The effect of different housing systems on the welfare and the parasitological conditions of laying hens

PDF (English)
Publicado: Nov 9, 2022
Actualizado: 2022-11-09
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.27585
K Nenadović
Department of Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4010-7964
M Vučinić
Department of Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3299-1107
R Turubatović
FSH Royal De Heus, Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-2164
Z Beckei
Department of Animal Breeding, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8724-5892
T Gerić
Institute of Meat Hygiene and Tehnology, Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-5231
T Ilić
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Belgrade, Serbia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2813-6466
Resumen

In Serbia, by 2020, conventional cages will no longer be permitted and hens will be housed in furnished cages. The study was conducted during the winter season on four rearing systems of Lohman Brown hens. For welfare assessment were used indicators from the Welfare quality assessment protocol for poultry. All fecal samples for parasites were qualitatively and quantitatively examined. The results showed that each housing system had positive and negative aspects but overall, hens in cage systems had the highest prevalence of poor plumage condition (47 % and 39%). Hens in conventional cages had more skin lesions (27%) than birds in other systems. Keel bone deformation was the most present in the aviary system (56%) while comb pecking wound in a conventional cage (33%) and free-range system (50%). Hens in the non cage had the highest prevalence of foot pad disorders (32% and 40%). In furnished cages, problems occurred in hens are the lowest. Parasitological examination diagnosed four groups of endoparasites: Coccidia, Trichostrongylidae and Heterakis spp, and Capillaria spp, with a total prevalence of 64% (64/100) only in free-range system. Laying hens in cage systems have a higher expression of negative emotions in relation to the aviary and free-range system. Evidence of negative hens’ emotional condition in cage systems and negative physical condition across all housing systems, suggests that the welfare of modern hens in Serbia is impaired.

Article Details
  • Sección
  • Research Articles
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

· Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

· Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Citas
Abrahamsson P, Tauson R (1995) Aviary systems and battery cages for laying hens – effects on production, egg quality, health and bird location in 3 hybrids. Acta Agric Scand 4:191–203. doi.org/10.1080/09064709509415851
Abrahamsson P, Tauson R (1997) Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agric Scand 45:191–203. doi.org/10.1080/09064709709362394
Bestman M, Wagenaar J-P (2014) Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals 4:374-390. doi: 10.3390/ani4020374
Bilcik B, Keeling LJ (1999) Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. Br Poult Sci 40:444–451. doi: 10.1080/00071669987188.
Blatchford RA, Fulton RM, Mench JA (2016) The utilization of the Welfare Quality assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poult Sci 95(1):154-63. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev227
Blokhuis HJ, Fiks van Niekerk T, Bessei W, Elson A, Gu´emen´e D et al (2007) The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World Poult Sci 63:101–114. doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001328
Bracke MBM, Hopster H (2006) Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 19(1):77–89. doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7
Cloutier S, Newberry RC, Honda K, Alldredge JR (2002) Cannibalistic behaviour spread by social learning. Anim Behav 63:1153–1162. doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3017
Collins LM, Asher L, Pfeier DU, Browne WJ, Nicol CJ (2011) Clustering and synchrony in laying hens: The efect of environmental resources on social dynamics. Appl Anim Behav Sci 129:43–53. doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.10.007
EFSA (2005) The welfare aspects of various systems for keeping of laying hens. Annex to the EFSA Journal 197:1–23. doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.197
El-Lethey H, Aerni V, Jungi TW, Wechsler B (2000) Stress and feather pecking in laying hens in relation to housing conditions. Br Poult Sci 41:22–28. doi: 10.1080/00071660086358.
Elson HA, Croxall R (2006) European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Arch fur Geflugelkunde 70:94-198. ISSN 0003-9098
Fraser D, Duncan IJH, Edwards SA, Grandin T, Gregory NG et al (2013) General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. Vet J 198(1):19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.06.028
Fossum O, Jansson DS, Etterlin PE, Vågsholm I (2009) Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet Scand 51:3. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-3.
Gauly M, Duss C, Erhardt G (2007) Influence of Ascaridia galli infections and anthelmintic treatments on the behaviour and social ranks of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Vet Parasitol 146:271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.03.005
Grafl B, Polster S, Sulejmanovic T, Pürrer B, Guggenberger B, Hess M (2017) Assessment of health and welfare of Austrian laying hens at slaughter demonstrates influence of husbandry system and season. Br Poult Sci 58:209–215. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2017.1280723
Heckendorn F, Häring DA, Amsler Z, Maurer V (2009) Do stocking rate and a simple run management practice influence the infection of laying hens with gastrointestinal helminths? Vet Parasitol 159:60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2008.10.013
Heerkens JL, Delezie E, Rodenburg TB, Kempen I, Zoons J, Ampe B, Tuyttens FA (2016) Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poult Sci 95(3):482-8. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev339
Hocking PM, Bain M, Channing CE, Fleming R and Wilson S (2003) Genetic variation for egg production, egg quality and bone strength in selected and traditional breeds of laying fowl. Br Poult Sci 44:365-373. doi: 10.1080/0007166031000085535
Iffland H, Wellmann R, Preuß S, Tetens J, Bessei W et al (2020) Novel Model to Explain Extreme Feather Pecking Behavior in Laying Hens. Behav Genet 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10519-019-09971-w.
Keutgen H, Wurm S, Ueberschar S (1999) Pathological-anatomical examinations of laying hens from different housing systems. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 106:127-133. PMID: 10354639
Kops MS, de Haas EN, Rodenbur TB, Ellen ED, Korte-Bouws GAH et al (2013) Efects of feather pecking phenotype (severe feather peckers, victims and non-peckers) on serotonergic and dopaminergic activity in four brain areas of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Physiol Behav 120:77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.07.007.
Lay DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjær JB et al (2011) Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult Sci 90:278-294. doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00962
Main DCJ, Mullan S, Atkinson C, Bond A, Cooper M et al. (2021) Welfare outcomes assessment in laying hen farm assurance schemes. Anim Welf 21:389-396. doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.389
Maurer V, Hertzberg H, Heckendorn F, Hördegen P, Koller M (2013) Effects of paddock management on vegetation, nutrient accumulation, and internal parasites in laying hens. J Appl Poult Res 22:334-343. doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00586
McCoy MA, Reilly GAC, Kilpatrick DJ (1996) Density and breaking strength of bones of mortalities among caged layers. Res Vet Sci 60:185–6. doi: 10.1016/s0034-5288(96)90017-x.
Mehlhorn H, Düwel D, Raether W (1993) Untersuchungsmethoden. In: Diagnose und Therapie der Parasitosen von Haus- Nutz- und Heimtieren. 2nd ed, Stuttgart Jena New York, Gustav Fischer Verlag: pp 1-21.
Nasr MAF, Murrell J, Wilkins LJ and Nicol CJ (2012) The effect of keel fractures on egg-production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individual laying hens. Anim Welf 21:127–135. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2013.767437.
Nicol CJ, Gregory NG, Knowles TG, Parkman ID, Wilkins LJ (1999) Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 65:137–152. doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00057-X
Norton RA, Ruff MD (2003) Nematodes and Acanthocephalans, In: Barnes HJ, Glissen JR, Fadly AM, McDougald LR, Swayne DE, Saif YM (Eds.). Diseases of poultry. 6th ed, Iowa Press, Ames, USA: pp 931–961.
Oliveira JL, Xin H, Chai L, Millman ST (2019) Effects of litter floor access and inclusion of experienced hens in aviary housing on floor eggs, litter condition, air quality, and hen welfare. Poult Sci 98(4):1664-1677. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey525.
Parmentier HK, Rodenburg TB, De Vries Reilingh G, Beerda B, Kemp B (2009) Does enhancement of specific immune responses predispose laying hens for feather pecking? Poult Sci 88: 536–542. doi: 10.3382/ps.2008-00424.
Permin A, Bisgaard M, Frandsen F, Pearman M, Kold J, Nansen P (1999) Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths in different poultry production systems. Br Poult Sci 40:439-443 doi: 10.1080/00071669987179.
Permin A, Christensen JP, Bisgaard M (2006) Consequences of concurrent A. galli and Escherichia coli infections in chickens. Acta Vet Scand 47:43–54. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-47-43.
Ramadan HH, Znada ANY (1991) Some pathological and biochemical studies on experimental ascaridiasis in chickens. Nahrung 35:71–84. doi: 10.1002/food.19910350120
Regulation on the conditions for animal welfare in terms of space for the animals, premises and equipment in production facilities, the method of keeping, breeding and transport of some animal species and categories, as well as the keeping of records about animals, (‘’Sl. glasnik RS’’, number 6/2010 and 57/2014).
Riedstra B, Groothuis TGG (2004) Prenatal light exposure aects early feather-pecking behaviour in the domestic chick. Anim Behav 67:1037–1042. doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.009
Robertson ID (2020) Disease control, prevention and on-farm biosecurity: The role of veterinary epidemiology. Engineering 6(1):20-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.10.004
Rodenberg TB, Tuyttens FAM, de Reu K, Herman L, Zoons J et al (2008) Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Anim Welf 17:363-373. ISSN 0962-7286
R¨ongen S, Scholz B, Hewicker-Trautwein M, Hamann H, Distl O (2008) Foot pad health in Lohmann Selected Leghorn and Lohmann Brown laying hens kept in different housing systems with modified pech design. Arch fur Geflugelkunde 72:97–105. ISSN 0003-9098
Sarica M, Boga S, Yamak US (2008) The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech J Anim Sci 2 53:345-353. doi: 10.17221/349-CJAS
Savory C (1995) Feather pecking and cannibalism. World's Poult Sci J 51(2):215–219. doi.org/10.1079/WPS19950016
Savory CJ, Hughes BO (2010) Behaviour and welfare. In: British Poultry Science. Taylor & Francis: pp 13-22.
Sherwin CM, Richards GJ and Nicol CJ (2010) A comparison of the welfare or layer hens in four housing systems in the UK. Br Poult Sci 51(4):488-99. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2010.502518
Shimmura T, Hirahara S, Azuma T, Suzuki T, Eguchi Y et al (2010) Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. Br Poult Sci 51:31–42. doi: 10.1080/00071660903421167
Singh M, Ruhnke I, de Koning C, Drake K, Skerman AG, Hinch GN, Glatz PC (2017) Demographics and practices of semi-intensive free-range farming systems in Australia with an outdoor stocking density of - 1500 hens/hectare. PLOS ONE 12:e018705 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187057.
Sossidou E, Dal Bosco A, Elson H, Fontes C (2011) Pasture-based systems for poultry production: Implications and perspectives. World's Poult Sci J 67(1):47-58. doi:10.1017/S0043933911000043
Sosnówka – Czajka E, Herbut E, Skomorucha I (2010) Effect of different housing systems on productivity and welfare of laying hens. Ann Anim Sci 10(4):349–360. ISSN: 1642-3402
Tauson R, Abrahamsson P (1996) Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens: effects of artificial perch material and hybrid. Acta Agric Scand Section A, Anim Sci 46:239-46. doi.org/10.1080/09064709609415876
Tauson R, Holm KE (2001) First furnished small group cages for laying hens in evaluation program on commercial farms in Sweden. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare; Zollikofen, Switzerland; Swiss Branch of the WPSA, Zollikofen, Switzerland: pp 26-32.
Thapa S, Hinrichsen LK, Brenninkmeyer C, Gunnarsson S, Heerkens JLT et al (2015) Prevalence and magnitude of helminth infections in organic laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) across Europe. Vet Parasitol 214:118–124. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.10.009.
Van Hierden YM, de Boer SF, Koolhaas JM, Korte SM (2004) The control of feather pecking by serotonin. Behav Neurosci 118:575–583. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.118.3.575.
Wang G, Ekstrand C, Svedberg J (1998) Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. Br Poult Sci 139:191–197. doi: 10.1080/00071669889114
Webster AB (2003) Physiology and behavior of the hen during induced molt. Poult Sci 82:992-1002. doi: 10.1093/ps/82.6.992
Welfare Quality. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens) (2009) Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lalystad, Netherlands
Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE, Heaven G, Howell H et al (2007) Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Vet Rec 161:119-128. doi: 10.1136/vr.161.4.119
Whitehead CC (2004) Overview of bone biology in the egg-laying hen. Poult Sci 83:193-199. doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.2.193
Widowski T, Classen H, Newberry R, Petrik M, Schwean-Lardner K et al (2013) Code of practice for the care and handling of pullets, layers and spent fowl: Poultry (layers). Review of scientific research on priority areas. nfacc.ca
Zepp M, Louton H, Erhard M, Schmidt P, Helmer F et al (2018) The influence of stocking density and enrichment on the occurrence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking behavior in laying hen chicks. J Vet Behav 24:9–18. doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.12.005
Zimmerman P, Brown S, Glen E, Lindberg C, Pope S et al (2005) The effects of stocking rate and modified management on the welfare of laying hens in non-cage systems. Anim Sci Pap Rep 23(1):181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.01.005