Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T23:01:54.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2007

V. Aerni ,
M.W.G. Brinkhof ,
B. Wechsler ,
H. Oester  and
E. Fröhlich
V. Aerni*
Affiliation:
Bächlerenweg 20, CH-3044 Säriswil, Switzerland
M.W.G. Brinkhof
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
B. Wechsler
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Ruminants and Pigs, CH-8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland
H. Oester
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Poultry and Rabbits, Burgerweg 22, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
E. Fröhlich
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing of Poultry and Rabbits, Burgerweg 22, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A systematic review of investigations on productivity, mortality and cannibalism of laying hens housed in aviaries is presented. In Part One we reviewed the studies that compared these parameters between laying hens housed in aviaries and in conventional cages. In Part Two we investigated the relative impact of strain, beak trimming and rearing condition on productivity and mortality in aviaries. The comparative analysis revealed that aviary hens consumed 3.0 % more food than caged hens, and food conversion was 6.7 % higher in aviaries than in cages. On the other hand, the mortality rate and cannibalism rate did not differ significantly between the two housing systems. The analysis of causes of variation in productivity, mortality rate and cannibalism rate in aviaries revealed a strong effect of strain. Beak trimming was associated with a reduced prevalence of cannibalism rates but had no effect on overall mortality. It also reduced egg weight and food consumption. Early access to litter during the rearing period had a positive effect on egg weight; egg mass, food conversion and mortality rate. In conclusion, we found a slightly reduced productivity of aviaries in relation to cages although the mortality rates and the prevalence of cannibalism did not differ between these housing systems. To further improve productivity and reduce mortality of hens housed in aviaries we recommend the choice of suitable strains and the implementation of improved rearing conditions including early access to litter.

Keywords

systematic reviewlaying hensaviaryhousing systemproductivitymortalitystrainbeak trimmingrearing
Type
Reviews
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 130 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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

Abrahamsson, P. and Tauson, R. (1995) Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens: effects on production, egg quality, health and bird location in three hybrids. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 45: 191–203.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, P., Fossum, O. and Tauson, R. (1998) Health of laying hens in an aviary system over fives batches of birds. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 39: 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amgarten, M. and Meierhans, D. (1992) Vergleichende Untersuchungen der Wirtschaftlichkeit verschiedener Haltungssysteme für Legehennen in der Praxis und an der SGS. Swiss Poultry Husbandry School, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google 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: 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessei, W. (1997) The behaviour of laying hens in aviary systems (a literature review). Archiv für Geflügelkunde 61: 176–180.Google Scholar
Bessei, W. and Damme, K. (1998) Neue Verfahren für die Legehennenhaltung. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H.J. and Wiepkema, P.R. (1998) Studies of feather pecking in poultry. The Veterinary Quarterly 20: 6–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, J.G.M.J. and Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. (1995) Aviary housing for laying hens: Health. ID-DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ehlhardt, D.A., Donkers, A.M.J. and Gerritsen, C.L.M. (1988) Alternative improved housing systems for poultry. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
EngströM, B. and Schaller, G. (1993) Experimental studies of the health of laying hens in relation to housing system In: Proceedings of Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Edinburgh, pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Fölsch, D.W., Rist, M., Munz, G. and Teygeler, H. (1983) Entwicklung eines tiergerechten Legehennen-Haltungssystems: Die Volierenhaltung. Landtechnik: 255–257.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, E. (1995) Erfahrungen mit der Volierenhaltung von Legehennen sowie anderen Alternativen In: Proceedings of Tagung der Deutschen Veterinärmedizinischen Gesellschaft, Fachgruppe “Tierschutzrecht und Gerichtliche Veterinärmedizin”, Stuttgart-Hohenheim, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar
FröHlich, E. (2003) Mortalität in verschiedenen Aufstallungssystemen der praktischen Prüfung 1984–1996. Internal report. Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing: Poultry and Rabbits, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Gates, S. (2002) Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology 71: 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, M. (1994) Bewertung von alternativen Haltungssystemen für Legehennen. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 58: 206–213.Google Scholar
Groot-Koerkamp, P.W.G., Keen, A., Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. and Smit, S. (1995) The effect of manure and litter handling and indoor climatic conditions on ammonia emissions from a battery cage and an aviary housing system for laying hens. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 43: 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, S., Keeling, L.J. and Svedberg, J. (1999) Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, S., Odén, K., Algers, B., Svedberg, J. and Keeling, L.J. (1995) Poultry health and behaviour in a tiered system for loose housed layers. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Animal Hygiene, Skara, Sweden.Google Scholar
Häne, M. (1999) Legehennenhaltung in der Schweiz 1998. Federal Veterinary Office, Centre for Proper Housing: Poultry and Rabbits, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Hill, J.A. (1981) The aviary system In: Proceedings of First European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Kopenhagen, pp. 115–123.Google Scholar
Huber-Eicher, B. and Sebö, F. (2001) Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B.O. and Gentle, M.J. (1995) Beak trimming of poultry: its implications for welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal 51: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsen, P.F., Vestergaard, K.S. and Nørgaard-Nielsen, G. (1998) Influence of early rearing conditions on the development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathle, J. and Kolstad, N. (1996) Non-beaked laying hens housed in aviaries l: production performance in cages and three types of aviaries. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 10: 413–424.Google Scholar
Kjaer, J.B. and Sørensen, P. (2002) Feather pecking and cannibalism in free-range laying hens as affected by genotype, dietary level of methionin + cystine, light intensity during rearing and age at first access to the range area. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, K. (1997) Leistungsverhalten verschiedener Hybridherkünfte im Vergleich der Käfig- zur Volierenhaltung. In: Petersen, J. (Ed.) Jahrbuch für Geflügelwirtschaft 1997, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 45–49.Google Scholar
Leyendecker, M., Hamann, H., Hartung, J., Kamphues, J., Ring, C., Glunder, G., Ahlers, C., Sander, I., Neumann, U. and Distl, O. (2001) Analysis of genotype-environment interactions between layer lines and housing systems for performance traits, egg quality and bone breaking strength. 1st communication: performance traits. Züchtungskunde 73: 290–307.Google Scholar
Mccullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A. (1989) Generalised linear models. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meierhans, D. (1993) Vergleichsversuch neuer Haltungssysteme für Legehennen. No 12. Swiss Poultry Husbandry School, Zollikofen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Michel, V. and Huonnic, D. (2003) Acomparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or in aviaries. British Poultry Science 44: 775–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J. (2003) Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sall, J., Lehmann, A. and Creighton, L. (2001) JMP start statistics. A guide to statistics and data analysis. SAS Institute Inc./ Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA.Google Scholar
Scientific Veterinarycommittee (1996) Report on the welfare of laying hens. Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Agriculture, Brussels, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T. and Hurnik, J.F. (1992) Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Science 71: 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R. (2002) Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World's Poultry Science Journal 58: 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauson, R. and Jansson, L. (1990) Two alternative keeping systems for egg laying hens in comparison with furnished cages In: Proceedings of 8th European Poultry Conference, Barcelona, pp. 676–679.Google Scholar
Tauson, R., Wahlström, A. and Abrahamsson, P. (1999) Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horne, P.L.M. (1996) Production and economic results of commercial flocks with white layers in aviary systems and battery cages. British Poultry Science 37: 255–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Horne, P.L.M., Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. and Bosch, J.G.M.J. (1997) Production, animal health and economic results of commercial layer flocks in aviary systems In: Proceedings of 9th International Congress in Animal Hygiene, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 561–564.Google Scholar
Van Niekerk, T.G.C.M. and Ehlhardt, D.A. (1995) Aviary housing for laying hens: Zootechnics. ID-DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wahlström, A., Tauson, R. and Elwinger, K. (1998) Effects on plumage condition, health and mortality of dietary oats/wheat ratios to three hybirds of laying hens in different housing systems. Acta Agriculturae candinavica Section A-Animal Science 48: 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlström, A., Tauson, R. and Elwinger, K. (2001) Plumage condition and health of aviary-kept hens fed mash or crumbled pellets. Poultry Science 80: 266–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed