New Cage Design for Laying Hens

Luescher, U. A.; Hurnik, J. F.; Pos, J.

doi:10.3382/ps.0610606

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only incidence of lesions to the claw fold in Period 13 was greater in roost cages, but this was counterbalanced by substantially higher occurrence of lesions to the sole of the foot at this time in conventional cages. Luscher and Hurnik (1984) also noted reduced incidence of foot lesions in cages with movable roosts. Caged dwarf White Leghorn layers (Burger and Arscott, 1984) and broiler breeders (Anonymous, 1977) have exhibited improved foot condition when provided with perches, hi conventional cages, the increased prevalence of lesions on the sole in Period 13 implies that lesions in the claw fold caused discomfort which induced hens to make changes in posture or foot placement.…”

Section: The Effect Of a Movable Roostmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The welfare significance of the moderately greater weight gain is not known. Luscher and Hurnik (1984) found that hens in roost cages weighed slightly less than those in conventional cages.…”

Section: The Effect Of a Movable Roostmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Nightly provision of a roost to caged hens might reduce discomfort or frustration and improve well-being. A cage having a roost that can automatically be raised at night and lowered during the day has been designed (Luescher et al, 1982) and was tested in the present study in comparison with a normal battery cage design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Behavior, Production, and Well-Being of the Laying Hen.

Webster

Hurnik

1990

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of movable roosts, relationship of cage mates (siblings versus nonsiblings), and genetic stock on measures of behavior, production, and physical condition were investigated. Sibling and nonsibling pairs of hens derived from two male parental stocks (designated MPS1 and MPS2) were randomly assigned to two cage batteries (384 hens total). The batteries were identical except that the cages of one had individual wood roosts, which were automatically raised at night and lowered the next morning. The laying phase comprised 13 28-day periods. On the first 4 days of Periods 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, video recordings were made of 8 cages per day. Video-recorded data for Period 5 were discarded, however, because equipment failure caused an unplanned photoperiod ratio. Direct visual observations were carried out in Period 13. Egg production and feed consumption were recorded in each period. Feather scores were determined in Periods 3, 6, 9, and 12, and in Periods 6 and 13, hens were weighed and the number of lesions to the feet counted. Overall, roosts appeared to improve well-being. Resting occurred more in cages with roosts, feathering was better initially, body weights were slightly higher, and foot lesions were were fewer. Egg production was not affected except that egg cracks were more frequent in roosts cages. Relationship of cage mates had relatively little influence. However, in conventional cages, nonsiblings manifested more bobbing behavior, and in MPS1, nonsiblings had higher feed consumed per dozen eggs. Hens of MPS1 performed more head flicking, drinking, physical displacement, aggression, and cage wall climbing than MPS2 hens. They also had higher egg production, weaker egg shells, poorer feathering, and more lesions to the feet. The genetic stock differences suggest that hens of MPS1 experienced poorer well-being. None of the treatments significantly affected mortality.

show abstract

Section: The Effect Of a Movable Roostmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: The Effect Of a Movable Roostmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behavior, Production, and Well-Being of the Laying Hen.

Webster

Hurnik

1990

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This probably means that perches in the center of cages prevented hens moving. LUESCHER et al (1982) andWEBSTER andHURNIK (1990) reported that the production performance was not affected by the existence of perches. The results of this study agree with them, but the body weight of birds in perched cages decreased a little and the feed efficiency of them was slightly improved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RUSZLER and QUISENBERRY (1970) found that perches resulted in highly significant improvements in livability and eggs per hen housed. LUESCHER et al (1982) reported that no significant differences between cages with and without perches were found in number of eggs laid, egg quality traits, and the scores for feathering and excitability. They observed that most of resting time at night was spent sitting on the perch in hens housed in 2 birds per cage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Perches on Behavior and Performance of Caged Hens.

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should Cages for Laying Hens Be Banned or Modified?

Appleby¹

1993

Anim. welf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional cages for laying hens have many disadvantages for welfare and there have been widespread calls for them to be banned. However, they also have advantages: in particular, they house the birds in small groups. Modified designs intended to reduce the disadvantages while retaining the advantages have included the get-away cage (providing perches and other facilities for up to 60 birds), but these designs have not yet had much success. The Edinburgh project on modified cages has adopted a stage-by-stage, systematic approach to cage design. Recommendations include increased area and height compared to conventional cages, and inclusion of a perch, a nest box and a dust bath. Current trials combine all these features in designs with commercial potential One remaining welfare problem is restriction of locomotion, with associated effects on bone strength However, alternative, non-cage husbandry systems for laying hens also have welfare problems, including those associated with large group sizes, and these problems may be worse than those in modified cages. Probably most important is the risk of cannibalism - or the practice of beak trimming to prevent it. Rather than banning cages, it might be more appropriate for legislation to specify the facilities which should be provided for laying hens.In the current state of development of alternative systems, modifying cages for laying hens could on balance be more beneficial to welfare than banning them.

show abstract

New Cage Design for Laying Hens

Cited by 9 publications

References 1 publication

Behavior, Production, and Well-Being of the Laying Hen.

Behavior, Production, and Well-Being of the Laying Hen.

Effects of Perches on Behavior and Performance of Caged Hens.

Should Cages for Laying Hens Be Banned or Modified?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About