Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:04:30.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare Quality® parameters do not always reflect hen behaviour across the lay cycle in non-cage laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Daigle  and
J Siegford
C Daigle
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Michigan State University, 1290 Anthony Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1225, USA
J Siegford*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour and Welfare Group, Michigan State University, 1290 Anthony Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1225, USA
*
* 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.

The integration of outcome-based measurements to animal welfare assessment programmes can provide a new perspective on the individual animal's experience. Identifying variability in individual experiences can facilitate understanding of animals at the periphery of the welfare spectrum, compared to those at the average. Welfare Quality® physical measurements and behavioural observations were taken from the same fifteen non-cage laying hens throughout their production cycle. The average amount of time performing each of nine behaviours and the amount of variation in each behaviour's performance was compared at four different ages: 19, 28, 48 and 66 weeks. The same analysis was performed for all Welfare Quality® physical measurements. To identify associations between a hen's behaviour and her physical condition, a cluster analysis was performed for all ages, as well as on data collated from all ages. No differences were observed among the four ages for the average amount of time performing many of the behaviours, but the amount of variability differed for most behaviours observed. Physical measurements taken at 19 weeks differed from those taken at later ages. Bodyweight consistently clustered with time spent preening, yet the patterns of clustering differed at each age. These results highlight the importance of age when conducting welfare assessments. Auditors also should report not only the average, but the variability of responses; while the average response of the flock may appear consistent across time or treatment, differences among the hens within the same flock may vary drastically.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourgroup welfarelaying henoutcome-based measuresWelfare Quality®
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 423 - 434
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Akcay, E, van Cleve, J, Feldman, M and Roughgarden, J 2009 A theory for the evolution of other-regard integrating proximate and ultimate perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106: 19061–19066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904357106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alcock, J 2009 Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. Sinauer Associates Inc: Sunderland, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Black, A and Hughes, BO 1974 Patterns of comfort behaviour and activity in domestic fowls: a comparison between cages and pens. British Veterinary Journal 130: 23–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, WJ, Caplen, G, Statham, P and Nicol, CJ 2011 Mild environmental aversion is detected by a discrete-choice prefer-ence testing method but not by a free-access method. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 134: 152–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubier, N 1996 The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multi-choice tests on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 225–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(96)00019-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterworth, A, Mench, JA and Wielebnowski, N 2011 Animal welfare. In: Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson IAS and Hughes BO (eds) Animal Welfare, Second Edition pp 200–215. CAB International: Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Channing, CE, Hughes, BO and Walker, AW 2001 Spatial dis-tribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 335–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00206-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, S and Newberry, R 2000 Recent social experience, body weight and initial patterns of attack predict the social status attained by unfamilar hens in a new group. Behaviour 137: 705–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853900502303Google Scholar
Committee, B 1965 Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animal kept under intensive livestock husbandry sys-tems. Command Paper 2836. HMS: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Daigle, C, Banerjee, D, Biswas, S and Siegford, J 2012 Noncaged laying hens remain unflappable while wearing body-mounted sensors: levels of agonistic behaviors remain unchanged and resource use is not reduced after habituation. Poultry Science 91: 2415–2423. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02300Google Scholar
Daigle, C and Siegford, J 2014 When continuous observations just won't do: developing accurate and efficient sampling strate-gies for the laying hen. Behavioral Processes 103: 58–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.002Google Scholar
Dawkins, M 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80026-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M 2003 Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106: 383–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/0944-2006-00122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH and Mench, JA 1993 Behaviour as an indicator of welfare in various systems. Basic biology and welfare. Alternative Housing Systems 7: 69–76Google Scholar
FASS 2010 Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching. In: Adams, L (ed) Societies FoAS, Third Edition. Federation of Animal Science Societies: Champaign, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Fleming, R, McCormack, H, McTeir, L and Whitehead, C 2004 Incidence, pathology and prevention of keel bone deformi-ties in the laying hen. British Poultry Science 45: 320–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001730815Google ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding animal welfare. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 50: S1Google Scholar
Freire, R, Walker, AW and Nicol, CJ 1999 The relationship between trough height, feather cover and behaviour of laying hens in modified cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 55–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00244-5Google Scholar
Gentle, MJ 2001 Attentional shifts alter pain perception in the chicken. Animal Welfare 10: 187–194Google Scholar
González, LA, Tolkamp, BJ, Coffey, MP, Ferret, A and Kyriazakis, I 2008 Changes in feeding behavior as possible indi-cators for the automatic monitoring of health disorders in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 1017–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0530Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Toates, F 1993 Who needs ‘behavioural needs’? Motivational aspects of the needs of animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37: 161–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90108-2Google Scholar
Johnsen, P, Johannesson, T and SandØe, P 2001 Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Agriculturae Scandinavica Supplement 30: 26–33Google Scholar
Larson, S and Dunn, A 2001 Behavioral effects of cytokines. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 15: 371–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brbi.2001.0643Google ScholarPubMed
Nasr, M, Nicol, CJ and Murrell, J 2012 Do laying hens with keel bone fractures experience pain? PLOS One 7: e42420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042420CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasr, MAF, Murrell, J and Nicol, CJ 2013 The effect of keel fractures on egg production, feed and water consumption in indi-vidual laying hens. British Poultry Science 54: 165–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2013.767437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1989 Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 75–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90081-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J and Browne, WJ 2009 Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78: 413–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, E, Suanders, J, Grist, H, McLeman, M, Wathes, CM and Abeyesinghe, S 2011 The relationship between the comb and social behaviour in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135:293–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Re'ale, D, Reader, S, Sol, D, McDougall, P and Dingemanse, N 2007 Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evo-lution. Biological Reviews 82: 291–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00010.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, B, Ronchen, S, Hamann, H, Surie, C, Neumann, U, Kamphues, J and Distl, O 2008 Evaluation of bone strength, keel bone deformity and egg quality of laying hens housed in small group housing systems and furnished cages in comparison to an aviary housing system. Archiv Fur Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding 51: 179–186Google Scholar
Sherwin, C 2007 The motivation of group-housed laboratory mice to leave an enriched laboratory cage. Animal Behaviour 73:29–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.04.008Google Scholar
Sih, A, Bell, A, Johnson, J and Ziemba, R 2004 Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. The Quarterly Review of Biology 79: 241–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/422893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, M, Rosivall, B, Drent, P and Mostl, E 2010 Selection for fast and slow exploration affects baseline and stress-induced cor-ticosterone exceretion in Great tit nestlings, Parsus major. Hormones and behavior 58: 864–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strochlic, DE and Romero, LM 2008 The effects of chronic psychological and physical stress on feather replacement in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 149: 68–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.10.011Google ScholarPubMed
Temple, D, Dalmau, A, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2011 Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 6:138–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.10.003Google Scholar
Temple, D, Manteca, X, Dalmau, A and Velarde, A 2013 Assessment of test-retest reliability of animal-based measures on growing pig farms. Livestock Science 151: 35–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.10.012Google Scholar
van Oers, K, Buchanan, K, Thomas, T and Drent, P 2011 Correlated response to selection of testosterone levels and immunocompetence in lines selected for avian personality. Animal Behaviour 81: 1055–1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbe-hav.2011.02.014Google Scholar
Veissier, I, Jensen, K, Botreau, R and SandØe, P 2011 Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal wel-fare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare 20: 89–101Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K, Skadhauge, E and Lawson, L 1997 The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiology and Behavior 62: 413–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00041-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vits, A, Weitzenburger, D, Hamann, H and Distl, O 2005 Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science 84: 1511–1519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.10.1511Google ScholarPubMed
Wahlstrom, A, Tauson, R and Elwinger, K 2001 Plumage con-dition and health of aviary-kept hens fed mash or crumbled pel-lets. Poultry Science 80: 266–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ps/80.3.266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wylie, L and Gentle, MJ 1998 Feeding-induced tonic pain sup-pression in the chicken: reversal by naloxone. Physiology and Behavior 64: 27–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(98)00020-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed