Effect of outdoor structural enrichments on the performance, use of range area, and behavior of organic meat chickens.

Chickens provided with outdoor access often do not fully use the range area. Natural cover, such as trees, can provide shelter and increase range use, but may not be practical for use in all free-range operations. A study was conducted to determine whether constructed enrichments that simulate natural structures increase range use and impact behavior of meat chickens. Slow-growing Delaware chickens were raised in floor pens (17 birds/pen) in a naturally ventilated house, with a pophole in each pen that allowed daily access to a vegetation-covered outdoor area. Feed and water were provided inside and outside. Birds were randomly assigned to one of 2 treatments: no range enrichment (control; NON) or range enrichment (ENR), which had roosts made of plastic pipe or screened shelters placed 7.6 m and 22.9 m from the house and overhead shade panels at 15.2 m. There were 4 replications. The numbers of birds inside and in the 4 quadrants of the range were counted in 7-min intervals 3 times daily (0900 h, 1300 h, and 1600 h) for 3 consecutive d when the birds were 7 and 10 wk of age; the numbers of birds performing various behaviors also were counted. On average, only 12.9% of birds used the range at any given time. The behavior of the birds was strongly affected by location (inside vs. outside), with birds mainly foraging and walking while outside and feeding, standing, and sitting while inside. Time of d impacted the number of birds that ranged (P ≤ 0.0001), with fewest birds outside during mid-day. Overall, birds using the range were most often (71%) observed in the quadrant nearest the house (zero to 7.6 m). However, in the ENR treatment, more birds (13%; P ≤ 0.0001) were observed in the farthest 2 quadrants (15.2 to 30.5 m from the house) than in the NON treatment (6%). This indicates that adding constructed enrichments to the range encouraged meat chickens to use it more fully.

The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply: A unique public-private partnership for conducting research on the sustainability of animal housing systems using a multistakeholder approach.

The growing emphasis on ensuring the sustainability of animal agriculture is providing an impetus for the adoption of new approaches to structuring and conducting research. Sustainability is a complex topic involving many considerations related to the economic, social, and environmental impacts of production systems. Successfully addressing this topic requires multidisciplinary research as well as a high degree of communication with food system stakeholders to ensure that the research results contribute to informed decision making. In this paper, we provide an overview of a public-private partnership, the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES), which was formed to support research evaluating the sustainability of laying hen housing systems. Because of increasing public concerns about the behavioral restriction imposed on laying hens housed in conventional cages, the U.S. egg industry is faced with a need to transition to alternative systems. However, before the CSES project, there was limited information available about how this transition might affect trade-offs related to the sustainability of egg production. The goal of the CSES project was to provide this information by conducting holistic research on a commercial farm that had 3 different hen housing systems. The CSES members represented a variety of stakeholders, including food retailers and distributors, egg producers, universities, and governmental (USDA ARS) and nongovernmental organizations. The CSES was facilitated by a not-for-profit intermediary, the Center for Food Integrity, which was also responsible for communicating the research results to food system stakeholders, including via quantitative and qualitative consumer research. In this paper, we describe the structural aspects of the CSES that were responsible for the successful completion and dissemination of the research as well as the insights that were gained regarding multidisciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration, conducting commercial-scale research, fostering and maintaining stakeholder interaction, and communicating research results. Although not without limitations, this project demonstrates that public-private partnerships can be effective strategies for addressing sustainability questions related to animal agriculture and, thus, serves as a useful model for the other animal industries.

The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems.

The Welfare Quality(®) Assessment protocol for poultry ( WQA: ) provides animal-based measures allowing welfare comparisons across farms and housing systems. It was used to compare Lohmann LSL Classic White hens housed in an enriched colony ( EC: ), aviary ( AV: ), and conventional cage system ( CC: ) on a commercial farm over 2 flock cycles. Hens (n = 100/system) were scored on a variety of measures. A baseline measurement was made at placement at 19 wk of age for 1 flock, since AV hens had been reared in an aviary pullet facility ( AVP: while EC and CC hens were reared in a conventional pullet facility ( CCP: ). Hens in all systems were then assessed at 52 and 72 wk of age. Necropsies were performed on all mortalities 1 wk before and after the WQA sampling. WQAs were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests for prevalence and Fisher's exact tests for severity. There was an effect of rearing, with AVP having shorter claws (P = 0.01), dirtier feathers (P = 0.03), and more keel abnormalities (P < 0.0001) than CCP at placement. For the hens, there were several significant housing system effects across flocks and age periods (all P ≤ 0.05). AV and EC hens had more keel abnormalities than CC hens. They also had fewer foot abnormalities than CC hens, although those in AV hens were more severe. AV hens had consistently dirtier feathers than EC and CC hens. While AV hens had the best overall feather cover, feather loss patterns suggested that loss was due to head pecking for AV, whereas in EC and CC it was due to cage abrasion. The necropsy findings and the WQA results were similar, except that the WQA failed to find enteritis at 19 wk, although it was detected in the necropsies during this sampling period. These results show that the WQA is a useful tool for detecting hen condition differences across housing systems.

The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply project: An introduction.

In the United States, empirical information on the sustainability of commercial-scale egg production is lacking. The passage of state regulations specific to hen housing created urgency to better understand the effects of different housing systems on the sustainability of the egg supply, and stimulated the formation of a coalition, the Coalition for a Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES), to conduct research on this topic. The CSES is a multi-stakeholder group with 27 members, including food manufacturers, research institutions, scientists, restaurants, food service, retail food companies, egg suppliers, and nongovernmental organizations. A commercial-scale study was developed to better understand the effect of 3 housing systems (conventional cage, enriched colony, and cage-free aviary) on 5 areas related to a sustainable egg supply. These 5 sustainability areas represent effects on people, animals, and the environment: animal health and well-being, environment, food safety, worker health and safety, and food affordability. Five teams of scientists, each associated with a sustainability area, conducted an integrated field study at a commercial site in the upper Midwest through 2 flock cycles in 3 housing systems. This paper provides a brief overview of the CSES project to serve as an introduction for the papers that follow in this volume of Poultry Science.

Comparative evaluation of three egg production systems: Housing characteristics and management practices.

This paper is an integral part of the special publication series that arose from the multidisciplinary and multi-institutional project of the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES). The CSES project involves 3 housing systems for egg production at the same research farm site in the Midwest, USA, namely, a conventional cage (CC) house, an aviary (AV) house, and an enriched colony (EC) house. The CC house (141.4 m L×26.6 m W×6.1 m H) had a nominal capacity of 200,000 hens (6 hens in a cage at a stocking density of 516 cm2/hen), and the cages were arranged in 10 rows, 8 tiers per cage row, with a perforated aisle walkway at 4-tier height. The AV house (154.2 m L×21.3 m W×3.0 m H) and the EC house (154.2 m L×13.7 m W×4.0 m H) each had a nominal capacity of 50,000 hens. The AV house had 6 rows of aviary colonies, and the EC house had 5 rows of 4-tier enriched colonies containing perches, nestbox, and scratch pads (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm2/hen). The overarching goal of the CSES project, as stated in the opening article of this series, was to comprehensively evaluate the 3 egg production systems from the standpoints of animal behavior and well-being, environmental impact, egg safety and quality, food affordability, and worker health. So that all the area-specific papers would not have to repeat a detailed description of the production systems and the management practices, this paper is written to provide such a description and to be used as a common reference for the companion papers.

Backyard chickens in the United States: a survey of flock owners.

Although it has become increasingly popular to keep backyard chickens in the United States, few studies have provided information about these flocks. An online survey of backyard chicken owners was conducted, advertised through Master Gardeners' websites, social platforms, and other sites. The survey had 56 questions about flock history, husbandry, health care, and owner attitudes and demographics. Surveys received (n = 1,487) came almost equally from urban, suburban, and rural areas. Most (71%) respondents owned fewer than 10 chickens and had kept chickens for less than 5 yr (70%). Major reasons for keeping chickens were as food for home use (95%), gardening partners (63%), pets (57%), or a combination of these. Rural respondents had larger flocks (P ≤ 0.001) and were more likely to keep chickens as a source of income or for show (P ≤ 0.001) than urban and suburban respondents. Owners thought that eggs/meat from their chickens were more nutritious (86%), safer to consume (84%), and tasted better (95%) than store-bought products, and also that the health and welfare of their chickens was better (95%) than on commercial farms. The majority (59%) indicated no flock health problems in the last 12 mo. However, there was a lack of awareness about some poultry health conditions. Many knew either little or nothing about exotic Newcastle or Marek's disease, and most (61%) did not vaccinate against Marek's. Respondents wanted to learn more about various flock management topics, especially how to detect (64%) and treat (66%) health problems. The Internet was the main source of information (87%) used by backyard flock owners, followed by books/magazines (62%) and feed stores (40%). Minimizing predation was the most cited challenge (49%), followed by providing adequate feed at low cost (28%), dealing with soil management (25%), and complying with zoning regulations (23%). The evidence obtained from this survey will help to determine what information and resources are needed to maintain good biosecurity and improve the health and welfare of backyard flocks.

The effects of the duration and onset of light stimulation during incubation on the behavior, plasma melatonin levels, and productivity of broiler chickens.

Light stimulation during incubation can affect the behavior, health, and performance of poultry posthatch. However, there has been relatively little work systematically assessing the pattern of light stimulation needed to produce these effects or the mechanism underlying them. We conducted 2 experiments to assess the effects of duration and onset of light exposure during incubation on Cobb 500 broiler chickens. In the first, eggs (n = 1,404) were incubated under photoperiods of either 0 h of light and 24 h of darkness (0 L:24 D), 1 h of light and 23 h of darkness (1 L:23 D), 6 h of light and 18 h of darkness (6L:18D), or 12 h of light and 12 h of darkness (12L:12D). In the second, eggs (n = 1,008) were incubated in either complete darkness or under 12L:12D, which was applied either for the entire incubation period or with light onset beginning at either 7 or 14 d of incubation. Broilers were then housed in floor pens under a 12L:12D cycle posthatch. Measurements included performance outcomes, plasma melatonin, general behavioral activity assessed using passive infrared detection, and feeding activity assessed using automated continuous monitoring of feed intake at wk 5 of age. There were no treatment differences in hatchability, mortality, growth, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, overall feeding behavior activity, or general behavioral activity over a 24-h period in either experiment. However, broilers incubated under 12L:12D fed more (P < 0.05) than the 0 L:24 D broilers during the first 3 h after the lights came on in Exp. 1 and during the first hour after the lights came on in Exp. 2. In Exp. 1, general activity levels measured using passive infrared detection at night also differed (P = 0.05), with 0 L:24 D more active than 12L:12D. There was a treatment difference between the 0 L:12 D and 12 L:12 D in their plasma melatonin rhythms during d 19 of incubation, but this difference had disappeared when broilers were sampled at wk 5 posthatch. The results of this study indicate that providing 12 h of light during incubation can have a long-lasting effect on the diurnal rhythms of behavior, although the mechanism underlying this does not appear to be related to a persistent change in melatonin rhythm.

Contrast in light intensity, rather than day length, influences the behavior and health of broiler chickens.

Day length and intensity are commonly manipulated aspects of the light environment in commercial broiler production. Both influence circadian rhythms, but it is unclear if they do this independently or synergistically. The effect of light:dark (20L:4D, 16L:8D) and intensity contrasts (1 lx:0.5 lx, 200 lx:0.5 lx) on broiler behavior and health (n=1,004, 4 replicates/treatment) was evaluated. Activity was measured using passive infrared detection, and feeding activity was measured by the amount of feed consumed/h over one 24-h period each week. Broilers were gait scored and weighed at 6 wk of age. Following euthanasia, eyes were dissected from 30 birds/treatment. Behavior and performance were analyzed using the GLM, gait score using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and eye measures using a MANOVA. The 200 lx birds were more active (P=0.03) and fed more (P=0.001) during the photophase but were less active (P=0.02) and fed less (P<0.001) during the scotophase, than the 1 lx birds. There were no differences in G:F (mean±SEM, 1.63±0.01 kg of feed/kg of BW). However, 1 lx birds were slightly heavier (2.79±0.01 kg; P=0.02) than 200 lx birds (2.72±0.01 kg). The 200 lx birds had better (P<0.001) mean gait scores than 1 lx birds, although treatment differences were small. One lux birds had greater side-to-side (18.86±0.11 mm vs. 17.63±0.11 mm, P<0.001) and back-to-front (13.39±0.09 mm vs. 12.89±0.09 mm, P<0.001) eye diameters and heavier eyes (2.42±0.03 g vs. 1.99±0.03 g, P<0.001) than 200 lx birds. There was only one effect of light:dark, with 16:8 having greater back-to-front eye diameters than 20:4 (13.30±0.10 mm vs. 13.00±0.10 mm, P=0.02). There were no interactions. These results indicated that light intensity, not day length, was the major factor affecting broiler behavior and health under these lighting conditions. Low contrast light intensity dampened behavioral rhythms and had possible health effects.

The effect of cage and house design on egg production and egg weight of White Leghorn hens: an epidemiological study.

Hen performance can be affected by many interacting variables related to cage design, such as floor area, height, tier arrangement, and feeder and drinker type and placement within the cage. Likewise, features of house design such as waste management and lighting can also affect hen productivity. The influence of these design aspects on hen performance has not been fully assessed. Determining the effects of numerous, interacting variables is impractical in a traditional experiment; therefore, an epidemiological approach, using variability in cage and house design among and within commercial producers, was employed to identify features that affect egg production and egg weight. A universal cage measurement system was created to calculate cage design variables. A database for recording information on cage design, resource location, waste management, environmental conditions, and hen productivity was developed. Production outcomes were assessed from placement to 60 wk of age in White Leghorns (n = 165-168 houses). Using GLM, a statistical model was identified that best described the variance in egg traits. Eggs/hen-housed increased with greater feeder space allocation (P = 0.031); taller cages (P = 0.029); rear (vs. front) drinker location in vertical cages (P = 0.026); and regular removal of manure from the house (P = 0.005). Case weight of eggs was greater in A-frame houses where manure was removed regularly instead of being left in the house (P < 0.001); with increasing cage floor slope (P = 0.001); in cages where drinkers were placed more toward the front or back of the cage as compared with the middle of the cage (P < 0.001); with more space/hen (P = 0.024); and with higher caloric intake (P < 0.001). Perhaps because of its negative correlation with egg production, case weight of eggs increased with less feeder space allocation (P = 0.004) and shorter cage heights (P < 0.001). These results reveal important effects of feeder space, floor space, cage height, drinker position, and waste management on hen productivity.

Bioethics Symposium: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?

Contemporary animal agriculture is increasingly criticized on ethical grounds. Consequently, current policy and legislative discussions have become highly controversial as decision makers attempt to reconcile concerns about the impacts of animal production on animal welfare, the environment, and on the efficacy of antibiotics required to ensure human health with demands for abundant, affordable, safe food. Clearly, the broad implications for US animal agriculture of what appears to be a burgeoning movement relative to ethical food production must be understood by animal agriculture stakeholders. The potential effects of such developments on animal agricultural practices, corporate marketing strategies, and public perceptions of the ethics of animal production must also be clarified. To that end, it is essential to acknowledge that people's beliefs about which food production practices are appropriate are tied to diverse, latent value systems. Thus, relying solely on scientific information as a means to resolve current debates about animal agriculture is unlikely to be effective. The problem is compounded when scientific information is used inappropriately or strategically to advance a political agenda. Examples of the interface between science and ethics in regards to addressing currently contentious aspects of food animal production (animal welfare, antimicrobial use, and impacts of animal production practices on the environment) are reviewed. The roles of scientists and science in public debates about animal agricultural practices are also examined. It is suggested that scientists have a duty to contribute to the development of sound policy by providing clear and objectively presented information, by clarifying misinterpretations of science, and by recognizing the differences between presenting data vs. promoting their own value judgments in regard to how and which data should be used to establish policy. Finally, the role of the media in shaping public opinions on key issues pertaining to animal agriculture is also discussed.

Integration: valuing stakeholder input in setting priorities for socially sustainable egg production.

Setting directions and goals for animal production systems requires the integration of information achieved through internal and external processes. The importance of stakeholder input in setting goals for sustainable animal production systems should not be overlooked by the agricultural animal industries. Stakeholders play an integral role in setting the course for many aspects of animal production, from influencing consumer preferences to setting public policy. The Socially Sustainable Egg Production Project (SSEP) involved the development of white papers on various aspects of egg production, followed by a stakeholder workshop to help frame the issues for the future of sustainable egg production. Representatives from the environmental, food safety, food retail, consumer, animal welfare, and the general farm and egg production sectors participated with members of the SSEP coordination team in a 1.5-d workshop to explore socially sustainable egg production. This paper reviews the published literature on values integration methodologies and the lessons learned from animal welfare assessment models. The integration method used for the SSEP stakeholder workshop and its outcome are then summarized. The method used for the SSEP stakeholder workshop can be used to obtain stakeholder input on sustainable production in other farm animal industries.

Floor laying by Pekin ducks: effects of nest box ratio and design.

The laying of eggs outside nest boxes is a common problem in poultry production systems. Factors potentially contributing to floor laying by Pekin ducks were investigated. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, 16 groups of 18-wk-old ducks (8/group) were provided access to either 2 (4 ducks/box) or 8 (1 duck/box) closed-topped or open-topped nest boxes. Egg locations were recorded daily for 16 wk. Video analyses were used to determine the time of day eggs were laid on the floor when the ducks were 18 to 22, 26, 30, and 34 wk of age. An analysis of nontoxic dye deposition in the egg yolk was conducted on wk 30, 32, and 36 to determine the contribution of each duck to floor laying. The proportion of floor eggs was especially high early in the laying cycle, reaching 84 and 44% of eggs laid in pens offering ratios of 4 ducks/box and 1 duck/box, respectively, when ducks were 22 wk of age. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that although the proportion of floor eggs decreased over time (F(3,9) = 29.29, P < 0.0001), it remained greater in the groups housed with 4 ducks/box vs. 1 duck/box (F(1,11) = 24.09, P = 0.0005). The proportion of floor eggs was not affected by box design (F(1,11) = 0.08, P = 0.8). Not all available nest boxes contained eggs on a given day, and the distribution of eggs within the pen was clumped. However, it was unlikely that this reflected nest box location preferences because the locations of the eggs laid within the nest boxes changed over time. Taken together, these results suggest that floor laying by Pekin ducks may be caused in part by insufficient nest box availability. However, the clumped distribution of eggs suggests that other social factors, such as conspecific attraction, may also be important.

Introduction--the Socially Sustainable Egg Production project.

The social and political pressure to change egg production from conventional cage systems to alternative systems has been largely driven by the desire to provide more behavioral freedom for egg-laying hens. However, a change of this magnitude can affect other components of the production system and may result in unintended outcomes. To understand this issue, a Socially Sustainable Egg Production project was formed to 1) conduct a holistic and integrated systematic review of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of sustainable egg production, and 2) develop a coordinated grant proposal for future extramural funding based on the research priorities identified from the review. Expert study groups were formed to write evidence-based papers in 5 critical sustainability areas: hen health and welfare, economics, food safety and quality, public attitudes, and environmental impacts. These papers were presented as the PSA Emerging Issues Symposium on Social Sustainability of Egg Production at the 2010 Poultry Science Association meeting.

Sustainability of egg production in the United States--the policy and market context.

The US egg industry is being pressured from many directions to change its production practices, particularly to address concerns about hen welfare in conventional cage systems. Responding to similar pressures, in 1999, the European Union banned conventional laying cages starting in 2012. This now impending European ban has led to the development of several alternative housing systems. These include noncage systems like aviaries and modified (enriched or furnished) cages that include perches, areas in which the hens can forage and dustbathe, and nests. Understanding the European experience is valuable as the United States considers the future direction of the egg industry. In the United States, the proportion of eggs produced in alternative systems is small (less than 5% of output) but growing, in part due to market and political incentives for systems that provide hens with more behavioral freedom than conventional cages. Animal welfare, however, is only one element of a sustainable production system. Other elements include those related to public values, the environment, economics, worker health, and food safety and quality. Eggs are a primary source of animal protein globally, and the United States is the third largest producer of eggs in the world, behind China and the European Union. The national table egg flock comprises about 280 million hens housed in all regions but with approximately 60% of eggs produced in the 10 leading states. Adopting new housing systems will have substantial effects on costs and other aspects of egg production on both a regional and national scale, with some positive effects but also potential negative effects that need to be carefully considered. This paper discusses the US egg industry in the context of legislation and standards related to hen housing systems. It also addresses initiatives by retailers, nongovernmental organizations, and private certification organizations to shape production practices in the egg industry as well as how those initiatives might affect various aspects of the sustainability of egg production.

Hen welfare in different housing systems.

Egg production systems have become subject to heightened levels of scrutiny. Multiple factors such as disease, skeletal and foot health, pest and parasite load, behavior, stress, affective states, nutrition, and genetics influence the level of welfare hens experience. Although the need to evaluate the influence of these factors on welfare is recognized, research is still in the early stages. We compared conventional cages, furnished cages, noncage systems, and outdoor systems. Specific attributes of each system are shown to affect welfare, and systems that have similar attributes are affected similarly. For instance, environments in which hens are exposed to litter and soil, such as noncage and outdoor systems, provide a greater opportunity for disease and parasites. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to clean, and the larger the group size, the more easily disease and parasites are able to spread. Environments such as conventional cages, which limit movement, can lead to osteoporosis, but environments that have increased complexity, such as noncage systems, expose hens to an increased incidence of bone fractures. More space allows for hens to perform a greater repertoire of behaviors, although some deleterious behaviors such as cannibalism and piling, which results in smothering, can occur in large groups. Less is understood about the stress that each system imposes on the hen, but it appears that each system has its unique challenges. Selective breeding for desired traits such as improved bone strength and decreased feather pecking and cannibalism may help to improve welfare. It appears that no single housing system is ideal from a hen welfare perspective. Although environmental complexity increases behavioral opportunities, it also introduces difficulties in terms of disease and pest control. In addition, environmental complexity can create opportunities for the hens to express behaviors that may be detrimental to their welfare. As a result, any attempt to evaluate the sustainability of a switch to an alternative housing system requires careful consideration of the merits and shortcomings of each housing system.

The effect of feeder space allocation on productivity and physiology of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages.

Insufficient feeder space for laying hens could increase competition at the feed trough, leading to disrupted feeding, inadequate nutrient intake, stress, and reduced productivity. The effects of feeder space allocation (FSA) on physiology and productivity were evaluated in beak-trimmed Hy-Line W-36 hens (n=480). They were obtained at 16.5 wk of age and housed on 4 tiers of shallow conventional cages. Five pullets/cage were housed at a stocking density of 434 cm2/hen and a feeder space of 12.2 cm/hen. After 1.5 wk of acclimation, baseline measurements were taken for feed utilization, bone mineralization, and heterophil:lymphocyte ratios. At 20 wk of age, pullets were given 5.8, 7.1, 8.4, 9.7, 10.9, or 12.2 cm of feeder space/bird (16 cages/treatment). Physiological and production measures were calculated monthly or twice a month for 12 mo. The heart, spleen, and right adrenal gland were collected from each hen at the end of the study. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures GLM incorporating cage, tier, FSA, and hen age. There were no effects of FSA on total egg production, bone mineral density, bone mineral content, heterophil:lymphocyte ratios, or organ weights. Hens with reduced FSA utilized more feed (P<0.001), had poorer feed conversion (P<0.001), and laid eggs with slightly thicker and heavier shells (P<0.001). There were effects of FSA on total egg weight (P<0.001) and hen-day egg production (P<0.001), but they were of low magnitude and not linear (P>0.05). Because BW was similar among FSA treatments, the results suggest that reduced feeder space did not limit feed intake. In addition, reduced FSA did not lower bone mineralization or cause physiological stress in W-36 hens housed in shallow cages, suggesting that it did not impair hen welfare. However, it did result in poorer feed efficiency, possibly related to greater feed wastage, predictive of an adverse economic effect from reducing feeder space.

Light intensity during rearing affects the behavioural synchrony and resting patterns of broiler chickens.

1. The effect of light intensity on behavioural synchrony and rest in broilers was investigated by randomly assigning 504 Cobb chicks to environmental chambers at low (5 lux), moderate (50 lux), or high (200 lux) daytime illumination under a 16 h L : 8 h D light cycle. We hypothesised that behavioural synchrony and resting behaviour would be affected by light : dark amplitude, and predicted that broilers reared at higher intensities would show increased synchrony and thus have fewer, but longer, resting bouts during the scotophase, since these bouts would be less likely to be interrupted by active birds. 2. Digital recordings were made for 48 h from weeks 3 to 5 of age, and scan samples taken of 11 behaviours at 15-min intervals. Z-scores for the amount of synchronisation were calculated using the kappa coefficient of agreement. Frequency and length of resting bouts and the number of resting bout interruptions by flockmates were also calculated from continuous observations of 4 focal broilers per pen. 3. Resting and sitting behaviour were significantly synchronised or showed a strong trend towards synchronisation in all treatments during the 3 weeks of observation. There were significant treatment differences in the degree of synchrony for preen, eat, rest and forage, with broilers reared in 200 lux showing the greatest degree of synchrony. 4. During the scotophase, broilers reared with high illumination had fewer, longer, and less interrupted bouts of resting than those reared with moderate or low illumination. During the photophase, broilers in the low-illumination treatment had more frequent, longer, and more interrupted resting bouts than those in the moderate or high illumination treatment. 5. In conclusion, rearing broilers under a 16 h L : 8 h D photoperiod with high daytime light intensity resulted in greater behavioural synchrony in the flock, with the potential to improve welfare by increasing uninterrupted resting behaviour during the dark phase.

The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages.

Insufficient feeder space for laying hens could increase competition at the feed trough, resulting in exclusion of low-ranking hens from the feeder. To test this hypothesis, the effects of feeder space allocation (FSA) on feeding behavior, aggression, feather scores, BW, and mortality were evaluated in a common commercial strain of egg-laying chickens. Beak-trimmed Hy-Line W-36 hens (n = 480) were obtained as pullets at 16.5 wk of age and housed in conventional cages on 4 tiers. Five pullets/cage were housed at a stocking density of 434 cm(2)/pullet and an FSA of 12.2 cm/pullet. After 1.5 wk of acclimation, baseline measurements were taken for 2 wk and then pullets were given either 5.8, 7.1, 8.4, 9.7, 10.9, or 12.2 cm of feeder space/hen (16 cages/treatment). Feeding behavior was evaluated in each cage over a 24-h period each month. For each hen, percentage of time spent feeding and synchrony (mean number of additional hens feeding at the same time) were determined and scores were averaged for each cage. For each cage, feeder switching (number of observations in which hens changed from feeding to not feeding) and feeder sharing (probability that feeder access was equally distributed among all hens) were calculated. At monthly intervals, individual hens were weighed and their feathers scored using a 5-point scale on 8 body regions. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures GLM incorporating cage, tier, FSA, and age of the hen. Hens with reduced feeder space spent less time feeding (P < 0.001), synchronized their feeding bouts to a lesser extent (P < 0.001), made fewer switches at the feeder (P < 0.001), and shared the feeder less (P < 0.001). However, feather scores, BW, and BW uniformity were not affected by FSA. There was almost no aggressive behavior and little mortality. These results demonstrate that Hy-Line W-36 hens did not respond to reduced feeder space by aggressively excluding cage-mates from the feeder but instead desynchronized their feeding behavior.

The effect of light intensity on the behavior, eye and leg health, and immune function of broiler chickens.

Broilers are typically raised commercially in dim lighting. It has been suggested that providing brighter light intensity could improve health and provide opportunities for more normal behavioral rhythms. We examined the effects of 3 photophase light intensities (5, 50, and 200 lx) on activity patterns, immune function, and eye and leg condition of broilers (n = 753; 6 replicate pens/treatment). Broilers were reared with one of these intensities from 1 to 6 wk of age; photoperiod consisted of 16L:8D with 1 lx intensity during the scotophase. Broilers reared with 5 lx were less active (P = 0.023) during the day than 50 or 200 lx and showed less (P < 0.0001) change in activity between day and night than 50 or 200 lx. There was no difference between treatments for final BW (2.30 +/- 0.02 kg) or for most immune parameters (IgG primary and secondary responses to keyhole limpet hemocyanin, B and T lymphocyte proliferation, plasma lysozyme, haptoglobin, NO, whole blood killing of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus), but there was a trend (P = 0.072) for a greater IgM response in 50 lx (6.21 titer) than 5 lx (5.78 titer), with 200 lx (5.92 titer) intermediate. There was no effect of light intensity on back-to-front (1.13 +/- 0.01 cm) or side-to-side (1.48 +/- 0.01 cm) diameter of the eyes or on corneal radii (0.82 +/- 0.01 cm), but 5 lx (2.33 +/- 0.07 g) had heavier eyes (P = 0.002) than 50 lx (2.09 +/- 0.04 g) or 200 lx (2.11 +/- 0.04 g). There were no differences in gait score, although 200 lx broilers had more hock and footpad bruising (P = 0.038) but fewer erosions (P = 0.006) than 5 or 50 lx. Increased daylight intensity had little effect on broiler health but resulted in more pronounced behavioral rhythms.

Effect of providing light during incubation on the health, productivity, and behavior of broiler chickens.

Environmental stimuli present during incubation can affect the behavior and health of birds posthatch. Commercial broiler chickens are often incubated in complete darkness, receiving light only intermittently when the incubator is opened. To determine the effect of providing light during the prehatch period, we incubated Cobb broiler eggs (n = 664) under continuous light (24L:0D), no light (0L:24D), or 12 h of light (12L:12D); the light level was 550 lx. Various parameters were measured posthatch in these broilers (n = 506), which were raised in floor pens on a 12L:12D regimen. There were no incubation treatment differences in hatchability, mortality, growth, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, gait score, overall feeding behavior activity, or general behavioral activity. However, broilers hatched from eggs incubated under 24L:0D or 12L:12D had greater feeding activity (P < 0.05) than the 0L:24D broilers during the 2 h after the lights came on. Eye dimensions did not differ between treatments, but the eyes of the 12L:12D broilers weighed less (P < 0.05) than those of the other treatments. Broilers incubated under 0L:24D had a greater level of composite physical asymmetry (1.87 +/- 0.11 mm), considered to be an indicator of developmental stress, than did 12L:12D (1.57 +/- 0.09 mm; P = 0.05) broilers; they also tended to have more composite asymmetry than 24L:0D (1.62 +/- 0.11 mm; P = 0.10) broilers. The results of this study indicate that providing light during incubation has no detrimental effect on production or health of broilers, but does have potential benefits in terms of reducing the effects of stressors associated with production and growth.