Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42190481›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2026

Restricting laying hens' litter access leads to a rebound effect in wing flapping and dust bathing behavior.

Valentina Bongiorno, Ahmed B A Ali, Cara I Robison, Janice M Siegford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Valentina BongiornoDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. Electronic address: bongio21@msu.edu.
Ahmed B A AliDepartment of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA; Animal Behavior and Management, Department of Veterinary Hygiene, Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo 12613, Egypt.
Cara I RobisonDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Janice M SiegfordDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cage-free laying hen housing can lead to floor eggs, and keeping hens from litter in the morning can limit this problem. However, space-demanding and welfare-relevant behaviors such as wing flapping (WF) and dust bathing (DB) may be compromised in ways that need to be understood. A total of 1152 birds were allotted between two rooms, each equipped with 3-tiered enclosable aviary systems further subdivided into 4 units each. One room was assigned to enclosed (PARR) birds deprived of litter access between 0100 and 1200 from 17 to 32 weeks of age (WOA), while the other room served as a control (CON) with continuous litter access. WF was continuously observed for 30 minutes at 0600, 0900, 1200, 1500 and 1800, while DB was scan-sampled for 15 seconds every 5 minutes for 3 hours (1100-1230, CON or 1200-1330, PARR; 1430-1600, both) from 17 until 44 WOA. Comparisons of treatments at the same hours of day and 0, 3, and 6 hours past litter access were performed for WF. Comparisons between 1.5-hour blocks were carried out for DB. The sum of WF and DB per time block was analyzed with generalized linear mixed models, while Spearman correlation tests were performed between the number of WF and DB at litter provision and total birds on litter every 3 or 5 minutes, respectively. Hens performed more WF and DB in PARR than CON when litter access was provided at 32 and 44 WOA (P < 0.05). Amount of WF at 32 WOA was negatively correlated with number of birds on litter only in CON birds (r = -0.651; P < 0.001), while a negative correlation was observed for DB frequency in PARR hens at the same age (r = 0.374; P < 0.01). These results suggest detrimental effects of enclosure on hens' performance of WF and DB, which lead to a rebound effect as soon as birds gain litter access. Furthermore, WF frequency may vary with age, and hens' need to WF may weigh more than crowded litter discomfort after spatial restriction.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareBehavior, AnimalChickensHousing, AnimalWings, AnimalAnimalsDustFemaleFloors and FloorcoveringsDustAnimal behaviorAviary systemFloor eggLitterSpatial restriction

Identifiers

PMID42190481
PMCPMC13223830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.