Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Do laying hens eat and forage in excreta from other hens?

  • C. G. von Waldburg-Zeil (a1), N. van Staaveren (a1) and A. Harlander-Matauschek (a1)

Abstract

Worldwide, farm animals are kept on litter or foraging substrate that becomes increasingly soiled throughout the production cycle. For animals like laying hens, this means that it is likely they would scratch, forage and consume portions of excreta found in the litter or foraging substrate. However, no study has investigated the relative preference of laying hens for foraging and consumption of feed mixed with different percentages of excreta. A total of 48 White Leghorn laying hens of two strains, a commercial strain (Lohmann LSL-Lite (LSL), n=24) and UCD-003 strain (susceptible to liver damage, n=24), were individually housed and given access to feed mixed with increasing percentages of hen excreta (0%, 33%, 66% and 100% excreta diets) and corn as a luxury food reward (four corn kernels per diet daily). The amount of substrate and number of corn kernels consumed from each diet was recorded for a period of 3 weeks. Both LSL and UCD-003 hens preferred to consume and forage in diets with 0% excreta, followed by 33% and finally diets containing 66% and 100% excreta. Despite the presence of excreta-free diets, birds consumed on average 61.3 g per day of the diets containing excreta. Neither physical health, measured by plasma enzyme activity levels, nor cognitive differences, assessed by recalling a visual discrimination task, was associated with relative feeding or foraging preference. In conclusion, this study demonstrated a clear preference for feeding and foraging on substrate without excreta in laying hens. However, considering the amount of excreta diets consumed, further studies are needed to understand the causes and consequences of excreta consumption on physiological and psychological functioning, and how this information can be used to allow adjustments in the management of foraging substrates in farmed birds.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Do laying hens eat and forage in excreta from other hens?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Do laying hens eat and forage in excreta from other hens?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Do laying hens eat and forage in excreta from other hens?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Aldrich, GC and Koppel, K 2015. Pet food palatability evaluation: a review of standard assay techniques and interpretation of results with a primary focus on limitations. Animals 5, 4355.
Ali, Z 2001. Pica in people with intellectual disability: a literature review of aetiology, epidemiology and complications. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 26, 205215.
Bailey, DW 1995. Daily selection of feeding areas by cattle in homogeneous and heterogeneous environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 45, 183200.
Bracke, MBM and Hopster, H 2006. Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 7789.
Buijs, S, Keeling, LJ, Vangestel, C, Baert, J, Vangeyte, J and Tuyttens, FAM 2010. Resting or hiding? Why broiler chickens stay near walls and how density affects this. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 124, 97103.
Diaz, GJ, Squires, EJ and Julian, RJ 1999. The use of selected plasma enzyme activities for the diagnosis of fatty liver-hemorrhagic syndrome in laying hens. Avian Diseases 43, 768773.
European Commission 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L 203, 5357.
Fernández, ME, Mariño, RA and Carreira, XC 2006. Algorithms for dairy barn design: resting, feeding, and exercise. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 27842798.
Forbes, JM 2003. Wet feeds for poultry. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14, 175193.
Forbes, JM and Kyriazakis, I 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54, 429440.
Fraser, D, Weary, D, Pajor, A and Milligan, B 1997. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6, 187205.
Golden, JB, Arbona, DV and Anderson, KE 2012. A comparative examination of rearing parameters and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets grown for either free-range or cage production. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 21, 95102.
Groot Koerkamp, PWG 1994. Review on emissions of ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in relation to sources, processes, building design and manure handling. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 59, 7387.
Harr, KE 2006. Diagnostic value of biochemistry. In Clinical avian medicine (ed. GJ Harrison and BF Gwen), pp. 611629. Spix Publishing, South Palm Beach, FL, USA.
Hochleithner, M 1994. Biochemistries. In Avian medicine: principles and applications (ed. BW Ritchie, GJ Harrison and LR Harrison), pp. 223245. Wingers Publishing Inc, Lake Worth, FL, USA.
Horgan, FG and Berrow, SD 2004. Hooded crow foraging from dung pats: implications for the structure of dung beetle assemblages. Biology & Environment Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 104B, 119124.
Horgan, R and Gavinelli, A 2006. The expanding role of animal welfare within EU legislation and beyond. Livestock Science 103, 303307.
Hörnicke, H and Björnhag, G 1980. Coprophagy and related strategies for digesta utilization. In Digestive physiology and metabolism in ruminants (eds. Y. Ruckebusch and P. Thivend), pp. 707730. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Klasing, KC 2005. Potential impact of nutritional strategy on noninvasive measurements of hormones in birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1046, 516.
Manteca, X, Villalba, JJ, Atwood, SB, Dziba, L and Provenza, FD 2008. Is dietary choice important to animal welfare? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 3, 229239.
Mellor, DJ 2017. Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals 7, 60.
Mishra, A, Koene, P, Schouten, W, Spruijt, B, van Beek, P and Metz, JHM 2005. Temporal and sequential structure of behavior and facility usage of laying hens in an enriched environment. Poultry Science 84, 979991.
National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) 2017. Code of practice for the care and handling of pullets and laying hens. Egg Farmers of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved on 27 March 2017, from http://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/pullets_and_laying_hens_code_of_practice.pdf
Negro, JJ, Grande, JM, Tella, JL, Garrido, J, Hornero, D, Donázar, JA, Sanchez-Zapata, JA, Benítez, JR and Barcell, M 2002. Coprophagy: an unusual source of essential carotenoids. Nature 416, 807808.
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Statham, P and Browne, WJ 2011. Decisions about foraging and risk trade-offs in chickens are associated with individual somatic response profiles. Animal Behaviour 82, 255262.
Pokharel, BB, Boecker, I, Kwon, IY, Jeyachanthiran, L, McBride, P and Harlander-Matauschek, A 2018. How does the presence of excreta affect the behavior of laying hens on scratch pads? Poultry Science 97, 743748.
Provenza, FD 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 217.
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, Sonck, B, De Reu, K, Herman, L and Zoons, J 2005. Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8, 211226.
Savory, CJ, Wood-Gush, DGM and Duncan, IJH 1978. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4, 1327.
Shimada, T 2012. Ducks foraging on swan faeces. Wildfowl 62, 224227.
Spooner, JM, Schuppli, CA and Fraser, D 2014. Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: a qualitative study. Livestock Science 163, 150158.
Steffens, W and Menke, KH 1964. Kobalt- und vitamin B12-Stoffwechsel. III: Untersuchung über die Koprophagie bei Küken nach Verabreichung von 60CoCl2. Atompraxis 10, 16.
Trott, KA, Giannitti, F, Rimoldi, G, Hill, A, Woods, L, Barr, B, Anderson, M and Mete, A 2014. Fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome in the backyard chicken: a retrospective histopathologic case series. Veterinary Pathology 51, 787795.
van de Weerd, HA and Day, JEL 2009. A review of environmental enrichment for pigs housed in intensive housing systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 120.
Ventura, BA, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Wittman, H and Weary, DM 2016. What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS One 11, 118.
Vermeer, HM, de Greef, KH and Houwers, HWJ 2014. Space allowance and pen size affect welfare indicators and performance of growing pigs under Comfort Class conditions. Livestock Science 159, 7986.
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 296307.
Widowski, TM, Classen, H, Newberry, RC, Petrik, M, Schwean-Lardner, K, Cottee, SY and Cox, B 2013. Code of practice for the care and handling of pullets, layers, and spent fowl: poultry (layers): review of scientific research on priority issues. Poultry (Layer) Code of Practice Scientific Committee, National Farm Animal Care Council, Canada. Retrieved on 19 January 2017, from https://www.nfacc.ca/resources/codes-of-practice/poultry-layers/Layer_SCReport_2013.pdf

Keywords

Do laying hens eat and forage in excreta from other hens?

  • C. G. von Waldburg-Zeil (a1), N. van Staaveren (a1) and A. Harlander-Matauschek (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed