The effect of perches in cages during pullet rearing and egg laying on hen performance, foot health, and plumage

Abstract

Enrichment of pullet cages with perches has not been studied. Our objective was to determine if access to metal perches during all or part of the life cycle of caged White Leghorns affected egg traits, foot health, and feather condition. Treatment 1 represented control chickens that never had access to perches during their life cycle. Treatment 2 hens had perches only during the egg laying phase of the life cycle (17 to 71 wk of age), whereas treatment 3 chickens had perches during the pullet phase (0 to 16.9 wk of age). Treatment 4 chickens always had access to perches (0 to 71 wk of age). Comparisons between chickens that always had perches with controls that never had perches showed similar performance relative to egg production, cracked eggs, egg weight, shell weight, % shell, and shell thickness. More dirty eggs occurred in laying cages with perches. Feed usage increased resulting in poorer feed efficiency in hens with perch exposure during the pullet phase with no effect during egg laying. Perches did not affect hyperkeratosis of toes and feet. The back claw at 71 wk of age broke less if hens had prior experience with perches during the pullet phase. In contrast, during egg laying, the back claw at 71 wk of age broke more due to the presence of perches in laying cages. Perches in laying cages resulted in shorter trimmed claws and improved back feather scores, but caused poorer breast and tail feather scores. In conclusion, enriching conventional cages with perches during the entire life cycle resulted in similar hen performance compared with controls. Fewer broken back claws but poorer feed efficiency occurred because of prior experience with perches as pullets. Perch presence during egg laying improved back feather scores with more trimmed nails but caused more dirty eggs, broken back claws, and poorer breast and tail feather scores. Although perches allow chickens to express their natural perching instinct, it was not without causing welfare problems.

The effect of perch availability during pullet rearing and egg laying on the behavior of caged White Leghorn hens

“…A starter diet was fed from hatch to 3.9 wk, a grower diet from 4 to 17.2 wk, a prelay diet from 17.3 to 18 wk, and a laying hen diet from 18 wk through the end of the study. Diet specifications can be found in Enneking et al (2012a) for the pullet phase and in Hester et al (2013b) for the laying phase.…”

“…Therefore, each deck level had 6 laying cages with perches and 6 cages without perches. Cage specifications, floor space allocation, perch placement ( Figure 1b), and lighting details are described in Hester et al (2013b).…”

Determination of Minimum Horizontal Distance between Laying-Hen Perches

“…For example, perches can increase bone strength, relieve physiological stress of hens; however, using perch may lead to keel-bone deformities, bone fractures, and bumble foot (Struelens & Tuyttens, 2009). There are controversies on proper perch design, e.g., perch type, size, and arrangement, which may enhance the hen welfare in terms of feather conditions, mortality and foot hyperkeratosis (Tauson, 1984;Appleby et al, 1992;Tauson & Abrahamsson, 1994;Glatz & Barnett, 1996;Moinard et al, 1998;Hester et al, 2012). To date, neither the egg industry nor the scientific community has designed a perfect perch system.…”

Enriquecimento ambiental para gaiolas convencionais de poedeiras em função de diferentes densidades de alojamento

“…Assim como as cortinas, alguns autores apontam que a utilização de corte de palha longo, chaveiro, fardo de feno, forrageiras, tapetes de turfa artificial e poleiros podem também ser eficientes para a condição da plumagem dessas aves nos diversos sistemas habitacionais (GVARYAHU et al, 1994;AERNI et al, 2000;DIXON et al, 2010;HESTER et al, 2013;GUINEBRETIÈRE et al, 2013;DAIGLE et al, 2014 (CRAIG et al, 1986;CUNNINGHAM e GVARYAHU, 1987;DAVAMI et al, 1987;NICOL et al, 1999;ONBASILAR e AKSOY, 2005;ZIMMERMAN et al, 2006). GVARYAHU et al, 1994;WEITZENBÜRGER et al, 2005).…”

“…Autores afirmam que podem surgir fraturas ósseas e aumento da pressão mecânica dos pés das aves quando em contato com o piso de arame das gaiolas (DAVAMI et al, 1987;NICOL et al, 1999;WETZENBURGER et al, 2006;STOJICIC et al, 2012;HESTER et al, 2013).…”