Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-15T18:05:54.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The preferences of laying hens for perforated Astroturf over conventional wire as a dustbathing substrate in furnished cages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

RJN Merrill ,
JJ Cooper ,
MJ Albentosa  and
CJ Nicol
RJN Merrill*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
JJ Cooper
Affiliation:
University of Lincoln, Department of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Riseholme, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
MJ Albentosa
Affiliation:
University of Lincoln, Department of Biological Sciences, Riseholme Park, Riseholme, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
CJ Nicol
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

animal welfareAstroturfdustbathinglaying hennovel flooring

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 173 - 178
Copyright
© 2006 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albentosa, MJ and Cooper, JJ 2005 Testing resource value in group-housed animals: an investigation of cage height preference in laying hens. Behavioural Processes 70: 113–121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, AE 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, JJ and Albentosa, MJ 2003 Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14: 127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Albentosa, MJ 2004 Social space for laying hens. In: Perry GC (ed) Welfare of the Laying Hen. CABI Poultry Science Symposium Series, Volume 27 pp 191-202. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH, Widowski, TM, Malleau, AE, Lindberg, AC and Petherick, JC 1998 External factors and causation of dustbathing in domestic hens. Behavioural Processes 43: 219–228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO 1993 Choice between artificial turf and wire floor as nest sites in individually caged laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 36: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1997 Dustbathing in modified battery cages: is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, AS and Keeling, LJ 2003 Social effects on dust-bathing behaviour in laying hens: using video images to investigate the effect of rank. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, RJN 2004 Dustbathing Behaviour of Laying Hens on Novel Materials in Furnished Cages. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Merrill, RJN and Nicol, CJ 2005 The effects of novel floorings on dustbathing, pecking and scratching behaviour of caged hens. Animal Welfare 14: 179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, IAS, Keeling, LJ and Duncan, IJH 2002 Why do hens sham dustbathe when they have litter? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC and Duncan, IJH 1989 Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, KEL 1964 Feather maintenance. In: Thompson, AL (ed) A New Dictionary of Birds. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Smith, SF, Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1993 Nesting and dustbathing by hens in cages: matching and mismatching between behaviour and environment. British Poultry Science 34: 21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Liere, DW, Aggrey, SE, Brouns, FMR and Wiepkema, PR 1991 Oiling behaviour and the effects of lipids on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens Gallus gallus domesticus. Behavioural Processes 24: 71–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Liere, DW and Wiepkema, PR 1992 Effects of long-term deprivation of sand on dustbathing behaviour in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 43: 549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Liere, DW, Kooliman, J and Wiepkema, PR 1990 Dustbathing behaviour of laying hens as related to quality of dust-bathing material. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26: 127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS 1980 The regulation of dustbathing and other behaviour patterns in the laying hen: a Lorenzian approach. In: Moss, R (ed) The Laying Hen and its Environment. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS 1982 Dustbathing in the domestic fowl. Diurnal rhythm and dust deprivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 8: 487–495Google Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Skadhauge, E and Lawson, LG 1997 The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying hens. Physiology & Behavior 62: 413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, TM and Duncan, IJH 2000 Working for a dustbath: are hens increasing pleasure rather than reducing suffering? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 39–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, DGM 1989 The Behaviour of the Domestic Fowl. Nimrod Press Ltd: Alton, UKGoogle Scholar