Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:31:26.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management and housing systems for layers – effects on welfare and production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

R. Tauson
R. Tauson*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Funbo-Lövsta Research Centre, 755 97 UPPSALA, Sweden
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Except for conventional cages, the most common housing systems for laying hens comprise deep litter, aviaries and more recently furnished cages. Layers in floor systems may also include out-door keeping. Furnished cages will be the only legal form of cages in the EU from 2012 (1999 EU-directive) but have as yet only been installed in significant numbers in Sweden and partly in Norway, Germany and Great Britain. Climate, feed, bird genotype, group size as well as the legal possibility to beak trim or to use certain medical treatments (mainly against endo- and ectoparasites) or not, are all conditions affecting results with different housing systems in different countries. Offering benefits to the bird as regards increase in behavioural repertoire as well as providing more space, all alternatives to conventional cages, require new orspecial knowledge of management. This is due to the fact that these systems often include higher potential risks in production and health of layers. This especially applies to non-cage systems (Petermann, 2003). The main issues to control in largergroup floorhousing are parasitic disorders, outbreak and spreading of cannibalistic pecking, increased feed intake, misplaced eggs, catching of spent hens and airquality (dust and ammonia levels). Many management practices to reduce some of these risks have been presented including rearing method, medication, vaccination, light intensity, genotype, feed composition, beak trimming and – for improved air quality – the use of spraying/fogging with water or oil as well as more frequent manure removal at closerintervals have been practised. Coming in a wide range of models and group sizes, the furnished cages attempt to combine the benefits and reduce the disadvantages of floorkeeping and conventional cages. The most developed models of furnished cages provide similar production results to conventional cages. However, differences still exists e.g. in egg quality traits between models. Design and location of nests, perches and litter are all important factors.

In conclusion, future trends in investments forhousing system in egg production will have to take into account several factors apart from the degree of success from technical development of each system. These will probably involve national directives regarding beak trimming, stocking densities, directives of withdrawal times of medication and occupational safety on one side and national markets and trades fordifferent categories of eggs on the other.

Keywords

laying henspoultry healthbehaviouregg qualityair condition
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 477 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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.)

Footnotes

From a paper first preseted at the 22nd World's Poultry Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, June 8–13, 2004

References

AbrAhamsson, P. and Tauson, R. (1997) Effects of group size on performance, health and behaviour in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 47: 254–260.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, P., Fossum, O. and Tauson, R. (1998) Health of layers in an aviary system over five batches of birds. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 39: 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, P., Tauson, R. and Appleby, M.C. (1995) Performance of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A, Animal Science 45: 286–296.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abrahamsson, P., Tauson, R. and Elwinger, K. (1996) Effects on production, health and egg quality of varying proportions of wheat and barley in diets for two hybrids of laying hens kept in different housing systems. Acta Agriculturae Scaninavica, Section A, Animal Science 46: 173–182.Google Scholar
Appleby., M.C. and Hughes, B.O. (1995) The Edinburgh Modified Cage for laying hens. British Poultry Science 36: 707–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M.C., Walker, A.W., Nicol, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aerni, V., Brinkhof, M.W.G., Wechsler, B. and Oester, H. (2005) Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: a systematic review. World's Poultry Science Journal 61: 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bareham, J.R. (1976) A comparison of the behaviour and production of laying hens in experimental and conventional battery cages. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J.R., Glatz, P.C., Newman, E.A. and Cronin, G.M. (1997) Effects of modifying layer cages with solid sides on stress physiology, plumage, pecking and bone strength of hens. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture.Google Scholar
Barnett, J.L. and Hemsworth, P.H. (2003) Science and its application in assessing the welfare of laying hens in the egg industry. Australian Veterinary Journal 81(10): 615–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, M.R. (1994) The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Veterinary Record 134: 614–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, D.D. (1995) A case study with laying hens. Proc. Animal Behavior and the Design of Livestock and Poultry Systems International Conference. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. pp.307–319.Google Scholar
Craig, J. and Swanson, J.C. (1994) Review. Welfare perspectives on hens kept for egg production. Poultry Science 73: 921–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Efsa (2005) The welfare aspects of various systems for keeping of laying hens. Annex to the EFSA Journal 197: 1–23.Google Scholar
Ekstrand, C., Odén, K., Gunnarsson, S., Algers, B., Onila, M. and Svedberg, J. (1996) Utvärdering av inhysningssystemet Oli-Voletage för frigående värphöns. Svensk Veterinärtidning 48(6): 287–294.Google Scholar
Elson, H.A. (1976) New ideas on laying cage design – the ‘get-away’ cage. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference, WPSA Malta Branch pp. 1030–1037.Google Scholar
Eriksson, H., Fossum, O., Chirico, J., Gunnarsson, A. and Jansson, D.S. (2003) Erysipelas – a growing problem in aviary and organic housing systems. Program and abstracts of Congress of the World Veterinary Poultry Association, Denver, pp. 130.Google Scholar
European Commission (1999) Council Directive 1999/74 of 19 July laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal L 203, 03/08/1999.Google Scholar
Fass, Vet (2003) Läkemedelsindustriföreningen, Box 17608, 118 92 Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Fiks-Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. (2001) Organic poultry farming: a small but growing concept. In Proceedings of the 6:th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen, Switzerland, pp. 35–37. Swiss Branch of the WPSA, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Fiks-Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M., Van Emous, R.A. and Reuvekamp, B.J.F. (2003) Experiences with production and egg quality in alternative systems and large enriched cages for laying hens in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Xth European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg products, Saint-Brieuc, France. III: 210–216.Google Scholar
Fleming, R.H., Whitehead, C.C., Alvey, D., Gregory, N.G. and Wilkins, L.J. (1994) Bone structure and breaking strength in laying hens housed in different husbandry systems. British Poultry Science 35: 651–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flock, D. (2005) Personal communication.Google Scholar
Freire, L.J., Wilkins, F., Short, F. and Nicol, C.J. (2003) Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. British Poultry Science 44: 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, E.K.F. (1989) Effects of the behaviour related to rearing system. Proceedings 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Tours, France. pp. 137–148.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, E.K.F. and Oester, H. (2001) From battery cages to aviaries: 20 years of Swiss experiences. Proceedings of 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen, Switzerland. pp. 51–59. Swiss Branch of the WPSA, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gregory, N.G., Wilkins, L.J., Alvey, D.M. and Tucker, S.A. (1993) Effect of catching method and lighting intensity on the prevalence of broken bones and on the ease of handling of end-of-lay hens. Veterinary Record 132: 127–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guesdon, V. and Faure, J.M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research 53: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadorn, R., Gloor, A. and Wiedmer, H. (2000) Effect of beak trimming on brown growing pullets and laying hens. Agrarsforschung 7(2): 62–67.Google Scholar
Hafez, H.M., Mazaheri, A., Prusas, C., Böhland, K., Pöppel, M. and Schulze, D. (2001) Aktuelle Geflügelkrankheiten bei Legehennen im Zusammanhang mit alternativen Haltungssystemen. Tierärztliche Praxis 2001(29): 168–174.Google Scholar
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(2): 202–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Höglund, J., Nordenfors, H. and Uggla, A. (1995) Prevalence of the Poultry Red Mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, in different types of production systems for egg layers in Sweden. Poultry Science 74: 1793–1798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, H.B. (2003) Effektivitetskontrollen. Beretning 2003. pp. 41–76.Google Scholar
Kreinbrock, L., Schäl, J., Beyerbach, M., Rohn, K., Glaser, S. and Schneider, B. (2004) Epileg. Orientierende eidemiologische Untersuchung zum Leistungsniveau und Gesundheitsstatus in Legehennnhaltungen verschiedener Haltungssysteme. Tierärztliche Hochshule Hannover, Büteweg 2, 30559 Hannover, Germany.Google Scholar
Mallet, S., Ahmed, A., Guesdon, V. and Nys, Y. (2003) Comparison of egg shell quality and hygiene in two housing systems / standard and furnished cages. Proceedings of the Xth European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg products. Saint-Brieuc, France. III: 238–242Google Scholar
Meierhans, D., Amgarten, M., Guler, H.-P. and Strasser, M. (1992) The economical consequences of the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Switzerland. Poster session. Proceedings XIX World's poultry Congress,Amsterdam..Google Scholar
Michel, V. and Huonnic, D. (2003) A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or in aviaries. British Poultry Science 44(5): 775–776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moe, R.O., Guéméné, D., Larsen, H.J.S., Bakken, M., Lervik, S., Hetland, H., Tauson, R. (2004) Effects of pre-laying rearing conditions in laying hens housed in standard or furnished cages on various indicators of animal welfare. Proceedings of the XXII World's Poultry Congress, Istanbul,Turkey.WPSA Turkish Branch (In print).Google Scholar
Olsson, I.A.S. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peguri, A. and Coon, C. (1993) Effects of feather coverage and temperature on layer performance. Poultry Science 72: 1318–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Permin, A., Ambrosen, T., Maag Eigaard, N., Folden Flensburg, M., Bojesen, M.Christensen, J.P. and Bisgaard, M. (2002) Sygdomme og velfaerd. Dansk Veterinaertidskritf 85(6): 12–16.Google Scholar
Petermann, S. (2003) Alternative Haltungssysteme – Erfarhrungen aus der Praxis. DGS 2003(35): 10–15.Google Scholar
Siegwart, N. (1991) Ursache und Pathogenese von Fussballengeschwüren bei Legehennen. Dissertation. Universtät Bern.Google Scholar
Tauson, R. (1986) Technical environments for caged laying hens. Thesis. Report no. 154. SLU, Funbo-Lövsta Research Centre, 755 97 Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Tauson, R. (2003) Experiences of production and welfare in small group cages in Sweden. Proceedings of the Xth European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg products. Saint-Brieuc, FRANCE. III: 217–229.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 Scaninavica, Section A, Animal Science 44: 110–119.Google Scholar
Tauson, R. and Holm., K.-E. (2001) First furnished small group cages for laying hens in evaluation program on commercial farms in Sweden. In Proceedings of the 6:th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Zollikofen, Switzerland, pp. 26–32. Swiss Branch of the WPSA, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Tauson, R. and Holm., K.-E. (2002) Evaluation of Victorsson furnished cage for 8 laying hens according to the 7§ if the Swedish Animal welfare Ordinance and according to the New Technique Evaluation Program at the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Report 251. SLU, Funbo-Lövsta Forskningscenter, 755 97 Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Tauson, R. and Holm., K.-E. (2005) Mortality, production and use of facilities in furnished small group cages for layers in commercial egg production in Sweden 1998–2003. In Proceedings of the 7:th European Symposium on poultry Welfare,Lublin, Poland,June 15–19, 2005. In press.Google Scholar
Tauson, R., Wahlström, A. and Abrahamsson, P. (1999) Effects of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Applied Poultry Research 8: 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Emous, R. M. and Fiks–Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. (2003) Praktijkinventarisatie volièrebedrijven met uitloop. Praktijk Rapport Pluimvee 7. Postbus 2176,8203 AD, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van Horne, P. (1996) Production and economical results of commercial flocks with white layers in aviary systems and battery cages. British Poultry Science 37: 255–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veterinary Medicines Directorate (1999) Woodham Lane, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3 LS, Great Britain.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
Wall, H. (2003) Laying hens in furnished cages. Thesis. Agraria 406. Dept. Animal Nutrition and Management, SLU, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
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: 333–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, R.M., Nogossek, M., Sander, I., Wandt, B., Neumann, U. and Glunder, G. (2003) Investigations of laying hen health in enriched cages as compared to conventional cages and a floor pen system. Wiener Tierarztliche Monatschrift 90(10): 257–266.Google Scholar