From the year 2012, conventional battery cages for laying hens will be banned under the European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC. Enriched cages, which include a perch, a nest area, and a pecking and scratching area will not be banned, and have certain advantages over other systems of egg production. Previous studies have shown that even when a pecking and scratching area is provided, most dustbathing occurs on the wire floor as sham dustbathing. This study investigated whether novel cage floor types could stimulate full expression of dustbathing behaviour, similar to that seen on loose litter. One hundred and forty four hens were housed in pairs in non-commercial enriched cages that differed only in that they contained one of four randomly allocated floor types. Floor types were conventional wire ('wire'), wood shavings ('litter'), conventional wire wrapped with garden twine ('string') and perforated rubber matting ('rubber'). Birds on litter or rubber performed fewer bouts of dustbathing than those on wire and string. However, bouts on litter were longer than those on the three other floor types. Overall, birds on litter or string showed a greater total duration of dustbathing than those on rubber, and birds on litter had a richer repertoire of dustbathing elements. Birds on litter performed significantly more pecking and scratching than those on string or rubber, which did not differ from those on wire. Birds on rubber and litter had poorer foot and feather condition than those on wire or string. Altering the cage floor produced minor changes in behaviour, and further novel floor types should be evaluated.

Following the 2012 European ban (1999/74/EC) of conventional battery cages, only furnished cages will be allowed for laying hens. However, even when furnished cages provide a pecking and scratching area most dustbathing occurs on the wire floor. This study aimed to investigate whether laying hens showed a preference for dustbathing on a covered wire floor rather than a conventional wire floor. Eight groups of 10 hens were housed in pairs of adjoining furnished cages. All hens were leg-ringed for individual identification. Each pair of cages consisted of one cage containing a wire floor covered with perforated Astroturf and a second cage containing a conventional wire floor, joined by a pophole through which hens had unrestricted access. Initial scan samples were taken to investigate the general behaviour of the hens on each floor type. Dustbathing was observed more frequently on Astroturf and no other behaviours were affected by the floor type. Scans were subsequently taken at 5 min intervals between 1130h and 1600h for 10 days, identifying the number of hens, and which individual hens, were dustbathing on each floor type. Data were analysed on a per cage basis, using the binomial sign test. A strong preference was found for dustbathing on Astroturf flooring that was apparent in all cages. Furthermore, the distribution of hens indicated this was not attributable to any overall preference for either floor type but was specific to periods when hens were dustbathing. This demonstrates that there is the potential to include Astroturf in the design of furnished cages, as a dustbathing substrate, in order to improve the welfare of laying hens.

This study investigated the influence of being reared with or without access to peat as well as the effects of losing or gaining substrate access on the dustbathing behaviour of young, domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). There were four treatments, based on the period of time chicks had access to peat during rearing: (i) always (LL), (ii) never (NN), (iii) from 0 to 6 weeks of age (LN) and (iv) from 6 weeks of age onwards (NL). Observations on the number and length of dustbaths performed were made for six days with birds aged six weeks and 50% of the birds either lost or gained access to litter. The birds then remained in the same treatment conditions until 16 weeks of age, at which point the same behavioural observations were repeated. NL birds (which had just gained access to peat) were found to be quicker than LN birds (which had just lost access to peat) to perform a dustbath during the first observation period. A significant difference was seen in the variation of the duration of the dustbathing bouts; both LL and NL birds varied less in the lengths of their bouts than NN and LN birds over both observation periods. Hence, early rearing environment had less effect on birds’ dustbathing behaviour than current access or lack of access to litter. The irregular dustbathing pattern exhibited by birds that dustbathe without litter could be a sign of frustration; an indication that dustbathing without litter — unlike dustbathing in litter — does not provide the required feedback.

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.

We review the behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens for increased space, perching, nesting, foraging and dustbathing behaviour. Hens make full use of and may work to gain access to perches, however it is not yet known how perching ranks in comparison with otherbehaviours. Laying hens appearto have an instinctive need to perform pre-laying (nest-building) behaviour and have a strong preference for a discrete, enclosed nest site, for which they will work hard to gain access as oviposition approaches. Access to a nest site is a high-ranking priority for laying hens, preferred over food at this time. Foraging is a behavioural need, with peat, sand and wood shavings preferred substrates in choice experiments. There is no reduction in time spent foraging when a cost is imposed, nor when feed is freely available. Dustbathing is currently viewed as a behavioural need, as the extent to which hens value dustbathing is not known. Bird preferences for space are complex and confounded by interactions between group size and stocking density. There is some evidence that priority for space varies during the day and increases when the total space available to a group of birds is restricted, and that greater priority is given to space than to small group size. The presence of apparently purposeless behaviour, of high levels of aggression or redirected behaviours such as feather pecking and cannibalism are indicators that the housing system is not meeting the behavioural needs of the hens and hence is not satisfactory forbird welfare.