Welfare and performance in layers following temporary exclusion from the litter area on introduction to the layer facility

Alm, M.; Wall, H.; Holm, Lena; Wichman, Anette; Palme, Rupert; Tauson, R.

doi:10.3382/ps/pev021

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hens in the current study were confined to the aviary from 17 to 26 wk of age, in part to train them to use nest boxes rather than lay elsewhere. The temporary exclusion of pullets from the litter area after transfer to the laying facility for this purpose has also been reported to reduce fearfulness and improve plumage condition (Alm et al., 2015 ). Litter provision after a period of exclusion can impact how hens distribute themselves in the aviary for up to 3 wk as they adapt to using the litter area (Ali et al., 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest use and patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system1

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laying hens are strongly motivated to use nests for egg laying, and alternative production systems (e.g., aviaries) provide artificial sites to meet this need and ensure efficient collection of clean, undamaged eggs. However, nests are typically not provided to allow simultaneous use by all hens; therefore, competition or mislaid eggs can result. To understand the influence of strain on laying eggs outside nests and damage to eggs, we compared daily patterns of nests use and egg laying among 4 laying hen strains (Hy-Line Brown (HB), Bovans Brown (BB), DeKalb White (DW), and Hy-Line W36 (W36)). Hens were observed over 3 consecutive days in aviaries with colony nests in the enclosure's top tier (2 nests/unit, 4 aviary units/strain, 144 hens/unit). The number and location of hens in nests and the number, location and condition of eggs throughout aviaries were recorded. Most eggs (90 to 95%) were laid in nests; however, brown hens consistently laid more non-nest eggs and damaged more eggs than white hens (P ≤ 0.05). Higher nest occupancy by brown hens was correlated with more non-nest and damaged eggs (P ≤ 0.05). In the morning, brown hens occupied more nest space and laid more nest eggs than white hens (e.g., HB vs. DW: 82.97 and 34.66% of space; 91.35 and 68.73% of nest eggs; P ≤ 0.05). At midday, white hens occupied more nest space and laid more nest eggs than brown hens (e.g., HB vs. DW: 28.47 and 15.81% of space; 27.39 and 8.29% of nest eggs; P ≤ 0.05). Brown hens preferred right nest compartments and laid more eggs there, whereas white hens preferred left compartments and W36 laid more eggs there (P ≤ 0.05). These findings indicate that different strains of hens have different patterns of nest use and laying behavior. In brown hens, heavy morning nest use was related to laying eggs outside nests and more damaged eggs, suggesting insufficient space for oviposition in nests. Specific facility design should be matched to hens’ preferences to accommodate behavioral needs of different strains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest use and patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system1

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crowding on raised areas of the shed can increase the risk of collisions or pushing from conspecifics which could lead to keel bone fractures (Stratmann et al, 2015). If blocking or difficulty in negotiating a level change restricts access to resources, this could reduce bird welfare and lead to unwanted behaviours such as feather pecking (Nicol et al, 2013;Alm et al, 2015).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Latencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of experience of ramps at rear on the subsequent ability of layer pullets to negotiate a ramp transition

Norman

Weeks

Pettersson

et al. 2018

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In commercial situations, laying hens must negotiate levels to reach resources such as food, water and litter. Providing ramps in aviary systems reduces collisions and resultant keel bone fractures in adults. We investigated whether providing ramps during rear improved the ability of birds to transition between levels. Chicks were reared commercially in two flocks both of which provided access to raised structures from three weeks of age. One flock had no ramps, but the other flock was provided with additional access to two types of ramp (wooden ladders, and grids formed from commercial poultry slats placed at an angle). At 8 weeks of age, 64 birds (32 from each rearing condition) were transferred to an experimental facility. At 10 weeks of age, 32 pullets from each group were trained to run to a food reward. During testing at 12-14 weeks of age the pullets accessed the food reward by moving up or down a ramp. The pullets' behaviours and time taken to complete the task were recorded. Ramp use over three days was also observed in a room replicating a small-scale single-tier system. Four groups of 16 birds aged 12-14 weeks were housed for three days and the number of transitions between the raised tier and litter were recorded. For upward transitions, more ramp-reared birds than control birds succeeded in reaching the food reward for both ladder (52 % vs 13%) and grid (74% vs 42%). Birds from the ramp-reared group took significantly less time to complete an upwards transition (68.8s±49.3) than the control group (100s±37.6) (p=0.001). In addition, the control group showed more behaviours indicative of hesitancy (moving away, head orientations, ground pecking and crouching) before transitioning, and signs of difficulty when making upward transitions (crouched walks, pauses, turning, returning and escape attempts). In the group housing observations, the ramp reared groups had almost double the number of transitions between the slats and litter on day one compared to the control group. This difference was reduced by day three. In summary, this suggests there are positive effects of providing ramp experience during rear shown by increased mobility and apparent confidence in older pullets. It is not known whether these benefits persist through to the laying period, but no detrimental effects were noted so we suggest that ramps should be included from the early rearing period onwards.

show abstract

“…Then it is reasonable to expect that managing litter access by the hens or the amount of manure deposition on the litter floor can be conducive to improving the litter conditions and indoor air quality. On the other hand, there is a general concern that limiting litter access of the hens would affect expression of animal's natural behaviors, which may lead to compromised welfare (Alm et al, 2015). There has also been anecdotal claim that confining hens inside the systems negatively affect flock uniformity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of litter floor access and inclusion of experienced hens in aviary housing on floor eggs, litter condition, air quality, and hen welfare

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With different cage-free (CF) housing styles and management schemes, retailers have developed their own CF criteria. One highly debated aspect is if hens may be kept inside the system for part of the day—during the first few hours after lights-on. Research is lacking regarding the impacts of such a practice on hen welfare, incidence of eggs laid on the litter floor, litter condition, and air quality. This 14-mo field study was conducted to help assess such impacts. Hens (Dekalb White) in an aviary house (50,000-hen nominal capacity) were allowed to have full litter access (FLA) vs. part-time litter access (PLA) from 10:50 am to 9:00 pm, coupled with the absence or presence of experienced hens (1.5% of the population), hence a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement. The measured variables included a) incidence of floor eggs, b) percentage of birds remaining on litter floor at night, c) mortality, d) body weight (BW) and BW uniformity, e) litter condition (depth, moisture content, texture, amount removed, and bacteria concentration), f) environmental conditions, and g) welfare conditions (10 variables). Compared to FLA, PLA had a significantly lower incidence of floor eggs (1.4 ± 0.1 vs. 12.6 ± 1.1 eggs per hen housed as of 76 weeks of age (WOA), i.e., approximately 89% reduction), less manure deposition on the floor (0.53 ± 0.02 vs. 1.05 ± 0.04 kg/100 hens/d, dry basis, i.e., approximately 50% reduction), and lower ammonia concentrations due to drier litter (averaging 22% lower). Inclusion of 1.5% experienced hens in the young flock did not show benefit of reducing the incidence of floor eggs (P = 0.48). The percentage of hens remaining on the floor at night was low (< 0.01%) in all cases from 24 WOA onward. No differences were detected between FLA and PLA in hen welfare conditions, mortality, BW, BW uniformity, bacteria concentration in the litter, air temperature, or relative humidity.

show abstract

Welfare and performance in layers following temporary exclusion from the litter area on introduction to the layer facility

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Nest use and patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system1

Nest use and patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system1

The effect of experience of ramps at rear on the subsequent ability of layer pullets to negotiate a ramp transition

Effects of litter floor access and inclusion of experienced hens in aviary housing on floor eggs, litter condition, air quality, and hen welfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About