Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:53:51.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequent range visits further from the shed relate positively to free-range broiler chicken welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

P. S. Taylor Open the ORCID record for P. S. Taylor [Opens in a new window] ,
P. H. Hemsworth Open the ORCID record for P. H. Hemsworth [Opens in a new window] ,
P. J. Groves Open the ORCID record for P. J. Groves [Opens in a new window] ,
S. G. Gebhardt-Henrich Open the ORCID record for S. G. Gebhardt-Henrich [Opens in a new window]  and
J.-L. Rault Open the ORCID record for J.-L. Rault [Opens in a new window]
P. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
P. H. Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
P. J. Groves
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Foundation, School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
S. G. Gebhardt-Henrich
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Welfare, Research Centre for Proper Housing, Poultry and Rabbits (ZTHZ), University of Bern, Zollikofen, CH-3052, Switzerland
J.-L. Rault
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Little is known about the implications of accessing an outdoor range for broiler chicken welfare, particularly in relation to the distance ranged from the shed. Therefore, we monitored individual ranging behaviour of commercial free-range broiler chickens and identified relationships with welfare indicators. The individual ranging behaviour of 305 mixed-sex Ross 308 broiler chickens was tracked on a commercial farm from the second day of range access to slaughter age (from 16 to 42 days of age) by radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. The radio frequency identification antennas were placed at pop-holes and on the range at 2.7 and 11.2 m from the home shed to determine the total number of range visits and the distance ranged from the shed. Chickens were categorised into close-ranging (CR) or distant-ranging (DR) categories based on the frequency of visits less than or greater than 2.7 m from the home shed, respectively. Half of the tracked chickens (n=153) were weighed at 7 days of age, and from 14 days of age their body weight, foot pad dermatitis (FPD), hock burn (HB) and gait scores were assessed weekly. The remaining tracked chickens (n=152) were assessed for fear and stress responses before (12 days of age) and after range access was provided (45 days of age) by quantifying their plasma corticosterone response to capture and 12 min confinement in a transport crate followed by behavioural fear responses to a tonic immobility (TI) test. Distant-ranging chickens could be predicted based on lighter BW at 7 and 14 days of age (P=0.05), that is before range access was first provided. After range access was provided, DR chickens weighed less every week (P=0.001), had better gait scores (P=0.01) and reduced corticosterone response to handling and confinement (P<0.05) compared to CR chickens. Longer and more frequent range visits were correlated with the number of visits further from the shed (P<0.01); hence distant ranging was correlated with the amount of range access, and consequently the relationships between ranging frequency, duration and distance were strong. These relationships indicate that longer, more frequent and greater ranging from the home shed was associated with improved welfare. Further research is required to identify whether these relationships between ranging behaviour and welfare are causal.

Keywords

outdoorpasturepoultrymeattechnology
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 138 - 149
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Present address: Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia. E-mail: peta.taylor@une.edu.au

a

Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, A-1210, Austria

References

Barnett, J, Hemsworth, P and Newman, E 1992. Fear of humans and its relationships with productivity in laying hens at commercial farms. British Poultry Science 33, 699–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassler, AW, Arnould, C, Butterworth, A, Colin, L, De Jong, IC, Ferrante, V, Ferrari, P, Haslam, S, Wemelsfelder, F and Blokhuis, HJ 2013. Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poultry Science 92, 2811–2826.Google ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A 1995. Fear and fearfulness in animals. The Quarterly Review of Biology 70, 165–191.Google ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplen, G, Hothersall, B, Murrell, JC, Nicol, CJ, Waterman-Pearson, AE, Weeks, CA and Colborne, GR 2012. Kinematic analysis quantifies gait abnormalities associated with lameness in broiler chickens and identifies evolutionary gait differences. Plos One 7, e40800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplen, G, Colborne, GR, Hothersall, B, Nicol, CJ, Waterman-Pearson, AE, Weeks, CA and Murrell, JC 2013. Lame broiler chickens respond to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with objective changes in gait function: a controlled clinical trial. Veterinary Journal 196, 477–482.Google ScholarPubMed
Dal Bosco, A, Mugnai, C, Sirri, F, Zamparini, C and Castellini, C 2010. Assessment of a global positioning system to evaluate activities of organic chickens at pasture. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 19, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS, Cook, PA, Whittingham, MJ, Mansell, KA and Harper, AE 2003. What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preference. Animal Behaviour 66, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domdouzis, K, Kumar, B and Anumba, C 2007. Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) applications: a brief introduction. Advanced Engineering Informatics 21, 350–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durali, T, Groves, P and Cowieson, AJ 2012. Comparison of performance of commercial conventional and free-range broilers. In 23rd Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Australia, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar
Durali, T, Groves, P, Cowieson, A and Singh, M 2014. Evaluating range usage of commercial free range broilers and its effect on birds performance using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. In 25th Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Australia, pp. 103–106.Google Scholar
Estévez, I, Newberry, RC and De Reyna, LA 1997. Broiler chickens: a tolerant social system. Etologia 5, 19–29.Google Scholar
Fanatico, AC, Pillai, PB, Hester, PY, Falcone, C, Mench, JA, Owens, CM and Emmert, JL 2008. Performance, livability, and carcass yield of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poultry Science 87, 1012–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanatico, AC, Mench, JA, Archer, GS, Liang, Y, Gunsaulis, VBB, Owens, CM and Donoghue, AM 2016. Effect of outdoor structural enrichments on the performance, use of range area, and behavior of organic meat chickens. Poultry Science 95, 1980–1988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forkman, B, Boissy, A, Meunier-Salaün, M-C, Canali, E and Jones, R 2007. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiology Behaviour 92, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Fröhlich, EK 2014. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.Google Scholar
Gordon, SH 2002. Effect of breed suitability, system design and management on welfare and performance of traditional and organic table birds. Retrieved on 17 May 2017 from http://orgprints.org/8104 Google Scholar
Gray, JA 1987. The psychology of fear and stress. CUP Archive.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH and Coleman, GJ 2011. Human-livestock interactions: The stockperson and the productivity of intensively farmed animals. CABI, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1986. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 1996. Fear and adaptability in poultry: Insights, implications and imperatives. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 52, 131–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB 2002. Role of comparative psychology in the development of effective environmental enrichment strategies to improve poultry welfare. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 15, 77–106.Google Scholar
Jones, RB and Merry, BJ 1988. Individual or paired exposure of domestic chicks to an open field: some behavioural and adrenocortical consequences. Behavioural Processes 16, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapell, D, Hill, W, Neeteson, A-M, McAdam, J, Koerhuis, A and Avendano, S 2012. Twenty-five years of selection for improved leg health in purebred broiler lines and underlying genetic parameters. Poultry Science 91, 3032–3043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaur, M, Sharma, A, Gupta, R, Singh, Y, Sethi, A and Singh, C 2017. Resource use efficiency of broiler production in tunnel-ventilated environmental control vis-à-vis open-sided conventional shed during summer. Tropical Animal Health and Production 49, 1591–1596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, S, Knowles, T, Tinch, A and Gregory, N 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. The Veterinary Record 131, 190–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowles, TG, Kestin, SC, Haslam, SM, Brown, SN, Green, LE, Butterworth, A, Pope, SJ, Pfeiffer, D and Nicol, CJ 2008. Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk factors and prevention. Plos One 3, e1545.Google ScholarPubMed
Mirabito, L, Joly, T and Lubac, S 2001. ‘Impact of the presence of peach tree orchards in the outdoor hen runs on the occupation of the space by “Red Label” type chickens’, in The Animal, Farming and Environment Systems. British Poultry Science 42, S18–19.Google Scholar
Price, EO 1984. Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rault, JL, van de Wouw, A and Hemsworth, P 2013. Fly the coop! Vertical structures influence the distribution and behaviour of laying hens in an outdoor range. Australian Veterinary Journal 91, 423–426.Google Scholar
Rivera-Ferre, MG, Lantinga, EA and Kwakkel, RP 2007. Herbage intake and use of outdoor area by organic broilers: effects of vegetation type and shelter addition. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea, A, Leone, EH and Estevez, I 2014. Environmental complexity and use of space in slow growing free range chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 161, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandilands, V, Brocklehurst, S, Sparks, N, Baker, L, McGovern, R, Thorp, B and Pearson, D 2011. Assessing leg health in chickens using a force plate and gait scoring: how many birds is enough? The Veterinary Record 168, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner-Noble, DO and Teeter, RG 2009. An examination of anatomic, physiologic, and metabolic factors associated with well-being of broilers differing in field gait score. Poultry Science 88, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stadig, LM, Rodenburg, TB, Ampe, B, Reubens, B and Tuyttens, FA 2016. Effect of free-range access, shelter type and weather conditions on free-range use and welfare of slow-growing broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 192, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, PS, Hemsworth, PH, Groves, PJ, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG and Rault, JL 2017a. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range broiler chickens 1: factors related to flock variability. Animals 7, 54.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, PS, Hemsworth, PH, Groves, PJ, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG and Rault, JL 2017b. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range broiler chickens 2: individual variation. Animals 7, 55.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, PS, Hemsworth, PH, Groves, PJ, Gebhardt-Henrich, SG and Rault, J-L 2018. Ranging behavior relates to welfare indicators pre-and post-range access in commercial free-range broilers. Poultry Science 97, 1861–1871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Weerd, HA, Keatinge, R and Roderick, S 2009. A review of key health-related welfare issues in organic poultry production. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 65, 649–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS and Sanotra, GS 1999. Relationships between leg disorders and changes in the behaviour of broiler chickens. Veterinary Record 144, 205–209.Google ScholarPubMed
Weeks, CA, Nicol, CJ, Sherwin, CM and Kestin, SC 1994. Comparison of the behavior of broiler-chickens in indoor and free-range environments. Animal Welfare 3, 179–192.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). In Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Zhao, ZG, Li, JH, Li, X and Bao, J 2014. Effects of housing systems on behaviour, performance and welfare of fast-growing broilers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 27, 140–146.Google ScholarPubMed