Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:27:21.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2007

H.J. BLOKHUIS ,
T. FIKS VAN NIEKERK ,
W. BESSEI ,
A. ELSON ,
D. GUÉMENÉ ,
J.B. KJAER ,
G.A. MARIA LEVRINO ,
C.J. NICOL ,
R. TAUSON  and
C.A. WEEKS
...Show all authors
H.J. BLOKHUIS*
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre, Animal Production Division, P.O. Box 65, 8200 ABLelystad, The Netherlands
T. FIKS VAN NIEKERK
Affiliation:
Animal Sciences Group of Wageningen University and Research Centre, Animal Production Division, P.O. Box 65, 8200 ABLelystad, The Netherlands
W. BESSEI
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Breeding (470c), Section Farm Animal Ethology and Small Animal Sciences, Garbenstr. 17, D-70599 Stuttgart, Germany
A. ELSON
Affiliation:
ADAS UK Ltd., Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG20 9PF, UK
D. GUÉMENÉ
Affiliation:
INRA, Unité de Recherches Avicoles, Centre de Tours-Nouzilly, 37380 Nouzilly, France
J.B. KJAER
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Genetics and Biotechnology, Tjele, Denmark.
G.A. MARIA LEVRINO
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Miguel Servet177 (50013) Zaragoza, Spain
C.J. NICOL
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
R. TAUSON
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Dep. of Animal Nutrition and Management, Avian Division, Kungsängen Research Centre, 753 23 Uppsala, Sweden
C.A. WEEKS
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, School of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
H.A. VAN DE WEERD
Affiliation:
ADAS UK Ltd., Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG20 9PF, UK
*
*Corresponding author:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The conditions under which laying hens are kept remain a major animal welfare concern. It is one of the most intensive forms of animal production and the number of animals involved is very high. Widespread public debate has stimulated the call for more animal friendly, alternative systems to barren conventional cages. Directive 1999/74/EC has encouraged technical changes in current systems. Not only have traditional cages been modified (so-called ‘enriched cages’), but also new alternative systems (e.g. aviaries) have been developed. There is an ongoing need to evaluate the actual welfare status of hens in these novel systems including those on commercial farms.

The LayWel project, was funded via the European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme and national funding from several EU countries. Its general objective was to produce an evaluation of the welfare of laying hens in various systems, with special focus on enriched cages, and to disseminate the information in all member states of the EU and associated countries. The project took into account pathological, zootechnical, physiological and ethological aspects.

A major achievement of the LayWel project was the compilation of a database collecting data from different housing systems and thus enabling data comparison. The project partners recommend that support is given to maintaining the database in the future so that data can be more reliably modelled.

As the type of data collected did not often allow a formal statistical analysis the evaluation of welfare was a presentation of risk factors and advantages and disadvantages of various housing systems. Conclusions are that, with the exception of conventional cages, all systems have the potential to provide satisfactory welfare for laying hens. However this potential is not always realised in practice. Among the numerous explanations are management, climate, design, different responses by different genotypes and interacting effects.

A second major achievement of the project was the development of feather scoring and integument (skin, head and feet) scoring systems together with comprehensive sets of photographs.

It is recommended that the integument scoring systems are widely adopted and used in on-going research. Farms should also routinely and frequently carry out integument scoring to assist in the detection of damaging pecking, which is currently a widespread welfare problem.

Within LayWel an on-farm auditing procedure was developed in the form of a manual for self-assessment. The manual first explains what is meant by welfare and outlines the relevance of welfare assessment. It also summarises risks to welfare in the main categories of housing system. The second part contains recording forms, with guidance for assessing hen welfare. These enable regular checks of a range of indicators of laying hen welfare to be carried out systematically. The indicators were chosen to be relevant to hen welfare as well as feasible and reliable to apply in practice.

A series of conclusions and recommendations were made on various aspects of housing systems, behaviour, health and mortality and other matters in relation to bird welfare. Full details of these and all other aspects of the LayWel project can be found on www.LayWel.eu. The information is also available on CDROM of which copies are freely available on request.

Keywords

laying henbehaviourwelfarehousing systemhealthmortalityphysiologyproductivityintegument scoring
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 101 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2007

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. (1997) Effects of group size on performance, health and birds' use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens: Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 47: 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C. and HUGHES, B.O. (1991) Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems; environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOPER, J.J. and ALBENTOSA, M.J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14 (3): 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (1988) Council Directive 88/166/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages. Official Journal of the European Communities No. L74: 83–87.Google Scholar
EC–SCVC (1996) Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens. Scientific Veterinary Committee Animal Welfare Section. European Commission, DG VI/BII.2, 146 pp.Google Scholar
ELSON, H.A. and CROXALL, R.A. (2006) European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 70(5): 194–198.Google Scholar
FLEMING, R.H., McCORMACK, H.A., MCTEIR, L. and WHITEHEAD, C.C. (2005) Environmental and genetic effects on osteoclast recruitment in osteoporitic avian bone. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 20: 1307.Google Scholar
JONES, R.B. (1996) Fear and adaptability in poultry: insights, implications and imperatives. World's Poultry Science Journal 52: 131–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KJAER, J.B., FIKS, T., DE JONG, I.C., NICOL, C.J., VAN REENEN, K., REUVEKAMP, B., WEEKS, C.A. and WOLTHUIS-FILLERUP, M. (2005) Final chapter for WP4, deliverable 4.7: Behaviour. In: Report on the LayWel Project, www.LayWel.eu.Google Scholar
KNOWLES, T.G. and BROOM, D.M. (1990) The handling and transport of broilers and spent hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MILLS, A.D. and WOOD-GUSH, D.G.M. (1985) Pre-laying behaviour in battery cages. British Poultry Science 26: 247–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NICOL, C.J., BROWN, S.N., GLEN, E., POPE, S.J., SHORT, F.J., WARRISS, P.D., ZIMMERMAN, P.H. and WILKINS, L.J. (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
OLSSON, I.A.S. and KEELING, L.J. (2003) No effect of social competition on sham dustbathing in furnished cages laying hens. Acta Agricultura Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 52: 253–256.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R. (2005) Management and housing systems for layers – effects on welfare and production. World's Poultry Science Journal 61: 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TAUSON, R. and HOLM, K.-E. (2002) Evaluation of Victorsson furnished cage for 8 laying hens according to the 7§ of the Swedish Animal welfare Ordinance and according to the New. Technique Evaluation Program at the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Rapport 251. SLU, Funbo-Lövsta Forskningscenter, 755 97 UPPSALA.Google Scholar
TAUSON, R., WAHLSTRÖM, 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: 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN NIEKERK, T.C.G.M. and REUVENKAMP, B.F.J. (1999) Enriched cages for laying hens. World Poultry 15(12): 34–37.Google Scholar
WALL, H. and TAUSON, R. (1999) Hönans utnyttjande av ströbadet i inredda burar. Fjäderfä 8: 34–35.Google Scholar
WALL, H. and TAUSON, R. (2002) Egg quality in furnished cages for laying hens – Effects of crack reduction measures and hybrids. Poultry Science 81: 340–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEEKS, C.A. and NICOL, C.J. (2006) Preferences of laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 62(2): 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEITZENBÜRGER, D., VITS, A., HAMANN, H. and DISTL, O. (2005) Effect of small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science 46(5): 553–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WILKINS, L.J., BROWN, S.N., ZIMMERMAN, P.H., LEEB, T. and NICOL, C.J. (2004) Prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens: validation of a palpation method. Veterinary Record 155: 547–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar