Comparison of Aviary, Barn and Conventional Cage Raising of Chickens on Laying Performance and Egg Quality

  • Ahammed, M. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Chae, B.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lohakare, J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Keohavong, B. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, M.H. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, S.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, D.M. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Lee, J.Y. (National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Ohh, S.J. (College of Animal Life Sciences, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2013.07.05
  • Accepted : 2013.11.21
  • Published : 2014.08.01


This study intended to compare the productive performance of three different layer raising systems; conventional cage (CC), barn (BR) and aviary (AV). The AV is welfare bestowed housing that allows free locomotion for birds within the BR. The BR allows bird's free locomotion inside BR but without multilevel structures. Both pullets and cockerels were housed together in both AV and BR, but only pullets in CC. Seventeen weeks old Lohmann Brown Lite (n = 800) pullets were housed in AV during this study. The same age layer pullets were simultaneously assigned to either at CC or BR to compare egg production performance with AV. The duration of experiment was 40 weeks (from 21st to 60th week). There were no remarkable differences in egg production, hen day egg production (HDEP) and average egg weight among three rearing systems. First 20 weeks (phase-1) average HDEP (%) of AV, CC, and BR were 85.9, 88.8, 87.1 and average egg weights (g) were 57.5, 59.9, and 56.9 respectively. Those of the remaining 20 weeks (phase-2) were 87.1, 87.9, 85.5 and 64.2, 63.0 62.1, respectively. Daily feed intakes (122 g, 110 g, 125 g); feed conversion ratio (2.4, 2.1, 2.5) and daily egg mass (53.9 g, 54.4 g, 52.8 g) data from AV, CC, and BR were not influenced significantly by the respective raising systems. Daily feed intake of layers in both AV (124 g) and BR (127 g) tended to be higher than that in CC (113 g) during phase-2. Overall, exterior egg quality (dirty and cracked eggs) in both phases was superior in BR compared with AV and CC, whereas CC generated intermediate results. This study indicated that the HDEP per se in AV and BR were not significantly different from that in CC. The study implied that the facility depreciation cost for AV and cost for increased feed intake in AV compared to CC are believed to be critical to evaluate the cost effectiveness of egg production in AV.


Chicken Welfare;Aviary System;Poultry Housing;Productive Performance;Egg Traits


  1. Taylor, A. A. and J. F. Hurnik. 1996. The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and aviary. Poult. Sci. 75:47-51.
  2. Tumova, E. and T. Ebeid. 2003. Effect of housing system on performance and egg quality characteristics in laying hens. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica. 34:73-80.
  3. Van Den Brand, H., H. K. Parmentier, and B. Kemp. 2004. Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br. Poult. Sci. 45:745-752.
  4. Vits, A., D. Weizenburger, H. Hamann, and O. Distl. 2005. Influence of different small group systems on production traits, egg quality and bone breaking strength of laying hens. First communication: Production traits and egg quality. Zuchtungskunde 77:303-323.
  5. Wall, H. 2011. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poult. Sci. 90:2153-2161.
  6. Weitzenburger, D., A. Vits, H. Hamann, and O. Distl. 2005. Effect of furnished small group housing systems and furnished cages on mortality and causes of death in two layer strains. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:553-559.
  7. Yakabu, A., A. E. Salako, and A. O. Ige. 2007. Effect of genotype and housing system on the laying performance of chickens in different seasons in semi-humid tropics. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6:434-439.
  8. Reu, K. De, K. Grijspeerdt, M. Heyndrickx, J. Zoons, K. Baere, De, M. Uyttendaele, J. Debevere, and L. Herman. 2005. Bacterial eggshell contamination in conventional cages, furnished cages and aviary housing systems for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:149-155.
  9. Roberts, J. R. 2004. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. J. Poult. Sci. 41:161-177.
  10. RSPCA (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). 2008. UK's leading animal welfare charity.
  11. SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
  12. Schlatterer, J. and D. Breithaupt. 2006. Xanthophylls in commercial egg yolks: Quantification and identification by HPLC and LC-(APCI) MS using a C30 phase. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:2267-2273.
  13. Singh, R., K. M. Cheng, and F. G. Silversides. 2009. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88:256-264.
  14. Stadelman, W. J. 1995. Quality identification of shell eggs. In: Egg science and technology (Ed. W. J. Stadelman and O. J. Cotterill) (pp. 39-66). New York: Food Products Press, The Haworth Press, Inc.
  15. Suto, Z., P. Horn, and J. Ujvari. 1997. The effect of different housing systems on production and egg quality traits of brown and Leghorn type layers. Acta Agraria Kaposvariensis 1:29-35.
  16. Tactacan, G. B., W. Guenter, N. J. Lewis, J. C. Rodriguez- Lecompte, and J. D. House. 2009. Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult. Sci. 88:698-707.
  17. Tauson, R., A. Wahlstrom, and P. Abrahamsson. 1999. Effect of two floor housing systems and cages on health, production, and fear response in layers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:152-159.
  18. Duncan, I. J. H. 1992. Guest editorial: Designing environments for animals?Not for public perceptions. Br. Vet. J. 148:475-477.
  19. Fossum, O., D. S. Jansson, P. E. Etterlin, and I. Vagsholm. 2009. Causes of mortality in laying hens in different housing systems in 2001 to 2004. Acta Vet. Scand. 51:3.
  20. Guesdon, V., A. M. H. Ahmed, S. Mallet, J. M. Faure, and Y. Nys. 2006. Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:1-12.
  21. Hidalgo, A., M. Rossi, F. Clerici, and S. Ratti. 2008. A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chem. 106:1031-1038.
  22. Lesson, S. and J. D. Summers. 1991. Commercial poultry nutrition. University Books. Guelph. Ontario. Canada.
  23. Mallet, S., V. Guesdon, A. M. H. Ahmed, and Y. Nys. 2006. Comparison of eggshell hygiene in two housing systems: Standard and furnished cages. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:30-35.
  24. Pavlovski, Z., D. Cunja, and B. Masic. 1989. Kvalitet jaja kokosi drzanih u razlicitim sistemima proizvodnje. Peradarstvo 11- 12:344-345.
  25. Pavlovski, Z., S. Hopic, and M. Lukic. 2001. Housing system for layers and egg quality. Biotech. Anim. Husb. 17:197-201.
  26. Pistekova, V., M. Hovorka, V. Vecerek, E. Strakova, and P. Suchy. 2006. The quality comparison of egg laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 51:318-325.
  27. Preisinger, R. 2000. Lohmann tradition, praxiserfahrung und entwicklungsperspektiven. Lohmann Inform. 3:13-16.
  28. Reed, H. J. 1994. Designing a nest for a battery cage. Pages 27-34 in Modified Cages for Laying Hens (Ed. C. M. Sherwin). Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, UK.
  29. Abrahamsson, P. and R. Tauson. 1995. Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens: Effects on production, egg quality, health and birds' location in three hybrids. Acta Agric. Scand. A Anim. Sci. 45:191-203.
  30. Abrahamsson, P., R. Tauson, and K. Elwinger. 1996. Effect on production, health and egg quality of varying proportions of wheat and barley in diets for two hybrids of laying hens kept in different housing systems. Acta Agric. Scand. 46:173-182.
  31. Casiraghi, E., A. Hidalgo, and M. Rossi. 2005. Influence of weight grade on shell characteristics of marketed hen eggs. In Proceedings of the 10th European symposium on the quality of eggs and egg products (pp. 183-188). Doorwerth: WPSA.
  32. Coucke, P., E. Dewil, E. Decuypere, and J. De Baerdemaeker. 1999. Measuring the mechanical stiffness of an eggshell using resonant frequency analysis. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:227-232.
  33. Dukic-Stojcic, M., L. Peric, S. Bjedov, and N. Milosevic. 2009. The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotech. Anim. Husbandry 25:1103-1108.

Cited by

  1. Lung toxicity in mice of airborne particulate matter from a modern layer hen facility containing Proposition 2-compliant animal caging vol.33, pp.3, 2017,
  2. Effects of rearing systems on laying performance, egg quality, and serum biochemistry of Xianju chickens in summer vol.96, pp.11, 2017,
  3. First Results of a Detection Sensor for the Monitoring of Laying Hens Reared in a Commercial Organic Egg Production Farm Based on the Use of Infrared Technology vol.16, pp.10, 2016,
  4. Genetic parameters of feed efficiency traits and their relationships with egg quality traits in laying period of ducks vol.97, pp.3, 2018,