid in Enriched Cages. Animals 2021, 11, 1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061544
Sandilands V, Baker L, Donbavand J, Brocklehurst S. Effects of Different Scratch Mat Designs on Hen Behaviour and Eggs Laid in Enriched Cages. Animals. 2021; 11(6):1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061544
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandilands, Victoria, Laurence Baker, Jo Donbavand, and Sarah Brocklehurst. 2021. "Effects of Different Scratch Mat Designs on Hen Behaviour and Eggs Laid in Enriched Cages" Animals 11, no. 6: 1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061544
APA StyleSandilands, V., Baker, L., Donbavand, J., & Brocklehurst, S. (2021). Effects of Different Scratch Mat Designs on Hen Behaviour and Eggs Laid in Enriched Cages. Animals, 11(6), 1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061544