Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:51:22.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2009

M.C. Appleby  and
B.O. Hughes
M.C. Appleby
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B.O. Hughes
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
Get access

Abstract

There are many different characteristics of housing systems which affect the welfare of laying hens, particularly because welfare itself has many diverse aspects. When cause and effect relationships between systems and welfare are assessed, it is evident that no system currently under consideration is ideal. Of those priorities listed by UK authorities such as the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, all systems are likely to provide ‘freedom from hunger and thirst, adequate lighting and the company of conspecifics’. However, conventional cages are less likely than other systems to provide ‘freedom of movement, freedom from fear, comfort and shelter, suitable flooring and freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour’. Alternative systems, though, often expose birds to the danger of disease, to aggression from dominant birds and to the risk of cannibalism or beak trimming to avoid it. Overall, welfare is compromised more in conventional cages than in well-run alternative systems, though welfare is more sensitive to poor management and to market forces in the latter. Problems in cages are also less likely to be alleviated by genetic selection than those in alternative systems. The ideal system for present-day stocks should combine the small group sizes found in cages with the freedom of movement and complex environment characteristic of alternative systems.

Keywords

Behaviourcagesenvironmentlaying fowlsystemswelfare
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 1991 , pp. 109 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Anderson, D.P., Beard, C.W. and Hanson, R.P. (1964) Adverse effects of ammonia on the surface ultrastructure of the lung and trachea of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 64: 2056–2061Google Scholar
Anon. (1977) Perches make cage floors fit for breeders. Poultry World 128: 20Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C. (1984) Factors affecting floor laying by domestic hens: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal 40: 241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M.C. (1990) Behaviour of laying hens in cages with nest sites. British Poultry Science 31: 71–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M.C., Duncan, I.J.H. and McRae, H.E. (1988a) Perching and floor laying by domestic hens: experimental results and their commercial application. British Poultry Science 29: 351–357Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Hogarth, G.S., Anderson, J.A., Hughes, B.O. and Whittemore, C.T. (1988b) Performance of a deep litter system for egg production. British Poultry Science 29: 735–751Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O. and Hogarth, G.S. (1989) Behaviour of laying hens in a deep litter house. British Poultry Science 30: 545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M.C., McRae, H.E. and Duncan, I.J.H. (1983) Nesting and floor laying by domestic hens: effects of individual variation in perching behaviour. Behaviour Analysis Letters 3: 345–352Google Scholar
Appleby, M.C., Maguire, S.N. and McRae, H.E. (1985) Movement by domestic fowl in commercial flocks. Poultry Science 64: 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, W.L.G. (1988) Diseases in free range flocks. State Veterinary Journal 42: 48–54Google Scholar
Baker, K.B. (1988) Legislation now and for the future. In: Cages for the Future, Cambridge Poultry ConferenceADAS, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H.J. (1989) The effect of a sudden change in floor type on pecking behaviour in chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogner, H., Peschke, W., Seda, V. and Popp, K. (1979) Studiezum Flaschenbedarf von Legehennen in Kafigen bei Bestimmten Activitaten. Berliner und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 92: 340–343Google Scholar
Broom, D.M. (1990) The effects of handling and transport on hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 46: 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candland, D.K., Taylor, D.B., Dresdale, L., Leiphart, J.M. and Solow, S.P. (1969) Heart rate, aggression and dominance in the domestic chicken. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology 67: 70–76Google Scholar
Carpenter, G.A., Smith, W.K., MacLaren, A.P.C. and Spackman, D. (1986) Effect of internal air filtration on the performance of broilers and the aerial concentrations of dust and bacteria. British Poultry Science 27: 471–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T.C. (1971) The hen's egg: shell cracking at oviposition and its inheritance. British Poultry Science 12: 259–278Google Scholar
Craig, J.V. and Adams, A.W. (1984) Behaviour and well-being of hens (Gallus domesticus) in alternative housing environments. World's Poultry Science Journal 40: 221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, J.V., Biswas, D.K. and Guhl, A.M. (1969) Agonistic behaviour influenced by strangeness, crowding and heredity in female domestic fowl (Gallus gallus). Animal Behaviour 17: 498–506Google Scholar
Craig, J.V. and Milliken, G.A. (1989) Further studies of density and group size effects in caged hens of stocks differing in fearful behaviour: productivity and behavior. Poultry Science 68: 9–16Google Scholar
Craig, J.V., Ortman, L.L. and Guhl, A.M. (1965) Genetic selection for social dominance ability in chickens. Animal Behaviour 13: 114–131Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, G.J. (1980) Genetic variation in feather pecking behaviour. British Poultry Science 21: 447–450Google Scholar
Dantzer, R. (1986) Behavioral, physiological and functional aspects of stereotyped behavior: a review and a reinterpretation. Journal of Animal Science 62: 1776–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. (1983) Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. (1985) Cage height preference and use in battery-kept hens. Veterinary Record 116: 345–347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M.S. (1988) Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. (1989) Time budgets in red jungle fowl as a basis for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 24: 77–80Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. and Beardsley, T. (1986) Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 351–364Google Scholar
Dawkins, M.S. and Hardie, S. (1989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, E.T., Appleby, M.C. and Hughes, B.O. (1991) Effect of perches in battery cages on production and welfare of laying hens. British Poultry Science (in press)Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. (1970) Frustration in the fowl. In: Aspects of Poultry Behaviour (Eds. Freeman, B.M. and Gordon, R.F.), BEMB Symposium, No. 6ii, British Poultry Science Ltd, Edinburgh, pp. 15–31Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. (1978) An overall assessment of poultry welfare. In: Proceedings of First Danish Seminar on Poultry Welfare (Ed. Sorensen, L.Y.), WPSA, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. (1981) Animal rights – animal welfare: a scientist's assessment. Poultry Science 60: 489–499Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. (1982) Investigations into the feelings of the domestic fowl: what's all the flap about? CEC Research on Poultry Welfare, Progress Reports 1981/1982Google Scholar
Duncan, I.J.H. and Kite, V.G. (1989) Nest site selection and nest building behaviour in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 37: 215–231Google Scholar
Ehlhardt, D.A. and Koolstra, C.L.M. (1984) Multi-tier system for housing laying hens. Pluimveehouderij, 21 December, 44–47Google Scholar
Elson, H.A. (1976) New ideas on laying cage design – the getaway cage. Proceedings of the 5th WPSA European Poultry Conference, Malta 2: 1030–1041Google Scholar
Elson, H.A. (1981) Modified cages for layers. In: Alternatives to Intensive Husbandry SystemsUFAW SymposiumUFAW, Potters Bar, pp. 47–50Google Scholar
Elson, H.A. (1985) The economics of poultry welfare. In: Proceedings of Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Ed. Wegner, R.M.), WPSA, Celle, pp. 243–253Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (1986) An Assessment of Egg Production Systems, FAWC, TolworthGoogle Scholar
Fickenwirth, A., Folsch, D.W. and Dolf, C. (1985) Sand shortens the claws and beak of hens – prevents injuries. In: Proceedings of Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Ed. Wegner, R.M.), WPSA, Celle, pp. 288–290Google Scholar
Freeman, B.M. (1983) Floor space allowance for the caged domestic fowl. Veterinary Record 112: 562–563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentle, M.J. (1986) Beak trimming in poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 268–275Google Scholar
Gibson, S.W., Dun, P. and Hughes, B.O. (1988) The performance and behaviour of laying fowls in a covered strawyard system. Research and Development in Agriculture 5: 153–163Google Scholar
Gibson, S.W., Innes, J. and Hughes, B.O. (1985) Aggregation behaviour of laying fowls in a covered strawyard. In: Proceedings of Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Ed. Wegner, R.M.), WPSA, Celle, pp. 295–298Google Scholar
Gregory, N.G. and Wilkins, L.J. (1989) Broken bones in domestic fowl: handling and processing damage in end-of-lay battery hens. British Poultry Science 30: 555–562Google Scholar
Gregory, N.G., Wilkins, L.J., Eleperuma, S.D., Ballantyne, A.J. and Overfield, N.D. (1990) Broken bones in domestic fowls: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 59–69Google Scholar
Guhl, A.M. (1953) The social behaviour of the domestic fowl. Technical Bulletin of the Agricultural Experimental Station, Kansas State College No. 73, 48pp.Google Scholar
Health and Safety Executive (1980) Threshold Limit Values, HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
Hill, A.T. and Hunt, J.R. (1981) Effects of cage floor shape on layer performance. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61: 817–825Google Scholar
Hill, J.A. (1983) Aviary system poses feather pecking and floor egg problems. Poultry International May, 109–113Google Scholar
Hill, J.A. (1986) Egg production in alternative systems – a review of recent research in the UK. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 13–18Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. (1975) The concept of an optimum stocking density and its selection for egg production. In: Economic Factors Affecting Egg Production (Eds. Freeman, B.M. and Boorman, K.N.), Poultry Science Symposium 10: 271–298Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. (1983) Conventional and shallow cages: a summary of research from welfare and production aspects. World's Poultry Science Journal 39: 218–228Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. (1985) Feather loss as a problem: how does it occur? In: Proceedings of Second European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Ed. Wegner, R.M.), WPSA, Celle, pp. 177–188Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Appleby, M.C. (1989a) Behaviour and welfare of hens in alternative systems. In: Alternative Improved Housing Systems for Poultry (Eds. Kuit, A.R., Ehlhardt, D.A. and Blokhuis, H.J.), CEC, Luxembourg, pp. 98–103Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Appleby, M.C. (1989b) Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. Veterinary Record 124: 483–484Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Black, A.J. (1973) The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British Poultry Science 14: 615–619Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Black, A.J. (1974) The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behaviour patterns and ‘fear’ of fowls in cages and pens. British Poultry Science 15: 375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Dun, P. (1982) A comparison of two laying strains, housed intensively in cages and outside on free range. West of Scotland Agricultural College, Research and Development Publication 16Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Dun, P. (1986) A comparison of hens housed intensively in cages or outside on range. Zootechnica International, February, 44–46Google Scholar
Hughes, B.O. and Duncan, I.J.H. (1972) The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. British Poultry Science 13: 525–547CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B.O. and Wood-Gush, D.G.M. (1977) Agonistic behaviour in domestic hens: the influence of housing method and group size. Animal Behaviour 25: 1056–1062Google Scholar
Jones, R.B. (1987) Fearfulness of caged laying hens: the effects of cage level and type of roofing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R.B., Duncan, I.J.H. and Hughes, B.O. (1981) The assessment of fear in domestic hens exposed to a looming human stimulus. Behavioural Processes 6: 121–133Google Scholar
Jones, R.B. and Faure, J.M. (1981) Tonic immobility (righting time) in laying hens housed in cages and pens. Applied Animal Ethology 7: 369–372Google Scholar
Keeling, L.J., Hughes, B.O. and Dun, P. (1988) Performance of free range laying hens in a polythene house and their behaviour on range. Farm Buildings Progress 94: 21–28Google Scholar
Kuit, A.R. (1984) Research into the usefulness and welfare aspects of special equipment such as sand boxes, for laying hens. In: CEC Farm Animal Welfare Programme Evaluation Report 1979–1983 (Ed. Tarrant, P.V.), CEC, Brussels, pp. 52–56Google Scholar
Kuit, A.R. and Brantas, G.C. (1982) Studies of sand boxes in ‘get-away cages’ and other alternative systems. CEC Research on Poultry Welfare, Progress Reports 1981/82Google Scholar
Kuit, A.R., Ehlhardt, D.A. and Blokhuis, J.H. (1989) Alternative Improved Housing Systems for Poultry, CEC, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
Laing, P.W. (1988) Diseases of free range birds. World's Poultry Science Journal 44: 72–74Google Scholar
McLean, K.A., Baxter, M.R. and Michie, W. (1986) A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 93–98Google Scholar
Madelin, T.M. and Wathes, C.M. (1989) Air hygiene in a broiler house: comparison of deep litter with raised netting floors. British Poultry Science 30: 23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaly, M.M., Webb, M.L., Youtz, S.L., Roush, W.B. and Graves, H.B. (1984) Changes in serum corticosterone concentration of laying hens as a response to increased population density. Poultry Science 63: 2271–2274Google Scholar
Maxwell, M.H., Dick, L.A., Anderson, I.A. and Mitchell, M.A. (1989) Ectopic cartilaginous and osseous lung nodules induced in the young broiler by inadequate ventilation. Avian Pathology 18: 113–124Google Scholar
Meijsser, F.M. and Hughes, B.O. (1989) Comparative analysis of pre-laying behaviour in battery cages and in three alternative systems. British Poultry Science 30: 747–760Google Scholar
Meyer, W.A. and Sunde, M.L. (1974) Bone breakage as affected by type of housing or an exercise machine for layers. Poultry Science 53: 878–885Google Scholar
Michie, W. and Wilson, C.W. (1984) The perchery system of housing commercial layers. World's Poultry Science Journal 40: 179Google Scholar
Mills, A.D., Wood-Gush, D.G.M. and Hughes, B.O. (1985) Genetic analysis of strain differences in pre-laying behaviour in battery cages. British Poultry Science 26: 187–197Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Maff) (1987) Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock, HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C.J. (1987a) Effect of cage height and area on the behaviour of hens housed in battery cages. British Poultry Science 28: 327–335Google Scholar
Nicol, C.J. (1987b) Behavioural responses of laying hens follow a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C.J. (1989) Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 22: 75–81Google Scholar
Odum, T.W., Wideman, R.F. and Coello, C.L. (1987) Current research on body fluid accumulation in broilers (ascites). Zootechnica International August, 53–54Google Scholar
Oyetunde, O.O.F., Thomson, R.G. and Carlson, H.C. (1978). Aerosol exposure of ammonia, dust and Escherichia coli in broiler chickens. Canadian Veterinary Journal 19: 167–193Google ScholarPubMed
Pearson, R.A. (1983) Prevention of foot lesions in broiler breeder hens kept in individual cages. British Poultry Science 24: 183–190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, A.P. and Murphy, L.B. (1988) Observations on the use of feeding space in a commercial broiler chicken house. British Poultry Science 29: 293–300Google Scholar
Robertson, E.S., Appleby, M.C., Hogarth, G.S. and Hughes, B.O. (1989) Modified cages for laying hens: a pilot trial. Research and Development in Agriculture 6: 107–114Google Scholar
Roush, W.B., Mashaly, M.M. and Graves, H.B. (1984) Effect of increased bird population in a fixed cage area on production and economic responses of Single Comb White Leghorn laying hens. Poultry Science 63: 45–48Google Scholar
Rowland, L.O., Fry, J.L., Christmas, R.B., O'Sheen, A.W. and Harms, R.H. (1972) Differences in tibia strength and bone ash among strains of layers. Poultry Science 51: 1612–1615Google Scholar
Rutter, S.M. and Duncan, I.J.H. (1989) Behavioural measures of aversion on domestic fowl. In: Third European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (Eds. Faure, J.M. and Mills, A.D.), WPSA, Tours, France, pp. 277–279Google Scholar
Savory, C.J., Wood-Gush, D.G.M. and Duncan, I.J.H. (1978) Feeding behaviour in a population of domestic fowls in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 13–27Google Scholar
Siegel, H.S. and Siegel, P.B. (1961) The relationship of social competition with endocrine weights and activity in male chickens. Animal Behaviour 9: 151–158Google Scholar
Simonsen, H.B. (1983) Ingestive behaviour and wing flapping in assessing welfare of laying hens. In: Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare (Ed. Smidt, D.), Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 89–95Google Scholar
Tauson, R. (1980) Cages: how could they be improved? In: The Laying Hen and its Environment (Ed. Moss, R.), Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 269–304Google Scholar
Tauson, R. (1984) Effects of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia 34: 193–209Google Scholar
Tauson, R. (1985) Mortality in laying hens caused by differences in cage design. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia 35: 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R. (1986) Avoiding excessive growth of claws in caged laying hens. Acta Agriculture Scandinavia 36: 95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R. (1988) Effects of redesign. In: Cages for the Future, Cambridge Poultry ConferenceADAS, pp. 42–69Google Scholar
Tauson, R. and Jansson, L. (1990) Two alternative keeping methods for egg laying hens in comparison with furnished cages. In: Proceedings of VIII European Poultry ConferenceWPSABarcelona, pp. 676–679Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K. (1980) The regulation of dust bathing and other patterns in the laying hen: a Lorenzian approach. In: The Laying Hen and its Environment (Ed. Moss, R.), Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 101–120Google Scholar
Vestergaard, K. (1982) The significance of dust bathing for the wellbeing of the domestic hen. Tierhaltung 13: 109–118Google Scholar
Webster, A.J.F. and Nicol, C.J. (1988) The case for welfare. In: Cages for the Future, Cambridge Poultry ConferenceADAS, pp. 11–21Google Scholar
Wegner, R.M. (1981) Choice of production systems for egg layers. In: Proceedings of 1st WPSA European Symposium on Poultry WelfareWPSACopenhagen, pp. 141–148Google Scholar
Wegner, R.M. (1990) Experience with the get-away cage system. World's Poultry Science Journal 46: 41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennrich, G. (1975) Studien zum Verhalten verschiedener Hybrid-Herkunfte von Haushuhnen (Gallus domesticus) in Bodenintensivhaltung mit besonderer Beruchsichtigung aggressiven Verhaltens souvie des Federpickens und des Kannibalismus. 5. Mitteilung: Verhaltensweisen des Federpickens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 39: 37–44Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D.G.M. (1972) Strain differences in response to sub-optimal stimuli in the fowl. Animal Behaviour 20: 72–76Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D.G.M. and Gilbert, A.B. (1969) Observations on the laying behaviour of hens in battery cages. British Poultry Science 10: 29–36Google Scholar