[Albentosa M. J., Cooper J. J., Luddem T., Redgate S. E., Elson H. A., Walker A. W. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of cage height and stocking density on the behavior of laying hens in furnished cages. Brit. Poultry Sci., 48: 1–11.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ali A. B. A., Campbell D. L. M., Karcher D. M., Siegford J. M. (2016). Influence of genetic strain and access to litter on spatial distribution of 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system. Poultry Sci., 95: 2489–2502.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ali A. B. A., Campbell D. L. M., Karcher D. M., Siegford J. M. (2019). Nighttime roosting substrate type and height among 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system. Poultry Sci., 98: 1935–1946.]Search in Google Scholar
[Anderson K. E., Davis G. S., Jenkins P. K., Carroll A. S. (2004). Effects of bird age, density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Sci., 83: 15–23.]Search in Google Scholar
[Anderson K. E., Jones D. R., Davis G. S., Jenkins P. K. (2007). Effects of genetic selection on behavioral profiles of Single Comb White Leghorn hens through two production cycles. Poultry Sci., 86: 1814–1820.]Search in Google Scholar
[Appleby M. C., Mench J. A., Hughes B. O. (2004). Poultry behaviour and welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.10.1079/9780851996677.0000]Search in Google Scholar
[Arbona V., Anderson K. E., Hoffman J. B. (2011). A comparison of humoral immune function in response to a killed Newcastle’s vaccine challenge in caged vs. free-range Hy-line brown layers. Int. J. Poultry Sci., 10: 315–319.]Search in Google Scholar
[Barnett J. L., Tauson R., Downing J. A., Janardhana V., Lowenthal J. W., Butler K. L., Cronin G. M. (2009). The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Sci., 88: 456–470.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bessei W. (2005). Welfare of meat producing poultry – an overview. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 23, Suppl. 1: 205–216.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bestman M., Wagenaar J. P. (2014). Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals, 42: 374–390.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brendler C., Kipper S., Schrader L. (2014). Vigilance and roosting behaviour of laying hens on different perch heights Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 157: 93–99.]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Makagon M. M., Swanson J. C., Siegford J. M. (2016 a). Laying hen movement in a commercial aviary: Enclosure to floor and back again. Poultry Sci., 95: 176–187.10.3382/ps/pev18626195806]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Makagon M. M., Swanson J. C., Siegford J. M. (2016 b). Perch use by laying hens in a commercial aviary. Poultry Sci., 95: 1736–1742.10.3382/ps/pew111498854726994206]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Ali A. B. A., Karcher D. M., Siegford J. M. (2017 a). Laying hens in aviaries with different litter substrates: Behavior across the flock cycle and feather lipid content. Poultry Sci., 96: 3824–3835.10.3382/ps/pex204585010829050413]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Hinch G., Downing J., Lee C. (2017 b). Outdoor stocking density in freerange laying hens: Effects on behaviour and welfare. Animal, 11: 1036–1045.10.1017/S175173111600234227821220]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Hinch G., Dyall T., Warin L., Little B., Lee C. (2017 c). Outdoor stocking density in free-range laying hens: Radio-frequency identification of impacts on range use. Animal, 11: 121–130.10.1017/S175173111600115427328829]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell D. L. M., Talk A. C., Loh Z. A., Dyall T. R., Lee C. (2018). Spatial cognition and range use in free-range laying hens. Animals, 8: 26.]Search in Google Scholar
[Campo J. L., Cabezas R., Torres O., González Briones I., Alonso C. (2013). Egg quality and welfare of white-tinted-, and brown-shell egg layers in three different non-cage housing systems. Arch. Geflugelkd., 77: 179–188.]Search in Google Scholar
[Casey-Trott T. M., Widowski T. M. (2016). Behavioral differences of laying hens with fractured keel bones within furnished cages. Front Vet. Sci., 3: 42.]Search in Google Scholar
[Casey-Trott T. M., Korver D., Guerin M. T., Sandilands V., Torrey S., Widowski T. M. (2017). Opportunities for exercise during pullet rearing Part II: Long-term effects on bone characteristics of adult laying hens at the end-of-lay. Poultry Sci., 96: 2518–2527.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chen S., Xiang H., Zhu X., Zhang H., Wang D., Liu H., Wang J., Yin T., Liu L., Kong M., Zhang J., Ogura S. I., Zhao X. (2018). Free dietary choice and free-range rearing improve the product quality, gait score, and microbial richness of chickens. Animals, 8: 84.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chen X., Jiang W., Tan H. Z., Xu G. F., Zhang X. B., Wei S., Wang X. Q. (2013). Effects of outdoor access on growth performance, carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler chickens. Poultry Sci., 92: 435–443.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chielo L. I., Pike T., Cooper J. (2016). Ranging behaviour of commercial free-range laying hens. Animals, 6: 28.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Haas E. N., Kemp B., Bolhuis J. E., Groothuis T., Rodenburg T. B. (2013). Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Sci., 92: 2259–2269.]Search in Google Scholar
[Decina C., Berke O., van Staaveren N., Baes C. F., Widowski T. M., Harlander -Matauschek A. (2019). A cross-sectional study on feather cover damage in Canadian laying hens in non-cage housing systems. BMC Vet. Res., 15: 435.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dikmen B. Y., İpek A., Şahan Ü., Petek M., Sözcü A. (2016). Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Sci., 95: 1564–1572]Search in Google Scholar
[Donaldson C. J., O ’ Connell N. E. (2012). The influence of access to aerial perches on fearfulness, social behaviour and production parameters in free-range laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 142: 51–60.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dudde A., Schrader L., Weigend S., Matthews L. R., Krause E. T. (2018). More eggs but less social and more fearful? Differences in behavioral traits in relation to the phylogenetic background and productivity level in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 209: 65–70.]Search in Google Scholar
[El-Lethey H., Jungi T. W., Huber-Eicher B. (2001). Effects of feeding corticosterone and housing conditions on feather pecking in laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Physiol. Behav., 73: 243–251.]Search in Google Scholar
[Elson H. A., Croxall R. A. (2006). European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Arch. Geflugelkd., 70: 194–198.]Search in Google Scholar
[Enneking S. A., Cheng H. W., Jefferson-Moore K. Y., Einstein M. E., Rubin D. A., Hester P. Y. (2012). Early access to perches in caged White Leghorn pullets. Poultry Sci., 91: 2114–2120.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eusemann B. K., Baulain U., Schrader L., Thöne-Reineke C., Patt A., Petow S. (2018). Radiographic examination of keel bone damage in living laying hens of different strains kept in two housing systems. PLoS One, 13(5): e0194974.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fiddes M. D., Le Gresley S., Parsons D. G., Epe C., Coles G. C., Stafford K. A. (2005). Prevalence of the poultry red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae) in England. Vet. Rec., 157: 233–235.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fleming R. H., Mc Cormack H. A., Mc Teir L., Whitehead C. C. (2006). Relationships between genetic, environmental and nutritional factors influencing osteoporosis in laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 47: 742–755.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fossum O., Jansson D. S., Etterlin P. E., Vågsholm I. (2009). Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet. Scand., 51: 3.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Toscano M. J., Fröhlich E. K. F. (2014). Use of the outdoor ranges by laying hens in different sized flocks. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 155: 74–81.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Pfulg A., Fröhlich E. K. F., Käppeli S., Guggisberg D., Liesegang A., Stoffel M. H. (2017). Limited associations between keel bone damage and bone properties measured with computer tomography, three-point bending test, and analysis of minerals in Swiss laying hens. Front. Vet. Sci., 4: 128.]Search in Google Scholar
[Giersberg M. F., Spindler B., Kemper N. (2019). Linear space requirements and perch use of conventional layer hybrids and dual-purpose hens in an aviary system. Front. Vet. Sci., 6: 231.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gilani A. M., Knowles T. G., Nicol J. C. (2014). Factors affecting ranging behaviour in young and adult laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 55: 127–135.]Search in Google Scholar
[Golden J. B., Arbona D. V. Anderson K. E. (2012). A comparative examination of rearing parameters and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets grown for either free-range or cage production. J. Appl. Poultry Res., 21: 95–102.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grafl B., Polster S., Sulejmanovic T., Pürrer B., Guggenberger B., Hess M. (2017). Assessment of health and welfare of Austrian laying hens at slaughter demonstrates influence of husbandry system and season. Brit. Poultry Sci., 58: 209–215.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guesdon V., Faure J. M. (2004). Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim. Res., 53: 45–57.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guinebretière M., Huneau-Salaün A., Huonnic D., Michel V. (2012). Cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality: The effects of linings and litter provision in furnished cages for laying hens. Poultry Sci., 91: 808–816.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guinebretière M., Beyer H., Arnould C., Michel V. (2014). The choice of litter material to promote pecking, scratching and dustbathing behaviours in laying hens housed in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 155: 56–65.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guinebretière M., Michel V., Arnould C. (2015). Dustbathing, pecking and scratching behaviours of laying hens in furnished cages are enhanced by the presence of rubber mats and litter distribution. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 171: 128–137.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gunes N., Polat U., Petek M. (2002). Investigation of changes in biochemical parameters of hens raised in alternative housing systems. Uludag. Univ. Ver. Fak. Derg., 21: 39–42.]Search in Google Scholar
[Guy J. H., Khajavi M., Hlalel M. M., Sparagano O. (2004). Red mite (Dermanyssus gallinae) prevalence in laying units in Northern England. Brit. Poultry Sci., 45, Suppl 1: S15–S16.]Search in Google Scholar
[Habinski A. M., Caston L. J., Casey-Trott T. M., Hunniford M. E., Widowski T. M. (2017). Development of perching behaviour in 3 strains of pullets reared in furnished cages. Poultry Sci., 96: 519–529.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hartcher K., Hickey K., Hemsworth P., Cronin G., Wilkinson S., Singh M. (2016). Relationships between range access as monitored by radio frequency identification technology, fearfulness, and plumage damage in free-range laying hens. Animal, 10: 847–853.]Search in Google Scholar
[Heerkens J. L. T., Delezie E., Kempen I., Zoons J., Ampe B., Rodenburg T. B., Tuyttens F. A. M. (2015). Specific characteristics of the aviary housing system affect plumage condition, mortality and production in laying hens. Poultry Sci., 94: 2008–2017.]Search in Google Scholar
[Heerkens J. L. T., Delezie E., Rodenburg T. B., Kempen I., Zoons J., Ampe B., Tuyttens F. A. M. (2016 a). Risk factors associated with keel bone and foot pad disorders in laying hens housed in aviary systems. Poultry Sci., 95: 482–488.10.3382/ps/pev33926628344]Search in Google Scholar
[Heerkens J. L. T., Delezie E., Ampe B., Rodenburg T. B., Tuyttens F. A. (2016 b). Ramps and hybrid effects on keel bone and foot pad disorders in modified aviaries for laying hens. Poultry Sci., 95: 2479–2488.10.3382/ps/pew15727143777]Search in Google Scholar
[Hegelund L. S., Ørensen J. T., Kjer J. B., Kristensen I. S. (2005). Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 1–8.]Search in Google Scholar
[Herbut E., Sosnówka-Czajka E., Rychlik I., Sokołowicz Z. (2002). Welfare of chickens reared under different thermal conditions. Ann. Anim. Sci., Suppl. 1: 71–74.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hester P. Y., Enneking S. A., Haley B. K., Cheng H. W., Einstein M. E., Rubin D. A. (2013 a). The effect of perch availability during pullet rearing and egg laying on musculoskeletal health of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci., 92: 1972–1980.10.3382/ps.2013-0300823873543]Search in Google Scholar
[Hester P. Y., Enneking S. A., Jefferson-Moore K. Y., Einstein M. E. (2013 b). The effect of perches in cages during pullet tearing and egg laying on hen performance, foot health, and plumage. Poultry Sci., 92: 310–320.10.3382/ps.2012-0274423300294]Search in Google Scholar
[Hewlett S. E., Nordquist R. E. (2019). Effects of maternal care during rearing in White Leghorn and Brown Nick layer hens on cognition, sociality and fear. Animals, 9: 454.]Search in Google Scholar
[Höglund J., Nordenfors H., Uggla A. (1995). Prevalence of the red poultry mite, Dermanyssys gallinae, in different types of production systems for egg layers in Sweden. Poultry Sci., 74: 1793–1798.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hunniford M. E., Widowski T. M. (2016). Rearing environment and laying location affect prelaying behavior in enriched cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 181: 205–213.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hunniford M. E., Widowski T. M. (2017). Nest alternatives: Adding a wire partition to the scratch area affects nest use and nesting behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 186: 29–34.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hunniford M. E., Widowski T. M. (2018). Curtained nests facilitate settled nesting behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 202: 39–45.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hunniford M. E., Torrey S., Bédécarrats G., Duncan I. J., Widowski T. M. (2014). Evidence of competition for nest sites by laying hens in large furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 161: 95–104.]Search in Google Scholar
[Icken W., Cavero D., Schmutz M., Thurner S., Wendl G., Preisinger R. (2008). Analysis of free range behaviour of laying hens and the genetic and phenotypic relationships with laying performance. Brit. Poultry Sci., 49: 533–541.]Search in Google Scholar
[Janczak A., Riber A. B. (2015). Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poultry Sci., 94: 1454–1469.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jones D. R., Guard J., Gast R K., Buhr R. J., Fedorka-Cray P. J., Abdo Z., Plumblee J. R., Bourassa D. V., Cox N. A., Rigsby L. L., Robison C. I., Regmi P., Karcher D. M. (2016). Influence of commercial laying hen housing systems on the incidence and identification of Salmonella and Campylobacter. Poultry Sci., 95: 1116–1124.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kamil K. L., Bozkurt M., Herken E. N., Cinar M., Cath A. U., Bintas E., Fthiye C. (2012). Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 25: 559–568.]Search in Google Scholar
[Käppeli S., Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Fröhlich E., Pfulg A., Schäublin H., Stoffel M. H. (2011). Effects of housing, perches, genetics, and 25-hydroxycholecalciferol on keel bone deformities in laying hens. Poultry Sci., 90: 1637–1644.]Search in Google Scholar
[Karsten H. D., Patterson P. H., Stout R., Crews G. (2010). Vitamins A, E and fatty acid composition of the eggs of caged hens and pastured hens. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 25: 45–54.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kilpinen O., Roepstorff A., Permin A., Nørgaard-Nielsen G., Lawson L. G., Simonsen H. B. (2005). Influence of Dermanyssus gallinae and Ascaridia galli infections on behaviour and health of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 26–34.]Search in Google Scholar
[Klein T., Zeltner E., Huber-Eicher B. (2000). Are genetic differences in foraging behaviour of laying hen chicks paralleled by hybrid-species differences in feather pecking? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 70: 143–155.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kollenda E., Baldock D., Hiller N., Lorant A. (2020). Transitioning towards cage-free farming in the EU: Assessment of environmental and socio-economic impacts of increased animal welfare standards. Policy report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels & London, pp. 1–65.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kucukyılmaz K., Bozkurt M., Herken E. N., Cınar M., Catlı A. U., Bintas E., Coven F. (2012). Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian-Austral. J. Anim. Sci., 25: 559–568.]Search in Google Scholar
[Larsen H., Cronin G. M., Gebhardt-Henrich G., Smith C. L., Hemsworth P. H., Rault J. L. (2017). Individual ranging behaviour patterns in commercial free-range layers as observed through RFID tracking. Animals, 7: 21.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lay D. C., Fulton R. M., Hester P. Y., Karcher D. M., Kjaer J. B., Mench J. A., Mullens B. A., Newberry R. C., Nicol C. J., O ’ Sullivan N. P., Porter R. E. (2011). Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Sci., 90: 278–294.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lee Y. P., Chen T. L. (2007). Daytime behavioural patterns of slow-growing chickens in deep-litter pens with perches. Brit. Poultry Sci., 48: 113–120.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leenstra F., Ten Napel J., Visscher J., Van Sambeek F. (2016). Layer breeding programmes in changing production environments: a historic perspective. World’s Poultry Sci. J., 72: 21–36.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leinonen I., Williams A. G., Wiseman J., Guy J., Kyriazakis I. (2012). Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Egg production systems. Poultry Sci., 91: 26–40.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leyendecker M., Hamann H., Hartung J., Kamphues J., Neuman U., Surie C., Distl O. (2005). Keeping laying hens in furnished cages and an aviary housing system enhances their bone stability. Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 536–544.]Search in Google Scholar
[Li X., Chen D., Li J., Bao J. (2016). Effect of furnished cage type on behavior and welfare of laying hens. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci., 29: 887–894.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mahboub H. D. H., Müller J., Borell E. (2004). Outdoor use, tonic immobility, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio and feather condition in free-range laying hens of different genotype. Brit. Poultry Sci., 45: 738–744.]Search in Google Scholar
[Matur E., Eraslan E., Akyazi I., Ekiz E. E., Eseceli H., Keten M., Metiner K., Bala D. A. (2015). The effect of furnished cages on the immune response of laying hens under social stress. Poultry Sci., 94: 2853–2862.]Search in Google Scholar
[Meng F., Chen D., Li X., Li J., Bao J. (2015). Effects of large or small furnished cages on performance, welfare and egg quality of laying hens. Anim. Prod. Sci., 55: 793–798.]Search in Google Scholar
[Meng F., Chen D., Li X., Li J., Bao J. (2017). The effect of large or small furnished cages on behaviors and tibia bone of laying hens. J. Vet. Behav., 17: 69–73.]Search in Google Scholar
[Meseret S. (2016). A review of poultry welfare in conventional production system. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 28: 234.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mishra A., Koene P., Schouten W., Spruijt B., van Beek P., Metz J. H. (2005). Temporal and sequential structure of behaviour and facility usage of laying hens in enriched environment. Poultry Sci., 84: 979–991.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mugnai N., Sossidou E. N., Dal Bosco A., Ruggeri S., Mattioli S., Castellini C. (2013). The effects of husbandry system on the grass intake and egg nutritive characteristics of laying hens. J. Sci. food Agric., 94: 459–467.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nagle T. A., Glatz P. C. (2012). Free range hens use the range more when the outdoor environment is enriched. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 25: 584–591.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nasr M. A., Murrell J., Nicol C. J. (2013). The effect of keel fractures on egg production, feed and water consumption in individual laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 54: 165–170.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nasr M. A. F., Nicol C. J., Wilkins L. J., Murrell J. (2014). The effect of two non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs on the mobility of laying hens with keel bone fractures. Vet. Anaesth. Analg., 42: 197–204.]Search in Google Scholar
[Neijat M., Casey-Trott T. M., Robinson S., Widowski T. M., Kiarie E. (2019). Effects of rearing and adult laying housing systems on medullary, pneumatic and radius bone attributes in 73-wk old Lohmann LSL lite hens. Poultry Sci., 98: 2840–2845.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nielsen B. L., Thomsen M. G., Sorensen P., Young J. F. (2003). Feed and strain effects on the use of outdoor areas by broilers. Brit. Poultry Sci., 44: 161–169.]Search in Google Scholar
[Oliveira J. L., Xin H., Chai L., Millman S. T. (2019). Effects of litter floor access and inclusion of experienced hens in aviary housing on floor eggs, litter condition, air quality, and hen welfare. Poultry Sci., 98: 1664–1677.]Search in Google Scholar
[Petrik M. T., Guerin M. T., Widowski T. M. (2015). On-farm comparison of keel fracture prevalence and other welfare indicators in conventional cage and floor-housed laying hens in Ontario, Canada. Poultry Sci., 94: 579–585.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pettersson I. C., Weeks C. A., Norman K. I., Nicol C. J. (2017). The ability of laying pullets to negotiate two ramp designs as measured by bird preference and behaviour. Peer J., 5: e4069.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pohle K., Cheng H. W. (2009). Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens. Poultry Sci., 88: 1559–1564.]Search in Google Scholar
[Popova T., Petkov E., Ayasan T., Ignatova M. (2020). Quality of eggs from layers reared under alternative and conventional system. Braz. J. Poultry Sci., 22: 1–8.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rault J. L., vande Wouw A., Hemsworth P. (2013). Fly the coop! Vertical structures influence the distribution and behaviour of laying hens in an outdoor range. J. Aust. Vet. Assoc., 91: 423–426.]Search in Google Scholar
[Regmi P., Deland T. S., Steibel J. P., Robison C. I., Haut R. C., Orth M. W., Karcher D. M. (2015). Effect of rearing environment on bone growth of pullets. Poultry Sci., 94: 502–511.]Search in Google Scholar
[Regmi P., Nelson N., Haut R. C., Orth M. W., Karcher D. M. (2017). Influence of age and housing systems on properties of tibia and humerus of Lohmann White hens: Bone properties of laying hens in commercial housing systems. Poultry Sci., 96: 3755–3762.]Search in Google Scholar
[Regmi P., Robison C. I., Jones D. R., Gast R. K., Tempelman R. J., Karcher D. M. (2018). Effects of different litter substrates and induced molt on production performance and welfare quality parameters of White Leghorn hens housed in multi-tiered aviary system. Poultry Sci., 97: 3397–3404.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rehman M. S., Mahmud A., Mehmood S., Pasha T. N., Hussain J., Khan M. T. (2017). Blood biochemistry and immune response in Aseel chicken under free-range, semi-intensive, and confinement rearing systems. Poultry Sci., 96: 226–233.]Search in Google Scholar
[Riber A., Hinrichsen L. (2016). Feather eating and its associations with plumage damage and feathers on the floor in commercial farms of laying hens. Animal, 10: 1218–1224.]Search in Google Scholar
[Richards G. J., Wilkins L. J., Knowles T. G., Booth F., Toscano M. J., Nicol C. J., Brown S. N. (2011). Continuous monitoring of pophole usage by commercially housed free-range hens throughout the production cycle. Vet. Rec., 169: 338]Search in Google Scholar
[Riddle E. R., Ali A., Campbell D., Siegford J. M. (2018). Space use by 4 strains of laying hens to perch, wing flap, dust bathe, stand and lie down. PloS One, 13(1): e0190532.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rodenburg T. B., Tuyttens F., Reu K. D., Herman L. R., Zoons J., Sonck B. (2008). Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison. Anim. Welfare, 17: 363–373.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea A., Estevez I. (2016). Use of space and its impact on the welfare of laying hens in commercial free-range system. Poultry Sci., 95: 2503–2513.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rørvang M. V., Hinrichsen L. K., Riber A. B. (2019). Welfare of layers housed in small furnished cages on Danish commercial farms: The condition of keel bone, feet, plumage and skin. Brit. Poultry Sci., 60: 1–7.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rufener C., Baur S., Stratmann A., Toscano M. J. (2019). Keel bone fractures affect egg laying performance but not egg quality in laying hens housed in a commercial aviary system. Poultry Sci., 98: 1589–1600.]Search in Google Scholar
[Samiullah S., Roberts R., Chousalkar K. K. (2014). Effect of production system and flock age on egg quality and total bacterial load in commercial laying hens. J. Appl. Poultry Res., 23: 59–70.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schütz K. E., Forkman B., Jensen P. (2001). Domestication effects on foraging strategy, social behaviour and different fear responses: A comparison between the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and a modern layer strain. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 74: 1–14.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schwaiger K., Schmied E. M. V., Bauer J. (2008). Comparative analysis of antibiotic resistance characteristics of gram-negative bacteria isolated from laying hens and eggs in conventional and organic keeping systems in Bavaria, Germany. Zoonoses Public Hlth., 55: 331–341.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sherwin C. M., Richards G. J., Nicol C. J. (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. Brit. Poultry Sci., 51: 488–499.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shimmura T., Eguchi Y., Uetake K., Tanaka T. (2008). Effect of separation of resources on behaviour of high-, medium- and low-ranked hens in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 113: 74–86.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shimmura T., Hirahara S., Azuma T., Suzuki T., Eguchi Y., Uetake K. (2010). Multifactorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. Brit. Poultry Sci., 51: 31–42.]Search in Google Scholar
[Singh M., Cowieson A. J. (2013). Range use and pasture consumption in free-range poultry production. Anim. Prod. Sci., 53: 1202–1208.]Search in Google Scholar
[Singh M., Ruhnke I., de Koning C., Drake K., Skerman A. G., Hinch G. N., Glatz P. C. (2017). Demographics and practices of semi-intensive free-range farming systems in Australia with an outdoor stocking density of ≤1500 hens/hectare. PLoS One 12(10): e0187057.]Search in Google Scholar
[Singh R., Cheng K. M., Silversides F. G. (2009). Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Sci., 88: 256–264.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sirovnik J., Stratmann A., Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Würbel H., Toscano M. J. (2018). Feeding from perches in an aviary system reduces aggression and mortality in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 202: 53–62.]Search in Google Scholar
[Skomorucha I., Sosnówka-Czajka E. (2017). Physiological parameters in broiler chickens reared under different housing systems during a period of high temperatures. Acta Sci. Pol. Zoot., 16: 25–34.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sosnówka-Czajka E., Skomorucha I., Herbut E., Muchacka R. (2006). Free-range and barn systems as related to productivity and welfare of broiler chickens of different commercial lines. World’s Poultry Sci. J., Suppl., 62: 605.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sosnówka-Czajka E., Skomorucha I., Herbut E., Muchacka R. (2007). Effect of management system and flock size on the behaviour of broiler chickens. Ann. Anim. Sci., 7: 329–336.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sosnówka-Czajka E., Połtowicz K., Skomorucha I., Herbut E., Muchacka R. (2008). Effect of a dietary immunostimulant and housing system on immunological parameters in laying hens. World’s Poultry Sci. J., Suppl., 64: 642.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sosnówka-Czajka E., Herbut E., Skomorucha I., Muchacka R. (2011). Welfare levels in heritage breed vs. commercial laying hens in the litter system. Ann. Anim. Sci., 11: 585–595.]Search in Google Scholar
[Steenfeldt S., Nielsen B. L. (2015). Welfare of organic laying hens kept at different indoor stocking densities in a multi-tier aviary system. I: Egg laying, and use of veranda and outdoor area. Animal, 9: 1509–1517.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stratmann A., Frohlich E. K. F., Harlandr-Matauschek A., Schrader L., Toscano M. J., Wurbel H., Gebhardt-Henrich S. G. (2015). Soft perches in an aviary system reduce incidence of keel bone damage in laying hens. PLoS One, 10:e0122568.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stratmann A., Fröhlich E. K., Gebhardt-Henrich S. G., Harlander-Matauschek A., Würbel H., Toscano M. J. (2016). Genetic selection to increase bone strength affects prevalence of keel bone damage and egg parameters in commercially housed laying hens. Poultry Sci., 95: 975–984.]Search in Google Scholar
[Struelens E., Tuyttens F. A. M., Duchateau L., Leroy T., Cox M., Vranken E., Buyse J., Zoons J., Berckmans D., Ödberg F., Sonck B. (2008). Perching behaviour and perch height preference of laying hens in furnished cages varying in height. Brit. Poultry Sci., 49: 381–389.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tactacan G. B., Guenter W., Lewis N. J., Rodriguez-Lecompte J. C., House J. D. (2009). Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Sci., 88: 698–707.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tauson R. (2002). Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World Poultry Sci. J., 58: 49–63.]Search in Google Scholar
[Thorsten P., Scholz B., Schrader L. (2010). Perch material and diameter affects particular perching behaviours in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 127: 37–42.]Search in Google Scholar
[Toscano M., Booth F., Richards G., Brown S., Karcher D., Tarlton J. (2018). Modeling collisions in laying hens as a tool to identify causative factors for keel bone fractures and means to reduce their occurrence and severity. PloS One, 13(7): e0200025.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tuyttens F., Heyndrickx M., De Boeck M., Moreels A., Van Nuffel A., Van Poucke E., Van Coillie E., Van Dongen S., Lens L. (2005). Comparison of broiler chicken health and welfare in organic versus traditional production systems. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 23, Suppl. 1: 217–222.]Search in Google Scholar
[Uitdehaag K. A., Komen H., Rodenburg T. B., Kemp B., van Arendonk J. (2008). The novel object test as predictor of feather damage in cage-housed Rhode Island Red and White Leghorn laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 109: 292–305.]Search in Google Scholar
[Uitdehaag K. A., Rodenburg T. B., Bolhuis E. J., Decuypere E., Komen H. (2009). Mixed housing of different genetic lines of laying hens negatively affects feather pecking and fear related behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 116: 58–66.]Search in Google Scholar
[Väisänen J., Håkansson J., Jensen P. (2005). Social interactions in Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and White Leghorn layers in stable groups and after re-grouping. Brit. Poultry Sci., 46: 156–168.]Search in Google Scholar
[van Horne P. L. M., Achterbosch T. J. (2008). Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade. World’s Poultry Sci. J., 64: 40–52.]Search in Google Scholar
[van Staaveren N., Decina C., Baes C. F., Widowski T. M., Berke O., Harlander-Matauschek A. (2018). A description of laying hen husbandry and management practices in Canada. Animals (Basel), 8: 114.]Search in Google Scholar
[Villanueva S., Ali A. B. A., Campbell D. L. M., Siegford J. M. (2017). Nest use patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system. Poultry Sci., 96: 3011–3020.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wall H. (2011). Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poultry Sci., 90: 2153–2161.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wang C., Ma Y., Huang Y., Su S., Wang L., Sun Y., Wan Q., Li H., Zhang S., Øines Ø., Pan B. (2019). Darkness increases the population growth rate of the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae. Parasit Vectors. 7: 213.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wei H., Li C., Xin H., Li S., Bi Y., Li X., Li J., Zhang R., Bao J. (2019). Keel fracture causes stress and inflammatory responses and inhibits the expression of the orexin system in laying hens. Animals (Basel), 9: 804.]Search in Google Scholar
[Weitzenbürger D., Vits A., Hamann H., Distl O. (2006). Evaluierung von Kleingruppenhaltungssystemen und ausgestalteten Käfigen hinsichtlich Brustbeindeformationen, Gefiederstatus, Krallenlänge und Körpermasse bei den Legelinien Lohmann Selected Leghorn und Lohmann Brown. Arch. Geflugelkd., 1: 89–102.]Search in Google Scholar
[Whay H. R., Main D. C., Green L. E., Heaven G., Howell H., Morgan M., Pearson A., Webster A. J. (2007). Assessment of the behavior and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Vet. Rec., 161: 119–128.]Search in Google Scholar
[Widowski T. M, Caston L. J., Hunniford M. E., Cooley L., Torrey S. (2017). Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being. Poultry Sci., 96: 3805–3815.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wilkins L. J., Brown S. N., Zimmerman P. H., Leeb C., Nicol C. J. (2004). Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. Vet. Rec., 155: 547–549.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wilkins L. J., Mc Kinstry J. L., Avery N. C., Knowles T. G., Brown S. N., Tarlton J. F., Nicol C. J. (2011). Influence of housing system and design on bone strength and keel bone fractures in laying hens. Vet. Rec., 169: 414–420.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wiren A., Gunnarsson U., Andersson L., Jensen P. (2009). Domestication-related genetic effects on social behavior in chickens – Effects of genotype at a major growth quantitative trait locus. Poultry Sci., 88: 1162–1166.]Search in Google Scholar
[Yan F. F., Hester P. Y., Cheng H. W. (2014). The effect of perch access during pullet rearing and egg laying on physiological measures of stress in White Leghorns at 71 weeks of age. Poultry Sci., 93: 1348–1326.]Search in Google Scholar
[Yang H. M., Yang Z., Wang W., Wang Z. Y., Sun H. N., Ju X. J., Qi X. M. (2014). Effects of different housing systems on visceral organs, serum biochemical proportions, immune performance and egg quality of laying hens. Europ. Poultry Sci., 78, DOI: 10.1399/eps. 2014.48.]Search in Google Scholar
, 