Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Aviary, Barn and Conventional Cage Raising of Chickens on Laying Performance and Egg Quality

  • Ahammed, M. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Chae, B.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lohakare, J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Keohavong, B. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, M.H. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, S.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, D.M. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, J.Y. (National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Ohh, S.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2013.07.05
  • Accepted : 2013.11.21
  • Published : 2014.08.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study intended to compare the productive performance of three different layer raising systems; conventional cage (CC), barn (BR) and aviary (AV). The AV is welfare bestowed housing that allows free locomotion for birds within the BR. The BR allows bird's free locomotion inside BR but without multilevel structures. Both pullets and cockerels were housed together in both AV and BR, but only pullets in CC. Seventeen weeks old Lohmann Brown Lite (n = 800) pullets were housed in AV during this study. The same age layer pullets were simultaneously assigned to either at CC or BR to compare egg production performance with AV. The duration of experiment was 40 weeks (from 21st to 60th week). There were no remarkable differences in egg production, hen day egg production (HDEP) and average egg weight among three rearing systems. First 20 weeks (phase-1) average HDEP (%) of AV, CC, and BR were 85.9, 88.8, 87.1 and average egg weights (g) were 57.5, 59.9, and 56.9 respectively. Those of the remaining 20 weeks (phase-2) were 87.1, 87.9, 85.5 and 64.2, 63.0 62.1, respectively. Daily feed intakes (122 g, 110 g, 125 g); feed conversion ratio (2.4, 2.1, 2.5) and daily egg mass (53.9 g, 54.4 g, 52.8 g) data from AV, CC, and BR were not influenced significantly by the respective raising systems. Daily feed intake of layers in both AV (124 g) and BR (127 g) tended to be higher than that in CC (113 g) during phase-2. Overall, exterior egg quality (dirty and cracked eggs) in both phases was superior in BR compared with AV and CC, whereas CC generated intermediate results. This study indicated that the HDEP per se in AV and BR were not significantly different from that in CC. The study implied that the facility depreciation cost for AV and cost for increased feed intake in AV compared to CC are believed to be critical to evaluate the cost effectiveness of egg production in AV.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P. and R. Tauson. 1995. Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens: Effects on production, egg quality, health and birds' location in three hybrids. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 45:191-203.
  2. Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and K. Elwinger. 1996. Effect on production, health and egg quality of varying proportions of wheat and barley in diets for two hybrids of laying hens kept in different housing systems. Acta Agric. Scand. 46:173-182.
  3. Casiraghi, E., A. Hidalgo, and M. Rossi. 2005. Influence of weight grade on shell characteristics of marketed hen eggs. In Proceedings of the 10th European symposium on the quality of eggs and egg products (pp. 183-188). Doorwerth: WPSA.
  4. Coucke, P., E. Dewil, E. Decuypere, and J. De Baerdemaeker. 1999. Measuring the mechanical stiffness of an eggshell using resonant frequency analysis. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:227-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669987647
  5. Dukic-Stojcic, M., L. Peric, S. Bjedov, and N. Milosevic. 2009. The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotech. Anim. Husbandry 25:1103-1108.
  6. Duncan, I. J. H. 1992. Guest editorial: Designing environments for animals?Not for public perceptions. Br. Vet. J. 148:475-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(92)90003-J
  7. Fossum, O., D. S. Jansson, P. E. Etterlin, and I. Vagsholm. 2009. Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet. Scand. 51:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-51-3
  8. Guesdon, V., A. M. H. Ahmed, S. Mallet, J. M. Faure, and Y. Nys. 2006. Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500468124
  9. Hidalgo, A., M. Rossi, F. Clerici, and S. Ratti. 2008. A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chem. 106:1031-1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.07.019
  10. Lesson, S. and J. D. Summers. 1991. Commercial poultry nutrition. University Books. Guelph. Ontario. Canada.
  11. Mallet, S., V. Guesdon, A. M. H. Ahmed, and Y. Nys. 2006. Comparison of eggshell hygiene in two housing systems: Standard and furnished cages. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:30-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500468132
  12. Pavlovski, Z., D. Cunja, and B. Masic. 1989. Kvalitet jaja kokosi drzanih u razlicitim sistemima proizvodnje. Peradarstvo 11- 12:344-345.
  13. Pavlovski, Z., S. Hopic, and M. Lukic. 2001. Housing system for layers and egg quality. Biotech. Anim. Husb. 17:197-201.
  14. Pistekova, V., M. Hovorka, V. Vecerek, E. Strakova, and P. Suchy. 2006. The quality comparison of egg laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 51:318-325.
  15. Preisinger, R. 2000. Lohmann tradition, praxiserfahrung und entwicklungsperspektiven. Lohmann Inform. 3:13-16.
  16. Reed, H. J. 1994. Designing a nest for a battery cage. Pages 27-34 in Modified Cages for Laying Hens (Ed. C. M. Sherwin). Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, UK.
  17. Reu, K. De, K. Grijspeerdt, M. Heyndrickx, J. Zoons, K. Baere, De, M. Uyttendaele, J. Debevere, and L. Herman. 2005. Bacterial eggshell contamination in conventional cages, furnished cages and aviary housing systems for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:149-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500065359
  18. Roberts, J. R. 2004. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. J. Poult. Sci. 41:161-177. https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.41.161
  19. RSPCA (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). 2008. UK's leading animal welfare charity. www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup.
  20. SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
  21. Schlatterer, J. and D. Breithaupt. 2006. Xanthophylls in commercial egg yolks: Quantification and identification by HPLC and LC-(APCI) MS using a C30 phase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:2267-2273. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf053204d
  22. Singh, R., K. M. Cheng, and F. G. Silversides. 2009. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88:256-264. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237
  23. Stadelman, W. J. 1995. Quality identification of shell eggs. In: Egg science and technology (Ed. W. J. Stadelman and O. J. Cotterill) (pp. 39-66). New York: Food Products Press, The Haworth Press, Inc.
  24. Suto, Z., P. Horn, and J. Ujvari. 1997. The effect of different housing systems on production and egg quality traits of brown and Leghorn type layers. Acta Agraria Kaposvariensis 1:29-35.
  25. Tactacan, G. B., W. Guenter, N. J. Lewis, J. C. Rodriguez- Lecompte, and J. D. House. 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 88:698-707. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369
  26. Tauson, R., A. Wahlstrom, and P. Abrahamsson. 1999. Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:152-159. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/8.2.152
  27. Taylor, A. A. and J. F. Hurnik. 1996. The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and aviary. Poult. Sci. 75:47-51. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0750047
  28. Tumova, E. and T. Ebeid. 2003. Effect of housing system on performance and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica. 34:73-80.
  29. Van Den Brand, H., H. K. Parmentier, and B. Kemp. 2004. Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br. Poult. Sci. 45:745-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660400014283
  30. Vits, A., D. Weizenburger, H. Hamann, and O. Distl. 2005. Influence of different small group systems on production traits, egg quality and bone breaking strength of laying hens. First communication: Production traits and egg quality. Zuchtungskunde 77:303-323.
  31. Wall, H. 2011. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poult. Sci. 90:2153-2161. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01495
  32. Weitzenburger, D., A. Vits, H. Hamann, and O. Distl. 2005. Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:553-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500303206
  33. Yakabu, A., A. E. Salako, and A. O. Ige. 2007. Effect of genotype and housing system on the laying performance of chickens in different seasons in semi-humid tropics. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6:434-439. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.434.439

Cited by

  1. Lung toxicity in mice of airborne particulate matter from a modern layer hen facility containing Proposition 2-compliant animal caging vol.33, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/0748233716630490
  2. Effects of rearing systems on laying performance, egg quality, and serum biochemistry of Xianju chickens in summer vol.96, pp.11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex155
  3. First Results of a Detection Sensor for the Monitoring of Laying Hens Reared in a Commercial Organic Egg Production Farm Based on the Use of Infrared Technology vol.16, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/s16101757
  4. Genetic parameters of feed efficiency traits and their relationships with egg quality traits in laying period of ducks vol.97, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex337
  5. Selected quality traits of eggs and the productivity of newly created laying hen hybrids dedicated to an extensive rearing system vol.60, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-60-87-2017
  6. 산란계 동물복지 인증농가의 사육형태와 품종별 생산성 및 질병발생 비교 분석 연구 vol.44, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5536/kjps.2017.44.2.143
  7. Impact of Different Rearing Systems and Age on Bovans White Layer’s Performance, Egg Quality Traits and Synthesis of Heat Shock Protein 70 kDa vol.18, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2478/aoas-2018-0027
  8. Egg quality and coccidiosis infestation in three production systems for laying hens vol.43, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v43i1.53125
  9. Effects of cage type on performance, welfare, and microbiological properties of laying hens during the molting period and the second production cycle vol.52, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02409-0
  10. Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens as Influenced by Genotype and Rearing System vol.23, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1045
  11. Relationship between egg shell breakage and laying hen housing systems - an overview vol.77, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2021.1878480
  12. Direct methods for determination of the egg shell strength vol.46, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5937/poljteh2102001k
  13. Review: What are the challenges facing the table egg industry in the next decades and what can be done to address them? vol.15, pp.suppl1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100282
  14. Effect of housing environment and hen strain on egg production and egg quality as well as cloacal and eggshell microbiology in laying hens vol.101, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101595