The effect of long-term housing in an aviary and battery cages on the physical condition of laying hens: body weight, feather condition, claw length, foot lesions, and tibia strength.

The physical condition of laying hens housed for 3 yr in either traditional battery cages or an aviary was compared. Aviary hens were significantly lighter than those in cages (2,021 vs 2,241 g; P = .0001), despite having consumed slightly more feed (121 vs 116 g per bird per d, P = .16). Caged hens had poorer feather cover (P = .0001); 39% of caged birds had denuded areas greater than 5 cm2, whereas 68% of aviary hens had complete plumage. The length of both center front and rear claws was significantly greater in caged hens (36.3 vs 30.3 mm, P = .001 and 19.2 vs 16.1 mm, P = .012, respectively). The total number of foot lesions did not differ with housing system; however, caged hens had significantly more toe injuries (P < .001), and aviary birds had more injuries on the soles of their feet (P = .005). All aviary birds with foot lesions had only a single lesion, whereas one-sixth of caged hens with lesions had more than one. No difference in tibial breaking strength was found due to housing system. Overall, the results suggest that aviary systems can offer some distinct advantages over traditional battery cages with regard to the physical condition of laying hens, given a high level of management.

[1]  M. Appleby,et al.  Nesting and dust bathing by hens in cages: Matching and mis‐matching between behaviour and environment , 1993 .

[2]  M. Appleby.  Should Cages for Laying Hens Be Banned or Modified? , 1993, Animal Welfare.

[3]  M. Appleby,et al.  Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens , 1992 .

[4]  J. Hurnik,et al.  The behavior of young layers during the first two weeks in aviary and battery cages. , 1991, Poultry science.

[5]  L. Wilkins,et al.  Broken bones in domestic fowls: effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. , 1990 .

[6]  G. Nørgaard-Nielsen.  Bone strength of laying hens kept in an alternative system, compared with hens in cages and on deep-litter. , 1990, British poultry science.

[7]  B. Hughes,et al.  Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches , 1989, Veterinary Record.

[8]  D. Fölsch,et al.  Research on alternatives to the battery system for laying hens , 1988 .

[9]  J. Craig,et al.  Behaviour and well-being of hens (Gallus domesticus) in alternative housing environments. , 1984 .

[10]  R. Pearson.  Prevention of foot lesions in broiler breeder hens kept in individual cages. , 1983, British Poultry Science.

[11]  W. Morrison,et al.  Effect of Feather Cover on Feed Efficiency in Laying Birds , 1978 .

[12]  J. Craig,et al.  Effects of Flock Size, Age at Housing, and Mating Experience on Two Strains of Egg-type Chickens in Colony Cages , 1978 .

[13]  I. Duncan,et al.  The influence of strain and environmental factors upon feather pecking and cannibalism in fowls. , 1972, British poultry science.

[14]  R. Harms,et al.  Differences in Tibia Strength and Bone Ash Among Strains of Layers , 1972 .

[15]  R. Harms,et al.  The Effect of Wire Pens, Floor Pens and Cages on Bone Characteristics of Laying Hens , 1970 .

[16]  C. G. Haugh,et al.  A Procedure Study of Bone Breakage in Spent Hens , 1970 .

[17]  H. R. Wilson,et al.  A Comparison of Bone Strength of Caged and Floor Layers and Roosters , 1968 .

[18]  W. D. Shupe,et al.  Effect of Certain Rearing and Laying House Environments on Performance of Incross Egg Production Type Pullets , 1961 .

[19]  J. H. Quisenberry,et al.  A Comparison of Performance of Layers in Cage and Floor Housing , 1959 .