Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages

Abstract

1. In 2 trials the health and behaviour of a total of 3552 caged laying hens of 4 hybrids, Dekalb XL, Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL) and Shaver 288 in trial 1 and ISA Brown and LSL in trial 2, were studied. The cage designs were Get-away cages (GA) with 15 hens per cage, a special version of the 'Edinburgh modified cage' called 'Modified and enriched cage' (ME) with 4 ISA or 5 Leghorn hens per cage, conventional metal cages with 4 hens per cage without (CO) and with a perch (PC) and conventional plastic cages (PL) with three hens per cage. GA and ME included nests, perches and sandbaths. 2. In the first trial f1p4nest models were used, artificial turf and welded wire floor. In the second trial both nest models were used in GA, while all nests in ME were equipped with artificial turf. In the second trial there were 4 sandbath treatments in ME; no sandbath, sandbath (25 x 50 cm) first opened at 16 weeks of age, sandbath first opened at 26 weeks and double size sandbath (50 x 50 cm) first opened at 16 weeks. Hens in GA were allowed access to the sandbaths from 26 weeks. 3. At 35 and 55 weeks the best plumage condition (feather cover) was found in PL and GA but plumage condition in ME was not significantly inferior than in GA. Hens in GA had the dirtiest plumage and most bumble foot but no toe pad hyperkeratosis. Some toe pad hyperkeratosis occurred in the other systems. Most keel bone lesions were found in systems with perches. The highest mortality was registered in GA. Hens in systems with perches, sandbaths and nests had increased strength of humerus at slaughter. 4. More eggs were laid in nests with artificial turf than in welded wire floor nests. LSL hens laid larger proportions of eggs in the nests (94% and 92% in the two trials) than the other hybrids. Less than 1% of the eggs in ME and 2% in GA were laid in the sandbaths. 5. The use of perches in ME and PC was approximately 30% in the day time. At night the use was 93% in ME and 89% in PC in trial 1 and 96% in ME and 81% in PC in trial 2. 6. Hens in ME with the double sized sandbath both visited the sandbath and performed dust bathing behaviour most, followed by hens in GA, hens in ME with access to the bath from 16 weeks and last, hens in ME with access to the bath from 26 weeks. 7. It is concluded that enrichments of laying cages are used by the hens to a large extent if properly constructed and managed, implying an increased behavioural repertoire of the hens compared with conventional cages. With perches at only one level and with smaller groups of birds, ME provided better hygiene and inspection properties than GA.

Floor versus cage rearing: effects on production, egg quality and physical condition of laying hens housed in furnished cages

“…The external condition of eggs is important because bad quality can reduce its price (ABRAHAMSSON & TAUSON 1995). The proportion of dirty eggs was lower than reported in other studies (ABRAHAMSSON et al, 1996;WALL & TAUSON, 2002;MALLET et al, 2003).…”

“…According to the data obtained in the experiment, plumage condition was acceptable at the end of the laying period. The average feather score was higher (21 vs. 18.5 points on a scale of 24) than reported by ABRAHAMSSON et al (1996) for hens of an age similar to those herein observed. Similar to the observations of JIN & CRAIG (1988), at the end of laying period, plumage condition was better in CR hens than in FR hens.…”

“…Some designs of furnished cages have produced relatively more broken eggs than observed in this study (APPLEBY et al 1998; VAN NIEKERK & REUVENKAMP, 1999;WALL & TAUSON, 2002;HIDALGO & ROSSI, 2003;ABRAHAMSSON et al, 1996). SHORT et al (2001) suggested that competition among hens for access to a dust bath might produce increased stress in hens, which in turn reduces eggshell density.…”

Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages

“…Several alternative systems are possible: floor rearing systems and two new systems, which have been developed relatively recently, namely furnished cages and aviaries [31]. These three alternative systems allow the birds access to resources unavailable in standard cages and increase the behavioural repertoire [6]. Hens use the perches to roost especially at night [3,12,23], the litter is used for exploratory (pecking and scratching) and dust-bathing behaviours [8,17,19], the increased space enables physical exercise, comfort (wingflapping and wing-and leg-stretching) [15,19,40], and pre-laying behaviours and a suitable nest can be used for laying [7,12].…”

Furnished cages for laying hens: study of the effects of group size and litter provision on laying location, zootechnical performance and egg quality

“…In the first experiments on furnished cages, nesting rates of less than 90% were frequently observed (Abrahamsson and Tauson, 1997;Appleby et al, 2002;Guesdon and Faure, 2004). Nevertheless, the model of furnished cage used in this study was developed to enhance nesting behaviour by enclosing the nest and lining it with an Astroturf mat (Abrahamsson et al, 1996;. In addition, special attention was paid to ensure that the level of light in the nest was low.…”