Acta Vet. Brno 2025, 94: 145-154

https://doi.org/10.2754/avb202594020145

The effect of different cage densities on selected stress and welfare indicators in brown and white laying hens

Ayşe Uysal1ID, Uğur Özentürk1ID, Ekrem Laçin1ID, Burak Batuhan Laçin2ID

1Ataturk University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Science, Erzurum, Türkiye
2Ataturk University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Physiology, Erzurum, Türkiye

Received April 16, 2025
Accepted July 8, 2025

This study investigated the impact of different cage densities (750 cm2/hen, 535 cm2/hen, and 375 cm2/hen) on stress and welfare indicators in brown (Hyline Brown, HB) and white (Isa Tinted, IT) laying hens. The research focused on evaluating feather, health, and body condition scores, along with the heterophil-to-lymphocyte (H/L) ratio, as indicators of stress and welfare. Our results revealed a significant effect of cage density on feather scores, with higher densities correlating with increased feather loss across all body regions (P < 0.01). Furthermore, elevated cage densities were associated with a higher incidence of injuries in the cloaca and foot regions, as well as poorer body condition scores (P < 0.01). Notably, the HB hybrid consistently exhibited superior welfare indicators compared to the IT hybrid, as evidenced by higher feather scores, and higher body condition scores. With the increase in cage density, an increase in the H/L ratio was observed, and accordingly, an increase in stress intensity was determined (P < 0.01). These findings underscore the complex relationship between cage density, genotype, stress, and welfare outcomes in laying hens, emphasizing the need for further research to elucidate these interactions and develop targeted strategies for improving laying hen welfare in commercial production systems.

Funding

Thank you to Ataturk University Food and Livestock Application and Research Center for providing animal material and experimental area. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

46 live references