Productive and Reproductive Performance of Japanese Quail ...The hen day production (HDP), egg...

3rd Mediterranean Poultry Summit and 6

th International Poultry Conference, 26 - 29 March 2012, Alexandria - Egypt

Page 693 of 710

Productive and Reproductive Performance of Japanese Quail Raised in

Batteries and on Litter Floor at Two Densities Under the Prevailing

Climatic Conditions in Assiut Upper Egypt

M. El-Sagheer, H.Y. El-Hammady, and M.F.A. Farghly

Dept. of Anim. and Poult. Prod., Fac. of Agric., Assiut Univ., 71526 Assiut, Egypt

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Four hundred and fifty, 4 weeks old, sexed Japanese quail birds were wing-

banded, individually weighed and equally distributed into two groups (G1 to G2). G1

was reared on litter floor, while G2 was housed in batteries with a sex ratio of 1:2. Each

group was divided into two equal subgroups at two densities which were further

classified into 3 replicates (30 and 45 bird/replicate). All experimental birds were raised

till 20 weeks of age. The achieved results could be concluded as follow:

The BWG of females (F) raised in batteries at both densities I and II (BD1 and

BD2) exceeded (P≤0.05) those of F raised on litter floor at both densities I and II (LD1

and LD2). The mortality rate decreased in batteries than on litter flower. Also, it

decreased at the lower stocking density than that of the higher density. The feed

consumption from 4 to 8 weeks of age for M and F in LD1 and LD2 exceeded (P≤0.05)

those of BD1 and BD2. The feed conversion as g feed per g gain (FCRg) of F at both

densities (BD1 and BD2) improved (P≤0.05) than those of LD1 and LD2. The FCRg

values of M at BD2 improved (P≤0.05) than that of LD2. Feed conversion as g feed per

g egg mass (FCRe) for LD1 and LD2 were significantly (P≤0.05) better than those of

BD1 and BD2. The differences in egg weight, egg shell thickness and albumen

percentage among all groups were insignificant. Shell percentage of birds at LD1 and

LD2 exceeded (P≤0.05) those of BD1 and BD2.

The hen day production (HDP), egg number (EN) and egg mass (EM) surpassed

(P≤0.05) in LD1 those of LD1, BD1 and BD2. The birds in LD2 exceeded (P≤0.05)

those of BD1 and BD2 for HDP, EN and EM. The fertility percentage (FP) for LD2

exceeded (P≤0.05) that of LD1, BD1 and BD2. Economical efficiency (EE) of birds

raised on litter floor exceeded that of birds raised in batteries. It exceeded at LD1 those

of LD2, BD1 and BD2, while it at LD2 surpassed those of BD1 and BD2.

In general, quails raised on litter floor had higher EE than that of birds raised in

battery cages. The birds raised on litter floor were superior in FCRe, HDP, EN and EM;

in addition to improved FP. Quails raised at the densities I and II on litter floor had the

same EE. Applying the density II could be considered more economic and efficient than

density I due to saving in management costs as well as in raising housing space area.

(Keywords: battery, litter, density, performance, Japanese quail)

mailto:[email protected]



Page 694 of 710

INTRODUCTION

Battery cages were introduced in the poultry industry in the early 1920’s. Since

beginning of using batteries in raising poultry and rabbits, there is a pronounced

increase in the production on economical basis. Although the remarkable advantage of

using batteries, the light has been focused on the negative aspects. The major criticisms

include the barren environment in addition to the limited exercise, small space

allowance and the restrictive behavioral consequences (Appleby and Hughes, 1991;

Tauson, 1998; Hane et al., 2000). It is worth to mention that, since 2003, the battery

cages could be not more installed; in addition they will be banned in Europe by 2012. In

countries, where laws prohibit the use of battery cages, a number of alternative housing

systems have been used such as: floor rearing systems, furnished cages and aviaries

systems (Kuit et al., 1989; Mota-Rojas, et al., 2008).

Poultry researchers continue to look for more adequate methods to produce meat

economically. One solution has been suggested to increase the density of birds without

impairing the biological performance. The European Union is currently considering

legislation to limit the maximum stocking density of broiler chickens to 30 kg/m2

on

litter floor (Sørensen et al., 2000; Hall, 2001; Dawkins, et al., 2004).

Puron et al., (1995) and Ghrib, (2006) found that at a high stocking density

situation, the air flow at the level of the bird is often reduced, resulting in decreasing the

dissipation of body heat to the air. They added that, some factors associated with high

stocking densities which may contribute to reduce the production of poor air quality

through the inadequate air exchange, increased ammonia, and reduced access to feed

and water. The authors added that reducing the floor space adversely affected the

growth rate, feed efficiency, live ability, and carcass quality, in some cases, in broiler

production.

The current study aimed to assess and compare between raising Japanese quail

birds in batteries versus on litter floor at two densities on the productive and

reproductive performance as well as on the economical efficiency under the prevailing

environmental climatic conditions in Assiut.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present work was carried out at the Poultry Research Farm, Faculty of

Agriculture, Assiut University, Egypt. A total number of four hundred and fifty, 4

weeks old, sexed Japanese quail birds were wing banded, individually weighed and

randomly distributed into two equal groups, 225 chicks each. The birds in the first

group (G1) were reared on litter floor, while in the second (G2) they were housed in

batteries (two tiers) with a sex ratio of 1:2. Birds in each group were divided into 2

subgroups (90 and 135 birds) at two densities which were further classified into 3

replicates (30 and 45 bird/replicate). Birds of G1 were raised in pens (each of 1 square

meter/replicate), provided with a litter of chopped wheat straw of 3 cm height, while

those of G2 were housed in the same area in battery cages (100x25x30cm).



Page 695 of 710

Environmental conditions

The newly hatched chicks were exposed to a continuous lighting period (24

hrs/day) during the first 3 days, which was gradually decreased (one hr/week) to reach

16L hrs/day at 8 weeks of age and then lasted constant till the end of laying period (20

weeks of age). Light intensities were 10 and 20 Luxes during the growth and laying

periods, respectively. Nine estimates for interior temperature and relative humidity

(RH) were recorded by using a thermo hygrograph at 12, 2, 8, 10 AM; and 12, 4, 6, 8,

10 PM throughout twenty weeks experimental period (Table 1). The overall means of

temperature and relative humidity as well as temperature humidity indexes (THI) were

calculated according to the formula of Marai et al., (2002) as follow: THI=dbºC-((0.31-

0.31RH) (dbºC-14.4)), where : db°C= dry bulb temperature in Celsius and RH =

relative humidity/100. It is worth to mention that all experimental birds during

brooding, rearing and laying were raised under similar recommended environmental,

managerial and hygienic conditions. Feed and water were available all the time. The

composition and calculated analysis of the experimental diets are shown in Table 2.

Traits under study

Individual body weights (BW) were recorded at 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks

of age, while the body weight change was calculated by subtracting initial BW from

final BW during 4 to 20 weeks of age. The body weight gain was calculated from 4 to

5, 5 to 6 and 6 to 8 weeks of age. The weekly feed consumption was calculated from 4

to 5, 5 to 6 and 6 to 8 weeks of age and then periodically every four weeks from 8 to 20

weeks of age. The feed conversion values, as g feed/g gain were calculated from 4 to 5,

5 to 6 and 6 to 8 weeks of age and the feed conversion ratio values, as g feed/g egg

mass were calculated periodically every four weeks, from 8 to 20 weeks of age. Egg

weight, egg number and egg mass and egg production (Hen-day egg production, HDP)

were calculated periodically every four weeks, from 8 to 20 weeks of age. Dead birds

were recorded daily and expressed as percentage during the period from 4 to 20 weeks

of age.

Thirty sex newly-laid eggs were taken from each group every four weeks during

a laying period lasted twenty weeks to evaluate the egg quality traits (Egg weight, egg

shape index, egg yolk index, egg shell thickness, Haugh units) and egg components.

Egg shape and egg yolk indexes were determined according to Reddy et al., (1979) and

Brant and Shrader (1952), respectively. The individual Haugh unit score (Haugh, 1937)

was calculated using the egg weight and thick albumen height (Doyon et al., 1986),

using the formula: Haugh unit = 100 Log (H – 1.7X W0.37

+7.6), where, H = the

observed height of the thick albumen in millimeters and W = Weight of egg (g).

Eggs laid in both experimental groups were collected daily and stored at 15-

18°C and 70-75% relative humidity before incubation for 7 days from each group.

Three hatches were performed every four weeks at 12, 16 and 20 weeks of age. The

incubations were carried out using automatic Paterzime Setter and Hatcher under the

recommended temperature, humidity, ventilation and turning of eggs. At the fourth day

of setting, eggs were examined by candling to identify clear eggs. Clear eggs were

broken and checked to detect the embryonic development. Eggs with embryonic

development were considered fertile, while the remainder eggs were considered

infertile. The fertility percentage was calculated (Fertile eggs) x100/Total set eggs.



Page 696 of 710

The economical efficiency was based on the costs of the feed consumed and the

litter quantity used as well as the income/bird (body weight and egg production). The

net revenue per bird is estimated as the difference between the total income/bird (LE),

(growth and egg production) and the total costs of feed and litter. The costs of the

experimental rations and litter types were calculated according to the actual prices

prevailing in the Egyptian market during the experimental period.

Statistical analysis

Data were statistically analyzed using General Linear Models Procedure of SAS

1996 (version 6.12). Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to detect differences

among means (Duncan, 1955). The FP and HDP were transformed to Arcsine values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Body weight and body weight change:

The results presented in Table 3 showed insignificant differences (P≤0.05) in body weight (BW) among birds raised on litter floor and in batteries with the two tested densities at ages studied except at 6 and 20 weeks of age for Males (M) and females (F),

respectively. The BW of F raised in battery cages at density І (30 birds/m2, BD1)

significantly (P≤0.05) increased than those of F raised on litter floor at density II (45

birds/m2, LD2) and in battery at density II (45 birds/m

2, BD2) at 20 weeks of age by

about 1.5 and 1.4 %, respectively, while the F raised on litter floor at density I (30

birds/m2, LD1) had intermediate value. The BW of M raised in BD1 significantly

(P≤0.05) exceeded those of M raised at LD1, LD2 and in BD2 by 4.7, 3.7 and 2.5% at 6 weeks of age, respectively.

The body weight change (BWC) from 4 to 20 weeks of age (Table, 3) for F

raised in BD1 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded that of F raised on LD2 by 5.4%, while

the F raised on LD1 and in BD2 had intermediate values. However, there were no

significant differences in the BWC for M among all experimental groups.

The obtained results, which revealed the increase in BW of Japanese quail (JQ)

raised in batteries than that of birds raised on litter floor are in agreement with the

findings of Kolawole (1980), on commercial Hybrids pullets. Similar results were also

found by Harfoush (1997) and Zanaty et al., (2000). In contrast, the findings of Sharaf

(1996) revealed that Japanese quail (JQ) birds reared on the litter floor had significantly

heavier BW than that of birds raised in battery cages. Regarding the effect of stocking

density on BW, the results revealed that the BW of JQ birds raised in battery cages at

the lower stocking density exceeded remarkably that of birds housed at the higher

stocking density. This result is in agreement with the findings of Wilson et al., (1978)

who, reported that the lower stocking densities of JQ had larger BW than that of birds

raised at higher densities.

Mortality rate:

The results presented in Table 3, showed that, birds housed in batteries had

fewer deaths (7.6 %) than those of birds raised on litter floor. Also, the birds raised at

lower stocking density had fewer deaths by 9.0 % than those raised on the higher

density.



Page 697 of 710

These results are in agreement with the findings of Shupe and Quisenberry

(1961) and Oluyemi et al., (1977). Also, Nahashon et al., (2006) found that the

mortality rate (MR) of birds raised in cages at density of 394 cm2/bird decreased

remarkably than those in the other treatment groups with area space of 697 and 465

cm2/bird.

In contrast, Martin et al., (1976) reported lower mortalities of 2.5%, and 3.2%

for floor-housed layers versus caged birds, respectively. However, Ouart and Adams,

(1982) reported that the MR of single comb white Leghorn hens was not affected by

bird density, since the hens which were housed at density of 3 or 4 birds/cage, had the

same mortality rate, which averaged about 15.0%. The results of Grashorn and Kutritz

(1991) revealed that the stocking densities of 17, 21 and 25 broilers birds/m2

showed no

significant differences in the mortality percentage.

Body weight gain:

The obtained results (Table 4) showed insignificant differences (P≤0.05) in body

weight gain (BWG) of F and M among birds raised on litter floor and in batteries with

the two tested densities at studied ages (except from 5 to 6 weeks of age). The BWG of

BD1 and BD2 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of LD1 and LD2 by 19.4 and 23.1;

and 17.6 and 20.9% for F as well as 16.2 and 23.8; and 9.0 and 17.2% for M,

respectively. The overall means of F BWG for BD1 and BD2 significantly (P≤0.05)

exceeded those of LD1 and LD2 by 9.4 and 10.2; as well as 8.2 and 9.1%, respectively

however; there were no significant differences in the overall means of M BWG among

all experimental groups.

These achieved results revealed remarkable increase in BWG of JQ housed in

cages than that of birds raised on litter floor. These results are in agreement with the

findings of Francis and Roberts (1963) which showed, higher BWG for caged layers as

compared with the floor-housed layers. The reduction in the growth of broilers reared

on litter floor may be attributed to the increased moving or to the high microbial and

mold content of the litter, which might be consumed by birds (Ekstrand and Alger,

1997). The authors added that foot pad lesions can cause severe pain, which together

with a deteriorated state of health constitutes a welfare issue and consequently results in

slower BW and decreased BWG.

The results of densities applied in the present investigation are in agreement

with those of Mizubuti et al., (1994) who found that raising broilers on litter floor at

stocking densities of 10, 12 and 14 birds/m2

showed insignificant adverse effect on

BWG. Also, Beremski (1987) reported that raising broilers on litter floor at stocking

densities of 16, 18, 20, and 22 birds/m² birds did not affect the productive indices up to

7 weeks of age.

Feed consumption:

The results presented in Table 5 showed insignificant differences in feed

consumption (FC) of birds raised on litter floor and in battery cages, at two stocking

densities during the experimental periods, expect from 5 to 6; 6 to 8 and 8 to 12 weeks

of age in F and M, the differences were significant (P≤0.05). The FC for LD1 and LD2

significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of BD1 and BD2, from 5 to 6 weeks of age by 3.9

and 6.3%; and 4.0 and 5.5% for F; and 4.9 and 6.5%; and 3.3 and 5.0% for M,



98 of 710

respectively. The FC for LD1 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of LD2, BD1 and

BD2, from 6 to 8 weeks of age by 2.8, 4.2, and 6.3% for F and 3.7, 3.8 and 6.6% for M,

respectively. Also, the FC for LD1 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of LD2, BD1

and BD2, from 8 to 12 weeks of age by 2.5, 2.5 and 7.3% for F and 32.6, 2.6 and 4.6%

for M, respectively.

The overall means of FC (4 to 8 weeks of age) for LD1 and LD2 significantly

(P≤0.05) exceeded those of BD1 and BD2 by 4.1, 5.7; and 2.5, 4.1% for F and 4.2, 5.9;

and 1.8, 3.5% for M, respectively. The overall mean of FC (4 to 20 weeks of age) of

LD1 significantly (P≤0.05) surpassed those of LD2, BD1 and BD2 by 1.4, 2.0 and 3.8%

for F and 0.7, 1.4 and 2.9% for M, respectively. But, no significant differences existed

in the overall means of FC (8 to 20 weeks of age) for birds raised on litter floor and in

battery cages, at the two stocking densities. These results are in harmony with the

findings of Al-Homidan and Robertson (2007) who found that the higher stocking

density of Hybro broiler was associated with a significant decrease in the average FC by

8.5g/d. Leeson and Summers (1984) stated that the FC of Leghorn pullet decreased

remarkably by increasing the stoking density of raised birds on litter floor from 10 to 22

bird/ m². The authors added that a greater nutrient intake was related to a greater

maintenance requirement associated with increased bird activity. The results of

Shanawany (1988) confirmed the previous results, since they found a remarkable

decrease in the feed intake of Ross broiler as the stoking density increased from 20 to

50 bird/m2, because the physical access to feed and water is impeded. The achieved

results, revealed that the difference in FC between the tested densities were

insignificant. These findings are in agreement with those of Oluyemi et al., (1977) and

Kolawole (1980) which, revealed insignificant differences in FC between commercial

hybrid layers housed in battery cages and those raised on litter. Struwe, et al., (1992)

reported that Hybro broilers raised on litter floor consumed remarkably more than those

raised on wire floor or in cages.

Feed conversion ratio:

The results presented in Table 6, showed significant differences (P≤0.05) in the

average of feed conversion as g feed per g gain (FCRg) values for birds raised on litter

floor and in batteries with two densities during experimental periods in the F and M.

The overall means of FCRg values for F at BD1 and BD2 significantly (P≤0.05)

improved than those of LD1 and LD2 by 8.6 and 0.4; and 11.3 and 13.2%, respectively.

The corresponding overall means of FCRg values for M at BD2 significantly (P≤0.05)

improved than those of LD2 by 15.9%, while the LD1 and BD1 had intermediate

values. The achieved results indicated remarkable significant better FCRg of JQ birds

housed in cages than that of birds raised on litter floor. The impact of stocking density

on FCRg in the present investigation are in agreement with the findings of Beremski

(1987), which indicated that using four stocking densities of 16, 18, 20, and 22 bird/m²

had no effect on FCRg during the periods from 6 to 7 and 7 to 8 weeks of age. Also, Al-

Homidan and Robertson (2007) found that Hybro broilers FCR value was not

significantly affected, although it was lower for broilers raised at the higher stocking

density (15 bird/m2). However, Casteel et al., (1994) found that the FCR increased as

the stocking density increased. Also, Dozier et al., (2006) found that the FCR values

were adversely affected with increasing the stocking density of Ross broilers.



Page 699 of 710

The results presented in Table 7 showed birds raised on litter floor (LD1 and

LD2) had significantly (P≤0.05) better feed conversion values as g feed per g egg mass

(FCRe) than those of birds raised in battery (BD1 and BD2) during the experimental

periods of the study. Also, the overall means of FCRe at LD1 and LD2 were

significantly (P≤0.05) better than those of BD1 and BD2 by 11.9 and 15.7; and 7.4 and

11.0%, respectively.

Egg production:

The averages of hen day egg production (HDP), egg number (EN) and egg mass

(EM) for LD1 exceeded (P≤0.05) those of LD2, BD1 and BD2 during the experimental

periods in the study (Tables 7 and 8). Also, the averages of birds in the LD1 exceeded

(P≤0.05) those of other subgroups (LD2, BD1 and BD2) by 5.0, 9.6 and 13.2% for the

overall mean of HDP, 2.5, 3.8 and 6.5 egg/hen for cumulative of EN and 27.3, 61.8 and

82.7 g/hen for cumulative of EM, respectively. The birds in LD2 significantly (P≤0.05)

surpassed those of BD1 and BD2 by 4.9 and 8.7% for overall mean of HDP, 2.2 and 4.0

egg/hen for cumulative of EN and 34.5 and 82.7 g/hen for cumulative of EM,

respectively.

The obtained results are in agreement with the findings of Lowry et al., (1956)

who, found significant superior performance for floor housed Intra-flock genetic merit

pullets in comparison with pullets housed in individual cages in terms of egg production

of survivors, which amounted 174.2 vs 160 eggs. A controversial result was found by

Bhagwat and Craig (1975), who reported that White Leghorn hens raised in floor pens

gave 15% higher egg production than that of hens raised in cages. Logan (1965) and

Martin et al., (1976) recorded significant differences of 10 and 20 eggs respectively in

favour of floor housed birds as compared to caged birds. Other workers have also

reported higher egg production for birds raised on deep litter than in cages (Sugandi et

al., 1975). In contrast, Moore et al., (1977) found significantly higher egg production

for LSL laying hens housed in cages as compared to floor-housed birds. Also, Sharaf

(1996) found that cage JQ females laid significantly at higher rates than those of birds

raised on litter floor, as it amounted 66.4 vs. 54.9 %, respectively.

The effect of stocking density on egg production are in agreement with the

findings of Cunningham and Ostrander (1982) and Brake and Peebles, (1992), who

reported that increasing the bird density i.e. decreasing the allowed space/bird from 484

to 387 cm2/bird resulted in reduced egg production of the White Leghorn layers.

Similar, findings were obtained by Sohail et al., (2001) using Hyline hens; Anderson et

al., (2004) working on Commercial Layer Strains and Nahashon et al.,(2006) on Pearl

Gray Guinea Fowl hens. However, Anderson, et al., (1992) revealed that the stocking

densities of 221, 249, 277, and 304 cm2 per bird had no consistent effect on the egg

production in the White Leghorn hens. Similar results were found by Cary and Kuo,

(1995) which, indicated that cage population of layers at 6, 8, 12 and 24 bird/cage had

no influence on HDP, since it amounted 80.7, 81.2, 81.6 and 81.5, respectively.

Egg quality traits:

There were no significant differences (P≤0.05) in egg weight (EW), Haugh units

(HU) and egg shell thickness (EST) as well as in the overall mean among all subgroups

at all ages (Tables 9 and 10), while, there were significant differences (P≤0.05) in the

egg shape index (ESI) and egg yolk index (EYI) values at all experimental periods

3rd

Mediterranean Poultry Summit and 6th International Poultry Conference, 26 - 29 March 2012, Alexandria - Egypt

Page 700 of 710

under study, except at 16 and 20 weeks of age for EYI and ESI, respectively, the

differences were significant (P≤0.05).

The overall means of ESI for LD2 and BD1 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded

those of LD1 and BD2 by 2.0 and 3.0; and 2.6 and 2.8%, respectively. The overall

mean of EYI for the birds of LD1 and LD2 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of

BD1 and BD2 by 3.7 and 3.7; and 1.9 and 1.9%, respectively.

Oluyemi et al., (1977) did not report any significant differences in EW of caged

and floor-housed Leghorn hens. Also, Mostert et al., (1995) found no significant

differences bin EW between raising laying hens in batteries and on litter floor. Van Den

Brand et al., (2004) reported that shell thickness was not affected by housing system.

Nagarajan et al., (1991) reported that EW, albumen index, internal quality unit and EST

values were not influenced by stocking density.

Egg components:

No significant differences (P≤0.05) were observed in albumen percentage (AP)

and yolk percentage (YP) among all groups at all ages studied (Table 11), except at 20

weeks of age, where the differences were significant (P≤0.05). There were no

significant differences (P≤0.05) in the overall means of AP. At 20 weeks of age, the AP

of LD1, LD2 and BD2 was significantly (P≤0.05) higher than that of BD1 by 3.6, 2.8

and 4.2%, respectively, while, the YP of the same subgroups (LD1, LD2 and BD2) was

significantly (P≤0.05) less than those of BD1 by 7.2, 6.9 and 6.6%. The overall mean of

YP for BD1 significantly (P≤0.01) exceeded those of LD1, LD2 and BD2 by 3.5, 4.0

and 2.4%, respectively. As reported in Table 11, the shell percentage (SP) of LD1 was

significantly (P≤0.05) higher than those of LD2, BD1 and BD2, at 12 and 16 weeks of

age, while the SP of LD2 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded that of other subgroups at 20

weeks of age. The overall mean of SP for LD1 and LD2 significantly (P≤0.01)

surpassed those of BD1 and BD2 by 6.5.0 and 6.5%; and 5.5 and 5.5%, respectively.

Moore et al., (1977) and Mostert et al., (1995) found insignificant differences in

albumen height of birds housed in battery cages as compared to floor-housed laying

hens. Abdel-Rahman (2000) found insignificant differences in albumen, yolk, and shell

percentages due to housing system (raised in batteries vs. on litter floor), whereas the

shell thickness decreased significantly in EN produced by caged Sharkasi chickens

hens.

Fertility percentage:

Fertility percentages (FP) of LD1 and LD2 significantly (P≤0.05) improved than

those of BD1 and BD2, at 12 weeks of age by 11.1 and 5.6; and 12.8 and 7.3%,

respectively (Table 11). The FP of LD2 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of the

other subgroups (LD1, BD1 and BD2) by 4.1, 5.6 and 9.1% at 16 weeks of age as well

as 5.4, 12.4 and 10.7% at 20 weeks of age, respectively. The overall mean of FP for

LD2 significantly (P≤0.05) exceeded those of LD1, BD1 and BD2 by 3.7, 10.4 and

9.1%, respectively. However, the overall mean of FP for LD1 was significantly

(P≤0.05) higher than those of BDI and BD2 by 6.9 and 5.6 %, respectively, while the

differences between BD1 and BD2 were insignificant.

Bhagwat and Craig (1975) and North (1978), reported that the FP of White

Leghorn hens raised in floor pens amounted 86.0 versus 47 % for birds housed in cages.

3rd


Page 701 of 710

In contrast, Sharaf (1996) found that the cage reared quails had significantly higher FP

than raised housed birds on floor. The author added that birds having the adequate floor

space had significantly higher FP.

Economical evaluation:

The results presented in Table 12, showed that, the economical efficiency (EE)

of birds raised on litter floor (LD1 and LD2) exceeded those of birds raised in battery

(BD1 and BD2). EE of LD1 exceeded those of LD2, BD1 and BD2 by 5, 24 and 23%,

respectively, while EE of LD2 exceeded those of BD1 and BD2 by 20 and 19%,

respectively. These results are in harmony with the findings of Proudfoot and Hulan

(1985), who found that the economical efficiency was increased as the stocking density,

decreased.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Taking in consideration the achieved results in the present study, some

important conclusions could be summarized as follow: Quails raised on litter floor had

higher EE than that of birds raised in battery cages. This could be attributed to the

superiority of birds raised on litter floor in FCRe, HDP, EN and EM; in addition to

improved FP. Quails raised at the densities I and II on litter floor had the same EE.

Applying using the density II could be considered more efficient than density I. This

could be attributed to the appreciable saving in management costs of the birds, as well

as in housing space area, which increases the total number of saved birds.

REFERENCES

ABDEL-RAHMAN, A. (2000) Effect of naked neck gene (Na) and housing system on egg production

performance of Sharkasi chickens under subtropical conditions. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal,

20: 905-926.

AL-HOMIDAN, A. and ROBERTSON, J. F. (2007) The effect of stocking density and litter type on

ammonia, dust, carbon dioxide concentrations and broiler performance. Egyptian Poultry Science

Journal 27:37-51.

ANDERSON, K.E., DAVIS, G.S., JENKINS, P.K. and CARROLL, A.S. (2004) Effects of bird age,

density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Science

83: 15–23.

ANDERSON, K.E., ADAMS, A.W. and CARROLL, A. S. (1992) Effects of rearing density and feeder

and waterier spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers. Poultry Science 71: 53-58.

APPLEBY, M.C. and HUGHES, B.O. (1991) Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems:

environmental, physical and behavioral aspects. World’s Poultry Science 47: 109-128.

BEREMSKI, C.H. (1987) Rearing broilers at different stocking densities and lengths of fattening. Basic

productive characteristics. Zhivotnov dni Nauki, 24:20-25.

BHAGWAT, A.L. and CRAIG, J.V. (1975) Reproductive performance of 3 strains of chicken in colony

cage and floor pen environment. Poultry Science 54: 691 – 692.

BRAKE, J.D. and PEEBLES, E.D. (1992) Laying hen performance as affected by diet and caging

density. Poultry Science 71:945-950.

3rd


Page 702 of 710

BRANT, A.W. and SHRADER, H.L. (1952) How to measure internal egg quality? Bureau of Animal

Industry, Agriculture Researches Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Circular P. A.

202.

CARY, J.B. and KUO, F.L. (1995) Effect of cage population on the productive performance of layers.

Poultry Science 74:633–637.

CASTEEL, E.T., WILSON, J.L. and BUHR, R.J. (1994) The influence of extended post hatch holding

time and placement density on broiler performance. Poultry Science 73:1679–1684.

CASTEEL, E.T., WILSON, J.L. and BUHR, R.J. (1994) The influence of extended post-hatch holding

time and placement density on broiler performance. Poultry Science 73:1679–1684.

CUNNINGHAM, D.L. and OSTRANDER, C.E. (1982) The effects of strain and cage shape and

density on performance and fearfulness of White Leghorn layers. Poultry Science 61:239–243.

DAWKINS, M.S., DONNELLY, C.A. and JONES, T.A. (2004) Chicken welfare is influenced more by

housing conditions than by stocking density. Nature 427:342–344.

DOYON, G., BERNIER, C.M., HAMILTON, R.M.G., EAGTAIGNS, F. and RAMDALD, C.T.

(1986) Egg quality. 2. Albumen quality of egg from five commercial strains of White Leghorn

hens during one year of lay. Poultry Science 65: 63 – 66.

DOZIER, W.A., THAXTON, J.P., PURSWELL, J.L., OLANREWAJU, H.A., BRANTON, S.L. and

ROUSH, W.B. (2006) Stocking density effects on male broilers grown to 1.8 kilograms of body

weight. Poultry Science 85:344–351.

DUNCAN, D.B. (1955) Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1-42.

EKSTRAND, C. and ALGER, B. (1997) The effect of litter moisture on the development of foot pad

dermatitis in broilers. 11

th International Conference of the World Veterinary Poultry Association, Budapest P. 370.

FRANCIS, D.W. and ROBERTS, R.H. (1963) Body characteristics of White Leghorn pullets housed in

cages and floor pens. Poultry Science 42:58-61.

GHRIB, H.B.A. (2006) Response of commercial layers to housing at different cage densities and heat

stress conditions 2. Productive performance and egg quality. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal 26:

1169-1197.

GRASHORN, M. and KUTRITZ, L. (1991) Effect of housing density on the performance of modern

broiler strains. Archiv-fur Geflugelkunde, 55:84-90.

HALL, A.L. (2001) The effect of stocking density on the welfare and behavior of broiler chickens reared

commercially. Animal Welfare 10:23–40.

HANE, M., HUBER-EICHER, B. and FROHLICH, E. (2000) Survey of laying hen husbandry in

Switzerland. World’s Poultry Science 56: 21-31.

HARFOUSH, M.K. (1997) A study on the effects of some genetic and environmental factors on egg

production of chicken. Master Science Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Minufiya University, Egypt.

HAUGH, R.R. (1937) The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. U.S. Egg. Poultry Mag. 43: 522-555

and 572-573.

KOLAWOLE, A.F. (1980) Effect of cage and floor systems on the performance of two strains of

commercial hybrids. B.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ife, Nigeria.

KUIT, A.R., EHLHARDT, D.A., and BLOKUIS, H.J. (1989) Alternative improved housing systems

for poultry. Commission of the European Communities, Beekbergen (NLD), 163.

LEESON, S. and SUMMERS, J.D. (1984) Effects of cage density and diet energy concentration on the

performance of growing Leghorn pullets subjected to early induced maturity. Poultry Science

63:875–882.

3rd


Page 703 of 710

LOGAN, V.A. (1965) Influence of cage versus floor density and doubling on laying house performance.

Poultry Science 44: 974 – 979.

LOWRY, D.C., LERNER, I.M. and TAYLOR, L.W. (1956) Intra-flock genetic merit under floor and

cage management. Poultry Science 35: 1034 – 1403.

MARAI, I.F.M., HABEEB, A.A.M. and GAD, A.E. (2002) Rabbits productive, reproductive and

physiological performance traits as affected by heat stress: a review. Livestock Production Science

78: 71– 90.

MARTIN, G.A., WEST, J.R. and MORGAN, G.W. (1976) Layer performance in cage versus non cage

housing. Poultry Science 55: 2060 – 2061.

MIZUBUTI, I.Y., FONSECA, N.A.N., PINHEIRO, J.W. and PINHEIRO, J.W. (1994) Performance

of two commercial broiler lines kept at different housing densities on different types of litter.

Revista da sociedade brasileira de Zootecnia, 23:476-484.

MOORE, D.J., BRADLEY, J.W. and FERGUSON, T.M. (1977) Radius breaking strength and egg

characteristics of laying hens as affected by dietary supplements and housing. Poultry Science 56:

180 – 192.

MOSTERT B.E., BOWES, E.H. and WALT, J.C.V. (1995) Influence of different housing systems on

the performance of hens of four laying strains. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Veekunde, 25: 80–86.

MOTA-ROJAS, D., MALDONADO, M.J., BECERRIL, M.H., FLORES, S.C.P.; GONZÁLEZ-

LOZANO, M., ALONSO-SPILSBURY, M., CAMACHO-MORFÍN, D., RAMÍREZ, R.N.;

CARDONA, A.L. and MORFÍN-LOYDEN, L. (2008) Welfare at slaughter of broiler chickens:

A review. International journal of Poultry Science 7:1-5.

NAGARAJAN, S., NARAHARI, D., JAYAPRASAD, I.A., THYAGARAJAN, A. and

OXFORDSHIRE, D. (1991) Influence of stocking density and layer age on production traits and

egg quality in Japanese quail. British Poultry Science 32:243-248.

NAHASHON, N.A., ADEFOPE, A. and WRIGHT, D. (2006) Laying performance of pearl gray

guinea fowl hens as affected by caging density. Poultry Science 85:1682–1689.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (1994) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev.ed. National

Academy Press, Washington,D.C.

NORTH, M.O. (1978) Commercial chicken production manual. Second Ed. Avi Publishing Co., Inc.,

West port,Ct.

OLUYEMI, J. A., FETUGA, B. L. and PHILLIPS, I.O. (1977) The comparison of the deep litter

system of three structural patterns with cage management system for layers under tropical

conditions. East Africa Agriculture and Forestry Journal 42: 342 – 349.

OUART, M.D. and ADAMS, A.W. (1982) Effects of cage design and bird space on layers. 1.

Productivity, feathering and nervousness. Poultry Science 61:1606–1613.

PROUDFOOT, F.G. and HULAN, H.W. (1985) Effect of stocking density on incidence of scabby hip

syndrome among broiler chickens. Poultry Science 64:2001-2003.

PURON, D., SANTAMARIA, R., SEGAURA, J.C. and ALAMILLA, J.L. (1995) Broiler

performance at different stocking densities. Journal Applied Poultry Researches 4:55–60.

REDDY, P.M. REDDY, V.R. REDDY, C.V. and RAP, P.S.P. (1979) Egg weight, shape index and

hatchability in Khaki Campbell duck egg. Indian Journal Poultry Science 14:26–31.

SAS Institute (1996) SAS®

Users Guide, Version 6.12. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

SHANAWANY, M.M. (1988) Broiler performance under high stocking densities. British Poultry

Science 29:29-43.

SHARAF, M.M. (1996) Cage versus floor rearing of Japanese quails as affected by sex, age and bird

density. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal 16: 725 – 738.

3rd


Page 704 of 710

SHUPE, W.D. and QUISENBERRY, J. H. (1961) Effect of certain rearing and laying house

environment on performance of in-cross egg production type pullets. Poultry Science 40: 1165 –

1171.

SOHAIL, S.S., BRYANT, M.M., RAO, S.K. and ROLAND, D.A. (2001) Influence of cage space and

prior dietary phosphorus level on phosphorus requirement of commercial Leghorns. Poultry

Science 80:769–775.

SORENSEN, G.; SU, P. and KESTIN, S.C. (2000) Effects of age and stocking density on leg weakness

in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 79:864-870.

STRUWE, F.J., GLEAVES, E.W., DOUGLAS, J.H. and BOND, P.L. (1992) Effect of rearing floor

type and ten-day beak trimming on stress and performance of caged layers. Poultry Science 71:70-

75.

SUGANDI, D., BIRD, H.R. and ATMEDILAGA, D. (1975) The effect of different energy and protein

levels on the performance of laying hens in floor pens and cages in the tropics. Poultry Science 54:

117 – 1114.

TAUSON, R. (1998) Health and production in improved cage designs. Poultry Science 77:1820–1827.

VAN DEN BRAND, H., PARMENTIER, H.K. and KEMP, B. (2004) Selection for antibody response

against sheep red blood cells and layer age affect egg quality. British Poultry Science 45:787–

792.

WILSON, H.R., DOUGLAS, C.R., NESBETH, W.G. and MILLER, E.R. (1978) Floor space for

Brooding Bob White Quail. Poultry Science 57: 1499 – 1502.

ZANATY, G.A., RADYI, A.S., ABOU-ASHOUR, A.M. and ABDOU, F.H. (2000) Productive

performance of Norfa chickens as affected by dietary protein level, brooding system and season.

Egyptian Poultry Science Journal 20: 237-254.

3rd


Page 705 of 710

Table 1. Overall means of temperature (T), relative humidity values (H) and the temperature

humidity index (THI) in the building of Japanese quail during the experimental period.

Season

Month

Interval

/ weeks

T (C°)

H (%) THI

(units)

B L B L B L

Autumn Dec 4 -8 23.3 23.8 51.0 51.4 21.9 22.4

winter

Jun

Feb

Mar

8-12

12-16

16-20

21.0

18.9

18.9

21.4

19.1

19.0

51.9

52.3

52.8

51.8

52.6

52.5

20.0

18.2

18.2

20.3

18.4

18.3

Mean 20.5 20.8 52.0 52.1 19.6 19.9 B= Battery L=Litter floor

Table 2. Composition and calculated analysis of experimental diets for Japanese quail.

Ingredients Starter (%) Layer (%)

Yellow corn

Soybean meal (44%)

Concentrate

Salt

Dicalcium phosphate

Limestone

Total

53.0

34.6

12.0*

0.25

0.15

---

100

52.3

31.7

10.0**

0.50

1.50

4.00

100

Calculated Analysis***

Protein (%)

ME (KCal/ Kg diet)

Calcium (%)

Available phosphorus (%)

26.0

2850

0.90

0.45

23.6

2775

2.75

0.75

* Broiler concentrate contained: Crude protein, 52%; Crude fiber, 1.6%; Ether extract, 6.1%; Calcium, 7%; Available

phosphorus, 3.5%; Methionine, 1.5%; Methionine and Cystine, 2.1%; Lysine,3%; Metabolizable energy, and 2416 kcal/ kg diet.

Broiler concentrate supplied the following per kilogram of the diet: Vit. A, 130,000 IU; D3, 26,000 IU; Vit. E, 120 IU; Vit B12, 150

µg; Vit. K3, 16 mg; Vit B2, 50 mg; B3, 120 mg; Nicotinic acid, 250 mg; Thiamine B1, 25 mg; Folic acid, 15 mg; Pyridoxine

B6, 15 mg; Biotin -Chlorine- HCl, 5000 mg; Manganese, 700 mg; Zinc, 600 mg; Iron, 400 mg; Copper, 40 mg; Iodine, 7 mg; Co, 2

mg; Selenium, 1.5 mg; B.H.T., 1250 mg; Zinc baciteracin, 150 mg.

* * The layer concentrate contained: Crude protein, 51%; Lysine, 3.3%; Crude fiber, 2.0%; Calcium, 8.0%; Crude fat, 6.4 %;

Available phosphorus, 3.0%; Methionine,1.67 %; Salt, 3.19%; Methionine + Cystine, 2.25%; and Metabolizable energy, 2400 kcal/ diet. Layer concentrate supplied the following per kilogram of the diet: Vit. A,10000 IU; Folic acid,10 mg; Vit. E; 100 mg; Biotin,

500 mg; Vit. D3, 2500 IU; Chorine chloride, 5000 mg; Vit. K, 25 mg; Iron,400 mg; Vit. B1, 100 mg; Zinc, 560 mg; Vit. B2, 40 mg; Copper, 5 mg; Vit. B6, 15 mg; Iodine, 3 mg; Vit. B12, 200 mg; Selenium, 1mg; Pantothenic acid, 100 mg; Manganese, 620 mg; Niacin, 400 mg; and Antioxidant, 75 mg.

*** Calculated according to NRC (1994).

3rd


Page 706 of 710

Table 3. Means ±SE of body weight* (g), body weight change (BWC) and mortality rate (MR) for

females and males Japanese quail raised in batteries and on litter floor at two densities.

Age

(in wks)

Females*

Males8

LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2 LD 1 LD 2 BD 1 BD 2

4

5

6

8

12

16

20

132.6

±1.1

154.7

±1.0

170.1

±1.0

188.6

±1.3

208.9

±1.0

214.9

±1.0

ab

219.8 ±1.1

132.3

±0.9

155.2

±1.0

169.9

±0.8

187.5

±1.1

206.8

±0.8

212.7

±0.8

b

217.6 ±0.7

130.6

±1.2

154.3

±1.2

173.4

±1.1

191.1

±1.1

207.9

±0.9

214.7

±0.9

a

220.8 ±0.8

130.0

±1.0

153.3

±0.8

172.0

±0.8

190.0

±1.0

208.5

±0.9

212.9

±0.7

b

217.8 ±0.8

128.2

±1.4

146.3

±1.6

b

163.3 ±1.0

180.5

±1.4

193.9

±2.1

198.3

±1.6

205.2

±1.3

127.8

±1.1

149.5

±1.9

b

165.0 ±1.1

179.0

±1.8

193.0

±1.3

197.9

±1.1

205.7

±1.0

128.6

±1.7

151.0

±1.2

a

171.3 ±1.6

184.3

±2.0

198.3

±1.3

202.6

±1.0

208.3

±1.2

127.7

±1.3

148.3

±1.9

167.0 b

±1.2

182.8

±1.9

196.7

±1.1

199.7

±1.1

205.1

±1.1

BWC (g)

(4 – 20 wks) 87.2ab

±1.4 85.3b

±1.2 90.2a

±1.5 87.8ab

±1.3

77.0

±2.3

77.9

±1.5

79.7

±2.2

77.14

±2.0

MR (%)

(4 – 20 wks)

8.5

10.9

7.6

8.6

4.4

5.0

0.0

5.0

a and b Means within each row for each division (F and M) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).

LD1= Litter floor at Density I (30 birds/m2) LD2= Litter floor at Density II (45 birds/m2)

BD1= Battery at Density I (30 birds/m2) BD2= Battery at Density II (45 birds/m2)

Table 4. Means ±SE of body weight gain (g/bird/day) for females and males Japanese quail raised

in batteries and on litter floor at two densities during the growth period.

Age

(in wks)

Females

Males

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

4 - 5

5 - 6

6 - 8

3.16

±0.44

b 2.20 ±0.20

1.32

±0.58

3.27

±0.60

b 2.10 ±0.20

1.26

±0.3

3.39

±1.23

a 2.73 ±0.66

1.26

±0.50

3.33

±0.58

a 2.67 ±0.21

1.29

±0.42

2.59

±0.82

b 2.43 ±0.38

1.23

±0.61

3.10

±1.0

b 2.21 ±0.52

1.00

±0.33

3.20

±0.62

a 2.90 ±0.40

0.93

± 0.22

2.94

±0.38

2.67 a

±0.41

1.13

±0.32

Overall

mean 2.23

b

±0.44 2.21

b

±0.47 2.46

a

±0.61 2.43

a

±0.52 2.08

±0.61 2.10

±0.82 2.34

±0.81 2.25

±0.82




3rd


Page 707 of 710

Table 5. Means ±SE of feed consumption (g/bird/day) for females and males Japanese quail raised

in batteries and on litter floor at two densities during the experimental period.

Age

(in wks)

Females

Males

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

4 - 5

5 - 6

6 - 8

9.6 ±0.2

12.8 a ± 0.1

14.4 a ±0.1

9.5 ±0.2

12.7 a ±0.1

14.0 b ±0.1

9.4 ±0.1

12.3 b ±0.2

13.8 b ±0.1

9.2 ±0.1

12.0 c ±0.1

13.5 c ±0.1

9.3 ±0.2

12.3 a ±0.2

13.7 a ±0.1

9.2 ±0.2

12.1a ±0.1

13.2 b±0.1

9.1 ±0.1

11.7 b ±0.3

13.1 b ±0.1

8.9 ±0.1

11.5 c ±0.1

12.8 c ±0.1

Overall

mean (4-8)

a

12.3 ± 0.2

a 12.1 ±0.1

b

11.8 ±0.2

c 11.6 ±0.1

a

11.8 ±0.1

a 11.5 ±0.1

b

11.3 ±0.1

11.1 c ±0.1

8 - 12

12 - 16

16 - 20

16.1 a ±0.1

17.1 ±0.1

18.7 ±0.3

15.7 b ±0.1

17.0 ±0.1

18.6 ±0.3

15.7 b ± 0.2

17.0 ±0.1

18.8 ±0.2

15.2 c ±0.2

17.0 ±0.1

18.7 ±0.2

15.3 a±0.1

15.8 ± 0.2

17.0 ±0.2

14.9 b ±0.1

15.9 ± 0.1

17.2 ±0.3

14.9 b ±0.1

15.9 ± 0.1

17.4 ±0.2

14.4 c ±0.1

15.9 ± 0.1

17.3 ±0.2

Overall

mean (8-20)

17.3 ±0.1

17.1 ±0.1

17.2 ±0.1

17.0 ±0.1

16.0± 0.2

16.0 ± 0.1

16.1 ± 0.1

15.9 ± 0.1

Overall

mean (4-20)

14.8 a ±0.1

14.6 b ±0.1

14.5 b ±0.1

14.3 c ±0.1

13.9 a ±0.1

13.8 b ±0.1

13.7 b ±0.1

13.5c ±0.1

a, b and c Means within each row for each division (F and M) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).

LD1= Litter floor at Density I (30 birds/m2) LD2= Litter floor at Density II (45 birds/m2) BD1= Battery at Density I (30 birds/m2) BD2= Battery at Density II (45 birds/m2)

Table 6. Means ±SE of feed conversion (g feed/g gain) for females and males Japanese quail raised

in batteries and on litter floor at two densities during growth period.

Age

(in wks)

Females Males

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

4 - 5

5 - 6

6 - 8

a 3.04 ±0.12

a 5.82 ±0.29

ab 10.90

±0.28

ab 2.90 ±0.04

a 6.05 ±0.28

a 11.14 ±0.21

ab 2.78 ±0.10

b 4.51 ±0.04

ab 10.92

±0.30

b 2.76 ±0.11

b 4.49 ±0.10

b 10.50 ±0.31

a 3.60 ±0.12

a 5.06 ±0.21

b 11.15 ±0.22

b 2.97 ±0.04

a 5.46 ±0.22

a 13.20

±0.23

b 2.84 ±0.07

b 4.03 ±0.10

a 14.11 ±0.15

3.02 b

±0.04

4.31 b

±0.07

11.34 b

±0.10

Overall

mean 6.59

a

±0.31 6.70

a

±0.25 6.07

b

±0.30 5.92

b

±0.41 6.60

ab

±0.80 7.21

a

±0.55 7.00

ab

±0.30 6.22

b

±0.60



3rd


Page 708 of 710

Table 7. Means ±SE of hen day egg production (HDP), egg weight (EW) and feed conversion

(FCRe) for Japanese quail raised in batteries and on litter floor at two densities during

laying period.

Age

(in wks)

HDP (%) EW (g) FCRe (g feed/g egg mass)

LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2 LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2 LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2

8 - 12

12 - 16

16 - 20

a 41.4 ±4.0

a 63.6 ±1.4

a 69.6 ±0.2

b 38.7 ±3.9

b 60.7 ±0.6

b 66.4 ±0.8

bc 37.5 ±2.9

bc 57.1 ±1.1

c 63.2 ±0. 4

c 35.7 ±2.7

c 53.9 ±1.1

c 61.9 ±0.4

10.4

±0.1

10.9

±0.1

11.2

±0.1

10.5

±0.1

10.8

±0.1

11.2

±0.1

10.2

±0.1

10.7

±0.1

10.9

±0.4

10.1

±0.1

10.6

±0.1

10.9

± 0.1

b 3.74 ±0.02

b 2.47 ±0.04

b 2.40 ±0.03

b 3.86 ±0.03

b 2.59 ±0.04

b 2.50 ±0.06

a 4.10 ±0.02

a 2.78 ±0.06

a 2.73 ±0.10

4.22 a

±0.02

2.98 a

±0.04

2.77 a

±0.01

Overall

mean 58.2

a

±0.9 55.3

b

±1.3 52.6

c

±1.5 50.5

c

±1.4 10.8

±0.9 10.8

±0.7 10.6

±1.4 10.5

±1.1 2.87

b

±0.02 2.99

b

±0.11 3.21

a

±0.10 3.32

a

±0.01

a, b and c Means within each row for each division (HDP, EW and FCRe) with no common superscripts are significantly different

(P≤0.05).



Table 8. Means ±SE of egg number (EN) and egg mass (EM) for Japanese quail raised in batteries

and on litter floor as affected by stocking density during the laying period.

Periods/age

EN (egg/hen/28 days) EM (egg/hen/28 days)

LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2 LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2

P1 (8 -12 w)

P2 (12 -16 w)

P3 (16- 20 w)

a 11.6 ±0.2

a 17.8 ±0.1

a 19.5 ±0.1

b 10.8 ±0.4

b 17.0 ±0.1

b 18.6 ±0.2

bc 10.5 ±0.3

bc 16.0 ±0.6

c 17.7 ±0.5

c 10.0 ±0.3

c 15.1 ±0.3

c 17.3 ±0.4

a 120.6 ±2.6

a 194.1 ±2.7

a 218.3 ±3.8

b 113.8 ±4.2

b 183.6 ±4.8

b 208.2 ±3.3

bc 107.1

±3.1 c

171.1 ±3.7

c 192.9 ±2.4

101.0c

±3.8

160.1c

±5.6

189.2c

±4.0

Cumulative a

48.9 ±0.2

b 46.4 ± 1.8

c 44.2 ±2.5

d 42.4 ±1.4

a 532.9 ±3.8

b 505.6 ±5.5

c 471.1 ±5.3

450.2d

±5.4 a, b, c and d Means within each row for each division (EN and EM) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).



3rd


Page 709 of 710

Table 9. Means ±SE of egg weight (EW), egg shape index (ESI) and egg yolk index (EYI) for

Japanese quail raised in batteries and on litter floor at two densities.

Age

(in wks)

EW (g) ESI (%) EYI (%)

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

12th

16th

20th

10.9

±0.1

11.1

±0.2

11.1

±0.1

10.9

±0.1

11.1

±0.2

11.1

±0.11

11.0

±0.1

10.9

±0.1

11.2

±0.1

11.0

±0.1

11.1

±0.1

11.1

±0.2

b 72.6 ±0.7

b

73.4 ±0.8

77.9

±0.8

a 74.6 ±0.8

a

76.4 ±0.7

77.6

±1.5

a 76.5 ±0.9

a

75.5 ±0.6

77.9

±1.1

b 73.2 ±0.9

b

72.5 ±0.8

75.7

±1.5

a 60.1 ±0.6

59.3

±0.64

a 61.6 ±0.8

a 59.4 ± 0.5

60.6

± 0.9

b 57.5 ± 0.9

b 57.2 ±0.6

59.6

±1.0

b 57.6 ±1.3

56.1 b

±0.8

60.2

± 0.7

58.3 ab

± 1.3

Overall

mean 11.0

±0.1 11.0

±0.1 11.0

±0.1 11.1

±0.1 74.7 b

±0.8 76.21 a

±0.74 76.7 a

±0.60 73.9b

±0.74 60.3a

±0.7 59.2 a

±0.6 58.1 b

±0.60 58.1 b

±0.7

a and b Means within each row for each division (EW, ESI and EYI) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).


Table 10. Means ±SE of Haugh units (HU) and egg shell thickness (EST) for Japanese quail raised

in batteries and on litter floor at two densities.

Age

(in wks)

HU EST (x 0.01 mm)

LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2 LD 1 LD2 BD 1 BD2

12th

16th

20th

90.5

±1.6 b

91.9 ±0.2

91.2

±0.7

90.2

± 1.3

93.7

± 0.7

92.7

± 1.2

90.5

±1.6 b

91.9 ±0.2

91.2

±0.7

90.2

± 1.3

93.7

± 0.7

92.7

± 1.2

90.5

±1.6 b

91.9 ±0.2

91.2

±0.7

90.2

± 1.3

93.7

± 0.7

92.7

± 1.2

90.5

±1.6 b

91.9 ±0.2

91.2

±0.7

90.2

± 1.3

93.7

± 0.7

92.7

± 1.2

Overall

mean

91.2

±0.5

92.4

±0.5

91.2

±0.5

92.4

±0.5

91.2

±0.5

92.4

±0.5

91.2

±0.5

92.4

±0.5 a and b Means within each row for each division (HU and EST) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).





Page 710 of 710

Age

(in wks)

Albumen (%)

Yolk (%)

Shell (%)

Fertility (%)

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

12th

16th

20th

56.1

±0.4

53.6

±0.6

a

±0.5

56.3

±0.9

54.9

±0.1

a

±0.6

55.4

±0.6

54.3

±0.4

b

±0.8

55.4

±0.5

54.8

±0.4

a

±0.6

35.0

±0.7

36.7

±0.5

b

±0.3

35.0

±0.98

36.1

± 0.9

b

± 1.0

35.9

±0.6

37.1

±0.5

a

±0.7

36.1

±0.5

36.5

±0.3

b

± 0.6

a

±0.1

a

±0.2

b

±0.1

b

±0.1

b

±0.1

a

±0.2

b

±0.1

b

±0.2

c

±0.2

b

±0.1

b

±0.1

c

±0.2

a

0.9

b

0.7

b

0.7

a

0.7

a

0.1

a

0.7

c

0.9

b

0.9

d

0.3

b

0.3

c

0.7

c

0.7

Overall

mean

54.9

±0.4

55.2

±0.5

54.2

±0.4

55.1

±0.3

35.9b

±0.4

35.7b

±0.5

37.2 a

±0.4

36.3b

±0.3

9.2a

±0.2

9.1a

±0.1

8.6b

±0.1

8.6b

±0.1

88.3b

1.2

91.7 a

0.8

82.2 c

1.8

83.4 c

1.2

Table 11. Means ±SE of egg components percentages and fertility (%) for Japanese quail raised in

batteries and on litter floor at two densities.

8.9 8.7 8.7 8.5 90.0 91.7 80.0 85.0

9.7 9.0 8.6 8.7 86.7 90.0 85.0 81.8

54.9 54.4 52.9 55.2 36.0 36.1 38.6 36.2 9.1 9.5 8.5 8.6 88.3 93.3 81.7 83.3

a, b , c and d Means within each row for each division (Albumen, yolk shell and fertility percentages) with no common superscripts are significantly different (P≤0.05).

LD1= Litter floor at Density I ( 30 birds/m2) LD2= Litter floor at Density II (45 birds/m2) BD1= Battery at Density I (30 birds/m2) BD2= Battery at Density II (45 birds/m2).

Table 12. Economical efficiency of Japanese quail raised in batteries and on litter floor at

30 or 45 bird/m2 densities during the experimental period.

Items

LD 1

LD2

BD 1

BD2

FC during growth period (Kg/hen)

FC during laying period (Kg/hen)

Feed costs during growth period (LE.)

Feed costs during laying period (LE.)

Total feed costs (LE.)

Litter or battery costs (LE.)

0.344

1.453

0.634

2.44

3.075

0.013

0.339

1.436

0.623

2.41

3.037

0.010

0.330

1.445

0.608

2.43

3.035

0.440

0.325

1.428

0.598

2.40

2.997

0.300

Total costs/hen (LE.) 3.088 3.047 3.475 3.297

BWC from 8 to 20 weeks of age (kg)

Body weight change price (LE.)

Egg number (egg)

Selling price for fertile eggs (L.E.)

Manure or litter selling price (L.E.)

0.087

1.395

48.9

12.225

0.028

0.085

1.365

46.4

11.6

0.028

0.090

1.443

44.2

11.05

0.024

0.088

1.405

42.4

10.6

0.024

Total revenue (L.E.) 13.648 12.993 12.517 12.029

Net revenue

Economical efficiency

10.560

3.420

9.946

3.265

9.042

2.602

8.732

2.649

Relative economical efficiency (%) 100 95 76 77

Cost of 1 kg of live body weight = 16.00 L.E. Price of 1 fertile egg = 0.25 L.E. Price of 1 kg litter = 0.04 L.E.

Price of 1 kg manure = 0.05 L.E. Price of 1 kg of growing ration = 1.84 L.E.

Price of 1 kg of laying ration = 1.68 L.E. EE/bird=Net revenue per unit of total costs

L.E = Egyptian pound.


BD1= Battery at Density I (30 birds/m2) BD2= Battery at Density II (45 birds/m2).

Productive and Reproductive Performance of Japanese Quail ...The hen day production (HDP), egg...

Documents

Transcript of Productive and Reproductive Performance of Japanese Quail ...The hen day production (HDP), egg...