Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2006, 51(7):318-325 | DOI: 10.17221/3945-CJAS

The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system

V. Pištěková1, M. Hovorka2, V. Večerek1, E. Straková1, P. Suchý1
1 University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic
2 Zoological Garden, Brno, Czech Republic

At present the laying hen rearing is transformed into alternative housing systems which include a deep litter system. As for the poultry nutrition, the replacement of animal protein with vegetable protein in poultry feed is applied. Therefore, in an experiment we evaluated the quality of eggs from laying hens in the cage system as compared to the deep litter system with vegetable protein substituted for animal protein in their feed. 72 ISA Brown laying hens were placed into the experiment. 36 laying hens were kept in the deep litter system and 36 laying hens were kept in conventional cages for laying hens. For the period of 9 months, 36 eggs from the group in the deep litter system were examined, always at intervals of five weeks (i.e. 8 × 36 eggs) and so were 36 eggs from the group in the cage system (i.e. 8 × 36 eggs). We found out that in the deep litter system the mean egg weight was higher (P < 0.01), shell weight was lower (P < 0.01), egg albumen was higher (P < 0.01), yolk weight did not differ (P > 0.05), yolk cholesterol was higher (P < 0.01), yolk colour was darker (P < 0.05), shell strength did not differ (P > 0.05), all in comparison with the cage system of laying hen keeping. The results of the experiment show that where vegetable protein was substituted for animal protein in the nutrition of laying hens, there were differences in the quality of eggs from laying hens kept in the deep litter system and eggs from laying hens kept in the cage system.

Keywords: laying hen; rearing technology; egg weight; egg albumen weight; yolk weight; yolk cholesterol; yolk colour; shell strength

Published: July 31, 2006  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pištěková V, Hovorka M, Večerek V, Straková E, Suchý P. The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2006;51(7):318-325. doi: 10.17221/3945-CJAS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Abrahamsson P., Tauson R., Elwinger K. (1996): Effects on production, health and egg quality of varying proportions of wheat and barley in diets for two hybrids of laying hens kept in different housing systems. Acta Agric. Scand. A, Anim. Sci., 46, 173-182. Go to original source...
    2. Anderson K.E., Adams A.W. (1994): Effects of cage versus floor rearing environments and cage floor mesh size on bone strength, fearfulness, and production of single comb white leghorn hens. Poult. Sci., 73, 1233-1240. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Appleby M.C., Hughess B.O. (1991): Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems - environmental. physical and behavioural - aspects. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 47, 109-128. Go to original source...
    4. Basmacioglu H., Ergul M. (2005): Research on the factors affecting cholesterol content and some other characteristics of eggs in laying hens - The effects of genotype and rearing system. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 29, 157- 164.
    5. Baxter M.R. (1994): The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Vet. Rec., 134, 614-619. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Cooper J.J., Albentosa M.J. (2003): Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian Poult. Biol. Rev., 14, 127-149. Go to original source...
    7. de Boer I.J.M., Cornelissen A.M.G. (2002): A method using sustainability indicators to compare conventional and animal-friendly egg production systems. Poult. Sci., 81, 173-181. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Duncan I.J.H. (2001): The pros and cons of cages. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 57, 381-390. Go to original source...
    9. Hadorn R., Gloor A., Wiedmer H. (2000): Effect of the exclusion of synthetic amino acids and potentially GMO-protein sources in vegetable diets for laying hens. Arch. Geflugelkd., 64, 75-81.
    10. Halaj M., Benkova J., Baumgartner J. (1998): Parameters of hen egg quality in various breeds and strains. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 43, 375-378.
    11. Hetland H., Moe R.O., Tauson R., Lervik S., Svihus B. (2004): Effect of including whole oats into pellets on performance and plumage condition in laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Acta Agric. Scand. A., Anim. Sci., 54, 206-212. Go to original source...
    12. Jiang Z.R., Sim J.S. (1991): Research note - Egg cholesterol values in relation to the age of laing hens and to egg and yolk weights. Poult. Sci., 70, 1838-1841. Go to original source...
    13. Keeling L.J., Estevez I., Newberry R.C., Correia M.G. (2003): The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes. Poult. Sci., 82, 1393-1396. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Ledvinka Z., Tumova E., Arent E., Holoubek J., Klesalova L. (2000): Egg shell quality in some white-egged and brown-egged cross combinations of dominant hens. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 45, 285-288.
    15. Leyendecker M., Hamann H., Hartung J., Glunder G., Nogossek N., Neumann U., Surie C., Kamphues J., Distl O. (2002): Analysis of the egg shell stability and the bone strength of laying hens in three different hen housing systems. Zuchtungskunde, 74, 144-155.
    16. Maurice D.V., Lightsey S.F., Hsu K.T., Gaylord, T.G., Reddy R.V. (1994): Cholesterol in eggs from different species of poultry determined by capillary GLC. Food Chem., 50, 367-372. Go to original source...
    17. Nys Z. (2000): Dietary carotenoids and egg yolk coloration - a review. Arch. Geglugelkd., 64, 45-54.
    18. Peterman S. (2003): Laying hens in alternative housing systems - practical experiences. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr., 110, 220-224. Go to PubMed...
    19. Savory C.J. (2004): Laying hen welfare standards: a classic case of power to the people. Anim. Welf., 13, 153-158. Go to original source...
    20. Simeonovova J., Baumgartner J., Vinterova J. (1992): Cholesterol content in egg-yolk of japanese- quail. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 37, 615-623.
    21. Suchy P., Strakova E., Vecerek V., Slezackova I. (2002): Replacement of animal origin feed by plant origin feed in the diet of broiler chickens. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 47, 365-373.
    22. Suchy P., Strakova E., Jarka B., Thiemel J., Vecerek V. (2004): Differences between metabolic profiles of eggtype and meat-type hybrid hens. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 49, 323-328. tion and health. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 58, 49-63. Go to original source...
    23. Tauson R. (2005): Management and housing systems for layers - effects on welfare and production. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 61, 477-490. Go to original source...
    24. Tumova E., Ebeid T. (2005): Effect of time of oviposition on egg quality characteristics in cages and in a litter housing system. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 50, 129-134. Go to original source...
    25. Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Brit. Poult. Sci., 45, 745-752.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content