Overweigth
Overweigth
Overweigth
doi: 10.12681/jhvms.30324
Ekinci, O., Esenbuga, N., & Dagdemir, V. (2023). The effects of body weight and age on performance, egg quality, blood
parameters, and economic production of laying hens. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 74(2),
5799–5806. https://doi.org/10.12681/jhvms.30324 (Original work published July 6, 2023)
2
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ataturk, Erzurum, Turkey
3
Department of Agricultural Economics Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ataturk, Erzurum, Turkey
ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to investigate the effects of body weight (BW) on performance, egg quality,
blood parameters, and economic production of Lohmann white laying hens. At the beginning of the experiment, hens
were weighed and groups were classified into the experimental groups, as follow: light (<1500 g), medium (1500-1750
g), and heavy (>1750g) as to the standard deviation of the mean. A total of 288 Lohmann white laying hens, 44 wks of
age, were allocated randomly to three groups, each formed 24 replicate cages as subgroups, comprising of four hens.
The study was conducted over a period of 36 wks. Feed and water were offered ad libitum in the experiment. Perfor-
mance parameters were significantly affected by body weight except for cracked egg. Considering the egg production,
differences among the groups were significant (P<0.001). Egg production in the light group was higher than that of
the medium and the heavy group. However, egg weight was determined to be lower in the light group (66.58 g) than
in medium (67.54 g) and heavy hens (68.84 g). Hens in light body weight had lower feed intake and feed conversion
ratio (FCR) than hens in heavy body weight. There were no alterations in egg quality parameters in response to in-
creased body weight except for shell strength (SS) and yolk color. SS decreased linearly (P<0.001) and yolk color (YC)
increased with BW. Other egg quality parameters did not change as BW increased. There was no change in the met-
abolic profile in response to increased BW except for glucose. Heavy hens had greater serum glucose concentrations
than light and medium hens. This study emphasized that body weight affected the laying performance, and some egg
quality parameters, but had no significant effect on metabolic profile except for glucose. As a result, it was found that
there was a positive relationship between the egg weight and the body weight of the hens. In this case, it is possible
to produce more eggs with less feed by increasing the number of light and medium-weight chickens in the flock for
profitable livestock.
Keywords: Laying hen; body weight; performance; egg quality; blood parameters; economic production
Corresponding Author:
Nurinisa Esenbuga, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Date of initial submission: 07-05-2022
University of Ataturk, Erzurum, 25240, Turkey Date of acceptance: 18-10-2022
E-mail address: esenbuga@atauni.edu.tr
5800 O. EKINCI, N. ESENBUGA, V. DAGDEMIR
collected from each group every month. Egg quality weight and performance characteristics were tested.
parameters were shape index (SI), shell strength (SS), The comparison of means was made using Duncan’s
shell thickness (ST), albumen index (AI), yolk index Multiple Range Test. Statistical significance is set at
(YI), yolk color (YC), and Haugh unit (HU). They P<0.05. The following mathematical model was ap-
were calculated using the following formulas as sum- plied:
marized by Monira et al, (2003). Shape index (%) =
(egg width, cm/egg length, cm)×100; shell strength Yijk = µ + αi + βj + (α × β)ij + eijk ,
(kg/cm2) was determined by using a machine with the where:
spiral pressure system, shell thickness (mm×102) was
determined in 3 different parts by using micrometer; Yijk= observation of dependent variable recorded
albumen index (%) = (albumen height, mm/average of on ith and jth treatment groups,
albumen length, mm and albumen width, mm)×100;
μ = population mean
yolk index (%) = (yolk height, mm/yolk diameter,
mm)×100; yolk color was determined by using com- αi = effect of jth body weight groups (j = 1, 2, 3;
mercially available yolk colour fan according to the light (<1500 gr), medium (1500-1750 gr), and heavy
CIE standard colorimetric system (Yolk Color Fan, (>1750gr))
the CIE standard colorimetric system, F. Hoffman-La
Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland), and Haugh unit = βj = age period group
100×log (AH+ 7.57-1.7×EW037), where AH = albu-
eijk = experimental error
men height, mm and EW = egg weight, g.
At the end of the experiment, 6 animals from each RESULT AND DISCUSSION
group were selected and 3 ml of blood samples were Laying performance
drawn from wing vein into additive-free vacutainers The changes in BW during the experiment are pre-
to determine metabolic profile. Blood samples were sented in Figure 1 and Table 2. It is seen that all treat-
centrifuged at 3,000 x g for 5 min at 20°C for sep- ment groups maintained their body weight differences
aration of serum. Aliquots were kept at -20°C until throughout the experiment. The differences among the
laboratory analyses for alkaline phosphatase (Alp), treatment groups at the initial BW, mid-BW and at the
total protein (TP), albumin (Alb), glucose (Glu), tri- final BW are determined to be significant (P<0.0001)
glyceride (TG), cholesterol (Cho), very low-density (Table 2).
lipoprotein (VLDL), calcium (Ca), phosphorous (P)
and creatine (Cre) concentrations using commercial Tablo 3 shows laying performance parameters of
kits (DDS®, Diasis Diagnostic Systems Co., Istanbul hens in the various body weight groups. Average body
80270, Turkey). weight values were 1,572.45, 1,710.47, and 1,846.50
g for light, medium, and heavy groups respectively.
The value of agricultural outputs obtained from a
production branch as a result of economic activities in Daily feed consumption of laying hens varies de-
a production period is expressed as Gross Production pending on factors such as breed, age, body weight,
Value (GPV). The income from eggs in laying hens is laying period, the energy level of the ration, envi-
GPV. Since labor, heating, electricity, periodic main- ronmental temperature, and health status. Daily feed
tenance and repair, etc. expenses in laying hens are consumption for light, medium, and heavy groups
considered as fixed costs, only feed expense is taken were found 115.19, 116.58 and 118.09 g, respectively.
as variable expense (VC). Gross Margin (GPV-VC) The differences between the groups in terms of feed
is calculated by subtracting variable costs from GPV consumption were found to be statistically signif-
(Yıldız and Dagdemir, 2017; Askan et al., 2018). Eco- icant (P<0.009). Although the effect of age on feed
nomic analysis was calculated in U.S. dollars. consumption was significant (P<0.001), the effect of
group x age interaction was not statistically signifi-
Statistical Analysis cant. There was a positive significant correlation be-
The data were analyzed according to Completely tween body weight and feed consumption (r= 0.994,
Randomized Design under the factorial arrangement P<0.001). The heavy hens consumed more feed than
using general linear model (GLM) procedures (IBM light hens. Feed consumption increased linearly as
SPSS version 20.0). The correlation between body the body weight increased. Similar to the findings ob-
2000
1900
1700
1600
1500
1400
1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Age (weeks)
Figure 1. Body weight changes of light, medium and heavy groups during the experiment
Table 2. The body weight changes of light, medium and heavy groups during the experiment
Body weight (BW)
Light Medium Heavy SEM P-value
Initial BW (kg) 1447.73c 1663.91b 1836.91a 11.16 0.0001
Mid-BW (kg) 1633.02c 1757.94b 1916.27a 20.23 0.0001
Final BW (kg) 1569.87c 1717.33b 1872.55a 27.11 0.0001
: Means with different superscript in the same column are significantly different (p<0.05).
a,b,c
BW= body weight; FC= Daily feed consumption (g/d); EP= egg production FCR= feed conversion ratio (kg feed consumed per kg
egg produced); EW=egg weight; CE=cracked egg (%)
tained in our study, Balcıoglu et al., (2005); Kumar et The average egg production of the light, medium
al., (2018); Akter et al., (2019), Anene et al., (2021) and heavy groups was found as 82.81, 79.78, and
and Muir et al., (2022b) reported that hens with low- 76.65 % respectively. While the highest egg produc-
er body weight consumed less feed compared to hens tion was obtained from the light group and the lowest
with higher body weights. The higher feed consump- was obtained from the heavy group. The differences
tion obtained in heavy groups compared to the light between the body weight groups and the effect of age
groups can be explained by the highest survival re- on egg production were significant (P<0.01). Nega-
quirements and abdominal fat ratios. In addition, tive and significant correlations were found between
since egg weight is one of the factors affecting feed egg production and body weight (r=-0.985, P<001),
consumption, the light group may have lower feed and between egg production and feed consumption
consumption than that of the heavy group. (r=-0.992, P<0.05). In contrast to the obtained results
of this study, Kirikci et al., (2004), Lacin et al., (2008) Seker et al., (2005), Lacin et al., (2008), Jatoi et al.,
and Muir et al., (2022b) reported that body weight (2015), Guo et al., (2021), and Muir et al., (2022a,b)
had no effect on egg production. Seker et al., (2005), reported that an increase in body weight positively in-
Balcıoglu et al., (2005), Akbas and Takma, (2005), creased egg weight. Leeson et al., (1997) and Muir
and Saleem et al., (2022) stated that the effect of body et al., (2022b) reported that smaller birds consistently
weight on egg production was significant. ate less feed throughout laying, and this resulted in a
loss of egg weight.
The mean FCR values of light, medium, and heavy
treatment groups were determined as 2.17, 2.26, and The average cracked egg ratios of light, medium
2.34, respectively. The differences between body and heavy groups were determined as 0.95, 0.96, and
weight groups were found to be statistically signif- 1.15%, respectively. Although there were no signif-
icant (P<0.0001). The FCR of heavy and medium icant differences between the treatment groups in
groups was higher than the light group (P<0.0001). terms of cracked eggs, the heavy group had a higher
In other words, as the body weight increase, the hens cracked egg ratio than hens in the other groups. In
produced fewer eggs despite consuming more feed. addition, despite the effect of age on the cracked egg
Similar to our study, Lacin et al., (2008) and Muir et rate being significant (P<0.0001), the effect of body
al., (2022b) reported that the FCR increased when the weight x age interaction was not found to be statisti-
body weight increased. cally no significant.
Egg weight varies depending on the hereditary
Egg quality
structure, environmental temperature, age, body
The effects of body weight on egg quality param-
weight, and season. The mean values of egg weight
eters are shown in Table 4. Most of the egg quality
were 66.58, 67.97, and 68.84 g for light, medium, and
parameters are affected by various factors such as
heavy groups respectively. The effect of body weight
genetic structure, feeding, health, age, housing, stor-
on egg weight was found to be significant (P<0.0001).
age period, and conditions (Bain et al., 2016). Egg
A positive correlation was found between body weight
quality is composed of those characteristics that affect
and egg weight. Lower egg weight was obtained from
the egg’s acceptability to the consumer (Stadelman,
the light group compared to the medium and heavy
1977). Except for SS and YC, there was no significant
groups. The highest egg weight was found in the
effect of body weight on the egg qualities. All the egg
heavy group. In addition, it was determined that egg
quality parameters were affected by age except for SI
weight increased significantly (P<0.01) depending on
and ST. The effect of body weight group by age inter-
age (p<0.0001). Although hens in the heavy group
action on all egg quality parameters was insignificant.
produced heavier eggs than hens in medium and light
The SI is an important quality factor. Because the nor-
groups, egg production decreased (P<0.001) com-
mal index of eggs is of great importance in marketing.
pared to other body weight groups. The effect of body
While there was a significant difference in SI by age,
weight x age interaction on egg weight was insignifi-
the effect of the body weight group on shape index
cant. In agreement with the present study, Nazlıgul et
was not significant. In this study, it was determined
al., (2001), Ipek et al., (2003), Kirikci et al., (2004),
Table 4. The effect of different body weight groups on egg quality of hens
Body weight (BW) P-value
Light Medium Heavy SEM BW Age (A) BWxA
SI 74.53 73.49 73.72 0.60 0.433 0.676 0.323
SS 1.32a 1.14b 1.12b 0.04 0.001 0.0001 0.081
ST 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.05 0.765 0.268 0.547
SW 8.54 8.38 8.65 0.09 0.098 0.002 0.434
YC 7.81b 8.08a 7.90b 0.82 0.048 0.001 0.194
YI 41.60 41.54 42.06 0.38 0.573 0.001 0.146
AI 7.92 8.08 7.50 0.19 0.076 0.01 0.058
HU 79.58 80.47 78.12 0.75 0.09 0.01 0.38
: Means with different superscript in the same column are significantly different (p<0.05).
a,b,c
EW=egg weight; SI= shape index; SS=shell strength (kg/cm2); ST= shell thickness (mm); SW=Shell weight (g); YC= yolk color; YI=
yolk index (%); AI= albumen index (%); HU= Haugh unit
that the SI values ranged from 73.72 to 74.53. It has and HU were not affected by body weight and the in-
been observed that the said values are within the de- teraction of BW and age The effect of age on haugh
sired and required limits. These results are in agree- unit and AI was significant (P<0.01). In contrast to,
ment with the findings of Altan et al., (1998), and Altan et al., (1998) and Kirikci et al., (2004) reported
Muir et al., (2022b). However, Turkmut et al., (1999) that haugh unit was affected by body weight. Nazlıgul
and Kirikci et al., (2004) noted that shape index was et al., (2001) and Seker et al., (2005) determined that
affected by body weight. were significantly affected by season of the year and
haugh unit, AI and YI decreased with the age.
The shell strength of light, medium, and heavy
groups were 1.32, 1.14, and 1.12 kg/cm2 respectively.
Metabolic profile
There was a significant difference in SS among the
The effect of different body weight groups on
BW groups (P<0.0001). As body weight increased,
the metabolic profile is presented in Table 5. In this
SS decreased linearly (P<0.001). There were no sig-
study, except for glucose, other metabolic parameters
nificant effects of body weight and body weight by
were not affected by body weight. The heavy hens
age interaction on ST. The yolk index changed with
had higher serum glucose concentration than light
flock age (P < 0.001). However, there were no signif-
and medium hens. Increasing body weight linearly
icant effects of body weight and the interaction body
increased serum glucose (P<0.01). Although the dif-
weight and age on the YI. Yolk colours were 7.92,
ference is not significant, Alp, TP, TG, Cho, VLDL, P,
8.08, and 7.50 for light, medium and heavy groups, re-
and Cre levels were found to be relatively higher in
spectively. YC was affected by different body weight
the heavy group compared to light and medium body
groups. While the effect of age on YC was significant
weight groups.
(P < 0.001), whereas the effect of the interaction of
body weight and age was not significant. The highest
Economic analysis
YC was obtained in the medium body weight group
When light, medium, and heavy body weight
compared to both light and heavy groups. Similar to
groups are economically compared, the group with
the present finding, Altan et al., (1998) and Lacin et
the highest gross production value and the lowest
al., (2008) found significant differences between the
variable cost is the light group (Table 6). The amount
body weight groups for yolk color.
of feed consumed per egg in the heavy group is high
The haugh unit is a function of the AI, and both and the gross profit margin per egg is at the lowest
of them are highly correlated). In this study, both AI level.
Alp= Alkaline phosphatase (mg/dL), TP= Total protein (mg/dL), Alb= Albumin (mg/dL), Glu= Glucose (mg/dL), TG= Triglyceride
(mg/dL), Chol= Cholesterol (mg/dL), VLDL= Very low-density lipoprotein (mg/dL), Ca= kalsiyum (mg/dL), P= phosphorus (mg/dL),
Cre= creatine.
REFERENCES
Akbas Y, Takma C (2005). Canonical correlation analysis for studying egg weight of Chinese indigenous goose (Shitou goose) in off-season
the relationship between egg production traits and body weight, egg breeding. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 31:3, 918-922.
weight and age at sexual maturity in layers. Czech Journal of Animal Hussain J, Akram M, Javed K, Ahmad HA, Mahmud A, Mehmood S,
Science 50: 163–168. Ahmad S, Ahmad F, Jatoi AS, Abbas Y (2016) Quail breeder’s pro-
Akter Y, Groves PJ, Liu SY, Moss AF, Anene D, O’Shea CJ (2019) Asso- duction performance in response to selection for higher three weeks
ciation of feed to egg efficiency with body weight and digestive organ body weight. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 26:3, 588-593.
characteristics in laying hens. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Jatoi AS, Sahota AW, Akram M, Javed K, Jaspal MH, Mehmood S, Hus-
Science Symposium 30, pp. 249-252 sain J, Ishaq HM, Bughio E (2015) Egg quality characteristics as in-
Altan O, Oguz I, Akbas Y (1998) Effects of selection for high body weight fluenced by different body sizes in four close-bred flocks of japanese
and age of hen on egg characteristics in japanese quail. Turkish Jour- quails (coturnix coturnix japonica). The Journal of Animal & Plant
nal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 22: 467–473. Sciences 25: 921-926.
Anene DO, Akter Y, Thomson PC, Groves P, Liu S, O’Shea CJ (2021) Kirici K, Cetin O, Gunlu A, Garip M (2004) Effect of hen weight on egg
Hens that exhibit poorer feed efficiency produce eggs with lower al- production and some eqq quality characteristics in Pheasants (Pha-
bumen quality and are prone to being overweight. Animals 11. sianus colchicus). Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Askan E, Dagdemir V, Tercan S (2018) Profitability analysis and market- 17:5, 684-687.
ing structure of green beans farms in Erzurum. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Kumar D, Raginski C, Schwean-Lardner K, Classen HL (2018) Assess-
Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 8: 257-266. ing the response of hen weight, body composition, feather score, egg
Balcıoglu MS, Karabag K, Yolcu HI, Sahin E (2005). Japon bıldırcınların- quality, and level of excreta nitrogen content to digestible balanced
da canlı ağırlığa göre iki yönlü seleksiyonun eşeysel olgunluk yaşı ve protein intake of laying hens. Canadian Journal of Animal Science
bazı verim özellikleri üzerine etkisi. GAP. IV. Agricultural Congress, 98: 619-630.
21–23 September, Sanlıurfa. Lacin E, Yıldız A, Esenbuga N, Macit M (2008). Effects of differences
Guo Y, Zhao ZH, Ni Q, Chen XQ, Li Lx, Balasubramanian B, Jia RM, in the initial body weight of groups on laying performance and egg
Liu WC (2021) Analysis of changing regulation of body weight and quality parameters of lohmann laying hens. Czech Journal of Animal
Science 53: 466-471. mida meleagris galeata Pallas). Livestock Research for Rural
Leeson S, Caston L, Summers JD (1997) Layer performance of four Development 16: 9.
strains of leghorn pullets subjected to various rearing programs. Poul- Saleem MM, Hussain J, Elahi U, Khan EU, Usman M, Hashmi SGMD,
try Science 76: 1–5. Ahmad S (2022) Interactions effects of age and body weight loss-
Monira KN, Salahuddin M, Miah G, (2003) Effect of breeding and hold- es during moulting on the performance of commercial laying hens.
ing period of egg characteristics of chicken. International Journal of Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 46: 1-8.
Poultry Science 2: 261-263. Sarıca M, Testik A (1993) Beyaz yumurtacı yerli otosex hibritlerin yu-
Muir WI, Akter Y, Bruerton K, Groves PJ (2022a) An evaluation of bird murta kalite özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Uluslararası Tavukçuluk
weight and diet nutrient density during early lay on ISA Brown per- Kongresi. 13–14 Mayıs 1993, Istanbul.
formance, egg quality, bone characteristics, and liver health at 50 Seker I, Kul S, Bayraktar M, Yıldırım O (2005) Effect of layer age on
weeks of age. Poultry Science 101. some egg quality characteristics and egg production in Japanese
Muir WI, Akter Y, Bruerton K, Groves PJ (2022b) The influence of hen quail. Journal of The Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Istanbul Uni-
size and diet nutrient density in early lay on hen performance, egg versity 31: 129-138.
quality and hen healty in late lay. Poultry Science 102041. Stadelman WJ (1977) Quality preservation of shell eggs. In Egg Science
Najib H, Al-Yousif Y (2014) Egg size Saudi local layers as affected by and Technology. 2nd ed. W.J. Stadelman and O.J. Cotterill, ed. AVI
line of the bird (body weight at sexual maturity) and Dietary fat level. publ. Co., Inc., Westport, CT.
International Journal of Poultry Science 13:8, 442-448. Turkmut L, Altan O, Oguz I, Yalcın S (1999) Japon bıldırcınlarında canlı
Nazlıgul A, Turkyılmaz K, Bardakcıoglu EH (2001) A study on some pro- ağırlık için yapılan seleksiyonun üreme performansı üzerine etkileri.
duction traits and egg quality characteristics of Japanese quail. Turk- Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 23: 229–234.
ish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 25: 1007-1013. Yıldız O, Dagdemir V (2017) Sakarya ilinde fındık üretim maliyeti. Tarım
Oke UK, Herbert U, Nwachukwu EN (2004) Association Between Body Ekonomisi Dergisi 23: 37-42.
Weight and Some Egg Production Traits in the Guinea Fowl (Nu-