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

Abstract

The furnished cage is a new housing system for layers. A current trend in furnished cage design is to increase group size and replace the litter box with a mat provided with litter. An experiment was set up to determine the effects of group size and litter provision on laying performance and egg quality of beak-trimmed ISA Brown hens housed in large furnished cages with more than 12 hens. Six treatments, each of 18 furnished cages (768 cm 2 /hen including nest and litter area) were compared in a 3 3 2 experimental trial: three group sizes (S20 (20 hens per cage), S40 (40) and S60 (60)), with or without feed as litter distributed on the mat of the litter area. The provision of facilities per hen was equal in all treatments. Mortality, laying rate, mean egg weight, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were unaffected by group size over the 53-week laying period, and performance exceeded the ISA production standards. The overall percentage of eggs laid in the nest exceeded 95% except that it was slightly lower in group S20 (92.0% 6 6.4% v. S40: 96.0% 6 3.3% and S60: 96.2% 6 2.7%) leading to a higher proportion of dirty eggs (S20: 1.6% 6 2.2%, S40: 1.4% 6 1.5%, S60: 1.0% 6 1.0%). At 66 to 70 weeks, eggs laid outside the nest had a slightly higher count of mesophilic bacteria on the eggshell (5.0 log CFU/egg 6 0.4) than those laid in the nest (4.8 log CFU/egg 6 0.5) but no difference in contamination was observed between group sizes. Litter provision had no effect on mortality, egg weight or egg quality traits except for a higher proportion of broken eggs in cages with litter (5.3% 6 6.2% v. 4.6% 6 5.7%). Providing hens with feed for litter was associated with a higher laying rate (97.3% 6 3.2% v. 94.8% 6 4.4% at 23 weeks) and an apparent improvement in feed efficiency at the beginning of the laying period (feed conversion ratio based on feed consumption at the trough: 2.18 6 0.06 with litter v. 2.28 6 0.09 without litter at 25 weeks). The results of this study showed that a high level of productivity and good egg quality could be obtained in large furnished cages. Further research is needed to assess the impact on hens' welfare and performance of using more economically competitive substrates than feed for litter.

Comparison of egg production, quality and composition in three production systems for laying hens

“…These results are in accordance with Tuytens et al (2013), reporting a nest laying rate of 70.8% for enriched cages. Higher rates of nest eggs, exceeding 95%, were reported by numerous other authors (Appleby et al, 2002;Huneau-Salaün et al, 2011;Bovera et al, 2014). Guesdon and Faure (2004) reported a lower proportion of eggs laid in the nest, ranging between 43% and 68% dependent on different animal densities.…”

“…The group size also impacts nest competition and percentage of eggs laid outside the nest with a higher rate of mislaid eggs associated with smaller groups, as observed in enriched cages by Huneau-Salaün et al (2011) with groups of 20 or 40 hens, or by Bovera et al (2014) with groups of 25 or 40 hens. Whereas the nesting area per hen was the same, the overall area of the nest in the cage increased with the number of birds per cage.…”

Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination

“…The size of the group of hens is also important. A high level of productivity and good egg quality can be obtained in large, furnished cages (Huneau-Salaun et al 2011).…”

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

“…It has already been shown that the presence of loose material is attractive for nest building and laying (Duncan and Kite, 1989), Nevertheless, a previous study conducted in similar cages showed that litter provision (feed) also provided opportimities for behavioral expressions (dust-bat hing, foraging) without affecting zootechnical performances (Guinebretière et al,, 2011), In terms of percentages of broken and dirty eggs, the results of the TO treatment were similar to those observed in a previous experiment with identical cage furnishings, i,e,, artificial turf mats in nests and PSA and no litter distribution. In TO cages, 1,4% of eggs were dirty and 0,93% broken (all confounded areas) compared with 1% and 0,8%, respectively, in the previous experiment (Huneau-Salaiin et al,, 2011b), Eggs laid outside the nest for TO were more fi-equently found to be broken and dirty, as widely reported by other authors (Appleby et al,, 2002;Wall and Tauson, 2002;Guesdon and Faure, 2004), These incidences have also been observed in our previous experiment: 0,6 and 1,1% of eggs laid inside the nest were broken and dirty, respectively, versus 5,2 and 4,8% of eggs laid outside the nest were broken and dirty, respectively, (P < 0,05; Huneau-Salaiin et al, 2011b), Although nests were always free access, behavioral observations showed that they were only occupied during the daily laying period (especially during 4 h after lights were turned on), hence decreasing the risk of hens breaking the eggs or soiling them with droppings. Perches outside the nest could prevent eggs from rolling out of the cage and increase the risk of blocked eggs being soiled by the hens.…”