Assessing Environmental Control Strategies in Cage-Free Egg Production Systems: Effect on Spatial Occupancy and Natural Behaviors

Abstract

Animal welfare concerns have been a challenging issue for producers and international marketing. In laying hen production, cage-free systems (CFS) have been identified as an alternative to ensure the laying hens’ well-being. Nevertheless, in CFS, important environmental issues have been reported, decreasing indoor air quality. Environmental control strategies (ECS) have been designed to enhance indoor air quality in CFSs. However, little information exists about the effect of these ECSs on natural animal behaviors. Four strategies and one control were tested in an experimental CFS, previously designed to track behavioral variables using video recordings over seven time-lapses of 1 hour per day. Spatial occupancy (SO) and laying hen behaviors (LHB) were registered. One statistical analysis was applied to evaluate the effect of ECS on SO and LHB using a multinomial response model. Results show lower chances to use litter area within the reduction of litter allowance treatment (T17) (p < 0.05). Neither the four ECSs nor the control implemented in this experiment affected the natural behaviors of the hens. However, stress patterns and high activity were reported in the T17 treatment. This study shows that it is possible to use these ECSs without disrupting laying hens’ natural behaviors.

Interindividual distances and orientations of laying hens under 8 stocking densities measured by integrative deep learning techniques

“…Detailed illustrations and descriptions are presented in Figure 2 . Definitions can be found in Casey-Trott and Widowski (2016) for feeding, drinking, standing, resting, perching, dust bathing, Li et al (2020) for preening, Gonzalez-Mora et al (2020) for feather reshuffling, Bilčík and Keeling (2000) for pecking, Dawkins and Hardie (1989) for wing flapping, and Nicol (1989) for tail wagging. A total of 40 birds performing each of the 11 behaviors were manually selected and cropped from frames, resulting in a total of 400 cropped images for the detection method comparison.…”

Variation in litter occupancy and dust bathing patterns among layer strains following periods of litter restriction

“…Research assessing the amount of floor space within cage-free systems that should be dedicated to litter to accommodate behavioral needs and promote good welfare has examined distribution of hens ( Channing et al, 2001 ), space required by static and dynamic behaviors ( Mench and Blatchford, 2014 ; Riddle et al, 2018 ), and influences of number and proximity of conspecifics ( Grebey et al, 2020 ). A reduction in litter area may discourage hens from accessing and utilizing litter, and displacement from one resource may cause an uneven distribution of hen activity within the rest of the housing system ( Gonzalez-Mora et al, 2020 ). Modeling of the space hens need to perform static and dynamic behaviors, including dust bathing, was conducted as part of a European Food Safety Authority scientific opinion paper on the welfare of laying hens and led to a recommended a density of 4 hens/m 2 ( EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare) et al, 2023 ).…”

Numerical Simulation of Airborne Disease Spread in Cage-Free Hen Housing with Multiple Ventilation Options

“…Thus, more investments and efforts are needed to maintain a satisfactory indoor environment and balance the demand of production with animal welfare in large-scale, commercial, cage-free hen houses. In addition, decreasing the risk of airborne disease spread is crucial to the economic viability of cage-free barns, as well as ensuring bird welfare [ 6 , 7 ]. However, current cage-free ventilation designs present some challenges in providing uniform, fresh, and comfortable air, exposing deficiencies associated with coping with disease outbreaks.…”