Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:23:07.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of losing or gaining access to peat on the dustbathing behaviour of laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Wichman  and
LJ Keeling
A Wichman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
LJ Keeling*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7038, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study investigated the influence of being reared with or without access to peat as well as the effects of losing or gaining substrate access on the dustbathing behaviour of young, domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). There were four treatments, based on the period of time chicks had access to peat during rearing: (i) always (LL), (ii) never (NN), (iii) from 0 to 6 weeks of age (LN) and (iv) from 6 weeks of age onwards (NL). Observations on the number and length of dustbaths performed were made for six days with birds aged six weeks and 50% of the birds either lost or gained access to litter. The birds then remained in the same treatment conditions until 16 weeks of age, at which point the same behavioural observations were repeated. NL birds (which had just gained access to peat) were found to be quicker than LN birds (which had just lost access to peat) to perform a dustbath during the first observation period. A significant difference was seen in the variation of the duration of the dustbathing bouts; both LL and NL birds varied less in the lengths of their bouts than NN and LN birds over both observation periods. Hence, early rearing environment had less effect on birds’ dustbathing behaviour than current access or lack of access to litter. The irregular dustbathing pattern exhibited by birds that dustbathe without litter could be a sign of frustration; an indication that dustbathing without litter — unlike dustbathing in litter — does not provide the required feedback.

Keywords

animal welfaredomestic chickendustbathingGallus gallus domesticuslitterrearing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 149 - 157
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Blokhuis, HJ and van der Haar, JW 1989 Effects of floor type during rearing and of beak trimming on ground pecking and feather pecking in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Fiks van Niekerk, T, Bessei, W, Elson, A, Guémené, D, Kjaer, JB, Maria Levrino, GA, Nicol, CJ, Tauson, R, Weeks, CA and van de Weerd, HA 2007 The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 63(1): 101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Yngvesson, J, Keeling, LJ and Forkman, B 2000 Rearing without early access to perches impairs the spatial skills of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 217–228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Hogan, JA 1999 Structure and development of behaviour systems. In: Bolhuis, JJ and Hogan, JA (eds) The Development of Animal Behaviour pp 300–314. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Ihaka, R and Gentleman, R 1996 R: A language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5: 299–314Google Scholar
Johnsen, PF, Vestergaard, KS and Nørgaard-Nielsen, G 1998 Influence of early rearing conditions on the development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruijt, JP 1964 Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus). Behaviour Supplement 12: 1–201Google Scholar
Larsen, HB, Vestergaard, KS and Hogan, JA 2000 Development of dustbathing behaviour sequences in the domestic fowl: The significance of functional experience. Developmental Psychobiology 37: 5–123.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liere, DW and Siard, N 1991 The experience with litter and subsequent selection of bathing substrates in laying hens. In: Liere, DW (ed) Function and Organization of Dustbathing in Laying Hens. Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Liere, DW 1992 The significance of fowls’ bathing in dust. Animal Welfare 1: 187–202Google Scholar
Lindberg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1997 Dustbathing in modified cages: Is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, RJN and Nicol, CJ 2005 The effects of novel floorings on dustbathing, pecking and scratching behaviour of caged hens. Animal Welfare 14: 179–186Google Scholar
Merrill, RJN, Cooper, JJ, Albentosa, MJ and Nicol, CJ 2006 The preferences of laying hens for perforated Astroturf® over conventional wire as a dustbathing substrate in furnished cages. Animal Welfare 15(2): 173–178Google Scholar
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: 131–155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nørgaard-Nielsen, G 1997 Dustbathing and feather pecking in domestic chickens reared with and without access to sand. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52: 99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Keeling, LJ 2002 No effect of social competition on sham dustbathing in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal science 52: 253–256Google Scholar
Olsson, IAS and Keeling, LJ 2005 Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 259–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, CJ and Duncan, IJH 1989 The behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS 1982 Dustbathing in the domestic fowl: diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Vestergaard, KS and Hogan, JA 1992 The development of a behaviour system: dustbathing in the Burmese red junglefowl III. Effects of experience on stimulus preference. Behaviour 121: 215–230Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Skadhauge, E and Lawson, LG 1997 The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiology & Behaviour 62: 413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, PH, Koene, P and van Hooff, JARAM 2000 Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 255–264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, H 2003 Laying hens in furnished cages - use of facilities, exterior egg quality and bird health. PhD Thesis, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Wichman, A and Keeling, LJ 2008 Hens are motivated to dustbathe in peat irrespective of being reared with or without a suitable dustbathing substrate. Animal Behaviour 75: 1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar