The impact of strain and cage type on the welfare of laying hens in different seasons

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 2, 68 - 79, 27.12.2023

Sema Kaba Zehra Bozkurt

https://doi.org/10.34233/jpr.1408718

Öz

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of strain and cage type on the welfare of laying hens in commercial flocks over different seasons. A 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design was used to evaluate the effects of strain (white and brown layers) and cage type (conventional and enrichable battery cages) on the welfare of laying hens over three seasons (winter, spring and summer). The Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry was used to assess the welfare of laying hens. The strain and cage type significantly affected the welfare of the laying hens, which varied according to the season. Hens from the brown strain exhibited higher occurrences of FPD, keel bone abnormalities, and feather loss on the head and neck. White strains displayed a greater percentage of hens with abnormalities in the toe, comb, and beak, along with pecking wounds on the comb and extensive feather loss on the back, rump, and belly. A higher prevalence of comb abnormalities was observed in conventional cages. Hens in enrichable cages had higher rates of FPD, toe, comb and beak abnormalities, as well as pecking wounds on the comb and extensive feather loss. As a result, it was concluded that enrichable cages have a more adverse impact on the welfare of laying hens, with welfare losses in enrichable cages being more pronounced in brown hens compared to white hens and with interactions between strain and cage type varying seasonally.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Animal welfare assessment, Cage type, Laying hens, Strain, Season

Etik Beyan

Approval for the ethical aspects of this study has been granted under reference number AKUHADYEK-244-17. Furthermore, the authors assert their adherence to research and publication ethics.

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors have declared that this study has not received any funding. We would like to thank the commercial poultry farmers who cooperated. This study summarises part of the first author's master's thesis at Afyon Kocatepe University (thesis number: 2019-040).

Kaynakça

• Abrahamsson, P., Tauson, R. 1997. Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Animal Sciences, 47(4): 254-260. doi:10.1080/09064709709362394.
• Alig, B. N., Malheiros, R. D., Anderson, K. E. 2023. Evaluation of physical egg quality parameters of commercial brown laying hens housed in five production systems. Animals, 13(4): 716. doi:10.3390/ani13040716.
• Brown Nick. 2016. Brown Nick new management guide. H & N International GmbH (https://www.feedonline.ir/aa18.pdf).
• Carruthers, C., Gabrush, T., Schwean-Lardner, K., Knezacek, T.D., Classen, H.L., Bennett, C. 2012. On-farm survey of beak characteristics in White Leghorns as a result of hot blade trimming or infrared beak treatment. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 21(3): 645–650. doi:10.3382/japr.2011-00433.
• Casey-Trott, T.M., Guerin, M.T., Sandilands, V., Torrey, S., Widowski, T.M. 2017. Rearing system affects prevalence of keel-bone damage in laying hens: a longitudinal study of four consecutive flocks. Poultry science, 96(7):2029-2039. doi:10.3382/ps/pex026.
• Council Directive.1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.Official Journal of the European Communities No. L,203:53–57.214.
• Dawkins, M.S. 2003. Behaviour as a tool in the assessmentof animal welfare.Zoology, 106 (4): 383-387. doi:10.1078/0944-2006-00122.
• De Haas, E.N., Kemp, B., Bolhuis, J.E., Groothuis, T., Rodenburg, T.B. 2013. Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Science, 92(9): 2259-2269. doi:10.3382/ps.2012-02996.
• Fleming, R.H., Mccormack, H.A., Mcteir,L. Whitehead, C.C. 2004. Incidence, pathology and prevention of keel bone deformities in thelaying hen. British Poultry Science,45 (3): 320-330. doi:10.1080/00071660410001730815.
• Fraisse, F., Cockrem, J.F. 2006. Corticosterone and fear behaviour in white and brown caged laying hens. British Poultry Science, 47(2):110-119. doi:10.1080/00071660600610534.
• Glatz, P.C., Underwood, G. 2020. Current methods and techniques of beak trimming laying hens, welfare issues and alternative approaches. Animal Production Science, 61(10): 968-989. doi:10.1071/AN19673.
• Grafl, B., Polster, S., Sulejmanovic, T., Pürrer, B., Guggenberger, B., Hess, M. 2017. Assessment of health and welfare of Austrian laying hens at slaughter demonstrates influence of husbandry system and season. British Poultry Science, 58(3): 209-215. doi:10.1080/00071668.2017.1280723.
• Hartcher, K.M., Jones, B. 2017. The welfare of layer hens in cage and cage-free housing systems. World's Poultry Science Journal, 73(4): 767-782. doi:10.1017/S0043933917000812.
• Heerkens, J.L.T., Delezie, E., Rodenburg, T.B., Kempen, I., Zoons, J., Ampe, B., Tuyttens, F.A.M. 2016. Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poultry Science, 95(3):482-488. doi:10.3382/ps/pev339.
• Heerkens, J.L.T., Delezie, E., Kempen, I., Zoons, J., Ampe, B., Rodenburg,T.B., Tuyttens, F.A.M. 2015. Specific characteristics of the aviaryhousing system affect plumage condition, mortality and productionin laying hens. Poultry Science, 94(9): 2008–2017. doi:10.3382/ps/pev187.
• Heflin, L.E., Malheiros, R., Anderson, K.E., Johnson, L.K., Raatz, S.K. 2018. Mineral content of eggs differs with hen strain, age, and rearing environment. Poultry Science, 97(5):1605-1613. doi:10.3382/ps/pey025.
• Hester P.Y. 2014. The effect of perches installed in cages on laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal ,70 (2): 247-264. doi:10.1017/S0043933914000270.
• Hocking, P.M., Channing, C.E., Waddington, D., Jones. R.B. 2001. Age-related changes in fear, sociality and pecking behaviours in two strains of laying hen. British Poultry Science, 42(4): 414–423. doi:10.1080/00071660120070686.
• Hy-Line W-80 2016. Hy-Line W-80 Commercial Layer Management guide, Hy-Line International (https://hylinena.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/10/W-80_English-1.pdf).
• Janczak, A.M., Riber, A.B. 2015. Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Science, 94(7):1454-1469. doi:10.1080/00071660120070686.
• Kaba, S., Bozkurt, Z. 2023. Comparison of Hen Performance and Mortality of Commercial Layer Flocks by Strain and Cage Type. Kocatepe Vet J., 16(4):530-540. doi:10.30607/ kvj.1354918.
• Nasr, M.A.F., Murrell, J., Wilkins, L.J., Nicol, C.J. 2012. The effect of keel fractures on egg production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individual laying hens. Animal Welfare, 21(1): 127–135. doi:10.7120/096272812799129376.
• Niebuhr, K., Arhant, C., Lugmair, A., Gruber, B., Zaludik, K. 2009. Foot pad dermatitis in laying hens kept in non-cage systems in Austria. In Proceedings of 8th Poultry Welfare
• Symposium, Cervia, Italy pp. 18-22.https://www.cabi.org/Uploads/animal-science/worlds-poultry-science-association/WPSA-italy-2009/6_welfare2009_niebuhr.pdf).
• Oliveira, J.L., Xin, H., Chai, L., Millman, S.T. 2019. Effects of litter floor access and inclusion of experienced hens in aviary housing on floor eggs, litter condition, air quality, and hen welfare. Poultry Science, 98(4):1664-1677. doi:10.3382/ps/pey525.
• Riber, A.B., Hinrichsen, L.K. 2016. Keel-bone damage and foot injuries in commercial laying hens in Denmark. Animal Welfare, 25(2):179-184. doi:10.7120/09627286.25.2.179.
• Rodenburg, T.B., Buitenhuis, A.J., Ask, B., Uitdehaag, K. A., Koene, P., van der Poel, J.J., van Arendonk, J.A.M., Bovenhuis, H. 2004. Genetic and Phenotypic Correlations Between Feather
• Pecking and Open-Field Response in Laying Hens at Two Different Ages. Behavior Genetics, 34(4): 407-415. doi:10.1023/B:BEGE.0000023646.46940.2d.
• Rodenburg, T.B., Tuyttens, F.A.M., De Reu, K., Herman, L., Zoons, J., Sonck, B. 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare, 17(4): 363-373. doi: 10.1017/S096272860002786X.
• Rørvang, M.V., Hinrichsen, L.K., Riber, A.B. 2019. Welfare of layers housed in small furnished cages on Danish commercial farms: the condition of keel bone, feet, plumage and skin.
• British poultry science, 60(1):1-7. doi:10.1080/00071668.2018.1533632.
• Stratmann, A., Fröhlich, E.K., Harlander-Matauschek, A., Schrader, L., Toscano, M.J., Würbel, H., Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G. 2015. Soft perches in an aviary system reduce incidence of keel bone damage in laying hens. PloS one, 10(3): e0122568. doi.: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122568.
• Super Nick. 2017. Super Nick White egg layes new management H & N International GmbH (https://feedonline.ir/aa17.pdf).
• Thogerson, C.M., Hester, P.Y., Mench, J.A., Newberry, R.C., Okura, C.M., Pajor, E.A., Talaty, P.N.,Garner, J.P. 2009. The effect of feeder space allocation on productivity and physiology of Hy-
• Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages. Poultry science, 88(9):1793-1799. doi:10.3382/ps.2009-00011.
• Welfare Quality® 2009. Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens),(Lelystad, The Netherlands,Welfare QualityConsortium, https://edepot.wur.nl/233471).
• Widowski, T.M., Caston, L.J., Hunniford, M.E., Cooley, L., Torrey, S. 2017. Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being. Poultry Science, 96(11):3805-3815. doi:10.3382/ps/pex19.