Development of innovative scorecard for assessment of welfare and production performance of commercial layer birds reared at different stocking densities in cages

PINKY ROY; MUKUND M KADAM; JAYDIP J ROKADE; SUBRAT K BHANJA; DARSHANA BHOJRAJ BHAISARE

doi:10.56093/ijans.v92i5.118162

Authors

PINKY ROY PhD Scholar Department of Poultry Science Nagpur Veterinary college Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Nagpur 400 001
MUKUND M KADAM ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD Department of Poultry Science Nagpur Veterinary college Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Nagpur 400 001
JAYDIP J ROKADE Scientist Division of Avian Genetics & Breeding, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly â€“ 243 122, (U.P.), India
SUBRAT K BHANJA PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST AND HEAD POULTRY HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly â€“ 243 122, (U.P.), India
DARSHANA BHOJRAJ BHAISARE Assistant Professor Department of Poultry Science Nagpur Veterinary college Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University Nagpur 400 001

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v92i5.118162

Keywords:

Scorecard, Layers, Cage, Welfare, Behaviour, Production

Abstract

A methodology to assess the welfare of laying birds maintained in cages was developed using innovative scorecard
method without compromising the production and economics in Indian scenario. To develop scorecard, specific key
parameters such as production, economics, egg quality, welfare and behaviour were considered. The scores for these key parameters were assigned on the basis of the performance of the commercial laying hens maintained in different stocking densities in cages (387, 484, 548 and 645 cm2/b) for an experimental period of 20 weeks. The range for each parameter was decided and based on it four groups were formed and the treatment with the best performance received the highest weightage, that is how scoring of each treatment was done according to the range they fitted in. The scoring, weightage and guidelines were devised by Delphi technique, by a panel of national experts from the academics and experts working in the poultry industry. At the end of the experimental period, laying birds maintained at stocking density of 548 cm2/b scored the highest weightage with 84 out of total 100; 48 weightage for production and economics, 12 weightage for egg quality and 40 weightage for welfare and behaviour. From all above results, it could be summarized that this innovative scorecard can be used to determine the best performance of laying birds taking welfare into consideration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abrahamsson P. 1996. Furnished cages and aviaries for laying hens. Effects on production, health and use of facilities. Dissertation. Report 234. Department Animal Nutrition and Management, SLU, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden.

Anderson K E, Davis G S, Jenkins P K and Carroll A S. 2004. Effect of bird age, density and molt on behavioural profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Science 83: 15–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.1.15

Backus B L, McGlone J J and Guay K. 2014. Animal Welfare: stress, global issues, and perspectives, pp. 387–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00204-7

(Ed) Alfen N K V. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, 1, Elsevier, San Diego. Balamurugan V, Govindaraj G, Sowjanya Kumari S, Nagalingam M, Tapase J, Manjunathareddy G B and Rahman H. 2019. Scorecard method for assessing the severity of peste de petits ruminants in sheep and goats. Virus Disease 30(4): 574–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13337-019-00550-5

Bhanja S K and Bhadauria P. 2018. Behaviour and welfare concepts in laying hens and their association with housing systems. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 53(1): 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8180.2018.00009.0

Chatterjee R N and Haunshi S. 2015. Welfare Concerns in Poultry Production. Lead paper presented in 32nd Annual conference of IPSA and National symposium held at college of Avial Sciences and Management, Tiruvazhamkunnu, Palakkad, Kerala from 19-21 November 2015, pp 89-94 (Souvenir) DADF, GoI, 2014. Livestock censes (www.dahd.nic.in)

Cheng H W and Muir W M. 2004. Chronic social stress differentially regulates neuroendocrine responses in laying hens: II Genetic basis of adrenal responses under three different social conditions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29: 961–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2003.09.002

Craig J V and Milliken G A. 1989. Further studies of density and Group size effects in caged hens of stocks differing in fearful Behavior: productivity and behavior. Poultry Science 68: 9–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0680009

Davami A, Wineland M J, Joes W T, Ilardi R L and Peterson R A. 1987. Effect of population size, floor space and feeder space upon productive performance, external appearance and plasma corticosterone concentration of laying hens. Poultry Science 66: 251–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0660251

Ghislain S. 2021. Briefing: India, Animal Protection in EU Trade Negotiations. Eurogroup of Animals. Rue Ducale 29 – 1000 Brussels.

Gonzales E, Kondo N, Saldanha E S, Loddy P B, Careghi M M and Decuypere E. 2003. Performance and physiological parameters of broiler chickens subjected to fasting on the neonatal period. Poultry Science 82: 1250–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.8.1250

Hughes B O and Black A J. 1974. The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behaviour patterns and “fear” of fowls in cages and pens. British Poultry Science 15: 375–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071667408416121

Jalal M A, Scheideler S E and Marx D. 2006. Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolizable energy level on production parameters in laying hens. Poultry Science 85: 306–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.2.306

Kestin S C, Knowles T G, Tinch A E and Gregory N G. 1992. Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype. Veterinary Record 131: 190–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.131.9.190

Lee K and Moss C W. 1995. Effects of population density on layer performance. Poultry Science 74: 1754–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0741754

Martin P and Bateson P. 2007. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810893

Mashaly M M, Webb M I, Youtz S L, Roush W B and Graves H B. 1984. Changes in serum corticosterone concentration of laying hens as a response to increased population density. Poultry Science 63: 2271–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0632271

Mench J A, Tienhoven A V, Marsh J A, McCormick C C, Cunningham D L and Baker R C. 1986. Effect of cage and floor pen management on behavior, production and physiological stress responses of laying hens. Poultry Science 65: 1058–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0651058

Nicol C J. 1987. Behavioral responses of laying hens following a period of spatial restriction. Animal Behaviour 35: 1709–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80063-5

OIE. 1992. Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Test and Vaccines. Office International des Epizooties, Paris.

Onbasilar E E and Aksoy F T. 2005. Stress and immune response of layers under different cage floor and density conditions. Livestock Production Science 95: 255–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.01.006

Rajendran K, Edwin S C, Amutha R, Moorthy M and Shamsudeen P. 2013. Influence of cage stocking density on egg production and egg weight in Commercial White leghorn layers. Indian Veterinary Journal 90(8): 57–58.

Rodenburg T, Tuyttens F, Reu K de, Herman L, Zoons J, Sonck B. 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: Assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare 17: 355–61.

Sarica M, Boga S and Yamak U S. 2008. The effect of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech Journal Animal Science 53(8): 346–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/349-CJAS

Stephanie G. 2021. Animal welfare in trade policy after the Covid-19 pandemic: Another set of learnings’, 16. Global Trade and Customs Journal 7: 275–79 https://kluwerlawonline.com/ journalarticle/Global+Trade+and+Customs+Journal/16.7/ GTCJ2021033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/GTCJ2021033

Widowski T M, Hemsworth P H, Barnett J J, Rault J L. 2016. Laying hen welfare I. Social environment and space. World’s Poultry Science Journal 72: 333–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933916000027

Widowski T M, Caston L J, Hunniford M E, Cooley L and 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: 3805–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex197