Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains

Uğur Özentürk; Ayşe Uysal

doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209

EN TR

Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of environmental enrichment in cage systems on egg quality, focusing on two laying hen strains, Hyline Brown (HB) and Isa Tinted (IT). Conventional cage systems (CC) were compared with environmentally enriched cages (EEC) that included nest boxes, perches, and pecking stones. Egg quality was evaluated every eight weeks from 24 to 72 weeks of age using one randomly selected egg per cage (4 groups × 14 eggs = 56 eggs). Measured parameters included egg weight, shape index, breaking strength, shell thickness, yolk color, Haugh unit, albumen index, yolk index, and the presence of blood and meat spots. Results revealed no statistically significant differences in egg quality parameters between CC and EEC systems, suggesting that environmental enrichments alone do not influence egg quality. However, strain-specific differences were identified: HB hens produced heavier eggs with thicker and stronger shells, whereas IT hens laid eggs with darker yolks. Age-related changes in egg quality were observed in both strains, with declines in shell thickness, breaking strength, and Haugh unit over time. These findings emphasize the limited impact of cage enrichments on egg quality and highlight the significant roles of genotype and age. Further research is warranted to explore the broader implications of environmental enrichments on poultry production.

Keywords

Kafeste Çevresel Zenginleştirmenin İki Farklı Yumurtacı Hibritte Yumurta Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, kafes sistemlerindeki çevresel zenginleştirmenin yumurta kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmış ve iki yumurtacı hibrit olan Hyline Brown (HB) ve Isa Tinted (IT) ait yumurtalar incelenmiştir. Geleneksel kafes sistemleri (CC), folluk, tünek ve gagalama taşları içeren çevresel olarak zenginleştirilmiş kafeslerle (EEC) karşılaştırılmıştır. Yumurta kalitesi, 24 ila 72 haftalık yaşlar arasında her sekiz haftada bir, her kafesten rastgele seçilen bir yumurta kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir (4 grup × 14 yumurta = 56 yumurta). Yumurta kalitesi parametreleri olarak yumurta ağırlığı, şekil indeksi, kırılma mukavemeti, kabuk kalınlığı, sarısı rengi, Haugh birimi, albümin indeksi, sarısı indeksi ve kan ve et lekelerinin varlığı belirlenmiştir. Araştırma bulgularında, CC ve EEC sistemleri arasında yumurta kalitesi parametrelerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmadığı ve çevresel zenginleştirmelerin tek başına yumurta kalitesini etkilemediği tespit edilmiştir. Ancak, hibrite özgü farklılıklar belirlenmiştir: HB tavukları kırılma mukavemeti yüksek, daha kalın kabuklu daha ağır yumurtalar üretirken, IT tavukları daha koyu sarılı yumurtalar vermiştir. Her iki hibritte de yumurta kalitesinde yaşa bağlı değişiklikler gözlemlendi ve zamanla kabuk kalınlığında, kırılma mukavemetinde ve Haugh biriminde düşüşler belirlendi. Bu bulgular, kafes içi zenginleştirmelerin yumurta kalitesi üzerindeki sınırlı etkisini ve genotip ile yaşın önemli etkisini vurgulamaktadır. Kanatlı üretiminde çevresel zenginleştirmenin etkilerini daha iyi anlamak için ek araştırmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects Unit

Project Number

This work supported by Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. (Grant numbers [TSA-2022-10594])

Ethical Statement

The research was ethically approved by the Atatürk University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Unit Ethics Committee (Protocol no: 2024/22, dated 27.09.2024).

Thanks

Thank you to Atatürk University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit for providing a project grant to fund this study (TSA-2022-10594). Thank you to Atatürk University Food and Livestock Application and Research Center for providing experimental area.

References

Akintunde, A. O., & Toye, A. A. (2023). Comparative study on egg characteristics of Yoruba ecotype Nigerian local chickens and Isa Brown chickens fed graded levels of moringa oleifera seed meal. Agricultural Science Digest, 43, 877–882. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.DF-430.
Alig, B. N., Malheiros, R. D., & Anderson, K. E. (2023a). Evaluation of physical egg quality parameters of commercial brown laying hens housed in five production systems. Animals, 13(4), 716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13040716.
Alig, B. N., Malheiros, R.D., & Anderson, K. E. (2023b). The effect of housing environment on physical egg quality of white egg layers. Poultry, 2(2), 222-234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ poultry2020018.
Arulnathan, V., Turner, I., Bamber, N., Ferdous, J., Grassauer, F., Doyon, M., & Pelletier, N. (2024). A systematic review of potential productivity, egg quality, and animal welfare implications of extended lay cycles in commercial laying hens in Canada. Poultry Science, 103475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.103475.
Bari, M. S., Cohen-Barnhouse, A. M., & Campbell, D. L. M. (2020a). Early rearing enrichments influenced nest use and egg quality in free-range laying hens. Animal, 14, 1249–1257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119003094.
Bari, M. S., Downing, J. A., Dyall, T. R., Lee, C., & Campbell, D. L. (2020b). Relationships between rearing enrichments, range use, and an environmental stressor for free-range laying hen welfare. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00480.
Bhanja, S. K., & Bhadauria, P. (2018). Behaviour and welfare concepts in laying hens and their association with housing systems. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 53(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8180.2018.00009.0.
Çınar, E., & Arslan Duru, A. (2022). Anason Tohumu İlavesinin Yumurtacı Tavukların Performans, İç ve Dış Yumurta Kalite Özellikleri ve Yumurta Sarısı Kolesterol Konsantrasyonuna Etkisi. KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 25(1), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.890836.

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(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey319.
Da Silva Pires, P. G., Bavaresco, C., Prato, B. S., Wirth, M. L., & Moraes, P. O. (2021). The relationship between egg quality and hen housing systems-A systematic review. Livestock Science, 250, 104-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104597.
Dalle Zotte, A., Cullere, M., Pellattiero, E., Sartori, A., Marangon, A., & Bondesan, V. (2021). Is the farming method (cage, barn, organic) a relevant factor for marketed egg quality traits? Livestock Science, 246, 104453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104453.
De Haas, E. N., Kemp, B., Bolhuis, J. E., Groothuis, T., & Rodenburg, T. B. (2013). Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Science, 92(9), 2259-2269. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02996
Dedousi, A., Stojčić, M. Đ., & Sossidou, E. (2020). Effects of housing systems on keel bone damage and egg quality of laying‎ hens. Veterinary Research Forum, 11 (4), 299. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran. https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2019.99568.2375
Dikmen, B. Y., Ipek, A., Şahan, Ü., Sözcü, A., & Baycan, S. C. (2017). Impact of different housing systems and age of layers on egg quality characteristics. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 41(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1604-71.
Englmaierová, M., Tumová, E., Charvátová, V., & Skřivan, M. (2014). Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination Original Paper. Czech Journal Animal Science, 59. https://doi.org/10.17221/7585-CJAS.
Franco, D., Rois, D., Arias, A., Justı, J. R., Marti-Quijal, F. J., Khubber, S., Barba. F. J., Pedrouso, M. L., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2020). Effect of breed and diet type on the freshness and quality of the eggs: A comparison between Mos (indigenous Galician breed) and Isa brown hens. Foods, 9(3), 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030342.
Ghanima, M. M. A., Alagawany, M., Abd El-Hack, M. E., Taha, A., Elnesr, S. S., Ajarem, J., Allam, A. A., & Mahmoud, A. M. (2020). Consequences of various housing systems and dietary supplementation of thymol, carvacrol, and euganol on performance, egg quality, blood chemistry, and antioxidant parameters. Poultry Science, 99, 4384–4397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.05.028.
Gil, D. (2008). Hormones in avian eggs: physiology, ecology and behavior. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 38, 337-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)00007-7
Göger, H. (2019). Affecting factors of egg weight. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi, 39–47.
Herrera-Alcaíno, S., Luna, D., González-Pavez, J., Cordero, P., & Guzmán-Pino, S. A. (2024). Social enrichment improves affective state and foraging behavior compared to physical enrichment, while maintaining growth performance in broiler chickens. Animals, 14(22), 3186. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223186
Hemsworth, P. H., & Edwards, L. E. (2020). Natural behaviours, their drivers and their implications for laying hen welfare. Animal Production Science, 61(10), 915-930. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19630.
Henriksen, R., Groothuis, T. G., & Rettenbacher, S. (2011). Elevated plasma corticosterone decreases yolk testosterone and progesterone in chickens: linking maternal stress and hormone-mediated maternal effects. PloS one, 6(8), e23824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023824.
Hisasaga, C., Griffin, S. E., & Tarrant, K. J. (2020). Survey of egg quality in commercially available table eggs. Poultry Science, 99, 7202–7206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.049.
Jacobs, L., Blatchford, R. A., De Jong, I. C., Erasmus, M. A., Levengood, M., Newberry, R. C., ... & Weimer, S. L. (2023). Enhancing their quality of life: environmental enrichment for poultry. Poultry Science, 102(1), 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102233.
Ketta, M., Tumová, E., Englmaierová, M., & Chodová, D. (2020). Combined effect of genotype, housing system, and calcium on performance and eggshell quality of laying hens. Animals, 10(11), 21-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112120.
Krawczyk, J., Lewko, L., Sokołowicz, Z., Koseniuk, A., & Kraus, A. (2023). Effect of hen genotype and laying time on egg quality and albumen lysozyme content and activity. Animals, 13, 1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13101611.
Lordelo, M., Cid, J., Cordovil, C. M., Alves, S. P., Bessa, R. J. B., & Carolino, I. (2020). A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poultry Science, 99(3), 1768–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.023.
Mahawar, M., Altuntaş, E., & Gül, E. N. (2023). Mass Modelling of Eggs Based on Shape Index Using Regression Analysis. KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 26(1), 132-139. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.992588.
Majewski, E., Potori, N., Sulewski, P., Was, A., Morawska, M., Gebska, M., Rawlikowska, A. M., Grontkowska, A., Szili, V., & Erdos, A. (2024). End of the Cage age? a study on the impacts of the transition from cages on the EU laying hen sector. Agriculture, 14(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14010111.
Moroki, Y., & Tanaka, T (2016). A pecking device as an environmental enrichment for caged laying hens. Animal Science Journal, 87(8), 1055–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12525.
Nannoni, E., Buonaiuto, G., Martelli, G., Lizzi, G., Trevisani, G., Garavini, G., & Sardi, L. (2022). Influence of increased freedom of movement on welfare and egg laying pattern of hens kept in aviaries. Animals, 12, 2307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182307.
Nicol, C.J. (2015). The Behavioural Biology of Chickens; CABI: Wallingford, UK, p. 192.
Nicol, C.J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A.C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S.L., Lines, J.A., Mullan, S., & Weeks, C.A. (2017). Farmed Bird Welfare Science Review; Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources: Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1–321
Nour, V., Panaite, T. D., Corbu, A. R., & Vlaicu, P. A. (2017). Yolk colour and carotenoid composition of the eggs produced by laying hens fed diets containing tomato processing waste. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM, 17, 429–436. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/63.
Onbaşılar, E. E., Kahraman, M., Güngör, Ö. F., Kocakaya, A., Karakan, T., Pirpanahi, P., Doğan, B., Metin, D., Akan, M., Şehu, A., Erbay Elibol, F. K., & Yalçın, S. (2020). Effects of cage type on performance, welfare, and microbiological properties of laying hens during the molting period and the second production cycle. Tropical Animal Health Production, 52(6), 3713–3724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02409-0.
Orihuela, A., Mota-Rojas, D., Velarde, A., Strappini-Asteggiano, A., Thielo de la Vega, L., Borderas-Tordesillas, F., & Alonso-Spilsbury, M. (2019). Environmental enrichment to improve behaviour in farm animals. CABI Reviews, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201813059.
Özentürk, U., & Yıldız, A. (2020). Assessment of egg quality in native and foreign laying hybrids reared in different cage densities. Brazilian Journal Poultry Science, 22, eRBCA. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2020-1331.
Özentürk, U., & Yıldız, A. (2021). Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 45(6), 1052-1064. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2012-91.
Philippe, F. X., Mahmoudi, Y., Cinq-Mars, D., Lefrançois, M., Moula, N., Palacios, J., Pelletier, F., & Godbout, S. (2020). Comparison of egg production, quality and composition in three production systems for laying hens. Livestock Science, 232, 103-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2020.103917.
Popova, T., Petkov, E., Ayasan, T., & Ignatova, M. (2020). Quality of eggs from layers reared under alternative and conventional system. Brazilian Journal Poultry Science, 22(01), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1172.
Rakonjac, S., Dosković, V., Bošković, S. B., Škrbić, Z. I., Lukić, M. I., Petričević, V. I., & Petrović, D. M. (2021). Production performance and egg quality of laying hens as influenced by genotype and rearing system. Brazilian Journal Poultry Science, 23(02), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1045.
Riber, A. B., Casey-Trott, T. M., & Herskin, M. S. (2018). The influence of keel bone damage on welfare of laying hens. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5(6), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00006.
Rodríguez-Hernández, R., Rondón-Barragán, I. S., & Oviedo-Rondón, E. O. (2024). Egg Quality, Yolk Fatty Acid Profiles from Laying Hens Housed in Conventional Cage and Cage-Free Production Systems in the Andean Tropics. Animals, 14, 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14010168.
Rondoni, A., Asioli, D., & Millan, E. (2020). Consumer behaviour, perceptions, and preferences towards eggs: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 106, 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.038.
Ross, M., Rausch, Q., Vandenberg, B., & Mason, G. (2020). Hens with benefits: Can environmental enrichment make chickens more resilient to stress? Physiology & Behavior, 226, 113077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113077.
Samiullah, S., Omar, A. S., Roberts, J., & Chousalkar, K. (2017). Effect of production system and flock age on eggshell and egg internal quality measurements. Poultry Science, 96(1), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew289.
Sarıca, M., Türkoğlu, M., & Yamak U. S. (2018). Tavukçuluk Bilimi, Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar: Tavukçuluktaki gelişmeler ve Türkiye tavukçuluğu. Bey Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara. Ed. Sarıca M, Türkoğlu M. pp.1-36.
Schreiter, R., Damme, K., & Freick, M. (2020a). Edible Environmental Enrichments in Littered Housing Systems: Do Their Effects on Integument Condition Differ Between Commercial Laying Hen Strains? Animals, 10, 2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122434.
Schreiter, R., Damme, K., Klunker, M., Raoult, C., Von Borell, E., & Freick, M. (2020b). Effects of edible environmental enrichments during the rearing and laying periods in a littered aviary—Part 1: integument condition in pullets and laying hens. Poultry Science, 99, 5184–5196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.07.013.
Sharma, M. K., McDaniel, C. D., Kiess, A. S., Loar II, R. E., & Adhikari, P. (2022). Effect of housing environment and hen strain on egg production and egg quality as well as cloacal and eggshell microbiology in laying hens. Poultry Science, 101(2), 101595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101595.
Tainika, B., & Şekeroğlu, A. (2020). Effect of production systems for laying hens on hen welfare. TURJAF, 8(1), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v8i1.239-245.3251.
Tainika, B., & Şekeroğlu, A. (2021). Environmental enrichments in laying hen production systems with emphasis on welfare and egg quality. TURJAF, 9(8), 1398-1406. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i8.1398-1406.4240.
Yardım, Z., & Akşit, M. (2012). The effect of cage system and stocking density on performance, egg quality and microbial load of eggshell of laying hens. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 9(11), 2004-2012. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i11.2004-2012.4649.
Uysal, A., & Laçin, E. (2024). The effect of different cage densities on laying performance and egg quality in brown and white laying hens. Brazilian Journal Poultry Science, 26, eRBCA-2024. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2024-1920.
Zinca, A. I., Lungu, V. D., Moise, A. E., & Drăgotoiu, D. (2024). The influence of laying hen rearing systems and maintenance technologies on egg quality parameters: A review. Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 57(1), 260-260.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Animal Science, Genetics and Biostatistics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Uğur Özentürk ^*
0000-0002-2037-9340
Türkiye

Ayşe Uysal
0000-0003-2803-2410
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

March 20, 2025

Publication Date

March 27, 2025

Submission Date

December 31, 2024

Acceptance Date

February 11, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 28 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA62ZP92BE

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Özentürk, U., & Uysal, A. (2025). Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, 28(2), 593-601. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209

AMA

1.Özentürk U, Uysal A. Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains. KSU J. Agric Nat. 2025;28(2):593-601. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209

Chicago

Özentürk, Uğur, and Ayşe Uysal. 2025. “Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains”. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi 28 (2): 593-601. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209.

EndNote

Özentürk U, Uysal A (March 1, 2025) Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi 28 2 593–601.

IEEE

[1]U. Özentürk and A. Uysal, “Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains”, KSU J. Agric Nat., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 593–601, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209.

ISNAD

Özentürk, Uğur - Uysal, Ayşe. “Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains”. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi 28/2 (March 1, 2025): 593-601. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209.

JAMA

1.Özentürk U, Uysal A. Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains. KSU J. Agric Nat. 2025;28:593–601.

MLA

Özentürk, Uğur, and Ayşe Uysal. “Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains”. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 2, Mar. 2025, pp. 593-01, doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209.

Vancouver

1.Uğur Özentürk, Ayşe Uysal. Effect of Cage Environmental Enrichment on Egg Quality in Two Laying Hen Strains. KSU J. Agric Nat. 2025 Mar. 1;28(2):593-601. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1610209