References

• BAIAO, N. C., and E. J. CAMPOS, (1979). Normal vs reverse cages for layers: effects on bird's performance. Poultry Science 58: 1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BELL, D., (1972). Reverse cage demonstrates striking income advantage. Poultry Digest 31: 326.
   Google Scholar
• BOUGON, M., M. Le MEREC, R. L'OSEITALIER, M. LERITOUX and P. QUEMEREUR, (1978). (The effect of type of cage on performance of laying hens.) Bulletin d'Information. 18(3): 109.
   Google Scholar
• CHOUDARY, M. F., A. W. ADAMS and J. V. CRAIG, (1972). Effects of strain, age at flock assembly and cage arrangement on behaviour and productivity in White Leghorn type chickens. Poultry Science 51: 1943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CUNNINGHAM, D. L., (1981). The effects of social rank and cage shape on selected behavioural and performance traits of White Leghorn layers. Poultry Science 60: 2593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CUNNINGHAM, D. L. (1982a). Layer performance in deep and shallow cages: the importance of feed intake differences. Poultry Science 61: 1927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CUNNINGHAM, D. L. (1982b). Cage type and density effects on performance and economic factors of caged layers. Poultry Science 61: 1944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CUNNINGHAM, D. L., and C. E. OSTRANDER, (1981). An evaluation of layer performance in deep and shallow cages at different densities. Poultry Science 60: 2010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CUNNINGHAM, D. L., and C. E. OSTRANDER, (1982). The effects of strain and cage shape and density on performance and fearfulness of White Leghorn layers. Poultry Science 61: 239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DUN, P., (1982). The effect of cage shape on the performance of laying stocks. The Scottish Agricultural Colleges: Research and Development Note No. 9 June 1982.
   Google Scholar
• FUJITA, H., (1973). Quantitative studies on the variation in feeding activity of chickens. II. Effect of the physical form of the feed on the feeding activity of laying hens. Japanese Poultry Science 10: 47.
   Google Scholar
• HIBBARD, A. D., (1978). Nothing to gain from packing them in. Poultry Industry March p. 21.
   Google Scholar
• HILL, A. T., (1977). The effects of space allowance and group size on egg production traits and profitability. British Poultry Science 18: 483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HILL, A. T., and J. R. HUNT., (1978). Layer cage depth effects on nervousness, feathering, shell breakage, performance and net egg returns. Poultry Science 57: 1204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HILL, A. T., and J. R. HUNT, (1980). Cage orientation effects on layer performance. Poultry Science 59: 1920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HUGHES, B. O., (1975). The concept of an optimum stocking density and its selection for egg production. In Economic Factors Affecting Egg Production, pp. 271–198 Ed by B. M. Freeman and K. N. Boorman, British Poultry Science, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• HUGHES, B. O., (1982). Space requirements in poultry. Proceedings of CEC Seminar on Housing and Welfare. July 1982. Aberdeen.
   Google Scholar
• HUGHES, B. O., and A. J. BLACK, (1976). Battery cage shape: its effect on diurnal feeding pattern, egg shell cracking and feather pecking. British Poutry Science 17: 327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HUGHES, B. O., and A. J. BLACK, (1977). Diurnal patterns of feeding and activity in relation to dietary restriction and cage shape. British Poultry Science 18: 353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LEE, D. J. W., and W. BOLTON, (1976). Battery cage shape: the laying performance of medium- and light-body weight strains of hens. British Poultry Science 17: 321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McBRIDE, G., (1970). The social control of behaviour in fowls. In Aspects of Poultry Behaviour, pp. 3–13. Ed by B. M. Freeman and R. F. Gordon, British Poultry Science, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• MARTIN, G. A., (1977). Shallow cage designs improve profit. Poultry Tribune 83(3): 32.
   Google Scholar
• MARTIN, G. A., T. A. CARTER, J. R. WEST, and J. B. WARD, (1980). Cage shape and space effects on layers in closed housing. Poultry Science 59: 1567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MUIR, F. V., and R. W. GERRY, (1976). Reverse cages and restricted feeding can be used to increase profits with brown egg layers. Feedstuffs 48(35): 18.
   Google Scholar
• MUIR, F. V., and H. C. WHELDEN, (1974). Performance of sex-linked females in reverse and conventional laying cages. Poultry Science 53: 1959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OUART, M. D., (1980). Effects of cage design and bird density on performance and behaviour of egg-type chickens. Dissertation Abstracts International 41(5): 1580–B.
   Google Scholar
• OUART, M. D., and A. W. ADAMS, (1978). Effect of cage depth on egg production, egg loss and laying behaviour of egg-type hens. Poultry Science 57: 1176.
   Google Scholar
• ROBINSON, D., (1979). Effects of cage shape, colony size, floor area and cannibalism preventatives on laying performance. British Poultry Science 20: 345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SCHOLTYSSEK, S. (1980). Kafigform und Besatzdichte in ihrer Auswirkung auf die Leistung unterschiedlicher Legehennenherkunfte. Archives fur Geflugelkunde 44: 104.
   Google Scholar
• SWANSON, M. H., and D. D. BELL, (1977). Layer performance in reverse vs conventional cages. Poultry Science 56: 1760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VAN SKIKE, K. P., and A. W. ADAMS, (1981). Effect of declawing and cage shape on performance of egg-type chickens. Poultry Science 60: 1747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar