Effect of rearing density on pecking behaviour and plumage condition of laying hens in two types of aviary

The objective of this experiment was to investigate the effect of rearing density on pecking behaviour and plumage during rearing and throughout the laying period in aviaries. Chicks were reared on sand at high (H; 13 m⁻²) or low (L; 6.5 m⁻²) density, in four rearing pens of 390 chicks and eight pens of 195 chicks, respectively, each pen measuring 30 m². Proportions of chicks per pen performing various types of pecking behaviour were recorded by scan sampling during 16 observation bouts in each rearing pen at 6 weeks of age and during 24 observation bouts at 12 weeks. Individual body weights and plumage condition were recorded. Later, these pullets were housed at 17 hens m⁻² in Tiered Wire Floor (TWF; 3 H and 3 L pens of 275 hens) and Laco-Volétage (2 H and 2 L pens of 275 hens) aviaries. At 35 weeks, two samples of eight hens from each aviary pen were observed for pecking behaviour in a test pen. Throughout the laying period, additional records were collected on pecking behaviour, body weight, plumage condition, egg production, and mortality. The L birds had better plumage condition at 6 weeks of age and throughout the laying period. These birds also ground pecked more frequently than H birds during rearing and the laying period. At 12 weeks, L birds feather pecked less than H birds, but no relationship was found between rearing density and feather-pecking behaviour during the laying period. Although TWF hens feather pecked more frequently than Volétage hens, there was no interaction between rearing density and type of aviary for the various pecking behaviours.     

Influence of prior exposure to wood shavings on feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging in adult laying hens

It has been proposed that chicks acquire substrate preferences during an early 'sensitive' period. If a suitable substrate is absent during this period birds may develop alternative preferences for pecking at feathers. The aim of this study was to examine whether early substrate exposure has durable effects on the subsequent behaviour of adult hens. The effects of duration of substrate exposure, substrate change, age at exposure and time since exposure on adult bird behaviour were examined. From days 1 to 210, 144 laying strain birds were housed in pairs in pens with wire floors. The floors were replaced with solid floors covered in wood shavings at different ages and for different durations by allocation to 1 of 12 treatments. Adult birds that had never experienced shavings performed significantly more feather pecking than birds in any other treatment group. Thus, exposure to shavings, even for the minimum exposure duration of 10 days, was protective. However, current substrate was of great importance and adult birds housed on shavings performed significantly more ground pecking and less feather pecking than birds on wire, regardless of previous experience. From day 211 all hens were given shavings or straw, presented alternately for five 24h sessions over 10 consecutive days. Birds foraged on both substrates and their foraging behaviour was not influenced by previous experience. Dustbathing occurred primarily on shavings and was significantly influenced by the age at which birds had previously been exposed to shavings. Dustbathing on shavings was fairly constant throughout the 10-day test period in all groups, suggesting that relatively stable preferences had developed. A secondary 'sensitive period' for the formation of adult dustbathing substrate preference may have superseded the early 'imprinting' process. However, adult behaviour was generally flexible and strongly influenced by current substrate.     

The effects of operant control over food and light on the behaviour of domestic hens

In intensive farming systems, the animals have little control over important elements in their environments. For instance, food of a pre-set type is delivered at set times, and the lighting schedule is controlled by the farmer. It has been suggested that low levels of environmental control over important events may reduce welfare by increasing passivity and stress. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of providing control over food and lighting additional to a restricted regime on the behaviour of small groups of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Twelve pens, each containing five birds, were paired to give six controlling and six non-controlling pens. These pairs of pens were yoked, such that birds in the controlling pens were able to make an operant response to gain access to extra food and light, whilst the yoked pens also received these outcomes but were unable to control their occurrence. The birds were kept continuously in the experimental conditions for 9 weeks. Records were made of general behaviour and activity, aggression and plumage damage scores, every 2 weeks. Data on key-pecking and egg production were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. The controlling birds used the operant keys to open the feeder for an average of 92min and to turn on the light for 46min per pen per day. The high number of key-pecks indicates that the birds were motivated to make use of the keys to control access to additional food and light. The non-controlling treatment pens showed significantly higher levels of preening and resting. Contrary to previous studies the use of operant feeders in this experiment did not induce a high level of feather pecking or aggressive interactions, as there was no significant difference between treatments. During the experiment the non-controlling hens laid significantly more eggs than the controlling hens. The results suggest that lack of control over these particular environmental events induced mild stress in the non-controlling pens of birds, and that further investigations into the effect of lack of control on welfare would be warranted.     

Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems

Aviary systems for laying hens offer several advantages over battery cages. However, pecking the feathers of conspecifics remains a serious problem that negatively affects the welfare of the birds as well as the economy of a farm. From experimental studies with small groups, it has been shown that feather pecking and foraging behaviour are related and that both behaviour are influenced by early access to litter substrate. We, therefore, hypothesised, that feather pecking in aviaries can be reduced with an adequate management in the first 2 weeks of life.Each of seven pens on six commercial poultry farms, was divided into two identical compartments (matched pair design). In one of the compartments (experimental compartment) chicks were reared for the first 2 weeks of life with access to litter (wood shavings, in one case with additional straw), while the chicks in the other compartment (control) were kept on a plastic grid. Thereafter, all chicks had unrestricted access to litter and there were no differences between the two compartments neither in housing conditions nor in management procedures.Chicks in the experimental compartments spent significantly more time foraging (week 5), showed significantly less feather pecking (weeks 5 and 14) and significantly fewer birds had damaged tail feathers (weeks 5 and 14).The study demonstrates that in aviaries, under commercial conditions, early access to litter substrate has a significant effect on the development of feather pecking. In order to reduce feather pecking and to increase foraging behaviour, it is recommended that laying hen chicks raised in aviary systems do get access to litter from day 1 on.     

Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size

The aim of this experiment was to study the relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size on feather pecking behaviour. Hisex White hens were kept in floor pens in group sizes of 15, 30, 60 and 120 birds, each with four replicates. Behavioural observations were performed at four different ages and focused on the number of feather pecks and aggressive pecks, both given and received. The part of the body pecked and the location of the bird was recorded as well as the number of pecks made to the floor, feeder and drinker.The results showed that most feather pecking activity occurred in the largest group size (120 birds) and there was some evidence of an increasing frequency of aggressive pecks with increasing group size. The parts of the body which were targets for feather pecking varied depending on the location of the bird giving the peck and the bird receiving it. When looking at the behaviour of individuals, birds doing a lot of feather pecking also showed more ground pecking.     

Motivation to dust-bathe of laying hens housed in cages and in aviaries

New housing systems for commercial egg production, furnished cages and non-cage systems, should improve the welfare of laying hens. In particular, thanks to the presence of a litter area, these new housing systems are thought to satisfy the dust-bathing motivation of hens more than in conventional cages, in which no litter area is present. However, although apparently obvious, there is no concrete evidence that non-cage systems, particularly aviaries, satisfy hens' motivation to dust-bathe and thus improve hens' welfare in terms of dust-bathing behaviour. The aim of this study was to compare hens' dust-bathing motivation when housed for a long time under similar conditions to commercial conditions in laying aviaries (with litter) and in conventional cages (without litter). Three treatments were compared: hens reared in floor pens then housed in conventional cages, hens reared in furnished floor pens then housed in a laying aviary, and hens reared in rearing aviaries then housed in a laying aviary. All three treatments provided access to litter during the rearing period. After transfer to the laying systems, access to litter was maintained for the aviary hens but stopped for the cage hens. Twelve groups of four hens per treatment were tested 36 to 43 weeks after transfer. The hens were placed in sawdust-filled testing arenas, and latency to dust-bathe, duration and number of dust baths, and number of hens dust-bathing were recorded. Latency to dust-bathe was shorter, dust baths were longer and more numerous and more hens dust-bathed among cage hens than among aviary hens. Our results indicate that hens' motivation to dust-bathe was more satisfied in laying aviaries than in conventional cages. Thus, laying aviaries improve hens' welfare in term of dust-bathing behaviour compared with conventional cages.     

Is there social transmission of feather pecking in groups of laying hen chicks?

Feather pecking is an abnormal behaviour where laying hens peck the feathers of conspecifics, damaging the plumage or even injuring the skin. If it occurs in a flock, more and more birds show it within a short period of time. A possible mechanism is social transmission. Several studies have shown that laying hen chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, are able to modify their own behaviour when observing the behaviour of other chicks, for example, when feeding and foraging. As there is good experimental evidence that feather pecking originates from foraging behaviour, we hypothesized that feather pecking could also be socially transmitted. To test this, we reared 16 groups of 30 chicks. After week 4, the birds were regrouped into 16 groups of 20 chicks into each of which we introduced either five chicks that showed high frequencies of feather pecking or, as controls, five chicks that had not developed feather pecking. We then determined the feather-pecking rate and the frequency of foraging, dustbathing, feeding, drinking, preening, moving, standing and resting of all birds in a group. Data from the introduced birds were analysed separately and excluded from the group data. Chicks in groups with introduced feather-pecking chicks had a significantly higher feather-pecking rate than chicks in the control groups. In addition, birds in groups with introduced feather peckers showed significantly lower foraging frequencies than those in the control groups, although the housing conditions were identical and there were no differences in either the number or the quality of the stimuli relevant to foraging behaviour. The study therefore suggests that feather pecking is socially transmitted in groups of laying hen chicks. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches

Free-living hens roost on branches in trees at night, and laying hens in aviary systems or cages provided with perches also make extensive use of these for night-time roosting. It is therefore suggested that roosting on perches is important to the hens and that domestic hens should be provided with perches in order to promote welfare. However, no study has addressed the question of motivation for roosting. In the present experiment, we studied undisturbed roosting behaviour and the reaction of commercial laying hens when roosting on perches was thwarted. Fifty-two adult hens (Lohmann Selected Leghorn, LSL) were kept in two groups of 26 hens in litter pens with perches at heights of 23, 43 and 63 cm. Behaviour was observed for 60 min starting at lights-off, registering the number of hens on each perch level. The hens started to get onto the perch immediately and within 10 min after lights-off, more than 90% of the hens were on the perch. All hens roosted close together on the top perch. In a second experiment, 24 hens were kept in eight groups of three birds each in experimental pens equipped with perches. Birds were tested in four different situations: (1) the pen unchanged (Base), (2) the perch covered with plexiglass (PCov), (3) the perch removed (PRem) and (4) the unchanged pen (Post). The order of PCov and PRem alternated between groups in a balanced manner and all groups of birds experienced all four treatments. The hens were observed for 60 min from lights-off using focal sampling. For comparisons, the Post treatment served as the control. In the treatments where perching was not possible, the hens spent less time sitting (p=0.042), and also tended to spend more time standing (p=0.06), than in the control. Furthermore, the hens moved more (p=0.042) when the perch was inaccessible, and when the perch was visible but inaccessible they also showed more attempts to take off (p=0.042). These findings can be interpreted as increased frustration and/or exploration, probably to find an alternative roosting site. Together with the high use of perches for night-time roosting under undisturbed conditions, these results indicate that laying hens are motivated to perch and imply that hens kept under conditions where perching is not possible may experience reduced welfare.     

Behavioural responses to visual stimuli following posterior dorsal telencephalic ablations in Gallus domesticus

The behaviour of chickens following posterior dorsal telencephalic ablations was studied in response to humans, strange hens, aerial predators, ground predators and a visual startle stimulus. The ablations had no effect on the birds' response to either the aerial or ground predator but there was a significant reduction in pacing after the visual startle stimulus. Following posterior telencephalic ablation the birds showed significantly fewer attacks and threats in encounters with unfamiliar hens but showed exaggerated escape/avoidance behaviour to humans in both their home pens and in experimental testing cages. The reasons for this avoidance behaviour to humans are discussed but no definite conclusions could be drawn.     

Divergent selection on feather pecking behaviour in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus)

A selection experiment was initiated in 1996 in which selection for (HP line) and against (LP line) feather pecking was performed. The foundation stock was a White Leghorn layer strain established in 1970 and maintained since then as a random bred control line at the Institute. Six hatches were produced over three generations. At the age of 68 weeks (generation 0, 1996), 35 weeks (generation 1, 1997), 30 weeks (generation 2, 1998), and 27 weeks (generation 3, 1999) female birds were transferred to observation pens and their feather pecking behaviour was recorded. In each generation, 30 females and 8 males were selected from approximately 200 females and 60 males. The selection criterion was breeding value estimated by animal model on the trait 'number of bouts of feather pecking per bird per hour'.Feather pecking behaviour in adult hens was significantly higher in HP than in LP. In generation 2 the following was recorded: 3.10 versus 1.37 bouts per bird per hour (P<0.01), 7.04 versus 3.58 pecks per bird per hour (P<0.05) and the proportion of hens recorded feather pecking in the 180min observation period was 67 versus 56% (P<0.05). In generation 3 the following was recorded: 4.56 versus 0.63 bouts per bird per hour (P<0.001), 13.9 versus 2.51 pecks per bird per hour (P<0.001) and the proportion of hens recorded feather pecking in the 180min observation period was 75 versus 49% (P<0.001).In generation 3, plumage condition was better in LP on neck, breast, back, wings and tail, as well as overall (P<0.001). Body weight did not differ between lines in generation 2, but in generation 3, HP hens were on average heavier than LP hens at the age of 27 weeks (1435g versus 1371g, P<0.001).     

Space use and agonistic behaviour in relation to sex composition in large flocks of laying hens

Some authors have found indications of subgroup formation when domestic fowl are forced to live together in large flocks, while others have not. In this study experiments were carried out to test the hypothesis that hens in large flocks have home ranges in parts of the pen and that they form subgroups. We also studied if this is influenced by males. In a tiered aviary system (density averaged 16 hens/m(2) of floor area) eight flocks of 568+/-59 ISA Brown laying hybrids were kept in pens. Half of the pens contained 1 male per on average 24 females (mixed flocks). At peak production (36-53 weeks of age) four females roosting closely together for about 14 days and four females roosting far apart from each other were taken out from each flock and put together in separate groups in small pens. Their agonistic behaviour was studied for 2 days before they were put back. This was repeated with new birds, resulting in 16 small sample groups being studied. At 70 weeks, three groups of 10 females per flock roosting closely together in different parts of the pen were dyed with different colours and their locations were observed for 2 nights and 2 days.The incidence of aggressive pecks during day 1 among birds that had been roosting close to each other tended to be lower (P=0.05) than among birds that had been roosting far apart. This effect was not significant among birds from all-female flocks, but among birds from mixed flocks (P<0.05). However, this indicates a recognition of roosting partners and possibly also a rebound effect of the males' reduction of female aggressiveness towards strangers. Irrespective of sex composition in the flocks, birds marked while roosting at the ends of the pens were significantly more often observed within these areas than in other areas of the pen during daytime and came back to the same roosting sites at night (P<0.05-P<0.001). This was not the case for birds from the middle of the pens, where the distribution in the pen in most cases did not differ from random. These results show that laying hens in large groups are rather constant in their use of space, which indicate the presence of home ranges. However, environmental features that facilitate localisation may be important. In summary, we think that these findings indicate the existence of subgroup formation.     

Effect of manipulating feathers of laying hens on the incidence of feather pecking and cannibalism

Feather pecking is a problem in commercial laying hens, particularly in loose-housing systems, where many hens can be affected by only a few feather peckers. In addition, feather pecking can become an even larger problem if it spreads throughout the flock. There are several possible ways that feather pecking may spread. The simplest way is that one hen may damage the feathers of a hen, and another hen may find the damaged feathers an attractive pecking target. The aim of this experiment was to determine if damaged feathers were feather-pecked more than undamaged feathers on the same body area, and to determine whether some types of feather-body area manipulations were preferred over others as pecking stimuli. Manipulations involved damaging the feathers on the rump, tail or belly of different hens, with two or three levels of severity of manipulation at each body area. Sixteen groups of 11 Lohmann Brown hens between 26 and 28 weeks were observed with the recipient, the feather pecker and the body area that was pecked all being recorded. The feather pecks were classified separately as either gentle or severe. Damaged feathers received significantly more severe feather pecks than undamaged feathers. There were also more gentle feather pecks to damaged feathers, although this did not reach statistical significance. The feather-body area manipulations that received the greatest number of severe feather pecks were the tail feathers when they were cut very short, the rump feathers when they were trimmed, and the rump when feathers were removed. These results support the suggestion that feather pecking does indeed spread through flocks by damaged feathers becoming an attractive target for feather-pecking behaviour. An unexpected result of performing the feather manipulations was an outbreak of cannibalism in half of the experimental groups. Even though there was no visible damage to the skin of the hens after having the feathers manipulated, 13 of the 16 attacked hens were wounded on the part of the body where the feathers had been damaged in some way.     

Reaction to frustration in high and low feather pecking laying hens

Reaction to frustration of high (HFP) and low feather pecking (LFP) laying hens was investigated. From a HFP- and a LFP-line five birds with a HFP- and five birds with a LFP-phenotype were selected. Birds from the HFP-line were expected to show more key pecking and covered feeder pecking during frustration than birds from the LFP-line. When a bunch of feathers was presented, birds with a HFP-phenotype were expected to redirect their pecks at the bunch. Birds were trained to peck a key for a food reward in an automated Skinnerbox and subjected to two sessions: a control session, where food was available, and a frustration session, where the feeder was covered with Perspex. These two sessions were repeated in the presence of a bunch of feathers. Unexpectedly, birds from the LFP-line had a stronger reaction to frustration than birds from the HFP-line, expressed in pecking behaviour. When a bunch of feathers was offered, birds with a HFP-phenotype did not show more bunch pecking during frustration than birds with a LFP-phenotype.     

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

Four groups of 15-19 adult ISA Brown hens were studied in pens to assess the relationship between social status and use of perches and nestboxes. This was to test the hypothesis that subordinate hens use these resources more by day, for avoiding dominants, but that dominants use perches more at night, for roosting. The experiment consisted of a 5-week pre-treatment period, when no perches were present, and a 4-week treatment period, when each group was tested with different perch treatments (No, Low, Medium, High). All groups were observed systematically in each week, when all interactions of three types (aggressive peck, non-aggressive peck, approach/avoidance) in a group were recorded by noting the instigator and recipient (from numbered wing tags) onto a matrix. Proportions of time that each bird spent using perches and nestboxes, by day and at night, were also recorded. The results indicate that social status of individual laying hens is relatively stable across time and can be based reliably on counts of either aggressive pecks or approach/avoidances, but not non-aggressive pecks. Aggressive pecks were the most frequent type of interaction observed, and were reduced by the presence of perches. Use of nestboxes, but not perches, was greater at night than by day. There were weak tendencies for perches, and to a lesser extent nestboxes, to be used more by lower ranking birds by day, but not at night. There was some evidence of increased use of these resources by higher ranking birds at night. It is concluded that provision of perches reduces bird density on the floor (where nearly all interactions occurred), allows subordinates a means of avoiding dominants by day, reduces frequency of agonistic interactions, and should thus benefit laying hen welfare.     

Reaction to frustration in high and low feather pecking lines of laying hens from commercial or semi-natural rearing conditions

The effect of rearing conditions on feather pecking and reaction to frustration was studied in two lines of laying hens. From commercial rearing conditions (large group, no mother hen), seven birds from a high feather pecking line (HC birds) and eight birds from a low feather pecking line (LC birds) were used. From semi-natural rearing conditions (small group, mother hen present) seven birds from the high feather pecking line (HN birds) were used. Feather pecking behaviour of HC, LC, and HN groups was recorded for 30 min. After that, each bird was food deprived and trained to peck a key for a food reward in a Skinnerbox. After training, each bird was subjected to a frustration session in a Skinnerbox, where the feeder was covered with Perspex. Three HC birds showed severe feather pecking, compared with one HN bird and zero LC birds. Differences in reaction to frustration were found between birds from different lines, but not in birds from different rearing conditions. LC birds tended to put their head in the feeder more frequently than HC birds over all sessions. Although limited, this study indicates that rearing conditions influence feather pecking, but not reaction to frustration.     

On the feeding and social behaviour of the laying hen

This paper describes a study of the influences of early husbandry conditions, social attraction and social rank on various aspects of the feeding behaviour of laying hens.Birds were raised in flocks of 10, 60 or 500. Groups of 3 birds, selected from flocks of the same size, were then housed in pens. Some groups consisted of hens raised in the same flock, and some of birds raised in different flocks. The feeding and agonistic behaviour of each group at each of 5 types of feeder was observed and compared with the behaviour shown when the birds had free access to a 1-m long food trough. Each of the 5 feeders offered the same area of feeding space, but differed in its partitioning and spatial distribution. One feeder had a single unpartitioned feeding space. The other 4 feeders had 3 partioned feeding spaces which were adjacent, or separated by distances of 10, 20 or 40 cm, respectively.For the 5 feeders, total feeding times and lengths of feeding bouts were greatest, and the number of feeding bouts least, when the feeding space was unpartitioned. Synchrony of feeding behaviour was low when the feeding space was unpartitioned or the partitioned spaces adjacent, but was comparable to that at the 1-m long food trough when the distance between partitioned feeding spaces was 10 cm or greater. When feeding space was partitioned, the likelihood that 2 birds would eat together at the same site increased with the distance between feeding space. Dominant birds always exhibited the longest feeding bouts and greatest total feeding times, but were less likely to feed in the same space as another bird, and exhibited less synchrony of feeding behaviour than subordinates. The size of the flock in which the birds were raised, and whether or not the birds in a group had been raised together or apart, had no clear effect on behaviour.These results indicate that, within the limits of this experiment, early husbandry conditions do not influence behaviour shown during feeding in later life, and that social attraction has a greater influence on the feeding behaviour of hens than is generally assumed. In view of this latter finding, it is postulated that in attempting to determine the requirements of laying hens for feeding space, attention must be paid to social attraction as well as to competition at the feeder.     

Are genetic differences in foraging behaviour of laying hen chicks paralleled by hybrid-specific differences in feather pecking?

Feather pecking is a behavioural disorder in laying hens which consists of pecking the feathers of conspecifics, causing feather damage or even injuries to the skin. Its development can be explained by redirection of foraging behaviour. While the occurrence of feather pecking strongly depends on the kind of housing condition, it is also known that there are strain differences in the tendency to feather peck. From the inverse relation between feather pecking and foraging behaviour found earlier, we hypothesised that genetically determined differences in foraging behaviour could be responsible for the observed differences in feather pecking between strains.In a first experiment we tested whether there are differences in the foraging behaviour of two hybrids. As hybrids, we used Lohman selected leghorn (LSL) and Dekalb; eight groups of 20 1-day old chicks each. They were kept in enriched pens (265cmx90cm) with a litter area (200cmx90cm) consisting of wood-shavings, chaff, straw, polystyrene blocks, sand area (65cmx90cm) and elevated perches. Behavioural observations were carried out in week 4. In a subsequent experiment with the same birds we tested how the foraging behaviour of the two hybrids differed when housing conditions were changed from enriched to restricted and to what extent they developed feather pecking. A 2x2 factorial design with hybrid (LSL, Dekalb) and housing condition (restricted, enriched) as factors and with four replicates of each factor combination was used. Half of the pens of each hybrid were changed from enriched to restricted housing conditions by covering the litter area with slats. Behavioural observations were carried out in weeks 5 and 6.In experiment 1, LSL and Dekalb spent the same amount of time foraging, but Dekalb spent significantly more of that time with pecking and hacking at the polystyrene blocks. On the other hand, LSL spent significantly more time at the feeding troughs and rested significantly less than Dekalb. In the restricted environment of experiment 2, again, the total foraging time did not differ between hybrids, but LSL chicks spent significantly less time scratching, while Dekalb spent significantly more time moving. Both hybrids developed feather pecking but LSL showed significantly higher rates than Dekalb.Our results demonstrate genetic differences in the foraging behaviour and in the way hybrids cope with the change in housing condition from enriched to an environment that is restricted in relation to foraging possibilities. We conclude that the results support the hypothesis put forward that genetic differences in foraging behaviour could be the basis for the genetic influence in the development of feather pecking.     

Spatial distribution and behaviour of laying hens housed in an alternative system

The spatial distribution and behaviour of perchery housed laying hens were compared at a constant stocking density (18.5 birds/m(2)) in eight pens with colonies of five different sizes (323 birds (N=1), 374 birds (N=2), 431 birds (N=2), 572 birds (N=1) and 912 birds (N=2)). The birds were placed in the perchery when they were 12 weeks old. Observations began when they were 26 weeks old and continued at 8 week intervals until 61 weeks of age. Colony size did not appear to affect the spatial distribution of birds, but more standing behaviour and less feeding behaviour were observed in the smallest and largest colony sizes. Older birds spent more time on the floor areas and less time on perches. Young birds (26-28 weeks) spent more time feeding, foraging, drinking and preening, and less time standing idle than older birds. In the afternoons, there were fewer birds on the perches and more on the floor levels, corresponding with less time spent resting and more time spent performing active behaviours. Birds did not distribute themselves evenly throughout their pens: within specific areas of pens densities varied between 9 and 41 birds/m(2). This variation, which reflects the flux of birds from one part of the pen to another, was greatest for the larger colony sizes, and may have adverse implications for welfare in terms of crowding and hysteria.     

Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen

Two experiments were performed to elucidate aspects of the spatial preference of domestic hens kept in battery cages.In the first experiment, 12 hens were given a choice between four cages differing in size and shape. The measure of preference used was the amount of time spent in each cage under free-access conditions. The results show that the hens spent most time in the cage with the largest floor area, but that substantial amounts of time were spent in the remaining three cages. Eight possible explanations for this non-exclusive choice are proposed: variation among hens; change of preference with time; mis-identification; constraints on decision-making; pacing; sampling; monitoring; genuine preference. The first six hypotheses are discussed with respect to this experiment.The second experiment, using 6 hens under similar conditions, was designed to distinguish between the latter two hypotheses. The results suggest there may be a monitoring component to the hens' behaviour in this apparatus, characterised by cage visits of short duration. In addition, the hens may continue to visit small cages in order to perform particular behaviour patterns. Nest-building behaviour is mentioned as one possibility.     

Effects of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages

In our previous studies, we demonstrated that dominant hens had priority in using the dust bath, resulted in increased competition for the resource. It seemed that the problem was that the resource was placed on one side of the cage (‘localised’). Therefore, we designed a medium-sized furnished cage with a dust bath and nest box on both sides of the cage (‘separated’, MFS). To evaluate the effects of separation of these resources, we compared the behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in MFS cage with that in small (SF) and medium furnished (MFL) cages with a localised resource. In total, 150 White Leghorn layers were used. At the age of 17 weeks, the hens were randomly divided into three groups and moved to small furnished cages (SF, 90 cm wide; five birds per cage) and two types of medium furnished cages (180 cm wide; 10 birds per cage) with a nest box and dust bath on both sides (MFS) and a nest box and dust bath on one side of the cage (MFL). The total dust bath and nest box areas per hen were same for the three cages. The dominance hierarchy was determined by observing the aggressive interactions and by this high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in each cage were identified. The behaviour, use of facilities and physical condition of these hens were measured. Data were analysed by using repeated measure ANOVA. A significant interaction between social order and cage design was found in the proportions of time spent in the dust bath and on performing dust-bathing (both P < 0.001), and these proportions tended to be higher in higher-ranked hens in SF and MFL. Conversely, the MFS low-ranked hens tended to use the dust bath more than the SF and MFL low-ranked hens. Thus, hens from each rank used the dust bath equally in MFS, though the MFS high-ranked hens tended to use the resource less than the SF and MFL high-ranked hens. While the frequency of pre-laying sitting was lower among low-ranked hens (P < 0.05), the proportion of time in the nest box was higher among low- than high-ranked hens (P < 0.01). The low-ranked hens spent more time performing escaping, moving and standing in the nest box. In conclusion, it is suggested that separation of the dust bath to two locations would be an effective arrangement to promote more equal usage of the dust bath by hens from each rank in the furnished cages. It was also confirmed in the present study that nest boxes were not only used for laying eggs but also as a refuge by lower ranked hens.