A comparative analysis of deep litter and battery cage systems in laying hens:
Background:
Due to improving standards of living, there is an immense increasing demand for animal protein sources than of plant origin. This has compelled farmers in the animal production industry to increase their production potential to meet the increasing consumer demands. This has led to the invention of new technologies and innovations.
Genetically
modified animals with fast-growing rate and better Feed Conversion Efficiency
(FCE) have been bred. Additionally, there is increasing use of non-conventional
feedstuffs due to increasing scarcity of conventional feeds in modern
commercial farms. Moreover, agricultural engineers and scientists have designed
animal houses that allow a higher stocking density in a limited space.
Consequently, this has raised concern to the health and welfare of the animals
by many activists. Further still, farmworkers are exposed to aerial pollutants
that cause health threats to their lives.
This article
intends to elucidate the benefits of the battery cage system over the deep
litter system. Additionally, to evaluate the profitability of both systems. Depending
on the farmer's objectives of investing in poultry, this article will act as a
guide during the decision-making process.
Flipping both sides of the coin:
Both
battery cage and deep litter systems have advantages and disadvantages. The housing
system adopted by farmers depends on some factors which are but not limited to:
capital, available space, personal preference, number of birds and management
practice adopted. It’s worth noting that the housing system adopted greatly
determines the success and profitability of the poultry enterprise.
Research shows
that cage systems have a higher number of eggs laid. This is attributed to
lower mortalities (<7%) as compared to the litter system (21 to 27%). Additionally,
the number of eggs per hen per day is higher. More studies reveal that the
incidences of diseases are low because birds are denied access to faeces. Nonetheless,
there is a higher number of cracked eggs of the total number of eggs laid in
the cage system. This affects the quality of eggs. Furthermore, hens lack
physical space for laying eggs, daily activities, nesting and have a higher
incidence of foot lesions. These lesions could act as entry points for
infections that lead to death.
On the
other hand, the deep litter system is more significant for the satisfaction of
the bird's motivation for dust bathing and performing important behavioural
activities. However, construction requires more floor space making the system
inappropriate for farmers with limited space. Besides, there are higher
incidences of accumulated faecal matter in the litter which lead to air pollution.
Farm attendants and
animals’ welfare.
Aerial
pollutants in confined animal houses are widely recognized as detrimental to
the respiratory health of animals, farmworkers and neighbouring areas. Moreover,
studies reveal that up to 20 percent of farmers and farmworkers report
work-related symptoms of the respiratory system. Prolonged exposure aerial
pollutants such as dust, ammonia, and methane can lead to coughing, sputum and
wheezing which may eventually cause asthma and other diseases.
Prolonged
exposure to ammonia irritates the mucous membranes in the eyes and blindness in
poultry. Besides, these gases cause stress to birds which affect feed intake, FCE
and growth rate. Reduction in feed intake directly affects the quality and
quantity of eggs laid thus decreasing the productivity potential of the birds.
It’s worth noting that the above
incidences of air pollution are more evident in a deep litter system. This
implies that this system has a higher probability of exposing both the poultry
attendants and birds to health threats.
Despite the healthy threats imposed, the
deep litter system better meets the requirements for the animal’s welfare, but
it provides a lower yield.
Cost-Benefit
Analysis:
The
factors that influence the profits of any housing system include the cost of
production, farm size, access to credit facilities, experience among others. In
the cost of production, feeds occupy over 60 percent. Any poultry farmer SHOULD,
therefore, first ascertain the source and quality of feeds before venturing
into production. Furthermore, access to credit facilities influence available
capital for investment which in turn limits the size of the farm. A farmer MUST
wisely choose the housing system depending on the available capital.
As
earlier discussed, the litter system requires more floor space. If a farmer,
therefore, intends to rear thousands of birds in a limited space, the cage
system better provides the most economic use of land and labour. However, the
battery cage system is more capital intensive thus influencing most farmers to
favour deep litter housing system.
From
the cost and return analysis, both housing systems are profitable. But I advise
small scale farmers to use the litter system and commercial farmers the cage
system.
In
conclusion, the cage system provides better working conditions for the farm
attendants, better feed utilization efficiency, stock taking, record keeping
and allows mechanization. Additionally, it has the most economic use of land
and labour. I, therefore, recommend this system for commercial production
purposes because it has higher returns in intensive management systems. On the
other hand, I recommend the litter system to small scale farmers and commercial
producers who are conscious of the welfare of the birds.
