No abstract

Baseline information on demographics and practices on semi-intensive free-range egg farms with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare in Australia is presented. Free-range egg production is changing the structure of the egg industry in Australia and a broad variety and tiers of free-range systems have emerged due to lack of concrete legislative standards on outdoor stocking densities in the past. Information was extracted from a pre-existing online free-range poultry survey dataset, consisting of a total of 79 questions related to nutrition, pasture management, welfare and health, animal housing, environmental impact and economics. Forty-one free-range egg farms, with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare, were identified in the dataset from all major Australian states. Two types of semi-intensive free-range housing systems were documented: mobile (modified caravan/trailer) housing (56%), and fixed sheds (44%). Seventy-two percent of respondents reported >75% of the hens in the flock used the outdoor range. All respondents reported ingestion of range components by hens in the form of vegetation, insects, stones and grit. Up to 10% mortality was reported by 40% respondents with predation (34%), cannibalism (29%), heat stress (24%) and grass impaction (19.5%) as major causes. Biosecurity on farms was sub-optimal with 8 of the 10 actions implemented by <50% respondents. Customer demand, consumer sentiment and welfare were the major factors for farmers moving into free-range egg production. This study resulted in identification of current practices and key challenges on semi-intensive free-range egg farms. Applied research and communication of results to farmers is highly recommended to ensure optimum health and welfare of free-range laying hens and sustained egg production.

To evaluate the role of using forage, shade and shelterbelts in attracting birds into the range, three trials were undertaken with free range layers both on a research facility and on commercial farms. Each of the trials on the free range research facility in South Australia used a total of 120 laying hens (Hyline Brown). Birds were housed in an eco-shelter which had 6 internal pens of equal size with a free range area adjoining the shelter. The on-farm trials were undertaken on commercial free range layer farms in the Darling Downs in Southeast Queensland with bird numbers on farms ranging from 2,000–6,800 hens. The first research trial examined the role of shaded areas in the range; the second trial examined the role of forage and the third trial examined the influence of shelterbelts in the range. These treatments were compared to a free range area with no enrichment. Aggressive feather pecking was only observed on a few occasions in all of the trials due to the low bird numbers housed. Enriching the free range environment attracted more birds into the range. Shaded areas were used by 18% of the hens with a tendency (p = 0.07) for more hens to be in the paddock. When forage was provided in paddocks more control birds (55%) were observed in the range in morning than in the afternoon (30%) while for the forage treatments 45% of the birds were in the range both during the morning and afternoon. When shelterbelts were provided there was a significantly (p<0.05) higher % of birds in the range (43% vs. 24%) and greater numbers of birds were observed in areas further away from the poultry house. The results from the on-farm trials mirrored the research trials. Overall 3 times more hens used the shaded areas than the non shaded areas, with slightly more using the shade in the morning than in the afternoon. As the environmental temperature increased the number of birds using the outdoor shade also increased. Overall 17 times more hens used the shelterbelt areas than the control areas, with slightly more using the shelterbelts in the afternoon than in the morning. Approximately 17 times more birds used the forage areas compared to the control area in the corresponding range. There were 8 times more birds using a hay bale enriched area compared to the area with no hay bales. The use of forage sources (including hay bales) were the most successful method on-farm to attract birds into the range followed by shelterbelts and artificial shade. Free range egg farmers are encouraged to provide pasture, shaded areas and shelterbelts to attract birds into the free range.

No abstract

When feather-pecking behaviour by hens becomes repetitive, plumage damage often results for the recipient of the pecks. The forceful removal of feathers and vigorous pecks directed at the skin may also cause pain, fear and even wounds. ‘Outbreaks’ of pecking behaviour have been reported in all housing systems in which poultry are managed. Pecking may progress to cannibalism and death, thus constituting significant hen welfare and farm economy problems. Farmers apply preventative management practices to minimise the risk of outbreaks. However, outbreaks are unpredictable and, once in progress, are difficult to control, especially in non-cage housing systems. For more than a century, research has been directed at trying to identify the causal factors underlying this problem, without success. The problem is multi-factorial and different studies often identify contradictory findings, such as, for example, in relation to the effects of adding forage to increase environmental enrichment, among others. The present review aims to provide background information about severe feather-pecking behaviour in laying hens, with mention of the resultant issues from repeated performance, such as, for example, on feather cover over the life of the laying hen. On-farm surveys, epidemiological studies and experimental trials have generated much information that has improved our general understanding of the significance of the problem, even though studies have typically been inconclusive due to its multi-factorial causes. While ‘Good Practice Guides’ are available and provide relevant advice for farmers to manage flocks to minimise the risk of outbreaks, we suggest significant progress towards identifying the root-cause(s) of the problem will more likely be achieved through controlled experimental trials using research models than through survey approaches. For example, using a stress-induction model, researchers should first focus on the impact of cumulative stressors in the flock that seem to predispose a hen to either become a feather pecker, or be the victim of pecking. Subsequent research should then investigate the affected hens for altered behavioural or (neuro-) physiological states, or physical stimuli on the skin and feathers, that may increase the motivation of hens to become feather peckers.

A review was undertaken to obtain information on the sustainability of pig free-range production systems including the management, performance and health of pigs in the system. Modern outdoor rearing systems requires simple portable and flexible housing with low cost fencing. Local pig breeds and outdoor-adapted breeds for certain environment are generally more suitable for free-range systems. Free-range farms should be located in a low rainfall area and paddocks should be relatively flat, with light topsoil overlying free-draining subsoil with the absence of sharp stones that can cause foot damage. Huts or shelters are crucial for protecting pigs from direct sun burn and heat stress, especially when shade from trees and other facilities is not available. Pigs commonly graze on strip pastures and are rotated between paddocks. The zones of thermal comfort for the sow and piglet differ markedly; between 12-22°C for the sow and 30-37°C for piglets. Offering wallows for free-range pigs meets their behavioural requirements, and also overcomes the effects of high ambient temperatures on feed intake. Pigs can increase their evaporative heat loss via an increase in the proportion of wet skin by using a wallow, or through water drips and spray. Mud from wallows can also coat the skin of pigs, preventing sunburn. Under grazing conditions, it is difficult to control the fibre intake of pigs although a high energy, low fibre diet can be used. In some countries outdoor sows are fitted with nose rings to prevent them from uprooting the grass. This reduces nutrient leaching of the land due to less rooting. In general, free-range pigs have a higher mortality compared to intensively housed pigs. Many factors can contribute to the death of the piglet including crushing, disease, heat stress and poor nutrition. With successful management, free-range pigs can have similar production to door pigs, although the growth rate of the litters is affected by season. Piglets grow quicker indoors during the cold season compared to outdoor systems. Pigs reared outdoors show calmer behaviour. Aggressive interactions during feeding are lower compared to indoor pigs while outdoor sows are more active than indoor sows. Outdoor pigs have a higher parasite burden, which increases the nutrient requirement for maintenance and reduces their feed utilization efficiency. Parasite infections in free-range pigs also risks the image of free-range pork as a clean and safe product. Diseases can be controlled to a certain degree by grazing management. Frequent rotation is required although most farmers are keeping their pigs for a longer period before rotating. The concept of using pasture species to minimise nematode infections in grazing pigs looks promising. Plants that can be grown locally and used as part of the normal feeding regime are most likely to be acceptable to farmers, particularly organic farmers. However, one of the key concerns from the public for free-range pig production system is the impact on the environment. In the past, the pigs were hel...

Summary. This experiment evaluated the welfare of layer hens housed in cages modified with perches. Welfare was assessed on the basis of physiological measures of stress (corticosterone concentrations ‘at rest’ and in response to ACTH and heterophil : lymphocyte ratios) and immunological responsiveness, feather condition and cover, bone strength, claw length and between-bird pecking behaviour. Factors examined were cage modification (perches v. standard cage), tier (upper v. lower), birds (1 or 2 birds/cage) and age (commencing at 35 v. 60 weeks of age). The cages provided a floor area of 1504 cm2 . Floor pens (2.5 by 2.5 m) with 10 birds/pen served as an external control treatment. Perches improved the strength of the femur (P<0.05) compared with standard cages but bone strength was still less than in floor pens (P<0.05). There were no effects of cage modification on any of the physiological variables or liveweight (P>0.05). The only improvement in feather condition and cover within cages due to the presence of a perch was in the condition of the tail feathers which was better (P<0.05) than in a standard cage, but not as good as tail feathers in the pen treatment (P<0.001). Overall, feather condition and cover was better in the pen treatment (P<0.001) and similar in the 2 cage treatments (P>0.05). The presence of a perch resulted in longer claws than in a standard cage and floor pens (P<0.05), and significant (P<0.01) perching activity compared with floor pens. The experiment showed that perches should be considered for use in commercial laying cages as they resulted in an improvement in bone strength; there was also an improvement in tail feather condition, which is considered by some to be an advantage.

No abstract