Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:23:22.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of group size and stocking density on the welfare and performance of hens housed in furnished cages during summer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

YY Guo ,
ZG Song ,
HC Jiao ,
QQ Song  and
H Lin
YY Guo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
ZG Song
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
HC Jiao
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
QQ Song
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
H Lin*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of group size and stocking density on the welfare and performance of hens housed in furnished cage systems during summer. A total of 924 Hy-Line Brown hens were assigned to three housing systems: a standard battery cage system (control, 4 hens per cage and 398 cm2 per hen), two furnished systems (including perches and nest); one with a small (SFC, 21 hens per cage; 586 cm2 per hen) and one with a large group size (LFC, 48 hens per cage; 543 cm2 per hen). The results showed that hens housed in SFC and LFC had a higher feed intake and a poorer feed efficiency compared to control hens. Laying rate and egg weight were not significantly affected by housing systems. Hens housed in LFC and SFC systems showed less sitting and more walking behaviours than control hens. SFC hens showed more nesting and less perching behaviours than LFC hens. Hens kept in SFC systems showed fewer signs of heat stress during summer, with less panting activity than LFC or control hens, and a relatively lower rectal temperature than controls. The rectal temperature of LFC hens did not differ from the SFC hens and controls. Blood concentrations of luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and oestradiol were not significantly influenced. In conclusion, group size and stocking density in furnished cages have an effect on behaviour and performance of hens. The furnished cage systems with small group sizes were favourable for hen welfare without markedly affecting performance. Group size should be considered in the development of furnished cage systems.

Keywords

animal welfarefurnished cagegroup sizelaying hensperformancetemperature
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 41 - 49
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abrahamsson, P, Tauson, R and Appleby, MC 1996 Behavior, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. British Poultry Science 37: 521–540CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Saffar, AA and Rose, SP 2002 Ambient temperature and the egg laying characteristics of laying fowl. World's Poultry Science Journal 58: 317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1993 Should cages for laying hens be banned or modified? Animal Welfare 2: 67–80Google Scholar
Bacon, WL and Long, DW 1996 Secretion of luteinizing hormone during a forced molt in turkey hens. Poultry Science 75: 1579–1586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benyi, K, Norris, D and Tsatsinyane, PM 2006 Effects of stocking density and group size on the performance of white and brown Hy-line layers in semi-arid conditions. Tropic Animal Health & Production 38: 619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Bubier, NE 1996 The behavioral priorities of laying hens: the effects of two methods of environment enrichment on time budgets. Behavioural Processes 37: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, JV, Craig, JA and Vargas, JV 1986 Corticosteroids and other indicators of hens’ well-being in four laying-house environments. Poultry Science 65: 856–863CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JV and Swanson, JC 1994 Welfare perspectives on hens kept for egg production. Poultry Science 73: 921–938CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croney, CC and Newberry, RC 2007 Group size and cognitive processes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103: 215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Reu, K, Rodenburg, TB, Grijspeerdt, K, Messens, W, Heyndrickx, M, Tuyttens, FAM, Sonck, B, Zoons, J and Herman, L 2009 Bacteriological contamination, dirt, and cracks of eggshells in furnished cages and noncage systems for laying hens: an international on-farm comparison. Poultry Science 88: 2442–2448CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estévez, I, Newberry, RC and Keeling, LJ 2002 Dynamics of aggression in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etches, RJ, John, TM and Verrinder Gibbins, AM 1995 Behavioural, physiological, neuroendocrine and molecular responses to heat stress. In: Daghir, NJ (ed) Poultry Production in Hot Climates pp 31–65. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
European Commission 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 Communities L203: 53–57Google Scholar
Guesdon, V and Faure, JM 2004 Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research 53: 45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guesdon, V, Ahmed, AM, Mallet, S, Faure, JM and Nys, Y 2006 Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. British Poultry Science 47: 1–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hester, PY 2005 Impact of science and management on the welfare of egg laying strains of hens. Poultry Science 84: 687–696CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jendral, MJ, Korver, DR, Churvh, JS and Feddes, JJR 2008 Bone mineral density and breaking strength of white leghorns housed in conventional, modified, and commercially available colony battery cages. Poultry Science 87: 828–837CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, LJ, Estevez, I, Newberry, RC and Correia, MG 2003 Production-related traits of layers reared in different sized flocks: The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes. Poultry Science 82: 1393–1396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopka, MN, Cheng, HW and Hester, PY 2003 Bone mineral density of laying hens housed in enriched versus conventional cages. Poultry Science 82 (abstract)Google Scholar
Krishnan, KA, Proudman, JA, Bolt, DJ and Bahr, JM 1993 Development of a homologous radioimmunoassay for chicken follicle-stimulation hormone and measurement of plasma FSH during the ovulatory cycle. Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology A105: 729–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Leone, EH, Estevez, I and Christman, MC 2007 Environmental complexity and group size: Immediate effects on use of space by domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H, De Vos, D, Decuypere, E and Buyse, J 2008 Dynamic change in parameters of redox balance after mild heat stress in age laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C147: 30–35Google Scholar
Lin, H, Mertens, K, Kemps, B, Govaerts, T, Ketelaere, BD, Baerdemaeker, JD, Decuypere, E and Buyse, J 2004 New approach of testing the effect of heat stress on eggshell quality: mechanical and material properties of eggshell and membrane. British Poultry Science 45: 476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H, Wang, LF, Song, JL, Xie, YM and Yang, QM 2002 Effect of dietary supplemental levels of vitamin A on the egg production and immune responses of heat-stressed laying hens. Poultry Science 81: 458–465CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maria, GA, Escos, J and Alados, CL 2004 Complexity of behavioral sequences and their relation to stress conditions in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus): a non-invasive technique to evaluate animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, A and Morris, TR 1987 Quantitative review of the effects of environmental temperature on food intake, egg output and energy balance in laying pullets. British Poultry Science 28: 693–704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mashaly, MM, Webb, ML, Youtz, SL, Roush, WB and Graves, HB 1984 Changes in serum corticosterone concentration of laying hens as a response to increased population density. Poultry Science 63: 2271–2274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mashaly, MM, Hendricks, GL, Kalama, MA, Gehad, AE, Abbas, AO and Patterson, PH 2004 Effect of heat stress on production parameters and immune responses of commercial laying hens. Poultry Science 83: 889–894CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, K, Bamelis, F, Kemps, B, Kamers, B, Verhoelst, E, De Ketelaere, B, Bain, M, Decuypere, E and De Baerdemaeker, J 2006 Monitoring of eggshell breakage and eggshell strength in different production chains of consumption eggs. Poultry Science 85: 1670–1677CrossRefGoogle 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: 135–146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onbasilar, EE and Aksoy, FT 2005 Stress parameters and immune response of layers under different cage floor and density conditions. Livestock Production Science 95: 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M and Dawkins, MS 1997 Peck orders and group size in laying hens: ‘futures contracts’ for non-aggression. Behavioural Processes 40: 13–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pohle, K and Cheng, HW 2009a Furnished cage system and hen well-being: comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens. Poultry Science 88: 1559–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohle, K and Cheng, HW 2009b Comparative effects of furnished and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in white leghorn hens. Poultry Science 88: 2042–2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB and Koene, P 2007 The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggression, fear and stress in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103: 205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, De Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008a Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnishes cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17: 363–373Google Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, FAM, De Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J and Sonck, B 2008b Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare 17: 355–361Google Scholar
Rozenboim, I, Tako, E, Gal-Garber, O, Proudman, JA and Uni, Z 2007 The effect of heat stress on ovarian function of laying hens. Poultry Science 86: 1760–1765CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 1998 User's Guide: Statistic (Version 8e). SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, CM, Richards, G and Nicol, CJ 2010 A comparison of the welfare of layer hens in four housing systems used in the UK. British Poultry Science 51: 488–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sogunle, OM, Egbeyale, LT, Bajomo, TT, Bamigboje, OV and Fanimo, AO 2008 Comparison of the performance, carcass characteristics and haematological parameters of broiler chicks reared in cage and floor. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 11: 480–483CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC and House, JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88: 698–707CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R 2005 Management and housing systems for layers: effects on welfare and production. World's Poultry Science Journal 61: 477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R, Wahlstrom, A and Abrahamsson, P 1999 Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 152–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loon, DPR, Hangalapura, B, De Vries Reilingh, G, Nieuwland, MGB, Kemp, B and Parmentier, HK 2004 Effect of three different housing systems on immune responses and body weight of chicken lines divergently selected for antibody response to sheep red blood cells. Livestock Production Science 85: 139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vestergaard, KS, Skadhauge, E and Lawson, LG 1997 The stress of not being able to perform dust bathing in laying hens. Physiology & Behavior 62: 413–419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vits, A, Weitzenbürger, D, Hamann, H and Distl, O 2005 Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science 84: 1511–1519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Wall, H, Tauson, R and Elwinger, K 2004 Pop hole passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 45: 20–27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weitzenbürger, D, Vits, A, Hamann, H and Distl, O 2005 Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science 46: 553–559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed