Happy Chickens Lay Tastier Eggs: Motivations for Buying Free-range Eggs in Australia

Bray, Heather J.; Ankeny, Rachel A.

doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1310986

Cited by 67 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Free-range egg production is prevalent within Australia, as consumers perceive freerange eggs to be healthier and tastier than caged eggs (Bray & Ankeny, 2017). The freerange system is also perceived to improve hen welfare (Pettersson et al, 2016a) as hens have the choice to move freely outdoors, are exposed to daylight, and have greater opportunities for exercise and natural behaviours which might contribute to improved health and welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments

Bari

Laurenson

Cohen-Barnhouse

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Australia, free-range layer pullets are typically reared indoors, but adult layers go outdoors, and this mismatch might reduce adaptation in laying environments. Enrichments during rearing may optimise pullet development and subsequent welfare as adult free-range hens. In the outdoor environment, hens may have greater opportunities for exercise and natural behaviours which might contribute to improved health and welfare. However, the outdoor environment may also result in potential exposure to parasites and pathogens. Individual variation in range use may thus dictate individual health and welfare. This study was conducted to evaluate whether adult hens varied in their external and internal health due to rearing enrichments and following variation in range use. A total of 1386 Hy-Line Brown® chicks were reared indoors across 16 weeks with three enrichment treatments including a control group with standard housing conditions, a novelty group providing novel objects that changed weekly, and a structural group with custom-designed structures to increase spatial navigation and perching. At 16 weeks of age the pullets were moved to a free-range system and housed in nine identical pens within their rearing treatments. All hens were leg-banded with microchips and daily ranging was assessed from 25 to 64 weeks via radio-frequency identification technology. At 64–65 weeks of age, 307 hens were selected based on their range use patterns across 54 days up to 64 weeks: indoor (no ranging), low outdoor (1.4 h or less daily), and high outdoor (5.2–9 h daily). The external and internal health and welfare parameters were evaluated via external assessment of body weight, plumage, toenails, pecking wounds, illness, and post-mortem assessment of internal organs and keel bones including whole-body CT scanning for body composition. The control hens had the lowest feather coverage (p < 0.0001) and a higher number of comb wounds (P = 0.03) than the novelty hens. The high outdoor rangers had fewer comb wounds than the indoor hens (P = 0.04), the shortest toenails (p < 0.0001) and the most feather coverage (p < 0.0001), but lower body weight (p < 0.0001) than the indoor hens. High outdoor ranging decreased both body fat and muscle (both p < 0.0001). The novelty group had lower spleen weights than the control hens (P = 0.01) but neither group differed from the structural hens. The high outdoor hens showed the highest spleen (P = 0.01) and empty gizzard weights (P = 0.04). Both the rearing enrichments and ranging had no effect on keel bone damage (all P ≥ 0.19). There were no significant interactions between rearing treatments and ranging patterns for any of the health and welfare parameters measured in this study (P ≥ 0.07). Overall, rearing enrichments had some effects on hen health and welfare at the later stages of the production cycle but subsequent range use patterns had the greatest impact.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments

Bari

Laurenson

Cohen-Barnhouse

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The laying hen industry within Australia is rapidly increasing the proportion of free-range housing (Bray and Ankeny, 2017). Pullets for free-range systems are typically reared in controlled indoor environments -floor or aviary systems, and transferred to the layer house around 15-16 weeks of age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early enrichment in free-range laying hens: effects on ranging behaviour, welfare and response to stressors

Campbell

Hinch

Downing

et al. 2018

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free-range laying hen systems are increasing within Australia. The pullets for these systems are typically reared indoors before being provided first range access around 21 to 26 weeks of age. Thus, the rearing and laying environments are disparate and hens may not adapt well to free-range housing. In this study, we reared 290 Hy-Line® Brown day-old chicks divided into two rooms each with feed, water and litter. In the enriched room, multiple structural, manipulable, visual and auditory stimuli were also provided from 4 to 21 days, the non-enriched room had no additional objects or stimuli. Pullets were transferred to the laying facility at 12 weeks of age and divided into six pens (three enriched-reared, three non-enriched-reared) with identical indoor resources and outdoor range area. All birds were first provided range access at 21 weeks of age. Video observations of natural disturbance behaviours on the range at 22 to 23 and 33 to 34 weeks of age showed no differences in frequency of disturbance occurrences between treatment groups (P=0.09) but a decrease in disturbance occurrences over time (P<0.0001). Radio-frequency identification tracking of individually tagged birds from 21 to 37 weeks of age showed enriched birds on average, spent less time on the range each day (P<0.04) but with a higher number of range visits than non-enriched birds from 21 to 24 weeks of age (P=0.01). Enriched birds accessed the range on more days (P=0.03) but over time, most birds in both treatment groups accessed the range daily. Basic external health scoring showed minimal differences between treatment groups with most birds in visibly good condition. At 38 weeks of age all birds were locked inside for 2 days and from 40 to 42 weeks of age the outdoor range was reduced to 20% of its original size to simulate stressful events. The eggs from non-enriched birds had higher corticosterone concentrations following lock-in and 2 weeks following range reduction compared with the concentrations within eggs from enriched birds (P<0.0001). Correspondingly, the enriched hens showing a greater increase in the number of visits following range area reduction compared to non-enriched hens (P=0.02). Only one rearing room per treatment was used but these preliminary data indicate 3 weeks of early enrichment had some long-term effects on hen ranging behaviour and enhanced hen's adaptability to environmental stressors.

show abstract

“…protein or fat content), to production methods to limit impacts on the environment and animal welfare. Further studies have also demonstrated that consumers view high animal welfare standards during production as an indication that their meat is safe, healthy, better tasting, and of high quality (Verbeke et al 2010, Bray andAnkeny 2017). Taylor and Signal (2009) and Bray and Ankeny (2017) both highlight that Australian consumers are also considering the welfare of animals when purchasing food, however neither study examined actual purchasing behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further studies have also demonstrated that consumers view high animal welfare standards during production as an indication that their meat is safe, healthy, better tasting, and of high quality (Verbeke et al 2010, Bray andAnkeny 2017). Taylor and Signal (2009) and Bray and Ankeny (2017) both highlight that Australian consumers are also considering the welfare of animals when purchasing food, however neither study examined actual purchasing behavior. Although the influence of concern for farm animal welfare on purchasing behavior is an important topic for further research in Australia, concern for farm animal welfare can also be linked with boycotting animal products (Rothgerber 2015) and community behaviors (Coleman et al 2016) that also have the potential to affect the livestock production sector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping it ‘inside the fence’: an examination of responses to a farm-animal welfare issue on Twitter

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media sites have become common sources of information about current affairs, and animal-activist organisations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), use these networks as campaign tools to raise awareness against animal agriculture. The aim of the present study was to understand how an animal-welfare issue was discussed in Twitter, in Australia. Twitter Application Programing Interface data featuring keywords and hashtags were initially collected between April and May 2014 to examine tweets on animal-welfare issues in the absence of a triggering event. In July 2014, PETA released footage portraying ill-treatment of sheep in Australian shearing sheds, generating 9610 tweets in 7 days, including themes such as disgust, condemnation of the cruelty, and calls to boycott the wool industry. PETA’s social-media campaign began 24 h before comment in conventional news media online, highlighting the role of social media in leading conventional media campaigning. Associated Twitter activity from the wool industry was limited. It is concluded that Twitter is not currently an effective medium for conversations between producers and the community about farm-animal welfare, despite encouragement from industry. While there are positives for producers and industry to be on Twitter, including the promotion of their business and communication within their micro-publics, Twitter as a platform may not be ideal for generating a dialogue between producers and the community. Further research into how people engage with the content, not just through the study of retweets and amount of traffic, is required to understand whether social media has potential to change attitudes towards animal production.

show abstract

Happy Chickens Lay Tastier Eggs: Motivations for Buying Free-range Eggs in Australia

Cited by 67 publications

References 49 publications

Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments

Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments

Early enrichment in free-range laying hens: effects on ranging behaviour, welfare and response to stressors

Keeping it ‘inside the fence’: an examination of responses to a farm-animal welfare issue on Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About