Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries.
Management practices, stocking rate and flock size may affect laying hen welfare but there have been few replicated studies in commercial non-cage systems that investigate this. This study used a broad range of physical and physiological indicators to assess the welfare of hens in 36 commercial flocks. Six laying period treatments were examined with each treatment replicated 6 times. It was not possible to randomly allocate treatments to houses, so treatment and house were largely confounded. Three stocking rates were compared: 7 birds/m(2) (n = 2450), 9 birds/m(2) (n = 3150) and 12 birds/m(2) in either small (n = 2450) or large (n = 4200) flocks. In addition, at 12 birds/m(2), in both small and large flocks, birds were subjected to either standard (SM) or modified (MM) management. MM flocks had nipple drinkers and no nest-box lights. Bone strength, fracture incidence, heterophil:lymphocyte (H:L) ratio, live weight, organ weights, serum creatine, serum osmolality, muscle pH and faecal corticosterone were measured on samples of birds at the end of the rearing period and at the end of lay. During the laying period, mortality, production and integument condition were recorded at regular intervals. Birds housed at 9 birds/m(2) had higher mortality than birds housed at 12 birds/m(2) by the end of lay, but not higher than birds housed at 7 birds/m(2). Birds housed at 7 and 9 birds/m(2) had lower percent liver weight, and worse plumage condition than most of the 12 bird/m(2) treatments. Modified management tended to improve plumage condition. There were no clear effects of flock size on the welfare indicators recorded. At the end of the rearing period fracture incidence was almost negligible and H:L ratio was within a normal range. By the end of lay fracture incidence was 60% and H:L ratio was high, with no treatment effect for either measure. This, together with information on faecal corticosterone, feather loss and mortality, suggests that the welfare of birds in all treatments was relatively poor by the end of lay.
Nicol
C J
CJ
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU and ADAS Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Notts NG20 9PF, England. c.j.nicol@bristol.ac.uk
Brown
S N
SN
Glen
E
E
Pope
S J
SJ
Short
F J
FJ
Warriss
P D
PD
Zimmerman
P H
PH
Wilkins
L J
LJ
D000822:Animal Husbandry / Q000379:methods*; D000827:Animal Welfare; D000818:Animals; D001824:Body Constitution / Q000502:physiology*; D002645:Chickens / Q000502:physiology*; D003441:Crowding; D005241:Feathers; D005260:Female; D006799:Housing, Animal / Q000592:standards; D009026:Mortality; D009929:Organ Size; D010058:Oviposition / Q000502:physiology; D011156:Population Density; D011157:Population Dynamics; D011897:Random Allocation