Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2009, 54(1):17-23 | DOI: 10.17221/1736-CJAS

The effect of genotype, housing system and egg collection time on egg quality in egg type hens

E. Tůmová1, M. Skřivan1,2, M. Englmaierová1, L. Zita1
1 Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Czech Republic
2 Institute of Animal Science, Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic

The effect of egg collection time, genotype and housing system on egg quality characteristics was evaluated in an experiment with laying hens of ISA Brown, Hisex Brown and Moravia housed on litter and in conventional cages. The experiment was conducted from 20 to 64 weeks of age. Eggs were collected and recorded daily at 06:00, 10:00 and 14:00 h. Once every four weeks, two days in row, all eggs laid from each pen or cage at each oviposition time were used for egg quality analyses (total 1 694 eggs). Egg collection time was dependent on genotype. Significantly more eggs were laid at 06:00h by ISA Brown while Moravia laid eggs mainly at 10:00 and 14:00 h. Housing on litter postponed the time of oviposition. The highest egg weight (62.09 g) was recorded in Hisex Brown genotype placed in cages and at 06.00 h. Interactions of all factors were determined also in Haugh units (P ≤ 0.041). Eggshell strength was affected by housing system, genotype and egg collection time (P ≤ 0.049). It was higher in cages than on litter, and lower in the Moravia genotype in comparison with the other two strains.

Keywords: egg quality; genotype; housing system; collection time; hens

Published: January 31, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Tůmová E, Skřivan M, Englmaierová M, Zita L. The effect of genotype, housing system and egg collection time on egg quality in egg type hens. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2009;54(1):17-23. doi: 10.17221/1736-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. Campo J.L., Gil M.G., Dávila S.G. (2007): Differences among white-, tinted-, and brown-egg laying hens for incidence of eggs laid on the floor and for oviposition time. Archűv fűr Geflűgelkunde, 71, 105-109. Go to original source...
    2. Garces A., Casey N.H. (2003): Oviposition and egg quality traits of dwarf and naked neck layers. South African Journal of Animal Science, 33, 105-110. Go to original source...
    3. Hartmann C., Johansson K., Strandberg E., Wilhelmson M. (2000): One-generation divergent selection on large and small yolk proportions in a White Leghorn line. British Poultry Science, 41, 280-286. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Haugh R.R. (1937): The Haugh Unit for measuring egg quality. US Egg Poultry Mag., 43, 552-555, 572-573.
    5. Hussein S.M., Harms R.H., Janky D.M. (1993): Research note: effect of age on the yolk to albumen ratio in chicken eggs. Poultry Science, 72, 594-597. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Jenderal M.J., Church J.S., Feddes J.J. (2004): Assessing the welfare of layers hens housed in conventional, modified and commercially-available furnished battery cages. In: Proceedings of 22nd World Poultry Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 4 pp.(CD).
    7. Johnston S.A., Gous R.M. (2007a): Modelling the changes in the proportion of the egg components during a laying cycle. British Poultry Science, 48, 347-353. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Johnston S.A., Gous R.M. (2007b): A mechanistic, stochastic, population model of egg production. British Poultry Science, 48, 224-232. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Leyendecker M., Hamann H., Hartung J., Kamphues J., Ring C., Glünder G., Ahlers C., Sander I., Neumann U., Distl O. (2001): Analysis of genotype-environment interactions between layer lines and housing systems for performance trails, egg quality and bone strength. 2 nd communication: Egg quality traits. Züchtungskunde, 73, 308-323.
    10. Lewis P.D., Perry G.C., Morris T.R. (1995): Effect of photoperiod on the meat oviposition time of 2 breeds of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 36, 33-37. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Lewis P.D., Perry G.C., Morris T.R., English J. (2001): Supplementary dim light differentially influences sexual maturity, oviposition time and melatonin rhythm in pullets. Poultry Science, 80, 1723-1728. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Lichovníková M., Zeman L. (2008): Effect of housing system on the calcium requirement of laying hens and on eggshell quality. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 53, 162-168. Go to original source...
    13. Lillpers K., Wilhelmson M. (1993): Genetic and phenotypic parameters for oviposition pattern in 3 selection lines of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 34, 297-308. Go to original source...
    14. Moorthy M., Sundaresan K., Viswanathan K. (2000): Effect of feed and system management on egg quality parameters of commercial White Leghorn Layers. Indian Veterinary Journal, 77, 233-236.
    15. Novo R.P., Gama L.T., Soares M.C. (1997): Effects of oviposition time, hen age and extra dietary calcium on egg characteristics and hatchability. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 6, 335-343. Go to original source...
    16. Pavlovski Z., Vitorović D., Skrbić Z., Vracar S. (2000): Influence of limestone particle size in diets for hens and oviposition time on eggshell quality. Acta Veterinaria Beograd, 50, 37-42.
    17. Pištěková V., Hovorka M., Večerek V., Straková E., Suchý P. (2006): The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 51, 318-325. Go to original source...
    18. Roland D.A., Bryant M., Roland A., Self J. (1997): Performance and profits of commercial Leghorns as influenced by cage row position. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 6, 284-289. Go to original source...
    19. Romanoff A.I., Romanoff A.J. (1949): The Avian Egg. (New York, John Wiley). USA.
    20. SAS (2003): The SAS System for Windows. Release 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc.
    21. Schmidt G.S., de Figueiredo E.A.P., Ledur M.C., Rosa P. S., Monticelli C.J. (1997): Effect of selection for egg production on the oviposition interval in lines of laying hens. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia - Journal of the Brazilian Society of Animal Science, 26, 289-293.
    22. Tůmová E., Ebeid T. (2005): Effect of time of oviposition on egg quality characteristics in cages and in a litter housing system. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 50, 129-134. Go to original source...
    23. Tůmová E., Zita L., Hubený M., Skřivan M., Ledvinka Z. (2007): The effect of oviposition time and genotype on egg quality characteristics in egg type hens. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 52, 26-30. Go to original source...
    24. Vits A., Weitzenburger D., Hamann H., Distl O. (2005): Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Science, 84, 1511-1519. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    25. Yannakopoulos A.L., Tserveni-Gousi A.S., Nikokyris P. (1994): Egg composition as influenced by time of oviposition, egg weight, and age of hens. Archiv für Geflügelkünde, 58, 206-213. Go to original source...
    26. Zemková Ľ., Simeonovová M., Lichovníková M., Somerlíková K. (2007): The effects of housing systems and age of hens on the weight and cholesterol concentration of the egg. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 52, 110-115. Go to original source...

    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