Providing ramps during lay has larger impacts on laying hens than ramps at rearing

• Published in: Poultry science Vol. 103; no. 10; p. 104101
• Main Authors: Toscano, M.J., Jalali, A.S., Siegford, J.M., Stratmann, A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01-10-2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animal Husbandry - methods; Animal Welfare; ANIMAL WELL-BEING AND BEHAVIOR; Animals; bone health; Chickens - physiology; feather quality; Female; Housing, Animal; movement; feather quality; movement; bone health
• DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104101
• EISSN: 1525-3171
• ISSN: 0032-5791; 1525-3171

Commercial laying hen housing is shifting from traditional cages to non-cage housing systems, such as the aviary, which has gained popularity due to potential for more species-typical behavior. However, birds housed in aviaries may have difficulties moving through the vertical tiers of the system leading to health problems such as keel bone fracture (KBF). One possible way to improve movement is to add ramps into an aviary system, allowing hens to walk between tiers rather than jump or fly. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of adding ramps to rearing and laying aviaries on bird health, production, and movement across vertical tiers of the aviary. Lohmann Selected Leghorn pullets were raised in 2 treatments: 4 pens (600 birds/pen) were raised with wire mesh ramps to aid movement between aviary tiers (RR) and 4 pens (600 birds/pen) were raised without ramps (RO). At 17 wk of age (WOA), birds were moved to the laying facility, in which 16 aviary pens with 225 birds/pen were populated. Half the pens (n = 8) were supplemented with wire mesh ramps (LR) and the other half were not (LO). Within each laying treatment group, 4 pens were populated with RR hens and 4 pens were populated with RO hens, creating 4 treatment combinations (RRLR, RRLO, ROLR, ROLO). From each pen, 15 focal hens were selected for radiographic imaging of their keel bones taken at 21, 36, 45, and 60 WOA and the images were subsequently scored for KBF severity. Focal hens were also scored for feather condition and footpad quality at 36 and 60 WOA using a standardized welfare assessment protocol. The number of downward transitions among aviary areas and falls were recorded at 19 to 20 and 30 to 31 WOA. Data were analyzed using (generalized) linear mixed models in R software. When ramps were available, they were used in most of the observed downward transitions (79% in ROLR and 86% in RRLR). Hens who received ramps in lay (i.e., RRLR and ROLR) showed more transitions immediately after lights on compared to midday or dusk phases (p < 0.001), performed more transitions from the first aviary tier compared to nest or top tier (p = 0.013) and had lower KBF severity than those who did not receive ramps in the laying aviaries (ROLO, RRLO; p < 0.001). At 60 WOA, hens in the RRLR treatment had greater feather coverage than those in ROLR and RRLO treatments (p < 0.001). Birds in the RRLR treatment had better foot health overall than those in treatments without ramps in lay (p = 0.018). Providing ramps to hens in aviaries appeared to be the preferred means of transitioning between aviary tiers though had positive effects on welfare parameters such as food health, feather coverage, and KBF severity, without negative impacts on production. Benefits were seen primarily when ramps were provided in lay, though their installation in rearing provided evidence of easier adaptation to the laying barn. Our study supports providing ramps throughout the lifetime of the bird to accommodate hens’ preferred means of moving vertically in aviaries and deliver consequent benefits to health and welfare.