Submit to Animals Review for Animals Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615). This special issue belongs to the section "Poultry".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (28 February 2022) | Viewed by 42479

Printed Edition Available!
A printed edition of this Special Issue is available here.

Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers book cover image

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Victoria Sandilands

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Scotland's Rural College, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
Interests: poultry; behaviour and welfare; management

Prof. Dr. Tina Widowski

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor

Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Interests: poultry; behaviour and welfare; housing; early life experience
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Housing and management practices have a significant influence on the health and wellbeing of poultry such as hens and broilers. In recent years, many housing trends have changed, for example with increased use of multi-tier aviaries for hens (and the rearing of pullets), the move away from any caged egg production, or the use of windows in broiler housing. Management practices are also changing on a regular basis, with many countries aiming to stop routine beak trimming in laying hens, or the increased practice of in-farm hatching for broilers. Furthermore, lighting trends are embracing new technologies (such as LEDs) and different lighting patterns. Such changes can be influencers on how birds behave, their welfare, and production. This Special Issue will focus on current housing and management trends in laying hens and broilers, bringing readers the most up-to-date information from reputable scientists working in these fields.

Dr. Victoria Sandilands
Guest Editor

Dr. Tina Widowski
Co-Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

conventional cages
enriched cages
non-cage systems
free-range
organic
conventional and extensive floor rearing
cage pullet rearing
floor pullet rearing
aviary pullet rearing

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (11 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

20 pages, 4084 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Do Hens Use Enrichments Provided in Free-Range Systems?

by Victoria Sandilands, Laurence Baker, Jo Donbavand and Sarah Brocklehurst

Animals 2022, 12(8), 995; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080995 - 12 Apr 2022

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2272

Abstract

Hens in free-range systems are given enrichments to increase foraging and limit injurious pecking, but the efficacy of enrichment types requires investigation. We studied hen behaviour and feather cover in eight commercial free-range flocks each given access to four enrichments within the shed. Sheds were split into quarters, in which two enrichments (jute ropes (R) + other) were installed. Other enrichments were: lucerne hay bales (B), pecking blocks (PB), pelleted feed (PF), or further R (control). Hens were observed at three ages, at three times per age (−1, 0, ≥1 h relative to PF application), in 1 m diameter circle locations around ropes (ControlR), Enrich (B, PB, PF, R), and Away from each enrichment. Feather scores were recorded at all ages/times, at the Away location only. Significantly more birds were in Enrich locations where PB, B, and PF were available, and least near R, ControlR, and Away locations (p < 0.001). Proportions of birds interacting with enrichments were significantly higher for PB, B, and PF than R (p < 0.001), but enrichments did not generally affect proportions of birds foraging in the litter, apart from a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in PF birds foraging in the Enrich location because they were directing behaviour at PF instead. Feather scores worsened with age (p < 0.001) but were not consistently affected by enrichment. Enrichment replacement rates varied between farms. Enrichments costs were highest for PB and cheapest for R. Enrichments except R were used by hens, but with no obvious effect on feather cover. A balance has to be struck between enrichment benefits to hens and economics, but evidence suggested that hens did not benefit from R. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 2488 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Structuring Broiler Barns: How a Perforated Flooring System Affects Animal Behavior

by Franziska May, Jenny Stracke, Sophia Heitmann, Carolin Adler, Alica Krasny, Nicole Kemper and Birgit Spindler

Animals 2022, 12(6), 735; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12060735 - 15 Mar 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2566

Abstract

Broiler chickens in Europe are usually raised in a barren environment. Elevated perforated platforms address this problem and can positively influence animal health and welfare. To evaluate the effect of an elevated perforated floor on the behavior of broiler chickens, one of two barns was equipped with a perforated flooring system under the food and water supply. The second barn was used as a control. In total, three fattening periods were observed, with 500 broiler chickens (Ross 308 breed) kept in each barn. To compare the behavior of the birds in these groups, cameras were installed in the two barns. The videos were analyzed by counting the number of birds and observing focal animals while recording their behavior. More animals were observed on the perforated floor than in the littered control area (p < 0.001), but focal animals spent less time on the perforated floor compared to the observed littered area in the control barn (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the length of the recorded behaviors between the treatments. These findings suggest that, in general, the elevated perforated floor is attractive for the animals. However, it does not promote one of the recorded behavior patterns. Our results show that an elevated perforated floor could be an option for structuring broiler barns. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 1171 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Positive Effects of Elevated Platforms and Straw Bales on the Welfare of Fast-Growing Broiler Chickens Reared at Two Different Stocking Densities

by Frédérique Mocz, Virginie Michel, Mathilde Janvrot, Jean-Philippe Moysan, Alassane Keita, Anja B. Riber and Maryse Guinebretière

Animals 2022, 12(5), 542; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12050542 - 22 Feb 2022

Cited by 17 | Viewed by 3654

Abstract

In conventional rearing systems, fast-growing broiler chickens commonly experience welfare issues, such as contact dermatitis, walking difficulties or a lack of expression of species-specific behaviours. Enriching their environment may be a way to improve their welfare. The objective of this study was to evaluate the benefits of elevated platforms and straw bales on the welfare of fast-growing broiler chickens reared at two different stocking densities. A total of 14,994 Ross 308 broilers were housed in 12 pens according to 4 treatments: 31 kg/m² with or without enrichments and 41 kg/m² with or without enrichments. The broilers’ walking ability, footpad dermatitis (FPD), hock burns (HB), weight, mortality and litter quality were assessed. Stocking density had a negative effect on FPD and HB, whereas enrichments reduced the occurrence of FPD and HB at both densities. There was a positive enrichment effect and a negative density effect on body weight at 25 days and on walking ability, but no effect on the litter quality or mortality rate. These results confirm that an enriched environment improves animal welfare in confined chickens, regardless of the stocking density. Reducing stocking density clearly appears to be an important means of increasing animal welfare. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 7741 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Commercial Free-Range Laying Hens’ Preferences for Shelters with Different Sunlight Filtering Percentages

by Md Sohel Rana, Caroline Lee, Jim M. Lea and Dana L. M. Campbell

Animals 2022, 12(3), 344; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030344 - 31 Jan 2022

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3933

Abstract

Extreme sunlight might be aversive to free-range laying hens, discouraging them from going outside. Range enrichment with artificial shelters may protect hens from sunlight and increase range use. The preferences of 34–40-week-old Hy-Line Brown laying hens for artificial shelters were assessed by counting the number of hens under three densities of individual shelters (three replicates/density) from video recordings for 14 to 17 days for two flocks. The artificial shelters used shade cloth marketed as blocking 50%, 70%, and 90% of ultraviolet light, although other sunlight wavelengths were also reduced. Different sunlight spectral irradiances (ultraviolet radiation (UV_AB) (288–432 nm), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (400–700 nm), and total solar radiation (TSR) (285 nm–3000 nm), ambient temperature, and relative humidity were recorded with an on-site weather station. There was a significant interaction between sunlight-filtering shelter and time of day (both Flocks, p < 0.0001), i.e., hens preferred shelters with the highest amount of sunlight-filtering at most time points. Regression models showed that the most variance in shelter use throughout the day resulted from the ambient temperature in both flocks, while sunlight parameters had different degrees of effect depending on the shelter type and flock. However, fewer hens under the shelters during the midday period suggest that during periods of intense sunlight, hens prefer to remain indoors, and artificial structures might not be sufficient to attract more hens outside. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 1719 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Impacts of Rearing Enrichments on Pullets’ and Free-Range Hens’ Positive Behaviors across the Flock Cycle

by Dana L. M. Campbell, Sue Belson, Tim R. Dyall, Jim M. Lea and Caroline Lee

Animals 2022, 12(3), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030280 - 23 Jan 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3491

Abstract

Enrichment during the indoor rearing of pullets destined for free-range systems may optimize pullet development including increasing motivated natural behaviors (termed ‘positive behaviors’) including foraging, dust bathing and chick play. Hy-Line Brown® chicks (n = 1700) were floor-reared indoors across 16 weeks with three enrichment treatments (n = 3 pens/treatment): (1) standard control, (2) weekly novel objects—‘novelty’, (3) perching/navigation structures—‘structural’. At 16 weeks, pullets (n = 1386) were transferred to nine identical pens within rearing treatments with outdoor range access from 25 to 65 weeks. Video cameras recorded the pullet pens, adult indoor pens, and outside range. During rearing, observations of play behavior (running, frolicking, wing-flapping, sparring) in chicks at 2, 4 and 6 weeks (total of 432 thirty-second scans: 16 observations × 3 days × 9 pens) showed no overall effect of rearing treatment (p = 0.16). At 11 and 14 weeks only the ‘novelty’ hens were observed to increase their foraging across age (p = 0.009; dust bathing: p = 0.40) (total of 612 thirty-second scans per behavior: 17 observations × 2 days × 2 age points × 9 pens). Observations of adult hens at 26, 31, 41, 50, 60 and 64 weeks showed that the structural hens exhibited overall more dust bathing and foraging than the control hens (both p < 0.04) but both novelty and/or structural hens showed small increases depending on the behavior and location (total of 4104 scans per behavior: 17 observations × 2 days × 6 age points × 9 pens × 2 locations = 3672 + an additional 432 observations following daylight saving). Across age, adult hens differed in the degree of dust bathing performed inside or outside (both p ≤ 0.001) and foraging outside (p < 0.001) but not inside (p = 0.15). For litter-reared pullets, additional enrichments may result in some long-term increases in positive behaviors. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 1506 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Utility of Scatter Feeding as Enrichment: Do Broiler Chickens Engage with Scatter–Fed Items?

by Brittany Wood, Christina Rufener, Maja M. Makagon and Richard A. Blatchford

Animals 2021, 11(12), 3478; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123478 - 7 Dec 2021

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 3040

Abstract

In recent years, welfare certification companies have encouraged the use of scatter feeding as enrichment material, though there is little scientific evidence to support a scatter feeding program. This study aimed to understand the impact of scatter feeding on the foraging behavior of broilers. One hundred eighty Ross 308 chicks were allocated into six treatment groups (six replicates/treatment). Broilers were scatter fed dried mealworms, whole wheat, shredded cabbage, alfalfa pellets, wood shavings, or no scatter feeding, respectively. Enrichment was provided on the first three days of each week. Total foraging, active foraging, and feeding were observed for one-hour periods immediately after scattering, 2 h later, and 6 h later. In all groups, broilers increased both total (p = 0.001) and active (p = 0.001) foraging, though this was most pronounced in the dried mealworm group. Across all groups, active foraging decreased with age (p = 0.001). The mealworm group also showed a corresponding decrease in feeding during hour one compared to the later hours (p = 0.001). These results did not provide evidence that scatter feeding encourages foraging behavior, except for a short-term effect of a high value feed item. This finding suggests that the item scattered and the delivery method should be studied further. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 1729 KiB

Open AccessArticle

From the Point of View of the Chickens: What Difference Does a Window Make?

by Elaine Cristina de Oliveira Sans, Frank André Maurice Tuyttens, Cesar Augusto Taconeli, Ana Silvia Pedrazzani, Marcos Martinez Vale and Carla Forte Maiolino Molento

Animals 2021, 11(12), 3397; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123397 - 28 Nov 2021

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3852

Abstract

We aimed to investigate what broiler chickens prefer when given free choice between a barn side with artificial lighting only as opposed to the other barn side with natural light through glass windows and artificial light. Eighty-five 1 day-old male Cobb 500 broiler chickens were divided into 10 pens; half of each pen area was provided with only artificial light (OAL) and the other half with natural and artificial light (NAL), and birds were free to move across sides. Environmental indicators and external conditions such as temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, ammonia and illuminance were monitored inside and outside the barn. Chickens’ preference was registered each three days, divided in categories: I (at 9, 12, and 15 days), II (at 18, 21, 24, and 27 days), and III (at 30, 33 and 36 days). The effect of the interaction between environmental indicators and week was statistically different only for illuminance. Chickens preferred NAL to OAL from 18 days onwards (II p < 0.001; III p = 0.016). Drinking (p = 0.034) and exploration or locomotion (p = 0.042) behaviours were more frequent, and “not visible” behaviours (p < 0.001) were less frequent, in NAL. Foraging was the only behaviour with an interaction effect between age category and light treatment, as birds during period II expressed this behaviour more frequently in NAL than OAL (p = 0.003). For our experimental conditions, the chickens preferred NAL from 18 days of age onwards, when the confounding effect of the heating light was removed, and their behavioural repertoire was also different according to each side of the barn and to their ages. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 267 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Effect of Light Intensity, Strain, and Age on the Behavior, Jumping Frequency and Success, and Welfare of Egg-Strain Pullets Reared in Perchery Systems

by Jo Ann Chew, Tina Widowski, Eugenia Herwig, Tory Shynkaruk and Karen Schwean-Lardner

Animals 2021, 11(12), 3353; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123353 - 24 Nov 2021

Cited by 10 | Viewed by 2478

Abstract

The effects of light intensity (L) are not well studied in pullets. Our research objective was to study the effect of L on navigational success, behavior, and welfare of two pullet strains (S). In two repeated trials, a 3 × 2 × 4 factorial arrangement tested three L (10, 30, 50 lux) and two S (Lohmann Brown-Lite (LB), LSL-Lite (LW)) at four ages. One thousand eight hundred pullets/S (0–16 wk) were randomly assigned to floor pens within light-tight rooms (three pens/S/room, four rooms/L) containing four parallel perches and a ramp. Data collection included jumping frequency and success (24h continuous sampling), novel object tests (fear), heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios (stress), and behavior (instantaneous scan sampling) during photoperiods. L did not affect injurious behavior, fear, or H/L. Pullets reared at 50 lux spent more time preening than at 10 lux. Pullets reared at 10 lux spent more time wall pecking than at 50 lux. Time spent standing and preening and total number and accuracy of jumping increased with age. Pullets reared at 30 lux had higher jumping frequency than at 10 lux; accuracy was not affected. LW jumped more than LB, but with similar success. LB spent more time exploring and scored higher in the fear and stress assessments, suggesting S differences. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

11 pages, 1411 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Broiler Chicken Behavior and Activity Are Affected by Novel Flooring Treatments

by Leonie Jacobs, Shawnna Melick, Nathan Freeman, An Garmyn and Frank A. M. Tuyttens

Animals 2021, 11(10), 2841; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11102841 - 29 Sep 2021

Cited by 15 | Viewed by 3532

Abstract

The objective was to determine broiler chicken behavioral differences in response to novel flooring treatments. Broilers (n = 182) were housed in 14 pens (a random subset from a larger-scale study including 42 pens), with 13 birds/pen. One of seven flooring treatments were randomly allocated to 14 pens (2 pens per treatment). The flooring treatments (provided from day 1 {1} or day 29 {29}) included regularly replaced shavings (POS), a mat with 1% povidone-iodine solution (MAT), and the iodine mat placed on a partially slatted floor (SLAT). In addition, a negative control treatment was included with birds kept on used litter from day 1 (NEG). Behavior was recorded in weeks 1, 2, 5, and 6. In week 5, treatments affected the behavioral repertoire (p ≤ 0.035). Birds in POS-1 showed more locomoting, preening and activity overall compared to MAT and/or SLAT treatments. Birds in POS-29 showed more drinking, foraging, preening and overall activity than birds in MAT and/or SLAT treatments. In week 6, birds in the POS-1 treatment spent more time foraging compared to birds in all MAT and SLAT treatments (p ≤ 0.030). In addition, birds in the POS-1 treatment spent more time preening than birds in the MAT-1 treatment (p = 0.046). Our results indicate that access to partially slatted flooring and/or disinfectant mats does not benefit broiler chicken welfare in terms of their ability to express highly motivated behaviors. Access to clean, regularly replaced litter is beneficial for broiler chicken welfare in terms of their ability to express their normal behavioral repertoire. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 2049 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Effect of Environmental Complexity and Stocking Density on Fear and Anxiety in Broiler Chickens

by Mallory G. Anderson, Andrew M. Campbell, Andrew Crump, Gareth Arnott, Ruth C. Newberry and Leonie Jacobs

Animals 2021, 11(8), 2383; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082383 - 12 Aug 2021

Cited by 40 | Viewed by 6003

Abstract

Barren housing and high stocking densities may contribute to negative affective states in broiler chickens, reducing their welfare. We investigated the effects of environmental complexity and stocking density on broilers’ attention bias (measure of anxiety) and tonic immobility (measure of fear). In Experiment 1, individual birds were tested for attention bias (n = 60) and in Experiment 2, groups of three birds were tested (n = 144). Tonic immobility testing was performed on days 12 and 26 (n = 36) in Experiment 1, and on day 19 (n = 72) in Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, no differences were observed in the attention bias test. In Experiment 2, birds from high-complexity pens began feeding faster and more birds resumed feeding than from low-complexity pens following playback of an alarm call, suggesting that birds housed in the complex environment were less anxious. Furthermore, birds housed in high-density or high-complexity pens had shorter tonic immobility durations on day 12 compared to day 26 in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, birds from high-density pens had shorter tonic immobility durations than birds housed in low-density pens, which is contrary to expectations. Our results suggest that birds at 3 weeks of age were less fearful under high stocking density conditions than low density conditions. In addition, results indicated that the complex environment improved welfare of broilers through reduced anxiety. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

18 pages, 383 KiB

Open AccessReview

The Relationships between Damaging Behaviours and Health in Laying Hens

by Virginie Michel, Jutta Berk, Nadya Bozakova, Jerine van der Eijk, Inma Estevez, Teodora Mircheva, Renata Relic, T. Bas Rodenburg, Evangelia N. Sossidou and Maryse Guinebretière

Animals 2022, 12(8), 986; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12080986 - 11 Apr 2022

Cited by 21 | Viewed by 5421

Abstract

Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers)

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Displaying articles 1-11

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

The Effects of Housing and Management on the Behaviour and Welfare of Hens and Broilers

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (11 papers)

Research

Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI