DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Stocking Density on the Behaviour of Broiler Chickens

  • Thomas, David G. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Son, Jang-Ho (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Ravindran, Velmurugu (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University) ;
  • Thomas, Donald V. (Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University)
  • Received : 2010.09.07
  • Accepted : 2011.02.16
  • Published : 2011.03.31

Abstract

A 35-day trial was conducted to examine the influence of floor density on the behaviour of broiler chickens. Day-old male broilers (n=756) were randomly assigned to one of four stocking densities (6 replicates of n=13, 25, 38 and 50) in 24 identical 2.6 $m^2$ pens. These stocking densities were coded very low (VL), low (L), medium (M) and high (H) and contained a floor space allowance per bird of 2,000 $cm^2$, 1,000 $cm^2$, 667 $cm^2$ and 500 $cm^2$, respectively. Scan sampling of all groups was carried out at 15-min intervals during two 1-h periods (10.00 h~11.00 h and 14.00 h~15.00 h) for five days each week. The numbers of birds engaged in different behavioural activities were recorded. It was found that the most common behaviour in all densities was lying. There was no clear effect of density during wks 1~4 of the trial, but in wk 5 birds in the L, M and H groups showed lower levels (P=0.07) of lying behaviour when compared to birds in the VL group suggesting that an increase in animal density results in decreased opportunities for undisturbed rest. This observation is supported by standing and walking behaviour, which was lower (P<0.05) in the VL group in wk 5. Foraging behaviour measured in the study by the numbers of birds pecking the ground declined as the trial progressed, but scratching increased in 2 wk then decreased. Birds in the VL group showed higher (P<0.05) level of pecking the ground behaviour compared to birds in the L, M and H groups, but scratching behaviour higher (P<0.05) and lower (P<0.05) in VL of 1 wk and 2 wk respectively. However, a peak in aggressive behaviour was observed in wk 2 and birds in the VL group showed less (P<0.05) agonistic behaviour than birds in the H and M groups. Other behaviours (dustbathing, preening, eating or drinking) were not influenced (P>0.05) by stocking density.

Keywords

References

  1. Anon 2002 Proceedings of a Workshop to Identify Animal Welfare Issues Within Animal Industries. Animal Welfare Centre, Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Werribee, Australia.
  2. Anon 2003 Animal Welfare (Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed) Code of Welfare. Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington.
  3. Blokhuis HJ, Van der Haar JW 1990 The effect of stocking density on the behaviour of broilers. Archiv fur Geflugelkunde 54:74-77.
  4. Ekstrand C 1993 Effects of Stocking Density on the Health, Behaviour and Productivity of Broilers. A Literature Review. Report 32. Swedish University of Agri Sci: Skara, Sweden.
  5. Hall AL 2001 The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behaviour of broiler chickens reared commercially. Animal Welfare 10: 23-40.
  6. Lewis NJ, Hurnik FJ 1990 Locomotion of broiler chickens in floor pens. Poult Sci 69:1087-1093. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0691087
  7. Martin P, Bateson P 2008 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, UK.
  8. Marttenchar A, Morisse JP, Huonnic D, Cotte JP 1997 Influence of stocking density on some behavioural, physiological and productivity traits of broilers. Vet Res 28:479-480.
  9. SAS 2003 $SAS/STAT^{\circledR}$ User's Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Cited by

  1. Impact of Chinese Royal Jelly on Performance, Behaviour and Some Blood Parameters in Broilers Reared under High Stocking Density vol.11, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2016.620.628
  2. The challenge of incorporating animal welfare in a social life cycle assessment model of European chicken production pp.1614-7502, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1565-2
  3. An evaluation of potential dustbathing substrates for commercial broiler chickens vol.12, pp.09, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117003408