Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T23:04:19.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: effects on behaviour and welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

D. L. M. Campbell ,
G. N. Hinch ,
J. A. Downing  and
C. Lee
D. L. M. Campbell*
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
G. N. Hinch
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. A. Downing
Affiliation:
School of Life and Environmental Science, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
C. Lee
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Free-range laying hen systems are increasing within Australia and research is needed to determine optimal outdoor stocking densities. Six small (n=150 hens) experimental flocks of ISA Brown laying hens were housed with access to ranges simulating one of three outdoor stocking densities with two pen replicates per density: 2000 hens/ha, 10 000 hens/ha or 20 000 hens/ha. Birds were provided daily range access from 21 to 36 weeks of age and the range usage of 50% of hens was tracked using radio-frequency identification technology. Throughout the study, basic external health assessments following a modified version of the Welfare Quality® protocol showed most birds were in visibly good condition (although keel damage was increasingly present with age) with few differences between stocking densities. Toenail length at 36 weeks of age was negatively correlated with hours spent ranging for all pens of birds (all r⩾−0.23, P⩽0.04). At 23 weeks of age, there were no differences between outdoor stocking densities in albumen corticosterone concentrations (P=0.44). At 35 weeks of age, density effects were significant (P<0.001) where the eggs from hens in the highest outdoor stocking density showed the highest albumen corticosterone concentrations, although eggs from hens in the 10 000 hens/ha density showed the lowest concentrations (P<0.017). Behavioural observations of hens both on the range and indoors showed more dust bathing and foraging (scratching followed by ground-pecking) was performed outdoors, but more resting indoors (all P<0.001). Hens from the 2000 hens/ha densities showed the least foraging on the range but the most resting outdoors, with hens from the 20 000 hens/ha densities showing the least amount of resting outdoors (all P<0.017). Proportions of dust bathing outdoors tended to differ between the stocking densities (P=0.08). For each of the health and behavioural measures there were differences between pen replicates within stocking densities. These data show outdoor stocking density has some effects on hen welfare, and it appears that consideration of both individual and group-level behaviour is necessary when developing optimal stocking density guidelines and free-range system management practices.

Keywords

laying henwelfarefree-rangestocking densitybehaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 1036 - 1045
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Blatchford, RA, Fulton, RM and Mench, JA 2015. The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poultry Science 95, 154–163.Google Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, GN, Dyall, T, Warin, L, Little, B and Lee, C 2016a. Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hen: radio-frequency identification of impacts on range use. Animal, first published online 22 June 2016, doi:10.1017/S1751731116001154.Google Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Makagon, MM, Swanson, JC and Siegford, JM 2016b. Litter use by laying hens in a commercial aviary: dust bathing and piling. Poultry Science 95, 164–175.Google Scholar
Carmichael, NJ, Walker, AW and Hughes, BO 1999. Laying hens in large flocks in a perchery system: influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. British Poultry Science 40, 165–176.Google Scholar
Channing, CE, Hughes, BO and Walker, AW 2001. Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72, 335–345.Google Scholar
Chielo, LI, Pike, T and Cooper, J 2016. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals, E28, doi:10.3390/ani605002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand 2015. Free range egg labelling. Consultation paper. Retrieved on 6 October 2016 from http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2015/Free%20range%20egg%20labelling/Key%20Documents/PDF/free_range_egg_labelling_RIS.ashx Google Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Albentosa, MJ 2003. Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14, 127–149.Google Scholar
Cotter, PF 2015. An examination of the utility of heterophil-lymphocyte ratios in assessing stress of caged hens. Poultry Science 94, 512–517.Google Scholar
De Haas, EN, Kops, MS, Bolhuis, JE, Groothuis, TGG, Ellen, ED and Rodenburg, TB 2012. The relation between fearfulness in young and stress-response in adult laying hens, on individual and group level. Physiology & Behavior 107, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, J 2012. Non-invasive assessment of stress in commercial housing systems. Final Report US108A, Australian Egg Corporation Limited, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Downing, JA and Bryden, WL 2008. Determination of corticosterone concentrations in egg albumen: a non-invasive indicator of stress in laying hens. Physiology & Behavior 95, 381–387.Google Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Fröhlich, EKF 2014. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.Google Scholar
Hartcher, KM, Hickey, KA, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Wilkinson, SJ and Singh, M 2016. Relationships between range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-range laying hens. Animal 10, 847–853.Google Scholar
Knierim, U 2006. Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: a review. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Science 54, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, H, Cronin, G, Hemsworth, P, Smith, C and Rault, JL 2014. Behaviour of free-range laying hens in distinct outdoor environments. Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, 29 July–2 August, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, p. 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahboub, HDH, Müller, J and van Borell, E 2004. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. British Poultry Science 45, 738–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAdie, TM and Keeling, LJ 2002. The social transmission of feather pecking in laying hens: effects of environment and age. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 147–159.Google Scholar
McHugh, ML 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22, 276–282.Google Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Brown, SN, Glen, E, Pope, SJ, Short, FJ, Warriss, PD, Zimmerman, PH and Wilkins, LJ 2006. Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Gregory, NG, Knowles, TG, Parkman, ID and Wilkins, LJ 1999. Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65, 137–152.Google Scholar
Odén, K, Keeling, LJ and Algers, B 2002. Behaviour of laying hens in two types of aviary systems on 25 commercial farms in Sweden. British Poultry Science 43, 169–181.Google Scholar
Pettersson, IC, Freire, R and Nicol, CJ 2016. Factors affecting ranging behaviour in commercial free-range hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 72, 137–149.Google Scholar
Primary Industries Standing Committee 2002. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals – domestic poultry, 4th edition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2011. Continuous monitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Veterinary Record 169, 338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2012. Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Veterinary Record 170, 494.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea, A and Estevez, I 2016. Use of space and its impact on the welfare on laying hens in a commercial free-range system. Poultry Science 95, 2503–2513.Google Scholar
Singh, M and Cowieson, AJ 2013. Range use and pasture consumption in free-range poultry production. Animal Production Science 53, 1202–1208.Google Scholar
Singh, M, Hernandez, CE, Lee, C, Hinch, G and Cowieson, AJ 2016. Wanderers versus stay at home: who has the better guts? Proceedings of the 27th Australian Poultry Science Symposium, 14–17 February, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 78-81.Google Scholar
Singh, R, Cook, N, Cheng, KM and Silversides, FG 2009. Invasive and noninvasive measurement of stress in laying hens kept in conventional cages and in floor pens. Poultry Science 88, 1346–1351.Google Scholar
Steenfeldt, S and Nielsen, BL 2015. Welfare of organic laying hens kept at different indoor stocking densities in a multi-tier aviary system: II: live weight, health measures and perching. Animal 9, 1518–1528.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE, Heaven, G, Howell, H, Morgan, M, Pearson, A and Webster, AJF 2007. Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Veterinary Record 161, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeltner, E, Klein, T and Huber-Eicher, B 2000. Is there social transmission of feather pecking in groups of laying hen chicks? Animal Behaviour 60, 211–216.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, PH, Lindberg, AC, Pope, SJ, Glen, E, Bolhuis, JE and Nicol, CJ 2006. The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 111–124.Google Scholar