Abstract
Effects of environmental enrichment on activity, behaviour, walking ability, contact dermatitis and performance were investigated in fast- and slower-growing broiler chickens. A total of 840 day-old male broilers, 420 of a fast-growing strain (Ross 308) and 420 of a slower-growing strain (Hubbard JA757), were housed in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement, using a complete randomized design. Broilers were housed in 28 pens of 3 m2 in one climate-controlled room. Half of the pens per strain were enriched (EE) with barrier perches, ramps, platforms and a dustbathing area, and the other half of the pens were not enriched (NE). In the EE pens, also black soldier fly larvae were provided daily in the dustbathing area and broilers in NE pens received an additional protein-fat mix, to achieve similar energy and nutrient intake compared to the EE treatment. Behaviour was observed by scan sampling and focal sampling in weeks 2, 4, 5 and 7. Walking ability, footpad dermatitis and hock burn were measured in three broilers per pen at a body weight of 1.7 and 2.6 kg. Performance was determined weekly. Results showed that in the enriched environment, at the same age slower-growing broilers made more use of provided enrichment materials than fast-growing broilers (P < 0.001; Δ = +13.5 %). Providing enrichment decreased the proportion of slower-growing chickens standing idle, whereas this effect was not found for fast-growing broiler chickens (P = 0.006; Δ = -2.8 % for slower-growing broilers). Furthermore, at the same age, more slower-growing broilers were active (Δ = +4.5 %) compared to fast-growing broilers, whereas fast-growing broilers showed more sitting idle (Δ = +4.2 %) and ingestion behaviour (Δ = +2.8 %) than slower-growing broilers in both EE and NE pens (P < 0.05). Broilers of both strains in EE pens showed longer duration of activity (P < 0.05; Δ = +11.3 %) compared to broilers in NE pens. No effects of enrichment or strain were observed for walking ability and contact dermatitis. Fast-growing broilers and broilers in NE pens had a higher average body weight, a higher average daily gain and a higher feed intake than slower-growing broilers and broilers in EE pens, respectively. In conclusion, environmental enrichment was most used by slower-growing broilers and providing enrichments increased activity to a similar extent in both strains. However, providing enrichments did not improve walking ability and had an adverse effect on performance in both strains.
Highlights
Due to genetic selection for efficient growth and improvements in farm management and nutrition over the years, broiler chickens nowa days grow in a relatively short period to slaughter weight (Zuidhof et al, 2014)
An interaction between strain and enrichment was found for average daily gain (ADG) in week 2 (d 8− 17) and for average daily FI (ADFI) in week 4 (d 23− 28) (P < 0.05); no differences were found between slower-growing broilers in EE and not enriched (NE) pens, whereas for the fast-growing strain, broilers in NE pens had a higher ADG (Δ = +3 g) and a higher ADFI (Δ = +8.2 g) than broilers in EE pens
Summarized, providing enrichments reduced performance in the current study, which could be due to increased activity, placement of barriers or insect pro visioning, but the exact reason remains to be further studied. We provided both fast- and slower-growing broiler chickens with a combination of environmental enrichments, with the aim to stimulate their activity and as a consequence to improve leg health
Summary
Due to genetic selection for efficient growth and improvements in farm management and nutrition over the years, broiler chickens nowa days grow in a relatively short period to slaughter weight (Zuidhof et al, 2014) This efficient growth, in combination with the relatively high body weight and low activity level, has been associated with the development of leg problems: impaired walking ability (Bessei, 2006; EFSA, 2010; Tahamtani et al, 2018) and contact dermatitis on feet and hocks (Bessei, 2006; EFSA, 2010). Envi ronmental enrichment is suggested to reduce the risk for footpad dermatitis and hock burn, e.g. because of reduced contact of broilers with the litter when platforms or perches are provided (Ventura et al, 2010), and these effects are not always found (Pedersen and Fork man, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
