Natural behaviours, their drivers and their implications for laying hen welfare

Some believe that farm animals need to be kept in conditions that provide ‘natural’ aspects in the animal’s environment and, thus, provide the opportunity for the animals to perform their full ‘behavioural repertoire’. Captivity may restrict either behaviours that animals have instinctive, intrinsic propensities to perform whatever the environment or behaviours that are elicited by deficits in the animals’ environment. Behavioural restriction may also thwart general motivation to seek variety and/or avoid monotonous conditions. Appreciating whether an animal suffers if deprived of the opportunity to perform natural behaviour requires, first, an understanding of how the behaviour in question is elicited and controlled, the effects of early experience and genetics on the behaviour and the behaviour of the species in the wild, and, second, the behavioural, physiological and fitness effects of deprivation of the behaviour. Housing laying hens in conventional cages compromises their behavioural repertoire, such as nesting in a nest box, dust bathing, perching and foraging, and the present review focuses on the welfare implications if these natural behaviours are thwarted in modern poultry production. A floor space of <561 cm2/hen increases physiological stress, reduces egg production and increases mortality in laying hens. There is also evidence of behavioural restriction in terms of reduced wing stretching, leg stretching, tail wagging, locomotion, floor and object pecking and preening with floor space in the range of 542–750 cm2/hen. Preference and motivation research has indicated that laying hens value resources such as nest boxes for oviposition, substrates for foraging and dust bathing, and perches for roosting. However, there is no convincing evidence that deprivation of these resources results in physiological stress. Furthermore, apart from adverse effects of the absence of perches on bone strength, there is no evidence that deprivation of nest boxes, perches, and foraging and dust-bathing substrates results in reduction in fitness such as reduced egg production or health. Nevertheless, preference research has indicated that the opportunity to utilise these resources, particularly nest boxes, may elicit positive emotional states in laying hens. Therefore, it is important to understand both how motivated the animal is to choose an option or perform a behaviour as well as the consequences of depriving the animal of this opportunity.

The effects of floor space and nest box access on the physiology and behavior of caged laying hens

Confinement housing appears to be at the forefront of concern about laying hen welfare. This experiment examined the effects of floor space during rearing (315 or 945 cm2/bird) and adulthood (542 or 1648 cm2/bird) and access to a nest box on the welfare of caged laying hens. Measurements of the normality of biological functioning, such as plasma, egg albumen and yolk and fecal corticosterone concentrations, and heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, behavioral time budgets, mortality and efficiency of productivity, and measurement of hen preferences, such as choice behavior in Y maze tests, were used to assess hen welfare. There were no effects of treatment on physiological measurements. Hens given less space during adulthood spent less time mobile, inedible pecking, drinking, and preening and spent more time resting and feed pecking and sitting (P < 0.05). Hens with access to a nest box spent more time resting (P = 0.046) and less time sham dust bathing (P = 0.044) than hens without access to a nest box. There were no effects of space allowance on choice behavior for space or a nest box over food; however, hens with access to a nest box chose the nest box over food more than hens without access to a nest box (P = 0.0053). The present experiment provides no convincing evidence that either reducing space allowance in adulthood from 1648 to 542 cm2/bird or eliminating access to a nest box results in disruption of biological function. Less space and no access to a nest box did not increase the choice for more space or a nest box, respectively, over food in the preference tests. However, reduced floor space reduced behavioral freedom and denying access to a nest box eliminated the opportunity for the motivated behavior of laying their eggs in a discrete enclosed nest box, both of which presumably provide hens with the opportunity for positive affective experiences.