Design of nest boxes for laying cages

1. ISA Brown hens were housed in groups of 4 in cages with different designs of nest boxes provided, to determine the effects of nest box design and management on their use and on the pre‐laying behaviour shown by the birds.

2. There were 5 treatments: control (C); a wire‐floored nest box attached to the back of the cage (W); a nest box containing a fibreglass rollaway hollow (N); two rollaway nest boxes (T); a rollaway nest box, protected by a partition from the main part of the cage (P).

3. The holes in the rollaway nests in treatment N, T and P were shut initially, but the proportion of eggs laid in these nests only reached 50%. This proportion rose to over 80% when wood shavings were added daily, but fell to below 30% when rollaway holes were opened. These rollaway hollows are apparently not suitable for use in laying cages.

4. Use of nest boxes in treatment W varied between 60 and 80%. However, when pre‐laying behaviour was recorded (in 19 hens) two birds which laid in the nest boxes nevertheless showed abnormal behaviour.

5. Individual hens had on average 29 to 60% of their pre‐laying behaviour overlapped by that of others in the cage. Nesting space for at least two birds is probably necessary in a cage for 4 birds. However, in treatment T pre‐laying behaviour was disturbed by hens moving between the two boxes. This would be avoided by provision of one box big enough for two hens.

6. Soiling of hollows resulted in dirty eggs and suggested that nest boxes for laying cages may have to be provided with doors to prevent hens from roosting in them.     

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.     

Egg shell colour is affected by laying cage design

1. When laying hens are stressed some retain their eggs in the shell gland beyond the normal time of laying and this can result in the deposition of extra-cuticular calcium which makes brown eggs appear paler. 2. Three different types of enriched modified cage were compared: the location where eggs were laid was recorded and shell colour was measured using a reflectometer. 3. In 2 types of cage with enclosed nest boxes more eggs (80%) were laid in the nests than in a design with nest hollows in the open part of the cage (41%). 4. The eggs from the cages with enclosed nests were darker (had less extraneous calcium) than those with open nest hollows. This implies that in the designs with nest boxes fewer eggs had been retained and the hens may have been less stressed. 5. The results support previous evidence that to reduce stress and improve welfare it is desirable to provide enclosed nest sites for caged laying hens.     

Relation between social order and use of resources in small and large furnished cages for laying hens

1. The objective was to determine the relation between social rank and use of resources in a small furnished cage with sufficient resources per hen (SF) and a commercial large one with less adequate allowance of facilities per hen (LF). 2. Ninety-two cross layers were used. At the age of 16 weeks, the hens were divided at random into two groups. There were 4 furnished cages with 5 birds per cage and 4 large furnished cages with 18 birds per cage. The dominance hierarchy was determined, in which highest, medium and lowest ranking hens in each cage were identified. Behaviour, use of facilities and physical conditions of these hens were measured (one in each rank category in SF, two in each in LF). 3. Dustbathing and litter scratching were more frequent in the high ranking hens than the medium and low ranked hens in LF, while no significant difference was found between them in SF. 4. No significant difference between SF and LF was found in use of nest boxes. However, pre-laying sitting tended to be less frequent in low ranking than medium and high ranking hens in LF (Social order x Cage design). In the nest box most of time was spent in pre-laying sitting by SF hens, LF high and medium ranked hens (average 94.9%). However, LF low ranking hens spent their time escaping (33.1%), pre-laying sitting (27.7%) standing (25.7%) and moving (13.5%) in the nest. 5. In the large furnished cages with less facilities per hen, high ranking hens may be expected to have priority using the dust bath. In contrast, low ranking hens rarely performed nesting behaviour fully, and spend more time using the nest box as a refuge than for laying.     

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.     

Design of laying nests in furnished cages: influence of nesting material, nest box position and seclusion

(1) Preferences for three nesting materials and nest box positions were investigated simultaneously in two trials using a furnished cage: one with 18 individual laying hens and one with 18 groups of 5 hens. Following a habituation period in pre-test cages, every hen or group of hens was tested for 2 d: once without and once with plastic flaps at the entrance of the nest boxes. (2) Hens preferred peat and artificial turf to coated wire mesh for egg laying. (3) One nest box position was clearly preferred to both other nest boxes. The hens' choice of nest box position was influenced by the pre-test cage in which they had been habituated. (4) The presence of plastic flaps at the entrance of the nest boxes had no influence on the proportion of eggs laid on the different nesting materials or on the proportion of floor eggs. (5) Individual and group testing resulted in the same overall results despite the presence of a distinct group effect.     

Effects of group size on performance,health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens

A total of 1584 Lohmann Selected Leghorn hens were kept in 144 modified cages furnished with—perch, nest and sandbath for 5, 6, 7 or 8 hens per cage or in 162 conventional cages for 4 hens. Cage floor area was 600 cm² per hen excluding nest and sandbath. Doors to nests and sandbaths were time monitored. Production, mortality, exterior egg quality, health, integument and the birds use of facilities were registered from 20 until 80 weeks. No effects of group size or keeping system on production or mortality were detected, but the furnished cage gave more cracked and less dirty eggs than the conventional cage. Hens in the furnished cage had better plumage condition, less toe pad hyperkeratosis, shorter claws, less rear body wounds and stronger humerus, but dirtier feet than hens in the conventional cage. Hens in the larger group sizes had the dirtiest feet. In the furnished cage, on average, 86% of all eggs were laid in the nests and 0.6% in the sandbaths. The rolling out efficiency from nests was best in the larger group sizes. During night less than 0.5% of the hens stayed in the sandbath and less than 2% stayed in the nest. Average use of perches was 28% during the day and 91% at night. Hens in the small group sizes used the sandbath most. Dust‐bathing behaviour also occurred on the wire floor.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality

1. Conventional cages are to be replaced by furnished cages or aviary systems to improve the welfare of hens. We compared the performance and egg quality of hens reared in two designs of furnished cages and of two standard cages. We also explored the consequences of the absence of beak trimming when using these designs. 2. Hens (2028) were housed from 18 to 70 weeks of age in 108 standard cages at 6 per cage (60 cmx63.5 cm), in 96 cages at 5 per cage (59.5 cmx55.5 cm) or in two designs of furnished cage at 15 per cage (24 F15M cages and 36 F15P cages made by two manufacturers) which contained equipment varying in size and location (nests, dust baths and perches). Half of the hens were beak-trimmed in each design. 3. Mortality was low in beak-trimmed hens (<5%) but was unacceptably high in non-beak-trimmed hens due to cannibalism (>40%, 516 hens). Mortality was worse in standard cages than in furnished cages. Consequently, hen-housed egg production was significantly lowered in non-beak-trimmed hens. 4. Egg laying in beak-trimmed hens reared in furnished cages occurred mainly in the nest (80 and 84.8% in F15M and F15P) but also in the dust bath (13.3 and 9.4% in F15M and F15P) and in other parts of the cage (6.7 and 5.8% in F15M and F15P). 5. The total percentage of broken (visual observation) and hair-cracked eggs (candling) was high in the furnished cage designs (15.4 and 19.6% in F15M and F15P, respectively) compared with standard cage designs (8.1 and 12.2% in S6 and S5). This was mainly due to hair-cracked eggs, the highest percentages occurring in the nests, especially in the design with a narrow nest and no egg saver (11.1% in F15M compared to 17.6% in F15P) as a consequence of egg accumulation in the cradle and relatively low frequency of manual egg collection. 6. Eggshell quality (index and breaking strength) was only slightly influenced by cage effects so differences in egg breakage were attributable to impacts related to cage design. 7. It is concluded that beak trimming remains the most effective way to prevent cannibalism, although furnished cages with a large group of hens slightly reduced the incidence, and that further development and optimisation of furnished cages is needed to reach egg quality similar to standard cages.     

The Effect of Cage Environment and Ad Libitum Feeding on the Circadian Rhythm,Behaviour and Feed Intake of Farm Mink

Abstract

The effect of cage size and nest box environment on circadian rhythm and on stereotyped and non-stereotyped activities was measured for 66 farmed female mink fed ad libitum. The behaviour of the animals was recorded over 24 h on video in the months of September and October. Weight and feed consumption were measured for the 66 females and the 66 male mink placed with the females. The experiment included three cage sizes (0.10, 0.27 and 1.10 m²) and cages with and without nest boxes. In the cages with nest boxes the use of wire netting cylinders and shelves was evaluated.

Farm mink, fed ad libitum, had their primary activity period from 04:00 to 10:00 h. There was no food anticipatory activity, but the actual feeding at noon caused an interruption of the animals' resting period. Mink in cages without nest boxes performed more stereotyped behaviour than mink with nest boxes. There was no effect of cage size on the measured behavioural elements. Mink were passive for more than 70% of the day and night and preferred to rest together. Apart from resting in the nest box, mink preferred to rest on shelves above floor level. Lacking the possibility of using a nest box and performance of stereotyped behaviour increase the feed intake of farm mink. A large variation between animals, having a significant effect on all the measured behavioural elements, indicates different coping patterns and/or stress sensitivity.     

Evaluation of the effects of cage height and stocking density on the behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages

1. Limited information is available on how changes in horizontal and vertical space within enriched or furnished layer cages (as defined by Directive 1999/74/EC) influence hen behaviour. This study evaluated the effects of varying minimum cage heights and space allowances on the behaviour of laying hens housed in furnished cages. It was conducted on two flocks of medium brown hybrid hens housed in furnished cages with access to perches and nest boxes on a semi-commercial scale at ADAS Gleadthorpe. 2. Flock 1 consisted of two layer strains (ISA Brown and Babcock 380), housed at two minimum cage heights (38 and 45 cm) and 5 stocking densities between 609 and 870 cm2/bird, with 12 replicates of each of the 20 strain/cage height/stocking density treatment combinations. Stocking density was varied by varying the number of birds per cage from 10 to 7 in standard full-width cages or housing 7 hens in a narrower cage. As a consequence stocking density, group size and trough width per bird co-varied for 4 out of 5 stocking density treatments. 3. Behaviour of flock 1 was sampled at 33 to 36, 46 and 68 weeks of age. At each age one top-tier, one middle-tier and one bottom-tier cage was sampled for each treatment. 4. Few behavioural differences due to cage treatments were detected. Hens at 870 cm2 had shorter feeding bouts than hens at 609 and 762 cm2. Yawning was more common in the cages with greater cage height. 5. Video recordings of flock 1 examined cage height effects on hens' use of vertical space and provided additional data on stretching and self-maintenance activities. No differences in behaviour between 38 and 45 cm cages were found except that scratching head was more common in cages with greater cage height. 6. Flock 2 consisted of two layer strains (Shaver Brown and Hy-Line Brown), housed at 38 and 45 cm and 609, 762 and 1016 cm2/bird, with 18 replicates of each of the 12 strain/cage height/stocking density treatment combinations. Stocking density was varied by housing 10, 8 or 6 hens in standard full-width cages. Behaviour of flock 2 was sampled at 30, 48, 60 and 67 weeks from video recordings. Three cages per treatment from middle-tiers only were sampled at each age. 7. Hens housed at 609 cm2/hen had the longest mean feeding bout, greater than for hens at 762 cm2/hen but not hens at 1016 cm2/hen. More unsuccessful attempts to reach the feeder and sideways and backwards displacements from the feeder occurred at 762 and 609 cm2/hen than at 1016 cm2/hen. A maximum of 8 hens were observed feeding synchronously. 8. These results suggest that changes in horizontal and vertical space over the ranges we studied had little effect on behaviour other than feeding behaviour. Specifying a minimum useable trough space per hen, rather than calculating feeder space from total length of feeder per cage, irrespective of accessibility, might help avoid crowding at the feeder and associated disturbance of feeding bouts.     

Frustrated nesting behaviour: relation to extra-cuticular shell calcium and bone strength in White Leghorn hens

1. The inability of hens to express normal nesting behaviour in battery cages results in frustration, manifesting itself as stereotyped pacing. Frustration can cause hens to retain their eggs beyond the expected time of lay, resulting in an extra-cuticular layer of calcium on eggshells. 2. This study investigated whether frustrated nesting behaviour caused extra-cuticular calcification of eggshells and whether this loss of non-structural calcium to eggshells may have subsequently contributed to weak bones in spent hens. 3. One hundred and twenty hens were assigned to one of three treatments: NB (hens given nest boxes in their cages), NN (no nest box) and R (access to nest box periodically restricted). 4. NB hens spent the least amount of time pacing in the hour before oviposition. NN and R hens spent similar amounts of time pacing. 5. Contrary to expectation, eggshells from hens under different treatments yielded the same amount of extra-cuticular calcium. Similarly tibia strength did not significantly differ among treatments.     

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.     

Behaviour and hormone concentrationsin nest deprived and renesting hens

1. Nest and egg deprivation is a procedure traditionally used to disrupt incubation behaviour expression in commercial flocks. The aim of this study was to establish how nest deprivation affects the subsequent changes in behaviour and hormone secretion and whether readiness to renest is related to hormone concentration before and during nest deprivation. 2. Incubating broiler breeder hens were deprived of their nest either in their familiar environment, by blocking the nest entrance in the home cage or in an unfamiliar environment, by transfer in a different cage. After 3 days of nest deprivation, next access was allowed and readiness to incubate tested. 3. Both methods of nest deprivation resulted in the expression of similar behaviours associated with the disruption of incubation, and similar increases in plasma LH and oestradiol and decreases in plasma prolactin. The percentage (70%) of hens which renested after either method of nest deprivation did not differ significantly. 4. Readiness to renest was not related to the concentrations of plasma prolactin measured before or during the 3 days of nest deprivation. However, hens which would later renest could be identified by using behavioural criteria. They emitted more avoidance trills before, and sat on the wire floor for longer periods during, the nest deprivation period than the others.     

Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches

The strength of the tibia was compared in 72-week-old ISA brown hens housed as groups of four for 52 weeks either in conventional cages or in cages with a 450 mm long perch, positioned either at the front or the back of the cage. The breaking strength of the bone was measured by subjecting it to a gradually increasing force on a three-point rig until it broke. The median strength of the tibia was greater in birds from cages with either front (160 Newtons [N]) or rear perches (152 N) than from conventional cages (135 N). Increased between-bird variation in the cages with perches suggests that there is scope for a further increase in bone strength by the provision of perches long enough to accommodate all the birds simultaneously. These results show that the strength of the tibia can be increased almost as much by using new designs of cage as by housing hens on the floor.     

Nest box design and nesting material in a deep litter house for laying hens

1. Preferences of hens for different types of nest box were tested in two deep litter pens, each containing 300 Isabrown laying hens. Four types were offered: traditional wooden nests with litter, metal rollaway nests with plastic liners, wooden rollaway nests with artificial turf and autonests.

2. Most eggs were laid in traditional nests (70% in pen 1, 66% in pen 2). Metal rollaways were the next preferred type. These preferences were confirmed by analysis of records from individual nest boxes, and by observations of hens marked with wing tags.

3. Choice of nesting material was tested in one pen of 370 hens. Traditional nests were provided, containing either wood shavings or a mixture of buckwheat and oat husks.

4. Preferences for type of nesting material were equivocal. The majority of eggs were laid on wood shavings initially, but on buckwheat/oat husks later. Individual hens were inconsistent in their choice. A deep (100 mm) layer of nesting material was preferred to a shallow (25 mm) layer.

5. Individual, wooden nest boxes incorporating buckwheat/oat husk nesting material on a movable belt are probably the most suitable system for automation of egg collection in deep litter houses.     

Pop hole passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying hens

1. This study included two designs of furnished cages for 16 hens; H-cages divided into two apartments by a partition with pop holes in the middle of the cage, and fully open O-cages, without a partition. The hypothesis was that in this rather large group of birds the pop hole partition would benefit the birds by allowing them to avoid or escape from potential cannibals, feather-peckers or aggressive hens. All cages had two nests, two perches and one litter box. 2. A total of 10 cages (5 H and 5 O) were stocked with Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL) and 8 cages (4 H and 4 O) with Hy-Line W36. No birds were beak-trimmed. 3. Heterophil/lymphocyte (H/L) ratios, duration of tonic immobility (TI) and exterior appearance (scoring of plumage condition and wounds at comb or around cloaca) were used as indicators of well-being. Total mortality and deaths due to cannibalism were also recorded. 4. Visits to nests and passages through partition pop holes were studied in samples of 35 and 21 birds, respectively, using a technique based on passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags. 5. Cage design (H- vs O-cage) had no effect on the welfare traits chosen. 6. Hy-Line birds showed higher H/L ratios, longer duration of TI and better plumage condition than LSL birds. These differences are discussed in terms of stress thresholds and copying strategies. 7. On days when a hen made visits to nests, the visiting frequency was 1.4 and the total time in the nest was 41 min on average. Hens made use of the pop hole passages between 1 and 8 times per hen and day. 8. Overall low levels of aggression, lack of injuries or deaths due to cannibalism, and plumage condition indicating moderate feather pecking, together imply a low need to escape. The pop holes were used frequently and birds distributed well between compartments showing that the system worked well. However, at this group size there was no evidence in the measured traits that H-cages provided a better housing environment.     

Effects of nest linings,pecking strips and partitioning on nest use and behaviour in modified battery cages

1. Nine groups of 4 ISA Brown hens were housed in modified battery cages each containing 3 nest sites. Egg laying was performed exclusively in these sites.

2. In experiment 1, each cage contained one unlined nest (type A), one lined with neoprene rubber (type B) and one lined with rubber with an additional peckable strip of artificial grass attached above the nest rear (type C). Positions of the nests were systematically altered over 45 d.

3. Hens spent most time in and made most visits to nest type C. More eggs were laid in nest types B and C than in nest type A.

4. In experiment 2, all nests were of type C, but nests were divided within each cage either by wire mesh, or a solid nest partition, or no partition. Nesting behaviour was monitored over 20 d for each of the 3 conditions.

5. Hens spent most time in, and made most visits to the nests when solid partitions were present. However, disturbance of nesting birds was also significantly increased by solid partitions. There were no significant effects of partition type on the number or positions of eggs laid in the nests.     

Enriched cage systems for laying hens--legal minimum conditions and starting points for their scientific evaluation

Recent developments in the European and national legislation regarding minimum standards for the keeping of laying hens will be causing changed conditions for egg production in the medium term. Enriched cages shall allow hens to better fulfill their needs than traditional battery cages. More space for the stretching of wings and legs, perches for resting, littered areas for scratching, pecking and dustbathing and nests for egg-laying behaviour shall allow layers to perform more of their normal behaviour patterns. However, regarding the sustainability of these systems there are different views and still a great lack of scientific data and practical experience. An overview is given on the development of European and national animal welfare legislation concerning laying hens, minimum requirements for enriched cages and the available evidence about animal behaviour, performance and health in these systems. Furthermore, a current project at the School of Veterinary Medicine Hannover on the animal welfare assessment of enriched cages, specifically on the Aviplus cage system, which was one of the first systems on the market and is in accordance with EU-directive, is introduced.