Animal welfare evaluation in Bovans White laying hens on floor housing

Villanueva-Sánchez, Octavio; Carrillo-Domínguez, Silvia; Chavira-Ramírez, Roberto; Martínez-Marcial, Mónica; Miranda-de-la-Lama, Genaro; Ávila- González, Ernesto; Villanueva-Sánchez, Octavio; Carrillo-Domínguez, Silvia; Chavira-Ramírez, Roberto; Martínez-Marcial, Mónica; Miranda-de-la-Lama, Genaro; Ávila- González, Ernesto

doi:10.21929/abavet2020.5

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Cited by SciELO
Access statistics

Abanico veterinario

On-line version ISSN 2448-6132Print version ISSN 2007-428X

Abanico vet vol.10 Tepic Jan./Dec. 2020 Epub June 30, 2020

https://doi.org/10.21929/abavet2020.5

Original article

Animal welfare evaluation in Bovans White laying hens on floor housing

Octavio Villanueva-Sánchez¹
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-0109

Silvia Carrillo-Domínguez¹
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9342-1952

Roberto Chavira-Ramírez¹
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-8346

Mónica Martínez-Marcial²
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3808-6412

Genaro Miranda-de-la-Lama³
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6848-1010

Ernesto Ávila- González⁴
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-1321

^¹Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), México.

^²Instituto de Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

^³Universidad Metropolitana de México (UAM), Lerma.

^⁴Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, UNAM.

ABSTRACT

Laying hen welfare has been studied increasingly, some works concluded that the cage housing system provides poor welfare for laying hens. These have a great interest in Mexico because it is the world's leading egg consumer (22.8 kg per capita by year) and the fourth leading producer. The aim of this work was to evaluate laying hen welfare. Fifty 22-weeks-old Bovans White laying hens were housed in the floor, assigning 1200 cm² per hen. Behavior, health, production parameters, and egg physical quality were evaluated at 22, 30 and 62 weeks. There was a difference (P<0.05) throughout the study in frequency and time of the following behaviors: dust bath, lie down, exploring and foraging. On the other hand, egg physical quality was according to the national regulations. At the end of the study, hens had good physical health and a wide behavior repertory.

Keywords: welfare; behavior; health; egg; housing system

RESUMEN

El interés por el bienestar de las gallinas ponedoras ha ido en aumento y algunos estudios consideran que el sistema de alojamiento en jaulas proporciona un bienestar deficiente en las gallinas. Este tipo de estudios son de gran interés en México debido a que es el principal consumidor mundial de huevos (22.8 Kg per cápita anual) y cuarto productor a nivel internacional. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de la investigación fue realizar un estudio sobre el bienestar de gallinas ponedoras en piso. Para este propósito, 50 gallinas Bovans White fueron alojadas en piso, con espacio de 1,200 cm² por ave. Fueron evaluadas a las 22, 30 y 62 semanas de edad su comportamiento, estado de salud, las variables de producción y la calidad física del huevo. Durante el estudio se observaron de manera general diferencias (P<0.05) en tiempo y frecuencia de las siguientes conductas: baño de tierra, echarse, explorar y forrajear. Por otra parte, la calidad física del huevo cumplió las normativas al respecto. Al final del estudio las gallinas mostraron un buen estado de salud y un amplio repertorio de conductas.

Palabras clave: bienestar; conducta; salud; huevo y sistema de alojamiento

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, interest in the welfare of hens has been increasing. The public and activist groups than by scientific evidence have influenced much of current European legislation on the welfare of laying hens more. These groups proposed that the European Union abolish the cage housing system by the enriched cage system (750 cm² of surface per bird); where the hens also have perches and nesting material (^{Bulmer y Gil, 2008}). In this regard, in the United States of America it is expected that by the year 2025 more than 90 % of the production of egg for plate will be carried out in cage-free systems (^{Regmi et
al., 2018}). However, conventional cages are still the main housing system for laying hens in the world, although this system has been for limiting the hens' ability criticized. to express certain behaviors (^{Khumput et al., 2018}). On the other hand, poultry farmers believe that the productivity of hens housed on the floor has a higher productive performance (^{Itza- Otiz et al., 2016}). In this regard, ^{Camphell et al., 2017}, reported that hens housed on the floor have a higher expression of behavior.

In Mexico, the world's first consumer per capita and fourth largest producer of egg for dishes (^{UNA, 2019}), the main housing production system is conventional cages, but due to social and cultural situations, other systems also coexist, making it particularly interest to carry out studies in this regard.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the variables of egg production, behavior, health status and physical quality; as indicators to determine animal welfare in Bovans White laying hens housed on the floor.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Experiment location

The study was carried out at the Experimental Center for Poultry Research and Extension (CEIEPAv), of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, located in Mexico City, at an altitude of 2,250 meters above the level of the sea, and with an annual average temperature of 18 ºC (^{FMVZ, 2019}). A batch of 50, 22- week-old Bovans White laying hens were housed on the floor; one hen for each 1,200 cm², and as an additional accessory in its housing nest boxes were placed; they had no hangers. They were provided with a diet that covered recommendations for laying hens of the National Research Council,1994. During the 40 weeks of the study, they were provided with food and water ad libitum, and they had a photoperiod program of 16: 8 hours (light: dark). The temperature and humidity of the house remained at 20 ± 3 ºC and 65 to 70 % relative humidity, respectively. The hens were evaluated at 22, 30 and 62 weeks of age. The Ethics Committee (number DC-2017/1-5) of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) approved this study protocol.

Sample size

The equation described by ^{Dell et al.,
2002}, was used to compare groups of continuous variables: n = 1 + 2C (s/d)2. Here C is a constant that depends on the value of selected α and β, where α = 0.05 and 1- β = 0.9; where s is the standard deviation of the variable to study, and d is the magnitude of the difference, which depend on the response variable; in our research, they were the behaviors to be evaluated. To determine the sample size with significant results, the number of subjects at the end of the study must be considered. For this purpose, the following calculation was performed: n (1/1-R), where: n represents the number of subjects without losses and R is the proportion of expected losses (^{García et al.,
2013}).

Productive variables

The averages of the productive data of the flock of the following variables were obtained: feed per bird/day, conversion rate, percentage of laying or egg production, mortality, percentage of dirty egg and percentage of broken egg.

Behavior

Video cameras (Samsung HMX-F800 and Cannon VIXIA HF R70) were placed in front of the hens to accustom them to their presence and record their behavior (^{Martin y Bateson, 1993}). A final focal observation range of 400 seconds per hen was selected between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. as the designated time interval (^{Mishra et al., 2005}). An ethogram was to assign the percentage, frequency and total time of observed behaviors developed, using the CowLog computer program (Haninnen y Pastell, 2009) with the Ubuntu Linux 8.04 operating system to create databases for the behaviors to be observed.

Health condition

To know the health status of the hens, their feathers, legs and combs were evaluated with a modified rating system (^{Welfare Quality, 2009}).

Physical quality of the egg

Weighing of all the eggs obtained from a single day, at 22, 30 and 62 weeks of age of the hens (Ohaus Navigator Digital Scale Model N1D110, (capacity 4,100 g and precision of 0.1 g) was performed; the length and Egg width (digital Vernier), shell thickness, diameter and yolk height. Albumin height (Haugh units) and yolk color were measured (Eggware VI.06, Technical Services and Supplies Inc).

Statistical analysis

The physical quality of the egg was analyzed with the Student's t-test and the behavioral data with the Wilcoxon test (IBM. SPSS Versión 21, 2012). The P value <0.05 indicated the statistical significance. On the other hand, the accumulated percentage was used to assess the state of health and the averages (tabulated data) of the productive variables of the flock were obtained.

RESULTS

Production variables

The following productive variables (table 1) in the flock were evaluated to detect any deficiency or sanitary problem during the study period. A greater increase in the conversion rate, feed consumption, and percentage of dirty egg was observed at week 62.

Table 1 Production variables of Bovans White laying hens housed on the floor

Productive variable	22 weeks	30 weeks	62 weeks
Accumulated Mortality %	0	0	4
Egg production %	90	100	90
Conversion rate	1.92	1.86	2.03
Food consumption g/bird/day	98	110	122
Dirty egg (%)	5.55	6	8
Cracked egg (%)	0	0	0

Hens’ behavior

The most relevant differences between the behaviors were in the first instance in Frequency (Table 2). Differences (P <0.05) were observed in the behaviors as Lie, Explore, Forage and Ground bath; the week with the most differences is 62 versus 22 and 30. On the other hand, Ground bath, lie down and stand is greater in week 62, with fewer frequencies in grooming, exploring and foraging behaviors. Likewise, in Time, in the Grooming behavior, differences were observed (P <0.05), between week 30 versus 62. In addition, in the behaviors Feeding, ground bath, Lying, Exploring, Foraging, Standing and pecking the housing, the week that the most differences presented are 62 versus 22 and 30. Feeding and pecking the housing was greater in week 30. Ground bath, lying down and standing occupied a longer time in week 62, with less time in the grooming, exploring and Forage.

With respect to the correlations evaluated, only in the behavior Feeding was a positive correlation (0.91) of interest was observed between week 30 and 62.

Table 2 Frequency (%) and Time (%) of the behaviors expressed in Bovans White laying hens housed on the floor

Behavior	22 weeks	30 weeks	weeks	22-30	22-62	30-62
	Frequency
Grooming	3.17	3.42	2.38
Flap	1.29	1.00	1.25
Feed	2.00	1.53	1.69
Ground bath	1.00	1.33	7.43		*
To drink	2.00	1.55	1.71
Search for food	2.96	1.00	1.33
Walk	4.78	5.16	3.80
Aggressive behavior	1.00	0.12	1.00
Lay down	1.91	1.42	4.45		*	*
Stretch	1.22	1.50	1.00
To explore	4.03	4.35	2.17		*	*
Forage	2.26	4.74	1.50	*		*
Stop	1.31	1.13	1.69
Pecking the housing	1.00	3.00
Soft feather pecking	1.67	2.33
Scratch	1.83	2.00	1.00
Fly	2.38	3.60	1.25
	Time
Grooming	106.56	137.93	69.44			*
Flap	7.75	6.75	4.75
Feed	234.97	408.07	364.62	*	*
Ground bath	13.13	20.25	70.80		*
To drink	35.17	28.67	63.17
Search for food	29.79	26.00	18.14
Walk	51.54	58.13	36.76
Aggressive behavior		2.50	6.50
To lean	119.96	215.93	241.69	*	*
Stretch	10.33	3.33	6.00
To explore	69.25	44.57	25.50	*	*
Forage	29.93	60.68	20.83	*		*
Stop	7.07	3.47	9.21			*
Pecking the accommodation	21.75	108.00		*
Soft feather pecking	12.43	13.00
Scratch	5.67	4.00	3.50
Fly	18.83	14.80	6.00

Observation time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 400 seconds of observation per hen. * Paired comparisons, differ significantly from each other (P <0.05).

Health condition. In the housing system, the rating of 1 was maintained for both indicators in legs and feathers. On the other hand, in week 62 the comb indicator was with a rating of 2 in 100 % of the hens observed (Table 3).

Table 3 Health status (percentage accumulated) in Bovans White laying hens housed on the floor.

Health condition	22 weeks	30 weeks	62 weeks
Feather (1)	100	100	100
Feather (2)	0	0	0
Feather (3)	0	0	0
Legs (1)	100	100	100
Legs (2)	0	0	0
comb (1)	100	100	0
comb (2)	0	0	100

Physical quality of the egg. The differences between comparisons of the weeks (Table 4) show that only in Shell weight and Yolk height there are no differences between weeks. Week 22 was the one in which the most differences were found with the other weeks, having lower average values in Egg weight, Yolk color and Yolk diameter; this same week it has the highest values in the other variables.

Table 4 Physical quality of egg in Bovans White laying hens housed on the floor

Variables	22 weeks		30 weeks		62 weeks		22-30	22-62	30-62
Egg weight g	51.25 ±	3.08	59.43 ±	6.00	60.19 ±	3.72	*	*
Albumin Height cm	8.63 ±	0.91	7.49 ±	1.16	6.88 ±	1.23	*	*	*
Haugh Units	94.90 ±	5.20	86.27 ±	7.38	81.72 ±	9.39	*	*	*
Yolk Color DMS	8.34 ±	0.94	10.64 ±	0.90	10.08 ±	0.92	*	*	*
Shell weight g	5.85 ±	0.53	5.90 ±	0.58	8.03 ±	8.69
Shell thickness mm	0.39 ±	0.02	0.37 ±	0.03	0.36 ±	0.04	*	*
Yolk diameter cm	3.39 ±	0.15	3.93 ±	0.16	4.01 ±	0.11	*	*	*
Yolk height cm	1.64 ±	0.15	1.60 ±	0.06	1.64 ±	0.08
Yolk Index	0.48 ±	0.04	0.40 ±	0.06	0.41 ±	0.03	*	*
Egg lenght cm	6.05 ±	0.18	5.63 ±	0.22	5.72 ±	0.20	*	*	*
Egg width cm	4.78 ±	0.14	4.34 ±	0.13	4.41 ±	0.12	*	*	*
Shape Index %	79.10±	2.76	77.12 ±	1.98	77.17±	3.22	*	*

*Paired comparisons differ significantly from each other (P <0.05). n = 50. All data are presented by mean ± SD.

DISCUSSION

Productive variables. The results generally complied with the provisions of the Bovans White line product guide by parent company ^{Hendrix Isa, 2019}; however, at week 62 feed consumption, conversion rate, and percentage of dirty eggs increased, which coincides with that reported by other authors (^{Ahammed
et al., 2014}; ^{Golden y Anderson, 2012}; ^{Holt
et al., 2011}). It is important to highlight the concept of food safety, since the percentage of dirty eggs is a much-punished characteristic for the commercialization of eggs, added to the possible alteration in food safety (^{FAO,
2007}).

Hens’ behavior. Defining, prioritizing, and measuring the needs for behavioral expression are crucial in a study with hens. Animals have behavioral needs that are evident for individual maintenance, such as feeding and drinking behaviors (^{Downing, 2012}). During the present work, a large repertoire of behaviors was observed, where they highlighted Searching for Food, which is suggested to be a redirected behavior of Foraging, such as Pecking feather described by ^{Johannson
et al., 2015}; both behaviors and foraging decreased in time towards the end of the study. On the other hand, at the end of the study, the frequency and duration of the ground bath behavior increased significantly in hens; this behavior is very important to keep the hen's plumage in good condition (^{Campbell et
al., 2017}).

In relation to the behavior Lying down, this increased remarkably until week 30, which is in accordance with what was reported (^{Singh et al., 2009}), since in this week the hens required more food and rest, due to their high egg production rate. Furthermore, it was observed that the behaviors apparently linked at the time, such as Walking and Exploring, declined during the study from week 30. In this regard, the hens probably walk a short distance to reach another space inside the accommodation they change sides to another to escape other hens, or they have a longer walk for comfort as described by ^{Mishra et al., 2005}. In the present study, the hens did not have perches in the facilities; however, the motivation to fly did exist.

Health condition. The hens remained in very good physical condition until the end of the study, with a relative deterioration in the comb, and which is in accordance with what was reported by other authors (^{Weitzenbuger et al., 2006}). On the other hand, the good health condition of the legs in the chickens was evident, which is confirmed by what has been described by some authors in relation to the low levels of hyperkeratosis in chickens that do not have access to perches (^{Navarra y Pinson, 2010}).

Physical quality of the egg. The Haugh units that are indicators of the freshness of the egg varied during the study; however, they were found within the established parameters (NMX-FF-127-SCFI-2016), which also agrees with what was described by ^{Farhad y Fariba, 2011} for hens on the floor. On the other hand, the color of the yolk was different between the weeks, which was undoubtedly influenced by the variation of the inclusion levels of pigment, carotenoids or xanthophylls in the diet. In general, the differences observed in the other variables are in accordance with that reported by ^{Roberts et
al., 2013}, which attributes this to the age of the hen. In addition to the discussion, undoubtedly one of the most important factors in the production of egg for plate are the changes in population density, which can affect the patterns of various behaviors in the hen (^{Botreau et al., 2007}).

The population density described in this work was similar to that reported for the barn or shed system (^{AVMA, 2012}), with nest boxes and no hangers.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the animal welfare of hens on the floor showed a good physical quality of the egg, an expression of a wide repertoire of behaviors and a good state of health. However, it must be considered that at the end of the study, feed consumption, conversion rate and percentage of dirty eggs increased. The results found provide a benchmark for animal welfare in the Bovans White hen housed on the floor

Acknowledgment

We appreciate the valuable help of the CEIEPAv staff of UNAM, and we also want to thank the invaluable support to the staff of the Departments of Animal Nutrition and Biology of Reproduction of INCMNSZ. Special thanks to Dr. Antonio Villa Romero for your collaboration in this work.

REFERENCES

AHAMMED M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, Keohavong B, Lee MH, Lee SJ, Kim DM, Lee JY, Ohh SJ. 2014. Comparison of Aviary, Barn and Conventional Cage Raising of Chickens on Laying Performance and Egg Quality. Asian-Australasian Journal Animal Science. 27 (8):1196-1203. ISSN: 1011-2367. http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13394 [ Links ]

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2012. Literature review: welfare implications of laying hen housing. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-of- Laying. [ Links ]

BOTREAU R, Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bracke MBM, Keeling LJ. 2007. Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 16: 225-228. ISSN 0962-7286. http://dx.doi.org/10.107/S11751731107000547 [ Links ]

BULMER E, Gil Diego. 2008. Chronic Stress in Battery Hens: Measuring Corticosterone in Laying Hen Eggs. International Journal of Poultry Science. 9:880-883. ISSN: 1682-8356. http://dx.doi.org/3923/ijps.2008.880.883 [ Links ]

CAMPBELL DLM, Ali AB, Karcher DM, Siegford JM. 2017. Laying hens in aviaries with different litter substrates: Behavior across the ﬂock cycle and feather lipid content. Poultry Science. 96:3824-3835. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex204 [ Links ]

DELL Ralph B, Holleran Steve, Ramakrishan Rajasekhar. 2002. Sample size determination. ILAR J. 43(4):207-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.207 [ Links ]

DOWNING Jeff. 2012. Non-invasive assessment of stress in commercial housing systems. A report for the Australian Egg Corporation Limited. AECL Publication No US108A. ISBN 19208-35539. https://www.australianeggs.org.au/dmsdocument/529-non-nvasive-assessment-of-stress-in. [ Links ]

Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia (FMVZ). 2019. Localización del CEIEPAv. http://www.fmvz.unam.mx/fmvz/centros/ceiepav/localizacion.html. [ Links ]

FARHAD A, Fariba R. 2011. Factors affecting quality and quantity of egg production in laying hens. A review. World Applied Sciences Journal. 12(3): 372-384. ISSN 1818-4952. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/acdd/b04e5e130dd7e454443cdf4e45054de91108.pdf. [ Links ]

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2007. Código de prácticas de higiene para los huevos y productos de huevo (CAC/RCP 15-1976). Adoptado en 1976, enmendado en 1978 y 1985. http://www.fao.org/3/i1111s/i1111s01.pdf. [ Links ]

GARCÍA-García José Antonio, Reding-Bernal Arturo, López Alvarenga Juan Carlos. 2013. Cálculo del tamaño de la muestra en investigación en educación. Inv Ed Med. 2(8):217-224.ISSN: 2007-5057. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2007-50572013000400007&script=sci_abstra. [ Links ]

GOLDEN JB, Arbona DV, Anderson KE. 2012. A comparative examination of rearing parameters and layer production performance for brown egg-type pullets grown for either free-range or cage production. Journal Applied Poultry Research. 21:95-102.ISSN:1056-6171. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2011-00370 [ Links ]

HANNINEN Laura and Pastell Matti. 2009. Cow Log: Open-source software for coding behaviors from digital video. Behavior Research Methodology. 41:472-476. ISSN: 1554-3528. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.412.472 [ Links ]

HENDRIX ISA. Bovans White Product Guide. 2019. http://Users/64300/Downloads/Bovans_White_cs_product_guide_North_America_L8110-2-NA.pdf. [ Links ]

HOLT PS, Davies RH, Dewulf J, Gast RK, Huwe JK, Jones DR, Waltam D, Willian KR. 2011. Emerging Issues: Social Sustainability of Egg Production Symposium. The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality1. Poultry Science. 90:251-262. ISSN: 0032-5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01266 [ Links ]

IBM. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0. IBM © Copyright IBM Corporation 1989, 2012. ISBN 9788448137502. ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/21.0/es/client/M. [ Links ]

ITZA-ORTIZ MFI, Peraza-Mercado GI, Castillo-Castillo YI, Rodríguez-Alarcón CAI, Vital- García CI, Jaramillo-López EI, Carrera-Chávez JMI. 2016. Productive Performance of White Leghorn Hens Based on the Type of Housing During Rearing: Floor Versus Cage. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 18(3):543-548. ISSN 1516-635X. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0139 [ Links ]

JOHANNSON SG, Raginski C, Schwean-Lardner K, Classen HL. 2015. Providing laying hens in group-housed enriched cages with access to barley silage reduces aggressive and feather-pecking behavior. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 96(2): 161- 171. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2015-0133 [ Links ]

KHUMPUT S, Muangchum S, Yodprom S, Panyasak A, Thiengtham J. 2019. Feather pecking of laying hens in different stocking density and type of cage. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science. 9(2):549-556. http://ijas.iaurasht.ac.ir/article_667753.html. [ Links ]

MARTIN P, Bateson P. 1993. Measuring behavior: an introducing guide. Cambridge University Press. Great Britain. Pp.35-47. ISBN: 323681. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a58a/997ae3b0513c763b316f8046ab89f0a2b830.pdf. [ Links ]

MISHRA PP, Koene W, Schouten B, Spruijt P, van Beek P, Metz JHM. 2005. Environment, well-being, and behavior temporal as sequential structure of behavior and facility usage of laying hens in an enriched environment. Poultry Science. 84:979-991. ISSN: 0032-5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.7979 [ Links ]

National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Ninth revised edition. ISBN: 9780309048927. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/2114 [ Links ]

NAVARRA JR, Pinson SE. 2010. Yolk and albumen corticosterone concentrations in eggs laid by white versus brown caged laying hens. Poultry Science. 89:1509-1513. ISSN: 0032-5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00416 [ Links ]

NMX-FF-127-SCFI-2016. 2016. Productos avícolas. Huevo fresco de gallina. Especificaciones y Métodos de Prueba. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 24 de noviembre del 2016. http://sitios1.dif.gob.mx/alimentacion/docs/NMX-FF-127-SCFI-2016Huevofresco.pdf. [ Links ]

REGMI P, Robinson CI, Jones DR, Gast RK, Templeman RJ, Karcher DM. 2018. Effects of different litter substrates and induced molt on production performance and welfare quality parameters of white Leghorn hens housed in multi-tiered aviary system. Poultry Science. 97:3397-3404. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey211 [ Links ]

ROBERTS JR, Chousalkar K, Samiullah Y. 2013. Egg quality and age of laying hens: implications for product safety. Animal Production Science. 53:1291-1297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN12345 [ Links ]

SINGH R, Cheng KM, Silversides FG. 2009. Production and behavior of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science. 88(2):256-64. ISSN: 0032-5791. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237 [ Links ]

Union Nacional de Avicultores (UNA). 2019. Compendio de indicadores económicos del sector avícola 2019. Dirección de estudios económicos. 25 edición. https://www.una.org.mx/compendio-de-indicadores-economicos-2018/ [ Links ]

WEITZENBUGER D, Vita A, Hamann H, Hewicker-Trautwein M, Distl O. 2006. Macroscopic and histopathological alterations of foot pads of laying hens kept in small group housing systems and furnished cages. British Poultry Science . 47(5):533-543. ISSN: 0007-1668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071660600963099 [ Links ]

Welfare Quality. 2009. Assessment Protocol for Poultry. The Netherlands. ISBN: 9789078240068. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263444443_Welfare_QualityR_Assessment_Protocol_15. [ Links ]

Received: November 13, 2019; Accepted: April 13, 2020

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons