Effects of Furnished Cage Type on Behavior and Welfare of Laying Hens.

Xiang Li,Donghua Chen,Jianhong Li,Jun Bao

doi:10.5713/ajas.15.0576

Xiang Li, Donghua Chen + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0576

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare the effects of layout of furniture (a perch, nest, and sandbox) in cages on behavior and welfare of hens. Two hundred and sixteen Hyline Brown laying hens were divided into five groups (treatments) with four replicates per group: small furnished cages (SFC), medium furnished cages type I (MFC-I), medium furnished cages type II (MFC-II), and medium furnished cages type III (MFC-III) and conventional cages (CC). The experiment started at 18 week of age and finished at 52 week of age. Hens’ behaviors were filmed during the following periods: 8:00 to 10:00; 13:00 to 14:00; 16:00 to 17:00 on three separate days and two hens from each cage were measured for welfare parameters at 50 wk of age. The results showed that feeding and laying of all hens showed no effect by cage type (p>0.05), and the hens in the furnished cages had significantly lower standing and higher walking than CC hens (p<0.05). The birds in MFC-III had significant higher preening, scratching and feather-pecking behavior than in the other cages (p<0.05). No difference in nesting behavior was found in the hens between the furnished cages (p>0.05). The hens in MFC-I, −II, and −III showed a significant higher socializing behavior than SFC and CC (p<0.05). The lowest perching was for the hens in SFC and the highest perching found for the hens in MFC-III. Overall, the hens in CC showed poorer welfare conditions than the furnished cages, in which the feather condition score, gait score and tonic immobility duration of the hens in CC was significantly higher than SFC, MFC-I, MFC-II, and MFC-III (p<0.05). In conclusion, the furnished cage design affected both behavior and welfare states of hens. Overall, MFC-III cage design was better than SFC, MFC-I, and MFC-II cage designs.

Highlights

Furnished cages were developed in response to criticisms about the conventional battery-cage due to its confinement of laying hens in commercial egg production
One study reported that hens performed 26.7% of dust bathing in the area provided within the enclosure (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997); while another study of the same type of furnished cage showed that all dust bathing occurred in the dust bath (Appleby and Hughes, 1995)
The hens in conventional cages (CC) showed poorer welfare conditions than the furnished cages, in which the feather condition score, gait score and tonic immobility duration of the hens in CC was significantly higher than SFC, MFC-I, MFC-II, and -III (p

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Furnished cages were developed in response to criticisms about the conventional battery-cage due to its confinement of laying hens in commercial egg production. Hens use perches of different heights for different types of behavior, tending to stand or walk on lower perches, while sitting or resting on higher ones (Struelens et al, 2008) Both lower and higher perches can be offered in cage-free environments to accommodate this behavioral differentiation, whereas most available furnished cage system designs do not provide multi-level perches. This study was conducted to compare the effects of furnished cages with different furniture design such as the location of a perch, dust bathing and nest box in a cage on behavior and welfare of laying hens, and to provide additional information for better design of furnished cages

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DISCUSSION

Findings

CONCLUSION