The Aviary Transect—a practical welfare assessment tool to improve the management of cage-free laying hens

Abstract

The Aviary Transect (AT) is a method for assessing welfare in cage-free laying hen flocks, and comprises standardized walks along each aisle screening the flock for selected welfare indicators: feather loss (FL) on head, back, breast, and tail, wounds on head, back, tail, and feet, dirty plumage, enlarged crop, sickness, and birds found dead. The method is quick (20 min for a flock of 7,500 hens), has good interobserver agreement and shows positive correlations with individual bird sampling methods. However, it is less clear whether AT can be used to detect differences in flock health and welfare related to housing and management. The aim of this study was to evaluate how AT findings varied in relation to 23 selected housing, management, environmental, and production factors. The study was conducted on 33 commercial nonbeak-trimmed, white-feathered layer flocks of similar age (70-76 wk) kept in multitiered aviaries in Norway. The most prevalent findings across flocks were feather loss on the back (mean 0.97% of flock) and breast (0.94%) followed by feather loss on the head (0.45%) and tail (0.36%) with differences in feather pecking damage according to the hybrid used (P < 0.05). Better litter quality was associated with a lower prevalence of feather loss on the head and breast (P < 0.05), and addition of fresh litter during the production cycle resulted in fewer birds with feather loss on the head (P < 0.05) and tail (P < 0.001). Lower dust levels were linked to a lower prevalence of feather loss on the head, back, and breast (P < 0.05), and when access to the floor area underneath the aviary was provided at an earlier stage of production, fewer birds had wounds (P < 0.001), but more birds were observed with an enlarged crop (P < 0.05) and found dead (P < 0.05). In conclusion, findings from AT showed that results of the assessment varied according to housing conditions. These results support the validity of AT as a relevant welfare assessment tool for evaluating cage-free management practices.