Stanley, V., Nelson, D., Daley, M. (2014). Evaluation of Two Laying Systems (Floor vs. Cage) on Egg Production, Quality and Safety. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 4(3), 597-601.
V.G. Stanley; D. Nelson; M.B. Daley. "Evaluation of Two Laying Systems (Floor vs. Cage) on Egg Production, Quality and Safety". Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 4, 3, 2014, 597-601.
Stanley, V., Nelson, D., Daley, M. (2014). 'Evaluation of Two Laying Systems (Floor vs. Cage) on Egg Production, Quality and Safety', Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 4(3), pp. 597-601.
Stanley, V., Nelson, D., Daley, M. Evaluation of Two Laying Systems (Floor vs. Cage) on Egg Production, Quality and Safety. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 2014; 4(3): 597-601.
Evaluation of Two Laying Systems (Floor vs. Cage) on Egg Production, Quality and Safety
Prairie View A and M University, Prairie View, TX 77446, USA
Receive Date: 22 July 2013,
Revise Date: 22 October 2013,
Accept Date: 30 October 2013
Abstract
A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of two laying systems (floor versus cage) on egg production, egg quality, and microbial safety. One hundred and eighty 42 wk old laying hens were separated into two groups of 90 hens each, and housed in laying cages and a floor laying system. Eggs from the hens were collected for 2 weeks, and hen-day egg production, egg quality (whole egg, albumen, yolk and shell weights), saleability, and marketability were measured. Total bacteria counts on the egg shell surface were also enumerated at 0, 4 and 8 h after laying. Results indicated that hen-day egg production by hens in the cage system (95%) was significantly (P<0.05) higher than production by hens from the floor system (85%), but there was no significant differences in egg weight, albumen, yolk, or shell weights. Hens housed in the cage laying systems produced significantly (P<0.05) more marketable eggs (95%) than hens housed in the floor laying system (89%). Significantly (P<0.05) more unsaleable eggs were also produced by hens in the floor laying system (11%) than in the cage system (4%). Bacteria counts on egg shells from hens of the cage laying system were significantly (P<0.05) lower at 0 and 4 h after laying (4.02 and 5.90 log cfu/mL, respectively) than counts on shells of eggs from the floor laying system (6.58 and 7.25 log cfu/mL, respectively). There was no significant difference in contamination of eggs collected 8 h after laying. Findings indicate hens housed in cages produce more eggs with higher quality and less bacterial contamination than hens house in floors laying systems.
De Buck J., Van Immerseel F., Haesebrouck F. and Ducatelle R. (2004). Colonization of the chicken reproductive tract and egg contamination by Salmonella. J. Appl. Microbio.97, 233-245. De Reu K., Grijspeerdt K., Heyndrickx M., Zoons M., Debevere J. and Herman L. (2005). Bacterial eggshell contamination in conventional cages, furnished cages and aviary housing system for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 46, 149-155. Ellen H.H., Bottcher R.W., Von Wachenfelt E. and Takai H. (2000). Dust levels and control methods in poultry houses. J. Agri. Saf. Health. 6, 275-282. Fleming R.H., Whitehead C.C., Alvey D., Gregory N.G. and Wilkins I.J. (1994). Bone structure and breaking strength in laying hens housed in different husbandry systems. Br. Poult. Sci. 35, 651-662. Guillam M.T., Claude C., Dewitte J.D., Michael V. and Segala C. (2007). Health hazards and inhalatory exposures in poultry farming. Br. Poult. Sci.51, 163-169. Hannah J.F., Wilson J.L., Cox N.A., Cason J.A., Bourassa D.V., Musgrove M.T., Richardson L.J., Rigsby L.L. and Buhr R.J. (2011). Comparison of shell bacteria from unwashed and washed table eggs harvested from caged laying hens and cage-free floor-housed laying hens. Poult. Sci.90, 1586-1593. Jones D.R., Burtis P.A., Anderson K.E. and Jones F.T. (2004). Microbial contamination in inoculated shell egg, II. Effect of layer strain and egg storage. Poult. Sci.83, 95-100. Mallet S., Guesdon V. and Nys Y. (2004). Hygienic properties of egg laid at different locations in two furnished cage models, Pp. 6 in Proc. 22th World’s Poult. Cong. Instabul, Turkey. Mollenhorst C., Van Woudenbergh C.J., Bokkers E.G.M. and de Boer I.J.M. (2005). Risk for Salmonella enteritidis infections in laying hens. Poult. Sci.84, 1308-1313. Patterson P., Koelkebeck K., Bell D., Carey J., Anderson K. and Darre M. (2001). Egg marketing in national supermarkets, specialty eggs. Poult. Sci.80, 390-395. Pavlovski Z., Masic B. and Apostolov N. (1981). Quality of eggs laid by hens on free range and in cages. Pp. 231-235 in Proc. 1th European Smpos. Quality of Eggs. Apeldoom, the Netherlands. Peebles E.D., Zumwalt C.D., Doyle S.M., Gerard P.D., Latour M.A., Boyle C.R. and Smith T.W. (2000). Effect of breeder age and dietary fat source and level on broiler hatching egg characteristics. Poult. Sci.70, 698-704. Protais J., Queguiner S., Boscher E., Piquet J.C., Nagard B. and Salvat G. (2003). Effect of housing systems on the bacterial flora of egg shells. Br. Poult. Sci.43, 788-789. Radon K., Danuser B., Iversen M., Monson E., Weber C., Hartung J., Donham K.J., Palmgren U. and D. Nowak. (2002). Air contaminants in different European farming environments. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med.9, 41-48. Silversides F.G. and Scott T.A. (2001). Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poult. Sci.80, 1240-1245. Tauson R. (2005). Management and housing systems for layers-effects on welfare and production. World’s Poult. Sci.61, 477-490. Van den Brand H., Parmentier H.K. and Kepm B. (2004). Effects of housing system (outdoor vs. cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br. Poult. Sci. 45, 745-752.
Top