Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:45:10.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early rearing enrichments influenced nest use and egg quality in free-range laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2020

M. S. Bari ,
A. M. Cohen-Barnhouse  and
D. L. M. Campbell
M. S. Bari
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
A. M. Cohen-Barnhouse
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
D. L. M. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
*
†E-mail: dana.campbell@csiro.au
Get access

Abstract

In Australia, free-range egg production pullets are typically reared indoors, but adult layers get outdoor access. This new environment may be challenging to adapt to, which could impair egg production and/or egg quality. Adaptation might be enhanced through rearing enrichments. We reared 1386 Hy-Line Brown® chicks indoors with three treatments across 16 weeks: (1) a control group with standard litter housing conditions, (2) a novelty group providing novel objects that changed weekly, and (3) a structural enrichment group with custom-designed structures to partially impair visibility across the pen and allow for vertical movement. Pullets were transferred to a free-range system at 16 weeks of age with daily outdoor access provided from 25 until 64 weeks. Daily egg production at different laying locations (large nests, small nests and floor), weekly egg weights and egg abnormalities were recorded from 18 to 64 weeks old. External and internal egg quality parameters of egg weight, shell reflectivity, albumen height, haugh unit, yolk colour score, shell weight and shell thickness were measured at 44, 52, 60 and 64 weeks. There was a significant interaction between rearing treatment and nest box use on hen-day production from weeks 18 to 25 (P < 0.0001) with the novelty hens laying the most eggs and the control hens the fewest eggs in the nest box. Similarly, from 26 to 64 weeks, the novelty hens laid more eggs in the large nest boxes and fewer eggs on the floor than both the structural and control hens (P < 0.0001). Egg weight and abnormalities increased with age (P < 0.0001), but rearing treatment had no effect on either measure (both P ≥ 0.19). Rearing treatment affected shell reflectivity and yolk colour with the control hens showing paler colours across time relative to the changes observed in the eggs from enriched hens. The novelty hens may have established nest box laying patterns as they were more accustomed to exploring new environments. The differences in egg quality could be related to stress adaptability or ranging behaviour. This study shows that enriching environments during rearing can have some impacts on production parameters in free-range hens.

Keywords

hen-day productionnovel objectsstructuralyolk colouregg shell colour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1249 - 1257
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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

Appleby, MC, Duncan, IJH and McRae, HE 1988. Perching and floor laying by domestic hens: experimental results and their commercial application. British Poultry Science 29, 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Eggs 2018. Australian Eggs: annual report 2017/2018. Retrieved on 1 April 2019 from https://www.australianeggs.org.au/who-we-are/annual-reports/Google Scholar
Bari, MS, Laurenson, YCSM, Cohen-Barnhouse, AM, Walkden-Brown, SW and Campbell, DLM 2019. Effects of outdoor ranging on external and internal health parameters for hens from different rearing enrichments. PeerJ (Submitted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantsæter, M, Nordgreen, J, Rodenburg, TB, Tahamtani, FM, Popova, A and Janczak, AM 2016. Exposure to increased environmental complexity during rearing reduces fearfulness and increases use of three-dimensional space in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Frontiers in Veterinary Science 3, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, HJ and Ankeny, RA 2017. Happy chickens lay tastier eggs: motivations for buying free-range eggs in Australia. Anthrozoös 30, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, GN, Downing, JA and Lee, C 2018. Early enrichment in free-range laying hens: effects on ranging behaviour, welfare and response to stressors. Animal 12, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, DLM, Lee, C, Hinch, GN and Roberts, JR 2017. Egg production and egg quality in free-range laying hens housed at different outdoor stocking densities. Poultry Science 96, 3128–3137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campderrich, I, Nazar, FN, Wichman, A, Marin, RH, Estevez, I and Keeling, LJ 2019. Environmental complexity: a buffer against stress in the domestic chick. PLoS ONE 14, e0210270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartini, S, Choct, M, Hinch, G, Kocher, A and Nolan, JV 2002. Effects of light intensity during rearing and beak trimming and dietary fiber sources on mortality, egg production, and performance of ISA brown laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11, 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heng, Y, Peterson, HH and Li, X 2013. Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: the case of laying hens. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38, 418–434.Google Scholar
Hy-Line® 2016. Hy-Line® Brown management guide for alternative systems – UK. Retrieved on 1 November 2017 from https://www.hyline.com/userdocs/pages/B_ALT_COM_ENG.pdfGoogle Scholar
Icken, W, Cavero, D, Thurner, S, Schmutz, M, Wendl, G and Preisinger, R 2008. Relationship between time spent in the winter garden and shell colour in brown egg stock. Archiv Für Geflügelkunde 75, 145–150.Google Scholar
Janczak, AM and Riber, AB 2015. Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Science 94, 1454–1469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB and Waddington, D 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43, 1021–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H, Mertens, K, Kemps, B, Govaerts, T, De ketelaere, B, De baerdemaeker, J, Decuypere, E and Buyse, J 2004. New approach of testing the effect of heat stress on eggshell quality: mechanical and material properties of eggshell and membrane. British Poultry Science 45, 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lordelo, M, Fernandes, E, Bessa, RJB and Alves, SP 2017. Quality of eggs from different laying hen production systems, from indigenous breeds and specialty eggs. Poultry Science 96, 1485–1491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, K, Vaesen, I, Loffel, J, Kemps, B, Kamers, B, Perianu, C, Zoons, J, Darius, P, Decuypere, E, De Baerdemaeker, J and De Ketelaere, B 2010. The transmission color value: a novel egg quality measure for recording shell color used for monitoring the stress and health status of a brown layer flock. Poultry Science 89, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC, Huon, F and Faure, JM 1984. Lack of influence of pullet rearing conditions on the hen’s performance. British Poultry Science 25, 541–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, V and Huonnic, D 2003. A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or in aviaries. British Poultry Science 44, 775–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Primary Industries Standing Committee 2002. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: Domestic Poultry. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Rizzi, C and Chiericato, GM 2005. Organic farming production. Effect of age on the productive yield and egg quality of hens of two commercial hybrid lines and two local breeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 160–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, JR 2004. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. The Journal of Poultry Science 41, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rufener, C, Abreu, Y, Asher, L, Berezowski, JA, Sousa, FM, Stratmann, A and Toscano, MJ 2019. Keel bone fractures are associated with individual mobility of laying hens in an aviary system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 217, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samiullah, S, Omar, AS, Roberts, J and Chousalkar, K 2016. Effect of production system and flock age on eggshell and egg internal quality measurements. Poultry Science 96, 246–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samiullah, S and Roberts, JR 2013. The location of protoporphyrin in the eggshell of brown-shelled eggs. Poultry Science 92, 2783–2788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samiullah, S, Roberts, JR and Chousalkar, KK 2014. Effect of production system and flock age on egg quality and total bacterial load in commercial laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shini, S, Shini, A and Huff, GR 2009. Effects of chronic and repeated corticosterone administration in rearing chickens on physiology, the onset of lay and egg production of hens. Physiology & Behavior 98, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tůmová, E, Skřivan, M, Englmaierová, M and Zita, L 2009. The effect of genotype, housing system and egg collection time on egg quality in egg type hens. Czech Journal of Animal Science 54, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Brand, H, Parmentier, HK and Kemp, B 2004. Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. British Poultry Science 45, 745–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, AW and Hughes, BO 1998. Egg shell colour is affected by laying cage design. British Poultry Science 39, 696–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, H 2011. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poultry Science 90, 2153–2161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yilmaz Dikmen, B, İpek, A, Şahan, Ü, Petek, M and Sözcü, A 2016. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Science 95, 1564–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz Dikmen, B, İpek, A, Şahan, Ü, Sözcü, A and Baycan, SC 2017. Impact of different housing systems and age of layers on egg quality characteristics. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 41, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar