Assessment of the feather score and health score in laying hens reared at different cage densities

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 70 Sayı: 1, 1 - 8, 30.12.2022

Uğur Özentürk Ahmet Yıldız Murat Genç

https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.925177

Cited By: 2

Öz

This study aimed to investigate plumage conditions, injuries in the comb, cloaca, and feet at the end of the laying period (73 weeks of age) in native Atak‐S (A‐S) and foreign Isa Brown (IB) and Novogen White (NW) genotypes reared at two different cage densities. A total of 480 hens, including 160 of each hybrid, were used in the present study. Each hybrid group was divided into subgroups containing eight (468.75 cm2/hen) and 12 animals (312.50 cm2/hen) each with eight replications. The feathering status in six different regions of the body (neck, breast, back, wing, tail, and cloaca) was assessed by
scoring these regions both separately and as a whole. To detect injuries in the body, the comb, cloaca, and foot regions were examined. In the study, the effect of genotype on the feather score was  found to be significant in all body regions except for the tail region (P<0.05). In all hybrids, the highest plumage loss was in the tail region, while the lowest was in the cloaca region in IB and the neck and wing regions in NW and A‐S. The best results were obtained from the IB hybrid in terms of the total plumage condition. Genotype had a significant effect on the health scores in all body regions except for the comb (P<0.05). In terms of the feather score, the effect of cage density was determined to be significant in all body regions (P<0.01). It was observed that plumage loss increased as the cage density increased.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cage density, feather score, genotype, health score, laying hens

Destekleyen Kurum

This research study was funded by Scientific Research Project Coordination Unit of Ataturk University, (Grant number: PRJ2014/25).

Proje Numarası

Grant number: PRJ2014/25

Kaynakça

• Blatchford RA, Fulton RM, Mench JA (2016): The utilizationof the Welfare Quality R assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poult Sci, 95, 154–163.
• Bright A (2007): Plumage colour and feather pecking in laying hens, a chicken perspective? Br Poult Sci, 48, 253-263.
• Bright A, Jones TA, Dawkins MS (2006): A non-intrusive method of assessing plumage condition in commercial flocks of laying hens. Anim Welf, 15, 113-118.
• Campe A, Hoes C, Koesters S, et al (2018): Analysis of the influences on plumage condition in laying hens: How suitable is a whole body plumage score as an outcome? Poult Sci, 97, 358-367.
• De Haas EN, Bolhuis JE, De Jong IC, et al (2014): Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present? Appl Anim Behav Sci, 160, 75-85.
• Fatih Y, Uğur O, Hayrunnisa O, et al (2018): Effect of genotype on slaughtering performance, blood analyses and meat quality of laying hens reared in different conventional cage densities. GSC Biological and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 5, 54-65.
• Fidan ED, Nazlıgül A (2013): Cage position and density effect on some welfare criteria in Denizli chicken. Indian J Anim Sci, 83, 645-648.
• Giersberg MF, Spindler B, Kemper N (2017): Assessment of plumage and integument condition in dual-purpose breeds and conventional layers. Animals, 7, 97.
• Habig C, Distl O (2014): Evaluation of plumage condition and foot pad health in laying hens kept in a small group housing system. Europ Poult Sci, 78.
• Hartcher KM, Tran KTN, Wilkinson SJ, et al (2015): The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poult Sci, 94, 852-859.
• Janczak AM, Riber AB (2015): Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult Sci J, 94, 1454-1469.
• Kamanlı S, Boga AG, Durmus İ (2016): Beyaz Yumurtacı Ebeveyn Hatlarında İkili Melez Kombinasyonların Bazı Verim ve Yumurta Kalite Özellikleri Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. J Appl Poult Res, 13, 1-4.
• Khumput S, Muangchum S, Yodprom S, et al (2019): Feather pecking of laying hens in different stocking density and type of cage. Iran J Appl Anim Sci, 9, 549-556.
• Labrash LF, Scheideler SE (2005): Farm feather condition score survey of commercial laying hens J Appl Poult Res, 14, 740-744.
• Lay DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, et al (2011): Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult Sci, 90, 278–294.
• Laywel (2006): Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens (DeliverablesD.3.1-D.3.3,WP3-Health). Available at http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/ deliverables%2031-33%20health.pdf. (Accessed Feb, 2017).
• Liebers CJ, Schwarzer A, Erhard M, et al (2019): The influence of environmental enrichment and stocking density on the plumage and health conditions of laying hen pullets. Poult Sci J, 98, 2474-2488.
• Master Plan (2020): Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Agricultural Research Master Plan 2016- 2020. Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Agricultural Research And Policies; 2020 Available at https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TAGEM/Belgeler/yayin/MASTER%20PLAN_ 2016 - 2020.pdf. (Accessed May 15, 2020).
• Nicol CJ, Bestman M, Gilani AM, et al (2013): The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World Poultry Sci J, 69, 775-788.
• Onbaşılar EE, Aksoy FT (2005) : Stress parameters and immune response of layers under different cage floor and density conditions. Livest Prod Sci, 95, 255-263.
• Onbaşılar EE, Kahraman M, Güngör ÖF, et al (2020): 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.
• Onbaşılar EE, Ünal N, Erdem E (2018): Some egg quality traits of two laying hybrids kept in different cage systems. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 65, 51-55.
• 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.
• Ozdemir S, Arslan H, Ozenturk U, et al (2018): Atak-S ve Isa Brown tavukları arasındaki genetik çeşitliliğin SSR belirteçleri ile tahmini. Kocatepe Veteriner Dergisi, 11, 53-62.
• Özenturk U, Yıldız A (2020): Assessment of egg quality in native and foreign laying hybrids reared in different cage densities. Braz J Poult Sci, 22, 1-10.
• Rodenburg TB, Van Krimpen MM, De Jong IC, et al (2019): The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: identifying the underlying principles. World Poultry Sci J, 69, 361-374.
• Sarıca M, Boğa S, Yamak US (2008): The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech J Anim Sci, 53, 346-353.
• Savory C (1995): Feather pecking and cannibalism. Worlds Poult Sci J, 51, 215–219.
• Shepherd EM, Fairchild BD (2010): Footpad dermatitis in poultry. Poult Sci J, 89, 2043-2051.
• Tauson R, Kjaer J, Maria GA, et al (2005): Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Anim Sci Pap Rep, 23, 153-159.
• Türkoğlu M, Sarıca M (2018): Tavukçuluk Bilimi, Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar. 5. Baskı. Ankara: Bey Ofset Matbaacılık.
• Weimer SL, Robison CI, Tempelman RJ, et al (2019): Laying hen production and welfare in enriched colony cages at different stocking densities. Poult Sci J, 98, 3578-3586.
• Welfare Quality R (2009): Welfare Quality R assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality R Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.
• Widowski TM, Caston LJ, Casey-Trott TM, et al (2017): The effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part II: Behavior at the feeder. Poult Sci, 96, 3816–3823.
• Widowski TM, Caston LJ, Hunniford ME, et al (2017): Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: performance and wellbeing. Poult Sci, 96, 3805–3815.
• Widowski TM, Classen H, Newberry RC, et al (2013): Scientists Committee Report on Priority Welfare Issues for Laying Hens. National Farm Animal Care Council. Available at http://www.nfacc.ca/resources/codes-ofpractice/poultrylayers/Layer SCReport.pdf. (Accessed Jan, 2019).
• Yamak US, Sarıca M (2012): Relationships between feather score and egg production and feed consumption of different layer hybrids kept in conventional cages. Archiv Geflugelkd, 76, 31-37.
• Zepp M, Louton H, Erhard M, et al (2018): The influence of stocking density and enrichment on the occurrence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking behavior in laying hen chicks. J Vet Behav, 24, 9-18.