Influence of various nesting materials on nest site selection of the domestic hen

Huber, Heidi; Fölsch, Detlef W.; Stähli, U.

doi:10.1080/00071668508416824

Cited by 38 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the present study illumination of the litter mat did not reduce the proportion of eggs laid there, a result in agreement with Appleby et al (1984), suggesting that factors other than light intensity are of considerable importance for selection of nest site in layers. It has been suggested that when hens are group housed, social factors contribute to hens laying outside the nest box (Cronin et al,, 2009), Also, earlier studies indicate that loose substrate such as straw or wood shavings enhances the attractiveness of nests (Huber et al, 1985;Appleby and Smith, 1991). Although most of the daily portion of saw dust delivered on the litter mat was finished in a rather short time, saw dust particles were more or less incorporated in the turf and for some individuals this may be a stronger nest attribute than nest itself.…”

Section: Use Of Nests and Egg Qualitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages

Wall

2011

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare use of nests, production performance, and egg quality in 4 designs of furnished cages (FC) housing 8 (T8), 10 (T10), 20 (T20), or 40 (T40) layers. The FC housing 8 and 10 hens were commonly used in commercial egg production in Sweden, whereas the cages housing 20 and 40 hens constituted new designs, at present not allowed in Sweden. The FC also differed in design and location of litter facilities. The study comprised 2 full production cycles (20-72 wk of age). Trial 1 included 588 Hy-Line White W98 and 460 Hy-Line Brown layers, and trial 2 used 572 Lohmann Selected Leghorn and 588 Lohmann Brown layers. In accordance with Swedish prohibition, beak treatment was not conducted. In both trials production parameters and mortality were considered normal and levels were unaffected by cage design. Deaths attributable to cannibalistic pecking were rare. Overall, exterior egg quality was superior in T8 compared with T20 and T40, whereas T10 generated intermediate results. Genotype differences were found in production performance, exterior egg quality, and use of nests. In T8 and T10 at least 95% of the eggs were laid in nest whereas in T20 and T40 a considerable percentage of eggs were laid on the litter mat, constituting the litter facility in those cage models. Additional lighting of litter mats (trial 2) had no effect on layers' choice of site for egg laying. Dividing T40 cages in 2 identical cage halves by a rear partition with pop holes had no effect on any of the traits measured. In conclusion, housing larger groups of non-beak-treated hens together in FC is possible, with acceptable levels of production and mortality, provided that cannibalism does not develop. The inferior egg quality in T20 and T40, likely caused by the large proportions of misplaced eggs, needs to be considered in the further development of those cage designs.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Nests and Egg Qualitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages

Wall

2011

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hens prefer to lay in enclosed or secluded nest sites (Duncan et al, 1978;Appleby and Smith, 1991), and work harder for access to enclosed nest sites than for open nest sites (Cooper and Appleby, 1994 a). Hens also prefer nest sites with mouldable or peckable nest-building substrates (Wood-Gush and Murphy, 1970;Huber et al, 1985;Duncan and Kite, 1989;Reed and Nicol, 1992). Hens may, therefore, floor lay, not because they are less motivated to seek out and use a nest site, but because man made nest boxes are poorly designed and unattractive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs

Cooper

Appleby

1996

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Floor eggs are a problem in non-cage systems for laying hens, as they require secondary egg collecting. Failure to lay in a well-defined nest site may also be a welfare problem for the hens, but only if their nesting motivation has been thwarted. We investigated the relationships between a hen's prelaying behaviour and its tendency to lay on the floor by recording the behaviour of 20 hens housed individually in wire cages with single littered nest boxes. 3. Most floor eggs (80%) were laid by the same 6 hens. These 6 "floor-layers" performed more nest seeking behaviour, less nest-building behaviour and less sitting prior to oviposition than the 14 hens that consistently laid in nest boxes. 4. The incidence of floor eggs declined with age. Both nest and floor laying hens performed less nest seeking behaviour with age. Floor layers, however, increased their performance of nesting behaviour, whilst nest layers performed less nesting behaviour with age. 5. Floor laying hens behaved as if they found the nest box less attractive than nest-laying hens; perhaps because they had lower nesting motivation, or perhaps because their nesting motivation was as high, but they less readily perceived the nest box as an appropriate nest site.

show abstract

“…79 The importance of the nest box is based on evidence of preference tests, evidence of frustration in the absence of a nest and the strong motivation of hens to use a nest. [80][81][82][83] Hens prefer litter to a wire floor, [84][85][86] although it is not clear if litter is an important resource for hens. 78 Evidence of frustration includes restlessness, stereotyped escape behaviour and prolonged searching behaviour prior to oviposition and directing nest building towards an apparently inappropriate substrate such as wire.…”

Section: Nest Boxesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical:Book Review

2003

Aust Veterinary J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of science in the welfare debate is to provide biological facts and thus it is important to separate welfare and ethics. The welfare of an animal in response to a housing system or husbandry procedure can be assessed by evaluating how much has to be done by the animal in order to cope and the extent to which the coping attempts are succeeding. Using this approach there is evidence for improved welfare from increasing space in cages, based on reduced aggression, corticosterone concentrations and mortalities and increased production, and for incorporating perches, based on the reduction in injuries at depopulation. Similar evidence for the inclusion of dust baths and nest boxes is lacking. The data on abrasive strips are equivocal with recommendations from overseas for their inclusion, whereas some local data have shown an increase in mortality can occur. Similarly, the data on non-cage systems are equivocal. The data on bone strength suggest improved fitness in non-cage systems, the data on stress suggest fitness may be better, similar or worse in non-cage systems, and the limited data on immunology suggest fitness may be worse in non-cage systems than in conventional cages.

show abstract

Influence of various nesting materials on nest site selection of the domestic hen

Cited by 38 publications

References 5 publications

Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages

Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages

Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs

Clinical:Book Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About