Literature DB >> 20924842

Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK.

C M Sherwin1, G J Richards, C J Nicol.   

Abstract

1. The welfare of hens in 26 flocks (6 conventional cage, 6 furnished cage, 7 barn, 7 free-range) was assessed throughout the laying period using a combination of data on physical health, physiology and injurious pecking, collected by researchers on farm and during post-mortem analysis, and information submitted by producers. 2. There was an effect of housing system on 5 of the indicators recorded by researchers: gentle feather pecks given, feather damage score, proportion of hens with feather damage, proportion of the flock using perches, and faecal corticosterone. 3. Post-mortem analysis revealed several differences between housing systems in skin damage, plumage damage to the vent and abdomen, keel protrusion, bodyweight, and the proportion of hens that were vent pecked and that had old and recent keel fractures. 4. There was an effect of housing system on 5 indicators recorded by producers: proportion of egg shells with calcification spots, proportion of egg shells with blood stains, weight of hens found dead, temporal change in the proportion of egg shells with stains, and temporal change in proportion of hens found dead. 5. Each housing system had positive and negative aspects but overall, hens in barn systems had the highest prevalence of poor plumage condition, old fractures, emaciation, abnormal egg calcification, and the highest corticosterone. Hens in conventional cages sustained more fractures at depopulation than birds in other systems. Vent pecking was most prevalent in free-range flocks. The lowest prevalence of problems occurred in hens in furnished cages. 6. Although housing system had an influence on the hens' physical condition and physiological state, the high prevalence of emaciation, loss of plumage, fractures and evidence of stress is of concern across all housing systems, and suggests that the welfare of modern genotypes is poor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20924842     DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2010.502518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Poult Sci        ISSN: 0007-1668            Impact factor:   2.095


  27 in total

1.  The happy hen on your supermarket shelf: what choice does industrial strength free-range represent for consumers?

Authors:  Christine Parker; Carly Brunswick; Jane Kotey
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Wing-feather loss in white-feathered laying hens decreases pectoralis thickness but does not increase risk of keel bone fracture.

Authors:  Renée Garant; Bret W Tobalske; Neila Ben Sassi; Nienke van Staaveren; Tina Widowski; Donald R Powers; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.653

3.  Health and Welfare in Dutch Organic Laying Hens.

Authors:  Monique Bestman; Jan-Paul Wagenaar
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2014-06-20       Impact factor: 2.752

4.  Assessment of Plumage and Integument Condition in Dual-Purpose Breeds and Conventional Layers.

Authors:  Mona Franziska Giersberg; Birgit Spindler; Nicole Kemper
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Comparison of Performance, Egg Quality, and Yolk Fatty Acid Profile in Two Turkish Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System.

Authors:  Arda Sözcü; Aydın İpek; Züleyha Oguz; Stefan Gunnarsson; Anja B Riber
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.752

Review 6.  A Sustainability Compass for policy navigation to sustainable food systems.

Authors:  Aniek Hebinck; Monika Zurek; Thom Achterbosch; Björn Forkman; Anneleen Kuijsten; Marijke Kuiper; Birgit Nørrung; Pieter van 't Veer; Adrian Leip
Journal:  Glob Food Sec       Date:  2021-06

7.  Does rearing laying hens in aviaries adversely affect long-term welfare following transfer to furnished cages?

Authors:  Fernanda M Tahamtani; Tone Beate Hansen; Rachel Orritt; Christine Nicol; Randi O Moe; Andrew M Janczak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Implications for Welfare, Productivity and Sustainability of the Variation in Reported Levels of Mortality for Laying Hen Flocks Kept in Different Housing Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Ten Studies.

Authors:  Claire A Weeks; Sarah L Lambton; Adrian G Williams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Radiographic examination of keel bone damage in living laying hens of different strains kept in two housing systems.

Authors:  Beryl Katharina Eusemann; Ulrich Baulain; Lars Schrader; Christa Thöne-Reineke; Antonia Patt; Stefanie Petow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A Description of Laying Hen Husbandry and Management Practices in Canada.

Authors:  Nienke van Staaveren; Caitlin Decina; Christine F Baes; Tina M Widowski; Olaf Berke; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.