Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ab.21.0198

Effect of social order, perch, and dust-bath allocation on behavior in laying hens  

Wang, Yanan (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Zhang, Runxiang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Wang, Lisha (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Li, Jianhong (College of Life Science, Northeast Agricultural University)
Su, Yingying (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Li, Xiang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Bao, Jun (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
Publication Information
Animal Bioscience / v.35, no.2, 2022 , pp. 299-307 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of different social ranking order (SRO) and the enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (EA) on behavior of laying hens in furnished cages. Methods: Total experimental period was 4 weeks. There were 216 Hy-line brown layers beak-trimmed at 1 d of age and selected randomly at 14 weeks of age from a commercial farm, and randomly divided into 36 cages with 6 hens in each cage. High enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (HEA) and low enrichments (perch and dust-bath) allocation (LEA) were provided. Video observations of behavior were obtained from the focal hens between 14 and 18 weeks of age and perching, dust-bathing and other general behaviors of the hens with different social orders were measured. Results: Perching behavior of high SRO hens (HSR) were significantly higher than that of medium SRO hens (MSR), and that of the MSR were significantly higher than that of low SRO hens (LSR) (p<0.01), except for lying on perch (p>0.05). The hens in the high EA cage (HEAC) showed more lying behavior on perch than those in the low EA cage (LEAC) (p<0.01). The different SRO and EA did not affect dust-bathing behavior except vertical wing-shaking behavior (p<0.05). The LEA did not affect general behaviors (p>0.05), except standing and preening behaviors (p<0.01 and p<0.05), of which the hens in the HEAC showed less standing (p<0.01) and more preening behavior than the hens in the LEAC. Conclusion: The SRO of laying hens has a significant effect on the perching behaviors, but SRO and EA have little effect on dust-bathing and general behaviors.
Keywords
Behavior; Dust-bath; Laying Hen; Perch; Social Order;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Shimmura T, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Differences of behavior, use of resources and physical conditions between dominant and subordinate hens in furnished cages. Anim Sci J 2007;78:307-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00440.x   DOI
2 Tauson R. Effects of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agric Scand 1984;34:193-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015128409435389   DOI
3 Cluttonbrock TH, Albon SD, Gibson RM, Guinness FE. The logical stag: adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim Behav 1979;27:211-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90141-6   DOI
4 Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Toscano MJ, Wurbel H. Perch use by broiler breeders and its implication on health and production. Poult Sci 2017;96:3539-49. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex189   DOI
5 Hogan JA, Boxel F. Causal factors controlling dustbathing in Burmese Red Junglefowl: some results and a model. Anim Behav 1993;46:627-35. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1239   DOI
6 Hughes BO. Conventional and shallow cages: a summary of research from welfare and production aspects. Worlds Poult Sci J 1983;39:218-28. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19830020   DOI
7 Brendler C, Kipper S, Schrader L. Vigilance and roosting behaviour of laying hens on different perch heights. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2014;157:93-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.06.004   DOI
8 Favati A, Leimar O, Radesater T, Lovlie H. Social status and personality: stability in social state can promote consistency of behavioural responses. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2014;281:20132531. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2531   DOI
9 Banks EM, Wood-Gush DGM, Hughes BO, Mankovich NJ. Social rank and priority of access to resources in domestic fowl. Behav Processes 1979;4:197-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(79)90001-9   DOI
10 Wood-Gush DGM. The behaviour of the domestic chicken: a review of the literature. Br J Anim Behav 1955;3:81-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5601(55)80001-9   DOI
11 Shinmura T, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Behavioral changes in laying hens after introduction to battery cages, furnished cages and an aviary. Anim Sci J 2006;77:242-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00344.x   DOI
12 Struelens E, Tuyttens FAM, Duchateau L, et al. Perching behaviour and perch height preference of laying hens in furnished cages varying in height. Br Poult Sci 2008;49:381-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660802158332   DOI
13 Vestergaard K. Behavioural and physiological studies of hens on wire floors and in deep litter pens. The Behaviour of Fowl; 1981. In: Folsch DW, Vestergaard K, editors. The behaviour of fowl. vol 12. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser; 1981
14 Cordiner LS, Savory CJ. Use of perches and nestboxes by laying hens in relation to social status, based on examination of consistency of ranking orders and frequency of interaction. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001;71:305-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00186-6   DOI
15 Koolhaas JM, Korte SM, De Boer SF, et al. Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1999;23:925-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(99)00026-3   DOI
16 Olsson IAS, Keeling LJ. The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Anim Welf 2002;11:11-9.   DOI
17 Gunnarsson S, Yngvesson J, Keeling LJ, Forkman B. Rearing without early access to perches impairs the spatial skills of laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000;67:217-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00125-2   DOI
18 Ringgenberg N, Frohlich EKF, Harlander-Matauschek A, et al. Nest choice in laying hens: effects of nest partitions and social status. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2015;169:43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.013   DOI
19 Tauson R. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poult Sci 1998;77:1820-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1820   DOI
20 Tinbergen N. "Derived" activities; their causation, biological significance, origin, and emancipation during evolution. Q Rev Biol 1952;27:1-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2812621   DOI
21 Lay DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult Sci 2011;90:278-94. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00962   DOI
22 Nicol CJ. Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1989;22:75-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(89)90081-6   DOI
23 Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168342   DOI
24 Appleby MC. Modification of laying hen cages to improve behavior. Poult Sci 1998;77:1828-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1828   DOI
25 Shimmura T, Kamimura E, Azuma T, Kansaku N, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Effect of broody hens on behaviour of chicks. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2010;126:125-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.011   DOI
26 Casey-Trott TM, Widowski TM. Behavioral differences of laying hens with fractured keel bones within furnished cages. Front Vet Sci 2016;3:42. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00042   DOI
27 Eskeland B. Behaviour as an indicator of welfare in hens under different systems of management, population density, social status and by beak trimming. Meld Nor Landbrukshoegsk 1977;56:1-20.
28 Abeyesinghe SM, Drewe JA, Asher L, Wathes CM, Collins LM. Do hens have friends? Appl Anim Behav Sci 2013;143:61-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.003   DOI
29 Shimmura T, Azuma T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Relation between social order and use of resources in small and large furnished cages for laying hens. Br Poult Sci 2008;49:516-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660802302203   DOI
30 Appleby MC, Mench JA, Hughes BO. Poultry behaviour and welfare. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2004.
31 Rushen J. How peck orders of chickens are measured: a critical review. Appl Anim Ethol 1984;11:255-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(84)90032-4   DOI
32 Shimmura T, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Effects of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;113:74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.007   DOI
33 Olsson IAS, Keeling LJ. Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2000;68:243-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00097-6   DOI
34 Tinbergen NJ. Comparative studies of the behaviour of gulls (Laridae): A progress report. Behaviour 1960;15:1-69. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853960X00098   DOI
35 Wood-gush DGM. The behaviour of the domestic fowl. London, UK: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.; 1971.
36 Duncan IJH, Widowski TM, Malleau AE, Lindberg AC, Petherick JC. External factors and causation of dustbathing in domestic hens. Behav Processes 1998;43:219-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(98)00017-5   DOI
37 Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. Science and its application in assessing the welfare of laying hens in the egg industry. Aust Vet J 2003;81:615-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb12506.x   DOI
38 Mauldin JM, Graves HB. Some observations on the role of behavior in poultry production and future research needs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1984;11:391-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(84)90044-0   DOI
39 Tauson R. Management and housing systems for layers-effects on welfare and production. World's Poult Sci J 2005; 61:477-90. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS200569   DOI