1. bookVolume 11 (2011): Issue 4 (August 2011)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
ISSN
1642-3402
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Welfare Levels in Heritage Breed vs. Commercial Laying Hens in the Litter System

Published Online: 25 Nov 2011
Volume & Issue: Volume 11 (2011) - Issue 4 (August 2011)
Page range: 585 - 595
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-8733
ISSN
1642-3402
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Welfare Levels in Heritage Breed vs. Commercial Laying Hens in the Litter System

The objective of the study was to determine differences in welfare levels between heritage breed hens (Yellowleg Partridge, Sussex, Leghorn) and commercial crosses (ISA Brown, Lohmann Brown, Hy-Line) kept in the litter system with no outdoor access. The experiment was carried out with 180 hens of three heritage breeds (Yellowleg Partridge, Sussex, Leghorn) and 180 commercial crosses of laying hens (Hy-Line, ISA Brown, Lohmann). Layers were reared in the litter system with no outdoor access. During the experiment, production data were collected until 38 days of age and birds' behaviour was monitored for 24 h at 18, 20, 32 and 38 weeks of age. O f the three commercial lines of laying hens kept in the litter system with no outdoor access, the lowest welfare levels were characteristic of ISA Brown birds. Hy-Line and Lohmann layers were characterized by comparable welfare levels that were higher in relation to ISA Brown layers. The results also showed that Sussex hens reared in the litter system had higher welfare levels than Yellowleg Partridge and Leghorn hens. When comparing the results of heritage breed and commercial hens, it can be said that mortality and increased levels of aggression in heritage breed hens kept in the litter system suggest that their welfare levels were lower than in commercial layers.

Keywords

Aerni V., El-Lethey H., Wechsler B. (2000). Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 41: 16-21.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson K.E., Davis G.S., Jenkins P.K., Carroll A.S. (2004). Effects of bird age, density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Sci., 83: 15-23.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson K.E., Jones D.R., Davis G.S., Jenkins P.K. (2007). Effects of genetic selection on behavioral profiles of Single Comb White Leghorn hens through two production cycles. Poultry Sci., 86: 1814-1820.Search in Google Scholar

Calik J. (2009). Characteristics productive traits in laying hens included in the genetic resources conservation programme in Poland (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. PTIE i PTG, Oddz. Rzeszów, 11: 21-26.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng H.W., Muir W.M. (2004). Chronic social stress differentially regulates neuroendocrine responses in laying hens: II. Genetic basis of adrenal responses under three different social conditions. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29: 961-971.Search in Google Scholar

El-lethey H., Jungi T.W., Huber-Eicher B. (2001). Effects of feeding corticosterone and housing conditions on feather pecking in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Physiol. Behav., 73: 243-251.Search in Google Scholar

Fraisse F., Cockrem J.F. (2006). Corticosterone and fear behavior in white and brown caged laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 47: 110-119.Search in Google Scholar

Hetland H., Svihus B. (2007). Inclusion of dust bathing materials affects nutrient digestion and gut physiology of layers. J. Appl. Poultry Res., 16: 22-26.Search in Google Scholar

Hocking P.M., Channing C.E., Waddington D., Jones R.B. (2001). Age-related changes in fear, sociality and pecking behaviours in two strains of laying hen. Brit. Poultry Sci., 42: 414-423.Search in Google Scholar

Klein T., Zeltner E., Huber-Eicher B. (2000). Are genetic differences in foraging behaviour of laying hen chicks paralleled by hybrid-specific differences in feather pecking? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70: 143-155.Search in Google Scholar

Lay D.C. Jr., Fulton R., Hester P., Karcher D., Kjaer J., Mench J., Mullens B., Newberry R., Nicol C., O'Sullivan N., Porter R. (2011). Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Sci., 90: 278-294.Search in Google Scholar

Lee Y.P., Chen T.L. (2007). Daytime behavioural patterns of slow-growing chickens in deep-litter pens with perches. Brit. Poultry Sci., 48: 113-120.Search in Google Scholar

Mahboub H.D.H., Müller J., Borell E. (2004). Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. Brit. Poultry Sci., 45: 738-744.Search in Google Scholar

Nicol C., Lindberg A., Phillips A., Pope S., Wilkins L., Green L. (2001). Influences of prior exposure to wood shavings on feather pecking, dustbathing and foraging in adult laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 73: 141-155.Search in Google Scholar

Nielsen B.L., Thomsen M.G., Sorensen P., Young J.F. (2003). Feed and strain effects on the use of outdoor areas by broilers. Brit. Poultry Sci., 44: 161-169.Search in Google Scholar

Scott T.A., Silversides F.G. (2000). The effect of storage and strain of hen on egg quality. Poultry Sci., 79: 1725-1729.Search in Google Scholar

Silversides F.G., Korver D.R., Budgell K.L. (2006). Effect of strain of layer and age at photostimulation on egg production, egg quality, and bone strength. Poultry Sci., 85: 1136-1144.Search in Google Scholar

Singh R., Cheng K.M., Silversides F.G. (2009). Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Sci., 88: 256-264.Search in Google Scholar

Tauson R. (2002). Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World. Poultry Sci. J., 58: 49-63.Search in Google Scholar

Uitdehaag K.A., Komen H., Rodenburg T.B., Kemp B., van Arendonk J. (2008). The novel object test as predictor of feather damage in cage-housed Rhode Island Red and White Leghorn laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 109: 292-305.Search in Google Scholar

Uitdehaag K.A., Rodenburg T.B., Bolhuis E.J., Decuypere E., Komen H. (2009). Mixed housing of different genetic lines of laying hens negatively affects feather pecking and fear related behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 116: 58-66.Search in Google Scholar

Väisänen J., Håkansson J., Jensen P. (2005). Social interactions in Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers in stable groups and after re-grouping. Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 156-168.Search in Google Scholar

Wirén A., Gunnarsson U., Andersson L., Jensen P. (2009). Domestication-related genetic effects on social behavior in chickens - Effects of genotype at a major growth quantitative trait locus. Poultry Sci., 88: 1162-1166.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo