DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Feed Additives, Housing Systems, and Stress on <I>Salmonella</I> Shedding in Single Comb White and Br

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Feed Additives, Housing Systems, and Stress on <I>Salmonella</I> Shedding in Single Comb White and Br University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Theses and Dissertations in Animal Science Animal Science Department Spring 5-2014 The ffecE ts of Feed Additives, Housing Systems, and Stress on Salmonella Shedding in Single Comb White and Brown Laying Hens Dana L. Hahn University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscidiss Part of the Poultry or Avian Science Commons Hahn, Dana L., "The Effects of Feed Additives, Housing Systems, and Stress on Salmonella Shedding in Single Comb White and Brown Laying Hens" (2014). Theses and Dissertations in Animal Science. 84. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscidiss/84 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations in Animal Science by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. THE EFFECTS OF FEED ADDITIVES, HOUSING SYSTEMS AND STRESS ON SALMONELLA SHEDDING IN SINGLE COMB WHITE AND BROWN LAYING HENS by Dana L. Hahn A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Animal Science Under the Supervision of Professor Sheila E. Purdum Lincoln, Nebraska May 2014 THE EFFECTS OF FEED ADDITIVES, HOUSING SYSTEMS AND STRESS ON SALMONELLA SHEDDING IN SINGLE COMB WHITE AND BROWN LAYING HENS Dana Leigh Hahn, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2014 Adviser: Sheila E. Purdum A series of studies were conducted examining feed additives, housing systems and stress on Salmonella shedding. Alternative feed additives such as prebiotics, probiotics and essential oils have been shown to reduce pathogenic bacteria colonization. Furthermore, stressors such as movement have been shown to increase Salmonella shedding. The goal of the studies was to examine if alternative ingredients reduce Salmonella shedding in alternative housing systems and through movement stress. Study 1 examined cage and cage-free housing with mannan oligosaccharide (MOS) supplementation. Treatments were arranged in a 2x2 factorial design: cage or cage free; MOS (0% or 0.08%). There was no effect on housing system or MOS for Salmonella. E. coli fecal counts increased at 73 wks of age for MOS diets. E. coli and coliforms were three times more likely to be found on eggshells from cage free pens then cage. MOS reduced E. coli colonization in duodenum. Study 2 examined the effect of transportation stress at 16 wks of age on S. enteritidis (SE) shedding through peak lay (33 wks). Incidence of SE positive increased leading up to peak lay. Study 3 examined Salmonella vaccination, movement stress and feed additives in laying hens (43-50 wks of age). Treatments were arranged in a 3x2 factorial design: vaccination (yes or no), feed additive (control, 0.03% MOS or 0.15% synergistic). Feed additives did not have a significant effect on production parameters or Salmonella. Vaccinated hens fed MOS had the highest egg wt. Study 4 examined feed additives on pullets (1 day-22 wks), gut microbiome and SE prevalence (12-22 wks of age). Six treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design: control, 0.01% 1x1010 P. acidilactici , 0.01% 2x1010 live S. cerevisiae boulardii, 0.1% MOS, .01% 1x1010 P. acidilactici+ 0.1% MOS, 0.01% 2x1010 live S. cerevisiae boulardii + 0.1% MOS. Treatments did not have an impact on Salmonella fecal counts, E. coli, coliform fecal and ceca counts or Enterobacteriacea fecal counts. No Salmonella was found in the ceca. All treatments saw a decrease in Enterobacteriacea except for MOS. Current vaccination programs are reducing the risk for Salmonella. Keywords: Laying hens, Salmonella, prebiotic, probiotic, MOS i DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my loving and supportive family and husband. Without you, none of this would be possible. ii AKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that I need to thank, first of which are the members of my committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning from all of you. Dr. Sheila Purdum, working with you these past 5 years has been quite a journey. It is very difficult to put into words my gratitude to you, but I will try. I’ve grown leaps and bounds under your patient and watchful eye. You taught me so many lessons and instilled confidence in me that I will never forget. Thank you for allowing me to learn and grow, thank you for seeing something in me that I didn’t realize I had. You have been a wonderful mentor, I’m forever greatful for this experience. Dr. Kathy Hanford, thank you for working with me these past 5 years. You taught me so much, words cannot express my gratitude towards you. Thank you for serving not only on my M.S. committee, but also on my Ph.D. committee. Dr. Samodha Fernando, thank you for your guidance and expertise while allowing me to learn from you and members in your lab. I’m truly thankful for the experience. Dr. Julie Albrecht, thank you for serving on this committee. You have offered a unique persepective and I have learned a great amount from you. Thank you to the University poutry group, Brett Kriefles, Pamela Eusebio, Anna Stiener and Leo Sweet for all of your support. Special thank you to David Giraud, Chris Anderson, and Nirosh Aluthge for all of your assistance with lab work and answering all of my questions. iii I had the unique opportunity to leave early and work for Smart Chicken. Many thanks go to Bill Schellpeper for taking a chance on me while also allowing me to finish my degree. The entire live operations team: Mandy Wood, Trish Weber, Chris Thompson, Bertus Byleveld, Derek Kraayenbrink, Dave Smith and Steve Helser, thank you for your support. This section would not be complete without giving thanks to my close circle of friends I made here: Adria Bhatnager, Katie Lucot, and Kim Varnold. You all were my anchor through this crazy journey called grad school. I cannot put into words how much your support ment to me, so a simple thank you will have to do. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents, Mark and Sue Hahn, Sister, Laura Hahn and my newest extended family: Michael and Debra Didde and Sarah Didde. You all offered so much support throughout this whole process, even if you didn’t completely understand what I was doing, you offered unconditional and unwavering support, for that, thank you. To all of my close friends down in KC and Nashville, thank you, I love you all. Last, but most definitely not least, my deepest thanks to my loving husband, Mark Didde. You were with me every step of the way from day one of my Master’s to now. You supported me through everything; I’m so excited to share this with you. This dissertation is as much your accomplishment as it is mine. Thank you and I love you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1—Literature Review……………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 Introduction………………………………………………..…………………..1 1.2 History of Salmonella in Poultry Production………………………………….3 1.4 Infection Biology of Avian Salmonellosis…………………………………….6 1.5 The Carrier State and Shedding…………………………...…………....……..9 1.6 Methods of Egg Contamination of S. enteritidis...………….…………..…....12 1.7 Control Programs of S. enteritidis………………...………...….……….....…14 1.8 Introduction to Poultry Microbiome…………...…………….……………….17 1.9 Probiotics………………………………………...……….……………….….19 1.10 Prebiotics……………………………………………………………………22 1.11 Organic Acids and Essential Oils…...............................................................25 1.11.1 Organic Acids……………………………………………..26 1.11.2 Essential Oils……………………………………………...28 1.12 Alternative Housing in Poultry……………………………………………..31 1.13 Types of Housing Systems…………...…………………………………….32 1.14 Food Safety and Alternative Housing….......................................................35 1.15 Conclusions………………………………………………………………...38 1.16 References………………………………………………………...……......39 Chapter 2—The Effects of a Mannanoligosaccharide on Salmonella, E. coli, and Coliform Shedding in Cage and Cage Free Environments………………………………57 2.1 Abstract………………………………....…………………………………….57 v 2.2 Introduction…………………………...…….………………………………...58 2.3 Materials and Methods……………..………………………………………..61 2.4 Results and Discussion…………...…………...……………………………..68 2.5 References………………………………...………………………………….79 Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………...83 Chapter 3—Observation of Salmonella Enterica serovar Enteritidis in Laying Hens During Travel Stress Through Peak Lay………………………………………………...99 3.1 Abstract………………………………………………………………………99 3.2 Introduction…………………………….……...…………………………....100 3.3 Materials and Methods……………………………...……………………...102 3.4 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………..105 3.5 References…………………...……………………………………………..109 Tables and Figures……………….…………………………………………..…111 Chapter 4—Effects of a MOS or Prebiotic Combination on Salmonella Shedding Through a Transport Stress in Laying Hens…………………………………………....113 4.1 Abstract…..…………………………………..……………………………..113 4.2 Introduction………….….…………….…………………………………….114 4.3 Materials and Methods………………….………………………………….118 4.4 Results and Discussion………...…………..……………………………….123 4.5 References……………………………..……………………………………130 Tables and Figures………………………..……………………………………..135 Chapter 5—Prebiotics or Probiotics Used Alone or in Combination and Effects on Pullet Growth and Intesitinal Microbiome…………………………………………………...141 5.1 Abstract……………………………………………………………………141 5.2 Introduction………………………………………………………………..142 vi 5.3 Materials and Methods…………………...……………………………….144
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Back to the Future of Animal Law ALDF Presents a Weekend of Scholarship and Insights
    10 2010 MMER Victory for More Good News 90 Days 29.2 U Farmed Animals For Kentucky’s In Jail for S 3 In California 6 Shelter Animals 8 Puppy’s Killer ND FU ENSE F DE AL G LE Tails wagging at Harvard Law School for ALDF’s Future of Animal Law Conference ANIMAL HE Back to the Future F T O of Animal Law ERS ALDF presents a weekend of scholarship and insights T OR TAKE MORE THAN 300 ATTORNEYS, law stu- animal law, veterinary forensics and tox- dents, academics and animal advocates icity testing without animals, the confer- UPP from around the globe, gather them at ence addressed what is doubtless the most S one of the world’s most prestigious law pressing issue advocates face: animals schools, and you’ve got more than an used as food. OR international perspective on legal issues – you’ve got the Future of Animal Law at FARMED ANIMALS F Harvard University. Charting a Course for the Protection of ER Sponsored by ALDF and the Harvard Farmed Animals was one of the highlights Student Animal Legal Defense Fund of the Future of Animal Law, and it featured TT (SALDF) chapter, the April 9–12 confer- a panel representing the fields of law, sci- ence was the scene of strategies, panel ence, policy and economics. Speakers discussions and workshops, all aimed at included Patrick Brown of the Stanford SLE educating and inspiring those who want University School of Medicine; Carter W to use the legal system to advance the Dillard, counsel to the Humane Society of interests of animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Egg Production in Canada
    Egg Production in Canada Modern domestic strains of egg-laying chickens (also called ‘layers’, ‘laying hens’, or simply ‘hens’) originate from Jungle Fowl and we know that in the wild, these hens would build a nest in which to lay their egg, would forage for food and would perch up high at night. While modern strains of hens are different from their ancestors, they still retain many of the behaviour patterns of their ancestors and are strongly motivated to perform those behaviours. The Life of an Egg-Laying Hen In B.C., more than 2 million hens are raised for egg production each year. Chicks are hatched at hatcheries where the male and females are separated soon after hatching. Female chicks are kept at the hatchery for up to 2 days where they are vaccinated against diseases. Beak trimming is routinely performed on flocks destined for commercial production. This is a painful procedure that involves removing a portion of the beak using either a blade (hot or cold) or a laser and is performed within the first week of life. Male chicks of egg-laying breeds are of little economic value as they will not produce eggs, and, due to genetics, grow much slower than breeds of chickens raised for meat. As a result, they are all killed after hatching. Female chicks are either transported directly to the farm or, more commonly, to a pullet grower who rears the chickens until they reach approximately 19 weeks of age. At that time, the pullets are transported to the farm. The average hen will begin laying eggs at between 18 - 20 weeks of age (depending on the season and the breed of hen that is raised).
    [Show full text]
  • ARC News a Newsletter from the Animal Rights Coalition
    AARRCC NNEEWWSS The Poultry Issue The Poultry Issue Fall 2007 A publication of the Animal Rights Coalition to promote a compassionate world A Day in a Life in the City with Chickens by Mary Britton Clouse, Chicken Run Rescue It’s just before sunrise. Classical music seeps softly from the clock radio. The floor creaks as I step out of bed and the roosters stir from their sleep just below in our basement. Wings slap a warning that the first crow will come from Roseman – ARK-A-ARK-A-ARKGGG in his old, gravelly voice. We’ve been hearing that crow for almost five years now. Young Bing, named after Bing Crosby, chimes in with a melodious and melancholy greeting that sounds much like the first few notes of the Air Force anthem “Off We Go” – an appropriate way to start a day. I dress and pad downstairs. I sing a good morning song A beautiful day at Chicken Run Rescue to my beautiful birds as I tug on the lights. All seven girls are already up and pacing at their pen door, anxious to Rosco gets his eye drops for a slight infection. Roseman trundle up the stairs to the shed door and outside and see gets a half tablet of Baytril for a persistent foot infection. what garden snacks are left from yesterday’s treats. They Bing has just recovered from a very serious and unsolved have been thinking about them all night. Several also illness, perhaps from some toxic berry he found in the have plans to lay eggs in a little while.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Effects of Furnished Cages and Battery Cages on Behavioral Exhibitions in White Leghorn Chickens
    Research Note Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens K. Mile* and H.-W. Chengf' *Depai.tirient of Animal $renc:es. Purdue University. Wet Lafayette, IN 7907: (lad TLicstocJi Behacior Research Unit. USDA -Aqricuitwr'al Research Service. West Lafayette. IN 47907 ABSTRACT The battery cage system is being banned birds were housed per cage, providing a stocking den- ill European Union before or by 2012, and the fur- sity of 610 (-Ili 2 of floor space per bird. Behavioral ob- nished cage system will be the only cage system allowed servations were conducted using the Xoldus Observer after 2012. This stud y was conducted to exanune the software package. The birds were observed at 5-mm different effects of caging s ystems, furnished ('ages vs. intervals for the entire light period. The birds housed in battery cages, oil behaviors. One hundred ninety- battery cages had higher posture and behavioral transi- two 1 -d-old non-beak-trinuned I-Tv-Line \V-36 White tions and increased time spent walking and perform- chicks were reared using standard nianageinent ing exploratory behavior (P < 0.05. 0.01. respective- practices in raised wire cages. At 19 wk of age, the birds ly) which may indicate they were stressed. resulting were randomly assigned into battery cages or furnished iii restlessness. whereas the birds housed in furnished cages. The battery cages were commercial wire cages ('ages had higher levels of preening ( P < 0.05). Preen- containing 6 birds per cage.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of the Housing System on Salmonella Infections in Laying Hens
    Zoonoses and Public Health REVIEW ARTICLE The Influence of the Housing System on Salmonella Infections in Laying Hens: A Review S. Van Hoorebeke1, F. Van Immerseel2, F. Haesebrouck2, R. Ducatelle2 and J. Dewulf1 1 Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium 2 Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium Impacts • An overview is given of all published observational studies on the influence of the housing system of laying hens on the prevalence of Salmonella. • Based on the available epidemiological data it is unlikely that the move from conventional battery cages to enriched cages and non-cage systems will increase the prevalence of Salmonella in laying hens. • Other factors such as the farm and flock size, the stocking density, stress, the carry-over of infections through pests, hygiene measures, etc., also play a role. Keywords: Summary Laying hens; Salmonella; housing system From 2012 onwards, housing of laying hens in conventional battery cages will Correspondence: be forbidden in the European Union and only enriched cages and non-cage S. Van Hoorebeke. Veterinary Epidemiology housing systems such as aviaries, floor-raised, free-range and organic systems Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics will be allowed. Although this ban aims at improving the welfare of laying and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary hens, it has also initiated the question whether there are any adverse conse- Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, quences of this decision, especially with respect to the spread and/or persistence 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to the Barren Battery Cage for the Housing of Laying Hens in the European Union
    ALTERNATIVES TO THE BARREN BATTERY CAGE FOR THE HOUSING OF LAYING HENS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A report by Compassion in World Farming 3 2007 © Dale Arey (CIWF) ALTERNATIVES TO THE BARREN BATTERY CAGE FOR THE HOUSING OF LAYING HENS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A report by Compassion in World Farming Written by Heather Pickett BSc (Hons) MSc 2007 © Compassion in World Farming, 007 ISBN 900 56 407 Compassion in World Farming nd Floor, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey GU7 EZ, UK Tel: +44(0)483 5950 Fax: +44(0)483 86639 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ciwf.org.uk Registered Charity Number 095050; a Company limited by Guarantee, registered number 4590804. 3 Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 2. Alternatives to the barren battery cage for the housing of laying hens in the European Union 8 2. ‘Enriched’ cages 8 2. Non-cage systems 9 3. The ability of ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems to meet the behavioural needs of hens 10 3. The natural behaviour and cognitive abilities of hens 10 3. Nesting 10 3.3 Foraging and dustbathing 13 3.4 Perching 15 3.5 Space requirements and social group size 16 4. Addressing key welfare concerns in ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems 19 4. Feather pecking and cannibalism 19 4. Bone strength and fractures 23 4.3 Mortality 24 5. Overall comparison of welfare in ‘enriched’ cages and non-cage systems 25 6. Economics of changing to non-cage systems 27 6. Production costs in non-cage systems 27 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals
    Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals Joel L. Greene Analyst in Agricultural Policy Tadlock Cowan Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development February 14, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42534 Table Egg Production and Hen Welfare: Agreement and Legislative Proposals Summary The United Egg Producers (UEP), the largest group representing egg producers, and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest animal protection group, have been adversaries for many years over the use of conventional cages in table egg production. In July 2011, the animal agriculture community was stunned when the UEP and HSUS announced that they had agreed to work together to push for federal legislation to regulate how U.S. table eggs are produced. The agreement between UEP and HSUS called for federal legislation that would set cage sizes, establish labeling requirements, and regulate other production practices. As part of the agreement, HSUS agreed to immediately suspend state-level ballot initiative efforts in Oregon and Washington. On April 25, 2013, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 820 and H.R. 1731) were introduced in the 113th Congress. The bills are nearly identical to the legislation that was introduced during the 112th Congress (S. 3239 and H.R. 3798). The provisions in S. 820 and H.R. 1731 reflect the 2011 agreement between UEP and HSUS to establish uniform, national cage size requirements for table egg-laying hens. The bills would codify national standards for laying-hen housing over a 15- to 16-year phase-in period, including labeling requirements to disclose how eggs are produced, and set air quality, molting, and euthanasia standards for laying hens.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Safety and Cage Egg Production
    May 2011 An HSUS Report: Food Safety and Cage Egg Production Abstract States have begun legislating against cage egg production and dozens of major U.S. food retailers, restaurant chains, and foodservice providers—as well as hundreds of U.S. universities—are switching to cage-free eggs. Extensive scientific evidence strongly suggests this trend will improve food safety. All sixteen scientific studies published in the last five years comparing Salmonella contamination between caged and cage-free operations found that those confining hens in cages had higher rates of Salmonella, the leading cause of food poisoning related death in the United States. This has led prominent consumer advocacy organizations, such as the Center for Food Safety, to oppose the use of cages to confine egg-laying hens. Introduction How we treat animals can have serious public health implications. The AIDS virus, for example, has killed more than 25 million people,1 and its emergence has been traced to the butchering of chimpanzees for their flesh.2 The emergence of SARS, the contagious respiratory disease that infected thousands worldwide, has been linked to live animal markets,3 and the introduction of monkeypox into the United States has been blamed on the exotic pet trade.4 In fact, many of humanity’s great disease scourges—including smallpox,5 influenza,6 and measles7—likely originally arose from our domestication of farm animals.8 Many current industrial farming practices threaten the health of Americans, including the feeding of millions of pounds of antibiotics
    [Show full text]
  • Battery Cages and the Welfare of Hens in Canada a Summary of the Scientific Literature
    Battery Cages and the Welfare of Hens in Canada A Summary of the Scientific Literature - October 2005 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 The Battery System ..................................................................................................... 3 International Developments ......................................................................................... 4 Hen Behaviour and Environment ................................................................................. 4 Physical Ailments ......................................................................................................... 8 Industry Practices ........................................................................................................ 9 Role of Genetics .......................................................................................................... 10 Legislation in Canada ................................................................................................ 10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 11 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................... 11 Other Sources ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Laying Birds in Deep Litter and Battery Cage Systems Inorlu Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria: a Comparative Study
    International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry Volume 6, Issue 3, 2019, PP 21-29 ISSN 2394-5907 (Print) & ISSN 2394-5915 (Online) Management of Laying Birds in Deep Litter and Battery Cage Systems Inorlu Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria: A Comparative Study Okonkwo, S1and Ahaotu, E.O1 1Department of Animal Production and Health Technology, Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo, Nigeria *Corresponding Author: Okonkwo, S and Ahaotu, E.O , Department of Animal Production and Health Technology, Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo, Nigeria. ABSTRACT This paper examines the management of battery cage and deep litter poultry egg production systems in Orlu Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria. Structured questionnaire were used in sourcing primary data of 150 poultry egg farmers which comprises of 75each of battery cage and deep litter poultry egg farmers. Descriptive statistics was applied for the study. The mean ages of the battery cage and deep litter farmers were 46 and 44 years respectively implying the farmers are still in their active years. All the battery cage farmers had formal education as against 4% of deep litter farmers. The major constraints in egg production ranked in order of high feed cost, non-remunerative price for egg and birds and supply of poor quality feed and feed ingredients. In addition are high costs of medicines and vaccines, lack of disease control facilities and high rate of electricity tariff. The paper recommends the reduction in electricity tariff, credit provision and subsidy of feed input prices. Also strengthening of existing research centers to develop genetically improved and efficient feed converting breeds of poultry is recommended too.
    [Show full text]
  • Broiler Multi Tier Broiler Multi Tier Broiler Multi Tier
    BROILER MULTI TIER BROILER MULTI TIER BROILER MULTI TIER The Facco Broiler cage originates from Facco’s long poultry farming experience and from the innovative test cycle carried out on broilers of various breeds and weights FEEDING SYSTEM The special plastic material of the floor, together with the mechanical frame, provide a flexible and steady The feed pans (two in each cage - B3 model) or four feed pans support that ensures the optimum development of the animal’s feet. (B3-MAX model) have been developed in order to feed the animals from their first day of life to the end of the cycle, bringing Cage dimensions were selected which would maximize the animals’ welfare and guarantee an optimum use feed wastage down to a minimum. The feed pans is built so that of the space, thereby avoiding unnecessary cage depth. the adult broilers are unable to roost on it and to facilitate the access of the animals from the first days of the cycle. Facco designed two different versions of the BROILER MULTIPIANO “B3”: • B3 classic, module 248x165 • B3-MAX, module 372x196 At the same time, the structure allows the chicks to go in and out of the trough without getting stuck. The height of the whole feeding line may be adjusted. In fact, the BROILER CAGES B3 - 248x165 BROILER CAGES B3-MAX - 372x196 trough has been designed so that the quantity of feed released can be adjusted according to the animals’ age by simply adjusting its height. The feed is transported from the silo to the trough by way of a 410 special system made of spirals that ensure individual feeding on 410 each level of each row.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2009 A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems Sara Shields Animal Studies Repository Ian J.H. Duncan University of Guelph Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ hsus_reps_impacts_on_animals Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Animal Studies Commons, and the Operations and Supply Chain Management Commons Recommended Citation Shields, Sara and Duncan, Ian J.H., "A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems" (2009). IMPACTS ON FARM ANIMALS. 18. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/hsus_reps_impacts_on_animals/18 This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An HSUS Report: A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems Sara Shields, Ph.D.,* and Ian J.H. Duncan, Ph.D.† Abstract Housing systems for egg-laying hens range from small, pasture-based flocks to large, commercial-scale operations that intensively confine tens of thousands of hens indoors. The overwhelming majority of laying hens used for commercial egg production in the United States are confined in battery cages and provided 432.3 cm2 (67 in2) of space per bird. Cages prevent hens from performing the bulk of their natural behavior, including nesting, perching, dustbathing, scratching, foraging, exercising, running, jumping, flying, stretching, wing- flapping, and freely walking. Cages also lead to severe disuse osteoporosis due to lack of exercise. Alternative, cage-free systems allow hens to move freely through their environment and to engage in most of the behavior thwarted by battery-cage confinement.
    [Show full text]