XXIV

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

Welfare of layers in alternative floor

and cage systems in Europe
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Sweden

Summary

Introduction
Criticism against welfare in conventional cages
(CC) predominantly in North-western Europe has
eventually implied the ban of them during a period

The time schedule/arguments for the transition

to other systems than the CCs cages have varied
between countries. However, constraints in
performing essential behaviours, very restricted
areas and skeletal weaknesses have been main
arguments generally (e.g. Blokhuis et al., 2007; Lay
Jr et al., 2011).
An interesting example among others that
politicians were aware of the complexity of leaving
the CC:s, was the approach taken by the Swedish
Parliament in 1989 banning cages per se in 10 years
time. However, 4 conditionswere given the new
systems. Thus, these alternative systems must not
impair animal health or occupational safety (mainly
referring to air condition/ergonomics), increased
medication or the re-introduction of beak trimming
(banned in Sweden long before). The Swedish case
eventually ended by the introduction of not only
floor systems - but also furnished (enriched) cages
(FC:s) became allowed and introduced to about 3540% of the Swedish egg laying flock. Furthermore,
the transition was postponed until 2004, i.e. 5
years of exemption. I think this in practice describes
1.the main expected problems to focus on when
designing new systems and 2. the CCs during a long
period had shown not only welfare constraints but
also obvious benefits from an animal health point of
view but also from an environmental/operators well
being perspective.

Ragnar Tauson

he use of conventional cages (CCs) has

officially been banned in Europe since the
beginning of 2012. Not all countries have
been able to implement it fully while in
others the CCs were banned decades ago. Criticism
against the CCs has predominately been the limited
space, weak skeleton and the lack of possibilities
to perform important natural behaviours mainly
through lack of nests for egg laying, perches to
roost on and access to litter. However, the CCs
also implied benefits for birds due to good hygienic
conditions and bio security and low mortality.
For the producers a high predictability for good
production and feed efficiency and for the operators
a good air condition and no work with floor laid
eggs were very positive. The present paper describes
the development of a number of alternative
systems aimed at not only retain similar results as
CCs re the production characteristics mentioned
but at a general improvement in birds behaviour
and welfare in comparison to CCs. Considerable
effects of genotype, beak trimming or not, national
minimum withdrawal times of certain medication
and annual variation between batches of birds
are still present in certain floor systems especially.
Among recent developments in system designs it is
concluded that the furnished (enriched) cages (FCs)
in moderate group sizes together with the so called
RondeelTM will be interesting to follow when spread
around the world.

of about 30 years starting in a non EU country Switzerland - in 1981 and secondly in Sweden in
2004 and at this stage finally, to EU and Norway
in 2012 through the minimum welfare directives
(EU Council Directive 99/74). By far this is probably
the largest transition within a short time scale into
new housing systems in food producing animals in
modern times and it seems likely that this transition
will also take place in other continents like N.
America and later possibly Australia, New Zeeland
and S. America. It is estimated that even after 2012
the majority of layers in Europe will be housed in
cage systems although in different designs than the
CCs (Elson, 2012).

A number of comprehensive reports on the

welfare of layers in different housing systems have
Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

XXIV
been published recently (e.g. Pohle and Cheng,
2009; Sherwin et al., 2010; Shimmura et al.,
2010; Lay Jr et al., 2011; Elson, 2012; Rodenburg
et al., 2012 and Sandilands and Hocking, 2012).
The objective of the present paper is to briefly
describe the most common alternative housing
systems focusing on the developments in Europe
and some effects on birds welfare. Having said
this, it should be emphasized that there are a lot
of unpredictability and variation between results of
flocks in the same system as regards welfare traits
as well as production. Some intermediate systems
starting the process of alternative systems will also
be mentioned.

Ragnar Tauson

Conventional cages
Except in most European countries after 2011
the CCs still represents a vast majority of the worlds
number of layers. Here, birds in CCs are still kept
at different stocking densities and with different
hybrids of birds which affect the welfare especially
when it comes to space allowances and behavioural
restrictions (Nicol, 1987; Lagadic and Faure, 1987;
Dawkins and Hardie, 1989; Cooper and Albentosa,
2003). They are known for reliable results both from
a mortality and production point of view since more
than 50 years back. A stable and natural group
size as well as good hygienic conditions and a low
disease pressure as well as good air conditions
(eg. Kreienbrock et al., 2003; Fossum et al., 2009;
Sherwin et al., 2010; Lay Jr et al., 2011) often
characterizes CC:s. Drawbacks are behavioural
restrictions, little space and hence, weak skeleton
(Lay Jr et al., 2011). Due to lack of possibility to wear
down overgrown toe nails in CC:s the introduction
of a claw abrasive was introduced by Tauson (1986)
and later also put into the EU Council directive
99/74.
In cages foot condition problems may appear
mainly as toe pad hyperkeratosis on the claw folds of
the toes. This is different to litter floor systems with
perches where bumble foot syndrome often is seen.
This is mainly referred to effects from a sloping wire
net floor in the former system and inferior hygienic
condition and the presence of perches in the latter
systems (Abrahamsson and Tauson, 1995). Perch
design is also reported to have a big influence on
bumble foot incidence (Tauson and Abrahamsson,
1994).

Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

Intermediate systems
The idea of furnishing a cage or a cage-similar
system i.e. providing it with nests, perches (at
different levels) has gone through different stages
starting in the late 1970:s and at several different
institutes. Thus, the so called Get-Away system
(Elson, 1976) implying a maximum of up to 1 m3
for groups of 15-50 birds was studied at many
institutes (eg. Abrahamsson, et al., 1995). Mainly
due to hygienic conditions, cannibalism in non beak
trimmed birds and poor egg quality this system and
similar several tier models of GA was eventually given
up. Recently the so called Kleingruppenhaltung
developed in Germany - which to a high degree
resembled the old get Away Cage was eventually
also not accepted for more installations in this
country by the authorities (Kjaer, 2012 personal
communication).

Furnished cages
The change of putting perches especially in
cages that were not so high or at different levels in
the cage area (Tauson, 1984; Appleby et al., 1993;
Abrahamsson et al., 1995) turned out to eventually
eliminate some of the problems that the intermediate
systems showed (e.g. Moinard, et al., 1998) . Today
there is almost a jungle of different furnished
cage models. Being the by far youngest system it
is also estimated to have the biggest potential for
improvements (Pohle and Cheng, 2009; Sandilands
and Hocking, 2012). The first country to introduce
furnished cages in practice after compulsory testing
was Sweden most often with 8-10 birds per cage
using a modified and further developed original
model of the so called Edinburg Modified Cage
(Appleby et al., 1995; Tauson 2005). In Figs. 1 the
commercial model of this small group furnished
cage used in most Scandinavian countries especially,
is illustrated and in Fig. 2 larger models. Blokhuis et
al. (2007) eventually put the FC:s into categories of
group sizes FC-small (FCS) for up to 15 birds; FC
medium; 16-30 birds, FCM and FC large (FCL) with
> 30 birds per group.
In fact, group size is still an important issue
because of the potential risk of creating an instable
social behaviour implying pecking and cannibalism
in larger groups than in smaller (Hansen, 1976;
Newbury, 2004; Shimmura et al., 2010). In several
of the Scandinavian countries beak trimming
is banned since many years back and in some
other countries such proposals for banning in the
near future may well come true. Hence, in most

XXIV

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

from official commercial flocks of FC:s

in different group sizes in comparison
to some other systems. In general the
mortality in FC:s has been shown to be
less than in non-cage systems. Like in
all large group/flock keeping of layers
unpredictable outbreak/spreading of
feather pecking and /or cannibalism will
normally hit more birds compared to
small group keeping e.g. like in cages,
where birds are separated in smaller
groups like in furnished medium sized
cages.

Fig. 1 - Victorsson furnished 8-hen Comfort cage with 45 weeks

of age LSL layers illustrating wing stretching, perching and use of
litter and nest (photo I. Pamlnyi).

Ragnar Tauson

The FC is still a cage and hence,

does provide considerably less space
than floor keeping systems but much
more than a CC. Due to this fact and
of course, the presence of perches, the
bone strength has been shown to be
significantly greater in the FC than in CC
(e.g. Tauson and Abrahamsson, 1993;
Barnett et al., 1997; Leyendecker, 2003;
Jendral et al., 2008). The former of
course also provides a far more enriched
behavioural repertoire where especially
the use of the nest site and the perches
is very intensive as shown in a large
number of studies both in practice and
in research (Abrahamsson and Tauson,
1997; Appleby et al., 2002; Olsson and
Keeling, 2002; Tauson and Holm, 2002).
The long term use of the litter however,
(saw dust or feed) varies a lot between
individuals and genotypes (Wall et al.,
2008).

Several recent studies have claimed

that the FC:s have several welfare benefits
in comparison to other systems like the
Fig. 2 - Larger FC (Victorsson) for 40 birds with no rear partition CC:s and non-cage systems both from a
e.g. open to the opposite side (photo I. Pamlnyi).
physiological and mortality point of view
(e.g. Pohle and Cheng, 2009; Croxall and
countries the combination of well controlled light
Elson, 2007; Nicol et al., 2009; Sherwin
intensity and beak trimming are interventions
et al., 2010). Because it is still a new system future
which may be considered in larger FC:s (Barnett et
evaluation of some refinements in the FC designs
al., 2009; Elson and Tauson, 2011). Here the effect
are still to be carried out like the group size, location
of different genotypes more or less predisposed
of nests and illumination (Blokhuis et al., 2007;
to pecking and/or fear reaction behaviour is of
Elson, 2012). Pohle and Cheng (2009) suggested
crucial importance (e.g. Sandilands et al., 2007;
that FC:s may be a favorable alternative for housing
Sandilands, et al., 2009; Bolander, 2011). There
laying hens and already today a considerable part of
is also the possibility to separate birds by pop
the European layer flocks are kept in FC:s .
holes in the rear partition in larger groups in
order to provide low ranked birds to escape from
aggressive peckers into another part of the cage
(Wall et al., 2004). Figs. 3-4 illustrate mortality data
Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

XXIV

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

Fig. 3 - Average mortality in flocks of brown genotype layers. (Sandilands

and Hocking, 2012).

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

i.e. with ranges of pasture

outdoors. Benefits of this system
are the good overview for the
operator to see the birds, the
large area for movement and the
relatively low cheap investment
costs. Hygienic conditions of air
(dust and ammonia) and endo
parasites (worms) however, are
worse than in cages (Jansson
et al., 2010). In comparison
to cages and partly also
aviary systems, unpredictable
appearance of smothering at
sudden fear reactions in single
tier systems due to large open
areas may cause considerable
mortality (Hegelund, 2006)
which is different to both in
aviaries and FC:s.

Ragnar Tauson

Multi -tiered or
aviary systems
The aviary systems started
to develop in GB and in
Switzerland during the 1980:s.
Due to the early ban of cages
in the latter country they soon
become very popular and
especially in the Northwest
of Europe they comprise a
considerable part of the housed
layer flocks. Today there are a
vast number of models. They
Fig. 4 - Average total accumulated mortality including (higher graph) and
all have in common that they
excluding (lower graph) non-system related virus infections (leucosis and
provide a considerably higher
Marek) in the testing program with 4 models of furnished small group
stocking density calculated on
sized furnished cages (8 birds) from 53 flocks, 32 houses and 435,000
building ground because they
non beak trimmed layers in Sweden 1998-2003. From 16-76 weeks of
use several tiers of platforms
age in 4 week periods. (Tauson and Holm, 2005).
where birds can spread (Figs.
6-7). One benefit of these
systems are that birds are able
to use the 3-dimentional movement of birds which
in turn mean that they can spread and hide easier
from dominant birds. This implies that you use the
The earliest system of keeping laying hens
building more efficiently since you house more birds
more intensive was probably the single tier floor
per m2 ground area. To be able for newly housed
system. Here 1/3 of the floor space consists of litter
pullets to find feed and water quickly it is essential
and the rest of raised slats with a manure storage
that the rearing is also at different levels, i.e. with
under today normally with a scraper (Fig. 5).
raised platforms and perches. Like in single tier
Although multitier systems is getting more and
systems the movement and exercise of birds in such
more common, still this system is relatively common
systems increase bone strength in comparison to
especially in combination with free range keeping,
especially CC:s (Barnett et al., 2009). However, due

Traditional single tiered

litter floor systems

Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

XXIV

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

As in most floor systems

including out-door keeping, the
daily contact with litter/manure
increases the risk for intestinal
worms and bacterial infections to
appear as shown by e.g. Permin
et al. (1999) (Kreienbrock et al.,
2003), Mazaheri et al (2005),
Fossum et al. (2009) and Jansson
et al. (2010).

Free range

Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

Ragnar Tauson

Outdoor systems are probably

the system that provide the
greatest space (when birds are
Fig. 5 - Traditional single tier litter floor system (photo K.-E. Holm).
outside on pasture) together
with a very wide behavioural
repertoire. However, mostly
used in the organic production
birds in free range systems are
fed a ration where there are
a number of restrictions for
the feed to be used. The most
critical feed ingredient not to
be used is artificial amino acids
and for layers the sulphur amino
acids and methionine and lysine
especially. Due to the fact that
poultry have a special need for
those because of their feather
cover, this restriction can be a
problem in several ways. Due
to this does the crude protein
level through other not easily
found
organically
accepted
Fig. 6 - Top level (3) of a multi-tier aviary system (H. Elson, 2012).
alternative feed ingredients have
to be unnecessary high in order
to compensate for the non use
of concentrated amino acids.
This leads to increased levels
of N-leakage in the manure
which to a considerable part is
dropped outside on the ground.
Most birds make priorities for
production instead of health
traits like plumage condition
as shown by a range of studies
Fig. 7 - Drawing of portal RED-L aviary system ( Red LTM).
on organic feeding trials by e.g.
Elwinger et al. (2008) showing
to mainly collisions between birds and equipment
that feather cover may often be impaired in organic
when jumping/flying around in the system, still a
production. Other facts with this production are
higher frequency of old skeletal bone fractures can
that hygienic conditions and bio security are more
be seen (Nichol et al., 2009).
difficult to remain at high levels which is mentioned
earlier. Additional risks of mortality in such flocks

XXIV
due to predatory animals outside may also be a
threat (Hegelund et al., 2005; Hegelund et al.,
2006). Despite these drawbacks some consumers
who in many cases probably are often unaware of
these facts, are willing to pay a premium for these
eggs (Elson, 2012).

Ragnar Tauson

The complexity of describing the free range

systems was well described by Shimmura et al. (2010)
where they compared a range of keeping systems.
They found that birds in the free range system had

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

lower freedom for pain, injury and disease but the

freedom to express normal behaviour was high.
Interestingly the immune response was comparable
to the small furnished cages.

Recent systems for loose

housed birds
Van Niekerk and Reuvekamp (2011) described
a new concept of keeping
layers in a more protected and
thus safer surrounding than
in free range systems the
RondeelTM. A main feature
of this round system (Fig. 8) is
that it allows birds to range in
airy conditions inside and also
to a limited extent in safer
protected conditions outside
without hazards like predators
(Elson, 2012). Van Niekerk
and Reuvekamp stated that
the first commercial flock
of birds in the RondeelTM
system was reported to show
encouraging results but that it
was too early to draw general
conclusions.

Conclusions

Fig. 8 top - Plan of the RondeelTM system. A main feature of this round system
is that it allows birds to range in airy conditions inside and also to a limited
extent in safer protected conditions outside without hazards like predators.
Below birds in their ranging protected area with artificial grass (Astro turf)
(T.van Niekerk).

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

It is obvious that each

housing system has its
advantages and drawbacks.
This is still today the case
as stated in a number of
studies both in practice
and in research. Hence, it
seems up to the consumer
to get informed about the
character of each concept of
keeping systems and make
a choice (Thompson et al.,
2011). In this paper I have
tried to describe some recent
facts on the state of the art
of some housing systems
studied and/or used today
mainly in Europe. As stated
by Lay et al. (2011) selective
breeding for desired traits
e.g. decreasing cannibalism
and feather pecking will

XXIV

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

be very welcomed in the near future as well as

optimal rearing conditions (Rodenburg, et al., 2012)
especially in larger group systems and where beak
trimming is not allowed or will not be in the future.
Perhaps among the most interesting developments
to follow would be the RondeelTM floor system and
the moderate group sized FC:s.

References
ABRAHAMSSON, P., TAUSON, R. and APPLEBY, M.C.
(1995) Performance of four hybrids of laying hens in
modified and conventional cages. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 45:286-296.
ABRAHAMSSON, P. and TAUSON, R. (1995) Aviary systems
and conventional cages for laying hens: effects on
production, egg quality, health and bird location in
three hybrids. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section
A - Animal Science 45:191-203.
APPLEBY, M.C., SMITH, S.F. and HUGHES, B.O. (1993)
Nesting, dust bathing and perching by laying hens
in cages: effects of design on behaviour and welfare.
British Poultry Science 34:835-847.
APPLEBY, M.C. and HUGHES, B.O. (1995) The Edinburgh
Modified for laying hens. British Poultry Science
36:707-718.

BARNETT, J.L., CRONIN, G.M., TAUSON, R., DOWNING,

J.A., JANHARDA, V., LOWENTAL, J.W. and BUTLER,
K.L. (2009) 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. Poultry
Science 88:456-470.
BOLANDER, C. (2011) Effects of group size and genotype
in furnished cages on plumagecondition, H:L and TI.
Master Thesis, In press.
BLOKHUIS, H.J., FIKS, T., BESSEI, W., ELSON, H.A.,
GUMEN, D., KJAER, J., LEVRINO, G., NICOL, C.,
TAUSON, R., WEEKS, C. and VAN DE WEERD, H.
(2007) The LayWel project: welfare implications
of changes in production systems for laying hens.
Worlds Poultry Science Journal 63:101-114.
COOPER, J.J. and ALBENTOSA, M.J. (2003) Behavioural
priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology
Reviews 14:127-149.
CROXALL, R. and ELSON, A. (2007) Comparative welfare
of laying hens i a wide range of egg production
systems assessed by criteria in Swedish animal welfare
standards. British Poultry Abstracts 3:15-16.
DAWKINS, M.S. and HARDIE, S. (1989) Space needs for
laying hens. British Poultry Science 30:413-416.
ELSON, H.A. (1976) New ideas on laying cage design-the
Get-Away cage. Proceedings, 5th European Poultry
Conference, Malta, pp.1030-1041.

ELSON, H.A. and TAUSON, R. (2012) Furnished cages for

laying hens, in: SANDILANDS, V. & HOCKING, P. (Eds)
Alternative Systems for Poultry: Health, Welfare and
Productivity - Poultry Science Symposium Series, Vol.
30 (Wallingford, CABI, In press.)
ELWINGER, K., TUFVESSON, M., LAGERKVIST, G. and
TAUSON, R. (2008) Feeding layers of different
genotypes in organic feed environments. British
Poultry Science 49:654-665
EU CD 99/74. (1999) Laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the
European Communities L 203:53-57.
FOSSUM, O., JANSSON, D.S., ETTERLINE, P.E. and
VGSHOLM, I. (2009) Cause of mortality in laying hens
in different systems in 20012004. Acta Veterinaria
Scandinavica 51:3.
HANSEN, R.S. (1976) Nervousness and hysteria of mature
female chickens. Poultry Science 55:531-543.
HEGELUND, L., SORENSEN, J.T., KJAER, J.B. and
KRISTENSEN, I.S. (2005) Use of the range area in
organic egg production systems: Effect of climatic
factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. British
Poultry Science 46:1-8.
HEGELUND, L., SORENSEN, J.T. and HERMANSEN, J.E.
(2006) Welfare and productivity of laying hens
in commercial organic egg production systems in
Denmark. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science.
54: 147-155.
JANSSON, D., NYMAN, A. , VGSHOLM, I.,
CHRISTENSSON, D., GRANSSON, M., FOSSUM,
O. and HGLUND, J. (2010) Ascarid infections in
laying hens kept in different housing systems. Avian
Pathology 39:525-532.

Ragnar Tauson

APPLEBY, M.C., WALKER, A.W., NICHOL, 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.

ELSON, H.A. (2012) Beyond 2012: the future of egg

production systems. World Poultry. In press.

KJAER, J.B. (2012) Personal communication. http://

www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Standardartikel/
Landwirtschaft/Tier/Tierhaltung/Legehennenhaltung.
html and http://www.profil.niedersachsen.de/portal/
live.php?navigation_id=1810&article_id=103467&_
psmand=7
KREIENBROCK, L., SCHNEIDER, B., SCHAL, J.
and GLASER, S. (2003) EpilegOrienterende
epidemiologische Untersuchung zum Leistungsniveau
und Gesundheitsstatus in Legehennenhaltungen
verscheidener Haltungssysteme. Zwischenbericht:
Deskriptive Auswertung. 1. Institue fur Biometrie,
Epidemiologie und Informationsverarbeitung (IBEI),
Hannover, Germany.
LAGADIC, H. and FAURE, J.M. (1987) Preference of
domestic hens for cage size and floor types as
measured by operant conditioning. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 19:147-155.
LAY Jr, D.C., FULTON, R.M., HESTER, P.Y., KARCHER,
D.M., KJAER, J.B., MENCH, J.A., MULLENS, B.A.,
NEWBERRY, R.C., NICOL, C.J., OSULLIVAN, N.P. and
PORTER, R.E. (2011) Hen welfare in different housing
systems. Poultry Science 90:278-294.
MAZAHERI, A., LIERZ, M. and HAFEZ, H.M. (2005)
Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

XXIV
Investigation on the pathogenocity of Erysipelotrix
rhusiopathiae in laying hens. Avian Diseases 49:574576.

L., MIELE, M., NORWOOD, B.F. and PAJOR. E.

(2011) Values and public acceptability dimensions of
sustainable egg production. Poultry Science 90:20972109.
TAUSON, R. (1984) Effects of a perch in conventional
cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica
34:193-209.

NEWBERY, R. (2004) Cannibalism, in: PERRY, G.C. (Eds)

Welfare of the laying Hen. pp. 239-258 (Wallingford,
CABI Publishing).

TAUSON, R. (1986) Avoiding excessive growth of claws

in caged laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica
36:95-106.

NICHOL, C.J. (1987) Behavioural responses of laying

hens following a period of spatial restrictions. Animal
Behaviour 35:1709-1719.

TAUSON, R. and ABRAHAMSSON, P. (1994) Foot and

skeletal disorders in laying hens:Effects of perch
design, hybrid, housing system and stocking density.
Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal
Science 44:110-119.

NIEKERK, T.H. VAN and REUVEKAMP, B. (2011) The

RondeelTM a new housing system for laying hens.
Lohmann Information 46:25-31.
OLSSON, I.A.S. and KEELING, L.J. (2002) The push-door
for measuring motivations in hens: Laying hens are
motivated to perch at night. Animal Welfare 11:1119.

Ragnar Tauson

August - 2012 Salvador - Bahia - Brazil

MOINARD, C., MORISSE, J.P. and FAURE, J.M. (1998)

Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on
feather condition, bone brekage and mortality of
laying hens. British Poultry Science 39:198-202.

NICHOL, C.J., BROWN, S.N., HASLAM, S.M., HOTHERSALL,

B., MELOTTI, L., RICHARDS, G.J. and SHERWIN, C.M.
(2009) The Welfare of Laying Hens in four different
housing systems in the UK. Worlds Poultry Science
Journal. Book of Abstracts of VIII European Symposium
on Poultry Welfare, Cervia, pp. 12.

PERMIN, A., BISGAARD, M., FRANDSEN, F., PEARMAN,

M., KOLD, J. and NANSEN, P. (1999) Prevalence of
gastrointenstinal helminithes in different poultry
production systems. British Poultry Science 40:439443.
POHLE, K. and CHENG, H.W. (2009) Comparative
effects of furnished cages and battery cages on egg
production and physiological parameters in White
Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 88:2042-2051.
RODENBURG, T.B., DE REU, K. and TUYTTENS, F.A.M.
(2012) Performance, welfare, health and hygiene of
laying hens in non-cage systems in comparison with
cage systems, in: SANDILANDS, V. and HOCKING, P.
(Eds) (2012) Alternative Systems for Poultry: Health,
Welfare and Productivity. Poultry Science Symposium
Series, Vol. 30, pp. 320 (Wallingford, CABI, In press).
SANDILANDS, V., BAKER, L. and BROCKLEHURST, S.
(2009) The reaction of brown and white strains of
hens to enriched cages. British Poultry Abstracts 5:3132.
SANDILANDS, V., MCDEVITT, R.M. and SPARKS, N.H.C.
(2007) Effect of enriched cage design and colony size
on production, health and welfare in two strains of
laying hens. British Poultry Abstracts 3:16-17.
SHERWIN, C.M., RICHARDS, G.J. and NICHOL, C.J. (2010)
A comparison of the welfare for layer hens in four
housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science
51:488-489.
SHIMMURA, T., HIRAHARA, S., AZUMA, T., SUZUKI, T.,
EGUCHI, Y., UETAKE, K. and TANAKA, T. (2010) Multifactorial investigation of various housing systems for
laying hens. British Poultry Science 51:31-42.
THOMPSON, P.B., APPLEBY, M.C., BUSCH, L., KALOF,

Worlds Poultry Congress 5 - 9

Area: Commercial Egg Productions and Processing August 07

TAUSON, R. (2005) Management and housing systems for

layers effects on welfare and production. Worlds
Poultry Science Journal 61:477-490.
TAUSON, R. and HOLM. K.E. (2005) Mortality, production
and use of facilities in furnished cages for layers in
commercial egg production in Sweden from 19982003. Animal Science Papers and Reports. 23
Supplement 1: 95-102
WALL, H., TAUSON, R. and ELWINGER, K. (2004) Pophole
passages and welfare in furnished cages for laying
hens. British Poultry Science 45:20-27.
WALL, H., TAUSON, R., and ELWINGER, K. (2008) Effects
of litter substrate and genotype on layers use of litter,
exterior appearance, and heterophil:lymphocyte ratios
in furnished cages. Poultry Science 87:2458-2465.