Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:24:06.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Perching Behaviour and Preferences for Different Perch Designs Among Laying Hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

N R Lambe*
Affiliation:
SAC, Kirkton Farm, Tyndrum, Crianlarich, Perthshire FK20 8RU, UK
G B Scott
Affiliation:
Harper Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
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.

Non-cage systems for housing laying hens often incorporate a framework of perches, allowing birds to move in three dimensions. Wood is predominantly used for perch construction, because it is relatively cheap and easy to work with. However, wooden perches are difficult to clean and disinfect, which could lead to disease and discomfort for the birds using them. The objectives of this study were to identify which characteristics of perch design are preferred by laying hens; and to test whether birds would use perches of alternative materials for a comparable amount of time as they use wooden perches. Six laying hens were housed individually in litter-floored pens and were offered a choice of three pairs of contrasting perch types (experiments 1-3): a rectangular, wooden perch (‘control’) versus two, thin, parallel, rectangular wooden perches; ‘control’ versus a similar perch covered with foam and fabric; and ‘control’ versus a round, wooden perch. Birds were given each pair of perches twice, controlling for perch position in the pen. Time spent on each perch in a 48h period was determined from video records. Preferences were then tested in consecutive trials (experiments 4-5) between perches of the following materials: wood versus plastic versus steel; and wood versus textured aluminium. There were no significant differences in time spent on different perches, suggesting that birds had no preferences between perch types. The implications of these results could be important for the design of alternative systems for laying hens. Birds may be content to perch on artificial materials which could be more hygienic than wood and easier to maintain in a commercial system.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1998 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, M C, Smith, S F and Hughes, B O 1992 Individual perching behaviour of laying hens and its effects in cages. British Poultry Science 33: 227238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, J II 1984 Rest in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 289303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, E T, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1992 Effects of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engström, B and Schaller, G 1993 Experimental studies on the health of laying hens in relation to housing system. In: Savory C J and Hughes B 0 (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 8796. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters Bar, UKGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G, Wilkins, L J, Eleperuma, S D, Ballantyne, A J and Overfield, N D 1990 Broken bones in domestic fowls: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 5969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Elson, H A 1977 The use of perches by broilers in floor pens. British Poultry Science 18: 715722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lill, A 1968 Spatial organisation in small flocks of domestic fowl. Behaviour 32: 258290CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, K A, Baxter, M R and Michie, W 1986 A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 9398Google Scholar
Oester, H 1994 Different types of perches and their influence on the development of bumble feet in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 58: 231238Google Scholar
Savory, C J 1976 Effects of different lighting regimes on diurnal feeding patterns of the domestic fowl. British Poultry Science 17: 341350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegwart, N 1991 Etiology and pathogenesis of bumblefoot in laying hens. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Berne, Institute of Animal PathologyGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Abrahamsson, P 1994 Foot and skeletal disorders in laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 44: 110119Google Scholar
Tauson, R and Abrahamsson, P 1996 Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 46: 239246Google Scholar
Tauson, R, Jansson, L and Abrahamsson, P 1992 Studies on alternative keeping systems for laying hens in Sweden at the Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. March 1988 - Oct. 1991. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: UppsalaGoogle Scholar
van Niekerk, T C G M and Reuvekamp, B F J 1995 Improving the welfare of laying hens in cages. Misset World Poultry 11: 3841Google Scholar