Position Statements

Housing Systems for Laying Hens

January 15, 2024

Position

The CVMA holds that primary consideration should be given to the welfare of the birds when housing systems for laying hens are adopted. To provide good health and welfare for laying hens, the CVMA supports the evaluation and implementation of both enriched/furnished cage systems and non-cage colony systems that are compatible with good standards of animal welfare.

Summary

  • The 2017 National Farmed Animal Care Council (NFACC) Code of Practice requires that traditional battery cage systems be phased out by 2036.
  • The CVMA considers that enriched/furnished cage systems as well as cage-free systems provide acceptable welfare for laying hens and should be considered as viable options.
  • Enriched/furnished cage systems were developed on the basis of scientific research to meet the behavioural needs of laying hens while retaining the health and welfare advantages of caging.
  • The CVMA encourages further research and development on housing systems for laying hen welfare.
  • The focus of the CVMA position on housing systems for laying hens is the welfare of the birds and the necessity - when adopting a housing system - to continue to consider all options that are compatible with good standards of animal welfare.
  • The CVMA holds that non-commercial laying chickens have similar welfare requirements to commercial laying hens and should be provided similar access to housing resources.

Background

  • The National Farmed Animal Care Council (NFACC) Code of Practice for the care of laying hens (1) contains requirements that will phase out the traditional battery cage system by 2036 and producers will need to adopt an alternative housing system. The options for producers are an enriched/furnished cage system or a non-cage colony system (including systems such as free-range, free- run, barn, aviary or litter).
  • Transition to non-conventional housing systems has increased the number of hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems to 49.83% in 2022 from 10% when the Code of Practice was published in 2017. Industry estimates that transition will be completed by 2032 (2, 3)
  • The Code, the associated scientific review (4) and other academic evaluations (5,6,7) recognize that all housing systems for laying hens have advantages and disadvantages.
  • The CVMA acknowledges that it is a legitimate ethical position for individuals and organizations to lobby for and state their preference for hens to be housed in “cage-free” systems. However, from a scientific and veterinary perspective on animal welfare, the CVMA considers that enriched/furnished cage systems (1) are compatible with the provision of good standards of health and welfare (6).
  • Enriched/furnished cage systems were developed on the basis of scientific research to meet the behavioural needs of laying hens while retaining the health and welfare advantages of caging. Although, non-cage systems provide hens with a greater opportunity to express their full behavioural repertoire, especially foraging and exercise, and the resulting greater bone density and improved feather condition (7) non-cage systems can be associated with increased risk of injury and mortality from feather pecking, cannibalism and smothering. Non- cage housing is also associated with poorer air-quality from increased dust and ammonia levels (8, 9). The type of housing system also affects the risks of animal and zoonotic diseases and exposure to poor physical environmental conditions (5 -7, 10 -11).
  • The focus of the CVMA position on housing systems for laying hens is the welfare of the birds, and the need for continued consideration of all options that are compatible with good standards of animal welfare (11,12). The CVMA encourages further research and development on housing systems for laying hens that meet the welfare requirements of the birds, and on breeding strategies to reduce the risk of injurious behaviours (13).

References

  1. NFACC. 2017. Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets and Laying Hens. Available from: https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/poultry-layers.
  2. van Staaveren, Caitlin Decina, Christine F. Baes, Tina M. Widowski, Olaf Berke, and Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek. A Description of Laying Hen Husbandry and Management Practices in Canada. Animals, 2018, 8, 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8070114 
  3. EGG FARMERS OF CANADA • 2022 ANNUAL REPORT
  4. Widowski TM, Classen H, Newberry RC, Petrik M, Schwean-Lardner K, Cottee SY and Cox B. Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets, Layers, and Spent Fowl: Poultry (Layers). Poultry (Layer) Code of Practice Scientific Committee, Review of Scientific Research on Priority Issues 2013. Available from: http://www.nfacc.ca/resources/codes-of-practice/poultry- layers/Layer_SCReport_2013.pdf
  5. LayWel 2004. Overall strengths and weaknesses of each defined housing system for laying hens, and detailing the overall welfare impact of each housing system. In: Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens (www.laywel.eu). Available from: http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2071%20welfare%20assessm ent.pdf
  6. Lay DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjaer JB, Mench JA, Mullens BA, Newberry RC, Nicol CJ, O'Sullivan NP, Porter RE. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry science, 2011;90:278-294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00962
  7. B. Yilmaz Dikmen,A. ˙Ipek, U. S¸ahan, M. Petek, A. Sozcu. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Science, 2016, 95:1564-1572 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew082 
  8. Bruce David, Randi Oppermann Moe, Virginie Michel, Vonne Lund, Cecilie Mejdell Air Quality in Alternative Housing Systems May Have an Impact on Laying Hen Welfare. Part I—Dust. Animals, 2015, 5: 495-511. doi:10.3390/ani5030368
  9. Bruce David, Cecilie Mejdell, Virginie Michel, Vonne Lund : and Randi Oppermann Moe, Air Quality in Alternative Housing Systems May Have an Impact on Laying Hen Welfare. Part II—Ammonia. Animals, 2015, 5: 886-896. doi:10.3390/ani5030389
  10. Weeks CA, Lambton SL, Williams AG. Implications for welfare, productivity and sustainability of the variation in reported levels of mortality for laying hen flocks kept in different housing systems: a meta-analysis of ten studies. PLoS ONE 2016;1:e0146394. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146394
  11. Mench JA, Sumner DA, Rosen-Molina J. Sustainability of egg production in the United States-the policy and market context. Poult Sci 2011;90:229-240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00844
  12. Weary DM, Ventura BA. von Keyserlingk MAG. Societal views and animal welfare science: understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal 2016;10:309-317. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001160
  13. Rodenburg TB, Turner SP. The role of breeding and genetics in the welfare of farm animals. Animal Frontiers 2012;2:16-21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2012-0044