Ahmed B.A. Ali

Influence of genetic strain and access to litter on spatial distribution of 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system

Many laying hen producers are transitioning from conventional cages to new housing systems including multi-tier aviaries. Aviary resources, such as litter areas, are intended to encourage hens’ expression of natural behaviors to improve their welfare. Little research has examined the influence of laying hen strain on distribution and behavior inside aviaries, yet differences could influence a strains suitability for an aviary design. This research examined how laying hens of 4 strains (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovans Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line W36) distributed themselves among 3 enclosed aviary tiers and 2 litter areas at peak lay (25 to 28 wk of age) and after gaining access to litter on the floor (26 wk). Observations of hens’ spatial distribution were conducted immediately before and after, and 3 wk after hens gained access to litter. More HB and BB hens were in upper tiers in morning compared to DW and W36 (all P ≤ 0.05). However, DW and W36 hens roosted in upper tiers in larger numbers than HB and BB during evening (all P ≤ 0.05). More DW and W36 hens were on litter compared to BB and HB, particularly when litter was first accessible (all P ≤ 0.05). The number of hens on litter increased over time for all strains (P ≤ 0.06). White hens on litter occupied open areas in higher numbers (P ≤ 0.05), while more brown hens occupied litter under the aviary after acclimation (P ≤ 0.05). In the dark period, W36 and DW hens were present in higher numbers in upper tiers than HB and BB, while HB and BB showed higher tier-to-tier movement than DW and W36 (P ≤ 0.05). In general, more white hens roosted higher at night and explored litter sooner, while more brown hens were near or in nests in the morning and moved at night. Distinct strain differences indicate that attention should be paid to the match between configuration of the aviary design and strain of laying hen.

Twitching in veterinary procedures: How does this technique subdue horses?

ABSTRACT This study investigates the mechanisms by which 2 forms of restraint (lip twitch and ear twitch) subdue horses. Prior research suggests that the lip twitch subdues horses through an analgesic effect; the mechanism of the ear twitch is unknown. Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) were measured to determine autonomic nervous system activity before and during application of the twitches, and salivary cortisol levels were analyzed to assess stress levels before and after application of the twitches. Twelve male horses (all geldings) were divided into 2 groups. One group received the lip twitch, and the other received the ear twitch. Results show that the lip twitch significantly decreased HR and increased HRV when applied for 5 minutes. However, when the lip twitch was applied for a longer period, it significantly increased HR and decreased HRV. The ear twitch significantly increased HR, decreased HRV, and increased salivary cortisol levels regardless of the length of application. It is concluded that the lip twitch might initially subdue horses through a calming, probably analgesic effect at least in the initial 5 minutes, whereas the ear twitch evokes a stressful response, immobilizing horses through fear and/or pain.

Space use by 4 strains of laying hens to perch, wing flap, dust bathe, stand and lie down

The laying hen industry is implementing aviary systems intended to improve welfare by providing hens with more space and resources to perform species-specific behaviors. To date, limited research has examined spatial requirements of various strains of laying hens for performing key behaviors and none has been conducted within an alternative housing system. This study investigated the amount of space used by 4 strains of laying hens (Hy-Line Brown [HB], Bovans Brown [BB], DeKalb White [DW], and Hy-Line W36) to perform 5 different behaviors in the litter area of a commercial-style aviary. Hens were recorded standing [S], lying [L], perching [P], wing flapping [WF], and dust bathing [DB] on an open-litter area with an outer perch between 12:00 and 15:00 at peak lay (28 wk of age). Still images of each behavior were analyzed using ImageJ software for 16 hens per strain, and maximum hen length and width were used to calculate total area occupied per hen for each behavior. Brown hens required, on average, 89.6cm2 more space for S (P≤0.021) and 81.5cm2 more space for L (P≤0.013) than white hens. White hens used, on average, 572cm2 more space to perform WF than brown hens (P≤0.024) while brown hens used 170.3cm2 more space for DB than white hens (P≤0.022). On average, hens of all strains were wider while perching than the 15cm commonly recommended per hen (e.g., DW: 18.03; HB: 21.89cm), and brown hens required, on average, 3.38cm more space while perching than white hens (P≤0.01). Brown and white hens occupy different amounts of space when performing key behaviors. These differences, along with factors such as behavioral synchrony, clustering, and preferred inter-bird distances associated with these behaviors, should be considered when creating industry guidelines, crafting legislation and designing and stocking laying hen facilities to ensure hens can fulfill their behavioral needs.