Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:07:28.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ability of laying hens to negotiate perches of different materials with clean or dirty surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

GB Scott  and
G MacAngus
GB Scott*
Affiliation:
Harper Adams University College, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
G MacAngus
Affiliation:
Harper Adams University College, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: gscott@harper-adams.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasingly, perches for laying hens are being made from metals and plastics. There is nothing in the literature regarding how easily birds jump between perches of different materials, or how their ability to do so changes with faecal contamination of the perches. Forty-four medium hybrid brown hens negotiated perches of wood (5 cm × 5 cm, rounded edges), metal (half-round section, diameter 4 cm) or poly-vinyl-chloride (PVC: circular section, diameter 4 cm), which were either clean or dirty (poultry manure 0.5–1.0 cm deep). The time to jump to the destination perch (0.75 m from the start perch), number of squats (pre-jumping behaviour), slips, failures to jump (in 300 s) and crashes were recorded. Compared to wood and metal perches, birds took significantly longer to jump from PVC perches when they were clean, but there was no difference when the perches were dirty. Birds slipped significantly more on clean metal or PVC perches compared to clean wood perches. The birds took significantly longer to jump from metal or wooden perches when they were dirty compared to when they were clean. These data may suggest that PVC is not a suitable material for perches. Slipperiness is important. The birds apparently found the metal and PVC perch more slippery than the wooden perch, although the metal perch did not cause the birds to delay jumping. A slippery perch may deter the birds from attempting to jump. Manure on the perches reduced the slipperiness of the metal and PVC perches. Once perches become dirty, any welfare issues concerning the risk of injury from slippery perches cease to be as important as the potential slipperiness of the manure itself.

Keywords

animal welfarehensmanureperchesperch materialslipperiness
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 361 - 365
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

References

Duncan, ET, Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1992 Effects of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. Official Journal of the European Communities: L203 p 53-57Google Scholar
Hutchings, IM 1992 Tribology: Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials. CRC Press: Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
Lambe, NR and Scott, GB 1998 Perching behaviour and preferences for different perch designs among laying hens. Animal Welfare 7: 203–216Google Scholar
Mead, R and Curnow, RN 1983 Statistics in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, KA, Baxter, MR and Michie, W 1986 A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 93–98Google Scholar
Oester, H 1994 Different types of perches and their influence on the development of bumble feet in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 58: 231–238Google Scholar
Olsson, IA and Keeling, LJ 2000 Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 243–256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, IA and Keeling, L 2002 The push door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19Google Scholar
Scott, GB and Parker, CAL 1994 The ability of laying hens to negotiate between horizontal perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB, Hughes, BO, Lambe, NR and Waddington, D 1999 Effect of motivation on the ability of laying hens to negotiate perches separated by different distances. British Poultry Science 40: 177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R 1996 Poultry Manure Handling — A Practical Approach. Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Government of Alberta: Alberta, Canada. Available at: http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/livestock/poultry/ppw04.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Abrahamsson, P 1994 Foot and skeletal disorders in laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 44: 110–119Google Scholar
Tauson, R and Abrahamsson, P 1996 Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 46: 239–246Google Scholar
Tauson, R, Jansson, L and Abrahamsson, P 1992 Studies on Alternative Keeping Systems for Laying Hens in Sweden at the Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, March 1988–Oct 1991. Sveriges Lantdruksuniversitet: Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Taylor, PE, Scott, GB and Rose, SP 2003 The ability of domestic hens to jump between horizontal perches: effects of light intensity and perch colour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar