DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exterior egg quality as affected by enrichment resources layout in furnished laying-hen cages

  • Li, Xiang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Chen, Donghua (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Meng, Fanyu (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Su, Yingying (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Wang, Lisha (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Runxiang (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Li, Jianhong (College of Life Science, Northeast Agricultural University) ;
  • Bao, Jun (College of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2016.10.13
  • Accepted : 2017.02.19
  • Published : 2017.10.01

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effects of enrichment resources (a perch, dustbath, and nest) layout in furnished laying-hen cages (FC) on exterior quality of eggs. Methods: One hundred and sixty-eight (168) Hy-Line Brown laying hens at 16 weeks of age were randomly distributed to four treatments: small furnished cages (SFC), medium furnished cages type I (MFC-I), medium furnished cages type II (MFC-II), and medium furnished cages type III (MFC-III). Each treatment had 4 replicates or cages with 6 hens for SFC (24 birds for each SFC) and 12 hen/cage for MFC-I, -II, and -III (48 birds for each MFC-I, -II and -III). Following a 2-week acclimation, data collection started at 18 weeks of age and continued till 52 weeks of age. Dirtiness of egg surface or cracked shell as indicators of the exterior egg quality were recorded each week. Results: The results showed that the proportion of cracked or dirty eggs was significantly affected by the FC type (p<0.01) in that the highest proportion of cracked or dirty eggs was found in MFC-I and the lowest proportion of dirty eggs in SFC. The results of this showed that furnished cage types affected both dirty eggs and cracked eggs (p<0.01). The results also indicated that not nest but dustbath lead to more dirty eggs. Only MFC-I had higher dirty eggs at nest than other FC (p<0.01). The results of dirty eggs in MFC-I and MFC-II compared with SFC and MFC-III seemed suggest that a low position of dustbath led to more dirty eggs. Conclusion: SFC design affected exterior egg quality and the low position of dustbath in FC resulted in higher proportion of dirty eggs.

Keywords

Furnished Cage;Cage Design;Exterior Egg Quality;Laying Hen

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. Tauson R. Health and production in improved cage designs. Poult Sci 1998;77:1820-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/77.12.1820
  2. Wall H, Tauson R. Egg quality in furnished cages for laying hens-effects of crack reduction measures and hybrid. Poult Sci 2002;81: 340-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.3.340
  3. Guesdon V, Faure JM. Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim Res 2004;53:45-57. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2003045
  4. Sosnowka-Czajka E, Herbut E, Skomorucha I. Effect of different housing systems on productivity and welfare of laying hens. Ann Anim Sci 2010;10:349-60.
  5. Guesdon V, Ahmed AMH, Mallet S, Faure JM, Nys Y. Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. Br Poult Sci 2006;47:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500468124
  6. Mallet S, Guesdon V, Ahmed AMH, Nys Y. Comparison of eggshell hygiene in two housing systems: Standard and furnished cages. Br Poult Sci 2006;47:30-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500468132
  7. Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC, House JD. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci 2009;88:698-707. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369
  8. Wall H. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poult Sci 2011; 90:2153-61. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01495
  9. Directive EU. Council Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities; 1999. pp. 53-7.
  10. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Effects of group size on performance, health and birds’ use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agric Scand A-Anim Sci 1997;47:254-60.
  11. Wall H, Tauson R, Elwinger K. Effect of nest design, passages, and hybrid on use of nest and production performance of layers in furnished cages. Poult Sci 2002;81:333-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/81.3.333
  12. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R, Appleby MC. Performance of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. Acta Agric Scand A-Anim Sci 1995;45:286-96.
  13. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Performance and egg quality of laying hens in an aviary system. J Appl Poult Res 1998;7:225-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/7.3.225
  14. Duncan ET, Appleby MC, Hughes BO. Effect of perches in laying cages on welfare and production of hens. Br Poult Sci 1992;33:25-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669208417441
  15. Holt PS, Davies RH, Dewulf J, et al. The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality 1. Poult Sci 2011;90:251-62. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00794
  16. Appleby MC, McRae HE. The individual nest box as a super-stimulus for domestic hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1986;15:169-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90062-6