Acta Scientific Veterinary Sciences (ASVS)(ISSN: 2582-3183)

Research Article Volume 2 Issue 7

Assessing the Effectiveness of Acoustic Enrichment for ‘Settling’ Sanctuary Hens

Kirsty Mccalden*

MSc Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom

*Corresponding Author: Kirsty Mccalden, MSc Animal Behaviour and Welfare, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom.

Received: April 17, 2020; Published: June 17, 2020



  The aim of this study was to establish whether certain forms of acoustic enrichment improve settling behaviour in laying hens to a greater extent than others. Based on acoustic enrichments previously applied to captive animals, three acoustics were involved: classical music, white noise and radio. Due on previous findings, it was hypothesised that hens would display more settled (inactive) behaviour when exposed to classical music than when exposed to white noise or radio. It was also hypothesised that hens would display more settled (inactive) behaviour when exposed to white noise than to radio, due to its unpredictable nature. Testing involved one group of 15 laying hens in a Northern Ireland hen rescue centre. Hens were exposed to randomised acoustics (including a control) for 30 minutes, during four consecutive per week, for four consecutive weeks. Video observations were used to assess the level of active and inactive behaviour during exposure as well as overall settling time. No statistically significant results were found in three of four observed behaviours; perching, preening on the perch, lying/sitting on the perch. However, findings appeared to indicate less activity in hens during exposure to white noise, compared to classical music and radio. Therefore, the first hypothesis was rejected. In contrast to expectations, this study appeared to provide support for previous theories of species-specificity regarding classical music. A statistically significant result was found for standing behaviour on the perch which provided support for the second hypothesis. Post-hoc analysis indicated that a higher proportion of observed hens displayed standing behaviour during radio exposure, compared to the control (p = .012). This allowed the second hypothesis to be accepted as hens generally appeared to display less active behaviour overall during exposure to white noise, and statistically more active behaviour during radio exposure. Somewhat conflicting findings emerged in regards to overall setting. 80% of hens settled in a shorter time during radio exposure, than during exposure to white noise. This was also the case when measured at 90%. Although this finding was insignificant it highlights a need for further, more precise research.

Keywords: Feather Pecking (FP); Acoustic Enrichment; Sanctuary Hens



  1. Zimmerman P., et al. “Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science4 (2000): 255-264.
  2. Dawkins MS and Hardie S. “Space needs of laying hens”. British Poultry Science2 (1989): 413-416.
  3. Nicol CJ., et al. “Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science2 (1999): 137-152.
  4. Bilcik B and Keeling, L. “Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens”. British Poultry Science4 (1999): 444-451.
  5. Bestman M and Wagenaar J. “Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens”. Livestock Production Science 1-2 (2003): 133-140.
  6. Zimmerman PH., et al. “The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science1-2 (2006): 111-124.
  7. Hughes BO., et al. “Low incidence of aggression in large flocks of laying hens”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science2 (1997): 215-234.
  8. Duncan IJH and Hughes BO. “Free and operant feeding in domestic fowl”. Animal Behaviour 20 (1972): 775-777.
  9. Olsson IAS and Keeling LJ. “Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68 (2000): 243-256.
  10. Appleby MC., et al. “Nesting, dustbathing and perching by laying hens in cages - effects of design on behaviour and welfare”. British Poultry Science 34 (1993): 835-847.
  11. Campo JL., et al. “Effects of specific noise and music stimuli on stress and fear levels of laying hens of several breeds”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science1-2 (2005): 75-84.
  12. Isaac W and Devito JL. “Effect of sensory stimulation on the activity of normal and prefrontal-lobectomized monkeys”. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology2 (1958): 172-174.
  13. Wells DL., et al. “A note on the effect of auditory stimulation on the behaviour and welfare of zoo-housed gorillas”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science3-4 (2006): 327-332.
  14. Wells DL and Irwin RM. “Auditory stimulation as enrichment for zoo-housed Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)”. Animal Welfare4 (2008): 335-340.
  15. Rauscher F., et al. “Improved maze learning through early music exposure in rats”. Neurological Research5 (1998): 427-432.
  16. Bowman A., et al. “Four Seasons’ in an animal rescue centre; classical music reduces environmental stress in kennelled dogs”. Physiology and Behavior 143 (2015): 70-82.
  17. Kogan LR., et al. “Behavioral effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs”. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research5 (2012): 268-275.
  18. Wells DL., et al. “The influence of auditory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter”. Animal Welfare4 (2002): 385-393.
  19. Ladd JK., et al. “Behavioral and physiological studies on the effect of music on animals”. Journal of Animal Science 70 (1992): 170.
  20. Alworth LC and Buerkle SC. “The effects of music on animal physiology, behavior and welfare”. Lab Animal2 (2013): 54.
  21. Snowdon CT., et al. “Cats prefer species-appropriate music”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 166 (2015): 106-111.
  22. Pines MK., et al. “Stressors of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) in the captive environment: Effects on behaviour and cortisol levels”. In Folia Primatologica 75 (2004): 317-318.
  23. Kawakami K., et al. “The calming effect of stimuli presentation on infant Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) under stress situation: a preliminary study”. Primates1 (2002): 73-85.
  24. Patterson-Kane EG and Farnworth MJ. “Noise exposure, music, and animals in the laboratory: a commentary based on Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum (LAREF) discussions”. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science4 (2006): 327-332.
  25. Fritz J., et al. “A stereo music system as environmental enrichment for captive chimpanzees”. Lab Animal10 (2003): 31.
  26. Brent L and Weaver O. “The physiological and behavioral effects of radio music on singly housed baboons”. Journal of Medical Primatology5 (1996): 370-374.
  27. Elston JJ., et al. “Laying hen behavior. 1. Effects of cage type and startle stimuli”. Poultry Science4 (2000): 471-476.
  28. Newberry RC and Shackleton DM. “Use of visual cover by domestic fowl: a Venetian blind effect?”. Animal Behaviour2 (1997): 387-395.
  29. Van Liere DW. “Function and organization of dustbathing in laying hens”. (Doctoral dissertation, sn]) (1991).
  30. Van Rooijen J. “Dust bathing and other comfort behaviours of domestic hens”. Welfare of laying hens in Europe-reports, analyses and conclusions (eds. G. Martin, HH Sambraus and A. Steiger) (2005): 110-123.
  31. Keeling LJ. “Feather pecking-who in the group does it, how often and under what circumstances”. In Proceedings of the 9th European Poultry Conference (1994): 288-289.
  32. Apple JK and Craig JV. “The influence of pen size on toy preference of growing pigs”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science2 (1992): 149-155.
  33. Bizeray D., et al. “Effects of increasing environmental complexity on the physical activity of broiler chickens”. Applied Animal Behaviour Science1 (2002): 27-41.
  34. Kettelkamp-Ladd JK. “The Effect of Radio Music and Radio Static on the Behavior, Physiology and Production of Laying Hens (Gallus gallus Domesticus) Housed Singly or in Colony Cages”. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University (1993).


Citation: Kirsty Mccalden. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Acoustic Enrichment for ‘Settling’ Sanctuary Hens”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 2.7 (2020): 22-30.


Acceptance rate35%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.008

Indexed In

News and Events

  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is June 25, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US