Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks

In studies assessing outdoor range use of laying hens, the number of hens seen on outdoor ranges is inversely correlated to flock size. The aim of this study was to assess individual ranging behavior on a covered (veranda) and an uncovered outdoor run (free-range) in laying hen flocks varying in size. Five to ten percent of hens (aged 9–15 months) within 4 small (2–2500 hens), 4 medium (5–6000), and 4 large (≥9000) commercial flocks were fitted with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. Antennas were placed at both sides of all popholes between the house and the veranda and the veranda and the free-range. Ranging behavior was directly monitored for approximately three weeks in combination with hourly photographs of the free-range for the distribution of hens and 6h long video recordings on two parts of the free-range during two days. Between 79 and 99% of the tagged hens were registered on the veranda at least once and between 47 and 90% were registered on the free-range at least once. There was no association between the percentage of hens registered outside the house (veranda or free-range) and flock size. However, individual hens in small and medium sized flocks visited the areas outside the house more frequently and spent more time there than hens from large flocks. Foraging behavior on the free-range was shown more frequently and for a longer duration by hens from small and medium sized flocks than by hens from large flocks. This difference in ranging behavior could account for the negative relationship between flock size and the number of hens seen outside at one point of time. In conclusion, our work describes individual birds’ use of areas outside the house within large scale commercial egg production.

[1]  A. Aarnink,et al.  Ammonia emission and nutrient load in outdoor runs of laying hens , 2006 .

[2]  P. Drent,et al.  Realized heritability and repeatability of risk-taking behaviour in relation to avian personalities , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  Kees van Oers,et al.  Realized heritability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major) , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[4]  N. Dingemanse,et al.  Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major) , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  S. Brown,et al.  Continuous monitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle , 2011, Veterinary Record.

[6]  L. Green,et al.  Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units , 2007, Veterinary Record.

[7]  E. Zeltner,et al.  Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free-range system , 2003, British poultry science.

[8]  E. Zeltner,et al.  Factors involved in the improvement of the use of hen runs , 2008 .

[9]  M. Bestman,et al.  Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens , 2003 .

[10]  P. N. Grigor,et al.  Social inhibition of movement in domestic hens , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  P. N. Grigor,et al.  Emergence and dispersal behaviour in domestic hens: effects of social rank and novelty of an outdoor area , 1995 .

[12]  I. Duncan,et al.  Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild , 1978 .

[13]  P. N. Grigor,et al.  Effects of regular handling and exposure to an outside area on subsequent fearfulness and dispersal in domestic hens , 1995 .

[14]  Bubier Ne,et al.  Movement of flocks of laying hens in and out of the hen house in four free range systems , 1998 .

[15]  S. Brown,et al.  Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period , 2012, Veterinary Record.

[16]  A. Kijlstra,et al.  Effect of flock size on dioxin levels in eggs from chickens kept outside. , 2007, Poultry science.

[17]  L. Green,et al.  Matched concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK , 2003, British poultry science.

[18]  J. Sørensen,et al.  Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover , 2005, British poultry science.

[19]  S. Thurner,et al.  Analysis of the free range behaviour of laying hens and the genetic and phenotypic relationships with laying performance , 2008, British poultry science.

[20]  K. Grunert.  Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand , 2005 .

[21]  Rick Dale,et al.  Assessing bimodality to detect the presence of a dual cognitive process , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[22]  U. Knierim.  Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: a review , 2006 .

[23]  E. von Borell,et al.  Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype , 2004, British poultry science.

[24]  L. Green,et al.  Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease , 2000, Veterinary Record.

[25]  R. Bradshaw,et al.  Movement of flocks of laying hens in and out of the hen house in four free range systems. , 1998, British poultry science.

[26]  T. Knowles,et al.  Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens , 2014, British poultry science.