Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:00:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

TB Rodenburg ,
FAM Tuyttens ,
K de Reu ,
L Herman ,
J Zoons  and
B Sonck
TB Rodenburg*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (IVLO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (IVLO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
K de Reu
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (IVLO), Technology and Food Sciences, Food Safety, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090 Melle, Belgium
L Herman
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (IVLO), Technology and Food Sciences, Food Safety, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J Zoons
Affiliation:
Provincial Centre for Applied Poultry Research, Poiel 77, 2440 Geel, Belgium
B Sonck
Affiliation:
Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (IVLO), Animal Sciences, Animal Husbandry & Welfare, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: bas.rodenburg@wur.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

From 2012 onwards, all laying hens in Europe will need to be housed either in furnished cages or non-cage systems (aviaries or floor-housing systems). In terms of animal welfare, furnished cages and non-cage systems both have advantages and disadvantages. Data on direct comparisons between the two, however, are limited. The aim of this study was to carry out an on-farm comparison of laying hens’ welfare in furnished cages and non-cage systems. To meet this aim, six flocks of laying hens in furnished cages and seven flocks in non-cage systems (all without an outdoor run) were visited when hens were around 60 weeks of age and a number of measures were collected: behavioural observations, fearfulness, plumage and body condition, incidence of bone breaks, bone strength, TGI-score (or Animal Needs Index), dust levels and mortality. In non-cage systems, birds were found to be more active and made greater use of resources (scratching area, perches) than in furnished cages. These birds also had stronger bones and were less fearful than birds in furnished cages. On the other hand, birds in furnished cages had lower mortality rates, lower incidence of bone fractures and lower airborne dust concentrations. When all the welfare indicators were integrated into an overall welfare score, there were no significant differences between systems. These results indicate that furnished cages and non-cage systems have both strong and weak points in terms of their impact on animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourhealthhousinglaying henswelfare assessment
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 363 - 373
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albentosa, MJ and Cooper, JJ 2004 Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animal Welfare 13: 419–424Google Scholar
Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilcík, B and Keeling, LJ 2000 Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 55–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the technical committee to require into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. HM Stationary Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ, Albentosa, MJ and Redgate, SE 2004 The 24 hour activity budgets of hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 45: 538–539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Reu, K, Messens, W, Heyndrickx, M, Rodenburg, B, Uyttendaele, M and Herman, L 2008 Bacterial contamination of table eggs and the influence of housing systems. World Poultry Science Journal 64: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Wilkins, LJ, Eleperuma, SD, Ballantyne, AJ and Overfield, ND 1990 Broken bones in domestic fowls: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, M, Caroli, A and Navarotto, P 1999 Dust concentration and mortality distribution in an enclosed laying house. Transactions of the ASAE 42: 1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, I, Braastad, BO, Storbråten, J and Tofastrud, M 1993 Differences in fearfulness indicated by tonic immobility between laying hens in aviaries. Animal Welfare 2: 105–112Google Scholar
Jones, RB, Blokhuis, HJ and Beuving, G 1995 Open-field and tonic immobility responses in domestic chicks of two genetic lines differing in their propensity to feather peck. British Poultry Science 36: 525–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michel, V and Huonnic, D 2004 A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or aviaries. British Poultry Science 44: 775–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Rodenburg, TB, Bokkers, EAM, Koene, P and de Boer, IJM 2005 On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90: 277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Gregory, NG, Knowles, TG, Parkman, ID and Wilkins, LJ 1999 Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, S, Nonnenmann, M, Rautiainen, R, Demmers, TG, Banhazi, T and Lyngbye, M 2000 Dust in pig buildings. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 6: 261–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2005 Welfare, health and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8: 211–226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, de Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008 Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare 17: 355–361Google Scholar
Striezel, A, Andersson, R and Horning, B 1994 Animal Needs Index for laying hens. In: Sundrum, A, Andersson, R and Postler, G (eds) Animal Needs Index 200: a Manual to Assess Housing Systems pp 73–112. Kollen Druck & Verlag: Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Struelens, E, Tuyttens, FAM, Duchateau, L, Leroy, T, Cox, M, Vranken, E, Buyse, J, Zoons, J, Berckmans, D, Odberg, F and Sonck, B 2008 Perching behaviour and perch height preference of laying hens in furnished cages varying in height. British Poultry Science 49: 381–389CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R, Kjaer, J, Maria, G, Cepero, R and Holm, KE 2005 Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23: 153–159Google Scholar
Uitdehaag, K, Komen, H, Rodenburg, TB, Kemp, B and van Arendonk, J 2008 The novel object test as predictor of feather damage in cage-housed Rhode Island Red and White Leghorn laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, Brown, SN, Zimmerman, PH, Leeb, C and Nicol, CJ 2004 Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. The Veterinary Record 155: 547–549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkins, LJ, Pope, SJ, Leeb, C, Glen, E, Phillips, A, Zimmerman, P, Nicol, C and Brown, SN 2005 Fracture rate in laying strain hens at the end of the rearing period and the end of the laying period. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23(SI): 189–194Google Scholar