Nest choice in laying hens: Effects of nest partitions and social status

Ringgenberg, Nadine; Fröhlich, E; Harlander-Matauschek, Alexandra; Toscano, Michael J.; Würbel, Hanno; Roth, Béatrice A.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.013

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various features of nest boxes have been reported to affect the attractiveness and thus the use of nests. Nest or floor material (Nørgaard‐Nielsen 1991, Hughes 1993), enclosure and level of seclusion (Appleby and McRae 1986), the presence of flaps (Struelens and others 2008), internal design (Ringgenberg and others 2015), size (Ringgenberg and others 2014), light intensity (Appleby and others 1984), colour (Huber‐Eicher 2004) and social conditions (Lundberg and Keeling 1999) have all been explored and shown to affect nest selection. Due to the 1999 European Union (EU) ban on conventional cages for laying hens, much of this research focused on the features and design of environmental resources such as nest boxes in caged systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smothering in UK free‐range flocks. Part 2: investigating correlations between disease, housing and management practices

Rayner¹,

Gill²,

Brass³

et al. 2016

Veterinary Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smothering, when birds group together in a way that results in death from suffocation, is a welfare and economic concern for the egg industry. This questionnaire-based study explored correlations between disease, housing, management practices and smothering on free-range farms. A binomial logistic regression approach was used to test whether question responses predicted occurrence of nest box smothers (NBS) and panic and recurring smothers (PSRS) on farms. Breed (P=0.008) and nest box manufacturer (P=0.014) predicted NBS. Breed and nest box design have been previously reported to affect nesting behaviour. The affect of nest box manufacturer found in this study may illustrate the effect of nest box design features or house layouts. Nest box manufacturer (P=0.009), feeding oyster grit or grain on the litter (P<0.001) and range use on a sunny day (P<0.001) also predicted PSRS. Implementing some management practices to encourage desirable behaviours (eg ranging) may contribute to smothering, whereas some management practices such as those aimed at occupying birds may be beneficial, illustrating the delicate balance of factors involved in free-range egg production. It is hoped that these results will stimulate further work exploring the suitability of housing design and management of laying hens in light of smothering.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smothering in UK free‐range flocks. Part 2: investigating correlations between disease, housing and management practices

Rayner¹,

Gill²,

Brass³

et al. 2016

Veterinary Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…0.86 m 2 ) (Ringgenberg et al., 2014). The use of central partitions improves the attractiveness of group‐nests (Ringgenberg et al., 2015). Considering the high nest laying in modern cage free systems, there is no evidence to question what is applied in farm in Europe: at least 1 nest for every 7 hens and for group nests at least 1 m 2 of nest space for a maximum of 120 hens.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of laying hens on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of laying hens, pullets and layer breeders on farm. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal‐based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. The highly relevant welfare consequences based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence are bone lesions, group stress, inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour, inability to perform comfort behaviour, inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour, isolation stress, predation stress, resting problems, restriction of movement, skin disorders and soft tissue lesions and integument damage. The welfare consequences of non‐cage compared to cage systems for laying hens are described and minimum enclosure characteristics are described for laying hens, pullets and layer breeders. Beak trimming, which causes negative welfare consequences and is conducted to reduce the prevalence and severity of pecking, is described as well as the risks associated with rearing of non‐beak‐trimmed flocks. Alternatives to reduce sharpness of the beak without trimming are suggested. Finally, total mortality, plumage damage, wounds, keel bone fractures and carcass condemnations are the most promising ABMs for collection at slaughterhouses to monitor the level of laying hen welfare on farm. Main recommendations include housing all birds in non‐cage systems with easily accessible, elevated platforms and provision of dry and friable litter and access to a covered veranda. It is further recommended to implement protocols to define welfare trait information to encourage progress in genetic selection, implement measures to prevent injurious pecking, rear pullets with dark brooders and reduce male aggression in layer breeders.

show abstract

“…Shimmura et al [ 16 ] found that in their experiments the HSR in large-scale furnished cages showed more frequent dust bathing and bill raking behavior than the LSR, but there was no difference in small-scale furnished cage. In large cage conditions, the HSR would give priority to dust bathing when there was less resource per hen, whereas the LSR would exhibit extremely low nesting but spent more time in using the nest box as a refuge [ 29 , 30 ]. Shimmura et al [ 5 ] also reported that the enrichments utilization by the hens in furnished cage could be influenced by their SRO, which also existed in medium - scale furnished cage (10/cage) when the cage enrichments were abundant for all individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shimmura, et al [16] found that in their experiments the HSR in large-scale furnished cages showed more frequent dust bathing and bill raking behavior than the LSR, but there was no difference in small-scale furnished cage. In large cage conditions, the HSR will give priority to dust bathing when there is less resource per hen, whereas the LSR will exhibit extremely low nesting but will spent more time in using the nest box as a refuge [29,30]. Shimmura et al…”

Section: The Impact Of Social Ranking Order Perch and Dust-bath Allocation On Dustbathing Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Nest choice in laying hens: Effects of nest partitions and social status

Cited by 18 publications

References 47 publications

Smothering in UK free‐range flocks. Part 2: investigating correlations between disease, housing and management practices

Smothering in UK free‐range flocks. Part 2: investigating correlations between disease, housing and management practices

Welfare of laying hens on farm

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About