Behaviour of laying hens in aviaries--review. Part 1: Social and resting behaviour of hens

This literature review gives information about important behaviour categories of laying hens kept in aviary systems. Based on current knowledge, the differences in behaviour of hens in aviaries compared to the behaviour of hens living under "close to natural" conditions are assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. The focus of this first review is put on resting and particularly on social behaviour. So far "optimal" group size for laying hens and consequences of oversized groups for the well-being of laying hens are unknown, thus, rendering further research necessary. Referring to the resting and social behaviour of laying hens, proposals for the design of the housing system aviary are given. A second part will deal with feeding, reproductive and dustbathing behaviour.     

Assessment of furnished cages for laying hens--development for small aviaries

Observations on six farms keeping laying hens in furnished cages showed that hens accepted the installations of this new housing type. Behaviours indicating that the adaptations of hens were problematic have not been observed. Locomotion and dust bathing in some groups occured as not sufficient. Lighting was too low and affected expressions of behaviour patterns. For further developments are proposed more usable space per bird and a different placement of perches. Dust bathes should be utilized permanently and should contain sufficient amount of litter.     

Pecking behaviour of laying hens in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor area

1. The objective of the present study was to examine the behaviour of laying hens in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor areas with particular reference to the proportion of each behaviour and the ways it changed. 2. In all, 144 interbred cross layers (WL/RIR cross-breed) were used. At the age of 16 weeks, the hens were divided at random into two groups and moved to single-tiered aviary (SA) and free-range systems (FR, SA with in addition an outdoor range area covered with clover) with 18 hens per pen. Behavioural observations were conducted before, during and after access to the range. 3. All behaviours using the beak (eating, grazing, drinking, preening, aggressive pecking, feather pecking, litter pecking, object pecking and mate pecking) were recorded as pecking behaviour. 4. While most of the FR hens spent their time outside foraging, the proportion of hens eating, preening, litter pecking, object pecking, aggressive pecking and feather pecking was higher in SA than in FR hens. 5. The proportion of hens performing pecking behaviour of all types was very similar in SA (61.7 +/- 2.0%) and in FR (64.0 +/- 0.8%). The proportion of hens performing overall pecking behaviour increased as pre-laying sitting decreased. 6. The proportion of hens feather pecking decreased in FR during access to range and a similar tendency was found for aggressive pecking. 7. In conclusion, the total proportion of hens pecking was almost the same regardless of whether an outdoor area was provided or not, but the incidence of different types of pecking behaviour differed between SA and FR. The risk of feather pecking in FR may be lower when an outdoor grazing area is provided, although further testing on a larger scale would be essential.     

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.     

Effect of substrate provision on performance and behaviour of laying hens in the pecking and scratching area of furnished cages

1. An experiment was set up to study the effects of substrate provision on performance and behaviour in the pecking and scratching area (PSA) of non-beak-trimmed hens housed in large furnished cages (60 hens/cage).

2. Three layer hybrids (two brown and one white, ISA-Hendrix Genetics, France) and two substrate conditions (with or without wheat bran automatically distributed on the PSA) were compared in a 3 × 2 experimental design with 12 cages per treatment.

3. Substrate distribution improved laying rate with no impact on the frequency of dirty or cracked eggs.

4. Substrate distribution improved the viability and body integrity of hens, which were not beak-trimmed.

5. Distribution of substrate tended to increase the number of hens in the PSA and enhanced their pecking and scratching behaviours but had a negative impact on the number of dust bath bouts per cage and encouraged dust bathing on the wire floor close to the feeder.

6. The white hens laid more eggs in the nest than the brown birds and used the PSA more for pecking, scratching and dust bathing at the end of the day than the brown hens, underlining the necessity to adapt cage furnishing and rearing management to specific behaviours of each layer genotype.     

Comparison of different housing systems for laying hens in respect to economic, health and welfare parameters with special regard to organized cages (literature review)

In conventional cages laying hens are subjected to restricted movement and a lack of ability to fulfil most of their natural behaviours. Thus, welfare and health of laying hens can be highly limited in conventional cages. Due to the rising criticism of conventional cages the EU passed a directive in 1999 (CEC, 1999) in order to ban conventional cages by the beginning of 2012. Because of this decision alternative housing systems like floor pens, aviaries or free range systems will gain importance in the future. In these housing systems laying hens have the opportunity to live out their natural behaviours to a higher extent. But also alternative housing systems have some disadvantages. Frequent infections leading to higher mortalities can be detected. Besides that egg production in alternative systems is often not so high and stable like in cages. Furnished cages and small-group-systems represent the attempt to retain the high economic and hygiene standards of conventional cages, while offering the hens the possibility to exercise and fulfil some of their natural behaviours. With regard to productivity, egg quality and bone strength this attempt seems to function, whereas keel bone deformities and the lack of ability to live out natural behaviours are still problems in furnished cages.     

Pre-laying behaviour in battery cages

The pre-laying behaviour of hens from two strains of domestic fowls housed in battery cages was studied. Hens from one strain exhibited stereotyped pacing before laying, whereas hens from the other tended to sit during the pre-laying period. Hens from both strains performed vacuum nest-building behaviour before laying. Implications of these findings in relation to the improvement of animal welfare are discussed.     

The Influence of the Housing System on Salmonella Infections in Laying Hens: A Review

From 2012 onwards, housing of laying hens in conventional battery cages will be forbidden in the European Union and only enriched cages and non‐cage housing systems such as aviaries, floor‐raised, free‐range and organic systems will be allowed. Although this ban aims at improving the welfare of laying hens, it has also initiated the question whether there are any adverse consequences of this decision, especially with respect to the spread and/or persistence of zoonotic agents in a flock. A zoonotic agent that is traditionally associated with the consumption of eggs and egg products is Salmonella enteritidis. This paper provides a summary of the current knowledge regarding the direct and indirect effects of different housing systems on the occurrence and epidemiology of Salmonella in laying hen flocks.     

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.     

Comparison of selected indices of internal environment and condition of laying hens kept in furnished cages and in aviaries

Biochemical and hematological examination of blood and individual assessment of the birds were performed in Lohman Brown laying hens at 45 weeks of age housed in different systems. The biochemical examination revealed higher (p < .01) corticosterone levels, creatine kinase, and aspartate aminotransferase activity and lower (p < .01) levels of lactate, triglycerides, albumin, calcium, and phosphorus in aviary hens compared to hens housed in furnished cages. Hematological examination of hens housed in aviaries revealed higher (p < .05) hematocrit, leukocytes, heterophils, eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, and H/L ratio. Furthermore, hens housed in aviaries had lower (p < .01) body weight than hens in furnished cages, they were worse feathered (p < .001), had more damaged combs (p < .05), and poorer physical condition (p < .01). In contrast, caged hens showed worse (p < .01) feather condition of the wings due to abrasion and claws due to overgrowth. The results have shown that the housing system has a significant impact on the internal environment and condition of birds and that housing in aviaries without taking into account the specifics of such housing may lead to significant stress and disturbance to the welfare of laying hens.     

Development of furnished cages re‐using conventional cages for laying hens: Behaviour,physical condition and productivity

Furnished cages for laying hens have advantages in allowing normal behaviors and maintaining productivity. As the cost of introduction is a barrier for farms, we developed furnished cages that re‐use conventional cages. To determine the minimum and functional cage design, we compared six designs, combinations of two floor designs (artificial turf or wire cage floor) and three screening designs in the integrated area (no screening, one entrance side or four sides). In total, 144 hens were used, and we measured behavior, physical condition and productivity. Comparing the floors, the percentages of hens performing dust‐bathing and laying eggs in the integrated area were higher in cages with turf than wire floor (P < 0.05 for both). Comparing the screening, dust‐bathing, litter‐exploring and active behavior tended to be more frequent in cages with the integrated area screened on one side than four sides. Feather damage was lower in cages with the integrated area screened on one side than with no screening (P < 0.05). These results suggest that the cage design with an integrated area with artificial turf floor, screened on one side, was effective for furnished cages that re‐use conventional cages.     

Genetic analysis of strain differences in pre-laying behaviour in battery cages

The behaviour of hens of two strains during the 10 min before laying in battery cages was studied. Hens of one strain typically exhibited backward-and-forward pacing before laying. Hens of the other strain did not pace and tended to sit. Individual hens of both strains were consistent in their expression of pacing and sitting before laying. There was genetic variation in the expression of both pacing and sitting before laying, and both traits responded to selection. Crosses between the two lines indicated additive genetic variation in the expression of sitting behaviour and non-additive variation in the expression of pacing behaviour.     

Observations on the laying behaviour of hens in battery cages

Observations were made on the laying behaviour of hens from each of two commercial strains kept in a Thornber battery cage system. Attention was paid to the following behavioural components of oviposition: the position of the hen in the cage; the stance of the hen; the height through which the egg fell; the orientation of the egg; the time taken to oviposit; the time taken for the egg to roll out of the cage and the incidence of pecking at the egg.

Less detailed observations were made on the pre‐laying behaviour of the hens.     

Behaviour of laying hens in two types of aviary systems on 25 commercial farms in Sweden

1. Fifty-one flocks of laying hens in two high-density loose-housing systems were studied on 25 commercial farms in Sweden as part of a government test programme for evaluating new systems for laying hens. Six different hybrids were used in group sizes ranging from 250 to 5 000 birds. Stocking-densities varied from 10.2 to 19.1 birds per m2 floor area. No birds were beak trimmed. 2. The distribution of birds in the system, the frequency and location of aggressive pecks and feather pecks, the dust bathing activity and the birds' fear reaction to the keeper and to a novel object were measured. Direct behaviour observations were carried out twice per flock, at weeks 35 and 55. 3. The proportion of birds at the different locations was relatively constant across the 8-h observation period in the tiered system, but changed over time in the perch system, which may reflect a difference in access to resources between the systems. At night the top perches/tiers were preferred although when stocking-density increased, other sites were also used. 4. Aggression occurred mainly on the litter or in the nest areas. It did not differ between hybrids, but increased with age in the tiered system. Feather pecks occurred mainly on the litter. Brown hybrids feather pecked more than white ones, while white hybrids reacted more both to the keeper and to a novel object than did the brown hybrids. 5. It was concluded that access to nests was insufficient in both systems, as was litter space. Feed space was insufficient in the tiered system if food requirements increased. Design of the top perches, in the perch system, should be improved to allow birds to perch high up in the system without blocking access to feed etc. for others.     

Nesting,dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: Effects of design on behaviour and welfare

1. Laying hens (192 ISA Brown medium hybrids) were housed from 18 to 72 weeks as groups of 4 in conventional or experimental cages. The main area of all cages provided 675 cmVhen. All experimental cages had perches, dust baths and nest boxes, which were of three types: litter (L), artificial turf (A) or plastic rollaway (P). These facilities provided an additional 375 to 480 cm²/hen. The nest boxes and dust baths occupied either high or low positions. Behaviour, physical condition and production of the birds were regularly recorded.

2. Mortality was low (1.6% overall) and egg production very good in all treatments. The proportion of cracked and dirty eggs was slightly (but not significantly) higher in the experimental cages. In the experimental cages 90% of eggs were laid overall in the nest boxes and 3% in the dust baths. The proportion laid in the nest boxes was lower early in the laying cycle and increased with time, reaching 99% in A.

3. The facilities were heavily used. Birds spent about 25% of day time on the perches and 10–15% in or near the nest box and dust bath. At night, the majority of birds (90 to 94%) roosted on perches, but most of the remainder were on the lips of the nest box or dust bath, fouling the interiors.

4. Pre‐laying behaviour was much more settled in the experimental cages (45 min spent in the eventual laying position) than in the conventional ones (20 min) and total duration varied from 68 min in A to 87 min in P. The number of nest entries varied from 3.0 (A and P) to 4.3 (L); disturbance to sitting birds was correspondingly greater in L.

5. Dust bathing in the experimental cages generally took place during the afternoon in a single bout of about 5 min duration, whereas in the conventional cages it was brief and fragmented (3 bouts of 10 s each). The dust bath was also used for foraging behaviour (pecking and scratching). The treatments with small dust baths (A and P) caused problems for the birds.

6. Feather, foot and claw damage all tended to be less in the experimental than in the conventional cages, though only in the last case was the difference significant. Keel bone depressions appeared to be associated with perches; they were present in 43% of hens in the experimental cages but only 4% in conventional cages. There were no significant differences in body weight or in tibial or humerus strength between birds in the various treatments.

7. This study confirms that experimental cages with nest boxes, dust baths and perches offer appreciable benefits for welfare, with few production problems. The most successful treatment (A) could, with relatively minor modifications, form the basis of a practical design for large-scale commercial production.     

The effects of exogenous oestrogen and progesterone on laying and nesting behaviour in the hen.

1. It has been shown that if oestrogen and progesterone are given to ovariectomised hens nesting behaviour will occur. Thus if these hormones are given to normal hens the excessive pacing found in some hens before laying might be reduced. 2. Experiments showed that oestrogen produced no noticeable effects and progesterone caused a high incidence of delayed oviposition and abnormal behaviour.     

Aviary Systems and Conventional Cages for Laying Hens: Effects on Production,Egg Quality,Health and Bird Location in Three Hybrids

Abstract

In two experiments, a total of 4346 laying hens housed in battery cages, with three hens per cage (C), and in two aviary systems, both with tiered wire floors and litter (Lövsta with two tiers (L) and Marielund with three tiers (M)), were used for studies on production, egg quality, health, plumage and foot condition, bone strength and bird location. Three hybrids were used: Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL) were kept in all three systems, Dekalb XL (DK) were kept in both aviaries and Lohmann Brown (LB) in M only. Production and feed conversion in M were inferior but not significantly different from C but significantly better than in L. Proportions of dirty eggs were significantly higher in the avaries. No significant differences were found in interior egg quality traits between keeping systems. LSL showed higher production and better feed conversion than the other hybrids and a tendency for a lower proportion of mislaid eggs. Mortality varied considerably between the aviary pens, reaching 35% in LB mainly owing to cannibalism and salpingitis. Keel bone lesions and bumble foot appeared in the aviaries, while toe pad hyperkeratosis was observed in C. Hens in aviaries had significantly stronger bones (tibia and humerus) and showed more wounds from pecks, inferior plumage condition and dirtier feet than in C. LSL had more bumble foot injuries than LB but better plumage condition than DK. The birds used the different parts in the aviaries well, especially the perches on the resting top tier during the night.     

Behavioural expression of laying hens in aviaries and cages: Frequencies,time budgets and facility utilisation

1. We studied: behavioural frequencies and time budgets of behaviour patterns in non‐beak‐trimmed White Leghorn layers housed in cages (720 cm²/hen, 3 hens/cage), and in the Marielund, the Tiered Wire Floor (TWF), and the Laco‐Voletage aviaries (17 hens/m² ground area); individual variation in behaviour among aviary hens; spatial utilisation of the different types of aviary.

2. At 25, 40, and 60 weeks of age behaviour patterns of 114 focal animals were data logged. Each bird was observed for 10 min 4 times a day on three consecutive days.

3. The frequency of activity transitions and the activity level was highest in TWF, second highest in cages, and lowest in Laco‐Voletage, suggested that Laco‐Voletage hens were the calmest, whereas birds in cages and in TWF were more restless. Abnormal types of behaviour occurred most often in cages and TWF. The disadvantageous behaviour patterns shown by birds in TWF and cages imply that these environments were the least appropriate for this layer strain.

4. Pronounced individual variations in mobility and facility utilisation were found, both within and between the three aviaries. Resting levels were used twice as much (Laco‐Voletage), and litter areas one third as much (Marielund), as that expected on a simple a proportionate basis. Most feather pecking was performed at resting levels and on feeding floors, whereas most agonistic behaviour patterns were observed on feeding floors and litter.

5. Measures to improve the aviaries are outlined.     

Influence of quantity of utter on nest box selection and nesting behaviour of domestic hens

1. Twenty two hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) were given a free choice, for egg laying, between 4 nest boxes containing different quantities of wood shavings (litter): 3180 cm³ (large), 1060 cm³ (medium), 350 cm³ (small) and none (zero).

2. There was considerable individual variation in the quantity of litter selected for egg laying, but 17 hens laid 50% or more of their eggs in a single litter quantity. Hens selected the large quantity in preference to the small and zero. More searching, nest selection and nesting behaviours tended to be directed to the boxes with the largest quantities and also to the quantities that the hens finally selected for egg laying.

3. In a second experiment, the hens from experiment 1 which showed a preference for litter, and a further 22 naïve hens were given a choice of three nest boxes containing no litter and one containing one of 6 quantities. Over 30 trials there were 5 replicates using each of the three quantities used in experiment 1 plus 115 cm³, 40 cm³ and 10 cm³.

4. There was a wide range in the proportion of trials in which hens selected litter; for experienced hens the range was 0.43 to 0.97, but only two naïve hens were within this range, all others being between 0 and 0.43.

5. The pattern of choosing litter quantities was comparable but at different levels of preference in experienced and naive hens and a contour map was derived enabling predictions to be made of the probability of a particular quantity being chosen.

6. The variability of individual responses suggest that no single type of nest box system can cater for the requirements of all hens.     

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.