Mustafa DUMAN, Selami TOK, Brian TAINIKA, Ahmet ŞEKEROĞLU

Effect of age, stocking density, genotype, and cage tier on feather score of layer pure lines

The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of genotype, age, stocking density, and cage tier on the feather score of egg-laying pure lines. The trial was carried out with five white (BLACK, BLUE, MARON, BROWN, and D229) and six brown (RIR1, RIR2, BAR1, BAR2, COL, and LINE54) eggshell lines as classified by the Ankara poultry research institute. In the experiment, 162 chicks were randomly selected from each of the 11 lines; thus, a total of 1782 chicks (810 and 972 white and brown layer pure lines, respectively). At 17 weeks of age, pullets were chosen at random and placed in 3- tiered battery-type cages. Each tier housed 99 chickens (11 lines, 3 different stocking densities, 3 replications). The stocking density was 5 birds, 6 birds, and 7 birds per cage cell that corresponded to 720 cm2 , 600 cm2 , and 514.28 cm2 of floor space per bird, respectively. Feeding was ad libitum during the growth and egg production periods. Feather scores of the head, neck, breast, back, wings, and tail regions of the chickens were taken at the 30th, 40th, 50th, and 60thweek of age. The results indicated that age, stocking density, cage tiers, and genotypes have a significant effect on the feather score of the head, neck, breast, back, wings, and tail; feather score significantly decreased at an increasing age and stocking density (p < 0.01). It was observed that the feather score of the chickens on the top tier was significantly increased (p < 0.01). It was found that RIR2, BLACK, and COL pure lines had the best feather score. These findings suggest that chickens placed in top cage tiers with low stocking density (5 chickens/ cage cell) and RIR2, BLACK and COL pure line genotypes improve feather score.

PDF

___

1. Scherer LA, Verburg PH, Schulp CJ. Opportunities for sustainable intensification in European agriculture. Global Environmental Change 2018; 48: 43-55. doi: 10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2017.11.009
2. Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2017; 73 (2): 245-256. doi: 10.1017/S0043933917000071
3. Stratmann A, Fröhlich EK, Gebhardt-Henrich SG, HarlanderMatauschek A, Würbel H, et al. Genetic selection to increase bone strength affects prevalence of keel bone damage and egg parameters in commercially housed laying hens. Poultry Science 2016; 95 (5): 975-984. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew026
4. Preisinger R. Innovative layer genetics to handle global challenges in egg production. British poultry science 2018; 59 (1): 1-6. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2018.1401828
5. Liu Z, Yang N, Yan Y, Li G, Liu A, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of egg production performance in chickens across the whole laying period. BMC genetics 2019; 20 (1): 67. doi: 10.1186/s12863-019-0771-7.
6. Karaman S, Sekeroglu A, Duman M. Physical characteristics and performance of Laying hens caged in different tiers and environmental parameters of each tier. Transactions of the ASABE 2013; 56 (1) :321-328. doi: 10.13031/2013.42588
7. Şekeroğlu A, Duman M, Tahtalı Y, Yıldırım A, Eleroğlu H. Effect of cage tier and age on performance, egg quality and stress parameters of laying hens. South African Journal of Animal Science 2014; 44 (3): 288-297. doi: 10.4314/sajas.v44i3.11
8. Tünaydın G, Yilmaz Dikmen B. Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent light source type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system Part 1: Production performance and egg quality. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2019; 43 (5): 615-626. doi: 10.3906/vet-1903- 74
9. Weimer SL, Robison CI, Tempelman RJ, Jones DR, Karcher DM. Laying hen production and welfare in enriched colony cages at different stocking densities. Poultry Science 2019; 98 (9): 3578-8356. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez107.
10. Jensen L. The effects of stocking density on the growth, behaviour, and welfare of layer pullets in two cage systems. MSc, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2019.
11. Widowski TM, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Rault JL. Laying hen welfare I. Social environment and space. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2016; 72 (2): 333-342. doi: 10.1017/S0043933916000027
12. Benyi K, Norris D, Tsatsinyane PM. Effects of stocking density and group size on the performance of white and brown Hyline layers in semi-arid conditions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2006; 38 (7-8): 619-624. doi: 10.1007/s11250-006- 4417-1
13. De Haas EN, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE, Groothuis T, Rodenburg TB. Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Science 2013; 92 (9): 2259-2269. doi: 10.3382/ps.2012-02996
14. Sarıca M, Boga S, Yamak US. The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech Journal of Animal Science 2008; 53 (8): 346-353.
15. Mench JA, Sumner DA, Rosen-Molina JT. Sustainability of egg production in the United States—The policy and market context. Poultry science 2011; 90 (1): 229-240. doi: 10.3382/ ps.2010-00844
16. Xiang H, Chen S, Zhang H, Zhu X, Wang D, et al. Transcriptome changes provide genetic insights into the effects of rearing systems on chicken welfare and product quality. Journal of animal science 2018; 96 (11): 4552-4561. doi: 10.1093/jas/ sky314
17. Konkol D, Popiela E, Korczyński M. The effect of an enriched laying environment on welfare, performance and egg quality parameters of laying hens kept in a cage system. Poultry Science. 2020; 99 (8): 3771-3776. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.04.017
18. Tainika B, Şekeroğlu A. Effect of Production Systems for Laying Hens on Hen Welfare. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 2020; 8 (1): 239-245. doi: 10.24925/ turjaf.v8i1.239-245.3151
19. Decina C, Berke O, van Staaveren N, Baes CF, Widowski TM, et al. A cross-sectional study on feather cover damage in Canadian laying hens in non-cage housing systems. BMC veterinary research 2019; 15 (1): 435. doi: 10.1186/s12917-019- 2168-2
20. Glatz PC. Effect of poor feather cover on feed intake and production of aged laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2001; 14 (4): 553-558. doi: 10.5713/ ajas.2001.553
21. Hartcher KM, Tran KT, Wilkinson SJ, Hemsworth PH, Thomson PC, et al. The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (5): 852-859. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev061
22. Decina C, Berke O, van Staaveren N, Baes CF, HarlanderMatauscheck A. Development of a scoring system to assess feather damage in Canadian laying hen flocks. Animals 2019; 9 (7): 436. doi: 10.3390/ani9070436
23. Coton J, Guinebretière M, Guesdon V, Chiron G, Mindus C, et al. Feather pecking in laying hens housed in free-range or furnished-cage systems on French farms. British Poultry Science 2019; 60 (6): 617-627. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2019.1639137
24. Decina C, Berke O, van Staaveren N, Baes CF, Widowski TM, et al. An investigation of associations between management and feather damage in Canadian laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animals 2019; 9 (4): 135. doi: 10.3390/ani9040135
25. Fernyhough M, Nicol CJ, van de Braak T, Toscano MJ, Tønnessen M. The Ethics of Laying Hen Genetics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2020; 33 (1): 15-36. doi: 10.1007/s10806-019-09810-2
26. Brito L, Rojas De Oliveira H, McConn B, Schinckel A, Arrazola A, et al. Large-scale Phenotyping of Livestock Welfare in Commercial Production Systems: A New Frontier in Animal Breeding. Frontiers in Genetics 2020; 11: 793. doi: 10.3389/ fgene.2020.00793.
27. Yamak US, Sarıca M. Relationships between feather score and egg production and feed consumption of different layer hybrids kept in conventional cages. Archiv fur Geflügelkunde 2012; 76: 31-37.
28. Welfare Quality®. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens), Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands. 2009.
29. Sarıca M, Türkoğlu M, Yamak US. Tavukçuluktaki Gelişmeler ve Türkiye Tavukçuluğu. In: Türkoğlu M, Sarıca M (editors). Tavukçuluk Bilimi Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar. 4th ed. Ankara, Turkey: Bey Ofset Matbaacılık; 2014. pp. 1-36 (In Turkish).
30. Tauson R, Kjaer J, Maria GA, Cepero R, Holm KE. Applied scoring of integument and health in laying hens. Animal. Science. Pap. Rep 2005; 23 (Suppl 1): 153-159.
31. Iqbal Z, Drake K, Swick RA, Taylor PS, Perez-Maldonado RA, et al. Effect of pecking stones and age on feather cover, hen mortality, and performance in free-range laying hens. Poultry Science 2020; 99 (5): 2307-2314. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.068
32. SPSS. IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
33. Rørvang MV, Hinrichsen LK, Riber AB. Welfare of layers housed in small furnished cages on Danish commercial farms: the condition of keel bone, feet, plumage and skin. British poultry science 2019; 60 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2018.1533632
34. Morrissey KL, Brocklehurst S, Baker L, Widowski TM, Sandilands V. Can non-beak treated hens be kept in commercial furnished cages? Exploring the effects of strain and extra environmental enrichment on behaviour, feather cover, and mortality. Animals 2016; 6 (3): 17. doi: 10.3390/ani6030017
35. Widowski TM, Caston LJ, Hunniford ME, Cooley L, Torrey S. Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being. Poultry Science 2017; 96 (11): 3805-3815. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex197
36. Riber AB, Hinrichsen LK. Feather eating and its associations with plumage damage and feathers on the floor in commercial farms of laying hens. animal 2016; 10 (7): 1218-24. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116000057
37. Uitdehaag K, Komen H, Rodenburg TB, Kemp B, van Arendonk J. The novel object test as predictor of feather damage in cagehoused Rhode Island Red and White Leghorn laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008; 109 (2-4): 292-305. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.008
38. Su G, Kjaer JB, Sørensen P. Divergent selection on feather pecking behavior in laying hens has caused differences between lines in egg production, egg quality, and feed efficiency. Poultry Science 2006; 85 (2): 191-197. doi: 10.1093/ps/85.2.191
39. Ambrosen T, Petersen VE. The influence of protein level in the diet on cannibalism and quality of plumage of layers. Poultry Science 1997; 76 (4): 559-63. doi: 10.1093/ps/76.4.559
40. Bright A. Plumage colour and feather pecking in laying hens, a chicken perspective?. British poultry science 2007; 48 (3): 253- 63. doi: 10.1080/00071660701370483
41. De Haas EN, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE, Groothuis T, Rodenburg TB. Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Science 2013; 92 (9): 2259-2269. doi: 10.3382/ps.2012-02996
42. De Haas EN, Bolhuis JE, de Jong IC, Kemp B, Janczak AM, Rodenburg TB. Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present?. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2014; 160: 75-85. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.009
43. Weimer SL, Robison CI, Tempelman RJ, Jones DR, Karcher DM. Laying hen production and welfare in enriched colony cages at different stocking densities. Poultry science 2019; 98 (9): 3578-86. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez107
44. Huber-Eicher B, Sebö F. The prevalence of feather pecking and development in commercial flocks of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2001; 74 (3): 223-231. doi: 10.1016/ S0168-1591(01)00173-3
45. Okpokho NA, Craig JV, Milliken GA. Density and group size effects on caged hens of two genetic stocks differing in escape and avoidance behavior. Poultry Science 1987; 66 (12): 1905- 1910. doi: 10.3382/ps.0661905.
46. Moinard C, Morisse JP, Faure JM. Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on feather condition, bone breakage and mortality of laying hens. British Poultry Science 1998; 39 (2): 198-202. doi: 10.1080/00071669889123
47. Tünaydın G, Yilmaz Dikmen B. Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent lighting type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system, part 2: some welfare traits. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2019; 43 (5): 627-635. doi:10.3906/vet-1903-75
48. Hartini S, Choct M, Hinch G, Kocher A, Nolan JV. Effects of light intensity during rearing and beak trimming and dietary fiber sources on mortality, egg production, and performance of ISA brown laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2002; 11 (1): 104-110. doi: 10.1093/japr/11.1.104