Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:28:41.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

MJ Albentosa  and
JJ Cooper
MJ Albentosa*
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Hall, Riseholme, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
JJ Cooper
Affiliation:
Animal Behaviour, Cognition and Welfare Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Hall, Riseholme, Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
*
* 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.

Spatial restriction and low cage height can reduce the rate at which comfort activities, such as wing flaps, stretching, body shakes and tail wags, are carried out by laying hens in conventional wire cages. In this study we investigated the performance of these activities in laying hens housed in furnished cages with perches and nest boxes, similar to those required in EU legislation from 2012. We compared the behaviour of groups of eight hens at a stocking density of 762 cm2 per bird with that of pairs of hens housed at a lower stocking density of 3048 cm2 per bird at two minimum cage heights of 38 cm and 45 cm. The rates of wing/leg stretches (0.80 stretches per hen per hour), tail wagging (0.76), body shaking (0.48), wing raising (0.19) and feather raising (0.05) were low, whilst full wing flaps were not observed during the study. Hourly rates of performance of wing/leg stretches (0.45 vs 1.06) and tail wags (0.34 vs 1.25) were significantly lower in eight-bird cages than in two-bird cages. We conclude that reducing the number of hens in furnished cages increases opportunities to perform certain comfort activities, but that, even at low stocking densities, comfort activities are rarely observed.

Keywords

animal welfarecage heightcomfort behaviourfurnished cagelaying henstocking density
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 419 - 424
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Albentosa, MJ and Cooper, JJ 2002 Effects of cage height and stocking density on the behaviour, perch use and distribution of laying hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 43: S16–S17Google Scholar
Albentosa, MJ and Cooper, JJ 2003 Cage height preferences of laying hens housed in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 44: S5–S6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anon 2000 The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000. Statutory Instrument 2000 No 1870. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 1998 Modification of laying hen cages to improve behavior. Poultry Science 77: 1828–1832CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Freire, R, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 2002 Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, MR 1994 The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. The Veterinary Record 134: 614–619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1988 Council Directive 1988/166/EEC: amendment to 86/113/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages. Official Journal of the European Communities L074: 83-87Google Scholar
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1999 Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L203: 53-57Google Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Albentosa, MJ 2003 Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14: 127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Albentosa, MJ 2004 Social space for laying hens. Perry GC (ed) The Welfare of the Laying Hen. Poultry Science Symposium Series Vol. 27 pp 191-202. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, JJ and Appleby, MC 1997 Motivational aspects of individual variation in response to nest boxes by laying hens. Animal Behaviour 54: 1245–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1988 Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS and Hardie, S 1989 Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 2001 The pros and cons of cages. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Appleby, MC and Hughes, BO 1996 Effects of nest quality and other cues for exploration during pre-laying behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freire, R, Walker, A and Nicol, CJ 1999 The relationship between trough height, feather cover and behaviour of laying hens in modified cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63: 55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BO 1975 Spatial preference in the domestic hen. British Veterinary Journal 131: 560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ 1994 Inter-bird distances and behavioural priorities in laying hens: the effect of spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagadic, H and Faure, J-M 1987 Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 147-155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1996 Space and density effects on group size preferences in laying hens. British Poultry Science 37: 709–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindburg, AC and Nicol, CJ 1997 Dustbathing in modified battery cages: is sham dustbathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1987a Effect of cage height and area on the behaviour of hens in battery cages. British Poultry Science 28: 327–333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, CJ 1987b Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1990 Behaviour requirements within a cage environment. World's Poultry Science Journal 46: 31–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ 1994 Behaviour and welfare. In: Wathes, CM and Charles, DR (eds) Livestock Housing. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Nicol, CJ and Guilford, T 1991 Exploratory activity as a measure of motivation in deprived hens. Animal Behaviour 41: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar