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.

1. The objective of the present study was to examine the behaviour of laying hens in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor areas with particular reference to the proportion of each behaviour and the ways it changed. 2. In all, 144 interbred cross layers (WL/RIR cross-breed) were used. At the age of 16 weeks, the hens were divided at random into two groups and moved to single-tiered aviary (SA) and free-range systems (FR, SA with in addition an outdoor range area covered with clover) with 18 hens per pen. Behavioural observations were conducted before, during and after access to the range. 3. All behaviours using the beak (eating, grazing, drinking, preening, aggressive pecking, feather pecking, litter pecking, object pecking and mate pecking) were recorded as pecking behaviour. 4. While most of the FR hens spent their time outside foraging, the proportion of hens eating, preening, litter pecking, object pecking, aggressive pecking and feather pecking was higher in SA than in FR hens. 5. The proportion of hens performing pecking behaviour of all types was very similar in SA (61.7 +/- 2.0%) and in FR (64.0 +/- 0.8%). The proportion of hens performing overall pecking behaviour increased as pre-laying sitting decreased. 6. The proportion of hens feather pecking decreased in FR during access to range and a similar tendency was found for aggressive pecking. 7. In conclusion, the total proportion of hens pecking was almost the same regardless of whether an outdoor area was provided or not, but the incidence of different types of pecking behaviour differed between SA and FR. The risk of feather pecking in FR may be lower when an outdoor grazing area is provided, although further testing on a larger scale would be essential.

No abstract