Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:13:48.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of shelter type, early environmental enrichment and weather conditions on free-range behaviour of slow-growing broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2016

L. M. Stadig ,
T. B. Rodenburg ,
B. Ampe ,
B. Reubens  and
F. A. M. Tuyttens
L. M. Stadig
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
T. B. Rodenburg
Affiliation:
Behavioural Ecology Group, Wageningen University, De Elst 1, 6708 WD, Wageningen, The Netherlands
B. Ampe
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
B. Reubens
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Burgemeester van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F. A. M. Tuyttens*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
†E-mail: frank.tuyttens@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access

Abstract

Free-range use by broiler chickens is often limited, whereas better use of the free-range area could benefit animal welfare. Use of free-range areas could be stimulated by more appropriate shelter or environmental enrichment (by decreasing birds’ fearfulness). This study aimed to assess the effects of shelter type, early environmental enrichment and weather conditions on free-range use. Three production rounds with 440 slow-growing broiler chickens (Sasso T451) were carried out. Birds were housed indoors in four groups (two with males, two with females) from days 0 to 25, during which two of the groups received environmental enrichment. At day 23 birds’ fearfulness was assessed with a tonic immobility (TI) test (n=100). At day 25 all birds were moved (in mixed-sex groups) to mobile houses, and provided with free-range access from day 28 onwards. Each group could access a range consisting for 50% of grassland with 21 artificial shelters (ASs, wooden A-frames) and for 50% of short rotation coppice (SRC) with willow (dense vegetation). Free-range use was recorded by live observations at 0900, 1300 and 1700 h for 15 to 21 days between days 28 and 63. For each bird observed outside the shelter type (AS or SRC), distance from the house (0 to 2, 2 to 5, >5 m) and its behaviour (only rounds 2 and 3) were recorded. Weather conditions were recorded by four weather stations. On average, 27.1% of the birds were observed outside at any given moment of observation. Early environmental enrichment did not decrease fearfulness as measured by the TI test. It only had a minor effect on the percentage of birds outside (0.4% more birds outside). At all distances from the house, SRC was preferred over AS. In AS, areas closer to the house were preferred over farther ones, in SRC this was less pronounced. Free-range use increased with age and temperature and decreased with wind speed. In AS, rainfall and decreasing solar radiation were related to finding more birds outside, whereas the opposite was true in SRC. Behaviour of the birds depended on shelter type, distance from the house, early environmental enrichment, time of day and age. Chickens ranged more and farther in SRC, possibly because this provided a greater sense of safety because of the amount of cover and/or better protection against adverse weather conditions. These results indicate that SRC with willow is a more appropriate shelter for slow-growing broiler chickens than A-frames.

Keywords

poultryfree rangefearfulnessshort rotation coppiceartificial shelter
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 1046 - 1053
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

Baum, S, Weih, M, Busch, G, Kroiher, F and Bolte, A 2009. The impact of short rotation coppice plantations on phytodiversity. Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research 3, 163–170.Google Scholar
Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Picard, M and Faure, JM 2000. Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bokkers, EAM and Koene, P 2003. Behaviour of fast- and slow growing broilers to 12 weeks of age and the physical consequences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bosco, A, Mugnai, C, Rosati, A, Paoletti, A, Caporali, S and Castellini, C 2014. Effect of range enrichment on performance, behavior, and forage intake of free-range chickens. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 23, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Cook, PA, Whittingham, MJ, Mansell, KA and Harper, AE 2003. What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor, PN, Hughes, BO and Appleby, MC 1995. Effects of regular handling and exposure to an outside area on subsequent fearfulness and dispersal in domestic hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartcher, KM, Hemsworth, KA, Hickey, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT, Kjær, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 1982. Effects of early environmental enrichment upon open-field behavior and timidity in the domestic chick. Developmental Psychobiology 15, 105–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 1986. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Faure, JM 1981. Sex and strain comparisons of tonic immobility (‘righting time’) in the domestic fowl and the effects of various methods of induction. Behavioural Processes 6, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB and Waddington, D 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43, 1021–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T, Feber, R, Hemery, G, Cook, P, James, K, Lamberth, C and Dawkins, M 2007. Welfare and environmental benefits of integrating commercially viable free-range broiler chickens into newly planted woodland: a UK case study. Agricultural Systems 94, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirabito, L and Lubac, S 2001. Descriptive study of outdoor run occupation by ‘Red Label’ type chickens. British Poultry Science 42 (suppl. 1), S16–S17.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Thomsen, MG, Sørensen, P and Young, JF 2003. Feed and strain effects on the use of outdoor areas by broilers. British Poultry Science 44, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea, A, Leone, EH and Estevez, I 2014. Environmental complexity and use of space in slow growing free range chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea, A, Leone, EH and Estevez, I 2015. Effects of panels and perches on the behaviour of commercial slow-growing free-range meat chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 165, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, RB 1998. Short rotation coppice for energy: towards ecological guidelines. Biomass and Bioenergy 15, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Nasr, MAF, Gale, E, Petek, M, Stafford, K, Turp, M and Coles, GC 2013. Prevalence of nematode infection and faecal egg counts in free-range laying hens: relations to housing and husbandry. British Poultry Science 54, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stadig, LM, Ampe, B, De Smet, S and Tuyttens, FAM 2014. Effects of weather conditions, early experience and vertical panels on slow-growing broilers’ use of the free range area. Proceedings of the 48th Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology – Moving On, 29 July–2 August 2014, Vitoria, Spain, 185 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadig, LM, Rodenburg, TB, Ampe, B, Reubens, B and Tuyttens, FAM Submitted. Effect of free-range access, shelter type and weather conditions on free-range use and welfare of slow-growing broiler chickens.Google Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM, Vanhonacker, F and Verbeke, W 2014. Broiler production in Flanders, Belgium: current situation and producers’ opinions about animal welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal 70, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA and Nicol, CJ 2006. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar