Is the battery cage system worth an investment?

                                                                                                           

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.