Comparison of the laying and egg weight of laying hens in two types of cages

• Autorzy: Damaziak K. , Riedel J. , Michalczuk M. , Kurek A.

Warianty tytułu

PL

Porównanie nieśności i masy jaj kur nieśnych utrzymywanych w dwóch typach klatek

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study was aimed at comparing production results of laying hens kept in two types of cages: furnished cages and conventional cages. It covered the period from the 36th till the 54th week of hens life that was divided into two experimental stages: stage I - from week 36 till week 44, and stage II - from week 46 to week 54. Till week 44, 190 layers were reared in groups (10 hens each) in furnished cages (F) and 190 layers were kept individually in conventional cages (C). In week 45, the hens from furnished cages (F) were moved to conventional cages (FC), whereas these from conventional cages (C) were randomly merged into groups of 10 hens and transferred to furnished cages (CF). Egg laying (%) and egg weight (g) were controlled as well as percentage contribution of eggs in standard egg weight classes was determined in both experimental stages. The study showed a significant (P < 0.01) effect of cage type on the laying performance of the hens but only in the second stage of the study, as well as a significant (P < 0.01) effect of hens moving to different cages. In both cases, higher egg laying was reported for the hens from the conventional cages. Egg weight in the first and the second stage of the experiment was significantly (P < 0.01) higher in the groups housed in the furnished cage. A higher egg weight (P < 0.01) was determined in the layers in the second stage of the study. Both in the first (P < 0.01) and in the second (P < 0.05) stage, analyses showed a significant effect of cage type on the contribution (%) of eggs in particular egg weight classes. A higher percentage of eggs in the L class was obtained from the hens housed in the furnished cages. Differences in laying performance after hens moving suggest that the layers adapt more easily and faster to conditions of the C type cages. The egg weight was, probably, more dependent on general laying performance and age of the hens than on cage type.

PL

Porównanie nieśności i masy jaj kur nieśnych utrzymywanych w dwóch typach klatek. W badaniach porównywano wyniki produkcyjne kur niosek utrzymywanych w dwóch typach klatek: klatkach wzbogaconych i klatkach konwencjonalnych. Badaniami objęto okres od 36. do 54. tygodnia życia kur podzielony na dwa etapy: I - od 36. do 44. tygodnia, II - od 46. do 54. tygodnia. Do 44. tygodnia 190 niosek utrzymywano grupowo (po 10 kur) w klatkach wzbogaconych (F) i 190 niosek utrzymywano pojedynczo w klatkach konwencjonalnych (C). W 45. tygodniu nioski z klatek wzbogaconych (F) przeniesiono do klatek konwencjonalnych (FC), a ptaki z klatek konwencjonalnych (C) połączono losowo po 10 i wprowadzono do klatek wzbogaconych (CF). W obu etapach badań kontrolowano nieś-ność (%) i masę jaj (g), określono też procentowy udział jaj w standardowych klasach wagowych. Wykazano istotny wpływ (P < 0,01) typu klatki na nieśność kur, ale tylko w drugim etapie badań, oraz istotny wpływ (P < 0,01) przeniesienia kur. W obu przypadkach większą nieśność wykazywały kury w klatkach konwencjonalnych. Masa jaj w pierwszym i drugim etapie doświadczenia była istotnie większa (P < 0,01) w grupach utrzymywanych w klatkach wzbogaconych. Większą masę jaja (P < 0,01) stwierdzono u kur w drugim etapie badań. Zarówno w pierwszym (P < 0,01), jak i w drugim (P < 0,05) etapie badań wykazano istotny wpływ typu klatek na udział (%) jaj w poszczególnych klasach wagowych. Więcej jaj w klasie L uzyskano u kur utrzymywanych w klatkach wzbogaconych. Różnice w nieśności kur po przeniesieniu sugerują, że nioski o wiele łatwiej i szybciej adaptują się do warunków klatek C. Masa uzyskanych jaj była bardziej zależna od poziomu nieśności i wieku kur niż rodzaju klatki.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

laying hen; egg weight; cage type; laying performance; rearing condition; Directive 1999-74-EC

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW. Animal Science
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 52
• Opis fizyczny: p.13-22,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Damaziak K.

• Department of Poultry Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Science - SGGW, Ciszewskiego 8, 02-786 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Riedel J.

• Department of Poultry Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Science - SGGW, Ciszewskiego 8, 02-786 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Michalczuk M.

• Department of Poultry Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Science - SGGW, Ciszewskiego 8, 02-786 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Kurek A.

• Department of Horses Breeding, Warsaw University of Life Science - SGGW, Ciszewskiego 8, 02-786 Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• APPLEBY M.C., HUGHES B.O., 1991: Welfare of laying hens in cages and alter­native systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 47, 109-128.
• APPLEBY M.C.,WALKERA.W., NICOLC.J., LINDBERG A.C., FREIRE R., HUGHES B.O., ELSON H.A., 2002: Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 43, 489-500.
• BARNETTJ.L.,TAUSONR., DOWNINGJ.A., JANARDHANA V, LOWENTHAL J.W., BUTLER K.L., CRONIN G.M., 2009: The effects of a perch, dust bath, and nest box, either alone or in combination as used in furnished cages, on the welfare of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 88, 456-470.
• BAUMGARTNER J., BENKOVA J., PESKOVICOVA D., 2007: Effect of line, age and individuality on yolk cholesterol content and some other egg quality traits in leghorn type yolk cholesterol selected hens. XVIII European Symposium on the quality of poultry meat and XII European Symposium on the quality of eggs and egg products, September 2-5, Prague, 35-36.
• BERG L.R., 1945: The relationship of clutch position and time interval between eggs to eggshell quality. Poult. Sci. 24, 555-563.
• DEFRA, 2006: The welfare effect of differ­ent methods of depopulation on laying hens. http ://randd. defra. gov.uk/Default. aspx?Menu&Module=More&Location= None&Project ID=11925&FromSearch= Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=aw0231& SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Ac s&Paging=10#Destription.
• DOUGLIS M., 1948: Social factors influenc­ing the hierarchies of the domestic hen: interactions between resident and part­time members of organized flock. Physi­ol. Zool. 21, 147-182.
• European Commission, 1999: Council Direc­tive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protec­tion of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Union L203, 0053-0057.
• GLATZ P.C., BARNETT J.L., 1996: Effect of perches and solid sides on production, plumage and foot condition of laying hens housed in conventional cages in nat­urally ventilated shed. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 36, 269-275.
• GUESDON V., FAURE J.M., 2004: Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim. Res. 53, 45-57.
• GUNNARSSON S., KEELING L.J., SVED- BERG J., 1999: Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in com­mercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 40, 12-18.
• HIRAMOTO K., MURAMATSU T., OKU­MURA J., 1990: Protein synthesis in tissues and in the whole body of laying hens during egg formation. Poult. Sci. 62, 264-269.
• JULLY M.A., 1930: Problems in egg weigh­ing in relation to production. Poult. Sci. 9, 207-218.
• LAY D.C., FULTON R.M., HESTER P.Y., KARCHER D.M., KJAER J.B., MENCH J.A., MULLENS B.A., NEW- BERRYR.C., NICOLC.J., O’SULLIVAN P.O., PORTER R.E., 2011: Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 90, 278-294.
• NASR M., MURRELL J., WILKINS L.J., NICOL C.J., 2012: The effect of keel fractures on egg-production parameters, mobility and behaviour in individual lay­ing hens. Anim. Welfare 21, 127-135.
• RODENBURG T.B., TUYTTENS F.A.M., DE REU K., HERMAN L., ZOONS J., SONCK B., 2008: Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non­-cage systems: assimilating expert opin­ion. Anim. Welfare 17, 355-361.
• SHERWIN C.M., RICHARDS G.J., NI­COL C.J., 2010: Comparison of the wel­fare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. Br. Poult. Sci. 51, 488-499.
• SOSNÓWKA-CZAJKA E., HERBUT E., SKOROMUCHA I., 2010: Effect of dif­ferent housing systems on productivity and welfare of laying hens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 10, 349-360.
• SPSS, 2010: SPSS, 21.0 for Windows user’s guide, 2010. SPSS Inc., USA.
• TACTACAN G.B., GUENTER W., LE­WIS N.J., RODRIGUEZ-LECOMPTE J.C., HOUSE J.D., 2009: Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 88, 698-707. www.hendrix-genetics.com, 2008. Technical Information, Commercial Layers, ISA Brown.
• ZITA L., TUMOVA E., ŚTOLC L., 2009: Effect of genotype, age and their interac­tion on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Vet. bRnO 78, 85-91.