Types of Floor Materials on Preference of Chickens Using Free Choice Test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/jare-mju.2025.10Keywords:
floor materials, preference test, animal welfare, chickensAbstract
Improving living conditions for the chickens in response to their natural needs is an important factor in promoting their welfare status within the current farming system. This study aimed to determine the effects of different floor materials and times of the day on the free-choice test results of 18 male -KU Betong cockerels using four different materials (net mat, net mat with scourer, artificial turf, and tile). The number of contacts with different floor materials chosen by the chickens during three different periods over four consecutive test days (i.e. 10.00-12.00 a.m., 13:00-15:00 p.m., and 15:00-17:00 p.m.) was recorded. The overall results showed that artificial turf was the most selected material (P<0.05). The chickens had more active contact with the test materials during 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. than at any other time of the day (P<0.05). The test days had a significant impact on the type of floor materials selected by the chickens. This choice test results from the 1st to 3rd test days in this study were likely due to a of novel object test -i.e. a fear test response to a particular unfamiliar new object for the chickens. Afterward, the influence of fear may have diminished through experience, learning, and adaptation from the 4th test day onwards. Most chickens preferred artificial turf as it appeared similar to natural grass and potentially served as a main sign stimulus for triggering responses according to their natural behavioral needs. Further studies on the effect of artificial turf provision on natural behavior expression and farm bird performance may be beneficial in promoting their welfare status within the current production system.
References
Adler, C., I. Tiemann, S. Hillemacher, A.J. Schmithausen, U. Müller, S. Heitmann, B. Spindler, N. Kemper and W. Büscher. 2020. Effects of a partially perforated flooring system on animal-based welfare indicators in broiler housing. Poultry Science 99(7): 3343-3354.
Altan, Ö.Z.G.E., A. Pabuçcuoğlu, A. Altan, S. Konyalioğlu and H. Bayraktar. 2003. Effect of heat stress on oxidative stress, lipid peroxidation and some stress parameters in broilers. British Poultry science 44(4): 545-550.
Appleby, M.C., A.W. Walker, C.J. Nicol, A.C. Lindberg, R. Freire, B.O.O. Hughes and H.A.A. Elson. 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43(4): 489-500.
Arnold, N.A. and P.H. Hemsworth. 2013. Examining the usefulness of a Y-maze choice method to measure the preferences of laying hens. Animal Production Science 53(12): 1283-1290.
Arnould, C., D. Bizeray, J.M. Faure and C. Leterrier. 2004. Effects of the addition of sand and string to pens on use of space, activity, tarsal angulations and bone composition of broiler chickens. Animal Welfare 13(1): 87-94.
Broom, D.M. 1998. Welfare, stress, and the evolution of feelings. pp. 371-403. In Møller, A.P., M. Milinski and P.J.B. Slater (eds.). Advances in the Study of Behavior. New York: Academic.
Chielo, L.I., T. Pike and J. Cooper. 2016. Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals 6(5): 28.
Dawkins, M.S. 1980. Animal Suffering: the Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman and Hall Press. 150 p.
Dawkins, M.S. 1999. The role of behaviour in the assessment of poultry welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal 55(3): 295-303.
Duncan, I.J.H. 1993. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(1): 8-14.
European Union. 1999. Council directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities Union 203(1): 53-57.
Grigor, P.N. 1993. Use of Space by Laying Hens: Social and Environmental Implications for Free-range Systems. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Edinburgh. 156 p.
Guinebretière, M., H. Beyer, C. Arnould and V. Michel. 2014. The choice of litter material to promote pecking, scratching and dustbathing behaviours in laying hens housed in furnished cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155(1): 56-65.
Hemsworth, P.H. 2021. Cage production and laying hen welfare. Animal Production Science 61(10): 821-836.
Hemsworth, P.H. and L.E. Edwards. 2020. Natural behaviours, their drivers and their implications for laying hen welfare. Animal Production Science 61(10): 915-930.
Jones, B. 1986. The tonic immobility reaction of the domestic fowl: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 42(1): 82-96.
Jones, R.B. and D. Waddington. 1992. Modification of fear in domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and early environmental enrichment. Animal Behaviour 43(6): 1021-1033.
Jones, R.B. and J.M. Faure. 1982. Open field behaviour of male and female domestic chicks as a function of housing conditions, test situations and novelty. Biology of Behaviour 7(1): 17-25.
Jones, R.B., A.D. Mills, J.M. Faure and J.B. Williams. 1994. Restraint, fear, and distress in Japanese quail genetically selected for long or short tonic immobility reactions. Physiology and Behavior 56(3): 529-534.
Kikuchi, A., K. Uetake and T. Tanaka. 2019. Modification of furnished cages from conventional cages for laying hens: which do hens like a nest mat or a litter mat for the nest area? Animal Behaviour and Management 55(3): 117-124.
Kirkden, R.D. and E.A. Pajor. 2006. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals’ feelings. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100(1-2): 29-47.
Krivankova, T., E. Voslarova, V. Vecerek, I. Bedanova, J. Blahova and J. Chloupek. 2020. Comparison of selected indices of internal environment and condition of laying hens kept in furnished cages and in aviaries. Animal Science Journal 91(1): e13400.
Li, X., D. Chen, J. Li. and J. Bao. 2016. Effects of furnished cage type on behavior and welfare of laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 29(6): 887-894.
Mench, J.A., J.P. Garner and C. Falcone. 2001. Behavioral activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. pp. 152-156. In Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare. Zollikofen: World’s Poultry Science Association.
Merrill, R.J.N., J.J. Cooper, M.J. Albentosa and C.J. Nicol. 2006. The preferences of laying hens for perforated Astroturf over conventional wire as a dustbathing substrate in furnished cages. Animal Welfare 15(2): 173-178.
Moroki, Y. 2020. Impact of flooring type on the sham dustbathing behaviour of caged laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 230(1): 105066.
Muangchum, S., S. Khumput., S. Yodprom and J. Thiengtham. 2015. Behavioural responses in free choice test with different kinds of substrates for dust bathing in hens using Y-maze. Khon Kaen Agriculture Journal 43(1): 61-66. [in Thai]
Mwembe, R., D. Nkomboni, Z. Nengomasha, G. Sisito and M. Kufa. 2014. Free ranging indigenous chickens (Gallas domesticus) seasonal time budgets. Livestock Research for Rural Development 26(1): 1-8.
Nimitsuntiwong, W. 2016. Domestic Animal Behavior. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Kasetsart University Press. 673 p. [in Thai]
Sans, E.C.D.O., F.A.M. Tuyttens, C.A. Taconeli, A.S. Pedrazzani, M.M. Vale and C.F.M. Molento. 2021. From the point of view of the chickens: what difference does a window make? Animals 11(12): 3397.
SAS Institute Inc. 2014. SAS/STAT® 13.2 User’s Guide, The Logistic Procedure. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 4723 p.
Savory, C.J. 1980. Diurnal feeding patterns in domestic fowls: a review. Applied Animal Ethology 6(1): 71-82.
Scholz, B., S. Urselmans, J.B. Kjaer and L. Schrader. 2010. Food, wood, or plastic as substrates for dustbathing and foraging in laying hens: a preference test. Poultry Science 89(8): 1584-1589.
Shields, S.J. 2004. Dustbathing by Broiler Chickens: Characteristics, Substrate Preference, and Implications for Welfare. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California Davis. 300 p.
Shields, S.J., J.P. Garner and J.A. Mench. 2005. Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84(12): 1816-1824.
Shimmura, T., N. Maekawa, S. Hirahara, T. Tanaka and M.C. Appleby. 2018. Development of furnished cages re-using conventional cages for laying hens: behaviour, physical condition and productivity. Animal Science Journal 89(2): 498-504.
Shimmura, T., S. Hirahara, T. Azuma, T. Suzuki, Y. Eguchi, K. Uetake and T. Tanaka. 2010. Multifactorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. British Poultry Science 51(1): 31-42.
Sunanta, Y., S. Aunwiseta, J. Sornpichai, A. Panyasak, J. Thiengtham and S. Khumput. 2022. Difference of Nesting Material on Preference Test and External Egg Quality in Thai Native Breeder Hens. pp. 323-389. In Proceedings of the 60th Kasetsart University Annual Conference (Poster). Bangkok: Kasetsart University. [in Thai]
Tactacan, G.B., W. Guenter, N.J. Lewis, J.C. Rodriguez-Lecompte and J.D. House. 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88(4): 698-707.
Tancho, A. 1998. Poultry Behavior. Bangkok: King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Lat Krabang Press. 209 p. [in Thai]
Vajrabukka, C. 1995. Behaviour of Domestic Animals. Bangkok: Kasetsart University Press. 458 p. [in Thai]
Villagra, A., I. Olivas, R.L. Althaus, E.A. Gómez, M. Lainez and A.G. Torres. 2014. Behavior of broiler chickens in four different substrates: a choice test. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 16(1): 67-75.
Wall, H. and R. Tauson. 2013. Nest lining in small-group furnished cages for laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 22(3): 474-484.
Webster, A.B. 2002. Behavior of Chickens. pp. 71-86. In Boston, M.A. (ed.). Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Berlin: Springer.
Wood, B., C. Rufener, M.M. Makagon and R.A. Blatchford. 2021. The utility of scatter feeding as enrichment: do broiler chickens engage with scatter–fed items? Animals 11(12): 3478.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Agricultural Research and Extension
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows others to share the article with proper attribution to the authors and prohibits commercial use or modification. For any other reuse or republication, permission from the journal and the authors is required.
