Some egg quality traits of two laying hybrids kept in different cage systems

Abstract

Interest has been increasing about enriched cages affecting the laying hens and the producers. Egg quality traits are important for economic impact. Whence, the purpose of this study was to determine the differences in egg quality traits of two laying hybrids reared in conventional and enriched cages at different ages. 532 Lohmann Brown Classic (LB) and 532 Lohmann LSL Classic (LW) hens were kept from 16 to 73 weeks in either conventional cages or enriched cages. Twenty eight eggs were selected randomly from each hybrid and cage group at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 wk of ages at from 08.00 to 10.00 o’clock to evaluate egg quality traits. For this aim, a total of 672 eggs were used. Egg weight, shape index, breaking strength, shell thickness, albumen index, yolk index and Haugh Unit were determined. Yolk index, albumen index and Haugh Unit in eggs of hens were reared in conventional cages were lower than those of in enriched cages. Egg weight, shape index and shell thickness were higher in eggs laid by LB hens. Layer age was affected all examined egg quality parameters. Consequently, albumen index, yolk index and Haugh Unit were enhanced by the enrichment of the cages and interactions among cage type, hybrid and layer age should be taken for the egg quality traits

Keywords

• Age
• cage type
• egg quality
• hybrid

Farklı kafes sistemlerinde barındırılan iki yumurtacı hibritte bazı yumurta kalite özellikleri

Abstract

Yumurtacı tavukları ve üreticileri etkileyen zenginleştirilmiş kafeslere olan ilgi artmaktadır. Yumurta kalite özellikleri ekonomik öneme sahiptir. Bu nedenle bu araştırmanın amacı geleneksel ve zenginleştirilmiş kafeslerde barındırılan iki yumurtacı hibritte farklı yaşlarda yumurta kalite özelliklerini araştırmaktır. Toplam 532 Lohmann Kahverengi (LB) ve 532 Lohmann Beyaz (LW) yumurtacı tavuk 16 haftalık yaştan 73 haftalık yaşa kadar geleneksel ve zenginleştirilmiş kafeslerde barındırıldı. Yumurta kalite özelliklerinin incelenmesi için 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 ve 70 haftalık yaşlarda saat 8.00-10.00 arasında her bir genotip ve kafes grubundan 28 yumurta rastgele seçildi. Bu amaçla toplam 672 yumurta kullanıldı. Yumurta ağırlığı, şekil indeksi, kırılma mukavemeti, kabuk kalınlığı, ak indeksi, sarı indeksi ve Haugh birimi belirlendi. Geleneksel kafeste yetiştirilen tavukların yumurtasında sarı indeksi, ak indeksi ve Haugh birimi zenginleştirilmiş kafeste yetiştirilenlerinkine göre daha düşük bulundu. Yumurta ağırlığı, şekil indeksi ve kabuk kalınlığının kahverengi yumurtacılardan elde edilen yumurtalarda daha yüksek olduğu görüldü. Yumurtacı tavukların yaşı, incelenen tüm yumurta kalite özelliklerini etkiledi. Sonuç olarak, zenginleştirilmiş kafesler ak indeksi, sarı indeksi ve Haugh birimini arttırmıştır ve kafes tipi, hibrit ve yaş arasındaki interaksiyonlar yumurta kalitesi bakımından dikkate alınmalıdır

Keywords

• Hibrit
• kafes tipi
• yaş
• yumurta kalitesi

References

1. Ahammed M, Ohh SJ (2013): Effect of housing systems- barn vs cage on the first phase egg production and egg quality traits of laying pullet. Korean J Poult Sci, 40, 67-73.
2. Ahmed, AMH, Rodriguez-Navarro AB, Vidal ML, et al. (2005): Changes in eggshell mechanical properties, crystallographic texture and in matrix proteins induced by moult in hens. Br Poult Sci, 46, 268-279.
3. Dawson B, Trapp RG (2001): Basic and clinical biostatistics, 3rd ed. Lange medical books. McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division, New York.
4. Dikmen BY, İpek A, Şahan Ü, et al. (2016): The egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poult Sci, pew082.
5. Johnston SA, Gous RM (2007): Modelling the changes in the proportions of the egg components during a laying cycle. Br Poult Sci, 48, 347-353.
6. Jones DR, Karcher DM, Abdo Z (2014): Effect of commercial housing system on egg quality during extended storage. Poult Sci, 93, 1282-1288.
7. Kalmendal R, Johansson F, Wall H (2013): Effects of fiber supply in furnished cages on performance, egg quality, and feather cover in 2 egg-laying hybrids. J Appl Poult Res, 22, 109-117.
8. Küçükyılmaz K, Bozkurt M, Herken EN, et al. (2012): Effects of rearing systems on performance, egg characteristics and immune response in two layer hen genotype. Asian Australas J Anim Sci, 25, 559-568. doi:10.5713/ajas.2011.11382.

9. Ledvinka Z, Tůmová E, Arent E, et al. (2000): Egg shell quality in some white-egg and brown egg cross combinations of dominant hens. Czech J Anim Sci, 45, 285- 288.
10. Ledvinka Z, Tůmová E, Englmaierová M, et al. (2012): Egg quality of three laying hen genotypes kept in conventional cages and on litter. Arch Geflűgelkunde, 76, 38-46.
11. Lewko L, Gornowicz E (2011): Effect of housing system on egg quality in laying hens. Ann Anim Sci, 11, 607-616.
12. Onbaşılar EE, Ünal N, Erdem E, et al. (2015): Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci, 94, 559-564.
13. Padhi MK, Chatterjee RN, Haunshi S, et al. (2013): Effect of age on egg quality in chicken. India Int J Poult Sci, 48, 122-125.
14. Pavlovski Z, Masic B, Josipovic S, et al. (1992): The effect of system of housing on the laying performance of hens in small flocks. Biotech U Stocarstvu, 8, 57-63.
15. Peebles ED, Zumwalt CD, Doyle SM, et al. (2000): Effects of breeder age and dietary fat source and level on broiler hatching egg characteristics. Poult Sci, 79, 698-704.
16. Poggenpoel DG, Ferreira GF, Hayes JP, et al. (1996): Response to long‐term selection for egg production in laying hens. Br Poult Sci, 37,743-756.
17. Rajkumar U, Sharma RP, Rajaravindra KS, et al. (2009): Effect of genotype and age on egg quality traits in naked neck chicken under tropical climate from India. Int J Poult Sci, 8, 1151-1155.
18. Rodriguez-Navarro A, Kalin O, Nys Y, et al. (2002): Influence of the microstructure on the shell strength of eggs laid by hens of different ages. Br Poult Sci, 43, 395-403.
19. Svobodova J, Tůmová E, Englmaierová M (2014): The effect of housing system on egg quality of Lohmann white and Czech hen. Acta Fytotechn Zootechn, 17, 44-46.
20. Silversides FG, Scott TA (2001): Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult Sci, 80, 1240-1245.
21. Siegel PB (1962): Selection for body weight at eight weeks of age 1. Short term response and heritabilities. Poult Sci, 41, 954-962.
22. Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, et al. (2009): Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci, 88, 698707.
23. Tauson R (2005): Management and housing systems for layers – effects on welfare and production. World's Poult Sci J, 61, 479-492.
24. Toussant MJ, Latshaw JD (1999): Ovomucin content and composition in chicken eggs with different interior quality. J Food Sci, 79, 1666-1670.
25. Tůmová E, Gous RM (2012): Interaction of hen production type, age, and temperature on laying pattern and egg quality. Poult Sci, 91, 1269-1275.
26. Valkonen E, Venäläinen E, Rossow L, et al. (2010): Effects of calcium diet supplements on egg strength in conventional and furnished cages, and effects of 2 different nest floor materials. Poult Sci, 89, 2307-2316.
27. Wall H, Tauson R, Elwinger K (2002): Effect of nest design, passages and hybrid on use of nest and production performance of layers in furnished cages. Poult Sci, 81, 333-339.
28. Yalçın S, Özsoy B, Erol H, et al. (2008): Yeast culture supplementation to laying hen diets containing soybean meal or sunflower seed meal and its effect on performance, egg quality traits, and blood chemistry. J Appl Poult Res, 17, 229-236.
29. Zita L, Tůmová E, Štolc L (2009): Effects of genotype, age and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 8, 85-91.
30. Zita L, Ledvinka Z, Klesalová L (2013): The effect of the age of Japanese quails on certain egg quality traits and their relationships. Veterinarski Arhiv, 83, 223-232.