Structuring Broiler Barns: How a Perforated Flooring System Affects Animal Behavior

Abstract

Broiler chickens in Europe are usually raised in a barren environment. Elevated perforated platforms address this problem and can positively influence animal health and welfare. To evaluate the effect of an elevated perforated floor on the behavior of broiler chickens, one of two barns was equipped with a perforated flooring system under the food and water supply. The second barn was used as a control. In total, three fattening periods were observed, with 500 broiler chickens (Ross 308 breed) kept in each barn. To compare the behavior of the birds in these groups, cameras were installed in the two barns. The videos were analyzed by counting the number of birds and observing focal animals while recording their behavior. More animals were observed on the perforated floor than in the littered control area (p < 0.001), but focal animals spent less time on the perforated floor compared to the observed littered area in the control barn (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the length of the recorded behaviors between the treatments. These findings suggest that, in general, the elevated perforated floor is attractive for the animals. However, it does not promote one of the recorded behavior patterns. Our results show that an elevated perforated floor could be an option for structuring broiler barns.

Keywords: animal welfare; behavior; broiler; elevated platform; perforated floor.

Figure 1

(a) Experimental barn with elevated perforated floor and littered areas. (b) Control barn with the littered floor.

Figure 2

The total number of animals per m² in the observed area at the different phases of the fattening period (n = three trials each). Results are presented as boxplots (data range, median, and lower and upper quartile; outliers are included in the graph as dots and means as a cross). Results of the experimental group (Exp) are presented in dark gray; the control group (Con) results are presented in light gray. * Significant difference at p < 0.05, ^t tendency at p < 0.1.

Figure 3

Total time completely observed focal animals (n = 80) spent in the observed area compared to runaways (n = 100) at the different phases of the fattening period. Results are presented as boxplots (data range, median, and lower and upper quartile; outliers are included in the graph as dots and means as a cross). Completely observed animals are presented in dark gray; runaways in light gray.

Figure 4

Total time focal animals spent in the observed area: (a) in the experimental group (Exp) and the control group (Con); (b) in the different phases of the fattening period. Results are presented as boxplots (data range, median, and lower and upper quartile; outliers are included in the graph as dots and means as a cross). * Significant difference at p < 0.05, ^t tendency at p < 0.1.

Figure 5

Duration of the different behaviors at the different phases of the fattening period: (a) locomotion (Loc); (b) sitting inactive (Sit); (c) located near the feeding trough (NF); and (d) located near the waterline (NW). Results are presented as boxplots (data range, median, and lower and upper quartile; outliers are included in the graph as dots and means as a cross). Results of the experimental group (Exp) are presented in dark gray; the control group (Con) results are presented in light gray.

Figure 6

Mean proportions (%) of the behaviors Loc (locomotion), Sit (sitting inactive), NF (located near the feeding trough), and NW (located near the waterline) of the total time focal animals spent in the observed area at the different phases of the fattening period on the perforated floor (Exp) and in the control area (Con).