Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T14:36:23.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should Cages for Laying Hens Be Banned or Modified?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M C Appleby
M C Appleby*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional cages for laying hens have many disadvantages for welfare and there have been widespread calls for them to be banned. However, they also have advantages: in particular, they house the birds in small groups. Modified designs intended to reduce the disadvantages while retaining the advantages have included the get-away cage (providing perches and other facilities for up to 60 birds), but these designs have not yet had much success. The Edinburgh project on modified cages has adopted a stage-by-stage, systematic approach to cage design. Recommendations include increased area and height compared to conventional cages, and inclusion of a perch, a nest box and a dust bath. Current trials combine all these features in designs with commercial potential One remaining welfare problem is restriction of locomotion, with associated effects on bone strength However, alternative, non-cage husbandry systems for laying hens also have welfare problems, including those associated with large group sizes, and these problems may be worse than those in modified cages. Probably most important is the risk of cannibalism - or the practice of beak trimming to prevent it. Rather than banning cages, it might be more appropriate for legislation to specify the facilities which should be provided for laying hens.

In the current state of development of alternative systems, modifying cages for laying hens could on balance be more beneficial to welfare than banning them.

Keywords

alternative housinganimal welfarecageslaying henslegislation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 67 - 80
Copyright
© 1993 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

References

Anonymous 1992 FA WC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131: 357Google Scholar
Appleby, M C 1990 Behaviour of laying hens in cages with nest sites. British Poultry Science 31: 71–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M C 1991 Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages? A Review of the Scientific Evidence. The Athene Trust: PetersfieldGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1991 Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47: 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (in press) The future of applied ethology. Applied Animal Behaviour ScienceGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C and Smith, S F 1991 Design of nest boxes for laying cages. British Poultry Science 32: 667–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Elson, H A 1992a Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Hogarth, G S 1989 Behaviour of laying hens in a deep litter house. British Poultry Science 30: 545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Smith, S F and Hughes, B O 1992b Individual perching behaviour of laying hens and its effects in cages. British Poultry Science 33: 227–238CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, M C, Smith, S F and Hughes, B O (in press) Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens in cages: effects of design on behaviour and welfare. British Poultry ScienceGoogle Scholar
Braastad, B O 1990 Effects on behaviour and plumage of a key-stimuli floor and a perch in triple cages for laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 127–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1985 Amendment 1943/85 to Regulation 95/69, also amended by 927/69 and 2502/71. Official Journal of the European Communities 13th July 1985Google Scholar
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) 1988 Council Directive 88/1166/EEC: amendment to 86/113/EEC on Welfare of Battery Hens. Official Journal of the European Communities 19th March 1988, L74 p83Google Scholar
Dun, P, Hughes, B O, Howie, T J, Michie, W, Shamash, E and Wright, D 1991 Cages for laying hens. Farm Buildings Progress Number 106: 25–27Google Scholar
Duncan, E T, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1992 Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. British Poultry Science 33: 25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elson, H A 1981 Modified cages for layers. In Alternatives to Intensive Husbandry Systems pp 47–50. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Potters BarGoogle Scholar
Elson, H A 1985 The economics of poultry welfare. In Wegner, R M (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 244–253. World’s Poultry Science Association: CelleGoogle Scholar
Elson, H A 1988 Making the best cage decisions. In Cages for the Future pp 70-76. Cambridge Poultry Conference, Agricultural Development and Advisory ServiceGoogle Scholar
Everton, A 1989 The legal protection of farm livestock: avoidance of ‘unnecessary suffering’ and the positive promotion of welfare. In Blackman, D E, Humphries, P N and Todd, P (eds) Animal Welfare and the Law. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M J 1986 Beak trimming in poultry. World’s Poultry Science Journal 42: 268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M J 1992 Pain in birds. Animal Welfare 1: 235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, N G and Wilkins, L J 1989 Broken bones in domestic fowl: handling and processing damage in end-of-lay battery hens. British Poultry Science 30: 555–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N G, Wilkins, L J, Eleperuma, S D, Ballantyne, A J and Overfield, N D 1990 Broken bones in domestic fowls: effects of husbandry system and stunning method in end-of-lay hens. British Poultry Science 31: 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1989 Research into action - some concerns. In Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 253–255. World’s Poultry Science Association: ToursGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1991 The myth of the bam egg. New Scientist 132(1797): 40–43Google Scholar
Hughes, B O 1983 Conventional and shallow cages: a summary of research from welfare and production aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 39: 218–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Appleby, M C 1989 Increase in bone strength of spent laying hens housed in modified cages with perches. Veterinary Record 124: 483–484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B O, Wilson, S C, Appleby, M C and Smith, S F (in press) Effect of perches on bone mass and strength in caged laying hens. Research in Veterinary ScienceGoogle Scholar
King, A W M and Dun, P 1984 Personal Communication Regarding Ventilated Litter Floor Colony System for Layers, cited by Elson 1985Google Scholar
Knowles, T G and Broom, D M 1990 Limb bone strength and movement in laying hens from different housing systems. Veterinary Record 126: 354–356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuit, A R, Ehlhardt, D A and Blokhuis, H J (eds) 1989 Alternative Improved Housing Systems for Poultry. Commission of the European Communities: LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
Kull, K E 1948 The prevention and treatment of cannibalism and feather eating in fowls. Proceedings of the 8th World’s Poultry Congress pp 124–125Google Scholar
Luescher, U A, Hurnik, J F and Pos, J 1982 New cage design for laying hens. Poultry Science 61: 606–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, K A, Baxter, M R and Michie, W 1986 A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 93–98Google Scholar
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) 1987 Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock: Domestic Fowls. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: LondonGoogle Scholar
Matter, F and Oester, H 1989 Hygiene and welfare implications of alternative husbandry systems for laying hens. In Faure, J M and Mills, A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 201–212. World’s Poultry Science Association: ToursGoogle Scholar
Mench, J 1992 The welfare of poultry in modem production systems. Poultry Science Review 4: 107–128Google Scholar
Michie, W and Wilson, C W 1984 The perchery system of housing commercial layers. World’s Poultry Science Journal 40: 179Google Scholar
Nicol, C J and Dawkins, M S 1990 Homes fit for hens. New Scientist 125(1708): 46–51Google Scholar
Nørgaard-Nielsen, G 1990 Bone strength of laying hens kept in an alternative system, compared with hens in cages and on deep litter. British Poultry Science 31: 81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, E S, Appleby, M C, Hogarth, G S and Hughes, B O 1989 Modified cages for laying hens: a pilot trial. Research and Development in Agriculture 6: 107–114Google Scholar
Rockcliffe, J 1991 Northumberland producer introduces perches into the cage. Poultry Forum October: 10Google Scholar
Rogers, C S, Appleby, M C, Keeling, L, Robertson, E S and Hughes, B O 1989 Assessing public opinion on commercial methods of egg production: a pilot study. Research and Development in Agriculture 6: 19–24Google Scholar
Schaible, P J, Davidson, J A and Bandemer, S L 1947 Cannibalism and feather picking in chicks as influenced by certain changes in a specific ration. Poultry Science 26: 651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1992 Design of cages for laying hens and the influences on behaviour and welfare. Journal of Animal Science 70 (supplement 1): 172Google Scholar
Smith, S F, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O 1990 Problem solving by hens: opening doors to reach nest sites. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28: 287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S F, Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (in press) Nesting and dust bathing by hens in cages: matching and mis-matching between behaviour and environment. British Poultry ScienceGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 1984 Effects of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 34: 193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 1985 Mortality in laying hens caused by differences in cage design. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 35: 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 1986 Avoiding excessive growth of claws in caged laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 36: 95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 1988 Effects of redesign. In Cages for the Future pp 42-69. Cambridge Poultry Conference, Agricultural Development and Advisory ServiceGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R 1989 Cages for laying hens: yesterday and today … tomorrow? In Faure J M and Mills A D (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 253–255. World’s Poultry Science Association: ToursGoogle Scholar
van Liere, D W 1992 The significance of fowls’ bathing in dust. Animal Welfare 1: 187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, R M 1981 Choice of production systems for egg layers. In Sorensen, L Y (ed) Proceedings of the 1st European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 141–148. World’s Poultry Science Association: CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
Wegner, R M 1990a Poultry welfare - problems and research to solve them. World’s Poultry Science Journal 46: 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, R M 1990b Experience with the get-away cage system. World’s Poultry Science Journal 46: 41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar