Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T05:50:07.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can ‘Environmental Enrichment’ Affect Domestic Chickens’ Preferences for One Half of an Otherwise Symmetrical Home Cage?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R B Jones  and
N L Carmichael
R B Jones*
Affiliation:
Division of Environment and Welfare, Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
N L Carmichael
Affiliation:
Division of Environment and Welfare, Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chickens were reared in pairs in wooden boxes from 1 to 10 days of age. One chick from each pair was marked to facilitate identification and its position in one or other of the symmetrical halves of the home box was noted at each of 32 visual scans carried out every day. Cumulative sightings in each half were calculated across the first 5 days to establish the least preferred half. Three ‘enrichment’ objects were then placed in the least preferred half of each box on day 6. The chicks ‘positions were again recorded at each of 32 scans on 5 consecutive days. The enrichment objects were avoided on day 6 but such neophobia waned within 24h and a weak, non-significant trend for enrichment to increase usage of the least preferred half became apparent. The strong side preferences shown by the chicks before the introduction of enrichment stimuli, and their transitory neophobia, sound important cautionary notes for the design and assessment of husbandry and environmental enrichment procedures.

Keywords

animal welfarecage side preferencesdomestic chicksenvironmental enrichment
Type
Short Communication
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 1999 , pp. 159 - 164
Copyright
© 1999 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bayne, K A L, Hurst, J K and Dexter, S L 1991 Evaluation of the preference to and behavioral effects of an enriched environment on male rhesus monkeys. Laboratory Animal Science 42: 38–45Google Scholar
Calcagnetti, D J and Schechter, M D 1992 Place conditioning reveals the rewarding aspcct of social interaction in juvenile rats. Physiology & Behavior 51: 667–672CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M 1981 Priorities in the cage size and flooring preferences of domestic hens. British Poultry Science 22: 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200 (Letter)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Matthews, L R 1997 Preference and motivation testing. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 159–173. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Gao, W, Feddes, J J R and Robinson, F E 1994 Effect of stocking density on the incidence of usage of enrichment devices by White Leghorn hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 3: 336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1977 Behavioural wisdom and preference tests. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 391–392 (Letter)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1993 Choice between artificial turf and wire floor as nest sites in individually caged laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1987 Social and environmental aspects of fear in the domestic fowl. In: Zayan, R and Duncan, I J H (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Social Behaviour in the Domestic Fowl pp 82–149. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World’s Poultry Science Journal 52: 131 -174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1997 Fear and distress. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 75–87. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Carmichael, N L 1998 Pecking at string by individually caged, adult laying hens: colour preferences and their stability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A 1994 Environmental enrichment and exploration. Lab Animal (February): 38–41Google Scholar
Petherick, J C, Seawright, E and Waddington, D 1998 Influence of quantity of litter on nest box selection and nesting behaviour of domestic hens. British Poultry Science 34: 857–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, G S, Vestergaard, K S, Agger, J F and Lawson, L G 1995 The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar