Welfare and performance of commercial laying hens in conventional California cages at different stocking densities
![](/public/icon/gor.png)
![](/public/icon/pdf.png)
Keywords:
California cages, Egg production, Layer, Stocking density, WelfareAbstract
The present experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of different stocking densities on performance and welfare of commercial white leghorn hens (BV 300 strain) reared in conventional California cages. A total of 270 hens were divided into four stocking density groups, viz. 60 sq. inch/387 cm2 (T1); 75 sq. inch/484 cm2 (T2); 85 sq. inch/ 548 cm2 (T3) and 100 sq. inch/645 cm2 (T4) per bird with 18 replicates in each treatment. The experiment was conducted for a 20 week period under uniform standard management practices with birds fed on commercial layer diet. It was observed T3 and T4 group birds had highly significant (P<0.001) percentage of hen day egg production, higher egg weight, better feed conversion ratio, minimum cost of production per egg compared to T2 and T1 at the end of 20 week experimental period. Welfare indicators—Feather score was significantly best in T4 group birds when compared to T1 group, whereas gait score and immunity parameters was non-significant among all the birds reared at different stocking densities. Considering well-being and production performance, the present study confirms that commercial laying hens reared in conventional California cages provided with 85 sq. inch/548 cm2 space per bird gives better quality egg production without compromising birds welfare.
Downloads
References
Abrahamsson P. 1996. Furnished cages and aviaries for laying hens. Effects on production, health and use of facilities. Dissertation. Report 234, submitted to Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, SLU, 75007 UPPSALA, SWEDEN
Adams A W and Craig J V. 1985. Effect of crowding and cage shape on productivity and profitability of caged layers: a survey. Poultry Science 64(2): 238–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0640238
Anderson K E, Davis G S, Jenkias P K and Corroll A S. 2004. Effect of bird age, density and molt on behavioural profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Science 83: 1– 23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.1.15
Appleby M C, Walker A W, Nicol C J, Lindberg A C, Freire R, Hughes B O and Elson H A. 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0007166022000004390
Benyi K, Norris D and Tsatsinyane P M. 2006. Effect of stocking density and group size on the performance of white and brown Hyline layers in semi-arid conditions. Tropical Animal Health Production 38: 619–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-006-4417-1
Chatterjee R N and Haunshi S. 2015. Welfare Concerns in Poultry Production. Lead papers presented in 32nd Annual conference of IPSA held at College of Avian Sciences and Management, Palakkad, Kerala from 19–21 Nov 2015, pp 89–94 (in Souvenir) DADF, GOI, 204, Livestock Censes (www.dahd.nic.in)
Craig J V, Craig J A and Vargas J V. 1986. Corticosteroids and Other Indicators of Hens well-being in four laying-house environment. Poultry Science 65: 856–63 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0650856
Heckert R A, Estevez I, Russek-Cohen E and Pettit-Riley R. 2002. Effects of density and perch availability on the immune status of broilers. Poultry Science 81: 451–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.4.451
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
Lee K and Moss C V. 1995. Effect of population density on layer performance. Poultry Science 74: 1754–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0741754
Li X, Chen D, Li J and Bao J. 2015. Effects of furnished cage type on behavior and welfare of laying hens. Asian- Australasian Journal of Animal Science 29(6): 887–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0576
Mangnale G A, Desai D N, Ranade A S and Avari P E. 2019. Study of production performance of layers in different types of cages with different stocking densities. International Journal of Livestock Research 9(2): 190–96 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20180819051250
Nicol C J, Brown, S N, Glen E, Pope S J, Short F J, Warriss P D, Zimmerman P H and Wilkins L J. 2006. Effects of stocking density flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. British Poultry Science 47: 135– 46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660600610609
Onbasilar E E and Aksoy F T. 2005. Stress parameters 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
Patterson P H and Siegel H S. 1998. Impact of cage density on pullet performance and blood parameters of stress. Poultry Science 77: 32–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.1.32
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.
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 of Animal Science 53(8): 346–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/349-CJAS
Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th Edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, Reprinted in 1994. East-West Press Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Tauson R, Wahlstromand A and Abrahamsson P. 1999. Effects of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production and fear response in layers. Applied Poultry Research 8: 152– 59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/8.2.152
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.