Concerns Over Battery Cages for Hens

Background

Farmers raised concerns over the battery cages that confine egg-laying hens for commercial purposes that created issues to the hens. The battery cages constitute small wire enclosures that are small and barren that prevent the birds from showing certain patterns of behavior that are important in poultry research. Essentially, the cages restrict the hens in a manner that they cannot engage in any activities rather than stay in a single position for laying eggs. Notably, the cages have nest boxes, a dust bathing area and a perch that allows the bird to engage in different activities. The issue of concern is the limited space the provided by the colony cages, which is also the case with conventional cages. Many scholars consider this trait unacceptable as it also limits the birds from showing important traits relating to their behaviors. Much of the behavioral traits that are of importance to researchers relate their movement including jumping, running, wing flapping, nesting, dust bathing, constrain perching, and flying (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2012, p.2) . The restrictions also prevent the hens from engaging in exercises, which are important in their health and welfare. In addition, the severe restriction of the hens may also inhibit their skeletal development and strength and lead to other pathological conditions. Colony cages are not able to provide the desirable welfare that allows hens to engage in natural behavior that may also inhibit egg production at the end of the day.

The commercial egg production industry in New Zealand is set up in a way that over 90% of all the hens that lay eggs are under confinement of the battery cages. The enclosures can afford the hens a space of around 432.3 centimeter squared, which is a space smaller than a piece of paper that is the size of a letter (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2012, p.2). The arrangement is similar to the setup in the United States where the commercial farmers arrange each cage side by side. Farmers may arrange the cages in rows that they may also stack in levels of 4-8 levels high.

Cage capacity

The capacity of each cage is about five to ten birds and many farmers house hundreds of these cages in a single building. Research has found that the battery cages tend to be barren in whenever they are exposed to invariant environments. The barrenness leads to substantial violation of the welfare of the hens that also compromise their performance as egg layers. The restriction of the movement of the hens forms the basis of the majority of criticism aimed at the battery cages (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2012, p.2). The locomotory behavior restricted by the cages include exploration, comfort movements such as wing flapping, scratching that are vital in exercises. The outcome is inactivity that may lead to osteoporosis that may lead to the fracturing of bones, which is an unfortunate for the egg-laying chicken (Gregory & Wilkins 1991, p. 25). Many scholars stated their concerns over the problems caused by the battery cags and saw the need to phase them out and put in place a better system.

The colony cages acts as modified cages came about to act as an alternative to create an alternative that would also improve the conventional cages. They provide the desired outlets that also act as the environment that prioritizes strong behaviors. Many European countries are already taking up this opportunity to improve the welfare of their poultry and realize better yields in egg production (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2012, p.2). New Zealand is not left behind in the initiative as agricultural authorities are making a move to achieve the desired success in the matter. There are similarities in the composition of the colony cages with the battery cages, but different in aspects such as a litter area where the hens can dust bath, nest box, a perch, and have a greater height compared to the battery cages (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) 2012, p.2). The colony cages allow hens to engage in a variety of movement behaviors, which is also an environment that is necessary in achieving the required level of welfare for the animals.

Design and size

The design and size of the cages also vary as the colony cage can hold about ten to twelve birds for the small cages, while a medium cage can hold up to 30 hens. Moreover, the largest cage can hold up to sixty birds that may also be stacked to hold as many birds as possible. Many of these colony cages are stacked vertically in about 12 tiers high (Bell & Weaver 2012, p.4). The developers included a catwalk for every three tiers that also show additional features in their composition that is also different from the conventional setup. Many of them have the nest box in one side or in a particular corner of the cage.

The cage may also have a single perch that runs parallel to the feed, although one may have several perches within a cage. There may also be a T shaped perch arrangement in addition to perches that run crosswise in a manner that is perpendicular and parallel. There are also laws that provide guidance on the size of cage in which a hen can be placed. It is recommended that a cage should have space amounting to about 750 centimeters squared for every hen (Bell & Weaver 2012, p.4). The space should be sufficient to allow significant behavioral movement that would also improve the welfare of the chicken.

It is also essential to recognize the colony cage as an alternative that is already in use in different parts of New Zealand and the world. The alternative includes barns that constitute free-range systems that help house the hens in a manner that does not cause problems in their development. The barns ensure that the hens do not have access to the outdoors, but have nest boxes and perch areas in addition to areas with some litter that allows dust bathing, which occurs naturally. The barns may be built in single or multilevel structures depending on the preference of the farmer and the number of hens.

The multilevel barns are also referred to as percheries or aviaries that utilize vertical space in the manner in which the farmer uses to feed the chicken. The vertical space within the building should be sufficient to allow different movement behaviors for the hen to allow proper development. It is essential to note that the different levels of the aviary needs to be structured in a manner that is reflective of the legal directive of the EU, which each bird requires about 1,111 cm2 of space. The legal is based on the guidelines of the egg industry of the United States that require about 929 centimeters to 1393 centimeters squared for every hen (Bell & Weaver 2012, p.46. This may seem as a large space compared to the caging regime that utilizes the least space in carrying out the feeding activities.

Hen Welfare

Agricultural authorities in New Zealand are systematically phasing out the conventional caging systems to replace it with a favorable alternative. Laws were also developed throughout the European Union, making it illegal to confine egg-laying chickens in the battery cages. The local authorities in New Zealand also made an effort to ensure that the battery cages were faced out in the egg industry (Bell & Weaver 2012, p.6). The emphasis is to provide space to allow improving the welfare of the hens significantly. The space allowance needs to be in vertical and horizontal dimensions of the enclosure to allow the manifestation of natural behaviour. The battery cages have been found to be restrictive in allowing hens to engage in natural movements that are important for their one development.

This is likely to lead to an improvement in the welfare of the hens and possible improve their productivity. The main misgivings that created the concerns that led to the phasing out of the conventional cages include the limitation of space allowance and impediment that limits the vital natural behaviour of the hens (Bell & Weaver 2012, p.7). The fact that the restrictive design prevents the hens from exercising thereby causing conditions such as osteoporosis, skeletal weakness, and liver pathology that inhibit the ability of the hens to produce eggs effectively. The outcome is fractured skeletal systems when farmers remove the cages at a time when they may need to make important improvements.

Evidence from scientific research shows that hens that are kept in cages for a long time are frightful than those that are left to roam freely. The outcome is low production because the fear inhibits the ability of the hens to reproduce and sustain substantial egg production. Much of the welfare concerns raised by scholars relate with sizing issues that demonstrate cage confinement that is not addressed by modifying the cages.

The issue of lack of space is not the problem but the fact that the hen has to be confined that leads to deficiencies in the welfare of the hens. Research shows that hen tends to utilize large space when given the opportunity, which allows them to engage in natural behavioural movements. The distance between two birds should be enough to allow activities without interfering with the reproductive processes designed for the hens. Further, studies reveal that any space that is below 500 centimetres may limit vital hen behaviour. It is typical for hens to utilize large spaces in the outdoors when they move out of their flock mates while distancing themselves in a natural manner. The dispersal of the hens is essential since it helps improve the welfare of the hens.

There is complexity in the crowding and the utilization of space especially when a farmer engages in large-scale chicken farming. Commercial farmer’s priorities achieving profitability rather than welfare, which means that the utilization of space focuses on limiting the space for rearing the hens (Olsson & Keeling 2005, p.260). Research has revealed significant insights regarding the utilization of space for commercial egg production. The availability of space could translate to setting it up for use for a large population of the chicken or minimizing their movement to accommodate as many of them as possible.

There is a need for farmers to develop a better understanding of the requirements of space utilization as far as commercial egg farming is concerned. The fact that hens are able to use the same at different times means that farmers can develop strategies to share the space among the animals. The display of behaviour seems to be an area of great significance especially when it addresses the issue of local crowding (Olsson & Keeling 2005, p.261). Managing the space well gives the hens sufficient freedom to move around and express the different behaviours in a satisfactory manner. In addition, exercise is vital because it helps in the reduction of the occurrence of skeletal fractures that are common in the cage environments.

Constraints on behaviour is an activity that leads to the prevention of full expression, which is evident in the establishment of natural behavioural patterns. The hens are unable to explore their environments because of the restrictions and cannot perch especially because of the height of the cage (Dawkins 1985, P. 345). Other locomotory behaviour such as jumping, running, wing flapping, and flying may not be achievable because of the challenge. Dust bathing may also not be achievable in such environments despite the fact that some of the cages have facilities meant for such activities. In addition, colony cages also have nest boxes believed to support related activities, but there are still questions on whether the space set aside for nesting is adequate.

The situation is quite different for facilities that do not utilize the cages since the hens are free to move around and display the natural behaviours. In fact, the farmer has more choices in organizing for nesting and the utilization of littering space, which is used for dust bathing. Accommodating dust bathing in the limited space may be possible but may not be sufficient given the extent of the activity associated with dust bathing. Hens are able to move over great distances in an environment that is colony cages. The fact that there may be different levels in the barns does not deter the hens from moving around as the freedom allows the perch anywhere.

Perching and roosting is an activity that requires substantial vertical and horizontal space. This is evident especially at night when all other conditions seem to be natural. Hens prefer perches placed above the ground rather than those placed close to the ground according to a study conducted by the New Zealand Agricultural society.

Literature review

There is not many resources related to this topic with regard to the subject of battery cages. However, there seems to be significant research on the uptake of the colony cage technique to realize an improvement in the welfare of users as demonstrated by Appleby (1984, p. 242). New Zealand is already making significant steps to phase out the conventional caging techniques for rearing egg laying eggs. The authorities in the county are also taking steps to institute initiatives that would lead to the improvement of the welfare of the birds. There has been work to support these efforts since the progress happens in a manner that is quicker that is expected.

According to Appleby (1984, p. 242), the corporate sector is also playing an important role in supporting the welfare improvement efforts. The corporate sector has proved influential, as their contribution to advice, farmers to stop using cages seem to be working. It is essential to note that some of the corporate organisations are large food chains that corporate with farmers to acquire foodstuffs. This is the reason why their contribution to improving the welfare of the birds is vital.

There is no doubt that the local farmers across different locations in New Zealand are paying attention to the growing concerns for the deteriorating welfare of the hens. Appleby’s work reports that many farmers have made considerations to make a transition from the battery cages to a better alternative (Appleby 1984, p. 243). Some of them contemplate the colony alternative, while others are willing to go all the way by adopting a colony cage approach. The colony cage approach is the most advisable of all the techniques as it allows the hens to move freely and express their natural behaviours without any restrictions.

Many of the farmers may not be aware that the colony cages do not provide for the majority of the behavioural and physical needs of the hens. There is a need to create attention to enable all the stakeholders in the egg production industry to understand the benefits and the limitations of using the colony cages rather than going the direction of colony cage techniques. There is a need to understand that the cages that are available for commercial use restrict the full expression of both physical and behavioural attributes of the hens.

Characteristics of battery cages

Follensbee et al. (1992, p. 8) posit that the battery cages are detrimental towards the physical development of the hens by denying them the opportunity to flap wings, run, fly and even perch. Research shows that failure to engage in such exercises is likely to lead to various illnesses that include bone osteoporosis and liver pathology. The expression of natural behaviour is vital towards the development of the hens, which also reduces their productivity (Appleby 1984, p. 242). This the reason the authorities emphasize the use of colony cage approaches, which are capable of allowing the hens to express themselves fully. The cages cause fear, unrest, and frustrations among the hens while the colony cage alternative ensures better plumage, fewer foot injuries and reduced lesions.

The conventional battery used by most farmers consist of small cages and sloping floors that are welded to ensure that eggs roll out into collection trays. The manufacturers of these cages produce them in different types and sizes including the old A style that is still usable in different parts of New Zealand (Appleby 1984, p. 242). The authorities in New Zealand proposed different recommendations that would see the hens engage in different natural activities. Nesting behaviour is one of these activities and very important whenever the hens feel frustrations when prevented.

According to research by Follensbee et al., hens find great motivation in finding nests especially when they are laying eggs. In some instances, it is easy to see a hen work hard to force open a door to access a nesting site (Follensbee et al. 1992, p. 8). This is particularly important if the hens are deprived of the opportunity to access it for a long time. There are different varieties of hens that lay the best eggs including the ones that lay between 320 eggs per year (Appleby 1984, p. 243). Researchers established that the hens were able to perform well following the access they had in the café free environments. On the other hand, hens found in the cages face significant frustrations that limit their ability to produce as many eggs as those that are in colony cage environments.

Studies by Follensbee et al. (1992, p. 9) indicate that the hens that are deprived of nesting facilities are likely to show frustrations for some time before laying an egg. The signs of such frustration include pacing around displacement preening, increased aggression, vacuum nesting, restlessness, increased aggression, and certain sounds referred to as the gackel-call. It is not advisable for a hen to hold an egg for a long time before laying as it seeks a nesting facility, it may cause the development of an extra layer of calcium. Consequently, most scholars recommend that farmers should allow hens to perform their pre-laying rites, as it is a legitimate welfare concern (Appleby 1984, p. 243). Providing the hens with suitable nests would lead meet an important need for them and ensure that they produce accordingly.

Bos et al. (2003, p. 158) assert that battery cages restrict the hens in a way that do not allow the addition of nests while developers added only one nesting area for the colony cages. This is not sufficient for the production of the eggs because the hens require additional space for nesting. Limiting the number of nesting sites poses a challenge given the fact that birds sometimes have to compete to access a nesting area. There are instances where some hens just stay to on the nesting site even when they are not laying eggs (Bos et al 2003, p. 158). Research established that some hens stay in the nesting area because it is a private area and the hens may seek refuge in such areas. The fact that hens prefer a private location for a nesting area creates a great challenge as some hens may prevent others from laying.

Colony Cages and hen behavior

Essentially, Bos et al (2003, p. 158) established that the setup of the colony cage environments is quite useful for the hens as there are multiple nest boxes that the hens can choose. Research shows that hens still inspect a suitable nesting location even if there are a number of free nesting sites. They choose the nest boxes that they seem to be comfortable with and make a choice. Many colony cage farms try to provide a good number of nest boxes to serve all the hens in within a site. For instance, providing twenty nest boxes for one hundred hens seems like a standard practice that ensures that there are sufficient nesting locations for the hens. In fact, the way of practice is in accordance with the Code of Practice as legislated by the Canadian authorities.

The UEP suggested that the recommended space for colony cage housing should be about nine feet squared to house 100 hens (Bos et al 2003, p. 158). This seems to be a sufficient surface to care for the eggs appropriately and ensure that they are able to produce as many eggs as possible. The authorities in New Zealand have also emphasized the need to provide sufficient space to allow the hens to display their natural expression of physical or other behaviours. The authorities from New Zealand warn against limiting or depriving the hens' space to address welfare concerns accordingly.

Perching

Perching behaviour is also an area of great interest given that most egg-laying hens like engaging in it. It is a behaviour motivated by a strong instinct that is characteristic of hens or many other bird species. The essence of perching is to help conserve the body heat of the hens and maintain the bone strength and volume accordingly. Having a perch in the housing system of the hens is vital, as they are likely to do anything to access it (Bos et al 2003, p. 158). For instance, hens can even force their way through a door to access a perch that may have been restricted from them.

It is essential to set up perches of different heights to allow the hens to engage in different activities including walking and standing (Dawkins 1985, P. 345). They also prefer to perch on higher grounds to stay off the ground, which is an ideal position for most hens. Hens tend to perch on high grounds at night and the colony cage setup allows the hens to perch at night or any other time of the day. Some hens also climb on the high perches to escape from other aggressive hens that cause trouble at night. This also reduces injuries among the vulnerable hens and allow them to become assertive in their activities.

According to Dawkins (1985, P. 345), this is not a feature available in the battery cages and the colony cages only provide limited heights if they have perches. The fact that the vertical height in the colony cages is only 18 inches makes it difficult to have a perch that can be used by the hens. This means that natural perching is not possible with the hens as they cages are just about the heights of the hens (Dawkins 1985, P. 347). Colony cage environments provide sufficient space to make natural perching a reality for the hens.

Dust bathing

Moreover, Dawkins (1985, P. 345) illustrates that dust bathing is another important behaviour for hens that is also restricted for hens in the battery and colony cages. There is a tendency of the occurrence of stale oil and hens use dust bathing to remove it, in addition to damaged feathers. Battery cages do not have the dust bathing facility or a litter to allow bathing. The majority of colony cages do not have litters and are unable to provide natural dust bathing experience to the hens. Scholars believe that dust bathing is an important social activity for hens as it gives the hens the important motivation when they see other hens engage in the activity.

The litters provide adaptive qualities to the hens especially when they bath together since the activity reduces their vulnerability to possible predation. The energy they produce at that particular time make it difficult for predators to attack them (Dawkins 1985, P. 345). There is also a chance that the hens may become competitive in a manner that may create disruptions or fights at some point. Limited litters create competition that may prevent other hens from engaging in dust bathing activities that are necessary for their welfare.

Aerni et al. (2000, p.16) argue that some farmers include automated doors to help restrict the hens from accessing the litters for some duration during the day. The purpose of these automated doors is that it helps deter hens from laying eggs in the litter. Studies show that litters help motivate the hens to help them improve their productivity. Sham dust bathing also occurs in the areas where there are restrictions such as wire mesh, but it mainly occurs as a sign of frustration among the hens.

Dust bathing is an activity that results in pleasure, which makes it essential for the hens as far as their welfare, is concerned. There is a general agreement among scholars that welfare improvement should not just be about avoiding suffering. It should be about actively implementing measures to improve the welfare of the hens. The essence of all this work is to allow the hens to show their natural physical and behavioural expression as it leads to positive affective behaviour among the hens. The outcome is a good welfare that leads to the realization of wellbeing for hens that translates to significant improvement in egg yields.

Foraging

Colony cage environments support foraging, which is an activity that hens engage in when they are well motivated (Aerni et al. 2000, p.16). They may engage in the activity even though they may have access to abundant feeds. Scholars believe that hens engage in this activity because the process of looking for food and manipulating it is just as important as feeding itself. Some hens that do not have sufficient space to forage result in feather pecking, which is an indication of a foraging behaviour. The issue of concern is that failure to have some substrate to motivate the foraging may lead to injuries because of constant pecking.

Brunberg et al. (2011, p. 1146) assert that there is a general agreement among scholars that the battery cages do not allow any form of foraging and scratching. In addition, it is a form of exercise that may lead to weak skeletal structure among the hens due to failure to forage. Research indicates that infrequent foraging among hens may lead to overgrown claws, which is dangerous. Hens found in colony cage environments are likely to display foraging activities than those found in caged environments (Aerni et al. 2000, p.17). The fact that foraging is associated with substantial walking that means that the hens engage in exercises that helps strengthen their bones. This is quite contrary for hens in battery cages that may only engage in pecking with minimal movement.

Evidently, battery cages consist of wire floors that cannot allow the hens to scratch and forage appropriately as illustrated by Lambton et al. (2010, p. 33). This is likely to lead to weak bones, as the hens in the cages do not walk around in addition to overgrown claws that are dangerous when they scratch other hens or themselves (Lambton et al. 2010, p. 33). Moreover, the overgrown claws are not strong enough and can easily break and cause injuries that increase their vulnerability to infections. Hens in colony cages are likely to spend about fifty per cent of their time when they have access to the outdoors.

Impact of battery cages on hen behavior

Lambton et al.’s analysis demonstrates that the battery cages are unsuitable for hens and commercial egg production (Lambton et al. 2010, p. 33). The fact that they restrict the expression of important behaviour necessary to improve the welfare of the hens makes them unsuitable. Exploration is also an important activity for the hens and they need space to explore their environments because it is their behaviour. The fact that hens are inquisitive animals means that having the space to explore is an important motivation. Suppressing exploration-using cages is likely to cause a reduction in expressive behaviour.

Research by Bos et al. also shows that the suppression also causes depression and low self-esteem among the hens and may lead to a reduction in their productivity. The colony cage environment ensures that the hens are able to show a wide range of behavioural activities. The housing systems with outdoor access are even more important especially because of the additional complexity in the choices to explore their environments accordingly (Bos et al 2003, p. 159). The hens that are confined in the battery cages can only stand sit, which is not the exercise required to realize an improvement in their welfare.

One common characteristic among the hens that are under confinement is the fact that they engage in avoidance behaviour. It is essential to note that fear is also a prevailing feeling for the hens given the fact that they are not able to engage in behaviour expression important for their welfare improvement. The hens kept in the battery cages are more fearful compared to the hens that are kept in colony cage environments. In addition, hens that kept in colony cage environments have sufficient space to move around. The elevated perches in colony cage environments also give the hens the opportunity to get away in case they are exposed to environments of aggression. This is not possible with the hens kept in battery cages because of the restriction to even move around.

The animal welfare is an issue of concern for the authorities and those in New Zealand emphasize on the improvement of the welfare of the hens. This makes it necessary to initiate a welfare inspection regime to assess the health of the hens. Inspection leads to the discovery of possible problems the hens may be facing and the creation of a proper solution once a problem has been discovered. The construction of a housing should allow farmers to inspect them and establish the status of the welfare of the hens. Proper inspections are necessary if one intends to improve the welfare of animals and realize sustainability in the health of the animals. The fact that thorough inspections rarely happen means that there may be challenges in introducing important reforms to protect the hens.

Moreover, it is also an important step towards reducing the physical injuries suffered by hens. One of the most common conditions evident among egg-laying eggs is the bone weakness that occurs because of the depletion of calcium from their bodies. This activity occurs at a high level and leads to the creation of excessive eggshells. Restricting the movement of hens amplifies the problem and makes it necessary to provide more room for the animals to move around. Research shows that hens have a high tendency of having bone weakness especially the hens that are kept in the cages. The main reason behind this occurrence is their limited movement in the cages unlike the hens kept in colony cage areas.

The bones of caged hens are weak and prone to breaking when the hens are taken out of the cages Gregory & Wilkins 1993, p. 25). This situation is contrary to hens raised in cage environments because they exercise all the time, which makes them strong enough to become strong. Further, studies indicate that about 30 per cent of the hen raised in cages have fresh bone fractures. This is different from the percentage of the hens in colony cage areas, which is about fourteen per cent. There is a great chance that caged birds may hurt themselves inside the cages especially when they are being removed out of the cages.

This is not acceptable from the point of view of animal welfare, as they get hurt although they provide benefits to the farmers that keep them. The injuries that the hens acquire when they are in the cags is an indication that they are unable to cope with the environment in which they are being kept. In fact, there is a chance that the pain that these animals feel is great and is the cause of the great concern of most agricultural officers. The high number of bone fractures of the hens is also indicative of the possibility that there may be bone splinters among the hens.

There are also commercial implications on the issue of bone fractures because some companies turn down offers to take in hens with broken bones. Farmers are advised to take such hens for soup processing and paste. Research also shows that caged hens also have higher incidences of le lesions including the hyperkeratosis that results from standing for a long time (Gregory & Wilkins 1993, p. 26). The slope in the cages where the hens are kept cause pressure on the overgrown claws of the hens. The pressure leads to more injuries on the soft tissues of the feet and may lead to infections.

Challenges of colony cages

It is essential to note that animals in the colony cage environments also face challenges that also require the attention of the stakeholders to find a viable solution. All the welfare issues that arise from colony cage environments require better management to address them adequately. Breed selection has also been employed in other cases to address the challenges experienced in the colony cage areas (Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC) 2009, p. 7). One of the most common challenges in the colony cage environments is the pecking injuries. Feather pecking translates to injurious pecking if the hens become aggressive and hurt others due to persistent attacks (Dixon 2008, p. 78). Cases of cannibalism have also been reported among other hens also happen to be behavioural characteristics of the hens (Choct & Hartini 2005, P. 111).

The severe pecking causes harm to other hens and leads to stripping of the plumage that exposes their bare skin. The exposed bare skin rouses cannibalism because the hens are tempted to bite the skin (Choct & Hartini 2005, P. 111). There may be perceptions that the pecks are aggressive acts but it is essential to note that these are foraging peck behaviours that are normal among hens that are targeted on the wrong targets (Nicol 1987, p.328). The forages should not be directed towards the feathers as they should be focused on substrates on the ground. Proper management would ensure that hens have sufficient substrates to ensure that they do not turn on other hens.

Injurious pecking occurs in all housing systems including colony cage and caged environments. The egg-laying hens are usually in flocks and have a tendency of pecking each other in case of any provocation (Bos et al 2003, p. 159). The fact that the hens are free to move around means that the hens may have the opportunity to burn each other. On the other hand, hens in battery cages have do not encounter as much pecking because the cages the cages prevent exposure to other hens (Nicol 1987, p.329). The problem of severe pecking is associated with overcrowding in the colony cage areas. This issue may be addressed by proper management measures to ensure that there are programs to reduce such cases.

According to Dixon (2008, p. 77), feather pecking is a problem linked with fright in the hens and many hens that are likely to peck are in the battery cages. The fact that the animals are in cages reduces the occurrence of severe pecking that is evident in the colony cage areas. Hens in the colony cage areas peck other hens because of the possible aggression of other hens and the moment they start pecking it may become a confrontation. Efforts to manage hens in the colony cage areas should focus on ensuring that their forages are directed to the substrates on the ground.

Implementing these and other measures is likely to provide a solution to resolve the issues associated with injurious pecking. A farmer may consider various approaches to achieve success in controlling cannibalism and feather pecking among the hens (Choct & Hartini 2005, P. 112). It is essential to note that farmers may adopt an incorporated approach to achieve useful results on the issue of injurious pecking. These approaches include environmental, genetics and experiences associated with early life. The farmers may also devise strategies to manage the crowding and the lighting in a better way.

The genetic approach revolves around the breeds that farmers have in their stocks. It is advisable that farmers select breeds that are docile and do not have a higher likelihood of feather pecking. The characteristic of feather pecking and resultant cannibalism is associated with certain breeds or strains. Selecting strains that do not have the tendency to engage in such characteristics and is likely to reduce the occurrence of the injurious pecking (Savory et al. 1978, p. 14). The genetic composition of the hen is important when selecting the breeds to keep as it determines successful breeding.

The research focused on analyzing the mortality of hens established that the Bovans Goldline hen and the ISA brown had the least mortality compared to other breeds. In addition, the study also established that there was no difference in injurious pecking among the hens in the cage fewer environments with trimmed beaks compared with those with the hens in the caged areas. The Lohman silver hen is a common breed in New Zealand and different parts of the European Union. Many countries in the European Union already banned the use of the battery cages to keep the hens.

Most scholars claim that the Lohman Solver bird is the best breed to keep because it is not aggressive and may not harm other breeds. The breed also shows a low tendency of feather pecking that is the reason some hens acquire injuries in the colony cage environments. It is essential to note the breed also have a hard body that helps it endure free-range structures that are synonymous with the colony cage environment (Hansen et al. 1993, p. 108). The issue of cannibalism and feather pecking may also occur because of selection of breeds that are aggressive unintentionally. Understanding the genetics of the hens is important in establishing who to protect them from possible aggression (Choct & Hartini 2005, P. 113).

Trimming the beaks of the birds may not be a solution as research has shown that there is a line of birds that have a low level of feather pecking even if there have long beaks. Most scholars advise that hens that are calm and portray robust temperament are the best to keep in the colony cage areas. Such breeds can also be produced scientifically and the scientific companies that produce these breeds have the opportunity to produce large quantities. This would significantly reduce the issue of feather pecking in the colony cage environments. The commercial breeders may convince the scientific institutions to produce large quantities of these birds for commercial purposes.

Recommendations

Choosing breeds that are less aggressive and have low temperament is a sure way of ensuring that farmers reduce incidences of feather pecking. The fact that there are suitable breeds with a good reputation of not attacking other hens means that farmers have a chance of reducing instances of severe pecking. Research shows that this measure coupled with other management regimes will help farmers develop useful measures that would reduce injuries within the housing.

The provision of foraging alternatives for the birds is also critical in ensuring that the birds do not hurt themselves in their housing. Introducing the birds to materials that act as pecking dummies contributes towards directing pecking in the right target. In fact, it is advisable that farmers introduce the foraging or pecking materials early enough to shape the pecking behaviour of the hens. It leads to the creation of pecking preferences that help shape the bias of the hens when it comes to pecking (Aerni et al. 2000, p.18). This may mean introducing the hens to litter at an early age and ensuring that the birds have access to the litter even when they are adults. They will get used to the litter or dust once they are grown and will have a bias over the preferable pecking target.

The fact that early exposure to litter helps shape-pecking behaviour helps stimulate ground pecking because the materials are found in the ground. The activity is an important step in the reduction of cannibalism and pecking (Choct & Hartini 2005, P. 113). Research shows that farmers can reduce incidences of feather pecking by throwing a few grains on the litter on the ground for the young chicks. This enables the checks to understand that they can access the grains while pecking the ground and train them that they would get feeds from the ground rather than feathers.

Conclusion

It is advisable for the farmers to avoid making frequent changes to the diet of the chicken, especially when doing transitions for the pullets to the house where they would be laying eggs. Frequent changes in the life of the hen are likely to cause stressors and may result in aggressive behaviour such as packing. Therefore, there is a need to manage the transitions properly as it would help the chicken cope well with sudden changes. Proper management of these changes is likely to protect the hens from stress and help develop strategies for moving the young egg-laying hens to locations where they would be laying eggs.

Environmental management is vital in addressing the challenges in colony cage areas since the environment greatly influences the welfare of the hens. The environment critically dictates the behaviour of the hens regarding how they respond to different situations. Environments that have access to the outdoors where hens can access pastures tend to influence hens in a manner that show minimal aggression (Whitehead et al. 2003, p. 33). This means that farmers may ensure that their housing has access to the outdoors to reduce cases of aggression against other hens.

In addition, research has shown that the inclusion of other materials such as grass, trees, and shrubs give the hens a sense of security. This is because they help the hens camouflage in their environments to prevent a possible attack from predators (Duncan & Kite 1989, p. 215). It also encourages extensive exploration in the outdoors, which is vital in ensuring that the hens exercise adequately. It is advisable that farmers include roosters in their flock to help increase outdoor activity and improve the welfare of the animals.

The impacts of phasing out the battery cages are many and they are likely to lead to the improvement of the welfare of the birds. Research indicates that battery cages are not suitable for keeping the egg-laying hens and they cannot lead to the realization of satisfactory results. Much of the research surrounding this topic shows that the battery cages have a negative impact on the welfare of the birds (Bestman 2001, p. 77). There is a growing consensus to see that this system of housing is phased out and the colony cage system instituted in all farms. The implementation of the colony cage system has already been fully implemented in many countries especially the European Union. In fact, some countries have made it a legal issue to use cages in rearing hens and one may breach the law for not taking measures to phase out cages. Phasing out the battery cages would greatly affect the main freedoms of hen behaviours. These freedoms include perching, wing flapping, foraging jumping, and running.

Animal welfare commitment is a matter of significance in this research and the authorities are making the necessary measures to achieve success. Corporates such as Unilever have also come in to support the efforts by making a commitment to use only products produced from the colony cage environments. In addition, other corporates such as Compass Group, which also the largest provider of food service created a policy to see the discontinuation of cage systems and use of colony cage approaches The consequence of all these efforts is to achieve an improvement in the welfare of the hens.

List of references

Aerni, V., El-Lethey, H., & Wechsler, B. 2000. Effect of foraging material and food form on feather pecking in laying hens. British Poultry Science, 41,16-21.

Appleby, M.C., 1984. Factors affecting floor egg laying bydomestic hens: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 40, 241-249

Appleby, M.C., & Hughes, B.O. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 47(2), 109128.

Bell, D.D., & Weaver, W.D. 2002. Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p 483.

pecking in laying hens. In. Hovi, M. and Bouilhol, M. (eds.), Human-Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems. Proceedings of the Third NAHWOA 23 REPORT FROM THE WORLD SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS 24 Workshop ( pp.77-86). Clermont-Ferrand, France: Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture, University of Reading. Retrieved from: ww.veeru.rdg.ac.uk/organic/ProceedingsFINAL.pdf

Bos, B., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. & K. Groenestein. 2003. A novel design approach for livestock housing based on recursive control – with examples to reduce the environmental pollution. Livestock Production Science, 84, 157-170.

Brunberg, E., Jensen, P., Isaksson, A., & Keeling, L. 2011. Feather pecking behavior in laying hens: Hypothalamic gene expression in birds performing and receiving pecks. Poultry Science, 90, 1145-1152.

In Glatz, P.C. (ed.), Poultry Welfare Issues: Beak Trimming. (pp.111-115). Nottingham, U.K.:Nottingham University Press.

Dawkins, M.S. 1985. Cage height preference and use in battery-kept hens. The Veterinary

Dixon, L.M. 2008. Feather pecking behaviour and associated welfare issues in laying hens. Avian Biology Research, 1(2), 73-87.

Duncan, I.J.H. & Kite, V.G. 1989. Nest site selection and nest-building behaviour in domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour, 37, 215-231.

Follensbee, M.E., Duncan, I.J.H., & Widowski, T.M. 1992. Quantifying nesting motivation of

Gregory, N.G., & Wilkins, L.J. 1991. Broken bones in hens. The Veterinary Record, 129(25-26),

Hansen, I., Braastad, B.O., Storbraten, J. & Tofastrud, M. 1993. Differences in fearfulness

development of gentle and severe feather pecking in loose housed laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,123(1), 32-42

Nicol, C.J. 1987. Effect of cage height and area on the behaviour of hens housed in battery

Olsson, I.A.S., & Keeling, L.J. 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and

domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 93(3-4), 259-282.

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC). 2009. Reducing the Risk of Feather Pecking for Laying Hens in Organic Egg Production. Animal Welfare on Organic Farms Fact Sheet Series.

Špinka, M. & Wemelsfelder, F. 2011. Environmental Challenge and Animal Agency. In M.

Appleby, J. Minch, A. Olsson & B. Hughes (Eds), Animal Welfare: second

Whitehead, CC, Fleming, R.H, Julian, R.J, & Sørensen, P. 2003. Skeletal problems associated