Cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality: The effects of linings and litter provision in furnished cages for laying hens

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of litter provision and linings used for nests and pecking and scratching areas on cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality. Research was carried out in furnished cages, each housing 60 beak-trimmed ISA Brown hens. Four different treatments were compared in a factorial arrangement, including 2 different nest linings (artificial turf vs. plastic mesh), either used alone or combined with the use of litter (wheat bran) spread over the rubber mat in the pecking and scratching area (PSA). An additional treatment, using artificial turf mat in the PSA and nests (as commonly used in commercial flocks), was used to compare the effect of PSA lining in the other treatments. We observed laying location, the number of dirty and broken eggs, the microbiological contamination of eggshells according to laying location, and general cage hygiene. The use of nests for laying decreased when they were lined with plastic mesh. Eggs laid outside the nest were of lower quality than those laid inside it, and this was particularly true for eggs laid in the PSA. Although hygiene was low on artificial turf mats, eggs laid on PSA covered with a rubber mat were dirtier and had a higher count of mesophilic bacteria on the eggshell than those laid on PSA covered with an artificial turf mat. Rubber mats in PSA were rapidly destroyed and proved to be unsuitable. The provision of litter had no effect on cage hygiene but substantially increased wear on mats. This study shows nest lining and litter provision methods to be key factors that need to be taken into account to encourage the use of nest boxes for laying, and hence, to ensure good egg quality. Further research into new linings for PSA is needed for the future improvement of egg-laying conditions.

Differences in Pre-Laying Behavior between Floor-Laying and Nest-Laying Pekin Ducks

“…In domestic hens, floor-laying has been associated with nest design [9,10], early experience [11,12], rearing environment [13], genetic strain [14] and competition for nest sites [14,15]. Little is known about how these factors contribute to floor-laying in ducks.…”

Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being

“…The earliest models of furnished cages, developed over 30 yr ago, generally held fewer than 15 hens, and often included a dust bath or box of litter (Tauson, 2002 ). However, because of problems with misplaced eggs and the hygiene and management challenges associated with providing dust bathing material within cages, more recent models of furnished cages instead provide a scratch mat onto which feed is distributed to facilitate foraging and dust bathing activities (Guinebretière et al., 2012 ). The sizes of furnished cages also have increased to accommodate much larger groups, with many enriched colony systems housing upwards of 60 hens.…”

Efeito do sistema de criação de poedeiras comerciais em gaiolas e em piso

“…Aves criadas em gaiolas apresentaram maior espessura de casca, isso se dá pelo maior peso do (1992) a troca do material evita a postura das aves no chão o que consequentemente reduz perda de ovos. Guinebretière et al (2012) verificaram o forro do ninho como um fator importante para as poedeiras, quando bem manejado aumenta a atratividade para a postura além de estar diretamente relacionado a higiene dos ovos. A necessidade da implementação de sistemas alternativos é clara, e o sistema de criação em piso é uma das alternativas que atende as novas exigências de mercado.…”