Comparative effect of stocking density and flock size on performance and egg quality of laying hens in conventional and furnished California cages

P ROY; M M KADAM; D B BHAISARE; J J ROKADE; S K BHANJA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v92i12.127125

Authors

P ROY Nagpur Veterinary College, Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, Maharashtra
M M KADAM Nagpur Veterinary College, Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, Maharashtra
D B BHAISARE Nagpur Veterinary College, Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, Maharashtra
J J ROKADE ICAR- Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh
S K BHANJA ICAR- Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v92i12.127125

Keywords:

Conventional cage, Egg quality, Furnished cage, Laying hens, Performance, Stocking density

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out with an objective to test the comparative performance of laying hens reared in conventional California cages vs furnished California cages with regards to production performance, egg quality parameters and immune status. Experiments were conducted at Poultry Research and Training Centre, Department of Poultry Science, Nagpur Veterinary College during 2019-21. Commercial White Leghorn (BV300) hens (n =72) in each experiment were assigned into two treatments with six replicates in conventional and furnished California cages, and reared for a 20 week period. The furnished cages (FC) are provided with perches, nesting area and scratch pad to meet the natural behaviour of the birds. There were two different treatments viz. 548 cm2/b×6 birds and 645cm2/b×6 birds to see the effect of different stocking density in cages. The performance of the laying hens reared in furnished cages were recorded and compared with findings of birds reared in conventional California cages (CC). The results showed that body weight, weight gain, hen day egg production percentages, feed : egg ratio, egg weight and proportion of broken eggs and dirty eggs were not significantly affected by cage types. However, Haugh unit and albumen height of the eggs from furnished cages hens were significantly higher than those from the conventional California cage hens. While H/L ratio and corticosterone values were significantly lowest in furnished cage system birds. It can be concluded from study that the layer birds can be reared in stress free condition in furnished cage system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abrahamsson P and Tauson R. 1997. Effects of group size on performance, health and birds us of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agric Scand - A: Animal Science 47: 254–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09064709709362394

Appleby M C, Walker A W, Nicol C J, Lindberg, A C, Freire R, Hughes B O and Elson. 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science 43: 489–500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0007166022000004390

Duncan N D. 1995. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478

Feng P G, Guo Y L, Yang H M, Ban Z B, Liang H and Zhang F Y. 2018. Research progress on the effect of stocking density on the health and production of livestock and poultry. Animal Science Veterinary Medicine 7: 34–38.

Gonzales E, Kondo N, Saldanha E S P B, Loddy M M, Careghi C and Decuypere E. 2003. Performance and physiological parameters of broiler chickens subjected to fasting on the neonatal period. Poultry Science 82: 1250–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.8.1250

Guo Y Y, Song Z G, Jiao H C, Song Q Q and Lin H. 2012. The effect of group size and stocking density on the welfare and performance of hens housed in furnished cages during summer. Animal Welfare 21: 41–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129501

Heckert R A, Estevez I, Russek-Cohen E and Pettit-Riley R. 2002. Effects of density and perch availability on the immune status of broilers. Poultry Science 81: 451–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.4.451

Hester P Y, Enneking S A, Jefferson-Moore K Y, Einstein M E, Cheng H W and Rubin D A. 2013. The effect of perches in cages during pullet rearing and egg laying on hen performance, foot health and plumage. Poultry Science 92: 310–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02744

Kang H K, Park S B, Jeon J J, Kim H S, Kim S H, Hong E and Kim C H. 2018. Effect of stocking density on laying performance, egg quality and blood parameters of Hy-Line Brown laying hens in an aviary system. European Poultry Science 82.

Karkulin D. 2006. Comparison of production and egg quality parameters of laying hens housed in conventional and enriched cages. International Scientific Conference-The current problems in agriculture, food processing and waste management. Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra, 79–83.

Kogoor D N E, Jadalla J B, Bakhit M F, Idris I A and Ebrahiem M A. 2021. Effect of deep-litter floor and battery cages system on the feed consumption and egg production rate of commercial Layers. International Journal of Veterinary Science Research 7(2): 118–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000090

Li X, Chen D, Meng F, Su Y, Zhang R, Li J and Buo J. 2017. Exterior egg quality as affected by enrichment resources layout in furnished laying-hen cages. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 30(10): 1495–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0794

Meng F, Chen D, Li X, Li J and Bao J. 2014. Effect of large or small furnished cages on performance, welfare and egg quality of laying hens. Animal Production Science 55: 793–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13552

Pohle K and Cheng H W. 2009. Comparative effects of furnished and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in white leghorn hens. Poultry Science 88: 2042– 51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00171

Shimmura T, Hirahara S, Azuma T, Suzuki T, Eguchi Y, Uetake K and Tanaka T. 2010. Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. British Poultry Science 51(1): 31–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660903421167

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

Tactacan G B, Guenter W, Lewis N J, Rodriguez-Lecompte J G and House J D. 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88: 698–707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369

Tauson R. 1998. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poultry Science 77: 1820–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1820

Wall H and Tauson R. 2007. Perch arrangements in small-group furnished cages for laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16: 322–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/16.3.322

Weitzenburger D, Vits A, Hamann H and Distl O. 2005. Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science 46: 553–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500303206

Widowski T M, Caston L J, Hunniford M E, Cooley L and Torrey S. 2017. Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well being. Poultry Science 96: 3805–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex197