Evaluation of laying hen breeding conditions on the farm and egg quality in the cage and cage-free systems in the period after the peak of laying


  • Ján Petrovič Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Institute of Animal Husbandry, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-0087
  • Martin Mellen Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Institute of Animal Husbandry, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia




laying hen, breeding system, quality, welfare, egg


The study aimed to examine laying hens in the cage and cage-free breeding systems, the quality of table eggs and energy consumption in the hall after the peak of laying. In the research, the following were investigated and statistically evaluated welfare of laying hens Bovans Brown was monitored in three different rearing systems based on resources and animals. The research was designed into the post-peak laying period, at the age of laying hens from 34 to 47 weeks and a rearing system of enriched cages on deep litter and in aviaries. Statistical analyses of the measured data of the established indicators were performed with the SAS program package, version 8.2, for statistical characteristics, significance, and correlation relations. The proportion of laying hens dying was lower in aviaries compared to cages and on deep litter (p ≤0.05); in cages and on deep litter was comparable (p ˃0.05). The weight of laying hens was comparable (p ˃0.05). Feed consumption per hen, day, and egg was highest on deep litter (p ≤0.05). The proportion of eggs with a cracked shell and contaminated with dropping was highest on litter (p ≤0.05). Energy consumption in the hall expressed per layer and day was comparable in all three breeding systems (p ≤0.05). Among some selected indicators of laying hen welfare, egg quality and energy consumption in the hall during breeding and correlation relations (p ≤0.05) were statistically significant within individual breeding systems. The question of laying hen welfare and improving cage-free systems because of the adopted legislation banning breeding in a cage system requires further research to adopt best practices regarding resource-based, management- and animal-based parameters. Based on the results about welfare conditions, including energy consumption in halls and egg quality, it is an open question for comprehensive, interdisciplinary research.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Retrieved from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/74/2019-12-14.

CIWF (Compassion in World Farming). (2016). Higher welfare systems for laying hens – practical options, Food. Retrieved from https://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/resources/laying-hens/higher-welfare-systems-for-layin g-hens/.Business.

CIWF (Compassion in World Farming). (2017). Compassion Supports UK Retailer Cage-Free Move. Retrieved from https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/.

Nicol, C. J., Bouwsema, J., Caplen, G., Davies, A. C., Hockenhull, J., Lambton, S. L., Lines, J. A., Mullan, S. & Weeks, C. A. (2017). Farmed Bird Welfare Science – Review. In Agriculture Victoria (pp. 321). Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.

Puybasset, A. (2018). La filière oeuf face à un double défi. In Reussir Aviculture (pp. 1). Réussir. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2PZx2mU.

FarmingUK (2017). Report assesses progress on retailers cage free 2025 promise. In FarmingUK (pp. 1). Agrios Ltd. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2KDA2PH.

Brinker, T., Bijma, P., Vereijken, A., & Ellen, E. D. (2018). The genetic architecture of socially-affected traits: a GWAS for direct and indirect genetic effects on survival time in laying hens showing cannibalism. In Genetics Selection Evolution (Vol. 50, Issue 1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0409-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0409-7

Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 of 23 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs.

Appleby, M. C., Mench, J. A., Olsson, I. A. S., & Hughes, B. O. (Eds.). (2011). In Animal welfare. CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936594.0000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936594.0000

Nicol, C. J., & Davies, A. C. (2013). Poultry welfare in developing countries. In Poultry development: rewiev (pp. 110–113). FAO. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i3531e/i3531e.pdf.

Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals, Wave 2. (2007). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en. pdf.

England A., & Ruhnke I. (2020). The influence of light of different wavelengths on laying hen production and egg quality. In World’s Poultry Science Journal (Vol. 73, Issue 6. pp. 443–458). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00439339.2020.1789023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1789023

Bain, M. M., Nys, Y., & Dunn, I. C. (2016). Increasing persistency in lay and stabilising egg quality in longer laying cycles. What are the challenges?. In British Poultry Science (Vol. 57, Issue 3, pp. 330–338). https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2016.1161727 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2016.1161727

Nys, Y., Jondreville, C., Chemaly, M., & Roudaut, B. (2018). Qualités des oeufs de consommation. In Alimentation des animaux et qualité de leurs produits, chap. 9 Tec & Doc Lavoisie. pp. 315–338). Retrieved from https://hal-anses.archives-ouvertes.fr/anses-01755719

ITAVI (Institut Technique de l'Aviculture). (2019). Situation du marché des œufs et ovopro-duits – édition novembre 2019.

Welfare Quality Network. (2019). Welfare Quality assessment protocol for laying hens, version 2.0. Retrieved from www.welfarequalitynetwork.net.

Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 39/2007 Coll. of December 12, 2006, on veterinary care, as amended.

Cohen, J. (1988). In Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2 ed. Academic Press. 590 p.

Bracke, M. B., & Hopster, H. (2006). Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. In Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 77–89). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7

Hemsworth, P. H., Mellor, D. J., Cronin, G. M., & Tilbrook, A. J. (2015). Scientific assessment of animal welfare. In New Zealand Veterinary Journal (Vol. 63, Issue 1, pp. 24–30). https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.966167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2014.966167

Mellor, D. J., & Beausoleil, N. J. (2015). Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. In Animal Welffare (Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 241–253). https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.24.3.241

Schuck-Paim, C., Negro-Calduch, E., & Alonso, W. J. (2021). Laying hen mortality in different indoor housing systems: a meta-analysis of data from commercial farms in 16 countries. In Scientific Reports (Vol. 11, pp. 3052). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81868-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81868-3

Gautron, J., Réhault-Godbert, S., Van De Braak, T. G. H., & Dunn, I. C. (2021). What are the challenges facing the table egg industry in the next decades and what can be done to address them? In Animals (Vol. 15, Issue 1 pp. 100282). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100282

Mellor, D. J., & Webster, J. R. (2014). Development of animal welfare understanding drives change in minimum welfare standards. In Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) (Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 121–130). https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2258 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2258

Weeks, C. A., Lambton, S. L., & Williams, A. G. (2016). Implications for welfare, productivity and sustainability of the variation in reported levels of mortality for laying hen flocks kept in different housing systems: a meta-analysis of ten studies. In PLoS One (Vol. 11, pp. e0146394). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146394

Fulton, R. M. (2019). Health of commercial egg laying chickens in different housing systems. In Avian Diseases (Vol. 63, pp. 420–426). https://doi.org/10.1637/11942-080618-Reg.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/11942-080618-Reg.1

Rodenburg, T. B., Tuyttens, F. A. M., De Reu, K., Herman, L., Zoons, J., & Sonck, B. (2008). Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. In Animal Welfare (Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 355–361). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600027858 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600027858

Freire, R., & Cowling, A. (2013). The welfare of laying hens in conventional cages and alternative systems: first steps towards a quantitative comparison. In Animal Welfare (Vol. 22, pp. 57–65). https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1.057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.1.057

Gentle, M. J. (2011). Pain issues in poultry. In Applied Animal Behaviour Science (Vol. 135, pp. 252–258). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.10.023

Sherwin, C. M., Richards, G. J., & Nicol, C. J. (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. In British Poultry Science (Vol. 51, Issue 4, pp. 488–499). https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518

Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D’Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. M. (2016). Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. In Poultry Science (Vol. 95, Issue 3, pp. 715–725). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev334

Leenstra, F., Maurer, V., Galea, F., Bestman, M., Amsler-Kepalaite, Z., Visscher, J., Vermeij, I., & Van Krimpen, M. (2014). Laying hen performance in different production systems; why do they differ and how to close the gap? Results of discussions with groups of farmers in The Netherlands, Switzerland and France, benchmarking and model calculations. In European Poultry Science (Vol. 78, pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2014.53 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2014.53

Saldaña, B., Gewehr, C. E., Guzmán, P., García, J., & Mateos, G. G. (2016). Influence of feed form and energy concentration of the rearing phase diets on productivity, digestive tract development and body measurements of brown-egg laying hens fed diets varying in energy concentration from 17 to 46wk of age. In Animal Feed Science And Technology (Vol. 221, Part A, pp. 87–100). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.08.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.08.025

Riek, A., Petow, S., Speakman, J. R., & Schrader, L. (2021). Daily energy expenditure and water turnover in two breeds of laying hens kept in floor housing. In Animal (Vol. 15, Issue 1, pp. 100047). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2020.100047

National Research Council (1994). In Nutrient requirements of poultry, 19th revised ed. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/2114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/2114

Singh, R., Cheng, K. M., Silversides, F. G. (2009). Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens1. In Poultry Science (Vol. 88, Issue 2, pp. 256–264). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237

Yilmaz Dikmen, B., İpek, A., Şahan, Ü., Petek, M., & Sözcü, A. (2016). Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). In Poultry Science (Vol. 95, Issue 7, pp. 1564-1572). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew082

Hidalgo, A., Rossi, M., Clerici, F., & Ratti, S. (2008). A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. In Food Chemistry (Vol. 106, Issue 3, pp. 1031–1038). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.07.019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.07.019

Tactacan, G. B., Guenter, W., Lewis, N. J., Rodriguez-Lecompte, J. C., & House, J. D. (2009). Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. In Poultry Science (Vol. 88, Issue 4, pp. 698-707). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369

Onbaşilar, E. E., Ünal, N., Erdem, E., Kocakaya, A., & Yaranoğlu, B. (2015). Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. In Poultry Science (Vol. 94, Issue 4, pp. 559–564). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev009

De Reu, Rodenburg, T. B., Grijspeerdt, K., Messens, W., Heyndrickx, M., Tuyttens, F. A. M., Sonck, B., Zoons, J., & Herman, L. (2009). Bacteriological contamination, dirt, and cracks of eggshells in furnished cages and noncage systems for laying hens: An international on-farm comparison. In Poultry Science (Vol. 88, pp. 2442–2448). https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00097

Leyendecker, M.,Hamann, H., Hartung, J., KamphueS, J., Ring, C., GlundeR, G., & Distl, O. (2001). Analysis of genotype-environment interactions between layer lines and housing systems for performance traits, egg quality and bone breaking strength - 1st communication: Performance traits. In Zuchtungskunde (Vol. 73, Issue 4, pp. 290–307). Ulmer ; UTB eLibrary.

Sosnówka-Czajka, E., Herbut, E., & Skomorucha, I. (2010). Effect of different housing systems on productivity and welfare of laying hens. In Annals of Animal Science (Vol., 10, Issue 4, pp. 349–360. https://psjc.icm.edu.pl

Protais, J., Quesguiner, S., Boscher, E., Piquet, J. C.,Nagard, B., & Salvat, G. (2003). Effect of housing system on the bacterial flora of egg shells. In Brithisch Poultry Science (Vol. 44, pp. 788–790). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001666790 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001666790

De Reu, K.,Grijspeerdt, K., Heyndrickx, M., Zoons, J., De Baere, M., Uyttendaele, J., Debevere, J., & Herman, L. (2005). Bacterial eggshell contamination in conventional cages, furnished cages and aviary housing systems. In Britisch Poultry Science (Vol. 46, pp. 149–155). https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500065359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500065359

Eurostat. (2019). Agri-Environmental Indicator – Livestock Patterns. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php.

Eurostat. (2021). Agricultural Production – Livestock and Meat. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php.

Dekker, S. E. M., de Boer, I. J. M., Vermeij, I., Aarnink, A. J. A & Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G. (2011). Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems. In Livestock Science (Vol. 139, Issues 1 – 2, pp. 109–121). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.011

Paris, B.,Vandorou, F., Tyris, D., Balafoutis, A. T., Vaiopoulos, K., Kyriakarakos, G., Manolakos, D., & Papadakis, G. (2022). Energy Use in the EU Livestock Sector: A Review Recommending Energy Efficiency Measures and Renewable Energy Sources Adoption. In Applied Sciences (Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 2142). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042142 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042142

Leenstra, F. R., Maurer, V., Estman, M. B., Van Sambeek, F., Zeltner, E., Euvekamp, B. R., Galea, F., & Van Niekerk, T. (2012). Performance of commercial laying hen genotypes on free range and organic farms in Switzerland, France and The Netherlands. In British Poultry Science (Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp. 282–290). https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.703774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.703774

Zhang, L. C., Ning, Z. H., Xu, G. Y., Hou, Z. C., & Yang, A. N. (2005). Heritabilities and genetic and phenotypic correlations of egg quality traits in brown-egg dwarf layers. In Poultry Science (Vol. 84, Issue 8, pp. 1209–1213). https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.8.1209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.8.1209




How to Cite

Petrovič, J., & Mellen, M. (2023). Evaluation of laying hen breeding conditions on the farm and egg quality in the cage and cage-free systems in the period after the peak of laying. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 17, 256–274. https://doi.org/10.5219/1859

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>