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 Uysal1
, Uğur Özentürk1, Ekrem Laçin1, Burak Batuhan Laçin2
, Uğur Özentürk1, Ekrem Laçin1, Burak Batuhan Laçin2
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
References
1. V, Turner I, Bamber N, Ferdous J, Grassauer F, Doyon M, Pelletier N 2024: A systematic review of potential productivity, egg quality, and animal welfare implications of extended lay cycles in commercial laying hens in Canada. Poult Sci 103: 103-475
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103475>
2. MA, Hanlon C, Ziezold CJ, Schaus S, Bedecarrats GY 2023: Impact of growth trajectory on sexual maturation in layer chickens. Front Physiol 14: 1174238
<https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1174238>
3. PE, Nicol CJ, Weeks CA 2022: The effect of hard pecking enrichment during rear on feather cover, feather pecking behaviour and beak length in beak-trimmed and ıntact-beak laying hen pullets. Anim 12: 674
4. SK, Bhadauria P 2018: Behaviour and welfare concepts in laying hens and their association with housing systems. IJPS 53: 1-10
5. RM, Hassan F, Farag MR, Nasir TA, Ragni M, Mahgoub HAM, Alagawany M 2021: Thermal stress and high stocking densities in poultry farms: Potential effects and mitigation strategies. J Therm Biol 99: 102-944
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.102944>
6. A 2007: Plumage colour and feather pecking in laying hens, a chicken perspective? Brit Poult Sci 48: 253-263
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660701370483>
7. A, Hoes C, Koesters S, Froemke C, Bougeard S, Staack M, Bessei W, Manton A, Scholz B, Schrader L, Thobe P, Knierim U 2018: Analysis of the influences on plumage condition in laying hens: How suitable is a whole body plumage score as an outcome? Poult Sci 97: 358-367
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex321>
8. T, Denver S, Sandøe P 2019: How best to improve farm animal welfare? Four main approaches viewed from an economic perspective. Anim Welf 28: 95-106
<https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.095>
9. Clark P, Boardman W, Raidal S 2009: Atlas of clinical avian hematology. John Wiley & Sons
10. W, Dong XF, Tong JM, Zhang Q 2012: The probiotic Bacillus licheniformis ameliorates heat stress-induced impairment of egg production, gut morphology, and intestinal mucosal immunity in laying hens. Poult Sci 91: 575-582
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01293>
11. FS 2009: Enhancing versus suppressive effects of stress on immune function: Implications for immunoprotection and immunopathology. Neuroimmunomodulation 16: 300-317
<https://doi.org/10.1159/000216188>
12. Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (AHAW) 2023: Welfare of laying hens on farm. EFSA J 21: 77-89
13. MS 2016: Impact of cage stocking density on egg laying characteristics and related stress and immunity parameters of Japanese quails in subtropics. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 100: 893-901
<https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12404>
14. K, Sarıca M, Boz MA, Uçar A 2021a: Health welfare of laying hens reared in cage and non-cage systems. International Journal of Poultry-Ornamental Birds Science and Technology 2: 30-35
15. K, Sarıca M, Noubandiguim M, Dur M, Aslan R 2021b: Effect of light intensity and stocking density on the performance, egg quality, and feather condition of laying hens reared in a battery cage system over the first laying period. Trop Anim Health Prod 53: 320
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02765-5>
16. C, Iffland H, Preuß S, Bessei W, Drögemüller C, Bennewitz J, Tetens J 2020: Meta-analyses of genome wide association studies in lines of laying hens divergently selected for feather pecking using imputed sequence level genotypes. BMC Genetics 21: 114
<https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-020-00920-9>
17. ED, Nazligul A 2013: Cage position and density effect on some welfare criteria in Denizli chicken. Indian J Anim Res 83: 645-648
18. LB, Van Der Staay FJ, Goerlich-Jansson VC, Arndt SS 2020: Importance of basic research on the causes of feather pecking in relation to welfare. Anim 10: 213
19. B, Polster S, Sulejmanovic T, Pürrerb B, Guggenberger B, Hess M 2017: Assessment of health and welfare of Austrian laying hens at slaughter demonstrates influence of husbandry system and season. Brit Poult Sci 58: 209-215
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1280723>
20. WB, Siegel HS 1983: Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Dis 27: 972-979
<https://doi.org/10.2307/1590198>
21. KM, Tran KTN, Wilkinson SJ, Hemsworth PH, Thomson PC, Cronin GM 2015: The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poult Sci 94: 852-859
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev061>
22. S, Lin J, Jin Q, Ma X, Liu Z, Chen H, Ma J, Zhang H, Descovich K, Phillips CJC, Hartcher K, Wu Z 2022: The relationship between animal welfare and farm profitability in cage and free-range housing systems for laying hens in China. Anim 12: 2090
23. PH, Edwards LE 2020: Natural behaviours, their drivers and their implications for laying hen welfare. Anim Product Sci 61: 915-930
<https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19630>
24. SM, Farhangfar H, Nourmohammadi R 2018: Effects of a blend of essential oils and overcrowding stress on the growth performance, meat quality and heat shock protein gene expression of broilers. Brit Poult Sci 59: 92-99
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1390209>
25. AM, Riber AB 2015: Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult Sci 94: 1454-1469
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev123>
26. K, Rafiee S, Karimi M, Nadimi M, Paliwalet J 2024: The environmental impacts of commercial poultry production systems using life cycle assessment: A review. J World’s Poult Sci 80: 33-54
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2023.2250326>
27. S, Muangchum S, Yodprom S, Panyasake A 2018: Feather pecking of laying hens in different stocking density and type of cage. IJAS 9: 549-556
28. TL, Pendl H, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, Fröhlich EKF, Borell EV 2015: H/L ratio as a measurement of stress in laying hens – methodology and reliability. Brit Poult Sci 56: 157-163
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2015.1008993>
29. CJ, Bestman M, Gilani AM, De Haas EN, De Jong IC, Lambton S, Wagenaar JP, Weeks CA, Rodenburg TB 2013: The prevention and control of feather pecking: Application to commercial systems. J World’s Poult Sci 69: 775-788
<https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933913000809>
30. EE, Ünal N, Erdem E, Kocakaya A, Yaranoğlu B 2015: Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci 94: 559-564
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev009>
31. Özentürk U, Yıldız A 2020: Assessment of egg quality in native and foreign laying hybrids reared in different cage densities. Braz J Poult Sci 22
32. U, Yıldız A 2021: Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native andcommercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 45: 1052-1064
<https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2012-91>
33. U, Yıldız A, Genç M 2023: Assessment of the feather score and health score in laying hens reared at different cage densities. Ankara Univ Fac Vet Med 7: 1-8
34. P, Kadam MM, Bhanja SK, Kurkure NV, Bhaısare BD, Rokade JJ, Khose KK 2020: Welfare and performance of commercial laying hens in conventional California cages at different stocking densities. Indian J Anim Sci 90: 1300-1304
<https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v90i9.109494>
35. S, Esteves A, Oliveira I, Stilwell G 2020: Assessment of fear response and welfare indicators in laying hens from barn systems. Livest Sci 240: 104-150
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.104150>
36. A, Rauch E, Bergmann S, Kirchner A, Lenz A, Hammes A, Erhard M, Reese S, Louton H 2022: Risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in non-beak-trimmed pullets and laying hens on commercial farms. Appl Sci 12: 19
<https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199699>
37. MK, McDaniel CD, Kiess AS, Loar II RE, Adhikari P 2022: Effect of housing environment and hen strain on egg production and egg quality as well as cloacal and eggshell microbiology in laying hens. Poult Sci 101: 101-595
38. L, Newberry RC, Estevez I 2023: Environmental change or choice during early rearing improves behavioural adaptability in laying hen chicks. Sci Rep 13: 61-78
<https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33212-0>
39. Z, Dykiel M, Topczewska J, Krawczyk J, Augustyńska-Prejsnar A 2023: A comparison of the plumage condition of three egg-laying poultry genotypes housed in non-cage systems. Anim 13: 185
40. A, İpek A, Oğuz Z, Gunnarsson S, Riber AB 2021: Comparison of behavioral time budget and welfare indicators in two local laying hen genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a free-range system. Anim 12: 46
41. R, Kjaer J, Maria GA, Cepero R, Holm KE 2005: Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Anim Sci Pap Rep 23: 153-159
42. S, Şekeroğlu A, Duman M, Tainika B 2022: Effect of age, stocking density, genotype, and cage tier on feather score of layer pure lines. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 46: 115-123
43. G, Andrews D, Phung T 2021: Advances in genetic selection and breeder practice improve commercial layer hen welfare. Anim Prod Sci 61: 856-866
<https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20383>
44. Y, Guan H, Wang D, Ma R, Qi R, Li J, Liu W, Li Y, Zhan K 2023: Effects of cage stocking density on the production performance, serum biochemistry, immune level, and intestinal morphology of 2 laying hen breeds. JAPR 32: 100-375
45. SL, Robison CI, Tempelman RJ, Jones DR, Karcher DM 2019: Laying hen production and welfare in enriched colony cages at different stocking densities. Poult Sci 98: 3578-3586
<https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez107>
46. A, Kasperek K, Rozempolska-Rucińska I, Zieba G, Czech A 2020: Behaviour and stress in three breeds of laying hens kept in the same environment. S Afr J Anim Sci 50: 272-280
