Assessment of the Welfare Quality of Commercial Laying Hens Kept in Conventional Cage and Deep Litter Systems at Different Ages

Date Received: May 19, 2025

Date Accepted: Aug 25, 2025

Date Published: Sep 30, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2025.8.3.02

Views

13

Download

4

Issue: Vol. 8 No. 3 (2025): Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Section:

ANIMAL SCIENCE – VETERINARY MEDICINE – AQUACULTURE

How to Cite:

Hanh, H., & Nhung, D. (2025). Assessment of the Welfare Quality of Commercial Laying Hens Kept in Conventional Cage and Deep Litter Systems at Different Ages. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(3), 2605–2613. https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2025.8.3.02

Assessment of the Welfare Quality of Commercial Laying Hens Kept in Conventional Cage and Deep Litter Systems at Different Ages

Han Quang Hanh (*) 1   , Dang Thuy Nhung 1

  • Corresponding author: [email protected]
  • 1 Faculty of Animal Sciences, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi 12400, Vietnam

    • Keywords

    Battery cages, hen welfare, non-cage systems, laying hens

    Abstract


    The effects of conventional cage and cage-free systems on the welfare quality of laying hens have been assessed recently, but with conflicting results. This study aimed to identify the welfare issues of laying hens when kept in a battery cage or deep litter system. In the cage system, white hybrid hens were kept in three cage lines, with three hens per cage and two tiers per line. In the deep litter system, hens were equally allocated to three compartments of a barn. A total of 450 hens were randomly chosen from different locations of barn and cages for scoring by one assessor at 5% of laying, peak period, and end of laying with several main health and social behavior parameters according to Welfare Quality (2009). The logistic analysis was applied using a proportional odds model to compare the prevalence of each welfare measure between the two housing systems at 5% significance level using R software. Hens in the conventional cages had worse plumage conditions and keel bone deformations than those in the deep litter system, especially at the end of laying (P < 0.05). In the deep litter system, hens showed a higher prevalence of foot pad dermatitis (46.0% hens scored 1 in the deep litter system compared with 11.33% in cages) and a higher avoidance distance test at the different ages (P <0.05) than those in the battery cages. The deep litter system showed more benefits for hen welfare than the battery cages except for foot pad dermatitis.

    References

    Bilcik B. & Keeling L. J. (1999). Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in laying hens. British Poultry Science. 40(4): 444-451.

    Blatchford R. A., Fulton R. M. & Mench J. A. (2016). The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poultry Science. 95(1): 154-163.

    Daigle C. & Siegford J. (2014). Welfare Quality® parameters do not always reflect hen behaviour across the lay cycle in non-cage laying hens. Animal Welfare. 23(4): 423-434.

    Dikmen B. Y., Ipek A., Şahan Ü., Petek M. & Sözcü A. (2016). Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Science. 95(7): 1564-1572.

    Donaldson C. J., Ball M. E. & O'Connell N. E. (2012). Aerial perches and free-range laying hens: the effect of access to aerial perches and of individual bird parameters on keel bone injuries in commercial free-range laying hens. Poultry Science. 91(2): 304-315.

    Eurogroup for Animals (2022). Animal welfare in the implementation of the EU-Vietnam FTA. Brief report, December 2022. Eurogroup for Animals, Brussels, Belgium.

    Gautron J., Réhault-Godbert S., Van de Braak T. & Dunn I. (2021). What are the challenges facing the table egg industry in the next decades and what can be done to address them? Animal. 15: 100282.

    Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Pfulg A., Fröhlich E. K. F., Käppeli S., Guggisberg D., Liesegang A. & Stoffel M. H. (2017). Limited Associations between Keel Bone Damage and Bone Properties Measured with Computer Tomography, Three-Point Bending Test, and Analysis of Minerals in Swiss Laying Hens. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 4: 128.

    General Statistics Office (2024). Statiscal Yearbook 2024. Retrieved from https://www.nso.gov.vn/du-lieu-va-so-lieu-thong-ke/2025/06/nien-giam-thong-ke-2024/ on May 24, 2025 (in Vietnamese).

    Gernand E., Ahlers C., Huchler M. & Donat K. (2022). Plumage damage and back skin lesions in laying hens with untrimmed beak depend on rearing of pullets and genetics. British Poultry Science. 63(3): 274-282.

    Graml C., Niebuhr K. & Waiblinger S. (2008). Reaction of laying hens to humans in the home or a novel environment. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 113(1): 98-109.

    Habig C., Henning M., Baulain U., Jansen S., Scholz A. M. & Weigend S. (2021). Keel Bone Damage in Laying Hens-Its Relation to Bone Mineral Density, Body Growth Rate and Laying Performance. Animals (Basel). 11(6): 1546. DOI: 10.3390/ani11061546.

    Hanh H. Q., Phuong N. T., Tien N. D., Nhung D. T., Lebailly P. & Ton V. D. (2021). Effects of Stocking Density in Group Cages on Egg Production, Profitability, and Aggressive Pecking of Hens. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 26(3): 374–385. 10.1080/10888705.2021.1983723.

    Hughes B. O. & Black A. J. (1976). Battery cage shape: Its effect on diurnal feeding pattern, egg shell cracking and feather pecking. British Poultry Science. 17(3): 327-336.

    Humane Farm Animal Care (2025). Certified Companies in Asia. Retrieved from https://certifiedhumaneasia.org/certified-companies-in-asia/ on August 9, 2025.

    Jeon H., Shin H., Lee J., Kim J., Biswas S., Lee J. & Yun J. (2025). Welfare characteristics of laying hens in aviary and cage systems. Poultry Science. 104(5): 104987.

    Lay Jr D., Fulton R., Hester P., Karcher D., Kjaer J., Mench J. A., Mullens B., Newberry R. C., Nicol C. J. & O’Sullivan N. P. (2011). Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry science. 90(1): 278-294.

    Mench J. A., Sumner D. A. & Rosen-Molina J. T. (2011). Sustainability of egg production in the United States—The policy and market context1. Poultry Science. 90(1): 229-240.

    Muir W. M., Cheng H.-W. & Croney C. (2014). Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethicalconsiderations. Frontiers in Genetics. 5: 407.

    Nalesso G., Ciarelli C., Menegon F., Bordignon F., Urbani R., Di Martino G., Polo P., Sparesato S., Xiccato G. & Trocino A. (2025). On-farm welfare of laying hens: animal-based measures at slaughterhouse and risk factors in Italian farms. Poultry Science. 104(6): 105152.

    Rodenburg T. B., Tuyttens F. A. M., de Reu K., Herman L., Zoons J. & Sonck B. (2008). Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Animal Welfare. 17(4): 363-373.

    Sherwin C. M., Richards J. G. & Nicol C. J. (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science. 51(4): 488-499. DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2010.502518.

    Sokołowicz 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. Animals. 13(2): 185.

    Van Asselt E., Van Bussel L., Van Horne P., Van der Voet H., Van der Heijden G. & Van der Fels-Klerx H. (2015). Assessing the sustainability of egg production systems in The Netherlands. Poultry Science. 94(8): 1742-1750.

    Wang G., Ekstrand C. & Svedberg J. (1998). Wet litter and perches as risk factors for the development of foot pad dermatitis in floor-housed hens. British Poultry Science. 39(2): 191-197.