Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-05T23:46:03.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laying hen welfare I. Social environment and space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2016

T.M. WIDOWSKI ,
P.H. HEMSWORTH ,
J.L. BARNETT  and
J.-L. RAULT
T.M. WIDOWSKI*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
P.H. HEMSWORTH
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
J.L. BARNETT
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
J.-L. RAULT
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
*
Corresponding author: twidowsk@uoguelph.ca
Get access

Abstract

Confinement housing appears to be at the forefront of concern about farm animal welfare. Although many factors may affect the welfare of commercial laying hens housed in cage and non-cage systems, welfare issues in confinement systems often involve behavioural restrictions, while many welfare issues in more extensive systems involve health and hygiene. Hens require an absolute amount of three-dimensional space in order to be able to perform basic body movements. They may prefer to distance themselves from other birds, but their strength of motivation to do so has not been thoroughly investigated, and preferred inter-individual distances may vary with activity. The relationships between the effects of space and group size on behaviour are not well understood, particularly in large groups where birds may cluster together around resources and at different times of day. There are common risks to hen welfare posed by both cage and non-cage systems such as overcrowding. However, some welfare issues present a greater risk in one system compared to another. When considering space and social environment, the comparison of cage and non-cage systems must take into account the threats to welfare that are specific to each system. Furthermore, this review highlights the importance of the design of the housing system rather than just the housing system per se.

Keywords

cageconfinementgroup sizehousing systemmovementspacestocking density

Information

Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 333 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © World's Poultry Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ABRAHAMSSON, P. and TAUSON, R. (1997) Effects of group size on performance, health and birds' use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science 47: 254-260.Google Scholar
ADAMS, A.W. and CRAIG, J.V. (1985) Effect of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of caged layers: A survey. Poultry Science 64: 238-242.Google Scholar
ALBENTOSA, M.J. and COOPER, J.J. (2004) Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animal Welfare 13: 419-424.Google Scholar
ALBENTOSA, M.J., COOPER, J.J., LUDDEM, T., REDGATE, S.E., ELSON, H.A. and WALKER, A.W. (2007) Evaluation of the effects of cage height and stocking density on the behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages. British Poultry Science 1: 1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AL-RAWI, B. and CRAIG, J.V. (1975) Agonistic behaviour of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 69-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AL-RAWI, B., CRAIG, J.V. and ADAMS, A.W. (1976) Agonistic behaviour and egg production of caged layers: genetic strain and group-size effects. Poultry Science 55: 796-807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C. (2004) What causes crowding? Effects of space, facilities and group size on behaviour, with particular reference to furnished cages for hens. Animal Welfare 13: 313-320.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C., HOGARTH, G.S., ANDERSON, J.A., HUGHES, B.O. and WHITTEMORE, C.T. (1988) Performance of a deep litter system for egg production. British Poultry Science 29: 735-751.Google Scholar
APPLEBY, M.C., WALKER, A.W., NICOL, C.J., LINDBERG, A.C., FREIRE, R., HUGHES, B.O. and ELSON, H.A. (2002) Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489-500.Google Scholar
BARNETT, J.L., TAUSON, R., DOWNING, J.A., JANARDHANA, V., LOWENTHAL, J.W., BUTLER, K.L. and CRONIN, G.M. (2009) . The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Science 88: 456-470.Google Scholar
BAXTER, M.R. (1994) The welfare problem of laying hens in battery cages. Veterinary Record 134: 614-619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BROOM, D.M. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142: 524-526.Google Scholar
CHANNING, C.E., HUGHES, B.O. and WALKER, A.W. (2001) Spatial distribution and behavior of laying hens housed in an alternative system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 335-345.Google Scholar
COLLINS, L.M., ASHER, L., PFEIFFER, D.U., BROWNE, W.J. and NICOL, C.J. (2011) Clustering and synchrony in laying hens: The effect of environmental resources on social dynamics. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 129: 43-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOPER, J.J. and ALBENTOSA, M.J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 14: 127-149.Google Scholar
COOPER, J.J. and ALBENTOSA, M.J. (2004) Social space for laying hens, in: PERRY, G.C. (Ed) Welfare of the Laying Hen, pp. 191-202 (Wallingford Oxfordshire, UK, CABI Publishing).Google Scholar
DAWKINS, M.S. (1982) Elusive concept of preferred group size in domestic hens. Applied Animal Ethology 8: 365-375.Google Scholar
DAWKINS, M.S. and HARDIE, S. (1989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science 30: 413-416.Google Scholar
D'EATH, R.B. and KEELING, L.J. (2003) Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: from peck orders to social tolerance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 84: 197-212.Google Scholar
DUNCAN, I.J.H. (2005) Science-based assessment of animal welfare: farm animals. Revue Scientifique et Technique - Office International des Epizooties 24: 483-492.Google Scholar
EKLUND, B. and JENSEN, P. (2011) Domestication effects on behavioural synchronization and individual distances in chickens (Gallus gallus). Behavioural Processes 86: 250-256.Google Scholar
ELSON, H.A. (2004) Effects of stocking density and cage height on health, behaviour, physiology and production of laying hens in enriched cages. Report on UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, project AW0226.Google Scholar
ELSON, H.A. and TAUSON, E. (2012) Furnished cages for laying hens, in: SANDILANDS, V. & HOCKING, P.M. (Eds) Alternative Systems for Poultry - Health, Welfare and Productivity, pp. 190-209 (CAB International, London, UK).Google Scholar
ENGEL, J. M. (2015) The effects of floor space allowance and nest box access on the welfare of caged laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne, 140 pp.Google Scholar
ESTEVEZ, I., NEWBERRY, R.C. and KEELING, L.J. (2002) Dynamics of aggression in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 307-325.Google Scholar
FAURE, J.M. (1991) Rearing conditions and needs for space and litter in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 31: 111-117.Google Scholar
FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL (FAWC) (2009) Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and future. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf.Google Scholar
FRASER, D. (2008) Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. UFAW Animal Welfare Series. Wiley-Blackwell, Bognor Regis, UK.Google Scholar
FRASER, A.F. and BROOM, D.M. (1997) Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd. edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
FRASER, D., WEARY, D.M., PAJOR, E.A. and MILLIGAN, B.N. (1997) A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187-205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GUO, Y.Y., SONG, Z.G., JIAO, Q.Q. and LIN, H. (2012) The effect of group size and stocking density on the welfare and performance of hens housed in furnished cages during summer. Animal Welfare 21: 41-49.Google Scholar
HANSEN, I. (1994) Behavioural expression of laying hens in aviaries and cages: frequencies, time budgets and facility utilisation. British Poultry Science 35: 491-508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HEMSWORTH, P.H., MELLOR, D.J., CRONIN, G.M. and TILBROOK, A.J. (2015) Scientific assessment of animal welfare. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 63: 24-30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HESTER, P.Y. (2014) The effect of perches installed in cages on laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 70: 247-263.Google Scholar
HILL, A.T. (1977) The effects of space allowance and group size on egg production traits and profitability. British Poultry Science 18: 483-492.Google Scholar
HUGHES, B.O. (1983) Space requirements in poultry, in: BAXTER, S.H., BAXTER, M.R. & MACCORMACK, J.A.C. (Eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare, pp. 121-128 (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague).Google Scholar
HUNEAU-SALAUN, A., GUINBRETIERE, M., TAKTAK, A., HUONNIC, D. and MICHEL, V. (2011) Furnished cages for laying hens: study of the effects of group size and litter provision on laying location, zootechnical performance and egg quality. Animal 5 (6): 911-917.Google Scholar
KARCHER, D.M., MAKAGON, M.M., ROBISON, C.I. and TEMPELMAN, R.J. (2014) Assessment of density in enriched colony cages: Production and welfare quality. Poultry Science 93 (E-Suppl. 1): 59.Google Scholar
KEELING, L.J. (1994) Inter-bird distances and behavioural priorities in laying hens: the effect of spatial restriction. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 39: 131-140.Google Scholar
KEELING, L.J. (1995) Spacing behavior and an ethological approach to assessing optimum space allocations for groups of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44: 171-186.Google Scholar
KEELING, L.J., ESTEVES, I., NEWBERRY, R.C. and CORREIA, M.G. (2003) Production-related traits of layers reared in different sized flocks: The concept of problematic intermediate group size. Poultry Science 82: 1393-1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KOELKEBECK, K.W., AMOSS, M.S.J. and CAIN, J.R. (1987) Production, physiological and behavioural responses of laying hens in different management environments. Poultry Science 66: 397-407.Google Scholar
LAGADIC, H. and FAURE, J.M. (1987) Preferences of domestic hens for cage size and floor types as measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 19: 147-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LINDBERG, A.C. (2001) Group life, in: KEELING, L.J. & GONYOU, H.W. (Eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals, pp. 37-58 (UK, CABI Publishing).Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A. and BLATCHFORD, R.A. (2014) Determination of space use by laying hens using kinematic analysis. Poultry Science 93: 794-798.Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A., TIENHOVEN, A., VAN MARSH, J.A., MCCORMICK, C.C., CUNNINGHAM, D.L. and BAKER, R.C. (1986) Effects of cage and floor pen management on behaviour, production and physiological stress responses of laying hens. Poultry Science 65: 1058-1069.Google Scholar
MENCH, J.A. and KEELING, L.J. (2001) The social behaviour of domestic birds, in: KEELING, L.J. & GONYOU, H.W. (Eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals, pp. 177-209 (UK, CABI Publishing).Google Scholar
NICOL, C.J. (1986) Non-exclusive spatial preference in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 337-350.Google Scholar
NICOL, C.J. (1987) Behavioural responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709-1719.Google Scholar
NICOL, C.J., BROWN, S.N., GLEN, E., POPE, S.J., SHORT, F.J., WARRISS, P.D., ZIMMERMAN, P.H. and WILKINS, L.J. (2006) Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47: 135-146.Google Scholar
NICOL, C.J., GREGORY, N.G., KNOWLES, T.G., PARKMAN, I.D. and WILKINS, L.J. (1999) Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 137-152.Google Scholar
OIE - WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (2010) Terrestrial animal health code. Chapter 7.1. Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare. Article 7.1.1. Available at http://web.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.7.1.htm.Google Scholar
PULLIAM, H.R. and CARACO, T. (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? in: ANONYMOUS (Ed) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd ed, pp. 122-147 (Oxford, England, Blackwell Scientific Publications).Google Scholar
RODENBURG, T.B., TUYTTENS, F.A.M., SONCK, B., REU, K.D., HERMAN, L. and ZOONS, J. (2005) Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8: 211-226.Google Scholar
RODENBURG, T.B., VAN KRIMPEN, M.M., DE JONG, I.C., DE HAAS, E.N., KOPS, M.S., RIEDSTRA, B.J., NORDQUIST, R.E., WAGENAAR, J.P., BESTMAN, M. and NICOL, C.J. (2013) The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World's Poultry Science Journal 69: 361-374.Google Scholar
SAVORY, C.J., JACK, M.C. and SANDILANDS, V. (2006) Behavioural responses to different floor space allowances in small groups of laying hens. British Poultry Science 47: 120-124.Google Scholar
SIBLY, R.M. (1983) Optimal group size is unstable. Animal Behaviour 31: 947-948.Google Scholar
SOHAIL, S.S., BRYANT, M.M. and ROLAND, D.A. (2004) Effect of reducing cage density on performance and economics of second-cycle (force rested) commercial leghorns. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 13: 401-405.Google Scholar
SPINKA, M. (2006) How important is natural behaviour in animal farming systems. Applied Animal BehaviourScience 100: 117-128.Google Scholar
WALL, H. (2011) Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poultry Science 90: 2153-2161.Google Scholar
WALL, H., TAUSON, R. and ELWINGER, K. (2004) Pop hole passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 45: 20-27.Google Scholar
WEITZENBÜRGER, D., VITS, A., HAMANN, H. and DISTL, O. (2005) Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science 46: 553-559.Google Scholar
WIDOWSKI, T.M., CASTON, L.J., HUNNIFORD, M.E., LEESON, S., COOLEY, L., GUERIN, M. and TORREY, S. (2014) Effects of space allowance and cage size on production and well-being of laying hens in furnished cages. Poultry Science 93 (E-Suppl. 1): 71.Google Scholar
WIDOWSKI, T.M., CLASSEN, H., NEWBERRY, R.C., PETRIK, M., SCHWEAN-LARDNER, K., COTTEE, S. and COX, B. (2013) Code of practice for the care and handling of pullets, layers, and spent fowl: poultry (layers): Review of scientific research on priority issues. Poultry (Layer) Code of Practice Scientific Committee, National Farm Animal Care Council, Canada. Available at: https://www.nfacc.ca/resources/codes-of-practice/poultry-layers/Layer_SCReport_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
ZIMMERMAN, P.H., LINDBERG, A.C., POPE, S.J., GLEN, E., BOLHUIS, J.E. and NICOL, C.J. (2006) The effect of stocking density, flock size and modified management on laying hen behaviour and welfare in a non-cage system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101: 111-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar