Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: Effects of design on behaviour and welfare
- 1 December 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in British Poultry Science
- Vol. 34 (5) , 835-847
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669308417644
Abstract
1. Laying hens (192 ISA Brown medium hybrids) were housed from 18 to 72 weeks as groups of 4 in conventional or experimental cages. The main area of all cages provided 675 cmVhen. All experimental cages had perches, dust baths and nest boxes, which were of three types: litter (L), artificial turf (A) or plastic rollaway (P). These facilities provided an additional 375 to 480 cm2/hen. The nest boxes and dust baths occupied either high or low positions. Behaviour, physical condition and production of the birds were regularly recorded. 2. Mortality was low (1.6% overall) and egg production very good in all treatments. The proportion of cracked and dirty eggs was slightly (but not significantly) higher in the experimental cages. In the experimental cages 90% of eggs were laid overall in the nest boxes and 3% in the dust baths. The proportion laid in the nest boxes was lower early in the laying cycle and increased with time, reaching 99% in A. 3. The facilities were heavily used. Birds spent about 25% of day time on the perches and 10–15% in or near the nest box and dust bath. At night, the majority of birds (90 to 94%) roosted on perches, but most of the remainder were on the lips of the nest box or dust bath, fouling the interiors. 4. Pre‐laying behaviour was much more settled in the experimental cages (45 min spent in the eventual laying position) than in the conventional ones (20 min) and total duration varied from 68 min in A to 87 min in P. The number of nest entries varied from 3.0 (A and P) to 4.3 (L); disturbance to sitting birds was correspondingly greater in L. 5. Dust bathing in the experimental cages generally took place during the afternoon in a single bout of about 5 min duration, whereas in the conventional cages it was brief and fragmented (3 bouts of 10 s each). The dust bath was also used for foraging behaviour (pecking and scratching). The treatments with small dust baths (A and P) caused problems for the birds. 6. Feather, foot and claw damage all tended to be less in the experimental than in the conventional cages, though only in the last case was the difference significant. Keel bone depressions appeared to be associated with perches; they were present in 43% of hens in the experimental cages but only 4% in conventional cages. There were no significant differences in body weight or in tibial or humerus strength between birds in the various treatments. 7. This study confirms that experimental cages with nest boxes, dust baths and perches offer appreciable benefits for welfare, with few production problems. The most successful treatment (A) could, with relatively minor modifications, form the basis of a practical design for large-scale commercial production.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Individual perching behaviour of laying hens and its effects in cagesBritish Poultry Science, 1992
- Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hensBritish Poultry Science, 1992
- Effects of pecking incentives during rearing on feather pecking of laying hensBritish Poultry Science, 1992
- Design of nest boxes for laying cagesBritish Poultry Science, 1991
- Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspectsWorld's Poultry Science Journal, 1991
- Behaviour of laying hens in cages with nest sitesBritish Poultry Science, 1990
- From an animal's point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfareBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 1990
- Nest box design and nesting material in a deep litter house for laying hensBritish Poultry Science, 1988
- Battery hens name their price: Consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’Animal Behaviour, 1983
- A comparison of the behaviour and production of laying hens in experimental and conventional battery cagesApplied Animal Ethology, 1976