Comparative analysis of environmental enrichment preferences in poultry
Preliminary results
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31914/aak.5955Keywords:
environmental enrichment, poultry behaviour, genotype preferences, animal welfare, consumption patternsAbstract
The study, conducted at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, involved five poultry species across 25 genotypes (N = 174). Environmental enrichment elements such as pumpkins, apples, corncobs, and hay were tested in pens designed to simulate real farm conditions. We monitored the consumption and weight change of these elements over a week, aiming to identify preferences and practical benefits for different poultry genotypes, contributing to improved animal welfare and potential economic efficiencies in production. TETRA SUPER HARCO consumed pumpkin and hay at rates over twice those of other layer hybrids (20 g/hen/day vs. 10 g/hen/day). The preference for red apples was markedly higher in TETRA-L SUPERB and TETRA-SL LL, with up to tenfold greater consumption compared to green apples (5 g/day/hen vs. 0.5 g/day/hen). Meat hybrid genotypes like TETRA-HB COLOR and ROSS 308 showed significant hay consumption (25 g/day/hen), surpassing layer hybrids. Native dual-purpose breeds preferred pumpkin (10 g/day/hen) and had lower consumption of hay, especially the Transylvanian bald-necked hens (3 g/day/hen). All hen genotypes showed reduced interest in enrichment elements over time. Ducks, particularly the Hungarian white, showed high consumption rates for pumpkin (up to 15 g/day/duck) and meadow hay (up to 51 g/day/duck), significantly more than other genotypes. Geese exhibited the highest consumption across all elements, with up to 74.8 g/day/goose of hay, reflecting their grazing nature. Turkeys consumed the most apples, averaging 28.3 g of red apples per individual, while guinea fowls showed lower consumption rates. Generally, softer elements like pumpkin were preferred, with the consumption of harder items such as corn being minimal. These results highlight differences in enrichment use based on genotype behavior and size, suggesting practical implications for enrichment strategies in avian management. Environmental enrichment enhanced the behavioral repertoire of all poultry species, benefiting their welfare. Laying hens preferred red apples over green, likely due to color attraction. Meat-type hens favored hay, reflecting their larger appetite and calmer behavior. Indigenous dual-purpose genotypes used enrichment elements more than intensively reared hybrids. Corn cob was minimally consumed, suggesting it's less effective as an enrichment material. Geese utilized enrichment the most, while Hungarian guinea fowl showed minimal interest, possibly due to their wilder nature. Turkey genotypes varied in their enrichment use, with a tendency towards hay. Further research with larger sample sizes and diverse enrichment forms is recommended.
References
Baxter Mary, Bailie Carley L., O’connell Niamh E. (2018) Evaluation of a dustbathing substrate and straw bales as environmental enrichments in commercial broiler housing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 200, 78-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.11.010
Black A. J., Hughes B.O. (1974) Patterns of Comfort Behaviour and Activity in Domestic Fowls: A Comparison between Cages and Pens. British Veterinary Journal, 130(1), 23-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1935(17)35987-0
Campbell D.L.M., Haas E.N. de, Lee C. (2019) A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poultry Science, 98(1), 9-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey319
Cornish Amelia Rose, Briley Donnel, Wilson Bethany Jessica, Raubenheimer David, Schlosberg David, McGreevy Paul Damien (2020) The price of good welfare: Does informing consumers about what on-package labels mean for animal welfare influence their purchase intentions?. Appetite, 148(1), 104577 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104577
Dawkins, M.S. (1989) Time budgets in Red Jungle Fowl as a basis for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24, 70–77.
de Haas, E. N., Bolhuis, J. E., Kemp, B., Groothuis, T. G., & Rodenburg, T. B. (2014). Parents and early life environment affect behavioral development of laying hen chickens. PloS one, 9(3), e90577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090577
Deeming, D.C. and Bubier, N.E. (1999) Behaviour in natural and captive environments. In: Deeming, D.C. (ed.) The Ostrich: Biology, Production and Health. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 83–104.
Farkas, T.P., Orbán, A., Szász, S., Rapai, A., Garamvölgyi, E., Sütő, Z. (2021) Examination of the Usage of a New Beak-Abrasive Material in Different Laying Hen Genotypes (Preliminary Results). Agri-culture, 11, 947. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100947
Gunnarsson, S. (1999): Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science, 40 (1), 12–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669987773
Horn, P. (1981): A baromfitenyésztők kézikönyve. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest.
Huber-Eicher, B., & Audige, L. (1999): Analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen growers. British Poultry Science, 40 (5), 599–604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669986963
Huber-Eicher, B., & Sebö, F. (2001): The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 74 (3), 223–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00173-3
Jacobs L., Blatchford R.A., Jong I.C. de, Erasmus M.A., Levengood M., Newberry R.C., Regmi P., Riber A.B., Weimer S.L. (2023) Enhancing their quality of life: environmental enrichment for poultry. Poultry Science, 102(1), 102233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102233
Ohara Ai, Oyakawa Chisako, Yoshihara Yu, Ninomiya Shigeru, Sato Shusuke (2015) Effect of Environmental Enrichment on the Behavior and Welfare of Japanese Broilers at a Commercial Farm. The Journal of Poultry Science, 52(4), 323-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0150034
Reed H.J., Wilkins L.J., Austin S.D., Gregory N.G. (1993) The effect of environmental enrichment during rearing on fear reactions and depopulation trauma in adult caged hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 36(1), 39-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(93)90097-9
Runion, D. L. (1993): Bird beak growth control feeder.
Son Jiseon, Lee Woo-Do, Kim Hee-Jin, Kang Bo-Seok, Kang Hwan-Ku (2022) Effect of Providing Environmental Enrichment into Aviary House on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Animals 2022, 12(9), 1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091165
Vickery, J., and Gill, J. (1999). Managing grassland for wild geese in Britain: a review. Biological Conservation, 89(1), 93-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00134-7
Zimmerman P.H., Buijs S.A.F., Bolhuis J.E., Keeling L.J. (2011) Behaviour of domestic fowl in anticipation of positive and negative stimuli. Animal Behaviour, 81(3), 569-577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.11.028
URL1: https://www.babolnatetra.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/harco-ps-charts-eng.pdf)
URL2: https://www.babolnatetra.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/tetra-lsuperb-ps-en.pdf)
URL3: https://www.babolnatetra.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/hbcolor-ps-eng.pdf)
URL4: https://www.babolnatetra.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/tetra-sl-ps-en.pdf)
URL5: https://www.babolnatetra.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/sl-tablazatok-hun.pdf)
URL6: http://www.garantitavukculuk.com/doc/Ross308-PS-PO.pdf)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Farkas Péter Tamás, Szász Sándor, Bódog Leila, Dóbé Luca, Pető Lilla, Áprily Szilvia, Sütő Zoltán
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
