Effect of social order, perch, and dust-bath allocation on behavior in laying hens

Abstract

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 cage.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.

The Neurobiology of Behavior and Its Applicability for Animal Welfare: A Review

“…A similar result was observed by Baxter et al [ 156 ], who found that approximately 22,000 broilers receiving oat hulls as dustbathing substrate showed better gait score and encouraged dust-bathing and foraging, but must be a part of a complementary enrichment program where other biological needs of the animals are covered. Furnished cages in 216 Hy-line brown layers have also shown that perches and dust-bath enrichment must consider social ranking since this can affect behavioral expression [ 157 ]. As Sandilands et al [ 158 ] have shown, providing scratch mats to laying hens does not always have a beneficial effect on behavior or productive parameters, and the study regarding how to use the seeking system to provide welfare is still ongoing.…”

Does social position affect well-being in laying hens?

“…Chickens acquire social behaviour from each other by learning to identify visual and auditory stimuli (Wang et al, 2022). The flock structure is hierarchical with male dominance over hens, and the hierarchy determined by the pecking order.…”

“…is restricted (Quieroz and Cromberg, 2006;Wang et al, 2022). Dominance-subordination interactions, maintained by means of aggressive behaviour, contribute to maintaining stability in the group (Bhanja and Bhadauria, 2018;Wang et al, 2022).…”

“…is restricted (Quieroz and Cromberg, 2006;Wang et al, 2022). Dominance-subordination interactions, maintained by means of aggressive behaviour, contribute to maintaining stability in the group (Bhanja and Bhadauria, 2018;Wang et al, 2022). Social relationships between members of a poultry group in which one (subordinate) avoids confrontation with another (dominant) are called the dominance hierarchy.…”

“…The level of stress is undoubtedly related to the position occupied by an individual in a social group, but as research shows, this is not a clear correlation. There is a complex relationship between the stability of the in-group structure, as well as the role played by the dominant and subordinated individual in the group (Wang et al, 2022). Increased activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) may be a consequence of subordination or represent a cost associated with dominance (Bortolotti et al, 2008).…”