Egg Quality in Furnished Cages for Laying Hens—Effects of Crack
Reduction Measures and Hybrid
H. Wall1 and R. Tauson
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences, S-755 97 Uppsala, Sweden
ABSTRACT Egg quality, egg production, and hen use
of facilities, with respect mainly to proportion of eggs laid
in nests and bird locations after lights-out, were studied in
furnished-cage models for six or eight birds. In these
cages, most of the eggs are laid in the 25 cm wide nest,
i.e., egg laying is concentrated to a much smaller area
compared with conventional cages. The study (20 to 80
wk of age) used 1,296 hens of three genotypes Hy-Line
White, Hy-Line Brown, and Lohmann Selected Leghorn.
Conventional four-hen cages were included as a refer-
ence. We separately studied the effects on the proportion
of eggs cracked by egg saver wires in front of the egg
cradle, long nest curtains, and position of nest opening
(rear or front) with 30 or 100% of the nest bottom being
lined with AstroTurf威. Egg saver wires and long nest
(Key words: egg quality, nest design, hybrid, furnished cage)
INTRODUCTION
Public concern about the welfare of laying hens has
resulted in minimum welfare directives in the European
Union, imposing a ban on conventional cages in 2012
(European Commission, 1999). Thereafter, cages are al-
lowed only if furnished with nests, perches, and litter
baths, i.e., facilities that improve the behavioral repertoire
of the birds. In Sweden, conventional cages were banned
in 1999 (Statens jordbruksverk, 1997). Because no fully
developed, furnished cages that had been subjected to
compulsory testing were available at that time, exemp-
tions were permitted after individual inspections of
farms. Thereby the phase-out was delayed for another
few years. In October 2000, the first model of a furnished
cage (Bröderna Victorsson, AB) was approved by the
Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket, 2000).
When designing furnished cages, as well as other alter-
native housing systems, emphasis must be put on hen
preferences and on practical considerations, such as pro-
2002 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Received for publication May 14, 2001.
Accepted for publication October 18, 2001.
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Helena.Wall@
huv.slu.se.
340
curtains lowered the proportions of cracked eggs signifi-
cantly by softly catching and reducing the speed of the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
eggs before entering the egg cradle. The position of the
nest opening affected none of the measured parameters.
Less lining in the bottom of the nest, i.e., a reduction to
30% coverage, resulted in significantly higher proportions
of dirty eggs and lower proportions of eggs laid in nests.
Hybrid differences were found in most of the measured
traits. We concluded that devices like egg savers and long
nest curtains are effective measures in reducing cracks in
furnished cages, where egg laying is concentrated to a
much smaller area than in conventional cages. Reduction
of the bottom lining to 30% makes nests less attractive to
birds laying eggs.
2002 Poultry Science 81:340–348
duction, hygiene, and management aspects. For example,
it has been shown that an appropriate material and enclo-
sure are important nest attractants and that hens prefer
loose moldable materials when given a choice between
different nesting materials (Appleby and McRae, 1986;
Duncan and Kite, 1989; Appleby, 1990). Enclosed nests
with artificial turf, however, are largely accepted when
no other nesting materials are present (Abrahamsson et
al., 1996; Abrahamsson and Tauson, 1997; Appleby, 1998)
and prelaying behavior has been reported to be normal in
nests with artificial turf (Appleby, 1998). From a hygienic
point of view, the optimal nesting material would proba-
bly be one that allows manure to pass through; however,
several studies have shown that nests with wire floors or
plastic netting are less attractive than nests with lining
(Hughes, 1993; van Niekerk and Reuvekamp, 1995; Abra-
hamsson et al., 1996).
A study by Reed and Nicol (1992) showed that a strip
of artificial grass, mounted on the rear wall of rollaway
nests, encouraged nesting behavior, measured as time
spent in the nest. Their findings indicate that covering
Abbreviation Key: CO = conventional, four-hen metal cage; HYB
= Hy-Line Brown; HYW = Hy-Line White (W-36); LSL = Lohmann
Selected Leghorn.
 EGG QUALITY IN FURNISHED CAGES FOR LAYERS
only one part of the wire floor bottom of the nest with,
e.g., artificial turf may be sufficient to encourage nesting
behavior in laying hens. Wall et al. (2002) found that
nest floors partly covered (30 vs. 50%) with artificial turf
resulted in lower proportions of eggs laid in the nests
than in fully lined nests. However, the nests in that study
had two openings, one leading in and one out of the nest,
both equipped with one-way doors that made inspection
by a bird more difficult. Furthermore, when the artificial
turf covered only one part of the nest bottom, the hen
could not see it from the entrance. Less artificial turf in
the nests may improve nest hygiene as well as make
cleaning between batches less time consuming.
Higher proportions of cracked eggs in furnished than in
conventional cages have been reported in several studies
(Abrahamsson et al., 1995; Abrahamsson and Tauson,
1997; Wall et al., 2002). Accumulation of eggs in an area
of about 25 cm width probably contributed to this differ-
ence. As most eggs are laid in the nest, this reduced
area may increase risk of collisions in the egg cradle.
Furthermore, the position of birds in the nest box, in the
rear or in the front close to the egg cradle, when laying
their eggs, may affect the end speed of rolling due to the
increased momentum over a longer distance (Lee and
Bolton, 1976).
The objective of the present study was to evaluate dif-
ferent measures to reduce cracked eggs in three fur-
nished-cage models and to study effects on egg quality
and bird use of nests when different proportions of the
nest bottom were covered with artificial turf. Conven-
tional cages were used mainly for basic genotype studies
and not for statistical comparison with furnished-cage
use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Housing
The study was carried out from September 1999 until
November 2000; birds used were 20 wk old at the begin-
ning of this 60-wk study. Three furnished-cage models
and one conventional battery cage, the latter included as
a reference, were installed in three vertical-tier batteries
in the same experimental building. The furnished cages
used were based on the Edinburgh Modified Cage
(Appleby and Hughes, 1995; Abrahamsson et al., 1996)
but with other group sizes and fully automated. The nest
box was positioned at one end of the cage (at a right
angle to the feed trough), and the litter bath was placed
on top of the nest. Dimensions of cages and equipment
are given in Table 1, and an overview of the experimental
layout in Table 2.
In the Hellmann furnished-cage model (Hellmann
Poultry GmbH), the nesting area was separated from the
cage area by a curtain made of plastic strips, through
which the birds entered the nest (Figure 1). All nests were
lined with brown artificial turf (AstroTurf威). The litter
bath lacked a closing mechanism and was thereby avail-
able around the clock. Half of the cages (every second
341
row) had an egg saver, i.e., a wire extending parallel to
and underneath the feed trough, 55 cm from the rear
partition of the cage. Hence, on the way out of cage, eggs
were stopped when rolling toward the egg saver wire.
This wire lifted every 15 min until 8 h after lights-on and
thereafter every hour until lights-out, allowing eggs to
slowly roll the last short distance to the egg cradle.
In the Victorsson furnished-cage model (Bröderna Vic-
torsson AB), a metal sheet partition separated the nest
and litter bath from the cage area (Figure 2). The nest,
lined with brown artificial turf, was entered through an
opening at the front of the partition, at the feed trough.
In the front, plastic black curtains, hanging behind the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
gates of the cages, enclosed the nests. In half of the cages
this curtain did not reach below the manure deflector,
i.e., short nest curtain, whereas the curtains in the other
cages ended 1 cm above the floor, i.e., long nest curtain.
A time-controlled closing mechanism of the litter bath (a
door sliding sideways) enabled birds to enter the bath
between certain hours. After the door closed, birds still
inside could leave by pushing the door open. A perch
was placed parallel to the feed trough, extending from
the nest side wall to the cage partition on opposite side.
A forerunner of the Victorsson cage described above,
FC-6, was an experimental furnished-cage model. The
closing mechanism of the litter bath and the perch location
were the same as in the Victorsson furnished-cage model.
The cage was designed as described by Wall et al. (2002)
except for the nest openings. In the present study, the
nest had one opening, positioned in the front or rear of
the nest side facing the cage. The nests were lined with
brown artificial turf covering 30 or 100% of the nest bot-
tom. In nests with 30% nest lining, the turf was positioned
in the upper-rear part of the nest, with the welded wire
floor left uncovered in the front.
CO was a conventional 4-hen metal cage.
All systems had horizontal front bars and solid side
partitions. The rear partitions in Victorsson and FC-6
cages comprised a metal sheet, leaving an open space
under and above the sheet, whereas Hellmann cages had
welded wire mesh, and conventional four-hen metal
cages (CO) had horizontal metal bars at the rear. In the
Hellmann cage, nests in adjacent cages were separated
by wire mesh, whereas all nests in Victorsson and FC-6
cages had solid rear partitions.
Birds, Rearing, Management
Routines, and Feeding
The trial used 504 Lohmann Selected Leghorn (LSL),
336 Hy-Line White W36+ (HYW), and 456 Hy-Line Brown
(HYB) birds. The pullets were reared in conventional rear-
ing cages and were not beak-trimmed (prohibited in Swe-
den). At 16 wk of age, the birds were transferred to the
experimental building, where they received 10 h of light
per day. The light was successively increased to 15 h at
24 wk of age and was dimmed for 6 min in the evening
before lights-out at 1800 h, to imitate dusk. Light was
increased over 6 min in the morning, dawn, at 0300 h.
342 WALL AND TAUSON
TABLE 1. Description of housing systems
Hellmann
Cage, width × depth × height (cm)2 96 × 50 × 45
No. of birds per cage 8 8
Cage area per bird (cm2)2 600
Nest, width × depth × height (cm)3 24 × 50 × 28
Litter bath, width × depth × height (cm) 24 × 50 × 21
Nest/litter area per bird (cm2)4 150
Perch (cm/bird) 17
1
Conventional, four-hen metal cage.
2
Nest and litter bath excluded, height measured in the rear of the cage.
3
Height measured in nest front.
4
Nest and litter bath were of the same area.
Twice each week, manure was removed with belts, and
litter baths were filled by hand with sawdust. At 16 wk
of age, the litter baths with closing mechanisms opened
5 h after lights-on and were then open for 4 h and 30 min.
Thereafter the open period was successively increased to
a maximum of 6 h and 30 min at 24 wk of age. The litter
bath then opened 8 h after lights-on and closed 30 min
before dark. In Hellmann cages, where the baths lacked
closing mechanisms, the baths were not available to the
birds (litter box turned upside down) until 24 wk of age.
From then on, they were accessible around the clock.
The furnished cages had automatic chain feeders,
whereas hens in the CO cages were manually fed once a
day. The pullets were fed a conventional grower crum-
bled diet during rearing. From 17 wk of age until slaugh-
ter all hens received a normal layer crumbled diet with
a calculated content of 2,700 kcal/kg (11.3 MJ) metaboliz-
able energy, 160 g crude protein, 35 g Ca, and 6 g P/kg.
All hens in the Hellmann cages and half of the hens in
the FC-6 cages (one of two batteries) were subjected to
an unintended water deficiency during the first week
after their arrival in the experimental building.
Recording and Statistical Analysis of Data
Production and mortality were recorded daily per rep-
licate from 20 to 80 wk of age. Feed consumption was
recorded per replicate in CO cages and as an average for
each of the two batteries with Hellmann and Victorsson
cages, respectively. Hens that died during the experiment
were subjected to autopsy and were not replaced. Egg
cradles in Victorsson, FC-6, and CO cages lacked egg-
collection belts, and eggs, therefore, were always collected
manually. In Hellmann cages, the cradles were equipped
with belts, and eggs were collected at one end of the
battery, except when exterior egg quality was measured
and eggs were collected manually. The weight of eggs
was recorded once weekly. The position of all eggs in the
furnished cages was recorded once every fourth week
from 24 wk of age, before egg collection. The location of
all birds in Hellmann and Victorsson cages was recorded
1 h after lights-out at 31, 53, and 77 wk of age.
2
Otal Precision Company Limited, Ottawa Ontario, Canada K1G 3N3.
Victorsson FC-6 CO1
96 × 50 × 45 72 × 50 × 45 48 × 50 × 38
6 4
600 600 600
24 × 50 × 27 25 × 50 × 27.5 ...
24 × 50 × 24 25 × 50 × 23.5 ...
150 208 ...
12 12 ...
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
On seven occasions (at 25, 31, 41, 49, 58, 66, and 72
wk of age) eggs were collected on 5 consecutive d from
Hellmann, Victorsson, and CO cages and on 14 consecu-
tive d from FC-6 cages. These eggs were analyzed for
proportions of cracked and dirty eggs in a small version
of a commercial egg-candling machine. Blood spots on
eggshells, caused by red mites, were not included in pro-
portions of dirty eggs. At 62 wk of age, nine eggs per
replicate in Hellmann and Victorsson cages and two eggs
per replicate in FC-6 cages were collected and analyzed
for shape index, shell deformation, and breaking strength
(Canadian Egg Shell Tester2). Shell deformation was cal-
culated from the average value of measurements on three
different points across the egg equator, after a load of
1,000 g was applied on the egg (The Canadian Egg Shell
Tester). Eggs for which the standard deviation of the
repeated measurements exceeded 10 × 10−2 mm were ex-
cluded from the analysis.
Live weights of the birds were recorded, and hygiene
of feet and plumage was scored at 54 wk of age on all birds
with one cage per replicate for Hellmann and Victorsson
cages and with three cages per replicate for CO cages. The
scoring system assigned values of 1 to 4 points (Tauson et
al., 1984) for each trait, in which a higher score indicated
cleaner conditions.
Before statistical analyses, traits given in proportions
(mortality, cracked and dirty eggs, egg position, and bird
location) were subjected to arcsin transformation (Snede-
FIGURE 1. Hellmann furnished cage. One egg is withheld by the
egg-saver wire, positioned underneath the feed trough.
 EGG QUALITY IN FURNISHED CAGES FOR LAYERS
cor and Cochran, 1989). Statistical analyses were carried
out with the general linear models procedure of SAS
software (SAS Institute Inc., 1996). To analyze pair-wise
differences between treatments, Fisher’s protected least-
significant-difference test was used. Statistical analysis
was always performed within housing system, and all
main effects were considered fixed. For inspection of
cracked eggs, dirty eggs, egg position, and bird location,
the mean of the different proportions, recorded on each
occasion, was calculated for each replicate before analysis.
Traits measured once, e.g., live weight or traits accumu-
lated before analysis (production performance) were ana-
lyzed with the following models:
343
Production and Mortality
An invasion of red mites (Dermanyssus gallinae), most
likely brought into the house by the pullets, caused some
losses of birds as a consequence of anemia. The outbreak
could not be effectively treated because metriphonate
(Neguvon威 vet., Bayer), the only compound licensed to
use against ectoparasites of poultry, was withdrawn from
the Swedish market in January 2000. Instead, the popula-
tion was limited by use of regularly replaced traps made
of corrugated cardboard (Nordenfors, 2000) and by spray-
ing the cages as well as floor and walls in the bird room
with various natural citrus oils.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019

Hellmann and Victorsson: Yijk = µ + ai + bj + (ab)ij + eijk
FC-6: Yijkl = µ + ai + bj + ck + (ab)ij + (ac)ik + (bc)jk
+ (abc)ijk + eijkl
CO: Yij = µ + ai + eij
where Yijk, Yijkl, Yij = response variable; µ = overall mean;
ai = effect of hybrid i; bj = effect of crack reduction measure
(egg saver, nest curtain, or position of nest opening) j; ck
= effect of nest bottom lining k; (ab)ij, (ac)ik, (bc)jk, and
(abc)ijk = interaction effects; and eijk, eijkl, and eij = random
variation. For traits measured repeatedly, bird age and
bird age interactions with all fixed effects were also con-
sidered, as well as a random effect of replicate. As no
three- or four-factor interactions were found significant,
they were excluded from the final statistical model used.
Furthermore, as the objective of the study was not to
evaluate age differences, two-factor interactions includ-
ing age were excluded from the final statistical models if
found not significant.
RESULTS
Production performance, mortality, and exterior egg
quality are presented in Tables 3 and 4. As no significant
differences regarding position of nest opening in FC-6
were found for any parameter, results from these treat-
ments are not presented in tables.
The only significant difference in mortality was in FC-
6 cages (P ≤ 0.05), in which the mortality was higher in
cages with 100% AstroTurf威 lining (Table 4). No deaths
were assigned to the unintended water deficiency, but it
probably resulted in a general delay in the laying of the
first egg, causing the lower laying percentage and egg
mass calculated over the whole cycle in Hellmann and
FC-6 cages. The average feed conversion ratio (data not
shown) was 1.95 kg feed/kg egg in CO cages, in which
the birds were fed manually. Corresponding figures in
Victorsson and Hellmann cages were 1.97 kg feed/kg egg
and 2.00 kg feed/kg egg, respectively.
Neither of the cracked-egg reduction measures (egg
saver, nest curtain, or position of nest opening) nor the
proportion of nest bottom lining had significant effects
on laying percentage or egg mass (Tables 3 and 4). In
Hellmann cages, a higher egg weight was recorded in
cages without egg saver (P ≤ 0.05). The only significant
interaction found in production performance was a hy-
brid × nest curtain interaction (P ≤ 0.05) for kilograms of
egg per hen housed in Victorsson cages (data not shown).
This interaction was caused because HYW produced sig-
nificantly fewer kilograms of eggs per hen housed when
housed in cages with long nest curtains, compared with
all other combinations of nest curtains and hybrids.
Hybrid differences in production were found in all
furnished-cage models. In FC-6 cages (Table 4), the LSL
were superior to HYW in laying percentage, egg weight,
and egg mass (P ≤ 0.001 to 0.05). In Hellmann cages (Table
3), LSL had higher laying percentages (P ≤ 0.05) but lower

TABLE 2. Description of experimental layout of housing systems, treatments, hybrids,1 and replicates

Housing Replicates per Cages per

system Treatments treatment (n) replicate
Hellmann Egg-saver wire 9 (5 HYB, 4 LSL) 3
No egg-saver wire 9 (5 HYB, 4 LSL) 3
Victorsson Long nest curtain 9 (3 HYB, 3 HYW, 3 LSL) 3
Short nest curtain 9 (3 HYB, 3 HYW, 3 LSL) 3
FC-6 Nest opening in front, 30% nest bottom lining 9 (5 HYW, 4 LSL) 1
Nest opening in front, 100% nest bottom lining 9 (5 HYW, 4 LSL) 1
Nest opening in rear, 30% nest bottom lining 9 (5 HYW, 4 LSL) 1
Nest opening in rear, 100 % nest bottom lining 9 (5 HYW, 4 LSL) 1
CO2 Reference to other models 6 (2 HYB, 2 HYW, 2 LSL) 9
1
HYB = Hy-Line Brown; HYW = Hy-Line White; LSL = Lohmann Selected Leghorn.
2
Conventional, four-hen metal cage.
344 WALL AND TAUSON
TABLE 3. Production performance, mortality, and exterior egg quality as influenced by method of crack reduction
and hybrid in Hellmann and Victorsson furnished eight hen cages, 20–80 wk of age

Hellmann Victorsson

Method Method
Hybrids1 P-value2 Hybrids1 P-value
No Short Long
saver Saver HYB LSL Method Hybrids curtain curtain HYB HYW LSL Method Hybrids
Laying % (hen day) 82.0 82.2 80.6 83.6 0.85 * 84.9 83.9 83.7 83.5 86.0 0.39 0.21
Egg weight, g 64.3 63.2 64.4 63.1 * ** 61.9 62.0 63.8a 60.1c 61.8b 0.81 ***
Egg mass, kg/hen housed 21.7 21.3 21.5 21.6 0.60 0.86 21.5 21.3 22.0a 20.4b 21.9a 0.45 ***
Egg mass g/hen day 52.7 52.0 51.9 52.8 0.52 0.44 52.6 52.0 53.4a 50.2b 53.2a 0.48 **
Mortality,2 % of hens housed 4.2 5.1 4.2 5.2 0.46 0.75 6.9 6.0 6.3 7.6 5.6 0.32 0.58
Cracked eggs,2 % 11.8 4.7 7.6 9.1 *** 0.32 10.6 2.7 5.8 7.5 6.6 *** 0.20
Dirty eggs,2 % 5.4 5.3 4.9 6.0 0.86 * 3.8 3.5 2.0a 4.4b 4.5b 0.76 ***

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019

Shape index, % 72.9 72.9 73.5 72.3 0.89 ** 73.0 72.9 73.1 73.4 72.4 0.79 0.23
Shell breaking strength, kg 3.35 3.51 3.43 3.42 0.16 0.94 3.46 3.55 3.57 3.47 3.49 0.39 0.70
Shell deformation, 10−2 mm 80.9 78.2 80.4 78.7 0.42 0.60 74.3 76.4 73.7 74.4 78.0 0.32 0.20
Live weight, kg 1.81 1.77 1.94 1.64 0.26 *** 1.74 1.68 1.94a 1.52c 1.67b 0.22 ***
Plumage hygiene 3.5 3.3 4.0 2.9 0.15 *** 3.7 3.7 4.0a 3.6b 3.5b 0.98 **
Feet hygiene 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 0.94 0.13 3.3 3.3 3.0b 3.6a 3.4a 0.91 **

Values within rows and furnished cage model with different superscripts are significantly different (at least P ≤ 0.05).
a–c
1
HYB = Hy-Line Brown; HYW = Hy-Line White; LSL = Lohmann Selected Leghorn.
2
Presented as mean values instead of least-squares means because of arcsin transformation.
*P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001.

egg weights (P ≤ 0.01) compared with HYB. No differ- Egg Quality

ences in laying percentage were found among the three
hybrids when housed in Victorsson cages (Table 3), but
HYB had the highest egg weight followed by LSL and
HYW, all significantly different from each other (P ≤
0.001). Furthermore, in Victorsson cages HYB and LSL
showed significantly higher egg mass (kg egg/hen
housed) compared with HYW (P ≤ 0.001). No differences
in production were found among hybrids in CO cages
(Table 4).
The measures for crack reduction with Hellmann and
Victorsson cages, i.e., egg savers and nest curtains, respec-
tively, both lowered the proportions of cracks (P ≤ 0.001;
see Table 3). No significant effect of nest opening position
was shown in FC-6 cages (data not shown). The only
difference among hybrids for cracked eggs was found in
CO cages (Table 4), in which HYB had a higher proportion
of cracked eggs than HYW or LSL (P ≤ 0.05). The propor-

FIGURE 2. Victorsson furnished cage with litter bath upper right (shown as closed) and nest (lower right). Photo: Istvan Pamlényi.
 EGG QUALITY IN FURNISHED CAGES FOR LAYERS 345
TABLE 4. Production performance, mortality and exterior egg quality parameters as influenced by percentage of nest bottom lining
and hybrid in a furnished six-hen cage (FC-6) and by hybrid in a conventional four-hen cage (CO), from 20 to 80 wk of age

FC-6 CO

Lining
(nest bottom) Hybrids1 P-value Hybrids1 P-value

30% 100% HYW LSL Lining Hybrid HYB HYW LSL Hybrid

Laying % (hen-day) 82.5 82.4 80.6 84.2 0.95 * 83.4 81.8 84.2 0.30
Egg weight, g 61.8 62.0 60.8 62.9 0.74 *** 65.9 62.6 65.2 0.07
Egg mass, kg/hen housed 21.2 20.5 20.1 21.7 0.25 ** 22.2 20.4 23.0 0.30
Egg mass g/hen-day 51.0 51.0 49.0 53.0 0.99 *** 55.0 51.2 54.9 0.15
Mortality,2 % of hens housed 3.8 11.7 5.0 10.4 * 0.08 11.1 8.3 0 0.28
Cracked eggs,2 % 6.2 5.5 6.0 5.7 0.36 0.83 3.6a 1.6b 2.4b *
Dirty eggs,2 % 5.9 3.9 4.6 5.3 * 0.34 5.5b 8.8a 8.6a *
Shape index, % 73.5 73.4 73.6 73.3 0.85 0.71 ... ... ... ...

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019

Shell breaking strength, kg 3.49 3.48 3.40 3.57 0.98 0.42 ... ... ... ...
Deformation, 10−2 mm 74.9 78.8 79.2 74.5 0.21 0.14 ... ... ... ...
Live weight, kg ... ... ... ... ... ... 2.06a 1.56b 1.70b **
Plumage hygiene ... ... ... ... ... ... 4.0 3.7 3.7 0.30
Feet hygiene ... ... ... ... ... ... 3.7 3.6 3.9 0.08
Values within rows and cage model with different superscripts are significantly different (at least P ≤ 0.05).
a,b
1
HYB = Hy-Line Brown; HYW = Hy-Line White; LSL = Lohmann Selected Leghorn.
2
Presented as mean values instead of least-squares means because of arcsin transformation.
*P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001.

tions of cracked eggs increased with bird age in all hous-
ing systems (P ≤ 0.001; data not shown). Thus, at first
and last recording, respectively, (i.e., at 25 and 72 wk of
age) the average proportions of cracked eggs were 2.7
and 14.8% in Hellmann, 2.9 and 12.4% in Victorsson, 2.7
and 9.6% in FC-6, and 1.2 and 4.2% in CO cages. The
proportion of dirty eggs was higher in cages with 30%
nest bottom lining compared with 100% (P ≤ 0.05; Table
4). Significantly lower proportions of dirty eggs were ob-
served for HYB, in all cage models in which this hybrid
was present (P ≤ 0.001 to 0.05), whereas no significant
difference in dirty eggs was observed between HYW and
LSL. The proportions of dirty eggs were affected by bird
age in the three furnished-cage models (P ≤ 0.01), but no
trend in terms of higher of lower proportions of dirty
eggs with increasing bird age was found. The proportion
of dirty eggs was unaffected by bird age in CO cages.
Shell breaking strength and shell deformation were un-
affected by hybrids or cage designs. A higher shape index,
indicating a more globular shape, was found with HYB
than with LSL (P ≤ 0.01) but only in the Hellmann cage;
see Table 3.
Birds Live Weight and Hygiene
Hybrid differences in bird live weight were found in
all cage models in which this trait was measured, i.e., in
Victorsson, Hellmann, and CO cages (P ≤ 0.001 to 0.01;
see Tables 3 and 4). Method of crack reduction had no
significant effect on live weight or hygiene, regarding
plumage and feet, and no significant differences in hy-
giene were found among hybrids in CO. In Hellmann and
Victorsson cages, HYB had a significantly higher plumage
hygiene score, indicating cleaner plumage (P ≤ 0.001 to
0.01). There was no difference in feet hygiene between
HYB and LSL in Hellmann cages, whereas HYB had a
higher incidence of dirty feet compared with HYW and
LSL in Victorsson cages (P ≤ 0.01). An interaction was
found between hybrid and nest curtain (P ≤ 0.05) for feet
hygiene in Victorsson cages. This interaction was caused
mainly because HYB had fairly dirty feet (average score
= 2.8) in cages with long nest curtains, whereas the oppo-
site was true for HYW birds housed in cages with long
nest curtains (average score = 3.9).
Use of Facilities
When recording bird locations after lights-out in Hell-
mann and Victorsson cages (data not shown), we noted
that some groups of birds, the white genotypes especially,
were easily disturbed and changed location during re-
cording. Methods of crack reduction had no significant
effect on bird location in either of the two cage models,
except for a nest curtain × hybrid interaction in Victorsson
cages (P ≤ 0.01). This interaction was due the proportion
of LSL hens spending the night in nests with long curtains
being higher than in all other combinations of hybrid and
nest curtain. The proportions of birds spending the night
in nest boxes were 0.7 and 4.5% in HYB and LSL, respec-
tively, when housed in Hellmann cages (P ≤ 0.01) and
1.4, 1.7, and 3.6% in HYB, HYW, and LSL, respectively,
when housed in Victorsson cages (P ≤ 0.09). On average,
1.6% of the birds (no significant differences among hy-
brids) spent the night in, or on the edge of, litter baths
in Hellmann cages (no closing device), whereas no birds
were found in litter baths in Victorsson cages (with clos-
ing device). There were no significant differences in use
of perches in Hellmann cages in which, on average, 81.2%
roosted on the perches. In Victorsson cages, the propor-
tion of birds on the perches was 88.1% for HYW, 79.3%
for HYB, and 78.0% for LSL, with HYW being significantly
different from HYB and LSL (P ≤ 0.05). The proportions
346 WALL AND TAUSON
of birds in nests and on perches increased with bird age
in Victorsson cages (P ≤ 0.05), reaching 3.4% in the nest
and 82.5% on the perches at 77 wk of age. In Hellmann
cages, bird location at night was unaffected by age.
The proportions of eggs laid in nests and litter baths
(data not shown) were not significantly affected by
method of crack reduction (egg saver, nest curtain, or
position of nest opening) or by hybrid. On average, the
proportions of eggs laid in nests in Hellmann and Vic-
torsson cages, respectively, were 88.0 and 94.8%, and the
proportions in litter baths were 1.0 and 0.09%. The pro-
portion of artificial turf in nests significantly affected the
proportion of eggs laid in nests (P ≤ 0.05); on average
84.8% were in nests with 30% artificial turf covering, and
95.4% were in nests with 100% turf covering. The propor-
tion of eggs in litter baths in FC-6 cages was not affected
by proportion of nest bottom lining and was, on aver-
age, 0.30%.
In all three furnished-cage models, the proportions of
eggs laid in nest boxes increased with bird age (P ≤ 0.001
to 0.01), from 66.9 to 96.2% in Hellmann cages, from 86.8
to 96.3% in Victorsson cages, and from 82.1 to 90.4% in
FC-6 cages. The first recording was at 24 wk of age, and
the last was at 79 wk of age. In Victorsson and FC-6
cages, significant effects of bird age were found also in
proportions of eggs laid in litter baths (P ≤ 0.001), but
no trend in terms of higher or lower proportions with
increasing age was observed.
DISCUSSION
On the whole, the mortality in the present study was
higher than reported earlier by Abrahamsson and Tauson
(1997) and Wall et al. (2002). Even if anemia was the
primary cause of death only in a few hens according to
the autopsy protocols, it is likely that the invasion of red
mites affected the general health status of all birds. The
significantly higher mortality in cages with 100%
AstroTurf威 compared with 30%, is difficult to explain.
Besides the delay in laying of the first egg, birds subjected
to the unintended water deficiency seemed to recover
quickly, and no long-term negative effects were detected.
The significantly higher egg weight found in in Hell-
mann cages without an egg saver cannot be explained
and is assumed to be a random effect. In CO cages, the
hybrids were ranked similarly to those in the furnished-
cage models, in regards to production parameters. Hence,
too few replicates were probably the reason for differ-
ences in production not being significant in CO cages. In
CO, LSL produced a considerably high egg mass per
hen housed, compared with that in the furnished-cage
models. This result can be partly explained by the higher
egg weight but also by the very low mortality found only
with LSL in CO cages.
In nests with long nest curtains (the Victorsson cage),
eggs stopped rolling when they reached the curtain or
they rolled into the cradle but with reduced speed. Eggs
that stopped at the curtain started to move again when
cage floor vibrated due to bird movements in the cage
or when touched by another egg or a hen. In Hellmann
cages, the egg-saver wire stopped all eggs gently; when
the wire was lifted, the eggs rolled slowly down to the
egg cradle. Hence, both devices were very effective in
lowering the proportions of cracked eggs in the furnished
cages. However, high levels of cracked eggs have been
reported in furnished cages for large groups of hens with
egg savers (van Niekerk and Reuvekamp, 1999). Their
results have shown that even if measures to reduce
cracked eggs are used, the design of the cage and the
nest, especially, are important. A disadvantage of long
nest curtains and egg savers is that the eggs are retained
for some time within reach of the hens. However, in the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
present study, egg eating was a problem in only one cage.
The problem occurred during the second half of the study
in a cage with an egg saver.
Based on the present study, no recommendations re-
garding the location of nest opening can be given, as no
difference was found in egg quality, the birds’ use of
nests, or any other parameter measured. However, a prac-
tical consideration is that inspection from the aisle is eas-
ier if the nest opening is closer to the front of the cage
than the rear. The increase in proportion of cracked eggs
with bird age was expected, as eggs become larger and
egg shells thinner with increasing age. The significantly
higher proportion of cracked eggs in HYB when housed
in CO cages cannot be explained.
Eggs with high shape indexes, i.e., more globular in
shape, might have a higher risk of becoming cracked
when rolling down to the egg cradle, due to higher accel-
eration (Wall et al., 2002). In the present study, however,
the shape index was higher for HYB eggs than for LSL
eggs from Hellman cages, but no difference was found
among the hybrids for proportion of cracked eggs. This
result illustrates that the problem with cracked eggs in
furnished cages may be multifactorial and affected by
bird behavior, eggshell characteristics, and nest design.
It is likely that the lower proportions of dirty eggs
found for HYB in the cage models tested arose because
the person operating the candling machine had greater
difficulty in detecting dirt on brown-shelled eggs than on
white. The general levels of dirty eggs were higher in the
present study than in earlier studies on egg quality in
furnished cages (Abrahamsson and Tauson, 1997; Wall
et al., 2002). However, what is perceived as a dirty egg
varies with each person, and, therefore, comparisons
among studies should be made with caution. It is more
important that the average proportions in several models
of furnished cages, e.g., Victorsson, in fact were lower
than in the CO cages, which differs from reports on the
older models used by Abrahamsson and Tauson (1995).
This finding illustrates that furnished cages might have
improved over time in this respect.
The curtain strips that separate the nest from the cage
area in Hellmann cages enabled birds to lie with one part
of the body, generally the front part, inside the nest with
the rest of the body outside. This position occurred, e.g.,
when the nesting area was occupied by one or several
other hens and resulted in some eggs being laid close to,
 EGG QUALITY IN FURNISHED CAGES FOR LAYERS
but outside, the nest. These eggs would probably have
been laid inside the nest if the nest wall had been rigid
instead of flexible. Hence, if a method of crack reduction
is present only outside and in front of the nest area, e.g.,
such as the long nest curtain in Victorsson cages, eggs
laid outside the nest might have a higher risk of getting
cracked. Some egg producers repeatedly run the egg belt
a short distance during the period when most eggs are
laid to reduce the risk of eggs colliding in the egg cradle.
However, as the method has not been scientifically evalu-
ated, its effectiveness is not known.
Overall, the proportions of eggs laid in nests were high,
especially at the end of the study, and the proportions of
eggs in litter baths were very low. In Hellmann cages,
the proportion of eggs in the baths was higher than in
the other furnished-cage models, most likely due to the
lack of a closing mechanism. However, the proportion
was also moderate in the Hellmann cages, possibly due
to the litter boxes being closed until 24 wk of age, when
the birds had become accustomed to laying eggs in nests.
Partly covering of the nest bottom with artificial turf
was not successful. The lower attraction to such nests
concurs with findings reported by Wall et al. (2002). How-
ever, in the present study the decrease in proportion of
eggs laid in nests was quite moderate. Whereas Wall et
al. (2002) found no effect of nest bottom lining on propor-
tion of dirty eggs, the proportion in the present study
was significantly higher with less AstroTurf威 lining, in
contrast to what was expected. Dirty nest linings are most
likely caused by droppings from hens staying in the nest
for a longer period, e.g., during the night. Given that
staying overnight is a rare event, nest hygiene seems
to be at least as good in nests with full covering with
AstroTurf威 as in nests with less AstroTurf威. It is possible
that the manipulation of nesting materials by birds during
the nesting activity may remove dirt and, thereby, contri-
butes to good hygiene. It is interesting to note, however,
that the higher proportions of dirty eggs in nests with
less lining agrees with the higher proportion of dirty
eggs in the CO cages, in which all eggs are laid on the
wire floor.
The use of perches after dark was slightly lower than
reported in several earlier studies (Abrahamsson et al.,
1996; Abrahamsson and Tauson, 1997; Appleby, 1998) but
is in agreement with levels found by Wall et al. (2002).
In the present study, it was observed that birds were not
always settled in their locations during the recordings;
the presence of red mites might have contributed to a
general restlessness and, in turn, lower proportions of
birds on perches. For the HYW, the proportion of birds
on perches at night was higher than for the HYB and
LSL; HYW was also the hybrid with the lowest live
weight. Lower live weights require less perch space to
be occupied per hen. However, lack of perch space was
probably not the reason for the lower use of perches with
the other two hybrids, as the difference in live weight
between HYW and LSL birds was quite moderate. Few
birds were found in litter baths after dark in Hellmann
cages, despite the baths being open around the clock. It
347
has been shown that hens prefer elevated perches, when
able to choose, and struggle to avoid end positions on
the perch (Olsson and Keeling, 2000). In the present study,
roosting close to other hens in the cage was probably
more important than roosting at the most elevated place
in the cage, i.e., the litter bath. In Victorsson cages, the
increased use of perches after dark as the birds aged
agrees with results published by Wall et al. (2002). The
reasons for HYW hens, when housed in cages with long
nest curtains, having significantly lower egg masses and
cleaner feet are not known.
The significantly higher plumage scores, indicating a
cleaner plumage on HYB in the furnished cages, were
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
most likely due to dirt in the plumage being harder to
detect on brown birds. In CO cages, all hybrids had rather
good plumage hygiene, probably because there were no
obstacles, e.g., perches, to cause areas where dirt could
accumulate. Hybrid differences regarding foot hygiene
in furnished cages have been reported earlier by Tauson
and Abrahamsson (1996), who found dirtier feet on ISA-
Brown birds compared with LSL birds. In the present
study, the cause of dirtier feet found on HYB birds when
housed in Victorsson cages is not known. It is possible
that HYB, being a heavier hybrid, had lower locomotive
activity, which in turn caused a dirtier floor; however,
locomotive activity and cage hygiene were not recorded.
In conclusion, in most furnished-cage models, egg lay-
ing is concentrated to a very narrow area, as compared
with conventional cages without nests. Egg savers and
long nest curtains proved to be effective measures in
reducing cracks in such models, whereas there were no
differences due to location of the opening, i.e., front vs.
rear of nest. Thus, adding these devices to the furnished-
cage model implied similar proportions of cracks to con-
ventional cages. Reduction of the proportion of
AstroTurf威 lining in nests cannot be recommended, as
no benefit in egg quality was obtained, and bird use of
the nest was decreased.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Swedish Farmers’ Foundation for Agricultural Re-
search and the Swedish Board of Agriculture are thanked
for financial support.
REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, P., and R. Tauson, 1997. Effects of group size on
performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished
cages for laying hens. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci.
47:254–260.
Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and M. C. Appleby, 1995. Perfor-
mance of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conven-
tional cages. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 45:286–296.
Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and M. C. Appleby, 1996. Behav-
iour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in
modified and conventional cages. Br. Poult. Sci. 37:521–540.
Appleby, M. C., 1990. Behaviour of laying hens in cages with
nest sites. Br. Poult. Sci. 31:71–80.
Appleby, M. C., 1998. The Edinburgh Modified Cage: Effects of
group size and space allowance on brown laying hens. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 7:152–161.
348 WALL AND TAUSON
Appleby, M. C., and B. O. Hughes, 1995. The Edinburgh modi-
fied cage for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 36:707–718.
Appleby, M. C., and H. E. McRae, 1986. The individual nest
box as a super-stimulus for domestic hens. Appl. Anim. Be-
hav. Sci. 15:169–176.
Duncan, I. J. H., and V. G. Kite, 1989. Nest site selection and
nest-building behaviour in domestic fowl. Anim. Behav.
37:215–231.
European Commission, 1999. Council Directive 1999/74/EC of
19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protec-
tion of laying hens. Official Journal L 203, 03/08/1999.
Hughes, B. O., 1993. Choice between artificial turf and wire
floor as nest sites in individually caged laying hens. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 36:327–335.
Jordbruksverket, 2000. Ny teknikprovning av Trivsel-buren för
åtta värphöns. Jordbruksverket, 551 82 Jönköping, Sweden.
(In Swedish).
Lee, D. J. W., and W. Bolton, 1976. Battery cage shape: The laying
performance of medium- and light-body weight strains of
hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 17:321–326.
Nordenfors, H., 2000. Epidemiology and control of the poultry
red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of
Veterinary Microbiology, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Olsson, I. A. S., and L. J. Keeling, 2000. Night-time roosting in
laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68:243–256.
Reed, H. J., and C. J. Nicol, 1992. Effects of nest linings, pecking
strips and partitioning on nest use and behaviour in modified
battery cages. Br. Poult. Sci. 33:719–727.
SAS Institute Inc., 1996. System for Windows, Release 6. SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran, 1989. Statistical Methods.
8th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Statens jordbruksverk, 1997. Statens jordbruksverks författning-
ssamling. SJVFS 1997:71, L 106. Statens jordbruksverk, 551
82 Jönköping, Sweden. (In Swedish).
Tauson, R., and P. Abrahamsson, 1996. Foot and keel bone
disorders in laying hens. Effects of artificial perch material
and hybrid. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Anim. Sci. 46:239–246.
Tauson, R., T. Ambrosen, and K. Elwinger, 1984. Evaluation
of procedures for scoring the integument of laying hens—
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-abstract/81/3/340/1559581 by guest on 09 February 2019
Independent scoring of plumage condition. Acta Agric.
Scand. 34:400–408.
van Niekerk, T. G. C. M., and B. F. J. Reuvekamp, 1995. Improv-
ing the welfare of laying hens in cages. Misset World Poult.
11:38–41.
van Niekerk, T., and B. Reuvekamp, 1999. Legehennen in großn
Gruppenkäfigen. Heutiges System nicht praxisreif. DGS Ma-
gazin 26:18–22.
Wall, H., R. Tauson, and K. Elwinger, 2002. Effect of nest design,
passages and hybrid on use of nest and production perfor-
mance of layers in furnished cages. Poultry Sci. 81:333–339.