Effect of Cage Placement on Health Status of Laying Hens

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Hind E. Osman

  •   Hisham Eltegani Makey Elshreef

Abstract


Evaluation of cage placement on bird’s health was done to access the efficiency of the conventional battery cages as a housing system for laying hens in the highly demanding industry in tropical countries. Experimental birds were placed in House A in the lateral sixth northern battery cage (AN6L) beside cooling pads and medial northern battery cage (ANM) horizontally at the middle lower row in both sides-left and right. Each battery raw was divided into: first third beside pad (1W) consists of 130 cages; second third in middle (2W) which also consists of 130 cages and last third beside fans (3W) consists of 128 cages. The total birds in the two batteries were about four thousand and five hundred birds. In house B, experimental birds were placed in the lateral first northern battery cage (BN1L) beside northern pad, medial northern battery cage (BNM) in middle and lateral sixth northern battery cage (BN6L) beside southern pad vertically and horizontally from bottom in both sides (left and right). Each battery raw was divided into: First third beside pad (1W) consists of 520 cages; second third in middle (2W) consists also of 520 cages and last third beside fans (3W) beside fans consists of 512 cages, the total birds in the three batteries were about thirty thousand birds. Mortality and pathological changes were used in this study to evaluate the health status and welfare of Lohmann LSL Lite laying hens at different ages. Mortality of 4500 Lohmann LSL Lite laying hens at age 80 wks was recorded for twenty days in one lateral and one medial battery in House A; and it was recorded for 30000 Lohmann LSL Lite laying hens at age 57 wks for forty three days in two lateral and one medial battery in House B. The mortality in the two laying flocks at age 80 wks and 57 wks, in the first 20 days, was found to be 7.4% and 1.6% respectively. In the next 23 days in House B, it was found to be 1.7%. The mortality of the two flocks was significantly different. In the three positions- 1W, 2W, 3W- the mortality at a lateral (AN6L) and a medial (ANM) batteries in showed significant difference in the lateral ones of House A. The mortality in the three positions 1W, 2W, 3W of two laterals (BN1L and BN6L) and one medial (BNM) battery showed significant difference between the different positions of both lateral and medial batteries. Comparing house A and house B lateral and medial batteries for the mortality in the same position, 1W, 2W or 3W, revealed significant difference in 1W and 2W, whereas position 3W was found to be insignificantly different, and no significant difference between the lateral or medial batteries as a whole was detected when comparing them in the two houses. Post mortem examination of nine birds at age 80wks and fourteen birds at age 57wks revealed that the only possible effect of cage placement on the internal infection may be exerted by the direction of air current caused by the working exhaust fans.



Keywords: Cage placement, mortality, pathological changes, poultry

References

Kabakchiev M. From cage batteries to alternative technologies. Pticevudstvo. 2000; 6: 15-18.

Sirdar MM, Picard J, Bisschop S, Gummow B. A questionnaire survey of poultry layer farmers in Khartoum State, Sudan, to study their antimicrobial awareness and usage patterns’. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 2012; 79(1): 1-8.

Anone. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal resources and Irrigation, Khartoum State, Sudan. 2005.

Mostert BE, Bowes EH, Van der Walt JC. Influence of different housing systems on the performance of hens of four laying strains. South African Journal of Animal Science. 1995; 25(3): 80-86.

Anone. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008.

Ensminger ME. “Poultry Science“ 3rd ed. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers. Minnesota: USA. 1992.

Singh R, Cheng MK, Silversides GF. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science. 2009; 88(2): 256-264.

Bell DD, Weaver WD. Commercial chicken meat and egg production, 5th Edition Norwell MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2002: 1007-1008.

Sánchez C, Montilla JJ, Angulo I, León YA. Effect of laying house design and cage placement on body weight, mortality and food conversion in laying hens. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2003; 20: 195.

Simsek E, Kilic L. Building Environment and interaction of population density and position and their relationship to layer performance. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2006; 5 (9): 856-862.

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): 289-297.

Bozkurt Z, Bayram I, Turkmenoglu I, Aktepe OC. Effects of cage density and cage position on performance of commercial layer pullets from four genotypes. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2006; 30(1): 17-28.

Bozkurt Z, Bayram I, Bülbül A, Aktepe OC. Effects of strain, cage density and position on immune response to vaccines and blood parameters in layer pullets. Lucrări Stiinţifice Zootehnieşi Biotehnologii. 2009; 42 (1): 191-204.

Babiker MA, Tawfeig A, Yahia IE, Noura KI. Mortality and diseases status in layer chicken flocks reared in traditional farms in Khartoum-Sudan. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2009, 8(3): 264-269.

Fossum O, Jansson DS, Etterlin PE, Vågsholm I. Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 2009; 51(1): 1-9.

Tauson R. Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2002; 58(1): 49-63.

Lay Jr. DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjaer JB, Mench JA, et al. Emerging issues: Social sustainability of egg production symposium hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science. 2011; 1-16.

Shini A. Fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome in laying hens: field and experimental investigations. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Queensland; 2014.

Kumar S, Kumar B, Gupta MK, Singh KK, Kumar S. A study on mortality pattern of poultry in and around ranchi. Int. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018; 7: 3713-3716.

Rozenboim I, Mahato J, Cohen NA, Tirosh O. Low protein and high-energy diet: a possible natural cause of fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome in caged White Leghorn laying hens. Poultry Science. 2016; 95(3): 612-621.

Gao X, Liu P, Wu C, Wang T, Liu G, Cao H, et al. Effects of fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome on the AMP-activated protein kinase signaling pathway in laying hens. Poultry Science. 2019; 98(5): 2201-2210.

McMullin P. A pocket guide to poultry health and disease. 5M Enterprises Ltd; 2004.

Dey S, Pakhira MC, Batabyal K, Isore DP, Samanta I. Concurrent occurrence of fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome (FLHS) and colisepticaemia in a broiler breeder flock. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018; 7(9): 185-189.

Shini A, Shini S, Bryden WL. Fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome occurrence in laying hens: impact of production system. Avian Pathology. 2019; 48(1): 25-34.

Dong X, Tong J. Different susceptibility to fatty liver-haemorrhagic syndrome in young and older layers and the interaction on blood LDL-C levels between oestradiols and high energy-low protein diets. British Poultry Science. 2019; 60(3): 265-71.

Khodambashi Emami N, Golian A, Danesh Mesgaran M, Anthony NB, Rhoads DD. Mitochondrial biogenesis and PGC‐1α gene expression in male broilers from ascites‐susceptible and‐resistant lines. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2018; 102(1): e482-5.

Hasanpur K, Nassiri M, Hosseini Salekdeh G. The comparative analysis of phenotypic and whole transcriptome gene expression data of ascites susceptible versus ascites resistant chickens. Molecular Biology Reports. 2019; 46(1): 793-804.

Leeson S, Diaz G, Summers JD. Publication announcement: poultry metabolic disorders and mycotoxins. J. Appl Poult. Res. 1995; 4(2): 216.

Tauson R, Wahlstrom A, Abrahamsson P. Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 1999; 8(2): 152-159.

Weitzenburger D, Vits A, Hamann H, Distl O. Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. British Poultry Science. 2005; 46(5): 553-559.

Dikmen BY, Ipek AY, Şahan Ü, Petek ME, Sözcü A. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry Science. 2016; 95(7): 1564-72.

Milsavljevic T. Ascites poultry. J Dairy Vet Anim Res. 2014; 1(2): 18-20.

Lukanov H, Alexieva D. Trends in battery cage husbandry systems for laying hens. Enriched cages for housing laying hens. Agricultural Science & Technology. 2013; 5(2).

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Osman, H. E., & Elshreef, H. E. M. (2022). Effect of Cage Placement on Health Status of Laying Hens. European Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 2(5), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejvetmed.2022.2.5.42