Case Study of an Automatic Enrichment Device for Laying Hens on a Free-Range Laying Hen Farm

Melanie Schmidt, Jenny Stracke, Katja Kulke, Nicole Kemper and Birgit Spindler
Additional contact information
Melanie Schmidt: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany
Jenny Stracke: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany
Katja Kulke: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany
Nicole Kemper: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany
Birgit Spindler: Institute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany

Agriculture, 2019, vol. 9, issue 5, 1-15

Abstract: Access to adequate foraging material can reduce the occurrence of feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens. Technical devices may help farmers provide enrichment material more effectively. However, research in this field is rare. On a commercial free-range farm with 15,000 laying hens (Lohmann Tradition), an enrichment device was evaluated from the 30th to the 58th week of age (LW). It ran at five time points (TP) in the afternoon and offered five grams of dried maize silage per hen per day. The numbers of hens residing in defined scratching areas (ScA) either beneath the device (ScA 1 and 3) or in a similar area without the device (ScA 2) were determined. Significantly more hens were found in ScA 1 and ScA 3 when the device was running. On average, only 6.96 (±7.00) hens stayed in ScA 2, whereas 31.45 (±5.38) and 33.83 (±6.16) hens stayed in ScA 1 and ScA 3, respectively. The hen numbers for ScA 1 and ScA 3 did not differ significantly, nor did the TPs have an influence on number of hens within ScA 1 and ScA 3. The number of hens beneath the device can serve as a potential indicator of the device’s usage.

Keywords: animal welfare; cannibalism; feather pecking; foraging; intact beak; technical devices; maize silage (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/5/91/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/5/91/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:5:p:91-:d:227619

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().