Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:11:12.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of a commercial broiler enrichment programme with or without natural light on behaviour and other welfare indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2018

I. C. de Jong Open the ORCID record for I. C. de Jong [Opens in a new window]  and
H. Gunnink
I. C. de Jong*
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. Gunnink
Affiliation:
Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Commercial broiler production systems based on market initiatives to improve animal welfare beyond minimum legal requirements have emerged in several European countries. A common factor in the ‘higher welfare’ indoor systems is the application of environmental enrichment, with or without natural light, to promote locomotor activity and natural behaviours of the broiler chickens. In the current study, we evaluated the effects of a commercial enrichment programme for fast-growing indoor-housed broiler chickens, with or without natural light entering the broiler house. Enrichment materials were selected in relation to perceived minimal hygiene risk and ease of cleaning in between production cycles. Selected enrichments were a combination of wood shavings bales (1.5 bale/1000 chickens), round metal perches (2.7 m/1000 chickens) and metal chains as pecking objects (1/1000 chickens). Three treatments were studied: control (C) without enrichment and natural light, enriched (E) with enrichments as previously defined but without natural light and enriched plus natural light (EL) with enrichments as previously defined and natural light entrance. The experiment was carried out during five subsequent production cycles on one commercial broiler farm with three identical houses. EL could only be assigned to the middle house that was equipped with roof windows (light entrance area: 3% of floor space). C and E were in the two outer houses (alternated in between production cycles). Behaviour was observed during daytime at days 25 and 39 of age by scan sampling. Lameness, footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and injuries were scored at the same ages, in addition to the response of the chickens to a novel object. Results showed that the treatments only affected broiler behaviour. E flocks showed significantly more resting as compared with EL and C. EL flocks showed significantly more walking, exploration and foraging behaviour as compared with E and C. Thus, broiler activity was highest in the EL treatment and lowest in the E treatment, with the C treatment in between. No treatment effects were found on the other welfare indicators and only a few tendencies for treatment effects were found for the novel object test, with E birds tending to be more reluctant to approach the object as compared with EL and C birds. We concluded that providing environmental enrichment and natural light-stimulated activity and natural behaviours in broiler chickens, whereas providing enrichment only seemed to have the opposite effect as compared with control flocks without enrichment.

Keywords

activitybaleschickensexplorationperches
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 384 - 391
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Allain, V, Mirabito, L, Arnould, C, Colas, M, Le Bouquin, S, Lupo, C and Michel, V 2009. Skin lesions in broiler chickens measured at the slaughterhouse: relationships between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry Science 50, 407–417.Google Scholar
Alvino, GM, Blatchford, RA, Archer, GS and Mench, JA 2009. Light intensity during rearing affects the behavioural synchrony and resting patterns of broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 50, 275–283.Google Scholar
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, 618–626.Google Scholar
Bailie, CL, Baxter, M and O’Connell, NE 2018. Exploring perch provision options for commercial broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 200, 114–122.Google Scholar
Bailie, CL and O’Connell, NE 2014. The effect of level of straw bale provision on the behaviour and leg health of commercial broiler chickens. Animal 8, 1715–1721.Google Scholar
Bailie, CL and O’Connell, NE 2015. The influence of providing perches and string on activity levels, fearfulness and leg health in commercial broiler chickens. Animal 9, 660–668.Google Scholar
Baxter, M, Bailie, CL and O’Connell, NE 2018. Evaluation of a dustbathing substrate and straw bales as environmental enrichments in commercial broiler housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 200, 78–85.Google Scholar
Bergmann, S, Schwarzer, A, Wilutzky, K, Louton, H, Bachmeier, J, Schmidt, P, Erhard, M and Rauch, E 2017. Behavior as welfare indicator for the rearing of broilers in an enriched husbandry environment – a field study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research 19, 90–101.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 2005. Welfare of meat producing poultry – an overview. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23, 205–216.Google Scholar
de Jong, IC, Hindle, VA, Butterworth, A, Engel, B, Ferrari, P, Gunnink, H, Moya, TP, Tuyttens, FAM and van Reenen, CG 2016. Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare. Animal 10, 117–127.Google Scholar
de Jonge, J and van Trijp, H 2014. Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems. Food Policy 49, 174–185.Google Scholar
Kaukonen, E, Norring, M and Valros, A 2017. Perches and elevated platforms in commercial broiler farms: use and effect on walking ability, incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia and bone mineral content. Animal 11, 864–871.Google Scholar
Kells, A, Dawkins, MS and 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
Kristensen, HH, Perry, GC, Prescott, NB, Ladewig, J, Ersboll, AK and Wathes, CM 2006. Leg health and performance of broiler chickens reared in different light environments. British Poultry Science 47, 257–263.Google Scholar
Mulder, M and Zomer, S 2017. Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay for broiler welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 20, 137–154.Google Scholar
Norring, M, Kaukonen, E and Valros, A 2016. The use of perches and platforms by broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 184, 91–96.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB and Wathes, CM 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl. British Poultry Science 40, 332–339.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM and Jarvis, JR 2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Animal Welfare 12, 269–288.Google Scholar
Rault, JL, Clark, K, Groves, PJ and Cronin, GM 2017. Light intensity of 5 or 20 lux on broiler behavior, welfare and productivity. Poultry Science 96, 779–787.Google Scholar
Riber, AB, Van de Weerd, HA, De Jong, IC and Steenfeldt, S 2018. Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickens. Poultry Science 97, 378–396.Google Scholar
Van Liere, DW 1991. Function and organization of dustbathing in laying hens. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ventura, BA, Siewerdt, F and Estevez, I 2010. Effects of barrier perches and density on broiler leg health, fear and performance. Poultry Science 89, 1574–1583.Google Scholar
Ventura, BA, Siewerdt, F and Estevez, I 2012. Access to barrier perches improves behavior repertoire in broilers. Plos One 7, e29826.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. The Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chickens and laying hens. The Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

De Jong supplementary material 1

Supplementary Figure

Download De Jong supplementary material 1(File)
File 583.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

De Jong supplementary material 2

Supplementary Table

Download De Jong supplementary material 2(File)
File 15.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

De Jong supplementary material 3

Supplementary Table

Download De Jong supplementary material 3(File)
File 13.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

De Jong supplementary material 4

Supplementary Table

Download De Jong supplementary material 4(File)
File 13.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

De Jong supplementary material 5

Supplementary Table

Download De Jong supplementary material 5(File)
File 17.9 KB