Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:34:55.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of feeder space on laying hen feeding behavior and production performance in enriched colony housing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

J. L. Oliveira Open the ORCID record for J. L. Oliveira [Opens in a new window] ,
H. Xin  and
H. Wu
J. L. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
H. Xin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
H. Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
†E-mail: hxin@iastate.edu
Get access

Abstract

Current feeder space recommendations in laying hen welfare guidelines are inconsistent among and within countries. One determining criterion forming the recommendations (e.g. 12.0 cm/hen for the EU guideline) is that all birds can feed simultaneously. However, if there are other resources in the environment, as in enriched colony housing (ECH), it is unknown whether group-housed hens will choose to feed simultaneously. This study assesses the impact of feeder space on feeding behavior of 60 laying hens (W-36) in ECH using a ultra-high frequency radio-frequency identification-based tracking system. The feeder spaces investigated were 12.0, 9.5, 8.5 and 6.5 cm/hen, achieved by blocking portions of the overall feeder access to keep hens at the same stocking density. Each feeder space treatment, randomly assigned over the course of the experiment, lasted for 7 consecutive days. Feeding behaviors were characterized as daily time spent at the feeder (TS, min/hen-day), daily frequency of visits to the feeder (FV, #/hen-day), and maximum or average percentage of hens feeding simultaneously (MPB, APB, %). Group-average daily feed intake (FI, g/hen-day), water use (WU, g/hen-day), and hen-day egg production (HDEP, %) were also measured. The results revealed that at 12.0 cm/hen, where unoccupied feeder space was present, a maximum of 59.0±1.4% (average of 31.7±0.3%) hens fed simultaneously. No significant differences were detected among 12.0, 9.5 and 8.5 cm/hen in TS (293±10, 286±10 and 281±10 min/hen-day) and MPB (59.0±1.4, 57.3±1.4 and 53.3±1.4%) (P>0.05). The outcome of no significant differences also held true between 12.0 and 9.5 cm/hen in APB (31.7±0.3 v. 30.8±0.3%) and between 9.5 and 8.5 cm/hen in all response variables measured (P>0.05). However, there were significant differences in APB between 6.5 cm/hen and all other treatments; in TS and FV between 6.5 and 9.5 cm/hen; and in MPB between 6.5 and 12 cm/hen (P<0.05). Considerable inter-hen variability was observed in TS (CV varying from 28.0% to 32.1%) and FV (CV varying from 26.5% to 27.8%). All the feeder spaces tested showed no significant impact on FI, WU or HDEP (P>0.05). The results revealed that synchronous feeding of hens in the ECH did not increase with increasing feeder space. However, it is worth noting that lower feeder space may lead to aggression or frustration which was not quantified in the current study.

Keywords

alternative housinghen welfare guidelinespace allowancesynchronous feedingradio-frequency identification
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 374 - 383
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.)

References

Albentosa, MJ, Cooper, JJ, Luddem, T, Redgate, SE, Elson, HA and Walker, AW 2007. Evaluation of the effects of cage height and stocking density on the behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 48, 1–11.Google Scholar
American Humane Certified 2017a. Animal Welfare Standards for laying hens – cage free. Retrieved on 23 August 2017, from http://www.humaneheartland.org/our-standards.Google Scholar
American Humane Certified 2017b. Animal Welfare Standards for laying hens – enriched colony housing. Retrieved on 23 August 2017, from http://www.humaneheartland.org/our-standards.Google Scholar
Appleby, MC 2004. What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13, 313–320.Google Scholar
Banks, EM, Wood-Gush, DGM, Hughes, BO and Mankovich, NJ 1979. Social rank and priority of access to resources in domestic fowl. Behavioural Processes 4, 197–209.Google Scholar
Blatchford, RA and Mench, JA 2014. The utilization of feeder space by hens housed in enriched colony cages. Poultry Science 93, 71. (Abstract).Google Scholar
Campbell, DLM, Hinch, GN, Dyall, TR, Warin, L, Little, BA and Lee, C 2017. Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: radio-frequency identification of impacts on range use. Animal 11, 121–130.Google Scholar
Cook, RN, Xin, H and Nettleton, D 2006. Effects of cage stocking density on feeding behaviors of group-housed laying hens. Transactions of the ASABE 49, 187–192.Google Scholar
Davami, A, Wineland, MJ, Jones, WT, Ilardi, RL and Peterson, RA 1987. Effects of population size, floor space, and feeder space upon productive performance, external appearance, and plasma corticosterone concentration of laying hens. Poultry Science 66, 251–257.Google Scholar
Diarra, SS and Devi, A 2014. Response of shaver brown laying hens to different feeding space allowances. International Journal of Poultry Science 13, 714–717.Google Scholar
European Commission 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L 203, 53–57.Google Scholar
Garner, JP, Kiess, AS, Mench, JA, Newberry, RC and Hester, PY 2012. The effect of cage and house design on egg production and egg weight of White Leghorn hens: an epidemiological study. Poultry Science 91, 1522–1535.Google Scholar
Graveland, J and Berends, AE 1997. Timing of the calcium intake and effect of calcium deficiency on behaviour and egg laying in captive great tits, Parus major . Physiological Zoology 70, 74–84.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
Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) 2017. HFAC Standards for production of egg laying hens. Retrieved on 23 August 2017, from http://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/Std17.Layers.1A-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ and Duncan, IJH 1989. Inter-individual distances and orientation in laying hens housed in groups of three in two different-sized enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24, 325–342.Google Scholar
Li, L, Zhao, Y, Oliveira, J, Verhoijsen, W, Liu, K and Xin, H 2017. A UHF RFID system for studying individual feeding and nesting behaviors of group-housed laying hens. Transactions of the ASABE 60, 1337–1347.Google Scholar
Li, Y, Ito, T and Yamamoto, S 1991. Diurnal variation in heat production related to some physical activities in laying hens. British Poultry Science 32, 821–827.Google Scholar
Ma, H, Xin, H, Zhao, Y, Li, B, Shepherd, TA and Alvarez, I 2016. Assessment of lighting needs by W-36 laying hens via preference test. Animal 10, 671–680.Google Scholar
Mench, JA and Blatchford, RA 2014. Determination of space use by laying hens using kinematic analysis. Poultry Science 93, 794–798.Google Scholar
Meunier-Salaün, MC and Faure, JM 1984. On the feeding and social behaviour of the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13, 129–141.Google Scholar
Nakarmi, A, Tang, L and Xin, H 2014. Automated tracking and behavior quantification of laying hens using 3D computer vision and radio frequency identification technologies. Transactions of the ASABE 57, 1455–1472.Google Scholar
National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) 2017. Code of practice for the care and handling of pullets and laying hens. NFACC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Ringgenberg, N, Fröhlich, EKFF, Harlander-Matauschek, A, Toscano, MJ, Würbel, H and Roth, BA 2015. Effects of variation in nest curtain design on pre-laying behaviour of domestic hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 170, 34–43.Google Scholar
Sales, GT, Green, AR, Gates, RS, Brown-Brandl, TM and Eigenberg, RA 2015. Quantifying detection performance of a passive low-frequency RFID system in an environmental preference chamber for laying hens. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 114, 261–268.Google Scholar
Savory, CJ 1980. Diurnal feeding patterns in domestic fowls: a review. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 71–82.Google Scholar
Savory, CJ, Wood-Gush, DGM and Duncan, IJH 1978. Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4, 13–27.Google Scholar
Sirovnik, J, Würbel, H and Toscano, MJ 2018. Feeder space affects access to the feeder, aggression, and feed conversion in laying hens in an aviary system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 198, 75–82.Google Scholar
Thogerson, CM, Hester, PY, Mench, JA, Newberry, RC, Okura, CM, Pajor, EA, Talaty, PN and Garner, JP 2009a. The effect of feeder space allocation on productivity and physiology of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages. Poultry Science 88, 1793–1799.Google Scholar
Thogerson, CM, Hester, PY, Mench, JA, Newberry, RC, Pajor, EA and Garner, JP 2009b. The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages. Poultry Science 88, 1544–1552.Google Scholar
Tu, X, Du, S, Tang, L, Xin, H and Wood, B 2011. A real-time automated system for monitoring individual feed intake and body weight of group housed turkeys. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 75, 313–320.Google Scholar
United Egg Producers (UEP) 2017. Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. egg-laying flocks. Retrieved on 23 August 2017, from http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/2017UEP-Animal-Welfare-Complete-Guidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
Widowski, TM, Caston, LJ, Casey-Trott, TM and Hunniford, ME 2017a. The effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages. Part II: behavior at the feeder. Poultry Science 40, 153–165.Google Scholar
Widowski, TM, Caston, LJ, Hunniford, ME, Cooley, L and Torrey, S 2017b. Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages. Part I: performance and well-being. Poultry Science 96, 3805–3815.Google Scholar
Widowski, TM, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Rault, J-L 2016. Laying hen welfare I. Social environment and space. World’s Poultry Science Journal 72, 333–342.Google Scholar