The influence of access to aerial perches on fearfulness, social behaviour and production parameters in free-range laying hens

Donaldson, Caroline Julie; O’Connell, Niamh

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2012.08.003

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within each comparison different letters (a, b or A, B) are statistically different (P < 0.05). These results contrast with previous results for broilers in which provision of panels and perches resulted in clear increased resting and decreased disturbances, aggressive interactions, standing, and foraging behaviours (Cornetto and Estevez, 2001b;Cornetto et al, 2002;Donaldson and O'Connell, 2012;Ventura et al, 2012). In slow-growing meat chickens enrichment interventions in the form of panels under experimental conditions resulted in a reduced frequency of aggressive interactions , and increased preening and standing in layers (Newberry and Shackleton, 1997).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Effects of panels and perches on the behaviour of commercial slow-growing free-range meat chickens

Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea

Leone

Estévez

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Effects of panels and perches on the behaviour of commercial slow-growing free-range meat chickens

Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea

Leone

Estévez

2015

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Commercial laying hens provided with continuous access to elevated structures were less fearful than flocks with no aerial perches (Donaldson and O'Connell, 2012), again supporting the idea that perches enhance a sense of security. However, not all studies have found an effect of perches on fearfulness (Campo et al, 2005 (ornamental breed); Brake et al, 1994 (broiler breeder pullets)).…”

Section: Seeking Elevationsupporting

confidence: 57%

Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the use of perches for laying hens

2015

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This opinion investigated the use of perches for laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. It is based on various activities reviewing the effects of perch height and design on hen health and welfare. Systematic and extensive literature reviews were conducted to assess the scientific evidence about hen motivation to grasp and seek elevation, and the appropriate height of perches as well as other features (position, material, colour, temperature, shape, width and length). In addition, an expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) exercise was run with technical hearing experts to discuss and prioritise the various design aspects of perches. Overall, the body of literature on perches is limited. Relevant features of perches are often confounded with others. In the literature, the most commonly used animal-based measures to assess perch adequacy are keel bone damages, foot pad lesions and perch use by hens. Overall, hens seek elevation during the day as well as during the night, when they select a site for roosting. Elevated perches allow hens to monitor the environment, to escape from other hens, avoid disturbances and improve thermoregulation. For night-time roosting hens show a preference for perches higher than 60cm compared with lower perches. However, elevated perches can have negative consequences with increased prevalence of keel deformities and fractures. The risk of injury increases when hens have to jump a distance of more than 80cm vertically, horizontally or diagonally to reach or leave a perch, or jump an angle between 45 and 90° (measured at the horizontal plane). Material, shape, length and width of the perch also influence perch preference by hens. The EKE exercise suggests that an adequate perch is elevated, accessible and functional (providing sufficient overview). The opinion concludes that for the design of an adequate perch, different features of perches need to be further investigated and integrated.

show abstract

“…Increased fearfulness may result in more uncontrolled landings and take-offs, resulting in a higher risk of crashes/collisions in the housing system and thus more keel bone fractures. Also, previous studies have shown a relation between fearfulness and availability of perches ( 56 , 57 ). Keeling ( 58 ) showed that perches give birds a feeling of security reflected as a later withdrawal from an approaching stuffed predator found by birds on high perches (70 cm above ground) compared with birds with a wooden bar placed directly on the floor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Welfare Consequences of Omitting Beak Trimming in Barn Layers

Riber

Hinrichsen

2017

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beak trimming is used worldwide as a method of reducing the damage to feathers and skin caused by injurious pecking in laying hens. However, beak trimming also causes some welfare issues as trimming the beak results in pain and sensory loss. Due to this dilemma, there is an ongoing discussion in several European countries about whether to ban beak trimming. In this study, we investigated the welfare consequences of keeping layers with intact beaks and examined for links between injurious pecking damage and keel bone damage on an individual level. A study was conducted on 10 commercial farms housing laying hens in the barn system. Each farm participated with a flock of beak-trimmed hens (T) and a flock of non-trimmed (NT) hens that were visited around 32 and 62 weeks of age. During visits, the condition of plumage, skin, feet, and keel bone of 100 hens was assessed. Mortality was recorded by the producers. NT flocks had a lower prevalence of hens with good plumage condition around 32 weeks of age (94.1 vs. 99.6%, P < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of hens with poor plumage condition at 62 weeks of age (63.6 vs. 15.2%, P < 0.001) compared with T flocks. The prevalence of hens with keel bone deviations, with both keel bone fractures and deviations and with body wounds, was higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks at both ages (P < 0.001). Accumulated mortality from placement to end of production tended to be higher in NT flocks compared with T flocks (14.2 vs. 8.6%; P = 0.06). The prevalence of keel bone damage was higher among hens with poor plumage condition than hens with moderate/good plumage condition (31.5 vs. 22.2%; P < 0.001). Thus, omitting beak trimming had negative consequences for the condition of plumage, skin, and keel bone, and tended to increase mortality, highlighting the risk of reduced welfare when keeping layers with intact beaks. In addition, injurious pecking damage was found to be positively linked to keel bone damage. The causal relation is unknown, but we propose that fearfulness is an important factor.

show abstract

The influence of access to aerial perches on fearfulness, social behaviour and production parameters in free-range laying hens

Cited by 29 publications

References 48 publications

Effects of panels and perches on the behaviour of commercial slow-growing free-range meat chickens

Effects of panels and perches on the behaviour of commercial slow-growing free-range meat chickens

Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the use of perches for laying hens

Welfare Consequences of Omitting Beak Trimming in Barn Layers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About