1. A 3-year trial was carried out of cages for laying hens, occupying a full laying house. The main cage designs used were 5000 cm2 in area, 50 cm high at the rear and furnished with nests and perches. F cages had a front rollaway nest at the side, lined with artificial turf. FD cages also had a dust bath containing sand over the nest. H cages had two nest hollows at the side, one in front of the other. They were compared with conventional cages 2500 cm2 in area and 38 cm high at the rear. 2. Cages were stocked with from 4 to 8 ISA Brown hens per cage, resulting in varied allowances of area, feeder and perch per bird. No birds were beak trimmed. In F and FD cages two further treatments were applied: nests and dust baths were sometimes fitted with gates to exclude birds from dust baths in the morning and from both at night; elevated food troughs, with a lip 33 cm above the cage floor, were compared with standard troughs. 3. Management of the house was generally highly successful, with temperature control achieved by ventilation. Egg production was above breeders' standards and not significantly affected by cage design. More eggs per bird were collected when there were fewer birds per cage but food consumption also then tended to be higher. 4. The number of downgraded eggs was variable, with some tendency for more in furnished cages. Eggs laid in dust baths were often downgraded. Those laid at the back of the cage were frequently dirty because of accumulation of droppings. H nests were unsuccessful, with less than 50% of eggs laid in the nest hollows. However, up to 93% of eggs were laid in front rollaways, and few of these were downgraded. 5. Feather and foot damage were generally less in furnished than in conventional cages, greater where there were more birds per cage. With an elevated food trough there was less feather damage but more overgrowth of claws. In year 2, mortality was greater in cages with more birds. 6. Pre-laying behaviour was mostly settled in front rollaway nests. Dust baths were used more for pecking and scratching than for dust bathing. Comfort behaviour was more frequent in furnished cages than conventional, although still not frequent. Locomotion was strongly affected by number of birds per cage or by space per bird, being reduced by crowding. Most birds perched at night except in one treatment providing only 10.7 cm perch per bird. 7. Behaviour was more unrestricted and varied, and physical condition was better, in furnished than in conventional cages. However, egg production will cost more in furnished cages, partly because more eggs are downgraded. Dust baths must be fitted with gates that the birds cannot open from outside, but gates for nest boxes were found unnecessary. If a low perch is fitted it must be far enough from the back of the cage for birds to walk there. 8. Where there was less space per bird (more birds per cage) than the requirements in the 1999 European Commission Directive on laying hens, there were: fewer eggs per hen, but still above the breeders' target; lower food c...

No abstract

No abstract

1. ISA Brown laying hens (3000) were housed in a perchery in 10 pens, each with 300 birds. The pens varied in size to produce 4 different stocking densities: 9.9 birds/m2 (n = 3), 13.5/m2 (n = 2), 16.0/m2 (n = 2) and 19.0/m2 (n = 3). Observations began at 20 weeks of age and continued until 69 weeks to establish the spatial distribution of the birds, usage of the different resources and the expression of behaviour. 2. Overall, birds spent most time on the perch frame (47%), litter area (23%), slatted floor (17%) and nestbox area (9%). 3. There was no effect of density on the proportion of birds observed on the slatted floor or on the elevated perches but as density increased the proportion on the littered area decreased. 4. Space usage was determined vertically, horizontally and longitudinally. Individual birds were seen to use about 80% of the pen volume available to them. This value was similar for all densities and showed that individuals did not have separate home ranges. 5. Fewer vertical movements were made within the main perch frame at the upper than at the lower levels but movements between the perches of the main frame and the nestbox rails were relatively frequent. This may help birds move up and down through the main frame. 6. Behaviours which decreased in incidence with crowding included moving, foraging and dust-bathing. Behaviours which increased with crowding included standing. Behaviours which were unaffected included resting, preening, prelaying behaviour, comfort behaviour and the minor behaviours. 7. The proportion of birds engaged in feeding and drinking was unaffected by density, except each time the chain feeders (which operated intermittently) ran more hens were seen feeding at the lower densities. This suggests that food delivery stimulated feeding behaviour; there may have been some restriction at the higher densities on birds feeding when and where they wanted. 8. Stocking density had no effect on the frequency of agonistic interactions: threats, lunges, comb/head pecks, chases and fights. 9. The incidence of damaging pecking was low and not density dependent. 10. Increasing density within the range investigated inhibited the expression of a number of behaviours and limited the use of specific resources: bird welfare at 19 birds/m2 may have been very slightly impaired.

No abstract