Body weight, FCR and laying behaviour of commercial brown layer under cage-free EC house in tropics

Introduction

The production performance of a layer is influenced by the housing systems being kept, particularly in tropical climates where environmental conditions can worsen the challenges associated with management (Oloyo, 2018) [1] . Tropical region is characterized by high temperature and humidity which invariably deter the production performance especially feed intake of the birds. The most common housing systems for laying hens in common practice are the battery cage and cage-free systems, both having distinct differences in terms of welfare, productivity, and egg quality (Manzoor et al., 2024; Volkmann et al., 2024) [2,3] . The battery-type caging system where a massive number of chickens are piled up draws the consumers' reaction; therefore, facilities with furnished cages, deep litter, free-ranging areas, or cage-free rearing systems have become widespread in layer poultry farming. Currently there has been a shift in the poultry industry from the use of battery cage production systems to the use of cage-free egg production systems globally. Cage-free systems for laying hens can be floor housing systems or aviary systems with multiple tiers. These systems offers better animal welfare, higher-quality eggs, and premium market opportunities, it also poses economic, disease management, and consumer affordability challenges. Consumers tend to believe that eggs produced in cage-free systems are of better quality (Vits et al., 2005) [4] . Behaviour traits related to nest preference and laying duration may be associated with floor eggs along with the choice of nest site (Cronin et al., 2012) [5] . Floor eggs, which are defined as eggs that hens lay off-nest, are a major issue in cage-free systems for several reasons as collecting floor eggs by hand is laborious and time-consuming. Floor eggs cause economic losses as they are often soiled, broken, or eaten by the hens and also have high bacteria count on eggshell (De Reu et al., 2006) [6] . Hens that lay floor eggs display more nest-seeking behavior, less nest-building behavior, and less sitting before oviposition than hens that lay in the nests, which may indicate frustration and reduced welfare (Cooper et al., 1996) [7] . In the present study, the performance of birds in terms of feed intake and laying behaviour under cage free system (EC house) from start of first lay till 70 weeks of age is analysed and compared with standard production as per commercial standard.

Materials and methods

The present data was recorded from a flock of 10000 commercial brown shelled egg layers. Day old chicks were procured from commercial supplier and were reared under standard managemental conditions. Standard feeding, lighting and vaccination protocols were adopted stringently without any deviation. Birds were shifted to cage free house (EC House) at 17 th week. Commercial layer feed was offered to the birds as per available standards. The egg production was recorded from start of lay on daily basis up to 70 weeks. Mortality numbers was recorded daily to arrive at overall mortality over the laying period. Body weight, body weight gain, Feed intake, egg production and Nest eggs (%) and floor egg (%) were recorded every week. Feed conversion ration per dozen eggs were calculated using the formula FCR (per dozen eggs) = Kg of feed consumed × 12 Total eggs produced .

Results and discussions

Average body weight (g) and feed intake (g) of commercial brown layer during production is presented in table 1. The average body weight and feed intake by 25 weeks was 1502g and 97g which gradually rose along with daily feed intake. The body weight and feed intake near end of laying period was 1910g and 115g per bird. Coloured layer fetches more sale cost after the end of lay owing to high preference towards meat from coloured birds by the public. The higher body weight therefore fetches high returns to the producer. Sekeroglu et al. (2010) [8] showed that laying hens housed in cage-free or litterbased systems tend to have higher feed consumption compared to those in conventional battery cages. Dikmen et al. (2016) [9] found that chickens reared in a free-range system had higher feed intake than in battery cages. In our study, the feed intake is on par with the standard which maybe attributed towards the environment controlled housing system. The study also showed that cage-free laying hens have a higher body weight compared to battery hens. Several studies have found that laying hens housed in cage-free hens tend to have higher body weight compared to those in conventional battery cages (Kang et al., 2013; Kesler et al., 2021) [10,11] . Feed conversion ratio being the most important economic trait is calculated for every 5 week interval per dozen egg produced. The FCR per dozen eggs is best between 26-45 weeks during the peak production period. FCR of 1.5 and below is considered to be the best in white layers. In the present study FCR is less than 1.5 during peak production is achieved in coloured brown layer under cage free system which indicates best management during rearing period. FCR after 70 weeks reached a value of 1.75 indicating higher cost of production as age advances. The increased activity levels in cage-free hens may result in higher feed intake without a corresponding increase in egg production, leading to a higher FCR compared to battery cage system (Englmaierova et al., 2014) [12] .

Conclusions

No significant variations were noted between the standard productions in cages to that of Cage free systems in terms of FCR per dozen eggs when compared to the standard production performance. Also the laying behaviour inside nest indicates better welfare for the birds inside EC house under cage free system. Considering the positive impact of cage free system on welfare of the birds and increasing awareness of consumers on products from caged birds, this system offer considerable economic advantages for the farmers.

References

1. Oloyo A. The use of housing system in the management of heat stress in poultry production in hot and humid climate: A review. J. Poult. Sci. 2018;6(1):1-9.
2. Manzoor H, Khan M, Faraz A, Irfan M, Rizwan M, Alam M, Rauf U, Zeb K, Sohail M. Impact of food supplementation with radix isatidis polysaccharide on quality of egg, function of immune and intestinal health in laying hens. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2024;2024(1):685.
3. Volkmann N, Riedel A, Kemper N, Spindler B. Factors associated with footpad dermatitis in German laying hens: A retrospective study. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2024;185(1):108-115.
4. Vits A, Weitzenburger D, Distl O. Comparison of Different Housing Systems for Laying Hens in Respect to Economic, Health and Welfare Parameters with Special Regard to Organized Cages (Literature Review). DTW. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift. 2005;112(9):332-342.
5. Cronin GM, Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH. The importance of prelaying behaviour and nest boxes for laying hen welfare: a review. Anim Prod Sci. 2012;52:398-405.
6. De Reu K, Grijspeerdt K, Heyndrickx M, Uyttendaele M, Debevere J, Herman L. Bacterial shell contamination in the egg collection chains of different housing systems for laying hens. Br Poult Sci. 2006;47:163-172.
7. Cooper JJ, Appleby MC. Individual variation in prelaying behaviour and the incidence of floor eggs. Br Poult Sci. 1996;37:245253.
8. Sekeroglu A, Sarica M, Demir E, Ulutas Z, Tilki M, Saatci M, Omed H. Effects of different housing systems on some performance traits and egg qualities of laying hens. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 2010;9(12):1739-1744.
9. Dikmen BY, Ipek AYDIN, Şahan U, Petek METIN, Sozcu A. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poultry science. 2016;95(7):1564-1572.
10. Kang SY, Ko YH, Moon YS, Sohn SH, Jang IS. Effects of housing systems on physiological and immunological parameters in laying hens. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2013;55(2):131-139.
11. Kesler F, Grumpel-Schluter A, Looft C, Petow S. Investigation of the morphology of adrenal glands in hens kept in two different housing systems-A pilot study. Animals. 2021;11(7):2124.
12. Englmaierova M, Tůmova E, Charvatova V, Skřivan M. Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2014;59(8):345-352.
13. How to cite this article: Bharathi I, Durga S, Balamurugan P. Body weight, FCR and laying behaviour of commercial brown layer under cage-free EC house in tropics. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry. 2026;11(9):175177. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.22271/veterinary.2026.v11.i9c. 3807