Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:52:49.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of the provision of natural light and straw bales on activity levels and leg health in commercial broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

C. L. Bailie ,
M. E. E. Ball  and
N. E. O'Connell
C. L. Bailie*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL Northern Ireland, UK
M. E. E. Ball
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR Northern Ireland, UK
N. E. O'Connell
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL Northern Ireland, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of natural light and straw bales on activity levels and leg health in commercial broiler chickens. Houses containing ∼23 000 broiler chickens were assigned to one of four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Treatments involved two levels of access to natural light (NL) (present ‘+NL’, or absent ‘−NL’) and two levels of access to straw bales (SB) (present (30/house) ‘+SB’, or absent ‘−SB’). All houses were windowed and artificially lit, and windows were shuttered where appropriate. Treatments were applied in one of the two houses on each of the two farms, and were replicated over four production cycles. Behaviour was observed in 2 to 6 weeks of the cycle. This involved observations of general behaviour and activity, gait scores (0 (perfect) to 5 (unable to walk)) and latency to lie (measured in seconds from encouraging a bird to stand). Production performance and environmental parameters were also measured. Average daytime light intensity and UV levels in the +NL treatment were 85.2 lx and 3.37 μW/cm2, respectively, and in the −NL treatment were 11.4 lx and 0 μW/cm2, respectively. Litter moisture levels were lower with NL treatment (P < 0.05), but were not affected by SB (P > 0.05). The percentage of time spent lying was significantly reduced by the provision of NL (P < 0.01), but not by SB (P > 0.05). There were three-way interactions between NL, SB and bird age on the percentage of time spent in locomotion (P < 0.05) and idling (P < 0.05). Both treatment factors had inconsistent effects on these parameters across different weeks. Levels of preening, resting and aggressive behaviour were not affected by treatment (P > 0.05). There was an interaction between treatments in average gait scores, with higher scores in the −NL−SB treatment than in all other treatments, and higher in the −NL+SB treatment than in the +NL treatments (P < 0.001). Average latency to lie was significantly higher with NL (P < 0.001) and SB (P < 0.05). We conclude that environmental modifications have the potential to increase activity levels and improve the leg health of commercial broilers. The light environment appears to be particularly important in this respect.

Keywords

behaviourbroiler chickenleg healthnatural lightstraw bales
Type
Behaviour, welfare and health
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 618 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Alvino, GM, Archer, GS, Mench, JA 2009. Behavioural time budgets of broiler chickens reared in varying light intensities. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 118, 54–61.Google Scholar
Ask, B 2010. Genetic variation of contact dermatitis in broilers. Poultry Science 89, 866–875.Google Scholar
Berg, C, Sanotra, GS 2003. Can a modified latency-to-lie test be used to validate gait-scoring results in commercial broiler flocks. Animal Welfare 12, 655–659.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 62, 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizeray, D, Estevez, I, Leterrier, C, Faure, JM 2002. Effects of increasing environmental complexity on the physical activity of broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 27–41.Google Scholar
Brickett, KE, Dahiya, JP, Classen, HL, Annett, CB, Gomis, S 2007. The impact of nutrient density, feed form, and photoperiod on the walking ability and skeletal quality of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 86, 2117–2125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornetto, T, Estevez, I 2001. Behaviour of the domestic fowl in the presence of vertical panels. Poultry Science 80, 1455–1462.Google Scholar
Council Directive 2007/43/EC of June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production.Google Scholar
Cuthill, IC, Partridge, JC, Bennett, ATD, Church, SC, Hart, NS, Hunt, S 2000. Ultraviolet vision in birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior 29, 159–214.Google Scholar
Estevez, I, Tablante, N, Pettit-Riley, RL, Carr, L 2002. Use of cool perches by broiler chickens. Poultry Science 81, 62–69.Google Scholar
Kells, A, Dawkins, MS, Borja, MC 2001. The effect of a ‘freedom food’ enrichment on the behaviour of broilers on commercial farms. Animal Welfare 10, 347–356.Google Scholar
Kestin, SC, Knowles, TG, Tinch, AE, Gregory, NG 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131, 190–194.Google Scholar
King-Smith, PE 1971. Special senses. In Physiology and biochemistry of the domestic fowl (ed. DJ Bell and BM Freeman), vol. 2, pp. 143–156. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB, Su, G, Nielsen, BL, Sørensen, P 2006. Foot-pad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens and degree of inheritance. Poultry Science 85, 1342–1348.Google Scholar
Kristensen, HH, Perry, GC, Prescott, NB, Ladewig, J, Ersbøll, AK, Wathes, CM 2006. Leg health and performance of broiler chickens reared in different light environments. British Poultry Science 47, 257–263.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Morris, TR 1998. Responses of domestic poultry to various light sources. World's Poultry Science Journal 54, 7–55.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Gous, RM 2009. Responses of poultry to ultraviolet radiation. World's Poultry Science Journal 65, 499–510.Google Scholar
Maddocks, SA, Cuthill, IC, Goldsmith, AR, Sherwin, CM 2001. Behavioural and physiological effects of absence of ultraviolet wavelengths for domestic chicks. Animal Behaviour 62, 1013–1019.Google Scholar
McLean, JA, Savory, CJ, Sparks, NHC 2002. Welfare of male and female broiler chickens in relation to stocking density, as indicated by performance, health and behaviour. Animal Welfare 11, 55–73.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC, Shackleton, DM 1997. Use of visual cover by domestic fowl: a Venetian blind effect. Animal Behaviour 54, 387–395.Google Scholar
Newberry, RC, Hunt, JR, Gardiner, EE 1988. The influence of light intensity on behaviour and performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 67, 1020–1025.Google Scholar
Prayitno, DS, Phillips, CJD, Stokes, DK 1997. The effects of color and intensity of light on behaviour and leg problems in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 76, 1674–1681.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM 1999. Reflective properties of domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus), the fabric of their housing and the characteristics of the light environment in environmentally controlled poultry houses. British Poultry Science 40, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, K, Bessei, W 1998. Effect of locomotor activity on bone development and leg disorders in broilers. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde 62, 247–253.Google Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Lund, JD, Ersboll, AK, Petersen, JS, Vestergaard, KS 2001. Monitoring leg problems in broilers: a survey of commercial broiler production in Denmark. World's Poultry Science Journal 57, 55–69.Google Scholar
Schlyter, P 2009. Radiometry and photometry in astronomy. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html.Google Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Lewis, PD, Perry, GC 1999. The effects of environmental enrichment and intermittent lighting on the behaviour and welfare of male domestic turkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 319–333.Google Scholar
Stanford, M 2006. Effects of UVB radiation on calcium metabolism in psittacine birds. Veterinary Record 159, 236–241.Google Scholar
Waldenstedt, L 2006. Nutritional factors of importance for optimal leg health in broilers: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 291–307.Google Scholar
Weeks, CA, Danbury, TD, Davies, HC, Hunt, P, Kestin, SC 2000. The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, CA, Knowles, TG, Gordon, RG, Kerr, AE, Peyton, ST, Tillbrook, NT 2002. New method for objectively assessing lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 151, 762–764.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, DGM, Duncan, IJH, Savory, CJ 1978. Observations on the social behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Biology of Behaviour 3, 193–205.Google Scholar