Behaviour of laying hens in a deep litter house

1. Flocks of medium hybrid laying hens were housed in a modified deep litter system; the house was divided into 2, 3 and 4 pens in three successive years. Flock size was 300 or 370 and stocking density varied from 3.4 to 10.7 birds/m2. Higher densities used were above those recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). 2. A random sample of 100 birds was identified with individual tags in each of the 9 flocks; regular observations using a scanning technique were made in each laying cycle to determine bird location and behaviour. 3. In all flocks the use of area by some individuals was uneven, that is, they were sighted in certain areas significantly more often than would have been expected by chance. The proportion of such individuals varied between flocks from 35 to 65%. Overall, birds spent more time on the slatted area than would have been expected from the area that it occupied. 4. A wide variety of different behaviour patterns was observed both on litter and on slats, but with foraging occurring more on litter and feeding more on slats. 5. Movement appeared to be constrained by crowding, because time spent in locomotion decreased in approximately linear fashion with increased stocking density. This provides support for MAFF recommendations of limits on stocking density in deep litter houses.     

Choice of social conditions by laying hens

1. To test the preferences of hens for particular social conditions when laying, they were provided with choices of nest‐sites varying in seclusion. Three experimental conditions were used.

2. In Experiment 1, nest‐site selection by members of a group of light hybrids was studied in a complex pen‐system. Eggs were clumped in distribution ; only one individual laid in the most secluded part of the system.

3. Experiment 2 provided light hybrids with an extensive outdoor area, but similarly clumped laying was observed; there was no indication that hens attempted to find concealment for nesting.

4. In Experiment 3, hens from a group of light hybrids just coming into lay and from a group of mature medium hybrids were tested singly, in an area that included a cage containing some of their flockmates. Most subjects from both groups laid near the other birds rather than in isolation.

5. In semi‐intensive conditions, the majority of hens are apparently gregarious rather than solitary in their nesting behaviour.     

Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs

1. Floor eggs are a problem in non‐cage systems for laying hens, as they require secondary egg collecting. Failure to lay in a well‐defined nest site may also be a welfare problem for the hens, but only if their nesting motivation has been thwarted.

2. We investigated the relationships between a hen's prelaying behaviour and its tendency to lay on the floor by recording the behaviour of 20 hens housed individually in wire cages with single littered nest boxes.

3. Most floor eggs (80%) were laid by the same 6 hens. These 6 “floor‐layers” performed more nest seeking behaviour, less nest‐building behaviour and less sitting prior to oviposition than the 14 hens that consistently laid in nest boxes.

4. The incidence of floor eggs declined with age. Both nest and floor laying hens performed less nest seeking behaviour with age. Floor layers, however, increased their performance of nesting behaviour, whilst nest layers performed less nesting behaviour with age.

5. Floor laying hens behaved as if they found the nest box less attractive than nest‐laying hens; perhaps because they had lower nesting motivation, or perhaps because their nesting motivation was as high, but they less readily perceived the nest box as an appropriate nest site.     

Nesting and dust bathing by hens in cages: Matching and mis‐matching between behaviour and environment

1. Medium hybrid hens were housed as groups of 4 at 18 weeks of age in cages of 4 different types: control battery cages allowing 675 cm2/bird; similar cages with a rear‐mounted dust bath, 290×345×240 mm, containing sand (D); cages with a rear‐mounted nest box of the same size, containing wood shavings (N); cages with both (DN). In half the experimental cages access to nests was restricted to the morning and access to baths was restricted to the afternoon, by automatic sliding doors.

2. During the first 24 weeks of lay about 95% of eggs were laid in nest boxes in treatments N and DN. Slightly fewer were laid in boxes where doors were present. Over 90% were laid in dust baths in D cages without doors and 67% with doors, which birds learned to open. Prelaying behaviour was least disturbed in nest boxes, most disturbed on the floor and intermediate in dust baths.

3. Fully developed dust bathing occurred in D and DN as bouts lasting 5 to 10 minutes; its incidence, surprisingly, was greater when doors were present and greater still when nest boxes were present, even though it was not performed in them. It was also performed by some hens in nest boxes in N (without doors). In N with doors and in control cages, dust bathing occurred on the bare floor in truncated form, as serial bouts each lasting only about 10 s. This truncated dust bathing was also occasionally observed in D and DN.

4. Plumage, foot and claw damage were less in hens from modified cages than from controls. Egg production was very good in all treatments but more eggs from control cages were downgraded because they were dirty or cracked.

5. When a choice was available birds generally partitioned their behaviour appropriately between nest box and dust bath. In N and DN virtually all prelaying and nesting behaviour took place in the nest boxes. Matching between dust bathing and the environment was less close; the reasons for its relatively low incidence and occurrence in truncated form outside dust baths remain to be established.     

The Edinburgh modified gage for laying hens

1. Behaviour, production and welfare of ISA Brown medium hybrids were assessed in 2 trials (each from 20 to 44 weeks of age) of a novel design of cage for laying hens: the Edinburgh Modified Cage (EMC).

2. The EMC was 600 mm wide, 450 mm deep and 450 mm high at the rear; it had a softwood perch and at one side a 250 mm wide nest box (containing litter or artificial turf) with a dust bath direcdy above. It housed 4 birds and provided 675 cm^2/bird in the main cage with an additional 281 cm² /bird in the nest box. The nest box and dust bath had automatically controlled doors which were closed at night. There were 18 EMC; in the first trial these were compared with 6 control cages with perch but without next box or dust bath.

3. Hens spent 32 to 37% of day time on the perch, 5 to 7% in the dust bath and 5 to 6% in the nest. At night 92 to 98% roosted on the perch.

4. Initially only 55 to 70% of eggs were laid in the nest box partly because some eggs were laid before dawn. Once the door was retimed to open 3h before lights‐on the proportion rose to 91 to 96%. Very few eggs were laid in the dust bath. Pre‐laying behaviour lasted longer in treatments with nest boxes (55 to 76min) than in control cages (48min); disturbance was slight in all treatments, but lowest in control cages.

5. Dust baths were well used, with on average 61% of hens dust bathing during a 3‐h afternoon observation period compared with only 17% in control cages. Two birds could use the dust bath simultaneously.

6. It was concluded that although a number of minor design features still required attention the EMC has potential to reduce the disadvantages of conventional cages for welfare while retaining their advantages and has possible commercial application.     

Perch length in cages for medium hybrid laying hens

1. ISA Brown hens were housed as groups of 4 from 18 to 72 weeks in 24 cages 450 mm deep, each with a softwood perch of rectangular cross‐section fitted across the rear. There were 4 treatments, each with 6 cages: cage widths and perch lengths were 480, 520, 560 or 600 mm.

2. Daytime perching did not differ significantly between the treatments. At night, over the whole year, 81% of birds in the 480 mm cages and 86% in the 520 mm cages roosted on the perch. This figure reached about 95% in the 560 and 600 mm cages, significantly more at most ages than in the 480 mm cages.

3. Feather damage was slightly less, but claw problems slightly more, in the 2 wider treatments than in the 2 narrower treatments. Birds in the wider cages were calmer when approached or handled by humans than those in the narrower cages. This may have been associated with variation in space allowance between the treatments.

4. There was a trend for lower production in the 480 mm cages than in the other treatments which may have been associated with the reduced feeding space in this treatment. There were few other treatment differences in production traits.

5. The balance of the evidence from this study is that when perches are provided in laying cages for medium weight hybrids, 140 mm of perch space per hen is adequate. For the amelioration of a number of the welfare problems of conventional cages, provision of perches should be combined with other modifications.     

Development of furnished cages for laying hens

1. A 3-year trial was carried out of cages for laying hens, occupying a full laying house. The main cage designs used were 5000 cm2 in area, 50 cm high at the rear and furnished with nests and perches. F cages had a front rollaway nest at the side, lined with artificial turf. FD cages also had a dust bath containing sand over the nest. H cages had two nest hollows at the side, one in front of the other. They were compared with conventional cages 2500 cm2 in area and 38 cm high at the rear. 2. Cages were stocked with from 4 to 8 ISA Brown hens per cage, resulting in varied allowances of area, feeder and perch per bird. No birds were beak trimmed. In F and FD cages two further treatments were applied: nests and dust baths were sometimes fitted with gates to exclude birds from dust baths in the morning and from both at night; elevated food troughs, with a lip 33 cm above the cage floor, were compared with standard troughs. 3. Management of the house was generally highly successful, with temperature control achieved by ventilation. Egg production was above breeders' standards and not significantly affected by cage design. More eggs per bird were collected when there were fewer birds per cage but food consumption also then tended to be higher. 4. The number of downgraded eggs was variable, with some tendency for more in furnished cages. Eggs laid in dust baths were often downgraded. Those laid at the back of the cage were frequently dirty because of accumulation of droppings. H nests were unsuccessful, with less than 50% of eggs laid in the nest hollows. However, up to 93% of eggs were laid in front rollaways, and few of these were downgraded. 5. Feather and foot damage were generally less in furnished than in conventional cages, greater where there were more birds per cage. With an elevated food trough there was less feather damage but more overgrowth of claws. In year 2, mortality was greater in cages with more birds. 6. Pre-laying behaviour was mostly settled in front rollaway nests. Dust baths were used more for pecking and scratching than for dust bathing. Comfort behaviour was more frequent in furnished cages than conventional, although still not frequent. Locomotion was strongly affected by number of birds per cage or by space per bird, being reduced by crowding. Most birds perched at night except in one treatment providing only 10.7 cm perch per bird. 7. Behaviour was more unrestricted and varied, and physical condition was better, in furnished than in conventional cages. However, egg production will cost more in furnished cages, partly because more eggs are downgraded. Dust baths must be fitted with gates that the birds cannot open from outside, but gates for nest boxes were found unnecessary. If a low perch is fitted it must be far enough from the back of the cage for birds to walk there. 8. Where there was less space per bird (more birds per cage) than the requirements in the 1999 European Commission Directive on laying hens, there were: fewer eggs per hen, but still above the breeders' target; lower food consumption; more feather and foot damage, but less than in conventional cages; higher mortality in one trial out of three; less freedom of movement. However, the results were still very good even with 8 birds per cage, and support the principle that furnished cages provide an acceptable way of protecting the welfare of laying hens.     

Calcium, diet and fracture risk: a prospective study of 1898 incident fractures among 34 696 British women and men

OBJECTIVE: The risk factors for fractures are incompletely understood. An outstanding question concerns the optimal amount of dietary calcium needed to minimise the risk of fracture. DESIGN: We examined the associations of dietary calcium and other nutrients with self-reported fracture risk in a prospective cohort study. Nutrient intakes were estimated using a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire administered at recruitment. SETTING: The UK. Participants: A total of 26 749 women and 7947 men aged 20-89 years. RESULTS: Over an average of 5.2 years of follow-up, 1555 women and 343 men reported one or more fractures, 72% of these resulting from a fall. Among women, fracture risk was higher at lower calcium intakes, with a relative risk of 1.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-2.29) among women with a calcium intake of < 525 mg day- 1 compared with women with a calcium intake of at least 1200 mg day- 1 (test for linear trend, P < 0.001). The association of dietary calcium with fracture risk was stronger among women aged under 50 years at recruitment than among women aged 50 and above. Dietary calcium intake was not associated with fracture risk in men. Fracture risk was not related to the dietary intake of any other nutrient examined. CONCLUSION: In this population, women with a low dietary calcium intake had an increased risk of bone fracture, and this association was more marked among younger women than among older women.     

Behaviour of laying hens in cages with nest sites

1. Behavior of ISA Brown hens was compared in cages with and without nest sites provided, to determine the characteristics necessary for such nest sites and whether part of the existing cage area could be modified to form an acceptable nest file. 2. There were 5 treatments: control (C); a wooden surround in one rear corner of the cage (S); a fiberglass rollaway hollow in one rear corner of the cage (H); a hollow and a surround (H/S); a nest box attached to the back of the cage, containing a hollow (N). 3. Use of rollaway hollows was limited, unless they were blocked and wood shavings were added, when 55 to 60% of eggs were laid in them. There were also problems with soiling of hollows. 4. When hollows were blocked, most hens used them in treatments H/S and N, suggesting that substrate and surroundings both contributed to acceptability of nest sites. 5. Pre-laying behaviour in sites within the cage was disturbed and sometimes abnormal. In addition, these sites were not used for other activities, thus limiting the space available. 6. For pre-laying behaviour to be expressed satisfactorily in cages, an additional nesting area, such as a nest box or boxes, is probably necessary.