Interactions of genotype, housing and dietary calcium in layer performance, eggshell quality and tibia characteristics

Abstract

The study was designed to evaluate the interactions in performance, eggshell quality and tibia traits of two laying hen genotypes, namely a commercial hybrid, Lohmann (LSL), and a traditional breed, the Czech Hen (CH), housed in conventional cages and on litter, and fed two levels of dietary calcium (Ca) (3.5% vs. 3.0%). A significant interaction between genotype, housing and Ca was determined in egg weight. The heaviest eggs were laid by LSL hens housed in cages and fed 3.0% Ca (61.8 g), and the lightest laid by CH, also in cages on 3.0% Ca (47.3 g). Eggshell strength and shell weight were significantly affected by three-way interaction. Czech hens kept in cages and fed 3.0% Ca produced the strongest shells (4480 g/cm2), whereas the CH in cages on 3.5% Ca had the weakest (3665 g/cm2) shells. Hens housed on litter had significantly stronger tibias than hens housed in cages (485 vs. 397 N). With respect to genotype, tibias were stronger in CH. Housing and level Ca in feed had a significant effect on tibia weight. However, none of these factors affected tibia thickness or ash content. Tibia Ca content was higher in caged birds than in those on litter. The results of the study show that interaction between housing, genotype and Ca resulted in large differences in measurements of egg weight and eggshell quality. Tibia characteristics were less affected by the treatments, and no interactions were evident in the variables.

Behaviour, welfare, and tibia traits of fast- and slow-growing chickens reared in intensive and free range systems

“…Although there was a strong genetic background of growth in broilers, the difference in free-range and intensive CFG might be because of the continuous availability of commercial feed and better growth in the intensive environment. However, the aforementioned findings differ from those from laying hens where it was reported that genotype did not affect the tibia weight (Tůmová et al, 2016). However, the present results confirm those of Tůmová et al (2016) relative to effects of housing system on tibia weight in layers.…”

“…However, the aforementioned findings differ from those from laying hens where it was reported that genotype did not affect the tibia weight (Tůmová et al, 2016). However, the present results confirm those of Tůmová et al (2016) relative to effects of housing system on tibia weight in layers.…”

“…Contrary to the current findings, Akşit et al (2017) reported no effect of environmental enrichment on tibia length. Tůmová et al (2016) reported no effect of strain and housing system on tibia length in laying hens. Cobb-500 had significantly higher tibia width.…”

Impact of Different Layer Housing Systems on Eggshell Cuticle Quality and Salmonella Adherence in Table Eggs

“…Similarly, previous studies also documented greater eggshell thickness in eggs from non-cage systems and outdoor layers as compared to the caged conventional system [7,[49][50][51]56]. In contrast, some studies demonstrated a higher shell thickness in eggs from cages as compared to the cage-free systems, while others showed no interaction between the housing systems and eggshell thickness [48,57]. These different outcomes between studies might be due to the interaction of genotype and housing system or to differences in the age of the laying hens.…”