Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:16:55.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of perches installed in cages on laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

P.Y. HESTER
P.Y. HESTER*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The public wants assurances that animals used for food are raised humanely. Conventional cages for egg laying hens do not meet hen's behavioural needs, but cages have potential advantages such as improved liveability and respiratory health because of less aerial ammonia and dust as compared to non-cage systems. Providing amenities to cages might be a compromise that allows hens to reap some of the advantages of conventional cages and also better meet their behavioural needs. This review focuses on the perch as a furnishing and how its design and addition to the cage can affect welfare and production efficiencies of egg laying strains of chickens. Hens should have access to perches because of their high motivation and preference for perching. At night, hens like to perch at the same time which requires a straight perch space of 12 and 15 cm for White Leghorn and brown hybrids, respectively. Besides meeting a behavioural need, perches in cages improve bone strength, but the improvement is not great enough to prevent adult keel fractures and deformities. Perch access improves feather quality for the back but not for other feather tract areas. Foot pad, toe, and nail health are often improved with perch access in cages of smaller group sizes. With the exception of dirty and cracked eggs, perches installed in cages do not deleteriously affect hen performance. Commercial perches are available in different shapes (e.g., round, circular, or mushroom) and compositions (e.g., wood, plastic, or metal). There is no perfect perch relative to its material composition or shape. Wooden perches offer a rougher texture but harbour mites in crevices. Future research should concentrate on perch redesign that avoids slippery surfaces allowing hen's feet to better grip the perch, prevents keel fractures, is easily cleaned, and does not harbour parasites or pathogens.

Keywords

perchhenpulletcageeggenrichmentfurnishingkeel
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 247 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2014 

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

ABRAHAMSSON, P. and TAUSON, R. (1993) Effect of perches at different positions in conventional cages for laying hens of two different strains. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 43: 228-235.Google Scholar
ABRAHAMSSON, P. and TAUSON, R. (1997) Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 47: 254-260.Google Scholar
ABRAHAMSSON, P., TAUSON, R. and APPLEBY, M.C. (1996) Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. British Poultry Science 37: 521-540.Google Scholar
ALVEY, D.M., LINDBERG, C. and TUCKER, S.A. (1996) Performance and behaviour of laying hens in enriched modified cage systems. British Poultry Science 36: S7-S10.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C. (1995) Perch length in cages for medium hybrid laying hens. British Poultry Science 36: 23-31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
APPLEBY, M.C. (2004) What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313-320.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C., HUGHES, B.O., MCDONALD, M. and CORDINER, L.S. (1998) Factors affecting the use of perches in cages by laying hens. British Poultry Science 39: 186-190.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C., SMITH, S.F. and HUGHES, B.O. (1992) Individual perching behaviour of laying hens and its effects in cages. British Poultry Science 33: 227-238.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C., WALKER, A.W., NICHOL, C.J., LINDBERG, A.C., FREIRE, R., HUGHES, B.O. and ELSON, H.A. (2002) Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489-500.Google Scholar
BARNETT, J.L., GLATZ, P.C., NEWMAN, E.A. and CRONIN, G.M. (1997) Effects of modifying layer cages with perches on stress physiology, plumage, pecking and bone strength of hens. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37: 523-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRAASTAD, B.O. (1990) Effects on behaviour and plumage of a key-stimuli floor and a perch in triple cages for laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 127-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BREDAHL, M.E., NORTHEN, J.R., BOECKER, A. and NORMILE, M.A. (2001) Chapter 10. Consumer Demand Sparks the Growth of Quality Assurance Schemes in the European Food Sector, in: REGMI, A. (Ed) Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade, Market Trade and Economics Division, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report.WRS-01-1, pp. 90-102 (Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
DORMINEY, R.W. and ARSCOTT, G.H. (1974) Effects of bird density, nutrient density and perches on the performance of caged White Leghorn layers. Poultry Science 53: 2086-2092.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, E.T., APPLEBY, M.C. and HUGHES, B.O. (1992) Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 25-35.Google Scholar
ENNEKING, S.A., CHENG, H.W., JEFFERSON-MOORE, K.Y., EINSTEIN, M.E., RUBIN, D.A. and HESTER, P.Y. (2012a) Early access to perches in caged White Leghorn pullets. Poultry Science 91: 2114-2120.Google Scholar
ENNEKING, S.A., WAKENELL, P.S., GARNER, J.P. and HESTER, P.Y. (2012b) Mortality and behavior of caged White Leghorn pullets with access to perches. CD Paper In: Proceedings of the XXIV World's Poultry Congress, Salvador, Brazil. World's Poultry Science Journal Suppl. 1: 134-136.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1999) Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July Laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities L203. 3/8/1999.Google Scholar
EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY (EFSA) (2005) The welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. Scientific Report. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197: 1-23.Google Scholar
FOSSUM, O., JANSSON, D.S., ETTERLIN, P.E. and VÅGSHOLM, I. (2009) Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 51: 3.Google Scholar
GLATZ, P.C. and BARNETT, J.L. (1996) Effect of perches and solid sides on production, plumage and foot condition of laying hens housed in conventional cages in a naturally ventilated shed. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 36: 269-275.Google Scholar
HANSEN, R.S. (1976) Nervousness and hysteria of mature female chickens. Poultry Science 55: 531-543.Google Scholar
HESTER, P.Y., ENNEKING, S.A., HALEY, B.K., EINSTEIN, M.E., CHENG, H.W. and RUBIN, D.A. (2013a) The effect of perch availability during pullet rearing and egg laying on musculoskeletal health of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 92: 1972-1980.Google Scholar
HESTER, P.Y., ENNEKING, S.A., JEFFERSON-MOORE, K.Y., EINSTEIN, M.E., CHENG, H.W. and RUBIN, D.A. (2013b) The effect of perches in cages during pullet rearing and egg laying on hen performance, foot health, and plumage. Poultry Science 92: 310-320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HUGHES, B.O. and APPLEBY, M.C. (1989) Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. Veterinary Record 124: 483-484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HUGHES, B.O., WILSON, S., APPLEBY, M.C. and SMITH, S.F. (1993) Comparison of bone volume and strength as measures of skeletal integrity in caged laying hens with access to perches. Research in Veterinary Science 54: 202-206.Google Scholar
JENDRAL, M.J., KORVER, D.R., CHURCH, J.S. and FEDDES, J.J.R. (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.Google Scholar
LAMBE, N.R. and SCOTT, G.B. (1998) Perching behaviour and preferences for different perch designs among laying hens. Animal Welfare 7: 203-216.Google Scholar
LAY, D.C. Jr, FULTON, R.M., HESTER, P.Y., KARCHER, D.M., KJAER, J., MENCH, J.A., MULLENS, B.A., NEWBERRY, R.C., NICOL, C.J., O'SULLIVAN, N.P. and PORTER, R.E. (2011) Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science 90: 278-294.Google Scholar
LILL, A. (1968) Spatial organisation in small flocks of domestic fowl. Behaviour 32: 258-290.Google Scholar
LUCAS, A.M. and STETTENHEIM, P.R. (1972) Chapter 1-Topographic anatomy, in: Avian Anatomy Integument, Part 1. Agriculture Handbook 362, pp 1-71 (United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC., USA).Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A., SUMMER, D.A. and ROSEN-MOLIN, J. (2011) Sustainability of egg production in the United States _ The policy and market context. Poultry Science 90: 229-240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MITCHELL, L. (2001) Chapter 9. Impact of Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare on Global Trade, in: REGMI, A. (Ed) Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade; Market Trade and Economics Division, Economic Research Service, pp 80-89 (United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade Report.WRS-01-1, Washington, DC, USA).Google Scholar
MOE, R.O., GUÉMÉNÉ, D., LARSEN, H.J.S., BAKKEN, M., LERVIK, S., HETLAND, H. and TAUSON, R. (2004) Effects of pre-laying rearing conditions in laying hens housed in standard or furnished cages on various indicators of animal welfare, in: Book of Abstracts of the XXII World's Poultry Congress, Istanbul, Turkey. World's Poultry Science Association, Turkish Branch., p. 329.Google Scholar
MOINARD, C., MORISSE, J.P. and FAURE, J.M. (1998) Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on feather condition, bone breakage and mortality of laying hens. British Poultry Science 39: 198-202.Google Scholar
NAKAUE, H.S., GOEGER, M.P. and ARSCOTT, G.H. (1984) Effect of feed trough heights and perches on the performance of dwarf single comb White Leghorn layers housed in cages. Poultry Science 63: 447-449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASR, M.A.F., NICOL, C.J. and MURRELL, J.C. (2012) Do laying hens with keel bone fractures experience pain? PLoS ONE 7: e42420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042420.Google Scholar
OLSSON, I.A. and KEELING, L.J. (2000) Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 243-256.Google Scholar
OLSSON, I.A. and KEELING, L.J. (2002) The push-door for measuring motivation in hens, laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11: 11-19.Google Scholar
PICKEL, T., SCHRADER, L. and SCHOLZ, B. (2011) Pressure load on keel bone and foot pads in perching laying hens in relation to perch design. Poultry Science 90: 715-724.Google Scholar
RICHARDS, G.J., WILKINS, L.J., KNOWLES, T.G., BOOTH, F., TOSCANO, M.J., NICOL, C.J. and BROWN, S.N. (2012) Pop hole use by hens with different keel fracture status monitored throughout the laying period. Veterinary Record 170: 494 doi:10.1136/vr.100489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROLL, V.F.B., BRIZ, R.C., LEVRINO, G.A.M. and XAVIER, E.G. (2008) Effects of claw shortening devices in laying hens housed in furnished cages. Ciência Animal Brasileira 9: 896-901.Google 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 fur Geflügelkunde 72: 174-180.Google Scholar
SCOTT, G.B. and MACANGUS, G. (2004) The ability of laying hens to negotiate perches of different materials with clean or dirty surfaces. Animal Welfare 13: 361-365.Google Scholar
STRUELENS, E. and TUYTTENS, F.A.M. (2009) Effects of perch design on behaviour and health of laying hens. Animal Welfare 18: 533-538.Google Scholar
STRUELENS, E., TUYTTENS, F.A.M., AMPE, B., ÖDBERG, F., SONCK, B. and DUCHATEAU, L. (2009) Perch width preferences of laying hens. British Poultry Science 50: 418-423.Google Scholar
STRUELENS, E., TUYTTENS, F.A.M., 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: 381-389.Google Scholar
STRUELENS, E., VAN POUCKE, E., DUCHATEAU, L., ÖDBERG, F., SONCK, B. and TUYTTENS, F.A.M. (2008b) Effect of cross-wise perch designs on perch use in laying hens. British Poultry Science 49: 402-408.Google Scholar
TACTACAN, G.B., GUENTER, W., LEWIS, N.J., RODRIGUEZ-LECOMPTE, J.C. and HOUSE, J.D. (2009) Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88: 698-707.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R. (1984) Effects of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 34: 193-209.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R. (1998) Health and production in improved cage designs. Poultry Science 77: 1820-1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TAUSON, R. and ABRAHAMSSON, P. (1996) Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens. Effects of artificial perch material and hybrid. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 46: 239-246.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R. and ABRAHAMSSON, P. (1994) Foot and skeletal disorders in laying hens. Effects of perch design, hybrid, housing system and stocking density. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 44: 110-119.Google Scholar
TERRES, J.K. (1996) Feet and legs and Passeriformes, in: The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds, pp. 284 and 680, respectively (New Jersey, Wings Books, division of Random House Value, Publishing, Inc.).Google 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. Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Lublin, Poland. Animal Science Papers and Reports 23 (suppl. 1): 103-110.Google Scholar
VITS, A., WEITZENBURGER, 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: 1511-1519.Google Scholar
WALL, H. and TAUSON, R. (2007) Perch arrangements in small-group furnished cages for laying hens. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16: 322-330.Google Scholar
WILKINS, L.J., POPE, S., LEEB, C., GLEN, E., PHILLIPS, A., ZIMMERMAN, P., NICOL, C. and BROWN, S.N. (2005) Fracture rate in laying-strain hens at the end of the rearing period and the end of the laying period, in: WITKOWSKI, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Polish Academy of Sciences: Jastrzebiec, Poland, 23: 189-194.Google Scholar
WILSON, S., HUGHES, B.O., APPLEBY, M.C. and SMITH, S.F. (1993) Effects of perches on trabecular bone volume in laying hens. Research in Veterinary Science 54: 207-211.Google Scholar
WOOD-GUSH, D.G.M. and DUNCAN, I.J.H. (1976) Some behavioural observations on domestic fowl in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 255-260.Google Scholar
WOOD-GUSH, D.G.M., DUNCAN, I.J.H. and SAVORY, C.J. (1978) Observations on the social behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Biology Behaviour 3: 193-205.Google Scholar
XIN, H., GATES, R.S., GREEN, A.R., MITLOEHNER, F.M., MOORE, P.A. Jr and WATHES, C.M. (2011) Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science 90: 263-277.Google Scholar