Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:31:43.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The welfare of laying hens in conventional cages and alternative systems: first steps towards a quantitative comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Freire  and
A Cowling
R Freire*
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
A Cowling
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: rfreire@csu.edu.au
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.

Research synthesis, using techniques such as meta-analysis to combine the results of a number of studies, is a particularly useful technique when there are multiple studies with conflicting results, or where there may be conflicting interests, and can serve to extract the maximum information from animal experiments. The effect of conventional cages and alternative housing systems on measures of production, behaviour, physical and physiological condition in laying hens is an important question that would benefit from research synthesis. We found that statistical constraints did not allow the usual methods of meta-analysis, so as a first step towards quantitative comparison, we used a simple vote-counting approach based on the treatment means. We counted the number of papers in which conventional cages or alternative systems had a higher weighted mean for various response variables. Egg production was higher in conventional cages than in alternative systems, though this effect was probably mostly confined to the comparison with multi-level indoor systems. Bones were stronger from hens kept in alternative systems than those kept in conventional cages. We confirmed previous reviews that birds show more comfort behaviour and possibly dustbathing (or vacuum dustbathing) behaviour in alternative systems, but aggressive pecking did not differ between systems. Perhaps surprisingly, mortality, feather pecking and body wounds were not found to differ between systems. The latter findings suggest that the chance of a mortality or cannibalism outbreak may be no greater in alternative systems than in cage systems, but it should be noted that our analysis did not consider the magnitude of the difference in mortality. In conclusion, the meta-comparison undertaken here supports some but contradicts other conclusions reached in qualitative reviews.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcagesegg productionhousinglaying hens
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Including selected abstracts from the WSPA/Defra Whale Welfare and Ethics Workshop, March 2011 , February 2013 , pp. 57 - 65
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abrahamsson, P and Tauson, R 1995 Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia 45: 191–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064709509415851Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, P, Tauson, R and Appleby, MC 1996 Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. British Poultry Science 37: 521–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669608417882CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aerni, V, El-Lethey, H and Wechsler, B 2000 Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science 41: 16–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660086349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19910013CrossRefGoogle 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: 489–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0007166022000004390CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayorinde, KL, Joseph, JK, Adewale, OE and Ayandibu, IJ 1999 Growth, laying performance and egg quality traits of ‘Napri commercial layers’ on deep litter and in cages. Tropical Journal of Animal Science 1: 147–155Google Scholar
Bareham, JR 1976 A comparison of the behaviour and production of laying hens in experimental and conventional battery cages. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 291–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(76)90064-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1994 The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Veterinary Record 134: 614–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.134.24.614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, AJ and Hughes, BO 1974 Patterns of comfort behaviour and activity in domestic fowls: a comparison between cages and pens. British Veterinary Journal 130: 23–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 1986 Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(86)90109-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JV and Adams, AW 1984 Behaviour and well-being of hens (Gallus domesticus) in alternative housing environments. World Poultry Science Journal 40: 221–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19840018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, JV, Craig, JA and Vargas, J 1986 Corticosteroids and other indicators of hens well-being in four laying-house environments. Poultry Science 65: 856–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0650856CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH 1978 An overall assessment of poultry welfare. First Danish Seminar on Poultry Welfare in Egg Laying Cages pp 81–88. National Commission on Poultry and Eggs: Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 2001 The pros and cons of cages. World Poultry Science Journal 57: 381–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS20010027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, RHC, Whitehead, C, Alvey, D, Gregory, NG and Wilkins, LJ 1994 Bone structure and breaking strength in laying hens housed in different husbandry systems. British Poultry Science 35: 651–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669408417731CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 22–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000716603 1000085391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, SW, Hughes, BO, Harvey, S and Dun, P 1986 Plasma concentrations of corticosterone and thyroid hormones in laying fowls from different housing systems. British Poultry Science 27: 621–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668608416921CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, LE, Lewis, K, Kimpton, A and Nicol, CJ 2000 Cross-section study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens alternative systems and its associations with management and disease. Veterinary Record 147: 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.147.9.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guesdon, V and Faure, JM 2004 Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research 54: 45–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/animres:2003045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guesdon, V, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Guémené, D, Couty, M and Faure, JM 2004 Humeral and adrenal responsiveness in laying hens reared in standard and furnished cages. Animal Research 53: 235–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/animres:2004011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, I 1994 Behavioural expression of laying hens in aviaries and cages: frequencies, time budgets and facility utilisation. British Poultry Science 35: 491–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669408417715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hester, PY 2005 Impact of science and management on the welfare of egg laying strains of hens. Poultry Science 54: 687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetland, H, Moe, RO, Tauson, R, Lervik, S and Svihus, B 2004 Effect of including whole oats into pellets on performance and plumage condition in laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 54: 206–212Google Scholar
Jendral, MJ, Korver, DR, Church, JS and Feddes, JRR 2008 Bone mineral density and breaking strength of white leghorns housed in conventional, modified, and commercially available colony battery cages. Poultry Science 87: 828–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00192CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowles, TG and Wilkins, LJ 1998 The problem of broken bones during the handling of laying hens: a review. Poultry Science 77: 1798–1802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koelkebeck, KW and Cain, JR 1984 Performance, behaviour, plasma corticosterone and economic returns of laying hens in several management alternatives. Poultry Science 63: 2123–2131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0632123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koelkebeck, KW, Amos, MS and Cain, JR 1987 Production, physiological, and behavioural responses of laying hens in different management environments. Poultry Science 66: 397–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0660397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lay, DC Jr, Fulton, RM, Hester, PY, Karcher, DM, Kjaer, JB, Mench, JA, Mullens, BA, Newberry, RC, Nicol, CJ, O’Sullivan, NP and Porter, RE 2011 Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90: 278–294CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leyendecker, M, Hamann, H, Hartung, J, Kamphues, J, Neumann, U, Sürie, C and Distl, O 2005 Keeping laying hens in furnished cages and an aviary housing system enhances their bone stability. British Poultry Science 46: 536–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660500273094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, KA, Baxter, MR and Michie, W 1986 A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research Development Agriculture 3: 93–98Google Scholar
Mench, JA, van Tienhoven, A, Marsh, JA, McCormick, CC, Cunningham, DL and Baker, RC 1986 Effects of cage and floor pen management on behaviour, production and physiological stress responses of laying hens. Poultry Science 65: 1058–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0651058CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulrow, CD 1987 The medical review article: state of the science. Annals Internal Medicine 106: 485–488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulrow, CD 1994 Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 309: 597–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, S and Leeson, S 1998 Effect of housing birds in cages or an aviary system on bone characteristics. Poultry Science 77: 1492–1496CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J, Richards, G and Browne, WJ 2011 Relationships between multiple welfare indicators measured in individual chickens across different time periods and environments. Animal Welfare 20: 133–143Google Scholar
NØrgaard-Nielsen, G 1990 Bone strength of laying hens kept in an alternative system, compared with hens in cages and on deep-litter. British Poultry Science 31: 81–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669008417233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, CJC 2005 Meta-analysis: a systematic and quantitative review of animal experiments to maximise the information derived. Animal Welfare 14: 333–338Google Scholar
Pohle, K and Cheng, HW 2009 Furnished cage systems and hen well-being: comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioural exhibitions in white leghorn chickens. Poultry Science 88: 1559–1564. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00045CrossRefGoogle 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
Roll, VF, Briz, RC and Levrino, GAF 2008 Aspectos etológicos E productivos de poedeiras alojadas em gaiolas enriquecidas de fabricąo expanhola. Revista Brasiliera Agrociência 14: 125–134. [Title translation: Ethological parameters and performance of laying hens in Spanish-made furnished and conventional cages]Google Scholar
Savory, CJ 1995 Feather pecking and cannibalism. World Poultry Science Journal 51: 215–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS19950016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, GJ and Nicol, CJ 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071668. 2010.502518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimmura, T, Hirahara, S, Azuma, T, Suzuki, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2010 Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. British Poultry Science 51: 31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660903421167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimmura, T, Hirahara, S, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2007 Behavior, physiology, performance and physical condition of layers in conventional and large furnished cages in a hot environment. Animal Science Journal 78: 314–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00441.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R, Cheng, KM and Silversides, FG 2009 Production performance and egg quality of four strains for laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science 88: 256–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Standing Committee of the Agriculture and Resource Management Council (SCARM) 2002 Report 83. Model code of practice for the welfare of animals: domestic poultry. CSIRO Publishing: Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodríguez-Lecompte, JC and House, JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88: 698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanaka, T and Hurnik, JF 1992 Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Science 71: 235–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0710235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R, Wahlström, A and Abrahamsson, P 1999 Effect of two floor housing system and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Journal Applied Poultry Research 8: 152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, AA and Hurnik, JF 1994 The effect of long-term housing in an aviary and battery cages on the physical condition of laying hens: foot lesions, and tibia strength. Poultry Science 73: 268–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0730268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, AA and Hurnik, JF 1996 The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Science 75: 47–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0750047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horne, PLM 1996 Production and economic results of commercial flocks with white layers in aviary systems and battery cages. British Poultry Science 37: 255–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669608417857CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Niekerk, T, Nicol, CJ and Kjaer, J 2012 Preparatory work for the future development of animal based measures for assessing the welfare of laying hens. External scientific report to the European Food Safety Authority. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournalGoogle Scholar
Voslářová, E, Hanzálek, Z, Vecerek, V, Straková, E and Suchý, P 2006 Comparison between laying hen performance in the cage system and the deep litter system on a diet free from animal protein. Acta Veterinaria Brno 75: 219–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.2754/avb200675020219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakubu, A, Salako, AE and Ige, AO 2007 Effects of genotype and housing system on the laying performance of chickens in different seasons in semi-humid tropics. International Journal Poultry Science 6: 434–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.434.439CrossRefGoogle Scholar