Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:51:44.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between welfare and individual ranging behaviour in commercial free-range laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

H. Larsen ,
P. H. Hemsworth ,
G. M. Cronin ,
S. G. Gebhardt-Henrich ,
C. L. Smith  and
J.-L. Rault
H. Larsen
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
P. H. Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
G. M. Cronin
Affiliation:
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
S. G. Gebhardt-Henrich
Affiliation:
Center for Proper Housing: Poultry and Rabbits (ZTHZ), Division of Animal Welfare, VPH-Institute, University of Bern, Burgerweg 22, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
C. L. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Marsfield, NSW 2109, Australia
J.-L. Rault*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Laying hens housed in free-range systems have access to an outdoor range, and individual hens within a flock differ in their ranging behaviour. Whether there is a link between ranging and laying hen welfare remains unclear. We analysed the relationships between ranging by individual hens on a commercial free-range layer farm and behavioural, physiological and health measures of animal welfare. We hypothesised that hens that access the range more will be (1) less fearful in general and in response to novelty and humans, (2) have better health in terms of physical body condition and (3) have a reduced physiological stress response to behavioural tests of fear and health assessments than hens that use the range less. Using radio frequency identification tracking across two flocks, we recorded individual hens’ frequency, duration and consistency of ranging. We also assessed how far hens ventured into the range based on three zones: 0 to 2.4, 2.4 to 11.4 or >11.4 m from the shed. We assessed hen welfare using a variety of measures including: tonic immobility, open field, novel object, human approach, and human avoidance (HAV) behavioural tests; stress-induced plasma corticosterone response and faecal glucocorticoid metabolites; live weight, comb colour, and beak, plumage, footpad, and keel bone condition. Range use was positively correlated with plasma corticosterone response, faecal glucocorticoid metabolites, and greater flight distance during HAV. Hens that used the range more, moved towards rather than away from the novel object more often than hens that ranged less. Distance ranged from the shed was significantly associated with comb colour and beak condition, in that hens with darker combs and more intact beaks ranged further. Overall the findings suggest that there is no strong link between outdoor range usage and laying hen welfare. Alternatively, it may be that hens that differed in their ranging behaviour showed few differences in measures of welfare because free-range systems provide hens with adequate choice to cope with their environment. Further research into the relationship between individual range access and welfare is needed to test this possibility.

Keywords

free-rangeradio frequency identificationwelfarefearpoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 2356 - 2364
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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Institute of Animal Husbandry and Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna A-1210, Austria.

References

Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems – environmental, physical and behavioral-aspects. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 47, 109–128.Google Scholar
Appleby, M, Smith, S and Hughes, B 1993. Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: effects of design on behaviour and welfare. British Poultry Science 34, 835–847.Google Scholar
Bennett, RM, Jones, PJ, Nicol, CJ, Tranter, RB and Weeks, CA 2016. Consumer attitudes to injurious pecking in free-range egg production. Animal Welfare 25, 91–100.Google Scholar
Bestman, M and Wagenaar, J-P 2014. Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals 4, 374–390.Google Scholar
Campbell, DL, Hinch, GN, Downing, JA and Lee, C 2016. Fear and coping styles of outdoor-preferring, moderate-outdoor and indoor-preferring free-range laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 185, 73–77.Google Scholar
Chielo, LI, Pike, T and Cooper, J 2016. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals 6, 28.Google Scholar
Danbury, T, Weeks, C, Chambers, J, Waterman-Pearson, A and Kestin, S 2000. Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. The Veterinary Record 146, 307–311.Google Scholar
Dehnhard, M, Schreer, A, Krone, O, Jewgenow, K, Krause, M and Grossmann, R 2003. Measurement of plasma corticosterone and fecal glucocorticoid metabolites in the chicken (Gallus domesticus), the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). General and Comparative Endocrinology 131, 345–352.Google Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, S, Fröhlich, E, Burose, F, Fleurent, J, Gantner, M and Zähner, M 2014a. Individual tracking of laying hens with an RFID-System. Landtechnik 69, 301–306.Google Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Frohlich, EKF 2014b. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.Google Scholar
Gole, VC, Woodhouse, R, Caraguel, C, Moyle, T, Rault, J-L, Sexton, M and Chousalkar, K 2017. Dynamics of Salmonella shedding and welfare of hens in free-range egg production systems. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 83, e03313–e03316.Google Scholar
Grimes, J, Maurice, D, Lightsey, S and Bridges, W Jr 1991. Research note: relationship of comb color to liver appearance and fat content in single comb white leghorn laying hens. Poultry Science 70, 2544–2546.Google Scholar
Hartcher, K, Hickey, K, Hemsworth, P, Cronin, G, Wilkinson, S 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
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT, Kjaer, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hirt, H, Hördegen, P and Zeltner, E 2000. Laying hen husbandry: group size and use of hen-runs. In Proceedings of 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Larsen, H, Cronin, GM, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Smith, CL, Hemsworth, PH and Rault, J-L 2017. Individual ranging behaviour patterns in commercial free-range layers as observed through RFID tracking. Animals 7, 21.Google Scholar
Lay, DC, Fulton, RM, Hester, PY, Karcher, DM, Kjaer, JB, Mench, JA, Mullens, BA, Newberry, RC, Nicol, CJ, O’Sullivan, NP and Porter, RE 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90, 278–294.Google Scholar
Leeb, C, Main, DCJ, Whay, HR and Webster, AJF 2005. Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme hen assessment. University of Bristol, version 2.0 15/8/05, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Leeson, S and Summers, J 1978. Voluntary food restriction by laying hens mediated through dietary self‐selection. British Poultry Science 19, 417–424.Google Scholar
Mahboub, H, Müller, J and Von 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.Google Scholar
Nicol, C, Caplen, G, Edgar, J, Richards, G and Browne, W 2011. Relationships between multiple welfare indicators measured in individual chickens across different time periods and environments. Animal Welfare 20, 133.Google Scholar
Nicol, C, Lindberg, A, Phillips, A, Pope, S, Wilkins, L and Green, L 2001. Influence of prior exposure to wood shavings on feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging in adult laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73, 141–155.Google Scholar
Pallant, J 2013. SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
Pettersson, IC, Weeks, CA, Wilson, LRM and Nicol, CJ 2016. Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen welfare. British Food Journal 118, 1999–2013.Google Scholar
Rault, J-L, van de Wouw, A and Hemsworth, P 2013. Fly the coop! Vertical structures influence the distribution and behaviour of laying hens in an outdoor range. The Journal of the Australian Veterinary Association 91, 423–426.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea, A and Estevez, I 2016. Use of space and its impact on the welfare of laying hens in a commercial free-range system. Poultry Science 95, 2503–2513.Google Scholar
Schindelin, J, Arganda-Carreras, I, Frise, E, Kaynig, V, Longair, M, Pietzsch, T, Preibisch, S, Rueden, C, Saalfeld, S and Schmid, B 2012. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods 9, 676–682.Google Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010. Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51, 488–499.Google Scholar
Siegford, JM, Berezowski, J, Biswas, SK, Daigle, CL, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Hernandez, CE, Thurner, S and Toscano, MJ 2016. Assessing activity and location of individual laying hens in large groups using modern technology. Animals 6, 10.Google Scholar
Thuy Diep, A, Larsen, H and Rault, J-L 2017. Behavioural repertoire of free-range laying hens indoors and outdoors, and in relation to distance from the shed. Australian Veterinary Journal (in press).Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. Assessment protocol for poultry. Welfare Quality, Bristol, UK.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.Google Scholar
Wilson, S, Jennings, R and Cunningham, F 1984. Developmental changes in the diurnal rhythm of secretion of corticosterone and LH in the domestic hen. Journal of Endocrinology 101, 299–304.Google Scholar
Zeltner, E and Hirt, H 2008. Factors involved in the improvement of the use of hen runs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114, 395–408.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
Supplementary material: File

Larsen et al. supplementary material

Larsen et al. supplementary material

Download Larsen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 116 KB