Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:05:29.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare of organic laying hens kept at different indoor stocking densities in a multi-tier aviary system. I: egg laying, and use of veranda and outdoor area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

S. Steenfeldt  and
B. L. Nielsen
S. Steenfeldt*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
B. L. Nielsen
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1197 NeuroBiologie de l’Olfaction, F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
*
†E-mail: sanna.steenfeldt@anis.au.dk
Get access

Abstract

Multi-tier aviary systems are becoming more common in organic egg production. The area on the tiers can be included in the net area available to the hens (also referred to as usable area) when calculating maximum indoor stocking densities in organic systems within the EU. In this article, results on egg production, laying behaviour and use of veranda and outdoor area are reported for organic laying hens housed in a multi-tier system with permanent access to a veranda and kept at stocking densities (D) of 6, 9 and 12 hens/m2 available floor area, with concomitant increases in the number of hens per trough, drinker, perch and nest space. In a fourth treatment, access to the top tier was blocked reducing vertical, trough and perch access at the lowest stocking density (treatment D6x). In all other aspects than stocking density, the experiment followed the EU regulations on the keeping of organic laying hens. Laying percentage was significantly lower (P<0.05) in D12 compared with the other stocking densities (90.6% v. 94.3% (±0.7)), most likely due to the concomitant reduction in nest space and drinker availability per hen. No systematic effects of density were found on other laying variables (egg weight, eggs laid outside nests, aviary side preferences). Number of hens using the veranda increased with stocking density. Hens primarily used the range near the house (within 50 m) and hens kept at the lowest stocking density and the smallest group size appeared to use the outdoor area more extensively, based on an assessment of vegetation cover (P<0.05). For the measures reported here, the welfare consequences of increased stocking density were assessed to be minor; additional results are reported in the associated article (Steenfeldt and Nielsen, 2015).

Keywords

organic layersindoor stocking densitygroup sizemulti-tier aviaryresource accessibility
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 9 , September 2015 , pp. 1509 - 1517
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Carmichael, NL, Walker, AW and Hughes, BO 1999. Laying hens in large flocks in a perchery system: influence of stocking density on location, use of resources and behaviour. British Poultry Science 40, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC 152/2009 2009. Commission Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 of 27 January 2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. Annex III Methods of analysis to control the composition of feed materials and compound feed. Official Journal of the European Union L54, 1–130.Google Scholar
EC 74/1999 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Union L203, 53–57.Google Scholar
EC 834/2007 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union L189, 1–23.Google Scholar
EC 889/2008 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal of the European Union L250, 1–84.Google Scholar
Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production (EGTOP) 2012. Report on poultry. Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production, European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Directorate H. Sustainability and Quality of Agriculture and Rural Development, H.3. Organic farming, Brussels, Belgium, 39pp.Google Scholar
Gebhardt-Henrich, SG, Toscano, MJ and Fröhlich, EKF 2014. Use of outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernat, AG and Adams, AW 1992. Effect of number of hens per nipple waterer on the performance of several strains of layers in cages. Poultry Science 71, 1292–1295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilani, AM, Knowles, TG and Nicol, CJ 2014. Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens. British Poultry Science 55, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B 1989. Determination of nitrogen as elementary-N, an alternative to Kjeldahl. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 39, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A 2001. Use of outdoor run by laying hens with particular emphasis on group size and width of pop-holes. Veterinary Medicine thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria, 88pp.Google Scholar
Harlander-Matauschek, A, Felsenstein, K, Niebuhr, K and Troxler, J 2006. Influence of pop hole dimensions on the number of laying hens outside on the range. British Poultry Science 47, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegelund, L, Sørensen, JT, Kjær, JB and Kristensen, IS 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British Poultry Science 46, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, JD, Jespersen, LM, Tvedegaard, N and Halberg, N 2012. Framework terms and conditions for the Danish organic farming sector and analyses of differential conversion support, Rapport No. 213, isbn: 978-87-92591-15-9 [Rammevilkår for den danske økologiske jordbrugssektor og analyser af differentieret omlægningsstøtte]. Fødevareøkonomisk Institut, ICROFS, Copenhagen, Denmark, 197pp (in Danish).Google Scholar
Makagon, MM and Mench, JA 2011. Floor laying by Pekin ducks: effects of nest box ratio and design. Poultry Science 90, 1179–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moesta, A, Briese, A, Knierim, U and Hartung, J 2008a. Behaviour of laying hens in aviaries – review. Part 1: social and resting behaviour of hens. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 114, 444–453.Google Scholar
Moesta, A, Briese, A, Knierim, U and Hartung, J 2008b. Behaviour of laying hens in aviaries – review. Part 2: feeding behaviour, reproductive and dust bathing behaviour. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 115, 4–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ, Brown, SN, Glen, E, Pope, SJ, Short, FJ, Warriss, PD, Zimmerman, PH and Wilkins, LJ 2006. Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, GJ, Wilkins, LJ, Knowles, TG, Booth, F, Toscano, MJ, Nicol, CJ and Brown, SN 2011. Continuous monitoring of pop hole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Veterinary Record 169, 338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringgenberg, N, Fröhlich, EKF, Harlander-Matauschek, A, Würbel, H and Roth, BA 2014. Does nest size matter to laying hens? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 155, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, CJ 1978. Relationship between food and water-intake and effects of water restriction on laying brown leghorn hens. British Poultry Science 19, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenfeldt, S and Nielsen, BL 2015. Welfare of organic laying hens kept at different indoor stocking densities in a multi-tier aviary system. II. Live weight, health measures, and perching. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731115000725.Google Scholar
Stuffins, CB 1967. The determination of phosphate and calcium in feeding stuffs. The Analyst 92, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, PH, Lindberg, AC, Pope, SJ, Glen, E, Bolhuis, JE and Nicol, CJ 2006. The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Steenfeldt and Nielsen supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Steenfeldt and Nielsen supplementary material(File)
File 208.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Steenfeldt and Nielsen supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Steenfeldt and Nielsen supplementary material(File)
File 905.7 KB