Welfare Implications of Laying Hen Housing

Literature Review

January 26, 2012

PDF version

THE ISSUE

Laying hen housing systems must provide feed, water, light, air quality, space and sanitation that promote good health and welfare for the hens. Housing systems should provide for expression of important natural behaviors, protect the hens from disease, injury and predation, and promote food safety. Cages for laying hens were developed in the United States during the 1920s and 30s to reduce disease, (e.g., coccidiosis and roundworms) and injuries due to pecking. In addition, the conventional cage simplified husbandry by increasing efficiency and required less real estate. In the late 1980s and 1990s, as international regulations began to restrict the use of conventional cages, greater use was made of free-range systems. However ongoing problems with disease and pecking in large flocks led to the development of an array of intermediate enriched cage, aviary and barn systems that aim to balance environmental enrichment with environmental containment and disease control. Currently, multiple housing methods and husbandry systems are in commercial use in the United States and around the world. Each system has advantages and disadvantages that vary depending on local conditions and management. Not all installations will exhibit all of the traits described as typical in the summaries below, especially as all housing types are undergoing active development and refinement.

CONVENTIONAL CAGE

Definition: A wire enclosure housing 3 to 6 birds and having a sloped floor. In commercial production however, birds are commonly housed at the density of 7 to 8 birds per cage.

Advantages:
Reduced exposure to environmental and social hazards: Cages reduce the negative consequences of contact with manure, including infestation with roundworms and coccidia.1 Cages also provide protection from predators and other wildlife.
Reduced proliferation of injurious pecking and subsequent mortalities: If hens begin to cause serious pecking injury2 then the small social group size in each cage limits the proliferation of pecking and subsequent mortalities that may be associated with it.
Monitoring: Conventional caging improves the opportunity to monitor individual birds' health and well-being.
Biosecurity: Hens housed in cage housing systems are at a lower risk of infectious disease than hens housed in litter-based systems irregardless of outdoor access.3
Air Quality: Conventional caging does not incorporate the use of litter. Litter-based systems have been shown to have increased levels of ammonia, dust, and bacteria.4

Disadvantages:
Restriction of natural behaviors: Hens in cages are less able to perform behaviors such as dust bathing,5 walking6 and foraging.5 Spatial restriction has also been shown to decrease the hen's performance of comfort behaviors (e.g., wing flapping, stretching, body shakes, tail wagging).6 Nesting and roosting are not options in the conventional caging systems.
Variable risk—Cage-related injury: Hens may become trapped between wires, or experience foot damage secondary to overgrown claws. However improved cage designs7 and the use of abrasive strips8 largely eliminate these occurrences.
Variable risk—Feather pecking: Injurious feather pecking does occur in cages, often necessitating beak trimming. Providing devices such as plastic objects in a conventional cage,9,10 or balls in the feeder11,12 has produced equivocal results; however, string tassels13,14,15,16 may have some potential to attract pecking and reduce associated injuries. Selection methods in which the genetic effect of an animal on the survival of its group members is taken into account (group selection) have been shown to be effective in reducing mortality due to feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens.17

Summary:  Cages can provide a highly controllable environment that protects hens from a range of health and injury problems; however, they afford limited space and behavioral enrichments (e.g., opportunities for perching and dust bathing) and many natural behaviors cannot be performed in conventionally-sized and equipped cages. Cages tend to have an economic advantage. Egg production,2,18,19 quality2,20,21 and efficiency22 are often greatest in cage systems.

ENRICHED / FURNISHED CAGE

Definition: Housing that provides additional features often including perches, a nest box/area, litter or scratch area and more space per hen.23 Size and construction vary, including colony housing for up to 608,19,24 birds.
 
Advantages:
Effective environmental features provide specific benefits. Most enriched housing would include the following:
Perches: Hens are motivated to perch, especially to roost at night.25,26 Perches improve bone strength,27,28 as well as foot2 and claw condition.2However, perch use can lead to proliferative hyperkeratosis.29
Nest box/area: When a nest box is available most eggs are laid in it.2,30 Hens will make an effort to gain access to nest boxes31,32 even when they have no prior experience with using one.33,34 If eggs are laid in the nest, the number of damaged eggs is similar between enriched and standard cages.35
Litter: Early access to litter may reduce later incidence of feather pecking36 and may improve adult feather condition.2,37 Most hens will use a dust bath if it is available, for either bathing or foraging.27,31 Consumption of litter was not observed to effect egg production.38
Increased behavioral opportunities: Additional space allows birds more freedom of movement39 and therefore behaviors such as stretching, wing flapping, and walking are more unrestricted and varied.
Health: Dietary health can be better controlled in hens housed in confined environments, allowing for a more balanced intake of nutrients needed for body maintenance and egg production.40 However, access to non-nutritive substances such as dust bathing material or litter can lead to imbalanced nutrient intake.40 Additionally, bone mineral density is increased for hens in enriched housing compared with hens housed in conventional cages.41 Mortality is numerically lower in enriched colony housing when compared to conventional cages, barn/aviary, and free-range housing.42

 

Disadvantages:
Variable risk—Feature malfunction: Each of the additional features in an enriched colony has the potential to malfunction causing injury, harboring disease vectors or parasites or provoking aggression. For example, poorly designed perches can cause increased levels of keel deformation2 and or bumblefoot.43

Summary: There are multiple models of enriched/furnished housing in use and more under development. They provide a wider range of behavioral opportunities, while conserving many of the advantages of a conventional cage. Egg shell quality35 and shell cleanliness44 are similar between conventional cages and enriched colonies with the exception of enriched colonies that are designed with scratch pad areas covered in sand or wood shavings. These designs can lead to dirtier eggs than what is seen in conventional caging.41 In addition the excretion of Calcium and Phosphorus, two minerals important to shell quality, are reduced in enriched housing situations as compared to conventional cages.45

BARN OR AVIARY

Definition (Barn): A shed in which hens are housed on the floor and typically have access to litter and nest boxes.23
Definition (Aviary): As for 'barn' with the addition of multi-tiered platforms or perches.23 
 
Advantages:
Health: Barn- and aviary-raised hens may show improvement in bone strength over hens raised in enriched colonies46 and lower levels of hyperkeratosis are evident in birds that do not have access to perches.29
Increased activity: Hens kept in barns spend more time walking than those kept in cages.5
Increased behavioral opportunities: Increased performance of foraging,5 dust bathing5 and comfort behaviors5,47 and a reduction in stereotypies.47

 

Disadvantages:
Vector exposure: Birds raised on the floor are more likely to encounter disease vectors in feces or dampened litter, potentially leading to reduced health48 and conditions such as bumblefoot.19 This may require handling of the birds to administer treatments or preventatives such as vaccination against coccidiosis.1
Health: Hens in extensive systems that utilize perches tend to suffer more injuries due to landing failures when jumping from one perch to another. In addition, high usage of perches by hens can lead to keel bone deformation.44 Overall performance is more variable, depending on outbreaks of coccidiosis or pecking mortalities.49 In some cases, floor housing results in high mortality due to pecking50 but some reviews do not support this as a general finding.19
Variable risk—Increased group size: Extensive housing systems typically house larger flocks with an increased risk of injurious pecking and pecking mortalities.51
Air Quality: Litter based systems have been shown to have increased levels of ammonia, dust, and bacteria.4 Increased ammonia levels can cause keratoconjunctivitis and have deleterious effects on the respiratory tracts of birds.4 Dust in housing systems can be biologically active and may have microorganisms attached to the particles.4

Summary: More extensive housing allows great freedom of movement, but is often associated with more hazardous conditions such as large social groups and litter which can lead to outbreaks of disease or injurious pecking if not managed carefully.

FREE-RANGE

Definition: The key feature of free-range housing is access to an outdoor area during the day.23 
 
Advantages: Hens with access to both indoor and outdoor areas have the greatest range of behavioral opportunities. Hens that spend more time outside have better feather condition.52

 

Disadvantages: Outdoor conditions potentially expose hens to toxins, wild birds and their diseases, predators53 and climatic extremes. Hens are often reluctant to use the range area or venture far from the hen house resulting in wear of the pasture in the area near the house. Farms where the hens make less use of the pasture have higher incidence of feather pecking.54,55 More optimal pasture use can be encouraged by limiting flock size,56,57 including cockerels in the flock57 and providing cover.57,58,59,60

Summary: When access to the outdoors is provided hens are able to perform the broadest range of naturalistic behaviors, but they may also be exposed to climatic extremes, toxins and disease.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Many hen welfare concerns are not intrinsically linked to housing system type although the system will be one factor that influences the welfare of the birds. Other factors such as genetics, the environment the hen was raised in and quality of human handling57 must also be considered because outcomes for the animal generally depend on many overlapping factors. For example, highly productive laying hybrids are susceptible to osteoporosis in all systems.61 Cage housing is associated with reduced bone strength compared with enriched colony,41 barn,18,62 aviary46,63,64, or free-range62 housing and while more extensive housing can lead to increased bone strength there are also increased opportunities for injury.

 

Feather pecking, peck injury and peck mortality (cannibalism) in poultry occurs at variable rates and may unpredictably become severe and cause high rates of distress, injury and death in a flock. Individual genetic selection may reduce feather-pecking, however, group selection of traits is a more beneficial way to reduce severe pecking while preserving rate of lay and longevity.58

CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable domestic and international pressure to eliminate the use of conventional cages. Conventional cages are scheduled to be banned in Europe beginning in 2012. Isolated studies65,66 that have looked at people's attitudes toward conventional caging systems have identified concerns associated with the degree of confinement experienced by the birds.56 However alternative systems also have considerable liabilities in terms of animal health, biosecurity and economic efficiency. It cannot be assumed that hens in non-cage systems will experience improved welfare. It is also unclear to what extent enriched colonies might be publicly acceptable as a long-term solution.

Some housing decisions depend on weighing welfare versus non-welfare (e.g. economic and public acceptability) factors. For example, as the number of hens kept in a conventional cage is increased, the laying productivity of each hen is reduced.67 However, there may be an economic advantage to this practice because of overall increased output from the cage. Hens that produce the most eggs also suffer more from conditions such as osteoporosis.61

One key decision to be made by producers, consumers and regulators is how to balance the hen's freedom to exercise and perform natural behaviors against exposure to potential hazards such as disease vectors and large social groups. To make this judgment in a transparent manner the advantages, disadvantages and risks associated with each system should be acknowledged. The priorities of all of the stakeholders including regulatory bodies, consumers and producers should also be transparent. As the causes of health conditions like osteoporosis and behaviors such as injurious pecking are better understood the relative advantages and disadvantages of these systems will change and new systems may emerge.

REFERENCES


1 Anonymous. Layer pullets take the Floor. Cocci Forum: New strategies for Coccidiosis management, Number 9. Schering-Plough Animal Health. Available at: http://www.thepoultrysite.com/cocciforum/contents/CF9Para.pdf Accessed 4 January, 2008.
2 Jendral M, Church JS, Feddes J. Redesigning battery cages to improve laying hen welfare: final report submitted to the Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund. Projects number 2002L001R. Available at: http://www.afac.ab.ca/reports/batterycage.pdf Accessed April 5, 2010.
3 Fossum O, Jansson DS, Etterlin PE and Vagsholm I. Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet Scand. 2009;51:3-11.
4 Nimmermark S, Lund V, Gustafsson G and Eduard W. Ammonia, dust and bacteria in welfare-oriented systems for laying hens. Ann Agric Environ Med 2009;16:103-113.
5 Mollenhorst H, Rodenburg TB, Bokkers EAM, et al. On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;90:277.291.
6 Albentosa MJ and Cooper JJ. Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Anim Wel 2004;13:419-424.
7 Tauson R. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poult Sci 1998;77:1820-1827.
8 Tauson R. Avoiding excessive growth of claws in caged laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 1986;36:95-106.
9 Bell DD, Adams CJ, Gvaryahu G. Environmental enrichment devices for cages laying hens. J Appl Poultry Res 1998;7:19-26
10 Sherwin CM. Pecking behaviour of laying hens provided with a simple motorised environmental enrichment device. Brit Poult Sci 1993;34:235-240.
11 Sherwin CM. Environmental enrichment for laying hens — spherical objects in the feed trough. Anim Welf 1995;4:41-51.
12 Ito S, Tanka T. Yoshimoto T. Effects of an 'enrichment feeder' on behavior and feather conditions of caged laying hens. Anim Sci J 2002;73:249-153.
13 Jones RB, Carmichael NL. Responses of domestic chicks to selected pecking devices presented for varying durations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1999;64:125-140.
14 Jones RB, Carmichael NL. Pecking at string by individually caged, adult laying hens: colour preferences and their stability. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1998;60:11-23.
15 Jones RB, Mcadie TM, McCorquodale C et al. Pecking at other birds and at string enrichment devices by adult laying hens. Brit Poul Sci 2002;43:337-343.
16McAdie TM, Keeling LJ, Blokhuis HJ et al. Reduction in feather pecking and improvement of feather condition with the presentation of a string device to chickens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;93:67-80.
17 Bohuis JE, Ellen ED, Van Reenen CG, De Groot J, Napel JT, Koopmanschap RE, Reilingh GDV, Uitdehaag KA, Kemp B, Rodenburg TB. Effects of genetic group selection against mortality on behavior and peripheral serotonin in domestic laying hens with trimmed and intact beaks. Phys Behav. 2009;97:470-475.
18 Barnett JL. The welfare and productivity of hens in barn system and cages: a report for the Rural Industries research and Development Corporation. 1998. RIRDC Project No DAV 112A
19 Blokhus HJ, Fiks van Niekerk T, Bessei W et al. The LayWel projects: welfare implications of changes in productions systems for laying hens. World's Poult Sci J 2007;63:101-114.
20 Mallet S, Guesdon V, Ahmed AMH, et al. Comparison of eggshell hygiene in two housing systems: standard and furniched cages. Brit Poult Sci 2006;47:30-35.
21 Guesdon V. Ahmed AMH, Mallet S, et al. Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. Brit Poult Sci 2006;47:1-12.
22 Sainsbury DWB. Poultry environment, housing and hygiene. In: Pattison M. The health of poultry: Longman veterinary health series. Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical. 1993.
23 Australian Government: department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The review of layer hen housing. Available at: http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/welfare/reports/layer-hen/review Accessed 26 December, 2007.
24 Scott GB, Connell BJ, Lambe NR. The fear levels after transport of hens from cages and a free-range system. Poult Sci 1998;77:62-66.
25 Olsson IAS, Keeling LJ. The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Anim Welf 2002;11:11-19.
26 Bubier NE. The behavioural priorities of laying hens: the effect of cost/no cost multichoice tests on time budgets. Behav Proc 1996;37:225-238.
27 Hughes BO, Appleby MC. Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. Vet Rec 1989;124:483-484.
28 Duncan ET, Appleby MC, Hughes BO. Effect of perches in laying cages on the production of laying hens. Brit Poult Sci 1992;33:25-35.
29 Weitzenbuger D, vits A, Hamann H, Hewicker-Trautwein M and Distl O. Macroscopic and histopathological alterations of foot pads of laying hens kept in small group housing systems and furnished cages. Br Poult Sci. 2006;47(5):533-543.
30 Appleby MC. The Edinburgh modified cage: effects of group size and space allowance on brown laying hens. J Appl Poult Res 1998;7:152-161.
31 Cooper JJ, Appleby MC. The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Anim Welf 2003;12:39-52.
32 Cooper JJ, Appleby, MC. Demand for nest boxes in laying hens. Behav Processes 1996;36:171-182.
33 Cooper JJ, Appleby MC. The effects of experience on motivation: prelaying behaviour in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1995;42:283-295.
34 Cooper J, Appleby MC. Nesting behaviour of hens: effects of experience on motivation. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1995;42:283-295.
35 Guesdon V, Faure JM. Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim Res 2004;53:45-57.
36 Huber-Eicher B, Sebo F. Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001;1-2:59-68.
37 Wall H. Laying Hens in Furnished Cages—Use of Facilities, Exterior Egg Quality and Bird Health. Doctoral thesis: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2003.
38 Hetland H, Svihus B. Inclusions of dustbathing materials affects nutrient digestion and gut physiology of layers. J Appl Poult Res 2007;16:22-26.
39 Appleby MC, Walker AW, Nicol CJ et al. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Brit Poult Sci. 2002;43:489-500.
40 Lay DC, Fluton RM, Hester PY et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult Sci 2011;90:278-294.
41 Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, Rodriquez-Lecompte JC and House JD. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci. 2009;88:698-707.
42 Sherwin CM, Richards GJ, Nicol CJ. A comparison of the welfare of layer hens in four housing systems in the UK. Br Poult Sci. 2010;51(4):488-499.
43 Tauson R and P Abrahamsson. Foot and Keel Bone Disorders in Laying Hens: Effects of Artificial Perch Material and Hybrid. Acta Agri Scand. 1996;46(4);239-246.
44 Tauson R, Wahlstrom A, Abrahamsson P. Effect of two floor housing systems on health, productions, and fear response in layers. J Appl Poult Res 1999;8:152-159.
45 Neijat M, House JD, Guenter W et al. Calcium and phosphorus dynamics in commercial laying hens housed in convential or enriched cage systems. Poult Sci. 2011;90:2383-2396.
46 Leyendecker M, Hamann H, Hartung J et al. Keeping laying hens in furnished cages and an aviary housing system enhances their bone stability. Brit Poult Sci 2005;46:536-544.
47 Tanaka T, Hurnik JF. Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poult Sci 1992;71:235-43.
48 Green AR, Wesley I, Trampel DW, et al. Air quality and hen health status in three types of commercial laying hen houses. Iowa Egg Coucil. Available at: http://www.iowaegg.org/newsdetails.asp?idNews=16 Accessed 4 January 2008.
49 Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Performance and egg quality of laying hens in an aviary system. J Appl Poultry Res 1998;7:225-232.
50 Weitzenburger D. Vits A, Hamann H et al. Effect of furnished small group housing systems on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. Brit Poult Sci 2005;46:553-559.
51 Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FAM, Sonck B et al. Welfare, housing, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2005;8:211-226.
52 Mahboub HDH, Muller J, Von Borell E. Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. Brit Poult Sci 2004;45:738-744.
53 Moberly RL, White PCL, Harris S. Mortality due to fox predation in free-range poultry flocks in Britain. Vet Rec 2004;155:48-52.
54 Nicol CJ, Potzsch C, Lewis K, et al. Match concurrent case-control study of risk factors for feather pecking in hens on free-range commercial farms in the UK. Brit Poult Sci 2003;44:515-523.
55 Bestman MWP, Wagenaar JP. Farm level factors associated with feather pecking in organic laying hens. Livestock Production Sci 2003;1-2:133-140.
56 Hegelund L, Sorensen JT, Kjaer JB et al. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. Brit Poult Sci 2005;46:1-8.
57 Graml C, Waiblinger S, Niebuhr K. Validation of tests for on-farm assessmenr of the hen-human relationshio in non-cage systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;111:301-310.
58 Muir WM an Craig JV. Improving animal well-being through genetic selection. Poult Sci. 1998;77:1781-1788.
59 Zelter E, Hirt H, Hauser J. How to motivate laying hens to use the hen run? Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany. 2004.
60 Zeltner E, Hirt H. Effect of artificial structuring on the use of laying hen runs in a free-range system. Brit Poult Sci 2003;44:533-537.
61 Webster AB. Welfare implications of avian osteoporosis. Poult Sci 2004;83:184-192.
62 Arafa LS, Harms RH. Comparison of bone characteristics of hens of three different ages in cages and floor pens. Appl Agric Res 1987;2:175-176.
63 Gregory NG, Wilkins LJ, Eleperuma SD, et al. Broken bones in domestic fowls: Effect of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. Brit Poult Sci 1990;31:59 – 69.
64 Knowles TG, Broom DM. Limb bone strength and movement in laying hens from different housing systems. Vet Rec 1990;126:354-356.
65 Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals 2005 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdf. Accessed Jan 10, 2007.
66 Heleski C, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ. Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitude towards farm animal welfare. J Am Vet Med Ass 2005;226:1538-1546.
67 Cunningham DL, van Tienhoven A, Gvaryahu G. Population size, cage area, and dominance rank effects on productivity and well-being of laying hens. Poult Sci 1988;67:399-406.

This information has been prepared as a service by the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Division.  Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
 © 2010 American Veterinary Medical Association