1 / 43

Enriched Cages

Impact of Stocking Density and Group Size in Enriched Cage Housing on Hen Behavior, Welfare and Performance Tina Widowski 1 ; Linda Caston 1 ; Steve Leeson 1 , Leanne Cooley 2 ; Stephanie Torrey 3 ; Michele Guerin 4 1 Departments 1 Animal & Poultry Science and 4 Population Medicine

lydie
Download Presentation

Enriched Cages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of Stocking Density and Group Size in Enriched Cage Housing on Hen Behavior, Welfare and Performance Tina Widowski1; Linda Caston1; Steve Leeson1, Leanne Cooley2; Stephanie Torrey3; Michele Guerin4 1Departments 1Animal & Poultry Science and 4Population Medicine University of Guelph 2L.H. Gray and Son Limited 3Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Canada

  2. Enriched Cages • Provide the hygiene and health benefits of conventional cages (Tauson, 2005) • Production comparable to conventional cages • Perches and more space increase bone strength • Furnishings support some of the behavior patterns shown to be important to hens Source: Manitoba Egg Farmers

  3. Enriched Cages • Earliest models held small groups of hens provided nest box, perches, and box of litter for scratching and dustbathing • More recent trend is to increase group size and replace nest box with curtained area and replace litter box with a mat sprinkled with feed Source: LayWel Report Source: Manitoba Egg Farmers

  4. Enriched Cages • Sizes of cages and colonies (Laywel 2007) • Small up to 15 hens • Medium15-30 hens • Large> 30 hens up to ~ 60 or more • Larger cages provide more total space but may increase risk feather pecking, increased competition and higher mortality in larger groups (Wall 2011) • Proposed industry changes in North America include period of incremental increases in space allowance

  5. Enriched Cages • Sizes of cages and colonies • Small up to 15 hens • Medium 15-30 hens • Large> 30 hens up to ~ 60 or more • Larger cages provide more total space but may increase risk feather pecking, increased competition and higher mortality in larger groups (Wall 2011) • Proposed industry changes in Egg Bill include period of incremental increases in space allowance

  6. Group Size and Space • When group size increases the total area and the amount of free space increases • Hens tend to synchronize activities and cluster together X 4 =

  7. Objectives To determine the effects of space allowance and cage size on production, welfare and behavior measures of laying hens housed in two sizes of enriched colony cages

  8. Methods • 1218 Lohman Select Leghorns (LSL)-Lite • Farmer Automatic ‘Enrichable’ Enriched Cage • 2 x 2 factorial experiment • 2 cage sizes: Large= Standard Commercial Model (358x122cm) Small= Custom built (178x122cm) • 2 densities: High= ~520 cm2/hen Low= ~748 cm2/ hen (total floor space allowance)

  9. Methods • Cages were distributed between 2 rooms • 3 tiers, 2 rows of cages in each room • Birds were beak treated at the hatchery and reared in standard rearing cages at the research farm • Housed in laying cages at 18 weeks of age

  10. Methods Two Rooms Each room holds 6 “Large” and 6 “Small”

  11. Large Cage

  12. Small Cage

  13. Nesting Area

  14. Scratch Area

  15. Scratch Area 20 g feed delivered through auger 10 times per day

  16. Group Sizes

  17. Space Allowances in cm2(in2)

  18. Methods Production measures • Hen-day egg production from 20 weeks to end of lay • Egg weights and shell strength (deformation) collected from sample of eggs once per ~28 days • At 37, 43, 49, 56 and 70 weeks of age feed intake was measured over 2 day period

  19. Hen Day Egg Production HighDensity and LowDensity Cages High Density= 80 in2/hen (93.0±.14%) Low Density = 116 in2/ hen (94.4 ±.15%) Age P<0.01 Density NS

  20. Feed Intake (g/bird/day)* *Significantly higher feed intake in the small cages/group sizes

  21. Egg Weights (g) No Effect of Cage Size or Density

  22. Egg Deformation (μm) No Effect of Cage Size, Cage Density, P=.0535

  23. Methods Welfare Measures • Mortality (cumulative) • cause of death determined from necropsy • At 30, 50, and 60 and 70 wks of age 20% birds from each cage were sampled • Body weight • Feather condition • Cleanliness • Keel score • Foot health

  24. Mortality Cumulative % to 72 weeks of age No Effect of Cage Size or Density Significant effects of tier – birds on middle level had highest mortality (P<0.01)

  25. Body Weight No Effect of Cage Size or Density

  26. Head Back Belly Rump Feather Scoring • 0 = Feathers intact • 1 = Some feather damage • 2 = Bare areas Neck

  27. Feather Scoring

  28. Effect of Stocking Density on Feather Scores High Density= 80 in2/hen Low Density = 116 in2/ hen Feather score deteriorated in all birds over time (P<0.001) Feather score poorer in high density cages over time (P<0.001)

  29. Effect of Stocking Density on Cleanliness Score High Density= 80 in2/hen Low Density = 116 in2/ hen 0-3 increasingly dirty Cleanliness score deteriorated in all birds over time (P<0.001) Cleanliness score poorer in high density cages over time (P<0.03)

  30. Methods Behavior • Nesting- enough nest space for all hens? • Foraging – pecking and scratching on mat, feeder, floor • Dust bathing on scratch mat or wire floors • Perching

  31. Nesting • Grad student Michelle Hunniford • Where the eggs were laid • When the eggs were laid • Aggression around nesting

  32. Location • Methods: • During daily egg collection location of all eggs were recorded Nest Area Scratch Area

  33. Pnest= 0.925 Pscratch= 0.912

  34. * *P< 0.01 **P< 0.001 **

  35. Timing • Methods (2 ways) • Digital video recording during 14 hrs of day • During live observations of nesting behaviour (5 -11 am) • Number of eggs recorded every 15 minutes • Analyzed for differences in location over time

  36. Aggressive Behavior • At 69 weeks hens were observed by systematically scanning cages 5 times during 4 observation periods in the morning from lights on to 11 am • Threats • Aggressive pecks

  37. Behavior • Slightly less time spent foraging in High Density • No effects of density on dust bathing • Majority was on wire, not scratch mat • Auger activation stimulated more foraging • Feeder chain activation stimulated dustbathing and foraging

  38. Summary • No density effect on egg production, egg weights, egg shell strength, feed intakes, body weight or uniformity • Higher feed intakes in groups of 28-40 compared to larger cages/group sizes of 55-80 • No effect of size or density on total cumulative mortality • At 60 weeks – more cracked and dirty eggs from scratch area in high density cages

  39. Summary • Feather scores were poorer in high density cages • Birds were slightly dirtier in high density cages • Few effects of density on the behavior that we measured • Cage/group size but not density affected nest use, timing of eggs laid and aggression around nesting

  40. Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • Egg Farmers of Canada • Poultry Industry Council • Clark Ag-Systems/Farmer Automatic • We are grateful for the assistance of Michelle Edwards for statistical support, Arkell Poultry Research Station staff and the many, many graduates who helped with data collection

More Related