CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

PROCEDURE 6

RESULTS . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

DISCUSSION . . .. . .. ... ... . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . ..... .. . .. .

SUMMARY . ..... .. . .. . . . . .. . ..... ... . ... . . .. .. . .. ......... .... . .

LITERATURE CITED ........ .... . ..... ... . . . . .. .. .. . . . . ... . .. . . .... .

TABLES

1. Efficiency studies of feed and labor costs, including trap-nesting of hens during the second year of lay ....... . ..... . . .. . . . .. .. . . .

2. Hen-day egg production of pullets during the first year of lay .. . .. .

3. Hen-day egg production of hens during the second year of lay ... .

4. Biweekly body weights of hens during the second year of lay ... . . .

5. Biweekly feed consumption of hens during the second year of lay ..

6. Labor needed to feed, water, repair, trap nest, and clean pens .. ... .

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The author wishes to acknowledge the

cooperation and valuable suggestions of Dr. M. M. Rosenberg in the

organization of this circular.

DEPARTMENT OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

7

8

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

11

POULTRY MANAGEMENT STUDIES

II. Wire-Floor Laying Pens vs. Individual Cages

for Laying Chickens

INTRODUCTION

Wire-floor pens and individual cages for laying chickens are the predominant systems used by poultrymen in Hawaii. Since no study comparing the two systems of management under controlled conditions had been conducted locally, an in­vestigation of the merits and demerits of each method of housing pullets and hens was undertaken. Particular emphasis was placed on the effect of each system on egg production, feed consumption, body weight, and labor requirements. The need for greater efficiency in production and labor is realized by our local poultry­men. It is important to know, also, which system of management would be most efficient for the purpose of procuring trap-nest records on potential breeders.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Chung, Lund, and Bice ( 4) reported that in Hawaii the first open-front poultry house with four sides covered with I-inch wire mesh netting was built in 1929. Improvements in this type of laying house were subsequently made and all-wire poultry pens have become popular. However, the mortality rate due to cannibalism and diseases in these pens necessitated the construction of a different type of wire­floor laying house. The result was the inauguration of . the all-wire individual laying battery. Bice and Tower (3) reported that the laying battery was adopted in Hawaii as a means of reducing cannibalism and diseases among layers. Bice and Sakamoto (2) noted a very low incidence of colds in the plantation-type laying battery. Furthermore, Bice ( 1) reported that the laying battery is attractive in design and provides comfort for the birds.

The Poultry Council, State College of Washington ( 5), reported that timid birds housed in individual laying cages were given a more equal opportunity when compared with more aggressive birds. Consequently, they had a better op­portunity to lay than in open competition. Thompson ( 6) noted that there was no significant difference in feed consumption, egg production, and body weight between layers housed in laying batteries and floor pens. Egg production from both groups was approximately the same. Some of the problems confronting management of layers in laying cages were reported by Trippitelli (7).

5

PROCEDURE

Two hundred and forty-eight 20-week-ol~ White Leghorn pullets were weighed and distributed at random into wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages. They were fed a standard laying ration, and management was identical in both groups. Data taken were date of first egg, egg production, and mortality during the first year of lay.

At the end of the first laying year the birds were weighed and the best 136 hens were re-random ized into wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages. Data were then taken biweekly on body weight, feed consumption, and egg pro­duction and on daily labor required to feed, water, repair, and clean pens. Daily labor was recorded to the nea rest minute for a period of 14 weeks.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that pullets housed in individual cages matured 11.5 days earlier than those housed in wire-floor lay ing pens. At the start of lay, pullets in wire-floor pens were not accustomed to trap nests, and eggs were laid on the floor. A summary of egg production, (table 2) showed that the average monthly hen-day egg product ion of pullets housed in wire-floor laying pens was 43.1 percent as compared with 59.2 percent for those housed in individual cages. The production of the two groups was significantly different. However, the average monthly hen-day egg product ion during the first 10 months of the second laying year (table 3) was not sign ificantly different. Hens housed in

Figure 1. A wire-floor laying pen is inexpensive in construction and convenient for feeding.

6

\ t

\

'

1 l

1

wire-floor laying pens had an average hen-day egg production of 50.0 percent whereas the birds housed in lay ing cages had an average of 48.0 percent.

The average biweekly body weights of hens in wire-floor laying pens and individual cages during the second year of lay showed a difference of 0.33 pounds in favor of the birds in individual cages (table 4). This d ifference in body weight was not statistically significant. Hens in wire-floor laying pens ate 0.147 pounds less feed per bird every 2 weeks than those in individual cages. Average biweekly feed consumption during the second year of production for hens in wire-floor pens and individual cages was not significantly d ifferent (table 5 ) .

Labor needed da ily to feed, water, repa ir, trap nest, and clean pens for 68 birds in wire-floor pens was 34.06 minutes, whereas the same number of birds in individual cages could be cared for in only 22 .27 minutes . The difference in labor requ irements was sign ificant.

Feed and labor costs to produce 1 dozen eggs were 56.1 cents and 53.9 cents, respectively, for birds housed in wire-floor laying pens and individual cages, when production costs included only feed (at Un iversity of Hawaii prices) and labor at the rate of $1. 00 per hour.

DISCUSSION

The difference of 11.5 days in age to sexual maturity in favor of birds housed 111 individ ual lay ing cages over wire-floor pens was partly due to "floo r-layers" in pens and resulted in an error of several days because of delay in identifying pullets which had matured. An analysis of variance showed that the difference

Figure 2. Individual lay ing cages are automatic trap nests.

7

was not significant. This means that if another test were to be conducted the result would be identical in 95 out of 100 tests.

Monthly hen-day egg production during the first year of lay (table 2) for the two systems were widest apart from September to February and in favor of layers housed in individual cages. Days were short during these months, and the pullets in neither group received artificial illumination. The lack; of sufficient illumination would explain the reduced rate of lay for both groups during this period. Unexplained is the greater loss in production for the laying-pen birds. It may be that they were more fully exposed to the strong prevailing winds typical of the fall season and were adversely affected thereby.

During the second year of lay the birds were given artificial illumination. There was no significant difference in egg production between birds housed in laying cages and wire-floor pens. Only the best hens, selected on the basis of egg production and body size, were used during the second year. They had demon­strated their ability to withstand the fluctuations in climatic conditions.

Body weight and feed consumption of the two groups during the second year of lay were not significantly different. Since no significant difference in egg pro­duction was observed and both groups received the same ration, a nonsignificant difference in body weight and feed ~onsumption would be expected.

The primary difference in labor needed for wire-floor pens and individual cages was the time spent in trap-nesting. Individual cages are automatic trap nests while trap nests in wire-floor pens require extra time because it is necessary to catch the birds and reset the traps. There was a saving of 34. 7 percent in labor by using individual cages instead of wire-floor pens. This study indicates that the use of individual cages is more efficient when complete trap-nest records are re­quired. Birds housed in wire-floor laying pens occasionally lay eggs on the floor, especially during the onset of lay. This results in incomplete information for the floor layers. Furthermore, trap-nesting chickens in wire-floor laying pens is less reliable for the measurement of age to sexual maturity.

The 2.2 cents difference in feed and labor costs to produce 1 dozen eggs in favor of individual cages was accountable to the difference in amount of labor needed for trap-nesting. The feed and labor costs to produce 1 dozen eggs for birds in wire-floor laying pens and individual cages were computed from hens in their second year of production and would be less for pullets in a heavier rate of lay.

SUMMARY

White Leghorn pullets housed in individual cages were significantly superior in egg production to those housed in wire-floor laying pens. Pullets in open pens were adversely affected by the prevailing winds during the fall months. However, hens re-randomized at the end of the first year of lay and housed in the alter­native systems did not show a significant difference in egg production. Feed consumption, body weight, and age to sexual maturity were not significantly different. Labor needed daily to trap nest, water, feed, and clean pens was 34. 7 percent more for wire-floor laying pens than for individual cages. When trap­nest records are desired, individual cages require less labor per bird and are more accurate.

8

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BICE, C. M. 1947. THE FAMILY BACKYARD POULTRY FLOCK. Hawaii Agr. Ext. Serv. Bul. 45.

( 2) ---and SAKAMOTO, DOUGLAS. 1946. PLANTATION BACKYARD AISLE-TYPE LAYING BATTERY. Hawaii Agr. Ext. Serv. Bul. 43.

( 3) __ and Tow ER, B. A.

1942. BATTERY MANAGEMENT OF CHICKS AND LAYERS IN HAWAII. Hawaii Agr. Expt. Sta. Cir. 19.

( 4) CHUNG, 1. H., LUND, A. S. T., and BICE, C. M. 1934. COMM ERCIAL POULTRY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING IN HAWAII. Hawaii Agr. Ext. Serv. Bul. 20.

(5) POULTRY COUNCIL, STATE COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON. 1949 (revised). LAYING CAGES. Wash. Poultry Pointers No. 1.

(6) THOMPSON, WILLARD C. 1945. THE MANAGEMENT OF HENS IN LAYING CAGES. N. J. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 668 (revised).

(7) TRIPPITELLI, A. 1939. PROBLEMS IN LAYING CAGE MANAGEMENT. Paper presented, Mass. State College Farm and Home Week. July 26, 1939.

TABLES

TABLE 1. Efficiency studies 6f feed and labor costs, including trap-nesting of hens housed in wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages during the second year of Jay*

Average daily labor per bird, minutes ... .. . . ................ . Average feed consumption per bird daily, pounds ............. . Average number of eggs produced per bird daily ...... ....... . Average daily labor per 100 birds, minutes ................. . Average feed consumption per 100 birds daily, pounds .. .... . . Average number of eggs (hen-day) produced per 100 birds daily .. Average cost of labor per bird daily ......................... . Average cost of feed per bird daily ......... . ............... . Average value of eggs per bird daily . .. .. . ... .. . ... .. .... . . . Average cost of labor per 100 birds daily . .. .. . . . ........... . Average cost of feed per 100 birds daily .. .... .. .... .... . .. . Average value of eggs produced per 100 birds daily .. . ... . . . . . . Average profit after labor and feed cost deducted per 100

birds daily . .... ..... ...... .. .. . ...................... . Cost to produce one dozen eggs . . ......................... .

LAYING CAGES

0.3275 .2684 .4802

32.75 26.84 48.02 $0.00547 $0.01610 $0.03399 $0.547 $1.610 $3.399

$1.242 $0.539

LAYING PENS

0.5007 .2526 .5030

50.07 25.26 50.30 $0.00836 $0.01516 $0.03561 $0.836 $1.516 $3.561

$1.209 $0.%1

• Calculations were maile on the fo ll owing costs : labor, $1.00 nn hour; fe€d, $6.00 per 100 pounds; and eggs , $0.8.5 per dozen. 'l.'here were no rep lacements made among the hens.

9

...... 0

T ABLE 2. Average monthly hen-day egg production of pullets housed in wire-floor layi ng pens and individual laying cages during the fi rst year of lay

NO . OF I MONTH LY H EN-DAY PRODUCTION ( percent) GRO UP LOCATION I I

_ _ _ _ ______ __ 1 __ B_IR_D_s_ Aug . . Sept . Oct. N ov. D ec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 3'fay June ~ Aug. t Average

134 113.3 1· 37.4 34. 3 18.7 19.3 32 .7 38 .2 44.7 1, 67 .9 66.6 66.5 59.l 61.7 43.1 Wire-floor laying pens

Individual laying cages 114 14.8 53.3 57. 1 53 .9 46.2 52 .4 65 .5 65.5 77.9 77.9 74.6 67.9 63 .2 59. 2

Least significant difference*

• Leas t. d iffel'enee between m<-'ans required for odds of 19 t o 1. t Production for lr1 days only.

TABLE 3. Average monthly hen-day egg production of hens housed in wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages during the second year of lay

NO. OF MONTH LY HEN -DAY P RODUCTION (percent)

GROU P LOCATION BIRDS Feb. Aug. t Sept. Oct. Nov. D ec. Jan. Mar. Apr. May

- - - ------------ --------- - --------W ire-floor Jayin.is pens ....... 68 48.9 49.3 38.2

Individual laying cages ... . . . . 68 53 .3 48.0 25.6

Least significant difference*

* L east di fferf-'II C~ bt.>tWf-'e11 m ea11 s rPqni rf'd for odds of 10 to 1. t P rod uction fol' rn days only.

30.2 54.5 67.5 59 .2 54 .6

26.6 63.2 59. 3 59 .5 57.6

TABLE 4. Biweekly body weigh ts of hens housed in wire-fl oor laying pens and individual laying cages during the second year of lay

BIWEEKL y BODY WEIGHTS ( pounds) N O. OF

Ini ti al 2 4 6 8 10 GROU P LOCATION 12 BIRDS weight weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks

-Wire-floor laying pens ....... 68 3.75 3.83 3 66 3.74 3.78 3.75 3.73

Individual laying cages .. . .. . 68 3.8 3 3.98 I 4. 06 4.1 5 4.1 0 4. 12 4.07

Least significant difference*

• Least <li ft'en•n<·e bel wet• n m ,,,11,s req uirPd fo r odds of 19 to 1.

59.5 38.4

52 .6 I 34.5

14 weeks

3.7 1

4.23

14.8

Average

50.0

48.0

11.9

Average

3.74

4.07

.96

,..... ......

TABLE 5. Biweekly feed consumption of hens housed in wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages during the second year of lay

BIWEEKLY FEED CONSUMPT ION (pounds)

GROUP LOCATION NO . OF 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

BIRDS weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks --------------------- ---

Wire-floor laying pens .. 68 3.27 3.83 3.85 3.78 3.95 3.59 3.18 3.20 3. 24

Individual laying cages .. 68 3.30 3.24 3.55 3.76 3.75 3.67 3.94 3.81 3.80

Least significant difference*

•Least difference bet weeu means requiretl for otltls of 19 to 1.

TABLE 6. Labor needed to feed, water, repair, trap nest, and clean pens of birds housed in wire-floor laying pens and individual laying cages

BIWEEKLY LABOR (minutes)

GROUP LOCATION NO. OF

2 4 6 8 10 BIRDS weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks

Wire-floor laying pens ..... 68 33.78 41.92 35.92 34.42 32 .14

Individual laying cages ..... 68 24.78 26.85 28.93 23.57 20.50

Least significant difference*

•Least diffe rence between means required for odds of 19 to 1.

20 weeks ---3.31

3.91

12 weeks

33.00

17.50

22 24 weeks weeks Average - - -3.40 3.75 3.53

3.73 3.65 3.68

.67

14 weeks Average

27.21 34.06

13 .78 22.27

5.71

UNIVERSITY OF HA WAIi COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

. HONOLULU, HA WAIi

Gregg M. Sinclair President of the University

H. A. Wadsworth Dean of the College and

Director of the Experiment Station

L. A. Henke Associate Director of the Experiment Station

I

1