Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of the genotype, cage type and time period on the behaviour of laying hybrids at the same egg production level

  • Regular Articles
  • Published:
Tropical Animal Health and Production Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hybrids with different morphological and yield characteristics are used in the table egg production. There is no change in the cage systems according to the different hybrids in the regulation. This study aimed to investigate the effects of genotype (brown laying hybrids (BLH) and white laying hybrids (WLH)) and cage type (conventional and enriched cages) on behaviours of hens at the 90% egg production level. Behavioural data were recorded with video cameras during the 4 days. Data were analysed in 6 time periods as 05.00–08.00 am, 09.00–12.00 am, 01.00–04.00 pm, 05.00–08.00 pm, 09.00–12.00 pm and 01.00–04.00 am. Behaviour inspection each hour was divided into 4 quarters and the first 3 min of each quarter were evaluated. Behaviours were represented as the proportion of the total behaviour performed in the time period by a given hen. There was no interaction between hens’ behaviour and the genotype at the same egg production level. The frequency of feeding behaviour was found to be significantly lower (P < 0.01), but comfort behaviour was higher (P < 0.05) in hens that were reared in the enriched cages. Only preening was seen as a comfort behaviour due to the cage size. The feeding, drinking, pecking hen, comforting, walking, sitting, resting and perching behaviours changed during the day (P < 0.01). Especially, the transition from light to dark influenced the perching behaviour negatively. No interactions were detected amongst genotype, cage type and time period. Feeding behaviour decreased and the comfort behaviour increased in the hens that were reared in the enriched cages because there were materials that would exhibit different behaviours. Hens in the enriched cage could not suddenly adapt to the dark and light period. For this reason, transitions to light and dark periods in poultry houses should be provided gradually, as in natural life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Abrahamsson P., Tauson R., Appleby M.C. 1996. Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. British Poultry Science, 37: 521-540.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Albentosa M.J., Cooper J.J. 2004. Effects of cage height and stocking density on the frequency of comfort behaviours performed by laying hens housed in furnished cages. Animal Welfare. 13: 419-424.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Murrani W.K., Al-Rawi A.J., Al-Hadithi M.F., Al-Tikriti B. 2006. Association between heterophil/lymphocyte ratio, a marker of ‘resistance’ to stress, and some production and fitness traits in chickens. British Poultry Science, 47: 443-448,

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blokhuis H.J., Van Niekerk T.F., Bessei W., Elson A., Guemene D., Kjaer J.B., Maria Levrino G.A., Nicol C.J., Tauson R., Weeks C.A., Van De Weerd H.A. 2007. The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal, 63: 101-114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom D.M., Fraser A.F. 2015. Domestic animal behaviour and welfare, fifth ed. Wallingford: Cabi. Cambridge University, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.L.M., de Haas E.N., Lee C. 2019. A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poultry Science, 98: 9-28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen D.H., Bao J., Meng F.Y., Wei C.B. 2014. Choice of perch characteristics by laying hens in cages with different group size and perching behaviours. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 150: 37-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elston J.J., Beck M.M., Kachman S.D., Scheideler S.E. 2000. Laying hen behavior. 1. Effects of cage type and startle stimuli. Poultry Science, 79: 471-476.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guinebretière M., Huneau-Salaün A., Huonnic D., Michel V. 2012. Cage hygiene, laying location, and egg quality: The effects of linings and litter provision in furnished cages for laying hens. Poultry Science, 91: 808-816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gvaryahu G., Ararat E., Asaf E., Lev M., Weller J.I., Robinzon B., Snapir N. 1994. An enrichment object that reduces aggressiveness and mortality in caged laying hens. Physiology & Behavior, 55: 313-316.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kopka M.N., Cheng H.W., Hester P.Y. 2003. Bone mineral density of laying hens housed in enriched versus conventional cages. Poultry Science, 82: 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozak A., Kasperek K., Zięba G., Rozempolska-Rucińska I. 2019. Variability of laying hen behaviour depending on the breed. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 32: 1062- 1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay D.C., Fulton R.M., Hester P.Y., Karcher D.M., Kjaer J.B., Mench J.A., Mullens B.A., Newberry R.C., Nicol C.J., O’Sullivan N.P., Porter R.E. 2011. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science, 90: 278-294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lentfer T.L., Gebhardt-Henrich S.G., Fröhlich E.K., von Borell E. 2011. Influence of nest site on the behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135: 70-77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X., Chen D., Li J., Bao J. 2016. Effects of furnished cage type on behavior and welfare of laying hens. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 29: 887- 894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu K., Xin H., Shepherd T., Zhao Y. 2018. Perch-shape preference and perching behaviors of young laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 203: 34-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng F., Chen D., Li X., Li J., Bao J. 2017. The effect of large or small furnished cages on behaviors and tibia bone of laying hens. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 17: 69-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newberry R.C. 1995. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 44: 229-243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar E.E., Ünal N., Erdem E., Kocakaya A., Yaranoğlu B. 2015. Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science, 94: 559-564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onbaşılar E.E., Erdem E., Ünal N., Tunç A.S., Kocakaya A., Yaranoğlu B. 2016. Comparison of liver and bone health of two laying hen strains kept in different cage systems. European Poultry Science, 80: 1-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohle K., Cheng H.W. 2009. Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens. Poultry Science, 88: 1559-1564.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riddle E.R., Ali A.B., Campbell D.L., Siegford J.M. 2018. Space use by 4 strains of laying hens to perch, wing flap, dust bathe, stand and lie down. PLoS One, 13: e0190532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosnówka-Czajka E., Herbut E., Skomorucha I. 2010. Effect of different housing systems on productivity and welfare of laying hens. Annals of Animal Science, 10: 349-360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks C.A., Nicol C.J. 2006. Behavioural needs, priorities and preferences of laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal, 62: 296-307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead C.C., Fleming R.H. 2000. Osteoporosis in Cage Layers. Poultry Science, 79: 1033-1041.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Esin Ebru Onbaşılar, Afşin Kocakaya, Necmettin Ünal, Hilal Çapar Akyüz & Umut Can Gündoğar

  2. Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey

    Evren Erdem

  3. Department of Veterinary, Vocational School of Mudurnu Sureyya Astarcı, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey

    Ömer Faruk Güngör

  4. Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Harran University, Şanlıurfa, Turkey

    Mücahit Kahraman

  5. Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey

    Büşra Yaranoğlu

Authors
  1. Esin Ebru Onbaşılar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evren Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Afşin Kocakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ömer Faruk Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mücahit Kahraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Büşra Yaranoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Necmettin Ünal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hilal Çapar Akyüz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Umut Can Gündoğar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by E. E. Onbaşılar, E. Erdem, A. Kocakaya, Ö. F. Güngör, M. Kahraman, B. Yaranoğlu, N. Ünal, H. Çapar Akyüz and U. C. Gündoğar. Data analysis and writing of the manuscript were performed by E. E. Onbaşılar. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esin Ebru Onbaşılar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by Ankara University Animal Care and Use Committee (201057/285).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onbaşılar, E.E., Erdem, E., Kocakaya, A. et al. Effects of the genotype, cage type and time period on the behaviour of laying hybrids at the same egg production level. Trop Anim Health Prod 54, 149 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03157-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-022-03157-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation