Skip to main content

Effects of cage type on performance, welfare, and microbiological properties of laying hens during the molting period and the second production cycle

Tropical Animal Health and Production volume 52, pages 3713–3724 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

As most of the unenriched cages will soon switch to enriched cages, it is important to characterize all the effects in the laying hens for sustainable production. Laying hens can be used in several production periods by applying molting. The aim of this study was to determine the cage type (unenriched and enriched) on performance, welfare, and microbiological properties of laying hens during the molting period and the second production cycle. Overall, 840 brown laying hybrids were used in the experiment. Laying hens were reared on two different cage types (unenriched cage (UEC) and enriched cage (EC)) in the same poultry house. When the hybrids were 75 weeks old, they were subjected to force molting with whole grain barley. Performance, welfare, microbiological, and serological data of laying hens were obtained from 73 to 107 weeks of age. Egg production, egg weight, feed conversion ratio, breaking strength, albumen and yolk index, Haugh unit, feather condition, and breaking force of femur and metatarsus were better in the post-molting period. However, keel bone deformities and Newcastle disease virus antibody titers are the worst in the post-molting period. Stiffness of femur and metatarsus was increased with period. These results indicate that necessary precautions should be taken against the problems that may occur in the direction of bone and health. During the molting period, hens kept in EC had lower egg production but they returned to egg production at a high rate. EC type had a positive effect on egg production, feed conversion ratio, feather and foot condition, and breaking force of metatarsus.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Ahammed, M., Chae, B. J., Lohakare, J., Keohavong, B., Lee, M. H., Lee, S. J., Kim, D.M., Lee, J. Y. and Ohh, S. J., 2014. Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 27, 1196.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • AOAC, 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. AOAC International, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. L., Tauson, R., Downing, J. A., Janardhana, V., Lowenthal, J. W., Butler, K. L. and 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. Poultry Science 88, 456-470.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, K. and Clegg, K., 1956. The metabolizable energy of poultry feeding stuffs in relation to their chemical composition. The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 7, 45-51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey-Trott, T., Heerkens, J. L. T., Petrik, M., Regmi, P., Schrader, L., Toscano, M. J. and Widowski, T., 2015. Methods for assessment of keel bone damage in poultry. Poultry Science 94, 2339-2350.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavijo, V. and Vives Florez, M.J., 2018 Non-invited review the gastrointestinal microbiome and its association with the control of pathogens in broiler chicken production: a review. Poultry Science 97, 1006–1021.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, B. and Trapp, R.G., 2000. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Appleton and Lange, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farese, G., Schmidt, J.L. and Mager, M., 1967. An automated method for the determination of serum calcium with glyoxal bis (2-hydroxyanil). Clinical Chemistry 13, 515-520.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti, J.L., 1998. Biomechanical properties of bone. In: Bone densitometry and osteoporosis (pp. 143-161). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Hester, P. Y., 2014. The effect of perches installed in cages on laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal 70, 247-264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, P. Y., Enneking, S. A., Haley, B. K., Cheng, H. W., Einstein, M. E. and Rubin, D. A., 2013. The effect of perch availability during pullet rearing and egg laying on musculoskeletal health of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science 92(8), 1972-1980.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huneau-Salaün, A., Guinebretière, M., Huonnic, D. and Michel, V., 2011. Impacts of furnished cage design on cage floor hygiene and egg quality. In Animal hygiene and sustainable livestock production. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene, Vienna, Austria, 3-7 July 2011, Volume 1 (pp. 251-253). Tribun EU.

  • Keshavarz, K. and Quimby, F. W., 2002. An investigation of different molting techniques with an emphasis on animal welfare. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11, 54-67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolakshyapati, M., Flavel, R. J., Sibanda, T. Z., Schneider, D., Welch, M. C. and Ruhnke, I., 2019. Various bone parameters are positively correlated with hen body weight while range access has no beneficial effect on tibia health of free-range layers. Poultry Science 98, 6241-6250.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. Y., Liu, W., Ma, R. Y., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Qi, R. R. and Zhan, K., 2019. Effects of cage size on growth performance, blood biochemistry, and antibody response in layer breeder males during rearing stage. Poultry Science 98, 3571-3577.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, F., Chen, D., Li, X., Li, J. and Bao, J., 2015. Effects of large or small furnished cages on performance, welfare and egg quality of laying hens. Animal Production Science 55, 793–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neijat, M., Casey-Trott, T. M., Robinson, S., Widowski, T. M. and Kiarie, E., 2019. Effects of rearing and adult laying housing systems on medullary, pneumatic and radius bone attributes in 73-wk old Lohmann LSL lite hens. Poultry Science, 98, 2840-2845.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar E.E. and Aksoy F.T., 2005. Stress parameters and immune response of layers under different cage floor and density conditions. Livestock Production Science 95, 255-263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar, E. E. and Erol, H., 2007. Effects of different forced molting methods on postmolt production, corticosterone level, and immune response to sheep red blood cells in laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16, 529-536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar, E. E., Ünal, N., Erdem, E., Kocakaya, A. and Yaranoğlu, B., 2015. Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 94, 559-564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar, E. E., Ünal, N. and Erdem, E., 2018. Some egg quality traits of two laying hybrids kept in different cage systems. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 65, 51-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippe, F. X., Mahmoudi, Y., Mars, D. C., Lefrançois, M., Moula, N., Palacios, J. and Godbout, S., 2020. Comparison of egg production, quality and composition in three production systems for laying hens. Livestock Science 103917.

  • Price, C. P. and Thompson, P. W., 1995. The role of biochemical tests in the screening and monitoring of osteoporosis. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 32, 244-260.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relić, R., Sossidou, E., Dedousi, A., Perić, L., Božičković, İ. and Đukić-stojčić, M., 2019. Behavioral and health problems of poultry related to rearing systems. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 66, 423-428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricke, S. C., 2003. The gastrointestinal tract ecology of Salmonella Enteritidis colonization in molting hens. Poultry Science 82, 1003-1007.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Navarro, A. B., McCormack, H. M., Fleming, R. H., Alvarez-Lloret, P., Romero-Pastor, J., Dominguez-Gasca, N. and Dunn, I. C., 2018. Influence of physical activity on tibial bone material properties in laying hens. Journal of Structural Biology 201, 36-45.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevil Kilimci, F. and Kara, M.E., 2013. Kemiklerin mekanik özelliklerin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan temel biyomekanik kavramlar. Animal Health Production and Hygiene 2, 235-239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, S., Qi, Z., Gu, B., Cheng, B., Tu, J., Song, X., Shao, Y., Liu, H., Qi, K. and Li, S., 2019. Analysis of high-throughput sequencing for cecal microbiota diversity and function in hens under different rearing systems. 3 Biotech 9, 438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Süzer, B., Tüfekçi, K., Arıcan, İ., Petek, M., Abdourhamane, İ., Özbek, M. and Yıldız, H., 2019. Effects of genotype and housing system on some bone biomechanical characteristics in broiler chickens. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 66, 237-246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tactacan, G. B., Guenter, W., Lewis, N. J., Rodriguez-Lecompte, J. C. and House, J. D., 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 88, 698-707.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tauson, R. and Abrahamsson, P., 1996. Foot and keel bone disorders in laying hens – effects of artificial perch material and hybrid. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A — Animal Science 46, 239 – 246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vits, A., Weitzenbürger, D., Hamann, H. and Distl, O., 2005. Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science 84, 1511-1519.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, D. W. and Taylor, M., 2015. Exploring the avian gut microbiota: current trends and future directions. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. B., 2003. Physiology and behavior of the hen during induced molt. Poultry Science 82, 992-1002.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, S. L., Robison, C. I., Tempelman, R. J., Jones, D. R. and Karcher, D. M., 2019. Laying hen production and welfare in enriched colony cages at different stocking densities. Poultry Science 98, 3578-3586.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, L. J., Brown, S. N., Zimmerman, P. H., Leeb, C. and Nicol, C. J., 2004. Investigation of palpation as a method for determining the prevalence of keel and furculum damage in laying hens. Veterinary Record 155, 547-549.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yalçın, S., Eser, H., Onbaşılar, İ. and Yalçın, S., 2020. Effects of dried thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) leaves on performance, some egg quality traits and immunity in laying hens. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 67, 303-311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yılmaz Dikmen, B., İpek, A., Şahan, Ü., Petek, M. and Sözcü, A., 2016. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Science, 95, 1564-1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by TUBITAK (2170349).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    E. E. Onbaşılar & A. Kocakaya

  2. Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Harran University, Urfa, Turkey

    M. Kahraman

  3. Department of Veterinary, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Vocational School of Mudurnu Süreyya Astarcı, Bolu, Turkey

    Ö. F. Güngör

  4. Department of Animal Nutrition and Nutritional Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    T. Karakan, M. Pirpanahi, D. Metin & A. Şehu

  5. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    B. Doğan & M. Akan

  6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey

    F. K. Erbay Elibol

  7. Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey

    S. Yalçın

Authors
  1. E. E. Onbaşılar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Kahraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ö. F. Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Kocakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Karakan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Pirpanahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. B. Doğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Metin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Akan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. A. Şehu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. K. Erbay Elibol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. S. Yalçın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. E. Onbaşılar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by the Ankara University Animal Care and Use Committee (2017-21-165).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onbaşılar, E.E., Kahraman, M., Güngör, Ö.F. et al. Effects of cage type on performance, welfare, and microbiological properties of laying hens during the molting period and the second production cycle. Trop Anim Health Prod 52, 3713–3724 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02409-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02409-0

Keywords

  • Laying hen
  • Cage type
  • Molting
  • Performance
  • Welfare
  • Health