Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35454233›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

The Relationships between Damaging Behaviours and Health in Laying Hens.

Virginie Michel, Jutta Berk, Nadya Bozakova, Jerine van der Eijk, Inma Estevez, Teodora Mircheva, Renata Relic, T Bas Rodenburg, Evangelia N Sossidou, Maryse Guinebretière

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Relevance of state-behaviour feedbacks for animal welfare.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Laying Hens: Why Smothering and Not Surviving?-A Literature Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Virginie MichelDirection de la Stratégie et des Programmes, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), 94701 Maisons-Alfort, France.
Jutta BerkInstitute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, 29223 Celle, Germany.
Nadya BozakovaDepartment of General Animal Breeding, Animal Hygiene, Ethology and Animal Protection Section, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Student's Campus, Trakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0001-6803-9831
Jerine van der EijkAnimal Health and Welfare, Wageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research, De Elst 1, 6708 Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Inma EstevezDepartment of Animal Production, Neiker-Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, 01080 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9054-9528
Teodora MirchevaSection of Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Trakia University, 6000 Stara Zagora, Bulgaria.
Renata RelicFaculty of agriculture, University of Belgrade, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0001-5320-7863
T Bas RodenburgAnimals in Science and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3371-1461
Evangelia N SossidouLaboratory of Farm Animal Health and Welfare, Veterinary Research Institute, Ellinikos Georgikos Or-Ganismos-DIMITRA (ELGO-DIMITRA), 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Maryse GuinebretièreEpidemiology, Health and Welfare Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), 22440 Ploufragan, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9967-5512

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the ban in January 2012 of conventional cages for egg production in the European Union (Council Directive 1999/74/EC), alternative systems such as floor, aviary, free-range, and organic systems have become increasingly common, reaching 50% of housing for hens in 2019. Despite the many advantages associated with non-cage systems, the shift to a housing system where laying hens are kept in larger groups and more complex environments has given rise to new challenges related to management, health, and welfare. This review examines the close relationships between damaging behaviours and health in modern husbandry systems for laying hens. These new housing conditions increase social interactions between animals. In cases of suboptimal rearing and/or housing and management conditions, damaging behaviour or infectious diseases are likely to spread to the whole flock. Additionally, health issues, and therefore stimulation of the immune system, may lead to the development of damaging behaviours, which in turn may result in impaired body conditions, leading to health and welfare issues. This raises the need to monitor both behaviour and health of laying hens in order to intervene as quickly as possible to preserve both the welfare and health of the animals.

Indexed as

damaging behaviourhen healthhousing systemlaying hens

Identifiers

PMID35454233
PMCPMC9029779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.