The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of cage stocking density on egg yield, some egg quality traits and plumage condition in laying hens. Eighteen weeks-old 264 ISA-Brown pullets were divided into four cage density groups. The densities were 2 000, 1 000, 667 and 500 cm 2 per hen (by allocating 1, 2, 3 and 4 hens per cage; floor area 40 × 50 cm) with 48, 30, 24 and 21 replicate cages, totally 123 three-tier battery cages. During the experimental period from 18 to 53 weeks of age, all birds were provided illumination for 16 hours a day. The hens were fed a diet containing 11.7 MJ ME/kg and 180 g CP during the period of 18 to 40 weeks of age and 11.3 MJ ME/kg and 170 g CP during the period of 41 to 54 weeks of age. Feed and water were available for ad libitum. Egg yield, mortality, live weights at 50% egg production age and at the end of experiment, pecking related mortalities, some egg quality traits and plumage condition were recorded weekly. Hen-housed egg production, egg mass, viability, and live weights were significantly decreased by higher densities. Most of the egg quality traits were not affected by cage densities. Pecking related mortalities increased in cage densities of 667 cm 2 and 500 cm 2 per hen compared to the other densities (P < 0.05) while plumage scores were higher in all body parts of hens kept in cages of 2 000 cm 2 and 1 000 cm 2 densities compared to the higher densities. The results showed that brown laying hens should be kept in cages having 1 000-2 000 cm 2 densities in order to improve their welfare and performance.

Stocking Density Effects on Performance and Physiological Changes of Laying Japanese Quail

“…Also, Gharib (2006) displayed that increasing bird density resulted in a significant negative effect on yolk color scores compared to birds stocked at lower cage density, however housing birds at low cage density improved egg quality. On the other hand, Sarica et al, (2008) reported that increasing cage density in chickens to 5 bird/cage reflected no affect on egg shell quality and egg weight. Carcass characteristics: Data of carcass characteristics of laying Japanese quail at 21 weeks of age as a percentage of live body weight are given in Table ( 6).…”

Influence of dietary taurine and housing density on oviduct function in laying hens

“…Published reports of the influence of highdensity caging on oviduct health and function are lacking. Sarica et al (2008) showed that higher density rearing decreased egg production, egg mass, and other performance indicators of hens, and that increasing the space per hen significantly enhanced egg production. Thus, we hypothesized that stocking density or rearing pattern may affect oviduct health and function in hens.…”

The effect of cage and house design on egg production and egg weight of White Leghorn hens: An epidemiological study

“…Optimum livability was achieved at 451 cm 2 /hen (70 in 2 /hen; Garner et al, 2011). Numerous controlled studies (e.g., Adams and Craig, 1985;Anderson et al, 2004;Jalal et al, 2006;Sarica et al, 2008) have shown that when hens in conventional cages are crowded, they lay fewer eggs and experience higher mortality. The contradictory results of the current study, showing that crowding (cage floor space <400 cm 2 or 62 in 2 /hen) did result in higher mortality but unexpectedly also resulted in higher hen-housed egg production, might be explained if most mortality in crowded cages occurred late in the production cycle, whereas mortality in more spacious cages occurred earlier in the production cycle, as might be the case with cannibalism.…”

“…Thus, the hens appeared to reallocate energy to producing fewer larger eggs when given more space. Existing literature on the effect of stocking density on case weight of eggs is inconsistent (Du Plessis and Erasmus, 1972;Davami et al, 1987;Brake and Peebles, 1992;Zeidler, 2002;Onbasilar and Aksoy, 2005;Jalal et al, 2006;Sarica et al, 2008). These inconsistencies could be attributed to a multitude of factors, including but not limited to genotypic and dietary differences and confounding effects of feeder and drinker space with stocking density.…”