The effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part II: Behavior at the feeder

Abstract

Standards for feeder (a.k.a. feed trough) space allowance (SA) are based primarily on studies in conventional cages where laying hens tend to eat simultaneously, limiting feeder space. Large furnished cages (FC) offer more total space and opportunities to perform a greater variety of behaviors, which may affect feeding behavior and feeder space requirements. Our objective was to determine the effects of floor/feeder SA on behavior at the feeder. LSL-Lite hens were housed in FC equipped with a nest, perches, and a scratch mat. Hens with SA of either 520 cm2 (Low; 8.9 cm feeder space/hen) or 748 cm2 (High; 12.8 cm feeder space/hen) per bird resulted in groups of 40 vs. 28 birds in small FC (SFC) and 80 vs. 55 in large FC (LFC). Chain feeders ran at 0500, 0800, 1100, 1400, and 1700 with lights on at 0500 and off at 1900 hours. Digital recordings of FC were scanned at chain feeder onset and every 15 min for one h after (5 scans × 5 feeding times × 2 d) to count the number of birds with their head in the feeder. All occurrences of aggressive pecks and displacements during 2 continuous 30-minute observations at 0800 h and 1700 h also were counted. Mixed model repeated analyses tested the effects of SA, cage size, and time on the percent of hens feeding, and the frequency of aggressive pecks and displacements. Surprisingly, the percent of birds feeding simultaneously was similar regardless of cage size (LFC: 23.0 ± 0.9%; SFC: 24.0 ± 1.0%; P = 0.44) or SA (Low: 23.8 ± 0.9%; High: 23.3 ± 1.0%; P = 0.62). More birds were observed feeding at 1700 h (35.3 ± 0.1%) than any at other time (P < 0.001). Feeder use differed by cage area (nest, middle, or scratch) over the d (P < 0.001). The frequency of aggressive pecks was low overall and not affected by SA or cage size. Frequency of displacements was also low but greater at Low SA (P = 0.001). There was little evidence of feeder competition at the Low SA in this study.

Effect of a Large-sized Cage with a Low Metabolizable Energy and Low Crude Protein Diet on Growth Performance, Feed Cost, and Blood Parameters of Growing Layers

“…Theoretically, birds raised in larger cages should have larger space allowances and altered dynamics of space use, which could contribute to growth, than those in small cages at an equal stocking density (birds/m 2 ), which have less activity space ( Appleby, 2004 ; Widowski et al , 2017 ). Body weight in Group D was greater than that in the other groups from days 14–56, which suggested that energy and protein supply were more important for growth than cage size when birds were young and small.…”

Bacillus subtilis Strain DSM 29784 Modulates the Cecal Microbiome, Concentration of Short-Chain Fatty Acids, and Apparent Retention of Dietary Components in Shaver White Chickens during Grower, Developer, and Laying Phases

“…Cage dimensions of 71.1 cm by 76.2 cm by 40.6 cm (depth by width by height) housing 14 birds during the developer stages (11 to 16 weeks) provided an adequate floor space of 387 cm 2 /bird based on breed recommendation for Shaver White chickens (6 to 18 weeks, 350 cm 2 /bird allocation). However, adequate feeder space to allow simultaneous feeding (68,69) was compromised, availing only 5.4 cm/bird compared to the recommended feeder space of 7.5 cm/bird. Hence, decreased feed intake by birds may have impacted substrate availability for microbes (66,67) which, in part, may explain the observed low diversity of bacterial community in the ceca for SSB-compared to CON-fed birds as the B. subtilis dose increased, which could have a selection pressure on some microbes while allowing the preferential enrichment of particular bacterial guilds in the probiotic-fed groups.…”

Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being

“…Hens in FC were usually fed 5 times per d with chain feeding, but when measuring feed intake, the birds were hand fed, and the feeders were filled only 2 times per d, which could have led to greater feed wastage. There was no evidence of cage size differences on feeder occupancy rates (%) or on displacement or aggression at the feeder that could also lead to increased wastage (Widowski et al., 2017 , submitted ). Additionally, data collected from 4 subsequent flocks of hens housed in these same cages did not show a cage size difference in feed disappearance (T. Widowski, unpublished data).…”

“…However, this is the most common method that producers use to adjust space allowance and therefore is the most commercially applicable. Behavioral assessments of nesting (Hunniford et al., 2014 ) and behavior at the feeder (Part II of this series; Widowski et al., 2017 , submitted ) are reported elsewhere. Performance of a reference population of hens in conventional cages stocked at 465 cm 2 /hen also was measured for non-statistical comparison in this report.…”