Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:18:39.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of perch design on behaviour and health of laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

E Struelens  and
FAM Tuyttens
E Struelens*
Affiliation:
University College Ghent, Department of Biosciences and Landscape Architecture, Brusselsesteenweg 161, 9090 Melle, Belgium
FAM Tuyttens
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: ester.struelens@hogent.be
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.

EU-Directive 1999/74/EC stipulates that furnished cages and non-cage systems for laying hens should be provided with perches. This Directive allows for a wide variety in perch design features possibly affecting perch use and hen health. Perch material and shape mainly affect slipperiness and grip quality and, in this regard, plastic, metal and circular perches are inferior. The incidence of bumble-foot and keel bone deformities can be influenced by perch shape. Perch shapes which reduce localised pressure on the foot pad and the keel-bone are recommended. Several aspects of the arrangement of the perches in the cage or non-cage system are also important. A consistent preference for high perches is seen, provided there is a minimal distance of 19–24 cm between perch and roof. Accessibility of high perches should be ensured, for example by incorporating lower level perches from which hens can reach the higher levels. Such multi-height perch designs also allow behavioural differentiation according to perch height (with most passive behaviour on the higher perches). In non-cage systems, good accessibility can be achieved by minimising the angles between perches at different heights to smaller than 45° and by limiting the distance between horizontal perches to 1 m. The legislated minimum perch length provided per hen (15 cm) adequately allows for synchronised roosting behaviour on straight perches. However, in crosswise perch designs, hens require more perch length per hen as the area close to the cross cannot be used optimally.

Keywords

animal welfarebumblefootlaying henperch designperch useroosting
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 533 - 538
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abrahamsson, P and Tauson, R 1993 Effects of perches at different positions in conventional cages for laying hens of two different strains. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 43: 228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, P and Tauson, R 1995 Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 45: 191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1995 Perch length in cages for medium hybrid laying hens. British Poultry Science 36: 23–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC 2004 What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313–320Google Scholar
Appleby, MC and Duncan, IJH 1989 Development of perching. Biology of Behaviour 14: 157–168Google Scholar
Appleby, MC, Hughes, BO, McDonald, M and Cordiner, LS 1998 Factors affecting the use of perches in cages by laying hens. British Poultry Science 39: 186–190Google ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC, Mench, JA and Hughes, BO 2004 Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. CAB International: Oxfordshire, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Smith, SF and Hughes, BO 1992 Individual perching behaviour of laying hens and its effects in cages. British Poultry Science 33: 227–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blokhuis, HJ 1984 Rest in poultry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 12: 289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordiner, LS and Savory, CJ 2001 Use of perches and nestboxes by laying hens in relation to social status, based on examination of consistency of ranking orders and frequency of interaction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 305–317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH, Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1992 Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2005 Welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. Scientific Report. Annex to the EFSA Journal 197: 1–23Google Scholar
Freire, R, Wilkins, LJ, Short, F and Nicol, CJ 2003 Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. British Poultry Science 44: 22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Wilkins, LJ, Eleperuma, SD, Ballantyne, AJ and Overfield, ND 1990 Broken bones in the domestic fowl: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S, Yngvesson, J, Keeling, LJ and Forkman, B 2000 Rearing without access to perches impair spatial skills in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, I 1994 Behavioural expression of laying hens in aviaries and cages: frequencies, time budgets and facility utilisation. British Poultry Science 35: 491–508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO and Appleby, MC 1989 Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. The Veterinary Record 124: 483–484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, L 2002 Behaviour of fowl and other domesticated birds. In: Jensen, P (ed) The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text pp 101–118. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, NR and Scott, GB 1998 Perching behaviour and preferences for different perch designs among laying hens. Animal Welfare 7: 203–216Google Scholar
Lambe, NR, Scott, GB and Hitchcock, D 1997 Behaviour of laying hens negotiating perches at different heights. Animal Welfare 6: 29–41Google Scholar
McBride, G, Parer, IP and Foenander, F 1969 The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour Monographs 2: 127–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moinard, C, Morisse, JP and Faure, JM 1998 Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on feather condition, bone breakage and mortality of laying hens. British Poultry Science 39: 198–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moinard, D, Rutherford, KMD, Haskell, MJ, McCorquodale, C, Jones, RB and Green, PR 2005 Effects of obstructed take-off and landing perches on the flight accuracy of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93: 81–95Google Scholar
Moinard, C, Statham, P, Haskell, MJ, McCorquodale, C, Jones, RB and Green, PR 2004 Accuracy of laying hens in jumping upwards and downwards between perches in different light environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, RC, Estevez, I and Keeling, LJ 2001 Group size and perching behaviour in young domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 117–129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niebuhr, K, Lugmair, A, Gruber, B and Zaludik, K 2008 Keel bone damage of laying hens in non-cage systems in Austria. Book of Abstracts of the Fourth International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level pp 49. 10-13 September 2008, Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Oden, K, Keeling, LJ and Algers, B 2002 Behaviour of laying hens in two types of aviary systems on 25 commercial farms in Sweden. British Poultry Science 43: 169–181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oester, H 1994 Different types of perches and their influence on the development of bumble feet in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 58: 231–238Google Scholar
Olsson, IA and Keeling, LJ 2000 Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 243–256Google ScholarPubMed
Olsson, IA and Keeling, LJ 2002 The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11–19Google Scholar
Riber, AB, Wichman, A, Braastad, BO and Forkman, B 2007 Effects of broody hens on perch use, ground pecking, feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106: 39–51Google Scholar
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: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17: 363–373Google Scholar
Rönchen, S, Scholz, B, Hewicker-Trautwein, M, Hamann, H and Distl, O 2008 Foot pad health in Lohmann Selected Leghorn and Lohmann Brown laying hens kept in different housing systems with modified perch design. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 72(3): 97–105Google Scholar
Scholz, B, Rönchen, S, Hamann, H, Pendl, H and Distl, O 2008 Effect of housing system, group size and perch position on H/L-ratio in laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 72(4): 174–180Google Scholar
Scot, GB and MacAngus, G 2004 The ability of laying hens to negotiate perches of different materials with clean or dirty surfaces. Animal Welfare 13: 361–365Google Scholar
Scott, GB and Parker, CAL 1994 The ability of laying hens to negotiate between horizontal perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, GB, Hughes, BO, Lambe, NR and Waddington, D 1999 Ability of laying hens to jump between perches: individual variation and the effects of perch separation and motivation on behaviour. British Poultry Science 40: 177–184CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, GB, Lambe, NR and Hitchcock, D 1997 Ability of laying hens to negotiate horizontal perches at different heights, separated by different angels. British Poultry Science 38: 48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struelens, E, Tuyttens, FAM, Duchateau, L, Leroy, T, Cox, M, Vranken, E, Buyse, J, Zoons, J, Berckmans, D, Ödberg, F and Sonck, B 2008a Perching behaviour and perch height preference of laying hens in furnished cages varying in height. British Poultry Science 49: 381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struelens, E, Van Poucke, E, Duchateau, L, Ödberg, F, Sonck, B and Tuyttens, FAM 2008b Effect of cross-wise perch designs on perch use in laying hens. British Poultry Science 49: 402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struelens, E, Tuyttens, F, Ampe, B, Ödberg, F, Sonck, B and Duchateau, L 2009 Perch width preferences of laying hens. British Poultry Science 50: 418–423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R 1984 Effects of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34: 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R and Abrahamsson, P 1994 Food and skeletal disorders in laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavicae 44: 110–119Google Scholar
Taylor, PE, Scott, GB and Rose, P 2003 The ability of domestic hens to jump between horizontal perches: effects of light intensity and perch colour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valkonen, E, Valaja, J and Venäläinen, E 2005 The effects of dietary energy and perch design on the performance and condition of laying hens kept in furnished cages. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23(S1): 103–110Google Scholar
Van Horne, PLM, Tacken, GML, Ellen, HH, Fiks-van Niekerk, ThGCM, Immink, VM and Bondt, N 2007 Verbod op verrijkte kooien voor leghennen in Nederland. Een verkenning van de gevolgen. Rapport 2.07.10: 124Google Scholar
Wall, H and Tauson, R 2007 Perch arrangements in small-group furnished cages for laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Science 16: 322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, H, Tauson, R and Elwinger, K 2002 Effect of nest design, passages, and hybrid on use of nest and production performance of layers in furnished cages. Poultry Science 81: 333–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB 2004 Welfare implications of avian osteoporosis. Poultry Science 83: 184–192CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, B and Huber-Eicher, B 1998 The effect of foraging material and perch height on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 131–141CrossRefGoogle 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