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.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

Prenatal light exposure affects early feather-pecking behaviour in the domestic chick

Recently we proposed that early feather pecking is a form of social exploration. Social recognition, important for exploration, is a lateralized function in the domestic chick. Lateralization of functions can be influenced by light exposure late in embryonic development. Therefore, we investigated whether this light exposure affected early posthatching feather-pecking behaviour in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus. White leghorn embryos either were exposed to light or remained in darkness in the last week of incubation. After hatching, they were housed in groups of two light-exposed and two dark-incubated chicks. Light-exposed chicks showed more feather pecking than did their dark-incubated cagemates. Dark-incubated chicks preferred to direct feather pecks to unfamiliar peers than to familiar peers; light-exposed chicks showed no preference. These effects were present in the first week after hatching and remained at least another 3 weeks. These results support the hypothesis that early gentle feather pecking is part of the normal behavioural repertoire of young chicks and influences social exploration. We discuss a possible mechanism underlying these results. We also suggest that it may be worthwhile not to expose embryos to light during the last week of incubation when housing hatchlings in commercial conditions, where feather pecking is a serious problem.     

Selection method and early-life history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: A review

The aim of this review is to discuss the effects of selection method and early-life history on the behavioural development of laying hens. Especially in larger groups, laying hens often develop damaging behaviours, such as feather pecking and cannibalism, leading to impaired animal welfare. We hypothesise that the propensity to develop feather pecking and cannibalism is affected by a bird's genetic background and by its early-life history. The genetic background can be influenced by genetic selection. Laying hens are traditionally selected on individual performance, which may lead to co-selection of feather pecking and cannibalism. For hens kept in small groups, it has recently been demonstrated that a novel group selection method, focusing on group performance, can help to reduce cannibalism. However, the biological background behind the success of group selection is unknown. It is also not known whether these results from small groups can be translated to larger groups of laying hens. Regarding early-life history, laying, brooding and rearing conditions have been shown to have major effects on behavioural development and on feather pecking and cannibalism. The presence of a hen during rearing has been shown to improve foraging- and social behaviour, to decrease feather pecking and to decrease fearfulness in chicks. Applying group selection and rearing laying hens in a more natural environment may be key factors in solving the problems caused by feather pecking and cannibalism, especially if the promising results of group selection from small groups in experimental settings can be translated to large-group housing systems.     

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.     

Agonistic behaviour in domestic hens: the influence of housing method and group size

The incidence of agonistic behaviour was recorded over 1 year in laying hens of two strains, housed either in battery cages or in deep-litter pens in groups of either three or six birds. Aggressive head-pecking was more frequent in pens than in cages and in groups of six than in groups of three. Threats were more frequent in pens and in groups of six light-hybrids. Other pecking at the plumage was more common in cages in groups of six and in the light-hybrid than in the medium-hybrid strain. Observations showed that hens occupy a considerable area when engaging in threat displays: this suggests that the physical restraint of crowding may play an important part in limiting this behaviour. Two reasons for the reduction of aggressive head pecking in caged birds were suggested: firstly, inhibition of the subordinate hens' behaviour because they were constantly in the sphere of influence of the dominant bird and secondly, because agonistic encounters may be triggered only by the entry of other birds into an individual's 'personal space' and not by continuous proximity.     

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.     

Feather eating in individually caged hens which differ in their propensity to feather peck

Two experiments examined the responses of 16 individually caged laying hens to the presentation of feathers plucked from dead birds of the same genetic line. In the first experiment, hens known from a previous experiment to be either feather 'peckers' or 'non-peckers' (8 of each) were tested for their propensity to eat feathers in four 10min trials, in which they were offered fresh semiplumes measuring 4-6cm (length), one at a time, in front of their cage. Wide variation between birds was observed in numbers of feathers eaten, pecked, picked-up and manipulated. Fourteen out of 16 birds readily ate presented feathers on one or more occasion and both birds that ate no feathers were non-peckers. Peckers ate, picked-up and manipulated feathers significantly more often than did non-peckers (P<0.05, P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively). A second experiment investigated the possibility that presence of preen (uropygial) oil might contribute to the attractiveness of feathers to eat. The same group of 16 pecker and non-pecker hens were offered a choice between 20 washed and 20 unwashed semiplumes, presented simultaneously in separate containers, in two 10min trials. Unwashed feathers were eaten, pecked and picked-up in preference to washed feathers by both peckers and non-peckers (P<0.05, P<0.01, and P<0.01, respectively), indicating an attraction towards unwashed feathers, or an avoidance of washed feathers for some reason. Peckers and non-peckers did not differ significantly in their preferences. These results provide evidence of a relationship between feather eating and feather pecking at an individual level. The finding that hens could distinguish between normal feathers and those treated in such a way as to alter their olfactory (but not visual) properties suggests olfactory cues may be of importance in determining the attractiveness of conspecific feathers.     

The presence of extreme feather peckers in groups of laying hens

Feather pecking is a serious economic and welfare problem in laying hens. Feather damage occurs mainly through severe feather pecking (SFP). Selection experiments have proved that this behavior is heritable and lines have been divergently selected for high (HFP) and low feather pecking (LFP). The number of bouts of SFP per hen follows a Poisson distribution with a maximum nearby 0. A few studies indicate that the distribution within flocks is not homogenous but contains sub-groups of birds showing extremely high levels of feather pecking (EFP). It was the aim of the current study to re-analyze data on SFP of lines selected for HFP/LFP and their F2 cross so as to uncover hidden sub-populations of EFP birds. Data of seven selection generations of HFP and LFP selection lines as well as their F2 cross have been used. We fitted a two-component mixture of Poisson distributions in order to separate the sub-group of EFP from the remaining birds. HFP and LFP lines differed mainly in mean bouts per bird. The proportion of EFP was only marginal in the LFP as compared with the HFP and the F2 population. Selection for LFP did not result in total elimination of EFP. The presence of even small proportions of EFP may play an important role in initiating outbreaks of feather pecking in large flocks. Further studies on feather pecking should pay special attention to the occurrence of EFP sub-groups.     

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.     

Heart rate variability in domestic chicken lines genetically selected on feather pecking behavior

Domestic chicken lines of the White Leghorn type differing in their level of feather pecking were developed by divergent genetic selection specifically on feather pecking behavior. We determined parameters of heart rate variability to elucidate the relative activation of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems during rest and stressful situations. A total of 48 hens were tested in 8 batches. Segments of 2 min were extracted from electrocardiograms recorded by radio-transmitter implants, before (basal undisturbed conditions) and during physical restraint and a social test. Under basal conditions mean distance between R-waves were shorter in the low and high lines compared to the control. During physical restraint, stress reactions [reduced root of the mean squares of successive differences (RMSSD), reduced high frequency (HF), high low frequency (LF/HF) and low vagal-sympathetic effect (VSE) compared to basal levels] were significant in all lines. During the physical restraint the high feather pecking (HFP) line reacted significantly stronger than control (CON) and low feather pecking (LFP) line. During social test the LFP line reacted different than the other two lines. Seemingly birds from LFP conceived the social test as less stressful than birds from the CON and HFP lines. From this it follows that (1) physical restraint generally induced higher stress reactions than the social test and (2) genetic selection for higher levels of feather pecking increased the autonomic nervous system reaction to physical restraint whereas selection against feather pecking has reduced the response to increased social contact.     

Influence of nest seclusion and nesting material on pre-laying behaviour of laying hens

Provision of nest sites is beneficial for the welfare of laying hens in intensive production systems. The design of these nest sites has a direct effect on pre-laying behaviour. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of screening off the entrances of the nest boxes with non-transparent flaps and providing nesting or flooring material on pre-laying behaviour. Eighteen individual Hisex brown laying hens and 18 groups of five hens were tested for 2 days in a test cage containing three nest boxes each with a different nesting material (peat, artificial turf and plastic-coated wire mesh). On one of the days the nest boxes were equipped with plastic flaps at the entrances. Pre-laying behaviour was analysed using focal sampling. Both degree of seclusion and nesting material had an effect on pre-laying behaviour of hens. Nest boxes with flaps were visited less frequently but for a longer duration per visit than nest boxes without flaps. Hens spent more time sitting and scratching, and less time standing and moving when flaps were present. Hens also received fewer pecks (group test) when nest boxes were equipped with flaps. Major differences were found between pre-laying behaviour on coated wire mesh compared to peat and artificial turf with shorter duration of nest visits (group test), more standing (group test) and moving (individual and group test), and less sitting (individual and group test) and object pecking (group test) on coated wire mesh. Differences in pre-laying behaviour on peat versus artificial turf were observed for the behaviours moving (less on peat), sitting (more on peat in the individual test) and object pecking (more on peat in the group test).

It is concluded that hens show more settled pre-laying behaviour and more nest-building behaviour in the presence of flaps at the entrances of nest boxes. These results indicate that seclusion of nest boxes with non-transparent flaps is beneficial to laying hen welfare. Differences in pre-laying behaviour also suggest that plastic-coated wire mesh is less suitable as nesting material than peat and artificial turf.     

Effects of housing conditions during the rearing and laying period on adrenal reactivity, immune response and heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios in laying hens

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of early rearing conditions on physiological, haematological and immunological responses relevant to adaptation and long-term stress in white Leghorn hens with intact beaks housed in furnished cages (FC) or conventional cages (CC) during the laying period. Pullets were cage reared (CR) or litter floor reared (FR). From 16 to 76 weeks of age, hens were housed in FC (eight hens per cage) or in CC (three hens per cage). As measures of long-term stress at the end of the laying period, adrenal reactivity was quantified by assessing corticosterone responses to adrenocorticotropin challenge, and immune response was assessed by measuring antibody responses after immunization with sheep red blood cells (SRBC) and keyhole limpet haemocyanin (KLH). Heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratio was employed as an indicator of stress. Rearing conditions significantly affected anti-SRBC titres (P < 0.0001) and tended to affect H/L ratios (P = 0.07), with the highest values found in FR hens. Layer housing affected H/L ratio (P < 0.01); the highest ratio was found in FR birds housed in FC during the laying period. This study shows that early rearing environment affects immunological indicators that are widely used to assess stress in laying hens. However, while results on H/L ratio indicated that FR birds experienced more stress particularly when they were housed in FC during the laying period, the immune responses to SRBC in FR hens was improved, indicating the opposite. This contradiction suggests that the effects on immune response may have been associated with pathogenic load due to environmental complexity in FR and FC hens rather than stress due to rearing system or housing system per se.     

Responses of adult laying hens to abstract video images presented repeatedly outside the home cage

Previous studies reported that domestic chicks showed progressively greater attraction towards biologically neutral video images (screensavers) with repeated exposure [Jones, R.B., Carmichael, N., Williams, C., 1998. Social housing and domestic chicks' responses to symbolic video images. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 56, 231-243; Jones, R.B., Larkins, C., Hughes, B.O., 1996. Approach/avoidance responses of domestic chicks to familiar and unfamiliar video images of biologically neutral stimuli. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 48, 81-98]. The potential existence of an adult parallel was examined here by studying the responses of laying hens to similar screensaver videos when these were presented repeatedly in front of their home cage. In Experiment 1, individually housed, 31-week-old laying hens were exposed to either the video image of a computer screensaver (SS) programme (Fish), a blank but illuminated television monitor (B), or a black plastic hide (H) presented approximately 50 cm in front of their home cages for 10 min/day on each of 5 consecutive days. The bird's position in the cage and the orientation of its head were recorded every 15 s during the-10 min exposure period in order to assess approach and interest, respectively. Interest was scored by summing the numbers of observations at which the hen was either facing the front or had its head out of the cage. Birds in the B and H treatment groups showed few deviations from neutrality in their approach or interest. Conversely, although SS birds avoided the video stimulus on the first day their responses had reached neutrality (neither approach nor avoidance) by the third day and they showed significantly more approach than would be expected by chance at the fifth presentation. They also showed significantly more interest than chance on each test day; this score increased progressively and showed no sign of waning even at the fifth presentation. To determine whether or not such interest would be maintained indefinitely, the responses of previously untested hens were examined when the same video (Fish) was presented for 10 min/day on each of 20 consecutive days (Experiment 2). A blank, lit television (B) was again used a control. An unfamiliar video (Doodles) was presented to the SS birds on day 21 to determine the effects of stimulus change. After avoiding the stimuli upon their first presentation, both SS and B birds achieved neutrality by day 3. Approach scores then fell in B birds but rarely deviated from neutrality in SS ones. The SS video attracted markedly more interest than did the blank screen. On this occasion, SS hens showed significantly greater interest than would be expected by chance as early as the third presentation and this was still evident upon the eighth presentation; thereafter it waned gradually. However, interest was reinstated fully when the unfamiliar SS image was shown on day 21. The present findings clearly demonstrate that abstract video images, presented in front of the home cage for 10 min on consecutive days, reliably attracted and sustained the interest of individually housed laying hens for as long as 8 days. These results are consistent with those obtained when chicks were repeatedly exposed to similar screensaver videos, i.e., this phenomenon is not dependent on the stage of development. Our results also confirm the importance of considering the environment outside as well as inside the cage in future environmental enrichment programmes.     

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.