Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-13T16:19:14.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Furnished cages for laying hens: study of the effects of group size and litter provision on laying location, zootechnical performance and egg quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2011

A. Huneau-Salaün ,
M. Guinebretière ,
A. Taktak ,
D. Huonnic  and
V. Michel
A. Huneau-Salaün*
Affiliation:
Anses-French Agency for food, Environmental and occupational health safety, BP 53 Route de Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
M. Guinebretière
Affiliation:
Anses-French Agency for food, Environmental and occupational health safety, BP 53 Route de Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
A. Taktak
Affiliation:
Anses-French Agency for food, Environmental and occupational health safety, BP 53 Route de Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
D. Huonnic
Affiliation:
Anses-French Agency for food, Environmental and occupational health safety, BP 53 Route de Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
V. Michel
Affiliation:
Anses-French Agency for food, Environmental and occupational health safety, BP 53 Route de Beaucemaine, 22440 Ploufragan, France
*
†E-mail: adeline.huneau@anses.fr
Get access

Abstract

The furnished cage is a new housing system for layers. A current trend in furnished cage design is to increase group size and replace the litter box with a mat provided with litter. An experiment was set up to determine the effects of group size and litter provision on laying performance and egg quality of beak-trimmed ISA Brown hens housed in large furnished cages with more than 12 hens. Six treatments, each of 18 furnished cages (768 cm2/hen including nest and litter area) were compared in a 3 × 2 experimental trial: three group sizes (S20 (20 hens per cage), S40 (40) and S60 (60)), with or without feed as litter distributed on the mat of the litter area. The provision of facilities per hen was equal in all treatments. Mortality, laying rate, mean egg weight, feed intake and feed conversion ratio were unaffected by group size over the 53-week laying period, and performance exceeded the ISA production standards. The overall percentage of eggs laid in the nest exceeded 95% except that it was slightly lower in group S20 (92.0% ± 6.4% v. S40: 96.0% ± 3.3% and S60: 96.2% ± 2.7%) leading to a higher proportion of dirty eggs (S20: 1.6% ± 2.2%, S40: 1.4% ± 1.5%, S60: 1.0% ± 1.0%). At 66 to 70 weeks, eggs laid outside the nest had a slightly higher count of mesophilic bacteria on the eggshell (5.0 log CFU/egg ± 0.4) than those laid in the nest (4.8 log CFU/egg ± 0.5) but no difference in contamination was observed between group sizes. Litter provision had no effect on mortality, egg weight or egg quality traits except for a higher proportion of broken eggs in cages with litter (5.3% ± 6.2% v. 4.6% ± 5.7%). Providing hens with feed for litter was associated with a higher laying rate (97.3% ± 3.2% v. 94.8% ± 4.4% at 23 weeks) and an apparent improvement in feed efficiency at the beginning of the laying period (feed conversion ratio based on feed consumption at the trough: 2.18 ± 0.06 with litter v. 2.28 ± 0.09 without litter at 25 weeks). The results of this study showed that a high level of productivity and good egg quality could be obtained in large furnished cages. Further research is needed to assess the impact on hens’ welfare and performance of using more economically competitive substrates than feed for litter.

Keywords

laying henfurnished cagegroup sizelitterperformance

Information

Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 911 - 917
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrahamsson, P, Tauson, R 1997. Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica – Section A: Animal Science 47, 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamsson, P, Tauson, R, Appleby, MC 1996. Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. British Poultry Science 37, 521–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC 1998a. Modification of laying hen cages to improve behavior. Poultry Science 77, 1828–1832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC 1998b. The Edinburgh modified cage: effects of group size and space allowance on brown laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 7, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC 2004. What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, MC, Hughes, BO 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
Appleby, MC, Walker, AW, Nicol, CJ, Lindberg, AC, Freire, R, Hughes, BO, Elson, HA 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43, 489–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JL, Tauson, R, Downing, JA, Janardhana, V, Lowenthal, JW, Butler, KL, Cronin, GM 2009. The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of. Poultry Science 88, 456–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, JJ, Appleby, MC 1996. Demand for nest boxes in laying hens. Behavioural Processes 36, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Reu, K, Rodenburg, TB, Grijspeerdt, K, Messens, W, Heyndrickx, M, Tuyttens, F, Sonck, B, Zoons, J, Herman, L 2009. Bacteriological contamination, dirt, and cracks of eggshells in furnished cages and noncage systems for laying hens: an international on-farm comparison. Poultry Science 88, 2442–2448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, IJH, Kite, VG 1989. Nest selection and nest-building behaviour in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 37, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2005. Welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. The EFSA Journal 197, 1–143.Google Scholar
European Commission 1999. 1999/47/EC Council Directive of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens E.C.O.J n° L 203 of 3/8/1999. Official Journal of the European Union L203, 53–57.Google Scholar
Guéméné, D 2007. Situation actuelle et évolution des systèmes d’élevage pour poules pondeuses en Europe. TeMA 4, 4–10.Google Scholar
Guesdon, V, Faure, JM 2004. Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research 53, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guesdon, V, Ahmed, AMH, Mallet, S, Faure, JM, Nys, Y 2006. Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. British Poultry Science 47, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetland, H, Svihus, B, Lervik, S, Moe, R 2003. Effect of feed structure on performance and welfare in laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 53, 92–100.Google Scholar
Hetland, H, Moe, RO, Tauson, R, Lervik, S, Svihus, B 2004. Effect of including whole oats into pellets on performance and plumage condition in laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 54, 206–212.Google Scholar
Huneau-Salaün, A, Michel, V, Huonnic, D, Balaine, L, Le Bouquin, S 2010. Factors influencing bacterial eggshell contamination in conventional cages, furnished cages and free-range systems for laying hens under commercial conditions. British Poultry Science 51, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, LJ, Estevez, I, Newberry, RC, Correia, MG 2003. Production-related traits of layers reared in different sized flocks: The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes. Poultry Science 82, 1393–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knape, KD, Chavez, C, Burgess, RP, Coufal, CD, Carey, JB 2002. Comparison of eggshell surface microbial populations for in-line and off-line commercial egg processing facilities. Poultry Science 81, 695–698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LayWel 2006. Deliverables D.3.2-D.3.3: analyses of database for health parameters in different housing systems. pp. 58–65. Retrieved December 16, 2010, from http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverables%2031-33%20health-3.pdfGoogle Scholar
Magdelaine, P 2009. Future prospects for the European egg industry. In XIII European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg products, Turku, Finland, 7p.Google Scholar
Mallet, S, Guesdon, V, Ahmed, AMH, Nys, Y 2006. Comparison of eggshell hygiene in two housing systems: standard and furnished cages. British Poultry Science 47, 30–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merrill, RJN, Cooper, JJ, Albentosa, MJ, Nicol, CJ 2006. The preferences of laying hens for perforated Astroturf over conventional wire as a dustbathing substrate in furnished cages. Animal Welfare 15, 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Berentsen, PBM, De Boer, IJM 2006. On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science 47, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, MO, Bell, DD 1993. Feeding egg-type layers. In Commercial chicken production manual (ed. MO North and DD Bell), p. 913. Chapman & Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Protais, J, Queguiner, S, Boscher, E, Piquet, JC, Nadard, B, Salvat, G 2003. Effect of housing systems on the bacterial flora of egg shells. British Poultry Science 43, 788–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodenburg, TB, Tuyttens, F, De Reu, K, Herman, L, Zoons, J, Sonck, B 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare 17, 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K, Tanaka, T 2008. Effects of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimmura, T, Azuma, T, Eguchi, Y, Uetake, K, Tanaka, T 2009. Effects of separation of resources on behaviour, physical condition and production of laying hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 50, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tactacan, GB, Guenter, W, Lewis, NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC, House, JD 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88, 698–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauson, R 2002. Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World's Poultry Science Journal 58, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 2005. Management and housing systems for layers – effects on welfare and production. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 61, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vits, A, Weitzenburger, D, Hamann, H, Distl, O 2005. Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science 84, 1511–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, H, Tauson, R 2002. Egg quality in furnished cages for laying hens – effects of crack reduction measures and hybrid. Poultry Science 81, 340–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, H, Tauson, R, 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
Wall, H, Tauson, R, Elwinger, K 2008. Effects of litter substrate and genotype on layers’ use of litter, exterior appearance, and heterophil:lymphocyte ratios in furnished cages. Poultry Science 84, 2458–2465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzenburger, D, Vits, A, Hamann, H, Distl, O 2005. Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science 46, 553–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed