05:30 to 05:34, 11:30 to 11:34, 17:30 to 17:34, and 23:30 to 23:34 daily for the entire trial period.
Results of laser enrichment 1. Response towards feed The response of birds towards and at the feeder was recorded in both laser and control pens as direct comparative measure. Latency to feed measures were categorised into four mutual- ly exclusive categories: (A) at feeder during laser period only, (B) at feeder when laser turned off, (C) went to feeder <5 min- utes following laser turn off, and (D) never went to feeder (Fig- ure 1). ‘At feeder’ meant bird head over feeder circle, bird in feeder or bird standing on feeder tray. Over week 1 to 6, about 61% of focal birds in the laser treatment were at the feeder dur- ing or within 5 min following laser periods. Laser birds spent more time at the feeder on days 0, 1, 2, 5, 8, and on weeks 1 and 5, with 84% more time at feeder than control birds on day 5. The researchers suggested the presence of birds at the feed- er during laser periods and the increased time spent at feeder in laser birds not only did it indicate an increase in bird move- ment but may have also encouraged feeding, perhaps by stimulating natural foraging or predatory behaviour.
2. Walking distance The distance walked by the blue-coloured focal bird in each video-recorded pen was measured over the 4-min laser periods (days 0 to 9, and week 2 to 5). The observing researcher used a custom ruler tool to measure the interconnecting lines drawn from video. This was repeated for each individual minute and then a sum of all line measurements, or the total distance walked each period, was calculated. Laser birds walked further during laser periods on day 0 to 8 and week 2 to 5. Laser birds covered the longest distance on day 1 and during week 2. Compared to the control, laser birds walked 646.5 cm further (day 1) and 367.5 cm (week 2). Overall, the time spent active was increased in laser treatment by 114% on week 2; 157% on week 3; 90% on week 4; and 82% on week 5. ‘Active’ meant bird legs were in a continuous forward motion (walking or
Figure 1 - Weekly breakdown of Ross 308 broiler latency to feed of laser focal birds (week 1 -6). 100
At feeder during laser period only
75 50 25 0
123 456 Week
38 ▶ SUSTAINABILITY AND WELFARE | OCTOBER 2020
At feeder when laser
Never went to feeder Went to feeder in <5 min
running), and ‘inactive’ meant bird stood in one place or rest- ed its abdomen on the litter, head rested or raised while any part of its body was or was not in contact with another bird.
3. Walking lameness All birds were removed from their pens once a week and as- sessed for lameness. In the laser group there were no birds showing lameness, while the control birds had about 1% with lameness. Birds either walked 1.5 m independently or were encouraged to walk: (1) a researcher slowly moving their hand back and forth directly behind the bird (2) a researcher gently tapping the bird on the vent region with a gloved hand or (3) a researcher both waving behind and gently tap- ping the bird with a ping pong paddle. Individual birds were considered to have completed the task when both feet had crossed into the finish section. Scores were assigned using a 0 to 2 scale where 0 indicated the ability to walk 1.5 m with no signs of lameness, 1 indicated the ability to walk 1.5 m but showed unevenness in steps or sat down at least once, and 2 indicated a bird that could not walk 1.5 m (lameness).
4. Maximal body weight effect The researchers found it interesting that during week 6 there were no differences in proportion of active/inactive behaviour due to enrichment. They suggested a result of maximal body weight overriding motivation to move as birds neared the end of the grow-out period, rather than habituation to the lasers – as a similar pattern is seen in previous studies that observed a decline in the use of perches after week 5 in broilers.
What we know now • The laser enrichment device is effective in stimulating (not forcing) broiler physical activity (walking or running) and positively impacting behaviour towards feeding – possibly improving performance. This highlights that moving light/ visual enrichment successfully motivates broiler activity re- sulting in reduced incidence of lameness and better bird welfare.
• The laser device is practical and applicable to commercial barns without changing grow-out procedures or negative- ly impacting bird welfare or performance but rather im- proving. The inclusion of this device would not require al- tered management or human labour to increase bird activity and could be easily cleaned and reused over multi- ple flocks. In addition, birds cannot physically interact with the device (no changes to biosecurity/cleaning are needed between flocks), this avoids object-guarding behaviour within the bird hierarchy.
• The effectiveness of this laser device plateaus towards the finishing period of broilers. Researchers attributed this to maximal body weight overriding motivation to move as birds neared the end of the grow-out period, rather than habituation to the lasers.
% of birds
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
