Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:02:26.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the addition of sand and string to pens on use of space, activity, tarsal angulations and bone composition in broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Arnould ,
D Bizeray ,
JM Faure  and
C Leterrier
C Arnould*
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique — Centre de Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
D Bizeray
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique — Centre de Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
JM Faure
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique — Centre de Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C Leterrier
Affiliation:
Station de Recherches Avicoles, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique — Centre de Tours, 37380 Nouzilly, France
*
* Correspondence: arnould@tours.inra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Fast-growing broiler chickens use pen-space heterogeneously and have low activity levels, related in part to leg problems. The aim of this study was to test the effects of the addition of string and sand trays to rearing pens on the use of space, levels of activity and leg problems. Broiler chickens were reared in 12 pens (40 birds per pen). Drinkers and feeders only were present in the six control pens (C group), whereas the six other pens were enriched (E group) with two sand trays and string. Behaviour was recorded by scan and focal sampling on days 2-3, 13-14, 23-24 and 34-35. Bodyweight, the occurrence of tarsal deformities and the composition of tibiotarsi were measured on day 37. Chickens from the E group spent more time and stood more often in the area enriched with sand than did the g group birds. ghickens in the E group foraged in the sand throughout the rearing period, and their foraging activities were greater than those of the C group birds. They had little interest in the strings. Locomotor activity during standing bouts was enhanced in the E group on days 2-3 only. Bodyweight at day 37, the occurrence of tarsal deformities and the composition of tibiotarsi were not significantly different between groups. These results indicate that sand could attract chickens into areas that are usually rarely used, which may reduce problems resulting from their heterogeneous distribution. However, the results also indicate the difficulty of stimulating locomotion.

Keywords

activityanimal welfarebroiler chickensenvironmental enrichmentleg problemsuse of space
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 87 - 94
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abourachid, A and Renous, S 1993 Étude cinématique de la marche des dindons. Recherche d'une explication fonctionnelle à la fréquence des boiteries des dindons ultra-lourds. Recueil de Médecine Vétérinaire 169: 183–189 [Title translation: Cinematic study of turkey's walk. Research into a functional explanation of broad-breasted turkeys’ locomotor disease frequency]Google Scholar
Arnould, C and Faure, JM 1999 Utilisation of space by chickens tested in different rearing densities. In: Bøe KE, Bakken M and Braastad BO (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 188. Agricultural University of Norway: Lillehammer, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Arnould, C and Faure, JM 2003a Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared at two different densities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnould, C and Faure, JM 2003b Répartition spatiale et activité de poulets de chair élevés en grand groupe. In: Baudoin, C (ed) L’éthologie appliquée aujourd'hui. Vol 1: Bien-être, élevages et expérimentation pp 73–81. Editions ED: Levallois-Perret, France [Title translation: Use of pen space and activity of broiler chickens reared in a large group]Google Scholar
Arnould, C, Fraysse, V and Mirabito, L 2001 Use of pen space by broiler chickens reared in commercial conditions: access to feeders and drinkers. British Poultry Science 42: 57–58Google Scholar
Bessei, W 1992 The behaviour of broilers under intensive management conditions. Archiv fúr Geflügelkunde 56: 1–7Google Scholar
Bilgili, SF, Montenegro, Gl, Hess, JB and Eckman, MK 1999a Live performance, carcass quality, and deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 352–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgili, SF, Montenegro, Gl, Hess, JB and Eckman, MK 1999b Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Picard, M and Faure, JM 2000a Early locomotor behaviour in genetic stocks of chickens with different growth rates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 231–242CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C and Faure, JM 2000b Using a classification of activity bouts to simplify observation in meat-type chickens. In: Noldus, LPJJ (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research pp 18–20. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen: Nijmegen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1969 Behavior of undisturbed 1- to 10-day-old chicks in different rearing conditions. Developmental Psychobiology I: 287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornetto T and Estevez 1 2001 Influence of vertical panels on use of space by domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, NJ, Prescott, NB, Savory, CJ and Wathes, CM 1999 Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour. Animal Welfare 8: 193–203Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1989 Time budgets in red junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraysse, V, Mirabito, L and Arnould, C 2001 Utilisation de l'espace par des poulets de chair “standards” et activité au niveau des abreuvoirs et des mangeoires selon leur localisation. Proceedings of the 4ème Journées de la Recherche Avicole pp 105–108. Institut Technique de l'Aviculture: Paris, France [Title translation: Use of pen space by broiler chickens and access to feeders and drinkers according to the location of this equipment in pens]: Use of pen space by broiler chickens and access to feeders and drinkers according to the location of this equipment in pens]Google Scholar
Greene, JA, McCracken, RM and Evans, RT 1985 A contact dermatitis of broilers — clinical and pathological findings. Avian Pathology 14: 23–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, RB 1996 Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Carmichael, NL 1998 Pecking at string by individually caged, adult laying hens: colour preferences and their stability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB and Carmichael, NL 1999 Can ‘environmental enrichment’ affect domestic chickens’ preferences for one half of an otherwise symmetrical home cage? Animal Welfare 8: 159–164Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Carmichael, NL and Rayner, E 2000 Pecking preferences and pre-dispositions in domestic chicks: implications for the development of environmental enrichment devices. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 291–312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knierim, U 2001 Effects of environmental enrichment on the pecking, scratching and dust-bathing behaviour of broilers. In: Garner JP, Mench JA and Heekin SP (eds) Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of the ISAE pp 178. Center for Animal Welfare: Davis, USAGoogle Scholar
Koene, P, van Ruiten, S and Bokkers, E 1999 The effect of increasing broiler behaviour possibilities by giving extra furniture and a slimmer body: the effects of perches and feed restriction. In: Bøe KE, Bakken M and Braastad BO (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 136. Agricultural University of Norway: Lillehammer, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Leterrier, C and Nys, Y 1992 Clinical and anatomical differences in varus and valgus deformities of chick limbs suggest different aetio-pathogenesis. Avian Pathology 21: 429–442CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leterrier, C, Bizeray, D, Constantin, P and Faure, JM 2001 Preventing leg problems in meat-type chickens: how making them walk? In: Oester H and Wyss C (eds) Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 147–151. World's Poultry Science Association, Swiss branch: Berne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Mench, J and Keeling, LJ 2001 The social behaviour of domestic birds. In: Keeling, LJ and Gonyou, HW (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 177–209. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, JA, Garner, JP and Falcone, C 2000 Leg problems in broilers can be decreased by providing opportunities for increased behavioral activity. Poultry Science 79 (Supp I): 63Google Scholar
Mench, JA, Garner, JP and Falcone, C 2001 Behavioural activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. In: Oester, H and Wyss, C (eds) Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 152–156. World's Poultry Science Association, Swiss branch: Berne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
McGeown, D, Danbury, TC, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin, SC 1999 Effect of carprofen on lameness in broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144: 668–671CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, LB and Preston, AP 1988 Time-budgeting in meat chickens grown commercially. British Poultry Science 29: 571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC 1995 Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 229–243Google Scholar
Newberry, RC 1999 Exploratory behaviour of young domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Hall, JW 1990 Use of pen space by broiler chickens: effects of age and pen size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 25: 125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC and Shackleton, DM 1997 Use of visual cover by domestic fowl: a Venetian blind effect? Animal Behaviour 54: 387–395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petherick, JC and Duncan, IJH 1989 Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. British Poultry Science 30: 229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, AP and Murphy, LB 1989 Movement of broiler chickens reared in commercial conditions. British Poultry Science 30: 519–532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proudfoot, FG and Hulan, HW 1985 Effects of stocking density on the incidence of scabby hip syndrome among broiler chickens. Poultry Science 64: 2001–2003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiter, K and Bessei, W 1995 Influence of running on leg weakness of slow and fast growing broilers. In: Rutter, SM, Rushen, J, Randle, HD and Eddison, JC (eds) Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 211–212. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Reiter, K and Bessei, W 1998 Effect of locomotor activity on bone development and leg disorders in broilers. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 62: 247–253Google Scholar
Reiter, K and Bessei, W 2001 Effect of reduced weight load on locomotor activity and leg disorders in broiler chickens. In: Oester, H and Wyss, C (eds) Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 113–117. World's Poultry Science Association, Swiss branch: Berne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Sanotra, GS, Vestergaard, KS, Agger, JF and Lawson, LG 1995 The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43: 263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, MG 1993 Influence of increasing stocking rates on performance and carcass quality of broilers. In: Savory, CJ and Hughes, BO (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 285–287. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, K and Hogan, J A 1992 The development of a behavior system: dustbathing in the Burmese red jungle fowl. III. Effects of experience on stimulus preference. Behaviour 121: 215–230Google Scholar