The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the effects of commercially applied environmental enrichments on behavior and lameness in broilers. Two consecutive flocks of broilers were observed at 16 days and 30 days of age to investigate differences between enriched (peat, bales of lucerne hay, and elevated platforms) and control birds with regards to behavioral activities and lameness. More running (p < .001), worm running (p = .006), play fighting (p = .015), dust bathing (p = .009), and ground pecking while standing (p < .001) were observed at 16 days than at 30 days. Across both ages, enriched birds showed more wing flapping (p = .016), wing stretching (p = .002), body shaking (p = .002), ground scratching (p < .001), and ground pecking while standing (p < .001) and lying (p = .003) compared with control birds. Even when no enrichments were close, enriched birds showed more body shaking (p = .008) and ground pecking while standing (p < 0.001) and lying (p = .010) than birds in comparable locations in control pens. There was a tendency for a lower gait score (i.e., reduced lameness) with the enriched treatment (p = .077). In conclusion, enriched birds showed higher levels of several activities compared with control birds, and demonstrated higher levels in areas where no enrichments were present.

In poultry flocks, flock weight uniformity is often defined as the percent individuals within 10% of the mean body weight (BW) and the variability of

In the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broilers, the touch test is included to assess the human–animal relationship in the flock. The test is designed to measure the animals’ fear of humans, assuming that broilers will withdraw from the observer if they are fearful. However, many broilers close to slaughter age have impaired walking ability, and the results from the touch test may thus be biased by lameness and poor leg health. As the touch test is currently being used in several countries to assess human–animal relationship in broilers, there is an urgent need to examine this potential relationship for a further validation of the test. In the present study, fear of humans was assessed in 50 randomly selected Norwegian broiler flocks, using the touch test as described in the Welfare Quality® protocol for ty broilers. Leg health was assessed by examining the gait of 150 random birds in each of the flocks, using a six-point gait score scale from 0 to 5. The coefficient for the relationship between touch test score and gait score was 0.034 (P<0.001), indicating that the animals express less fear as assessed by the touch test when the gait scores increase. This implies that the touch test may be confounded by impaired walking ability and therefore might be a suboptimal method of assessing fear of humans and human–animal relationship in broilers. In conclusion, the results from this study suggests that the touch test must be further validated in broilers and perhaps be replaced with a fear test that doesn’t rely on walking ability.

To evaluate the utility of transect sampling for assessing animal welfare in large chicken flocks, we quantified relationships between environmental inputs, welfare problems detected using transect sampling, and production outcomes. We hypothesised that environmental inputs including environmental complexity (i.e. number of environmental enrichment types provided), space allowance, underfloor heating (presence or absence), and photoperiod regimen (18 h continuous vs 16 h intermittent) would correspond to variations in welfare assessment findings, which would predict production outcomes. We conducted on-farm welfare assessment of Norwegian broiler flocks at approximately 28 days of age. We sampled four transects (rows between feeder and drinker lines) per flock to determine litter quality and the proportions of chickens with compromised welfare as indicated by visual signs of walking difficulties, illness, skin wounds and small bird size. Production outcome measures included mortality, reasons for carcass rejection at slaughter, footpad dermatitis, growth rate, feed conversion and an integrated production index. Greater environmental complexity was associated with a reduction in skin wounds and total welfare problems on the farm, lower mortality, fewer rejections due to wounds and underweight birds, and fewer rejections overall. Higher space allowances within levels of environmental complexity were associated with fewer walking difficulties and welfare problems overall, a reduction in rejections due to wounds, and a higher growth rate and production index. Underfloor heating was associated with a reduction in rejections due to leg deformity, and intermittent light was associated with lower illness and skin wound rates on the farm, and lower mortality. Furthermore, fewer welfare problems and better litter quality on the farm were associated with fewer carcass rejections at slaughter. Thus, data from transect sampling varied with environmental inputs and production outcomes, supporting the validity of transect sampling for practical, animal-based on-farm welfare assessment.

This study compared welfare assessment results in aviary flocks using 3 approaches: 1) A novel Aviary Transect method, 2) AssureWel, and 3) the Norwegian farm advisors’ NorWel method. The Aviary Transect time requirement, interobserver reliability, and within- and across-house sensitivity to detect welfare indicators were also evaluated. The study was conducted on 6 randomly chosen commercial white-strain layer flocks of similar age and flock size, kept in multitiered aviaries. The Aviary Transect method comprised standardized walks along each aisle while screening the whole flock for 12 welfare indicators: feather loss (FL) on head, back, breast, and tail, wounds on head, back, tail, and feet, dirty birds, enlarged crop, sick birds, and dead birds. AssureWel involved scoring FL on head and back, and dirtiness of 50 random birds, and flock-level evaluation of beak trimming, antagonistic behavior, flightiness, birds needing further care, and mortality. NorWel involved scoring 8 welfare indicators on 50 random birds: FL on head, back, breast, and tail, dirtiness, and wounds on head, back, and tail. The AssureWel detected flock differences in both minor and major FL on the back (P < 0.01) as well as somewhat dirty birds (P < 0.01). The NorWel method detected flock differences in both minor and major FL on the head (P < 0.01), back (P < 0.001), breast (P < 0.001), and tail (P < 0.001) and somewhat (score 1) dirty birds (P < 0.05). The Aviary Transect method detected flock differences in FL on head, back, breast, and tail (all P < 0.001), dirty birds (P < 0.05) and enlarged crop (P < 0.001). More birds with FL on breast, and more dirty birds, were found in wall vs. central transects (P < 0.05). There was good interobserver agreement, except for dirty birds (P < 0.01), and positive correlations (P < 0.05) were identified between the Aviary Transect method and the other sampling methods for FL on head and back, and dirtiness. The three methods took similar time to complete (about 20 min/flock). In conclusion, all 3 methods detected significant differences in welfare indicator prevalence between flocks. The new Aviary Transect method provides egg producers with an efficient and sensitive whole-flock assessment of hen welfare status in multitiered aviaries.