Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T11:55:48.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of novel floorings on dustbathing, pecking and scratching behaviour of caged hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

RJN Merrill  and
CJ Nicol
RJN Merrill*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
CJ Nicol
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From the year 2012, conventional battery cages for laying hens will be banned under the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC. Enriched cages, which include a perch, a nest area, and a pecking and scratching area will not be banned, and have certain advantages over other systems of egg production. Previous studies have shown that even when a pecking and scratching area is provided, most dustbathing occurs on the wire floor as sham dustbathing. This study investigated whether novel cage floor types could stimulate full expression of dustbathing behaviour, similar to that seen on loose litter. One hundred and forty four hens were housed in pairs in non-commercial enriched cages that differed only in that they contained one of four randomly allocated floor types. Floor types were conventional wire ('wire'), wood shavings ('litter'), conventional wire wrapped with garden twine ('string') and perforated rubber matting ('rubber'). Birds on litter or rubber performed fewer bouts of dustbathing than those on wire and string. However, bouts on litter were longer than those on the three other floor types. Overall, birds on litter or string showed a greater total duration of dustbathing than those on rubber, and birds on litter had a richer repertoire of dustbathing elements. Birds on litter performed significantly more pecking and scratching than those on string or rubber, which did not differ from those on wire. Birds on rubber and litter had poorer foot and feather condition than those on wire or string. Altering the cage floor produced minor changes in behaviour, and further novel floor types should be evaluated.

Keywords

animal welfaredustbathinglaying hensnovel flooringpeckingscratching
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 179 - 186
Copyright
© 2005 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

Big Dutchman 2004 www.bigdutchman.de/eng/home/bigdutch.htmGoogle Scholar
Borchelt, PL, Eyer, J and McHenry, JDS 1973 Dustbathing in Bobtail quail (Colinus virginianus) as a function of dust deprivation. Behavioural Biology 8: 417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1989 Time budgets in red junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH and Wood-Gush, GM 1972 An analysis of displacement preening in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 20: 68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Widowski, TM, Malleau, AE, Lindberg, AC and Petherick, JC 1998 External factors and causation of dustbathing in domestic hens. Behavioural Processes 43: 219–228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19th July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Available at http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_203/l_20319990803en00530057.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hogan, JA and van Boxel, F 1993 Causal factors controlling dustbathing in Burmese red junglefowl: some results and a model. Animal Behaviour 46: 627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, JA, Honrado, GI and Vestergaard, K 1991 Development of a behaviour system: dustbathing in the Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus). II. Internal factors. Journal of Comparative Psychology 105: 269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1997 Dustbathing in modified battery cages: is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdie, TM and Keeling, LJ 2000 Effect of manipulating feathers of laying hens on the incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 215–229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Phillips, AJ, Pope, SJ, Wilkins, LJ and Green, LE 2001 Influence of prior exposure to wood shavings on feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging in adult laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 141–155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noldus 2003 The Observer. Noldus Information Technology: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Patchett Engineering 2004 Patchett Engineering: Bradford, UK. www.patchett.co.ukGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC and Duncan, IJH 1989 Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30: 229–238Google Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Vestergaard, KS, Agger, JF and Lawson, LG 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
Simmons, KEL 1964 Feather maintenance. In: Thompson, AL (ed) A New Dictionary of Birds pp 187–286. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
van Liere, DW 1992a The significance of fowls not being able to bathe in dust. Animal Welfare 1: 187–202Google Scholar
van Liere, DW 1992b Dustbathing as related to proximal and distal feather lipids in laying hens. Behavioural Processes 26: 177–188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Liere, DW, Aggrey, SE, Brouns, FMR and Wiepkema, PR 1991 Oiling behaviour and the effects of lipids on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens Gallus gallus domesticus. Behavioural Processes 24: 71–81Google ScholarPubMed
van Liere, DW and Bokma, S 1987 Short-term feather maintenance as a function of dust-bathing in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Liere, DW, Kooliman, J and Wiepkema, PR 1990 Dustbathing behaviour of laying hens as related to quality of dust-bathing material. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 127–142Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982 Dustbathing in the domestic fowl. Diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 8: 487–495Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K and Hogan, JA 1992 The development of a behaviour system: dustbathing in the red Burmese junglefowl. III. Effects of experience on stimulus preference. Behaviour 121: 215–230Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Damm, BBI, Abbott, UK and Bildsoe, M 1999 Regulation of dustbathing in feathered and featherless domestic chicks: the Lorenzian model revisited. Animal Behaviour 58: 1017–1025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vestergaard, KS, Hogan, JA and Kruijt, JP 1990 The development of a behaviour system: dustbathing in the Burmese red junglefowl I. The influence of the rearing environment on the organization of dustbathing. Behaviour 112: 99–116Google Scholar
Widowski, TM and Duncan, IJH 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed