1. The advantages and disadvantages of various housing systems for laying hens were compared as a pilot study for work in commercial conditions. 2. At 16 weeks of age, 284 hens were introduced into one of 6 housing systems: two types of conventional cages (small: SC; large: LC), furnished cages (small: SF; large: LF), and non-cage systems (single-tiered aviary: SA; free-range: FR). 3. We evaluated the welfare, egg production, and immune response of the birds in these housing systems, built in the same location, for 18 months. For welfare evaluation, we examined their ethology, physiology, anatomy, production, and physical condition. 4. The non-cage systems, especially FR, had a low score for freedom from pain, injury, and disease, together with other disadvantages, such as pale eggs and increased feed intake for production. However, the score for freedom to express normal behaviour was high and immune response was good in the non-cage systems. 5. In the furnished cages, behaviour was more diverse in SF than in LF, and in SF immune response was comparable with the non-cage systems. 6. For freedom from fear and distress, the non-cage systems had high scores for some indicators such as TI duration, H/L ratio and claw length, while aggressive pecking and feather pecking was worse in the housing systems with large group sizes.

No abstract

1. The objective was to determine the relation between social rank and use of resources in a small furnished cage with sufficient resources per hen (SF) and a commercial large one with less adequate allowance of facilities per hen (LF). 2. Ninety-two cross layers were used. At the age of 16 weeks, the hens were divided at random into two groups. There were 4 furnished cages with 5 birds per cage and 4 large furnished cages with 18 birds per cage. The dominance hierarchy was determined, in which highest, medium and lowest ranking hens in each cage were identified. Behaviour, use of facilities and physical conditions of these hens were measured (one in each rank category in SF, two in each in LF). 3. Dustbathing and litter scratching were more frequent in the high ranking hens than the medium and low ranked hens in LF, while no significant difference was found between them in SF. 4. No significant difference between SF and LF was found in use of nest boxes. However, pre-laying sitting tended to be less frequent in low ranking than medium and high ranking hens in LF (Social order x Cage design). In the nest box most of time was spent in pre-laying sitting by SF hens, LF high and medium ranked hens (average 94.9%). However, LF low ranking hens spent their time escaping (33.1%), pre-laying sitting (27.7%) standing (25.7%) and moving (13.5%) in the nest. 5. In the large furnished cages with less facilities per hen, high ranking hens may be expected to have priority using the dust bath. In contrast, low ranking hens rarely performed nesting behaviour fully, and spend more time using the nest box as a refuge than for laying.

No abstract

1. Based on our previous studies, we designed a medium-sized furnished cage with a dust bath and nest box on both sides of the cage (MFS) and evaluated its usefulness. 2. We used 180 White Leghorn layers. At the age of 17 weeks, the birds were distributed at random into one of the 4 cage designs: conventional cages (CC; 6 cages and 5 hens per cage), small (SF; 6 cages and 5 hens per cage) and medium furnished cages (MFL; 6 cages and 10 hens per cage) with a 'localised' dust bath and nest box on one side of the cage, and MFS (6 cages and 10 hens per cage). The total allocation of resources per bird was similar for all furnished cage designs. Behaviour, physical condition and production were measured in each cage. 3. Moving was more frequent in MFS and MFL than in CC and SF. The proportion of hens performing aggressive pecking and severe feather pecking was higher in MFL than CC and SF. These aggressive interactions occurred frequently in the dust bath area in MFL; however, these tendencies were not found in MFS. Egg production and egg mass were lower in MFL than in SF, while the production in MFS was similar to those in CC and SF. MFS hens laid eggs on the cage floor more often than in MFL. 4. In conclusion, these results demonstrate the possible usefulness of MFS. However, some inconsistent results and ways of improving MFS design were also identified.