Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T17:26:21.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationships between range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-range laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2015

K. M. Hartcher ,
K. A. Hickey ,
P. H. Hemsworth ,
G. M. Cronin ,
S. J. Wilkinson  and
M. Singh
K. M. Hartcher*
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia Poultry CRC, PO Box U242, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
K. A. Hickey
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
P. H. Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
G. M. Cronin
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
S. J. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
M. Singh
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
*
†E-mail: kate.hartcher@sydney.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Severe feather-pecking (SFP), a particularly injurious behaviour in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus), is thought to be negatively correlated with range use in free-range systems. In turn, range use is thought to be inversely associated with fearfulness, where fearful birds may be less likely to venture outside. However, very few experiments have investigated the proposed association between range use and fearfulness. This experiment investigated associations between range use (time spent outside), fearfulness, plumage damage, and BW. Two pens of 50 ISA Brown laying hens (n=100) were fitted with radio frequency identification (RFID) transponders (contained within silicone leg rings) at 26 weeks of age. Data were then collected over 13 days. A total of 95% of birds accessed the outdoor run more than once per day. Birds spent an average duration of 6.1 h outside each day over 11 visits per bird per day (51.5 min per visit). The top 15 and bottom 15 range users (n=30), as determined by the total time spent on the range over 13 days, were selected for study. These birds were tonic immobility (TI) tested at the end of the trial and were feather-scored and weighed after TI testing. Birds with longer TI durations spent less time outside (P=0.01). Plumage damage was not associated with range use (P=0.68). The small group sizes used in this experiment may have been conducive to the high numbers of birds utilising the outdoor range area. The RFID technology collected a large amount of data on range access in the tagged birds, and provides a potential means for quantitatively assessing range access in laying hens. The present findings indicate a negative association between fearfulness and range use. However, the proposed negative association between plumage damage and range use was not supported. The relationships between range use, fearfulness, and SFP warrant further research.

Keywords

radio frequency identificationrange usefree-rangeplumage damagefearfulness
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , May 2016 , pp. 847 - 853
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Bessei, AW and Kjaer, JB 2015. Feather pecking in layers – state of research and implications. Australian Poultry Science Symposium 26, 9 to 11 February 2015, Sydney, Australia, 214–221.Google Scholar
Bestman, MWP and Wagenaar, JP 2003. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Science 80, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonter, DN and Bridge, ES 2011. Applications of radio frequency identification (RFID) in ornithological research: a review. Journal of Field Ornithology 82, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunberg, E, Jensen, P, Isaksson, A and Keeling, L 2011. Feather pecking behavior in laying hens: hypothalamic gene expression in birds performing and receiving pecks. Poultry Science 90, 1145–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubier, NE and Bradshaw, RH 1998. Movement of flocks of laying hens in and out of the hen house in four free range systems. British Poultry Science 39, 5–18.Google Scholar
Campo, JL, Gil, MG, Davila, SG and Munoz, I 2006. The genetics of three welfare indicators: tonic immobility duration, heterophil to lymphocyte ratio, and fluctuating asymmetry. EPC 2006 to 12th European Poultry Conference, 10 to 14 September 2006, Verona, Italy, 10–14.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Cook, PA, Whittingham, MJ, Mansell, KA and Harper, AE 2003. What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66, 151–160.Google Scholar
Durali, T, Groves, P, Cowieson, AJ and Singh, M 2014. Evaluating range usage of commercial free range broilers and its effect on bird performance using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. Australian Poultry Science Symposium 25, 16 to 19 February 2014, Sydney, Australia, 103–106.Google Scholar
Edwards, JD 2004. The role of the veterinarian in animal welfare – A global perspective. Global conference on animal welfare: an OIE initiative, OIE and the European Commission, 23 to 25 February 2004, Paris, France, 27–32.Google Scholar
Freire, R, Wilkins, LJ, Short, F and Nicol, CJ 2003. Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. British Poultry Science 44, 22–29.Google Scholar
Gallup, GG Jr 1979. Tonic immobility as a measure of fear in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 27, 316–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Fröhlich, EKF 2014. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.Google Scholar
Gilani, AM, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2014. Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens. British Poultry Science 55, 127–135.Google Scholar
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000. Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147, 233–238.Google Scholar
Grigor, PN, Hughes, BO and Appleby, MC 1995. Effects of regular handling and exposure to an outside area on subsequent fearfulness and dispersal in domestic hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruss, M and Braun, K 1997. Distinct activation of monoaminergic pathways in chick brain in relation to auditory imprinting and stressful situations: a microdialysis study. Neuroscience 76, 891–899.Google Scholar
Hartcher, KM, Tran, KTN, Wilkinson, SJ, Hemsworth, PH, Thomson, PC and Cronin, GM 2015a. The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poultry Science 94, 852–859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartcher, KM, Tran, MKTN, Wilkinson, SJ, Hemsworth, PH, Thomson, PC and Cronin, GM 2015b. Plumage damage in free-range laying hens: behavioural characteristics in the rearing period and the effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 164, 64–72.Google Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sorensen, JT and Hermansen, JE 2006. Welfare and productivity of laying hens in commercial organic egg production systems in Denmark. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegelund, L, Sorensen, JT, Kjaer, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hocking, PM, Channing, CE, Waddington, D and Jones, RB 2001. Age-related changes in fear, sociality and pecking behaviours in two strains of laying hen. British Poultry Science 42, 414–423.Google Scholar
Janczak, AM and Riber, AB 2015. Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Science 94, 1454–1469.Google Scholar
Jones, RB and Faure, JM 1981. The effects of regular handling on fear responses in the domestic chick. Behavioural Processes 6, 135–143.Google Scholar
Lambton, SL, Knowles, TG, Yorke, C and Nicol, CJ 2010. The risk factors affecting the development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 123, 32–42.Google Scholar
Leenstra, F, Maurer, V, Bestman, M, van Sambeek, F, Zeltner, E, Reuvekamp, B, Galea, F and van Niekerk, T 2012. Performance of commercial laying hen genotypes on free range and organic farms in Switzerland, France and The Netherlands. British Poultry Science 53, 282–290.Google Scholar
Mahboub, HDH, Muller, J and von Borell, E 2004. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45, 738–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, JE, Cronin, GM and Bush, RD 2012. Improving sheep production and welfare in extensive systems through precision sheep management. Animal Production Science 52, 665–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Health and Medical Research Council 2004. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications.Google Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Potzsch, C, Lewis, K and Green, LE 2003. Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. British Poultry Science 44, 515–523.Google Scholar
Rault, J-L, van de Wouw, A and Hemsworth, PH 2013. Fly the coop! Vertical structures influence the distribution and behaviour of laying hens in an outdoor range. Australian Veterinary Journal 91, 423–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2011. Continuous monitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Veterinary Record 169, 338–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Buitenhuis, AJ, Ask, B, Uitdehaag, KA, Koene, P, van der Poel, JJ, van Arendonk, JAM and Bovenhuis, H 2004. Genetic and phenotypic correlations between feather pecking and open-field response in laying hens at two different ages. Behavior Genetics 34, 407–415.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB and Koene, P 2007. The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggression, fear and stress in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 205–214.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, van Krimpen, MM, de Jong, IC, de Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Riedstra, BJ, Nordquist, RE, Wagenaar, JP, Bestman, M and Nicol, CJ 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World’s Poultry Science Journal 69, 361–373.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Garcia, L and Lunadei, L 2011. The role of RFID in agriculture: applications, limitations and challenges. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 79, 42–50.Google Scholar
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, G, Cepero, R and Holm, KE 2005. Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23, 153–159.Google Scholar
Thurner, S and Wendl, G 2005. Individual ranging behaviour of laying hens: automatic registration with RFID technology. Landtechnik 60, 30–31.Google Scholar
Uitdehaag, KA, Rodenburg, TB, Bolhuis, JE, Decuypere, E and Komen, H 2009. Mixed housing of different genetic lines of laying hens negatively affects feather pecking and fear related behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeltner, E, Klein, T and Huber-Eicher, B 2000. Is there social transmission of feather pecking in groups of laying hen chicks? Animal Behaviour 60, 211–216.Google Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2003. Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free-range system. British Poultry Science 44, 533–537.Google Scholar