Improving utilization of nests and decreasing mislaid eggs with narrow width of group nests

Hongya Zheng, Baoming Li, Gang Chen, Chaoyuan Wang

Abstract


Provision of nest boxes is necessary for laying hens, especially in non-cage systems. This study investigated the effects of nest width on nest utilization and mislaid eggs. Hy-Line Browns hens were transferred from conventional cages to perchery pens at 12 weeks of age. Two experiments were conducted to mutually verify the hypothesis that narrowing group nests would improve nest utilization and reduce mislaid eggs. In experiment 1, group nests of 150 cm wide in two pens were partitioned at intervals of 50 cm and 37 cm, respectively. In experiment 2, partition panels were removed after acclimation. The number of mislaid eggs and nest eggs in each pre-set section were compared. Results indicated that narrowing group nests had positive effects on improving usage uniformity and efficiency of group nests. Nest eggs were more evenly distributed on the egg belt in both narrowed group nests, which was indicated by the significant decrease of variance among different sections. The proportion of mislaid eggs decreased by 3.5% in 37 cm treatment and 4.7% in 50 cm treatment, respectively. As expected, reuse of the 150 cm group nests after removal of partition panels lowered the usage uniformity of group nests. A growth of three percentage points was found for the proportion of mislaid eggs after removing the partition panels in 50 cm treatment. The present results indicated that it is the width of the nest box that works for a better use of group nests. In conclusion, adding partition panels at intervals of 50 cm and 37 cm in group nests both are effective on nest usage and decreasing the occurrence of mislaid eggs.
Keywords: group nest, nest width, utilization, mislaid eggs, hen house, non-cage system, bird welfare
DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181101.3167

Citation: Zheng H Y, Li B M, Chen G, Wang C Y. Improving utilization of nests and decreasing mislaid eggs with narrow width of group nests. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2018; 11(1): 83–87.

Keywords


group nest, nest width, utilization, mislaid eggs, hen house, non-cage system, bird welfare

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baxter M R. The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Vet Rec, 1994; 134: 614–619.

Cooper J J, Appleby M C. Demand for nest boxes in laying hens. Behav Processes, 1996; 36(2): 171–182.

KeeIing L J. Nesting, perching and dustbathing. In: Perry G C (Ed.), editor. Welfare of the laying hen. Oxfordshire: CABI. 2004; pp. 203–213.

Barnett J L, Tauson R, Downing J A, Janardhana V, Lowenthal J W, Butler K L, et al. The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of laying hens. Poult Sci, 2009; 88(3): 456–470.

Cooper J J, Appleby M C. Nesting behaviour of hens: effects of experience on motivation. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1995; 42(4): 283–295.

Kruschwitz A, Zupan M, Buchwalder T, Huber-Eicher B. Nest preference of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) and their motivation to exert themselves to gain nest access. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2008; 112(3-4): 321–330.

Directive E U. Council directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, 1999; (L 203): 53–57.

Ringgenberg N, Fröhlich E K F, Harlander-Matauschek A, Würbel H, Roth B A. Does nest size matter to laying hens? Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2014; 155: 66–73.

Riber A B, Nielsen B L. Changes in position and quality of preferred nest box: Effects on nest box use by laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2013; 148(3-4): 185–191.

Lundberg A, Keeling L J. The impact of social factors on nesting in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1999; 64(1): 57–69.

Clausen T, Riber A B. Effect of heterogeneity of nest boxes on occurrence of gregarious nesting in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2012; 142(3-4): 168–175.

Lentfer T L, Gebhardt-Henrich S G, Fröhlich E K F, von Borell E. Nest use is influenced by the positions of nests and drinkers in aviaries. Poult Sci, 2013; 92(6): 1433–1442.

Riber A B. Development with age of nest box use and gregarious nesting in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2010; 123(1–2): 24–31.

Riber A B. Nest sharing under semi-natural conditions in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2012; 136(1): 44–49.

Appleby M C, Smith S F. Design of nest boxes for laying cages. Br Poult Sci, 1991; 32(4): 667–678.

Meijsser F M, Hughes B O. Comparative analysis of pre-laying behaviour in battery cages and in three alternative systems. Br Poult Sci, 1989; 30: 747–760.

Gunnarsson S, Keeling L J, Svedberg J. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 1999; 40(1): 12–18.

Appleby M C. Factors affecting floor laying by domestic hens: A review. Worlds Poult Sci J, 1984; 40(03): 241–249.

Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Performance and egg quality of laying hens in an aviary system. J Appl Poult Res, 1998; 7(3): 225–232.

Hodgetts B. Dealing with dirty hatching eggs. MAFF information for flock farms and hatcheries: Hatch handout, 1981; No. 17.

Kirk S, Emmans G C, McDonald R, Arnot D. Factors affecting the hatchability of eggs from broiler breeders. Br Poult Sci, 1980; 21(1): 37–53.

Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens: Effects on production, egg quality, health and bird location in three hybrids. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A-Animal Sciences, 1995; 45(3): 191–203.

Struelens E, Tuyttens F, Janssen A, Leroy T, Audoorn L, Vranken E, et al. Design of laying nests in furnished cages: influence of nesting material, nest box position and seclusion. Br Poult Sci, 2005; 46(1): 9–15.

Struelens E, van Nuffel A, Tuyttens F, Audoorn L, Vranken E, Zoons J, et al. Influence of nest seclusion and nesting material on pre-laying behaviour of laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2008; 112(1-2):

–119.

Stämpfli K, Buchwalder T, Fröhlich E K F, Roth B A. Influence of front curtain design on nest choice by laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 2012; 53(5): 553–560.

Stämpfli K, Roth B A, Buchwalder T, Fröhlich E K F. Influence of nest-floor slope on the nest choice of laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2011; 135(4): 286–292.

Buchwalder T, Fröhlich E K F. Assessment of colony nests for laying hens in conjunction with the authorization procedure. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 2011; 134(1-2): 64–71.

Appleby M C, McRae H E, Duncan I J H, Bisazza A. Choice of social conditions by laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 1984; 25(1): 111–117.

Pagel M, Dawkins M S. Peck orders and group size in laying hens: 'futures contracts’ for non-aggression. Behav Processes, 1997; 40(1):13–25.

Nicol C J, Gregory N G, Knowles T G, Parkman I D, Wilkins L J. Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather pecking and aggression in laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci, 1999; 65(2): 137–152.

Appleby M C, Hogarth G S, Hughes B O. Nest box design and nesting material in a deep litter house for laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 1988; 29(3): 215–222.

Cronin G M, Barnett J L, Hemsworth P H. The importance of pre-laying behaviour and nest boxes for laying hen welfare: A review. Anim Prod Sci, 2012; 52(6-7): 398–405.

McBride G, Foenander F. Territorial behaviour in flocks of domestic fowls. Nature, 1962; 194: 102.

Lee Y P, Craig J V, Dayton A D. The social rank index as a measure of social status and its association with egg production in White Leghorn pullets. Applied Animal Ethology, 1982; 8(4): 377–390.

Carey J B, Kuo F L, Anderson K E. Effects of cage population on the productive performance of layers. Poult Sci, 1995; 74(4): 633–637.

Sefton A E, Crober D C. Social and physical environmental influences on caged Single Comb White Leghorn layers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 1976; 56(4): 733–738.




Copyright (c)



2023-2026 Copyright IJABE Editing and Publishing Office