TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of a dustbathing substrate and straw bales as environmental enrichments in commercial broiler housing
AU - Baxter, Mary
AU - Bailie, Carley L.
AU - O'Connell, Niamh E.
PY - 2018/3
Y1 - 2018/3
N2 - The use of straw bales as an environmental enrichment is
common for broiler chickens in enriched housing systems, however relatively
little information exists about their effectiveness in improving welfare. There
has also been no widespread introduction of a dustbathing material for
broilers. The main aim of this trial was to evaluate the use of a dustbathing
substrate (in the form of oat hulls), both as an alternative to straw bales and
as a supplementary enrichment. Over four replicates, four commercial houses,
each containing approximately 22,000 broilers, were assigned to one of four
treatments over the 6-week production cycle: (1) straw bales (B; one per
155 m2), (2) oat hulls as a dustbathing substrate (OH; provided
in 1 m diameter steel rings, one per 155 m2), (3) both oat
hulls and straw bales (OH + B), and (4) a control treatment with no
environmental enrichment (C). Observations of broiler behaviour and leg health
were taken weekly, and performance data was collected for each cycle. Broilers
housed in the OH and OH + B treatments had better gait scores in week
6 than those housed in the C treatment (P < 0.05), which
suggests that the provision of oat hulls improved bird leg health. However,
there was no associated increase in activity levels in unenriched areas of the
houses. Conversely, more locomotion (P < 0.001), less
sitting inactive (P < 0.001) and less sitting pecking (P < 0.001)
were observed in the C treatment than in unenriched areas of B, OH and
OH + B treatments. More birds were recorded around the bales compared
to the oat hulls (P < 0.001), however birds performed
significantly more foraging (P = 0.019) and dustbathing (P = 0.045)
in oat hulls than around straw bales. Although oat hulls appear to be more
suitable for stimulating active behaviours than straw bales, the high level of
resting recorded around the bales suggests they may have a positive function as
protective cover. The presence of an additional type of enrichment in the house
did not affect the number of birds, or the type of behaviours performed in
close proximity to either straw bales or oat hulls (P > 0.05).
Treatment did not have a significant effect on pododermatitis levels
or slaughter weight, on mortality rates, or on litter quality or atmospheric
ammonia levels (P > 0.05). Overall, our results suggest
that the oat hulls substrate was a successful enrichment in terms of promoting
dustbathing and foraging, and improving bird leg health. The straw bales also
appeared attractive to the birds, however, which suggests that a dustbathing
substrate should be a supplementary enrichment.
AB - The use of straw bales as an environmental enrichment is
common for broiler chickens in enriched housing systems, however relatively
little information exists about their effectiveness in improving welfare. There
has also been no widespread introduction of a dustbathing material for
broilers. The main aim of this trial was to evaluate the use of a dustbathing
substrate (in the form of oat hulls), both as an alternative to straw bales and
as a supplementary enrichment. Over four replicates, four commercial houses,
each containing approximately 22,000 broilers, were assigned to one of four
treatments over the 6-week production cycle: (1) straw bales (B; one per
155 m2), (2) oat hulls as a dustbathing substrate (OH; provided
in 1 m diameter steel rings, one per 155 m2), (3) both oat
hulls and straw bales (OH + B), and (4) a control treatment with no
environmental enrichment (C). Observations of broiler behaviour and leg health
were taken weekly, and performance data was collected for each cycle. Broilers
housed in the OH and OH + B treatments had better gait scores in week
6 than those housed in the C treatment (P < 0.05), which
suggests that the provision of oat hulls improved bird leg health. However,
there was no associated increase in activity levels in unenriched areas of the
houses. Conversely, more locomotion (P < 0.001), less
sitting inactive (P < 0.001) and less sitting pecking (P < 0.001)
were observed in the C treatment than in unenriched areas of B, OH and
OH + B treatments. More birds were recorded around the bales compared
to the oat hulls (P < 0.001), however birds performed
significantly more foraging (P = 0.019) and dustbathing (P = 0.045)
in oat hulls than around straw bales. Although oat hulls appear to be more
suitable for stimulating active behaviours than straw bales, the high level of
resting recorded around the bales suggests they may have a positive function as
protective cover. The presence of an additional type of enrichment in the house
did not affect the number of birds, or the type of behaviours performed in
close proximity to either straw bales or oat hulls (P > 0.05).
Treatment did not have a significant effect on pododermatitis levels
or slaughter weight, on mortality rates, or on litter quality or atmospheric
ammonia levels (P > 0.05). Overall, our results suggest
that the oat hulls substrate was a successful enrichment in terms of promoting
dustbathing and foraging, and improving bird leg health. The straw bales also
appeared attractive to the birds, however, which suggests that a dustbathing
substrate should be a supplementary enrichment.
U2 - 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.11.010
DO - 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.11.010
M3 - Article
VL - 200
SP - 78
EP - 85
JO - Applied Animal Behaviour Science
JF - Applied Animal Behaviour Science
SN - 0168-1591
ER -