Improving utilization of nests and decreasing mislaid eggs with narrow width of group nests
Abstract
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
Full Text:
PDFReferences
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)