Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:27:36.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of potential dustbathing substrates for commercial broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2017

M. Baxter ,
C. L. Bailie  and
N. E. O’Connell
M. Baxter*
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, Queens University Belfast, 18-30 Malone Road, Belfast BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland.
C. L. Bailie
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, Queens University Belfast, 18-30 Malone Road, Belfast BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland.
N. E. O’Connell
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Food Security, Queens University Belfast, 18-30 Malone Road, Belfast BT9 5BN, Northern Ireland.
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Provision of an appropriate dustbathing substrate may allow broiler chickens to satisfy a natural motivation and give them an opportunity to exercise. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the extent to which different substrates promote dustbathing behaviour in broilers. The trial was replicated over three production cycles in one commercial broiler house, with ~22 000 Ross broilers housed per cycle. The birds were provided with access to five experimental substrates from day 10 of the 6-week production cycle. The substrates included the following: (1) peat (P), (2) oat hulls (OH), (3) straw pellets (SP), (4) clean wood shavings (WS), and (5) litter control (C). The substrates were provided in 15 steel rings (1.1 m in diameter, three rings per substrate) dispersed throughout the house. The level of occupancy of the rings, behaviours performed in each substrate, and the effect of ring position (central or edge of house) were assessed in weeks 3, 4, 5 and 6 using scan sampling from video footage. Where substrates successfully promoted dustbathing, the length and components of the bouts (including number of vertical wing shakes and ground pecks) were also assessed. Results showed that birds used P significantly more than the remaining substrates for dustbathing (P<0.001). Oat hulls were the second most preferred substrate for dustbathing, with significantly more birds dustbathing in the OH compared with SP, WS and C (P<0.001). The least sitting inactive was also seen in the P and OH rings compared with the SP, WS and C (P<0.001). The highest levels of foraging were recorded in the P, OH and WS compared with SP and the C. Position of the rings did not affect the types of behaviours performed in any substrate, although overall more birds were counted in the central compared with edge rings (P=0.001). More detailed information on dustbathing behaviour was only recorded in the P and OH treatments, and there were no differences in the length of dustbathing bout, or components of the bout between them (P>0.05). The use of OH is likely to be more environmentally sustainable than that of P, and our results suggest that this substrate is relatively successful in promoting dustbathing. However, a preference was still observed for P and further work should investigate whether other suitable substrates could better reflect its qualities.

Keywords

broiler chickenbehaviourwelfaredustbathingforagingoat hulls
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 1933 - 1941
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Bailie, CL, Ball, MEE and O’Connell, NE 2013. Influence of the provision of natural light and straw bales on activity levels and leg health in commercial broiler chickens. Animal 7 (suppl. 4), 618–626.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 455–466.Google Scholar
Bokkers, EA and Koene, P 2003. Behaviour of fast-and slow growing broilers to 12 weeks of age and the physical consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (suppl. 1), 59–72.Google Scholar
Cornetto, T and Estevez, I 2001. Behavior of the domestic fowl in the presence of vertical panels. Poultry Science 80 (suppl. 10), 1455–1462.Google Scholar
Corr, SA, Gentle, MJ, McCorquodale, CC and Bennett, D 2003. The effect of morphology on walking ability in the modern broiler: a gait analysis study. Animal Welfare 12 (suppl. 2), 159–171.Google Scholar
Danbury, TC, Weeks, CA, Chambers, JP, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 2000. Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 146, 307–311.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC and van Reenen, KV 2005. Substrate preferences in laying hens. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23 (suppl. 1), 142–152.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M and van Reenen, CG 2007. Strength of preference for dustbathing and foraging substrates in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104 (suppl. 1–2), 24–36.Google Scholar
Guinebretière, M, Beyer, H, Arnould, C and Michel, V 2014. The choice of litter material to promote pecking, scratching and dustbathing behaviours in laying hens housed in furnished cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 56–65.Google Scholar
Hetland, H and Svihus, B 2001. Effect of oat hulls on performance, gut capacity and feed passage time in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 42 (suppl. 3), 354–361.Google Scholar
Hogan, JA, Honrado, GI and Vestergaard, K 1991. Development of a behavior system: dustbathing in the Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus): II. Internal factors. Journal of Comparative Psychology 105 (suppl. 3), 269.Google Scholar
Kruijt, JP 1964. Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus) Bonnaterre. Behaviour (suppl. 12), 1–201. Retrieved on 9 December 2017 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30039152?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Google Scholar
Lindqvist, C 2008. Domestication effects on foraging behaviour: consequences for adaptability in chickens. PhD thesis, IFM Biology, Linkoping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, C, Zimmerman, P and Jensen, P 2006. A note on contrafreeloading in broilers compared to layer chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101 (suppl. 1), 161–166.Google Scholar
Martin, CD and Mullens, BA 2012. Housing and dustbathing effects on northern fowl mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) and chicken body lice (Menacanthus stramineus) on hens. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 26 (suppl. 3), 323–333.Google Scholar
Murphy, LB and Preston, AP 1988. Time‐budgeting in meat chickens grown commercially. British Poultry Science 29 (suppl. 3), 571–580.Google 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 (suppl. 2), 141–155.Google Scholar
Petherick, JC and Duncan, IJH 1989. Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30 (suppl. 2), 229–238.Google Scholar
Reiter, K and Bessei, W 1995. Influence of running on leg weakness of slow and fast growing broilers. In Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Exeter, UK, pp. 211–213.Google 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 (suppl. 4), 263–277.Google Scholar
Shields, SJ, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2004. Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87 (suppl. 1–2), 69–82.Google Scholar
Shields, SJ, Garner, JP and Mench, JA 2005. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84, 1816–1824.Google Scholar
Thomas, DG, Son, JH, Ravindran, V and Thomas, DV 2011. The effect of stocking density on the behaviour of broiler chickens. Korean Journal of Poultry Science 38 (suppl. 1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Thorp, BH and Duff, SR 1988. Effect of exercise on the vascular pattern in the bone extremities of broiler fowl. Research in Veterinary Science 45 (suppl. 1), 72–77.Google Scholar
Toghyani, M, Gheisari, A, Modaresi, M, Tabeidian, SA and Toghyani, M 2010. Effect of different litter material on performance and behavior of broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (suppl. 1), 48–52.Google Scholar
van Liere, DW, Aggrey, SE, Brouns, FMR and Wiepkema, PR 1991. Oiling behaviour and the effect of lipids on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens Gallus gallus domesticus . Behavioural Processes 24 (suppl. 1), 71–81.Google Scholar
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 (suppl. 2), 197–204.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K 1982. Dust-bathing in the domestic fowl – diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Ethology 8, 487–495.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K, Hogan, JA and Kruijt, JP 1990. The development of a behavior system: dustbathing in the Burmese red junglefowl. I. The influence of the rearing environment on the organization of dustbathing. Behaviour 112 (suppl. 1), 99–116.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS and Sanotra, GS 1999. Relationships between leg disorders and changes in the behaviour of broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 144 (suppl. 8), 205–209.Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Skadhauge, E and Lawson, LG 1997. The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiology and Behavior 62 (suppl. 2), 413–419.Google Scholar
Villagrá, A, Olivas, I, Althaus, R, Gómez, E, Lainez, M and Torres, A 2014. Behavior of broiler chickens in four different substrates: a choice test. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 16 (suppl. 1), 67–75.Google Scholar
Weeks, CA, Danbury, TD, Davies, HC, Hunt, P and Kestin, SC 2000. The behaviour of broiler chickens and its modification by lameness. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 111–125.Google Scholar
Weeks, CA, Nicol, CJ, Sherwin, CM and Kestin, SC 1994. Comparison of the behaviour of broiler chickens in indoor and free-range environments. Animal Welfare 3 (suppl. 3), 179–192.Google 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 (suppl. 4), 1525–1533.Google Scholar