The effect of feeder space allocation on productivity and physiology of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

Thogerson, C. M.; Hester, Patricia Y.; Mench, Joy A.; Newberry, Ruth C.; Okura, Chisa; Pajor, E. A.; Talaty, Pooja; Garner, Joseph P.

doi:10.3382/ps.2009-00011

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, heightened aggression, feather pecking, or stereotypic behavior that might be indicative of behavioral frustration was not observed in the current study, suggesting that the hens adapted to the restricted feeder space. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of physiological indicators of stress in these hens (Thogerson et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insufficient feeder space for laying hens could increase competition at the feed trough, resulting in exclusion of low-ranking hens from the feeder. To test this hypothesis, the effects of feeder space allocation (FSA) on feeding behavior, aggression, feather scores, BW, and mortality were evaluated in a common commercial strain of egg-laying chickens. Beak-trimmed Hy-Line W-36 hens (n = 480) were obtained as pullets at 16.5 wk of age and housed in conventional cages on 4 tiers. Five pullets/cage were housed at a stocking density of 434 cm(2)/pullet and an FSA of 12.2 cm/pullet. After 1.5 wk of acclimation, baseline measurements were taken for 2 wk and then pullets were given either 5.8, 7.1, 8.4, 9.7, 10.9, or 12.2 cm of feeder space/hen (16 cages/treatment). Feeding behavior was evaluated in each cage over a 24-h period each month. For each hen, percentage of time spent feeding and synchrony (mean number of additional hens feeding at the same time) were determined and scores were averaged for each cage. For each cage, feeder switching (number of observations in which hens changed from feeding to not feeding) and feeder sharing (probability that feeder access was equally distributed among all hens) were calculated. At monthly intervals, individual hens were weighed and their feathers scored using a 5-point scale on 8 body regions. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures GLM incorporating cage, tier, FSA, and age of the hen. Hens with reduced feeder space spent less time feeding (P < 0.001), synchronized their feeding bouts to a lesser extent (P < 0.001), made fewer switches at the feeder (P < 0.001), and shared the feeder less (P < 0.001). However, feather scores, BW, and BW uniformity were not affected by FSA. There was almost no aggressive behavior and little mortality. These results demonstrate that Hy-Line W-36 hens did not respond to reduced feeder space by aggressively excluding cage-mates from the feeder but instead desynchronized their feeding behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Although hens with less feeder space spent less time feeding, they did not have lower BW (Figure 8) or reduced BW uniformity. However, hens with lower feeder space had higher feed utilization (Thogerson et al, 2009). Thus, hens with less feeder space utilized more food in less time, perhaps reflecting increased feed wastage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cage dimensions of 71.1 cm by 76.2 cm by 40.6 cm (depth by width by height) housing 14 birds during the developer stages (11 to 16 weeks) provided an adequate floor space of 387 cm 2 /bird based on breed recommendation for Shaver White chickens (6 to 18 weeks, 350 cm 2 /bird allocation). However, adequate feeder space to allow simultaneous feeding (68,69) was compromised, availing only 5.4 cm/bird compared to the recommended feeder space of 7.5 cm/bird. Hence, decreased feed intake by birds may have impacted substrate availability for microbes (66,67) which, in part, may explain the observed low diversity of bacterial community in the ceca for SSB-compared to CON-fed birds as the B. subtilis dose increased, which could have a selection pressure on some microbes while allowing the preferential enrichment of particular bacterial guilds in the probiotic-fed groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacillus subtilis Strain DSM 29784 Modulates the Cecal Microbiome, Concentration of Short-Chain Fatty Acids, and Apparent Retention of Dietary Components in Shaver White Chickens during Grower, Developer, and Laying Phases

Neijat

Habtewold

Shirley³

et al. 2019

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the efficacy of a single strain of Bacillus subtilis (SSB) in modulating the composition of cecal microbiota and its link to the concentration of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and apparent retention (AR) of components. A total of 720, 4-week-old Shaver White chicks were allotted to control (CON), 1.1Eϩ08 (low, LSSB), 2.2Eϩ08 (medium, MSSB), or 1.1Eϩ09 (high, HSSB) CFU/kg of diet groups. At grower (10-week), developer (16-week), and laying (28-week) phases, excreta and cecal digesta samples were taken for AR, microbial, and SCFA analyses. Microbial analysis involved high-throughput sequencing of the V3-V4 hypervariable regions of 16S rRNA gene. Bacterial diversity decreased (P Ͻ 0.05) at the developer phase as the SSB dose increased; however, a distinct clustering pattern (P Ͻ 0.05) of bacterial community was noted. Bacteroides and Faecalibacterium were differentially enriched in the developer for SSB-fed compared to CON-fed birds. Although no differences in microbial diversity were detected in grower and layer phases, different species of Clostridium (XVIII, XIVa, IV, and XIVb)-major butyrate producers-were identified in all phases, with stronger effect sizes for SSB-fed compared to CON-fed birds. Isobutyric acid was elevated in dose response (P ϭ 0.034) in layer phase. In addition, the relative abundances of Alistipes, Lactobacillus, and Bifidobacterium were positively correlated (P Ͻ 0.05), with AR of most components for SSB-fed birds in the pullet phase. The results suggested that supplementing chickens' diet with B. subtilis DSM 29784 may selectively enrich beneficial bacterial communities, which in turn are critical in promoting the growth and performance of hens. IMPORTANCE In egg-laying chickens, the trend in the move away from the cage to alternative housing systems and restriction in antimicrobial use requires alternative approaches to maintain health and prevent diseases. There is increased research and commercial interest toward alternative gut health solutions while improving the performance and product safety in poultry production systems. One such approach, in recognition of the importance of the gut microbial community, is the use of microbes as feed supplements (such as probiotics). Unlike meat-type chickens, studies assessing the efficacy of such microbial supplements are limited for egg-laying chickens. Thus, by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the hen microbiota in response to various levels of B. subtilis DSM 29784 during the pullet phase (grower and developer) and the layer phase, the present study demonstrates the importance of direct-fed microbes in modulating gut microbiome, which may relate to improved performance efficiency in the pullet and layer phases.Citation Neijat M, Habtewold J, Shirley RB, Welsher A, Barton J, Thiery P, Kiarie E. 2019. Bacillus subtilis strain DSM 29784 modulates the cecal microbiome, concentration of shortchain fatty acids, and apparent retention of dietary components in Shaver White chickens during grower, developer, and laying ...

show abstract

“…Silage-fed hens were provided with 4.1 cm of linear trough space per hen for the balanced diet in contrast to 8.2 cm for the control hens. Evidence suggesting feeder space did not impact diet, and silage intake is provided by research examining feeder space allocation (5.8, 7.1, 8.4, 9.7, 10.9, or 12.2 cm per hen) for hens housed in conventional cages (Thogerson et al 2009a). They found that reduced feeder space did not negatively impact feed intake and did not affect egg production or body weight.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Providing laying hens in group-housed enriched cages with access to barley silage reduces aggressive and feather-pecking behaviour

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two trials were conducted to study the effect of feeding barley silage on the behaviour and performance of beak-trimmed laying hens. In each trial, 20 hens and 2 roosters were housed in each of eight group-housed enriched cages, with four cages provided a laying hen diet and four cages additionally given free access to barley silage. Egg production and quality, and hen behaviour were assessed throughout the trials (Trial One 20-30 weeks; Trial Two 19-28 weeks). Data were analysed using Proc Mixed of SAS 9.4 and differences were significant when P ≤ 0.05. Silage-fed hens consumed 41 (13.9 g DM) and 50 (13.5 g DM) grams of silage per hen per day in Trials One and Two, respectively, while consuming less layer diet. Birds fed silage spent less time expressing aggressive and feather-pecking behaviours and in nest boxes, and more time feeding than control birds. Egg production, egg quality, and bird weight were not affected by treatment; yolk colour was darker for the silage treatment. Feathering quality was improved in silage-fed birds compared to control birds. It was concluded that providing hens with access to barley silage can improve welfare indicators without negatively affecting the egg production and egg quality.Key words: welfare, wet feeding, environmental enrichment, foraging, feather condition.Résumé : Deux expériences ont été effectuées pour étudier l'effet d'alimenter les poules pondeuses débécquées à l'ensilage d'orge sur leurs comportements et performances. Dans chaque expérience, 20 poules et 2 coques ont été logés en groupe dans huit cages aménagées, avec quatre cages offrant une diète standard pour les poules pondeuses et quatre cages qui offraient en plus l'accès libre à l'ensilage d'orge. La production d'oeufs et leurs qualité ainsi que le comportement des poules ont été évalués tout au long des expériences (Expérience un: 20 à 30 semaines; Expérience deux: 19 à 28 semaines). Les données ont été analysées au moyen de Proc Mixed de SAS 9.4 et les différences jugées significatives lorsque P < 0,05. Les poules nourries à l'ensilage consommaient 41 (13,9 g matières sèches [DM -« dry matter »]) et 50 (13,5 g DM) grammes d'ensilage par poule par jour dans les expériences un et deux, respectivement, tout en consommant moins de la diète pour poules pondeuses. Les oiseaux nourris à l'ensilage passaient moins de temps à exprimer des comportements agressifs et de picage de plumes, moins de temps dans les nichoirs et plus de temps à manger que les oiseaux témoins. Il n'y a pas eu d'effet du traitement sur la production d'oeufs, la qualité d'oeufs et le poids de l'oiseau. La couleur du vitellus (jaune) était plus foncée chez celles sur le traitement d'ensilage. La qualité du plumage était améliorée chez les poules nourries à l'ensilage par rapport aux témoins. Il a donc été conclu qu'offrir l'accès à l'ensilage d'orge peut améliorer les indicateurs de bien-être sans effet négatif sur la production et la qualité des oeufs. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

The effect of feeder space allocation on productivity and physiology of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

The effect of feeder space allocation on behavior of Hy-Line W-36 hens housed in conventional cages

Bacillus subtilis Strain DSM 29784 Modulates the Cecal Microbiome, Concentration of Short-Chain Fatty Acids, and Apparent Retention of Dietary Components in Shaver White Chickens during Grower, Developer, and Laying Phases

Providing laying hens in group-housed enriched cages with access to barley silage reduces aggressive and feather-pecking behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About