29
7KHHIIHFWRIGLIIHUHQWKRXVLQJV\VWHPVRQSURGXFWLRQ DQGHJJTXDOLW\WUDLWVRIEURZQDQGOHJKRUQW\SHOD\HUV
=6W 3+RUQ-8MYiUL
Pannon University of Agriculture, Faculty of Animal Science, Department of Poultry Breeding Science, Kaposvár, H-7400 Guba S. u. 40.
$%675$&7
7ZRFRPPHUFLDOOD\HUK\EULGV6KDYHU6WFDQG7HWUD6/ZHUHWHVWHGLQWKHVDPH HQYLURQPHQWDOO\FRQWUROOHGOD\LQJKRXVHLQILYHGLIIHUHQWPDQDJHPHQWDOV\VWHPV7KHVH ILYHV\VWHPVZHUHWUDGLWLRQDOWLHUFDJHV\VWHPZLWKWZRGHQVLW\OHYHOVFPKHQ DQGFPKHQKHQVSHUFDJHDYLDU\SHUFKHU\DQGIORRUVODWWHGIORRUDQGGHHS OLWWHUV\VWHP6LJQLILFDQWGLIIHUHQFHVZHUHIRXQGEHWZHHQVWUDLQVDQGEHWZHHQV\VWHPVRI KRXVLQJIRUDOOWUDLWVVWXGLHG7UDLWVPHDVXUHGXSWRZHHNVRIDJHKHQKRXVHEDVHG HJJ SURGXFWLRQ HJJ ZHLJKW WRWDO HJJ PDVV SURGXFHG IHHG FRQVXPSWLRQ PRUWDOLW\
DOEXPHQ KHLJKW +DXJK XQLWV VKHOO WKLFNQHVV DQG VKHOO GHQVLW\ 5HJDUGLQJ WKH SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKHKHQVKRXVHGSHUFDJHDVDQGDVVWDQGDUGEHLQJWKHPRVW IUHTXHQWO\ XVHG LQ SUDFWLFH WKH IROORZLQJ PRVW LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG KHQKRXVHEDVHGHJJSURGXFWLRQDQGKHQVFDJHDQGDYLDU\
DQG SHUFKHU\ DQG IORRU IRU /HJKRUQV DQG EURZQ HJJ OD\HUV UHVSHFWLYHO\)HHGFRQVXPSWLRQSHUGD\SHUKHQDQGKHQVFDJH DQGDYLDU\DQGSHUFKHU\DQGIORRU(JJZHLJKWDQG HJJTXDOLW\WUDLWVZHUHOHVVDIIHFWHGE\WKHKRXVLQJV\VWHPVWHVWHG
Keywords: housing system, laying hen, performance, egg quality, egg production, g66=()2*/$/È6
(OWpU WDUWiVLUHQGV]HUHNKDWiVDDWRMiVWHUPHOpVUH
pVD]pWNH]pVLWRMiVPLQ VpJLWXODMGRQViJDLUDDWRMyWtSXViWyOIJJ HQ 6W =+RUQ38MYiUL-
Pannon Agrártudományi Egyetem, Állattenyésztési Kar, Baromfitenyésztési Tanszék, Kaposvár, 7400 Guba S. u. 40
.pWNHUHVNHGHOPLIRUJDOPD]iV~WRMyKLEULGiOORPiQ\D/HJKRUQWtSXV~6KDYHU6WF pV D N|]pSQHKp]WHVW WtSXVED WDUWR]y 7HWUD 6/ YL]VJiODWiUD NHUOW VRU |W NO|QE|]
WDUWiVL UHQGV]HUEHQ HJ\pENpQW WHOMHVHQ D]RQRV IHOWpWHOUHQGV]HU EL]WRVtWiVD PHOOHWW $]
HOWpU WDUWiVWHFKQROyJLDLPHJROGiVRNDN|YHWNH] NYROWDNKDJ\RPiQ\RVV]LQWHVNHWUHF NpWNO|QE|] WHOHStWpVLV U VpJJHOW\~NNHWUHFFPWRMypV W\~NNHWUHF FPWRMyHOKHO\H]pVpYHOWRYiEEiDPDGiUKi]D]O UXGDVpVUiFVSDGOyVWDUWiVUiFV SDGOypVPpO\DORPNRPELQiFLyMDPLQWQHPNHWUHFHVDOWHUQDWtYPHJROGiVRN6]iPRW WHY pVVWDWLV]WLNDLODJLVLJD]ROWNO|QEVpJHNHWWDSDV]WDOWXQND]HJ\HVWRMyKLEULGWtSXVRN pV D WDUWiVL UHQGV]HUHN N|]|WW D YL]VJiOW pUWpNPpU WXODMGRQViJRN WHNLQWHWpEHQ $
*This article was the subject of a lecture at the XX World Poultry Congress (2-5 September 1996) in New Delhi.
Pannon University of Agriculture, Faculty of Animal Science, Kaposvár
KHWHVNRULJWDUWyDGDWJ\ MWpVD]DOiEELpUWpNPpU NUHWHUMHGWNLEHyOD]RWWW\~NUDYHWtWHWW WRMiVWHUPHOpV iWODJRV WRMiVW|PHJ |VV]HV WRMiVW|PHJ WRMiVPDVV]D WHUPHOpV WDNDUPiQ\IRJ\DV]WiV pOHWNpSHVVpJ V U IHKpUMH PDJDVViJD +DXJKHJ\VpJEHQ NLIHMH]HWW WRMiVPLQ VpJ KpMYDVWDJViJ pV KpMV U VpJ $ J\DNRUODWEDQ iOWDOiQRVDQ DONDOPD]RWWW\~NNHWUHFHQNpQWLHOKHO\H]pVHVHWpQPpUWWHUPHOpVLPXWDWyNDWQDN WHNLQWYHD]HOWpU WDUWiVLUHQGV]HUHNEHQWHUPHO iOORPiQ\RNN|]|WWDN|YHWNH] OpQ\HJHV NO|QEVpJHNHW WDSDV]WDOWXN D EHyOD]RWW W\~NUD YHWtWHWW WRMiVWHUPHOpV NDO YROW PDJDVDEE D /HJKRUQ pV NDO D N|]pSQHKp]WHVW WtSXV HVHWpQ KD D] iOODWRN WRMyNHWUHF V U VpJJHO YROWDN HOKHO\H]YH NDO pV NDO YROW NHYHVHEE D PDGiUKi]DVUHQGV]HUEHQNDOpVNDONHYHVHEED]O UXGDVEDQLOOHWYHNDO pVNDOPDJDVDEEYROWDUiFVSDGOyVWDUWiVEDQDWRMyWtSXViWyOIJJ HQ$WRMyNQDSL WDNDUPiQ\IRJ\DV]WiVD D] HWDORQQDN YiODV]WRWW WDUWiVL PHJROGiVKR] NpSHVW D N|YHWNH] NpSSHQ DODNXOW pV W\~NNHWUHF HOKHO\H]pV HVHWpQ pV DPDGiUKi]DVPHJROGiVEDQpVD]O UXGDVEDQpVKD D] iOODWRN UiFVSDGOyQ WHUPHOWHN $ WRMiVRN W|PHJpW pV PLQ VpJL SDUDPpWHUHLW D WDUWiVPyGNLVHEEPpUWpNEHQEHIRO\iVROWDPLQWDJHQRWtSXV
,1752'8&7,21
In the egg production sector during the past decade several experiments have been conducted to compare traditional cage housing management systems with new alternative housing systems. This research work has been geared mainly by the animal welfare movement worldwide ((OVRQ 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, :HJQHU 1991ab, 'XQ 1992).
)LJXUH
'LDJUDPRIGLIIHUHQWQRQFDJHGKRXVLQJV\VWHPV
Aviary (1) Perchery (2) Floor (3)
Dropping pit (5) litter (6) Dropping pit (5) litter (6) Dropping pit (5) litter (6) iEUD$WHV]WLVWiOOyEDEHpStWHWWDOWHUQDWtYUHQGV]HUHNYi]ODWRVUDM]D
0DGiUKi] hO UXGDV 5iFVSDGOy $OPR]RWW WRMyIpV]HN 7UiJ\DDNQD
$ORPhO U~G
litter nest (4) litter nest (4) litter nest (4)
perches (7)
In Hungary commercial Leghorn and Brown egg layers are at present kept mainly in multiple tier cage systems, providing ca. 400 cm2 cage area and 100 mm trough length for each hen. In the EU the lowest limit recommended is 450 cm2 cage floor area per hen housed. To gain information regarding layers’ reaction to alternative housing systems (aviary, perchery, floor vs cage) under our conditions a layer house was designed in which traditional cage systems and alternative housing systems could be compared simultaneously in the same environment.
0$7(5,$/$1'0(7+2'
A total of 1356 layers, 678 Leghorns (Shaver St. 288) and 678 brown egg layers (Tetra SL), were tested up to 72 weeks of age in five different housing systems. For each type of hen 2 replicate groups were formed for each non-traditional housing treatment (aviary, perchery, floor: see )LJXUH ). The technical characteristics of the non-caged systems are shown in 7DEOH.
7DEOH
0DLQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDOWHUQDWLYHQRQFDJHGV\VWHPVXVHGLQWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQ Alternative systems
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s $aviary %Perchery &Floor system Number of pens
Size of pen*: -measurement (m) -area (m2)
Deep litter area (m2) Floor area (m)
Additional tier area (m2) Perch length (m)
Total area for layers (m2) Area per hen (cm2)
Number of hens within pens
4 2.30 x 2.40
5,52 1.68 (30%**)
3.84 5.76 - 11.28
1050 107
4 2.30 x 2.40
5.52 1.68 (30%**)
3.84 - 12.00 .52+perchery 506+perchery
109
4 2.30 x 2.40
5.52 1.68 (30%**)
3.84 - - 5.52 1050 53 : without area of nets WRMyIpV]HNVRUiOWDOHOIRJODOWWHUOHWQpONO
**: as a percentage of pen’s area DIONHDODSWHUOHWpQHNiEDQ
WiEOi]DW7RMyKi]EDEHpStWHWW´DOWHUQDWtY´WDUWiVWHFKQROyJLDLPHJROGiVRNI EEMHOOHP] L -HOOHP] N.tVpUOHWLFVRSRUWRNV]iPD(J\IONHPpUHWHPDODSWHUOHWHP
$OPR]RWWWHUOHWP7UiJ\DDNQiYDOIHGHWWWHUOHWP7RYiEELUiFVSDGOy WHUOHWPhO UXGDNKRVV]DPÈOODWRNiOWDOHOIRJODOKDWyWHUOHWP(J\
WRMyUDHV DODSWHUOHWFP(J\FVRSRUWOpWV]iPDGE$OWHUQDWtYWDUWiVPyGRN APDGiUKi]BO UXGDVCUiFVSDGOy
These systems were installed in the middle part of the environmentally controlled poultry house. On both sides of this sector traditional 4-tier cage rows were installed. On the inside part of each cage row facing the middle sector were housed the caged control birds. For the Leghorns and Brown egg layers 2 replicate groups were formed on each cage row, representing 3 and 4 hens/cage density levels. Thus, for each type of hen were tested: 2x107 hens in aviary, 2x109 hens in perchery, 2x53 hens on floor, 4x15 hens at 3 per cage, 4x20 hens at 4 per cage.
7DEOH
0HDQVRISURGXFWLRQWUDLWVDVDIIHFWHGE\KRXVLQJV\VWHPIRU/HJKRUQ DQG%URZQHJJOD\HUVXSWRZHHNVRIDJH
P a r a m e t e r s Genotype
and housing system
Hen housed egg prod (JJVELUGAv.
Average egg weight
J
Egg mass prod
av.
JELUG
Standar- dised egg
prod 60 g wt HJJVELUG
Feed JELUGGD\
Mortality
/HJKRUQW\SH 3 hens/cage 4 hens/cage aviary perchery floor
%URZQW\SH 3 hens/cage 4 hens/cage aviary perchery floor
297.6 D 257.1 GH 220.2 IJ 220.7 IJ 281.0DEF 285.2 DE 263.4 FG 237.7 HI 215.2 J 276.8EFG
63.8 DE 62.2 GHIJ 61.6 IJ 61.2 J 62.1 HIJ 64.6 D 62.7EFGHI 63.0EFGH 62.3FGHIJ 63.3 EFG
18,988 D 16,042 HI 13,551 J 13,504 J 17,460 FG 18,489DEF 16,611 GH 15,121 I 13,499 J 17,607EFG
316.5 267.4 225.9 225.1 291.0 308.2 276.9 252.0 225.0 293.5
146 J
113 D
139 FGHI
130 E
145 HIJ
149 J
118 D
138 FGH 137 EFG 143 GHIJ
1.7 10.0
9.8 3.2 4.7 8.9 7.9 5.1 11.9 10.4 Means designated by the same letters within columns are not significantly different (P>0.05) $]RV]ORSRQEHOOD]RQRVEHW YHOMHO]HWWiWODJRNQHPWpUQHNHOV]LJLQLIiQVDQ HJ\PiVWyO3!
WiEOi]DW(OWpU WDUWiVLUHQGV]HUHNKDWiVDDWRMyW\~NRNpUWpNPpU LUHDKLEULGWtSXViWyO IJJ HQKHWHVpOHWNRULJ
*HQRWtSXV pV WDUWiVPyG eUWpNPpU N ,QGXOy OpWV]iPUD YHWyWHWW iWODJRV WRMiVWHUPHOpVWRMiVW\~NÈWODJRVWRMiVW|PHJJgVV]HVWRMiVW|PHJJW\~N JUDPPRV WRMiVUD VWDQGDUGL]iOW WHUPHOpV WRMiVW\~N 1DSL WDNDUPiQ\IRJ\DV]WiV JW\~NQDS 7RMyKi]L NLHVpV /HJKRUQ WtSXV W\~NNHWUHFW\~NNHWUHFPDGiUKi]O UXGDVUiFVSDGOy.|]pSQHKp]WHVW WtSXV W\~NNHWUHFW\~NNHWUHFPDGiUKi]O UXGDVUiFVSDGOy
Management procedures were the same as practised in commercial operations.
Throughout the experiment the number of hens per cage was kept constant, dead birds being replaced by reserve hens originating from the same population, and treatment combination.
7DEOH
7KHHIIHFWRIGLIIHUHQWKRXVLQJV\VWHPVRQWKHTXDOLWDWLYH FKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIHJJVXSWRZHHNVRIDJH
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Genotype
and housing system
Albumen height PP
Haugh units +8
LaRoche value
Shell thick- ness P
Shell den- sity PJFP /HJKRUQW\SH
3 hens/cage 4 hens/cage aviary perchery floor
%URZQW\SH 3 hens/cage 4 hens/cage aviary perchery floor
8.9 D
8.3 FG 8.4 EF 8.8 DE 8.3 FG
7.5 H
7.9 GH
7.7 H
7.7 H
7.5 H
92.7 D 89.5 F 89.7 EF 92.0 DE 89.3 F 84.4 GH 86.6 H 85.0 GH 85.4 GH 83.9 H
5.9 E
6.0 DE 6.2 DE
5.9 E
6.1 DE 6.1 DE
5.9 E
6.3 D
6.2 DE 6.2 DE
358.7FG 349.8 G 359.0FG 355.8FG 352.4 G 377.4DE 374.1DE 379.0DE 381.6 D 367.3EF
82.8 DE 79.7 FG 80.0EFG 79.5 G 78.8 G 84.5 D 84.0 D 83.3 D 84.4 D 82.5DEF Means designated by the same letters within columns are not significantly different (P>0.05) $]RV]ORSRQEHOOD]RQRVEHW YHOMHO]HWWiWODJRNQHPWpUQHNHOV]LJLQLIiQVDQ HJ\PiVWyO3!
WiEOi]DW 7DUWiVPyG KDWiVD D] iUXWRMiV TXDOLWDWtY MHOOHP] LUH D KLEULG WtSXViWyO IJJ HQKHWHVpOHWNRULJ
*HQRWtSXV pV WDUWiVPyG 0LQ VpJL MHOOHP] N 6 U IHKpUMH PDJDVViJD PP +DXJKHJ\VpJ +8 /D5RFKH pUWpN 7RMiVKpM YDVWDJViJD P +pMV U VpJ PJFP/HJKRUQWtSXVW\~NNHWUHFW\~NNHWUHFPDGiUKi]O UXGDVUiFVSDGOy .|]pSQHKp]WHVW WtSXVW\~NNHWUHFW\~NNHWUHFPDGiUKi]O UXGDVUiFVSDGOy
5(68/76$1'',6&866,21
In 7DEOH the means of the production traits as affected by housing system for the Leghorn and Brown egg layers are summarized.
Housing systems influenced the hen housed egg production and correlated egg mass production of both Leghorn and Brown egg layers significantly. Both Leghorn and Brown egg layers reached the highest egg and egg mass production if 3 hens were housed to a cage (533 cm2/hen). In floor housing both types of layer hen performed well.
For both types of layer the lowest egg production was characteristic of the perchery.
Feed consumed daily by the hens was lowest in cages when 4 hens were housed to a cage. All other systems of housing raised feed consumption considerably. During the
experiment egg quality was measured using the English Egg Quality Microprocessor Range and QCS-2 software as supplied by 7HFKQLFDO6HUYLFHV6XSSOLHV. Measurements (of albumen height, Haugh units, LaRoche value, shell thickness and density) were taken every 4 weeks and over 4000 eggs in total were tested. Egg quality traits are summarized in 7DEOH. Housing systems did not influence egg quality traits markedly, although significant differences occurred. Genotype of layers influenced egg quality traits more than did housing systems.
If Hungary must change from a 4 hens per cage system there are two possibilities:
to reduce the density of poultry or to seek an alternative intensive system. )LJXUH , dealing with efficiency of production, shows a calculation of the total egg mass which could be produced from 1 m2 of poultry house floor area by means of the different sys- tems tested. This shows clearly that a reduction in poultry density is the most favourable solution in terms of efficiency. Non-caged systems are about 4 to 6 times less efficient.
)LJXUH
7RWDOHJJPDVVSURGXFWLRQRIKHQVRQVTPHWUHRISRXOWU\KRXVHIORRUDUHD
iEUD $ WRMyKi] HJ\ QpJ\]HWPpWHUpQ HO iOOtWKDWy |VV]HV WRMiVW|PHJ PHQQ\LVpJH D WDUWiVLUHQGV]HUW OpVDKLEULGWtSXViWyOIJJ HQ
/HJKRUQWtSXV.|]pSQHKp]WHVW WtSXV7DUWiVPyGW\~NNHWUHFW\~NNHWUHF 0DGiUKi]hO UXGDV5iFVSDGOy
5()(5(1&(6
Dun, P.(1992). Cages are at present still the best system for egg producers.Misset-World Poultry, 8.28-31.
Elson, H. A. (1988). Poultry management systems. Looking to the future. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 44. 2. 103-111.
/HJKRUQOD\HU %URZQHJJOD\HU
NJVTP
KHQFDJH KHQFDJH $YLDU\ 3HUFKHU\ )ORRU
Elson, H. A. (1990a). Design and management of different egg production systems. VIII European Poultry Conference, Barcelona. Proc.1. 186-198.
Elson, H. A. (1990b). Recent developments in laying cage designed to improve bird welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 46. 34-37.
Elson, A. (1991). The world enhancing the welfare of laying hens. Misset-World Poultry, 7. 32-33.
Elson, A. (1992). Bone breakage in laying hens is an economic and welfare problem.
Misset-World Poultry.8. 20-21.
Wegner, R. M. (1991a). Poultry welfare/problems and research to solve them. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 46.19-33.
Wegner, R. M. (1991b). Experience with the get-away cage system. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 46. 41-47.
Corresponding author (OHYHOH]pVLFtP):
=ROWiQ6W
Pannon University of Agriculture, Faculty of Animal Science H-7401 Kaposvár P.O.Box. 16.
3DQQRQ$JUiUWXGRPiQ\L(J\HWHPÈOODWWHQ\pV]WpVL.DU .DSRVYiU3I
Tel.: (82) 314-155, Fax: (82) 320-175 e-mail: sutozoli@atk.kaposvar.pate.hu
