[en] The increasing public concern for animal welfare has pushed the poultry sector to progressively replace conventional battery cages (CC) for laying hens with alternative systems such as enriched cages (EC) and aviaries (AV). The aim of this study was to compare laying performance, egg location, and egg quality associated with these three housing types. The experiment was conducted in twelve pilot-scale chambers fitted out with one of the three treatments. Each chamber housed 30 Lohmann LSL-Lite laying hens from 23 to 32 weeks of age. The available area was 492, 780, and 1120 cm²/hen for CC, EC, and AV, respectively. The EC and AV chambers were equipped with nest boxes, perches, and a pecking/scratching area (PSA). In the AV chambers, hens had free access to a space arranged in three levels with a wood shaving litter on the ground level as a PSA. Hen-day production was recorded and egg quality assessment included egg cleanliness, weight and proportion of each component (albumen, yolk, and shell) but also pH, Haugh unit, and meat spots for albumen; color intensity and blood spots for yolk; thickness and resistance for shell. The laying rate and egg weight were similar for CC and EC (around 96.5% and 59.5 g; P > 0.05). For AV, these parameters were significantly lower (77.2% and 58.6 g; P < 0.001) but the differences compared to the cage systems progressively reduced across time. Nearby 70% of the eggs were laid in the nests with EC while almost all of the eggs were laid on the litter at ground level with AV. The rate of clean eggs was around 77% for both cage systems compared to 14% for AV. Most of egg quality traits were identical for the three systems (P > 0.05) but there was a lower yolk proportion for eggs laid in AV (25.2% versus 25.7% for cages systems; P < 0.001) and higher shell resistance for eggs laid in CC (40.7 N versus 39.3 N for alternative systems; P < 0.001). Lower laying performance observed with AV could be explained by higher animal activity and competition for facilities, but these factors were not measured in this study. The reduction of the difference in egg productivity over time compared to cage systems suggest the need for a period of training/adaptation for pullets/hens kept in such an environment. An enriched cage system seems a balanced solution that combines both laying productivity and improved animal welfare. Further research should be performed to improve acceptance and appropriate use of resources by birds in an aviary system.
Disciplines :
Animal production & animal husbandry
Author, co-author :
Philippe, François-Xavier ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA) ; Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA), Canada ; Département des sciences animales, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Université Laval, Canada
Mahmoudi, Y.; Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA), Canada ; Département des sciences animales, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Université Laval, Canada
Cinq-Mars, D.; Département des sciences animales, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Université Laval, Canada
Lefrançois, M. ; Département des sciences animales, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Université Laval, Canada
Moula, Nassim ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences biomédicales et précliniques > Méthodes expérimentales des animaux de laboratoire et éthique en expérimentation animale
Palacios, J. ; Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA), Canada
Pelletier, F.; Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA), Canada
Godbout, S.; Institut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironnement (IRDA), Canada ; Département des sciences animales, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation, Université Laval, Canada
Language :
English
Title :
Comparison of egg production, quality and composition in three production systems for laying hens
MAPAQ - Ministère de l'Agriculture des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec FPOQ - Fédération des Producteurs d'Oeufs du Québec
Funding text :
Funding was provided by the “Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation du Québec” ( MAPAQ ) and the “Fédération des producteurs d’œufs de Québec” ( FPOQ ). Cédric Morin, Michel Côté, and Christian Gauthier were gratefully thanked for their skilled technical and practical supports.
Abrahamsson, P., Tauson, R., Performance and egg quality of laying hens in an aviary system. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7 (1998), 225–232.
Ahammed, M., Chae, B., Lohakare, J., Keohavong, B., Lee, M., Lee, S., Kim, D., Lee, J., Ohh, S., Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 27, 2014, 1196.
Altuntas, E., Sekeroglu, A., Effect of egg shape index on mechanical properties of chicken eggs. J. Food Eng. 85 (2008), 606–612.
Appleby, M., Hughes, B., The Edinburgh modified cage for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 36 (1995), 707–718.
Appleby, M., Walker, A., Nicol, C., Lindberg, A., Freire, R., Hughes, B., Elson, H., Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 43 (2002), 489–500.
Bovera, F., Iannaccone, F., Piccolo, G., Meo, C.D., Russo, F., Piscitelli, D., Attia, Y.A., Hassan, S.S., Nizza, A., Effect of group size on performance and egg quality of laying hens during 20 to 36 weeks of age. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 13, 2014, 3148.
Campbell, D., Makagon, M., Swanson, J., Siegford, J., Laying hen movement in a commercial aviary: enclosure to floor and back again. Poult. Sci. 95 (2016), 176–187.
Colson, S., Arnould, C., Michel, V., Motivation to dust-bath of laying hens housed in cages and in aviaries. Animal 1 (2007), 433–437.
Colson, S., Arnould, C., Michel, V., Influence of rearing conditions of pullets on space use and performance of hens placed in aviaries at the beginning of the laying period. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 111 (2008), 286–300.
de Oliveira, D., do Nascimento, J.W., Camerini, N.L., Silva, R.C., Furtado, D.A., Araujo, T.G., Performance and quality of egg laying hens raised in furnished cages and controlled environment. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 18 (2014), 1186–1191.
Elson, H., Croxall, R., European study on the comparative welfare of laying hens in cage and non-cage systems. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 70, 2006, 194.
Englmaierova, M., Tumova, E., Charvátova, V., Skrivan, M., Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination. Yeast, 15, 2014 0.
Fédération des Producteurs d'Oeufs du Québec (2015). Bien-être des poules pondeuses – Cahier des charges. Longueuil (QC), Canada, 33p.
Guesdon, V., Faure, J.M., Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim. Res. 53 (2004), 45–57.
Guinebretière, M., Huneau-Salaün, A., Huonnic, D., Michel, V., Cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality: the effects of linings and litter provision in furnished cages for laying hens. Poult. Sci. 91 (2012), 808–816.
Haugh, R., The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. United States Egg Poult. Mag. 43 (1937), 522–555.
Huber-Eicher, B., The effect of early colour preference and of a colour exposing procedure on the choice of nest colours in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 86 (2004), 63–76.
Huneau-Salaün, A., Guinebretière, M., Taktak, A., Huonnic, D., Michel, V., Furnished cages for laying hens: study of the effects of group size and litter provision on laying location, zootechnical performance and egg quality. Animal 5 (2011), 911–917.
Hunniford, M.E., Widowski, T.M., Nest alternatives: adding a wire partition to the scratch area affects nest use and nesting behaviour of laying hens in furnished cages. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 186 (2017), 29–34.
Janczak, A.M., Riber, A.B., Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 94 (2015), 1454–1469.
Jones, D., Cox, N., Guard, J., Fedorka-Cray, P., Buhr, R., Gast, R., Abdo, Z., Rigsby, L., Plumblee, J., Karcher, D., Microbiological impact of three commercial laying hen housing systems. Poult. Sci. 94 (2015), 544–551.
Karcher, D., Jones, D., Abdo, Z., Zhao, Y., Shepherd, T.A., Xin, H., Impact of commercial housing systems and nutrient and energy intake on laying hen performance and egg quality parameters. Poult. Sci. 94 (2015), 485–501.
Lay, D., Fulton, R., Hester, P., Karcher, D., Kjaer, J., Mench, J., Mullens, B., Newberry, R., Nicol, C., O'sullivan, N., Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 90 (2011), 278–294.
Lewko, L., Gornowicz, E., Effect of housing system on egg quality in laying hens. Ann. Anim. Sci. 11 (2011), 607–611.
Lichovnikova, M., Zeman, L., Effect of housing system on the calcium requirement of laying hens and on eggshell quality. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 53, 2008, 162.
Lordelo, M., Fernandes, E., Bessa, R., Alves, S., Quality of eggs from different laying hen production systems, from indigenous breeds and specialty eggs. Poult. Sci. 96 (2016), 1485–1491.
Matthews, W., Sumner, D., Effects of housing system on the costs of commercial egg production. Poult. Sci. 94 (2015), 552–557.
Meng, F., Chen, D., Li, X., Li, J., Bao, J., Effects of large or small furnished cages on performance, welfare and egg quality of laying hens. Anim Prod. Sci. 55 (2015), 793–798.
Michel, V., Huonnic, D., A comparison of welfare, health and production performance of laying hens reared in cages or in aviaries. Br. Poult. Sci. 44 (2003), 775–776.
Moula, N., Michaux, C., Philippe, F.-.X., Antoine-Moussiaux, N., Leroy, P., Egg and meat production performances of two varieties of the local Ardennaise poultry breed: silver black and golden black. Anim. Genet. Resour. 53 (2013), 57–67.
Nimmermark, S., Lund, V., Gustafsson, G., Eduard, W., Ammonia, dust and bacteria in welfare-oriented systems for laying hens. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 16 (2009), 103–113.
Olsson, I.A.S., Keeling, L.J., Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68 (2000), 243–256.
Pavlovski, Z., Hopic, S., Lukic, M., Housing systems for layers and egg quality. Biotechnol. Anim. Husbandry., 2001.
Samiullah, S., Omar, A.S., Roberts, J., Chousalkar, K., Effect of production system and flock age on eggshell and egg internal quality measurements. Poult. Sci. 96 (2017), 246–258.
Scholz, B., Rönchen, S., Hamann, H., Sürie, C., Neumann, U., Kamphues, J., Distl, O., Evaluation of bone strength, keel bone deformity and egg quality of laying hens housed in small group housing systems and furnished cages in comparison to an aviary housing system. Arch. Anim. Breed. 51 (2008), 179–186.
Shimmura, T., Eguchi, Y., Uetake, K., Tanaka, T., Behavior, performance and physical condition of laying hens in conventional and small furnished cages. Anim. Sci. J. 78 (2007), 323–329.
Shimmura, T., Hirahara, S., Azuma, T., Suzuki, T., Eguchi, Y., Uetake, K., Tanaka, T., Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 51 (2010), 31–42.
Shinmura, T., Eguchi, Y., Uetake, K., Tanaka, T., Behavioral changes in laying hens after introduction to battery cages, furnished cages and an aviary. Anim. Sci. J. 77 (2006), 242–249.
Singh, R., Cheng, K., Silversides, F., Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88 (2009), 256–264.
Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G., Statistical Methods. Eighth Edition, 1989, Iowa State University Press.
Stampfli, K., Buchwalder, T., Frohlich, E., Roth, B., Design of nest access grids and perches in front of the nests: influence on the behavior of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 92 (2013), 890–899.
Stojcic, M.D., Peric, L., Milosevic, N., Rodic, V., Glamocic, D., SkrbiC, Z., Lukic, M., Effect of genotype and housing system on egg production, egg quality and welfare of laying hens. J. Food Agric. Environ. 10 (2012), 556–559.
Tactacan, G.B., Guenter, W., Lewis, N., Rodriguez-Lecompte, J., House, J., Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 88 (2009), 698–707.
Tanaka, T., Hurnik, J., Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poult. Sci. 71 (1992), 235–243.
Tauson, R., Management and housing systems for layers–effects on welfare and production. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 61 (2005), 477–490.
Taylor, A.A., Hurnik, J.F., The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poult. Sci. 75 (1996), 47–51.
Tumova, E., Englmaierova, M., Ledvinka, Z., Charvatova, A.V., Interaction between housing system and genotype in relation to internal and external egg quality parameters. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 56 (2011), 490–498.
Tuyttens, F., Struelens, E., Ampe, B., Remedies for a high incidence of broken eggs in furnished cages: effectiveness of increasing nest attractiveness and lowering perch height. Poult. Sci. 92 (2013), 19–25.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. Method 3050.Washington, DC. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Valkonen, E., Venalainen, E., Rossow, L., Valaja, J., Effects of dietary energy content on the performance of laying hens in furnished and conventional cages. Poult. Sci. 87 (2008), 844–852.
Villanueva, S., Ali, A., Campbell, D., Siegford, J., Nest use and patterns of egg laying and damage by 4 strains of laying hens in an aviary system. Poult. Sci. 96 (2017), 3011–3020.
Wall, H., Tauson, R., Egg quality in furnished cages for laying hens—Effects of crack reduction measures and hybrid. Poult. Sci. 81 (2002), 340–348.
Yilmaz Dikmen, B., Ipek, A., Sahan, U., Sozcu, A., Baycan, S., Impact of different housing systems and age of layers on egg quality characteristics. Turkish J. Veter. Anim. Sci. 41 (2017), 77–84.
Zupan, M., Kruschwitz, A., Buchwalder, T., Huber-Eicher, B., Stuhec, I., Comparison of the prelaying behavior of nest layers and litter layers. Poult. Sci. 87 (2008), 399–404.
