Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:38:06.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of a ‘Freedom Food’ Enrichment on the Behaviour of Broilers on Commercial Farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Kells ,
M S Dawkins  and
M Cortina Borja
A Kells*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford 0X1 3PS, UK
M S Dawkins*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford 0X1 3PS, UK
M Cortina Borja
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, University College, London WC1N 1EH, UK
*
*Present address: Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton S076 7PX, UK
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: marian.dawkins@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of an environmental enrichment — straw bales — on the behaviour of growing broiler chicks was investigated by comparing the behaviour of broilers kept in matched pairs of houses on commercial farms with and without bales. The birds provided with bales perched on them and clustered around them. The most striking result, however, was that, even away from the bales, birds in the enriched houses were more active (showing more walking and running and less sitting) than birds in unenriched houses. The study provides support for the ‘Freedom Food’ recommendation that activity in commercially kept indoor chickens can be increased by providing environmental enrichment in the form of straw bales.

Keywords

animal welfarebroilerschickensenvironmental enrichmentpoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2001 , pp. 347 - 356
Copyright
© 2001 UfAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Herts ALA 8AN, UK

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

Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D D and Adams, C J 1998 Environmental enrichment devices for caged laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 7: 19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1998 The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubier, N E 1996a The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multi-choice tests on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 225–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubier, N E 1996b The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effects of two methods of environmental enrichment on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 239–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M S 1989 Time budgets in Red Junglefowl as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1998 Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 305–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I J H 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feci. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (Suppl 2): 8–14Google Scholar
European Commission Report 2000 The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal WelfareGoogle Scholar
Hair, J F, Anderson, R E, Tatham, R L and Black, WC 1998 Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall International Inc: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Carmichael, N L 1998 Pecking at string by individually caged, adult laying hens: colour preferences and their stability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B and Carmichael, N L 1999 Responses of domestic chicks to selected pecking devices presented for varying durations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mench, J A, MorrowTesch, J and Chu, L R 1998 Environmental enrichment for farm animals. Laboratory Animals 27: 32–36Google Scholar
Newberry, R C 1999 Exploratory behaviour of young domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, R C and Estevez, I 1997 A dynamic approach to the study of environmental enrichment and animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard-Nielsen, G 1989 The effect of access to straw in baskets on feather pecking in laying hens. In: Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the Third European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 269–271. World’s Poultry Science Association: Beekbergen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 1997 Welfare Standards for Chickens. Freedom Food Ltd.Google Scholar
Shepherdson, D J, Mellen, J D and Hutchins, M 1998 Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M, Lewis, P D and Perry, G C 1999 Effects of environmental enrichment, fluorescent and intermittent lighting on injurious pecking among male turkey poults. British Poultry Science 40: 592–598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood-Gush, D G M and Beilharz, R G 1983 The enrichment of a bare environment for animals in confined conditions. Applied Animal Ethology 10: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar