COMPARISON OF, BONE, STRENGTH AND
GROWTH BETWEEN CAGE AND
FLOOR REARED TURKEYS
(MELEAGRKS GALLON“. VARIETY DOMESTICA.)

A Disscrfoflon
{or flu Degree o§ DH. D.
MICHIGAN STATE {UNIVERSITY
Gibrii 0. Fadika
19775 ‘

 

a."

‘I

 

- This is to certify that the 1 ‘
. ' thesis entitl’ed «:5 fl 1
Comparison of Bone Strength and Growth Between

Cage and Floor—reared Turkeys
(Meleagris gellopava Variety domestica)

presented by
Gibri 1 O . Fadika
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. deggeinPoultrx Science

Maw

l I ‘ U
kg: Major professor

 

ABSTRACT

COMPARISON OF BONE STRENGTH AND
GROWTH BETWEEN CAGE AND FLOOR REARED
TURKEYS (Meleagris gallopava Variety domestica)

by
Gibril O. Fadika

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the cage
system as an environment for growing turkeys with respect
to growth, cage density, type of flooring materials and
bone characteristics.

In the first experiment 440 commercial turkeys
(Nicholas variety) were brooded to eight weeks of age in a
wire cage or on a litter floor. From 8 to 17 (female) or
8 to 21 (male) weeks of age the litter floor brooded birds
were continued on litter floors; whereas, the cage birds
were kept in the wire cage.

Male and female 8—week body weights were not signi—
ficantly (P7v.O5) affected by housing the birds on a litter
floor or in cages. The floor and cage reared females had
nearly equal body weight averages, 2.568 kg. (5.6 lbs.)
vs 2.585 kg. (5.7 lbs.) at 8 weeks of age. Cage reared
males averaged 5.175 kg. (7.0 lbs.) at 8 weeks of age in
comparison to 5.112 kg. (6.8 lbs.) for the floor-reared

males.

Gibril O. Fadika

Growing turkey females to 17 weeks and males to 21
weeks of age in cages, on a litter floor or in cages to
8 weeks and then on a litter floor thereafter did not sig—
nificantly (P>.05) affect the 17 or 21—week body weight.
The average 17—week female body weights were 6.77 kg. (14.9
lbs.), 6.95 kg. (15.2 lbs.), and 7.18 kg. (10.8 lbs.) for
the cage, cage—floor and floor grown birds, respectively.
The average 21-week male body weights were 10.75 kg. (25.7
lbs.), 11.20 kg. (24.6 lbs.), and 11.71 kg. (25.18 lbs.)
for the cage, cage—floor and floor grown birds, respectively.

Breast blisters were not a problem in the female
turkeys grown to 17 weeks of age on a litter floor or in
cages having a Bressler plastic floor, although a 10.8 per—
cent incidence was observed in the females grown in cages
with wire floors. Males grown in the cages with wire floors
had an 81.8 percent incidence of breast blisters; however,
the incidence was considerably lower (52.1 percent) in the
males grown on the Bressler plastic floor. Despite this
difference, the economic considerations obviously dictate a
different type of cage floor than any used in this experiment.

In experiment two, 495 commercial turkeys (Nicholas
variety) were started on wire floors or on a litter floor.
From 6 to 17 (females) or 6 to 21 (males) weeks of age
cage brooded birds were either kept in cages with wire floors
or were transferred to a litter floor or to other cages with
different type of floor bottoms.

Cage brooded commercial turkeys had heavier body

Gibril 0. Fadika

weights than did the litter floor brooded birds at six
weeks of age. Livability averaged 95.4 percent for the cage
brooded birds and 96.9 percent for the floor brooded birds.
A bird density of 0.046 square meter (0.5 sq. ft.) per bird
in the cage system was satisfactory for growth (body weight)
to six weeks of age when compared to the litter floor
brooded birds.

Cage~grown female turkeys (6 to 17 weeks of age) had
heavier body weights, 7.59 kg. (16.5 lbs.) versus 6.95 kgo
(15.5 lbs.) than did the litter floor grown birds when
housed at 0.212 square meter (2.5 sq. ft.) per bird. The
average body weight of birds grown in cages at 0.141
square meter (1.5 sq. ft.) per bird or in cages to six weeks
of age and then on a litter floor to 17 weeks were not sig-
nificantly (PJ>.05) altered when compared to litter floor
brooded and grown birds. All turkeys grown on a litter
floor at a density of 0.519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.) per
bird had heavier 21—week body weights than birds grown on
wire floor cages at a density of 0.182 square meter (2.0 sq.
ft.) or 0.519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.). The average 21—
week body weights were 15.40 kg. (29.5 lbs.), 12.55 kg.
(27.6 lbs.), 11.86 kg. (26.1 lbs.) and 15.06 kg. (28.7 lbs.)
for the birds on litter floor, cage floor, wire cage floor
and soft plastic mat cage floor, respectively.

During the brooding period (0—6 weeks of age), the
feed—gain ratio (feed efficiency) averaged 1.77 and 1.74 for

the cage-brooded female and male turkeys, respectively. The

Gibril O. Fadika

feed efficiency averaged 1.65 (female) and 1.71 (male) for
the litter brooded birds. A lower feed efficiency was ob—
served in the cage housed (5.22) females from 6—17 weeks of
age. Feed efficiency for the males (6—21 weeks of age) was
lower for the cage housed (5.52 and 5.27) birds at a density
of 0.519 square meter than in the litter floor housed (5.60)
birds.

Breast blisters were not observed in the birds grown
in cages that had either Bressler plastic or plastic slats
as flooring material. The breast blisters, which were trim—
med at the time the birds were processed, were observed in
5.0, 29.4, 40.0 and 19.0 percent of the litter floor, cage
floor, wire cage floor and soft plastic mat cage floor birds,
respectively.

The average force required to break the legs was not
significantly affected by the type of growing floor used.
Breaking strength of legs of both sexes grown in cages was
not substantially different from birds grown in floor pens.
Bone breakage was numerically weaker for the cage reared
birds in comparison to the floor reared birds. Foot dis—
figurement was greater in the cage-grown brids in comparison
to the litter floor grown birds. Hock size was not signifi-
cantly altered by the type of housing system; however, it
was greater numerically in birds grown in the cages in com—

parison to the control (floor grown) birds.

COMPARISON OF BONE STRENGTH AND
GROWTH BETWEEN CAGE AND FLOOR REARED

TURKEYS (Meleagris gallopava variety domestica)

 

By

Gibril of Fadika

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Avian Physiology)

Department of Poultry Science

1975

TO MY MOTHER AND MEMORY OF MY FATHER
WHO HAD THE FORESIGHT TO GUIDE THEIR
FOUR CHILDREN INTO HIGHER EDUCATION.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For counsel, encouragement, and training in my
graduate study, Dr. J. H. Wolfordfthen_academic advisor
deserves my humble—given acknowledgement of appreciation.
His efforts, counsel and suggestions were a constant source
of encouragement and help in carrying through my education.

The author is indebted to Dr. R. K. Ringer, academic
advisor, for his critical reading and suggestions in
writing the dissertation. To Drs. T. H. Coleman, H. C.
Zindel, both of Poultry Science Department, and H. E. Larzelere,
of Agricultural Economics Department, appreciation is expressed
for serving as members of my committee and for their comments
and suggestions for making this volume a reality.

Special thanks are due to the Sierra Leone Government
for providing financial aid which made my dreams a reality.

Last, as always, but by no means least, the author
would like to express his sincere thanks and gratitude to
my mother Fatmata for her patience and understanding. She
probably had the most difficult role to play and played it

well.

*Present address: Dept. of Animal and Vet. Science,
University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ..................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................... Vl
INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................. 5
OBJECTIVES ......................................... 19
MATERIALS & METHODS ................................ 2O
EXPERIMENT 1 .................................. 20
RESULTS ........................................ 28
EXPERIMENT 2 .................................. 56
RESULTS ....................................... 45
DISCUSSION ......................................... 52
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 57
LITERATURE CITED ................................... 62

iv

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Dietary composition .. ........................

Cage and floor housing description in
experiment one ...............................

Livability and body weight of cage and floor
reared turkeys during the first week of age

Body weight, feed conversion and mortality
of cage and floor grown turkeys to 8 weeks
of age .......................................

Body weight, feed conversion, livability, foot
score and breast blister incidence of cage
and floor grown female turkeys to 17 weeks
of age .......................................

Body weight, feed conversion, livability, foot
score and breast blister incidence of cage

and floor grown male turkeys to 21 weeks of
age ..........................................

Cage and floor housing description in
experiment two . ..............................

Effect of cage and floor brooding on body
weight, feed conversion, hock width and
livability of market turkeys to six weeks

of age .......................................

Effect of 6 to 17—week housing system on growth
and leg condition of female turkeys ..........

Effect of 6 to 21—week housing system on growth
and leg condition of male turkeys ............

5O

52

54

58

45

49

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Cage Floor Materials Used . ................. .. 26

2. Instron Universal Testing Machine used to
measure breaking strength of bone ............ 41

vi

 

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to raise birds in cages or on wire floors
is as old as the poultry industry itself. We appear to
have come close to the practical limit to housing density
in traditional litter floor bird raising. In order to de-
crease cost, more attention has turned to cage rearing and
attempts have revealed problems that are either entirely
new or much greater in magnitude than similar problems on
litter floors.

At the onset of the growth and pOpularity of cage
Operation it has become evident that a great number of
problems are to be encountered. Together with its ad—
vantages there would be some decided disadvantages when
compared to the conventional floor unit.

The first obvious problem encountered in growing
birds in cages is a consistent disastrously high incidence
of breast blisters. While there seemed to be relationship
to variety or weight attained, the variation in breast
blister incidence related to these factors is a small
fraction of that related to the change from litter to cage.
Plastic mesh floors, for example, have not been successful
because of the occurrence of breast blisters as shown by

Atkins (1969). McCume and Dillmann (1968) observed fewer

 

. .
l .l
r, ..
. h!
r .
r
.
. k
_.
_ .
n
. r
r r kl
. . m
»\
r
I,
.. \I.
_,
_ r
.
p
_
_
v

 

incidences of breast blisters on polyurethane foam mats
compared with wire floors.

A second problem of primary concern with cage
rearing system is bone breakage. It has been well estab—
lished that cage reared birds have a lower bone breaking
strength than birds on litter in floor pens. This decrease
in bone strength of cage birds causes downgrading of pro—
cessed carcasses. Bone fragility of birds has been recog—
nized for many years. The bone mass loss which accompanies
bone fragility occurs with aging and is particularly pre-
valent in caged birds even though it does occur in floor
birds to a lesser extent.

These primary problems encountered in cage rearing
system——breast blister and bone breakage—-have been con—
sidered as much an inherent part of cage rearing of birds
as a great search began for a floor material which would
permit birds to be grown in cages without the excess breast
blisters or bone abnormality. Should these problems be
solved, possible advantages for the cage system include
better control of internal parasitic disease, increased
housing density and greater brooder house Operation and
labor efficiency.

A floor that would eliminate these problems has
been the main stumbling block in cage design. The most im—
portant factor in the new developments is that should the
forebodings in regard to other uses for sawdust be realized,

the poultry grower would have an alternative.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The growing of turkeys in cages or on wire is not a
new idea; however, in reviewing the literature, very few
reports dealing with this have been published. Reports
involving raising and/or keeping of chickens in cages are
rather numerous._

Parker and Rodgers (1954) found no consistent dif-
ference in egg production or mortality in tests which
compared the performance of layers in floor pens, indivi—
dual cages and colony cages. Gowe (1955) in a test invol—
ving seven White Leghorn strains, reported an average hen
housed production of 176 eggs for birds housed on the
floor compared with 154 eggs for comparable birds in laying
batteries. Miller (1956) reported more eggs, better feed
efficiency and lower mortality for birds housed in indivi-
dual cages as compared to conventional floor housing.
Lowry gt gl. (1956) in a four—year study of cage versus
floor management found that the floor birds were superior
in performance for egg production while the caged birds
showed significantly lower mortality and heavier eggs.

‘ Bailey gt al. (1959) compared the performance of
layers in cage and floor housing. They found that the
average body weight of the cage housed birds was greater

than that of floor housed birds. Their study also showed

 

that birds in cages consumed less feed than those on the
floor. In terms of mortality, no significant difference
was observed between the cage and floor housed birds.
Miller and Quisenberry (1959) observed lower mortality in
cage housed birds than in those housed in floor pens.
Osborn QE.§l° (1959) comparing the performance of White
Leghorn hens on slats versus litter reported results of
55.0 and 62.2 percent mortality, respectively, for slat
and litter floors. Body weight of hens on slats was less
than that of hens on litter.

Woodard gt al. (1961) conducted an experiment to
determine egg and semen production performance of turkeys
under cage management. In this study, it was found that
turkey hens kept on wire laid at a higher rate of produc-
tion than comparable birds on the floor; however, produc-
tivity of caged hens excelled floor pen production. Males
housed in individual cages produced as much semen as males
held on the floor. Semen volume from males on wire was not
affected by severity of foot swelling.

Woodard and Abplanalp (1967) found that males tended
to have the same fertility whether they were kept in cages
or on litter; but caged hens had less fertility than hens
on litter. These same workers found that semen volume from
caged toms was higher than from toms on litter. Seventy
percent of the males had swollen feet but only seventeen

percent had moderate to severe swelling.

 

Magruder and Nelson (1965) studied the performance
of laying pullets housed on slatted and litter floor. They
reported that mortality was greater for the slatted birds.
Magruder and Nelson (1968) compared three rearing regimes--
floor confinement, floor confinement and cage combination,
and cage rearing from day-old to 20 weeks of age. Com—
parisons were made for body weight, feed consumption, feed
conversion and mortality. They found that the three rearing
regimens produced pullets of about the same body weight
at 20 weeks. Rearing mortality was lowest for the floor
rearing system and highest for the floor cage combination.
In terms of food consumption the cage reared birds consumed
the most feed.

Logan (1964) in an experiment designed to study the
influence of cage versus floor, density, and dubbing on
laying house performance reported that caged birds laid
fewer eggs, and had 7.8 percent lower mortality than did
birds housed on the floor. Floor birds attained smaller
body weight, laid smaller eggs and consumed less food per
dozen eggs produced as indicated by feed efficiency index.

Wildey §t_gl. (1968) carried out an experiment to
determine the effect of cage versus floor rearing of re—
placement pullets. They reported that there were no dif-
ferences in average body weights between cage reared birds
and combination floor brooded and cage reared birds.
Average feed consumption per bird was 6.99 kgs. for the

floor reared birds versus 7.91 kgs. for the cage reared

and combination floor brooded and cage reared birds. Mor—
tality to 20 weeks of age was 2.0, 4.55 and 5.67 percent
for the cage reared, combination floor brooded and cage
reared floor reared birds, respectively.

Burr 22.§i° (1970) reported on the performance of
Leghorn breeders housed on A and V-type leping wire floors
at 0.50 square foot of floor space per bird. Average hen
day egg production was 71 and 70 percent, fertility was
94 and 95 percent, and hatchability was 92 and 95 percent,
respectively.

Olsen and Lucas (1965) compared a plastic—coated
wire cage bottom to 1 by 1 in. and 1 by 5 in. welded wire
cage bottoms. They found a substantial decrease in the
cracked eggs with the plastic—covered wire. Besides re—
ducing egg breakage, they also reported that the use of
the special floor enjoys the added advantages of being
easier on the birds' feet. The incidence of calloused
feet was reduced.

Carter gt gl. (1972) compared the biological per-
formance of broiler breeders using the leOping wire floor
system with those using a conventional litter floor system.
Egg production and mortality were significantly higher in
wire houses than in litter floor houses. Hatchability of
fertile eggs was similar in both management systems during
the 28—week test. Fertility was significantly different
as it averaged 9.2 percent lower in wire floor houses.

COOper and Barnet (1972) studied the performance of broiler

1.
R.

 

 

breeders on slat versus slat—litter floors. They found that
mortality was significantly higher for birds on slat—litter
floor than for those on slat floor; however, in a second
trial, even though mortality was higher in pens with slat
floors, the difference was not significant.

Reece §t_§l, (1971) determined the effect of cage
versus floor rearing on broiler performance. They reported
that body weight gain was not depressed for broilers reared
in cages, but in most instances, especially under summer
conditions, was increased over floor reared broilers. Mor—
tality for males reared in cages was higher than for males
on floor at a bird density level of 745 cm2/bird. Breast
blister incidence was greater for cage reared broilers;
however, the seasonal effect on weight gain was noted to
significantly influence breast blister incidence in cages.
Feed utilization was significantly higher for the cage
reared treatments. Feed utilization for males reared in
cages at 465 cmE/bird was significantly different from that
of males reared on the floor at 745 cm2/bird. They also
reported a significant seasonal effect on leg weakness.
Significantly more leg weakness occurred for both males and
females reared in the summer in cages than males and females
reared in cages in winter. No significant difference was
observed for floor reared males or females for leg weakness
between summer and winter. In general leg weakness was

significantly greater for cage reared birds.

 

Hartung (1955), Brooks gal. (1957), Heishman _§_t__a_l_.
(1952) and Moreng gt gl. (1961) found that increasing pOpu-
lation density beyond a certain point reduced the average
size of chicken broilers. However, Siegel and Coles (1958)
observed little if any effect on the body weight, feed
efficiency or livability of broiler grown at densities
ranging from one-half to one and one—half square feet of
floor space per bird.

Bell (1969) reported the results of four experiments
designed to measure the effect of crowding pullets in cages°
In trial 1, birds were placed at the rate of 6, 8, 10, 12,
14, 16, 18, or 20 per cage at one day of age. Birds were
weighed at 6, 10, 12, and 16 weeks of age. It was found
that the average body weight at each age tended to decrease
as density was increased. No significant differences were
found in variability of body weights or in mortality among
the density levels.

In trial 2, birds were placed in cages at the rate
of 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 birds per cage. Statistical
analyses of weights taken at 6, 12, and 16 weeks of age
indicated a definite relationship between.body weight and
density but the difference was not apparent at 16 weeks of
age.

In trial 5, densities of 6, 8, or 10 pullets per
cage were used for the growing period between 7 1/2 and
15 1/2 weeks of age. Body weights taken at 15 1/2 weeks

of age tended to decrease as cage density increased.

In trial 4, the same densities as in trial 5 were
used except that the growing period extended from 7 to 18
weeks of age. The results of this test showed no signifi—
cant differences in body weights of birds due to density.

Wells (1972) reared pullets on litter at .070, .095,

.159 and .186 m2

of floor area per bird. Results showed
that the different densities of stocking had no commercially
important effect on growth rate, feed consumption or via—
bility. The use of high stocking densities caused no im—
pairment of the performance of layers that were transferred
to batteries, but was possibly responsible for a small de—
cline in productivity of layers housed on deep litter.

Francis (1957) in a study involving five strains of
White Leghorns and two hybrids, suggested that the strains
of Leghorns appeared to adapt themselves to cages better
than the hybrids.

Shupe and Quinsenberry (1961) reported data than
involved subsequent production tests of cage—reared birds.
Their work involved rearing birds in cages only during the
latter part of the growing period. In their trial, pullets
were reared on the floor for 14 weeks in conventional con—
finement pens. At 14 weeks the pullets were equally divided
among floor pens, range and colony cages with slat and wire
floors. The data showed that colony cage reared birds were
heaviest in body weight and consumed the most feed. The

range reared birds were significantly heavier than those

1O

reared in floor pens. Mortality was highest for birds in
the colony cages and lowest for those in the floor pens.

Andrews (1972) reared male chickens in cages and com—
pared them with another group raised by conventional method
on the floor. Caged birds averaged 5.01 pounds each while
floor reared birds averaged 2.99 pounds. In a second trial,
both males and females were reared in cages and on floor.
Caged broilers averaged 5.26 pounds and floor grown averaged
5.26 pounds.

Koonz gt al. (1965) designed an experiment to deter—
mine the influence of litter, wire floors, concrete floors,
prominence of keel bone and rubber pads on the appearance
and size of blisters. Wire floors were found to encourage
breast blister development whereas rubber pads markedly
retarded them. Reed_§t.gl. (1966) in an experiment designed
to study the effectiveness of different types of cage bottoms
in reducing breast blisters found in young birds that breast
blisters could be reduced from as high as 70 percent to
less than 1 percent is cage floors were padded with a
cushioning material such as polyester urethane and the
pr0per cage bottom.

Lloyd (1969) showed that broilers weighing 5.75
to 5.99 pounds reared on wire were downgraded 21.7 percent
and 27.5 percent, respectively, due to breast blisters.
Welch gt gl. (1970) found breast blisters to be 68 to 91
percent, 55 to 82 percent, 60 to 67 percent, and 2 to 10

percent on broilers reared on wire floors, wood slats,

 

 

11

plastic mesh and litter, respectively. Peterson gt gl.
(1971) found fewer breast blisters on birds grown on wooden
slats as compared to those grown on wire; but even on
wooden slats, the breast blisters ranged from 25 to 54
percent on broilers that averaged 1800 grams at 8 weeks of
age. Welch gt al. (1971) compared growth performance and
incidence of breast blisters in broilers reared at two
densities and six colony sizes for each sex. Their results
indicated that live—weight was the determining factor
influencing the extent of blistering and also showed that
mean live—weight for each sex was negatively correlated
with colony size.

Yates §E_§;. (1971) studied the effect of wire
cages, plastic c00ps and littered floor pens on the quality
of broiler carcasses. The data showed that breast blister
incidence was greater for the cage reared birds. The bone
quality was also evaluated by determining incidence of
breakage due to processing, strength and ash. Generally,
they found that bones from cage and coop reared birds were
significantly poorer in quality. Additional calcium im—
proved bone quality of caged broilers, but they still were
not equal in quality to floor reared birds.

Lloyd (1972) reported a reduction in breast blisters
on broilers by placing a plastic mat in the coop or wire cage.

Seay'§§_§l, (1975) investigated the develOpment of
a covered slat floor for loading broilers from cages. The

cage floors studied were 1) wire, 2) rubber-nylon mat,

{‘1‘

\l

 

12

5) ash, 4) plastic mats, 5) wood slat, 6) slat covered with
rubber coated nylon, and 7) slat covered with nylon plastic
hose. No breast blisters were noted on birds from litter
pens or floors 4), 6), and 7). Birds grown on floors 5)

and 5) had few blisters, but those grown on floors 1) and 2)
had a higher incidence (55—77 percent). They reported
severe leg abnormalities from birds grown on floors 2) to 7)
with the highest percentage on floor 5). No leg abnormali—
ties were observed in birds grown on wire or litter.

Marion (1968) reported that birds housed in cages
had a higher body weight as Opposed to those grown on the
floor. He also reported that carcasses of birds grown in
cages had a smaller percentage of bone, lost more weight
during cooking and had less moisture and more fat than
those housed on the floor. Less force was required to shear
the breast muscle of caged birds.

Adams :92 a_l. (1968) examined a small sample of hens
obtained from a commercial processing plant, and reported
that the bone breaking strength of hens kept in cages was
slightly better than that of those maintained on the floor.
It was found by Rowland §t_§l, (1968) that there was no
significant change between tibia breaking strength of hens
maintained in cages for ten months as compared to birds
maintained five months. Rowland gt gl. (1968) in an ex—
periment involving two trials compared the bone breaking
strength of hens maintained in wire cages and in floor pens.

Breaking strength of bones from hens maintained on the floor

15

was significantly greater than for those birds maintained
in cages. Bone ash in one experiment was found to be sig—
nificantly higher for hens maintained on the floor when
compared to those maintained in cages.

Rowland _e_t_ a; (1968) and Rowland and Harms (1970)
found a significantly higher bone breaking strength in floor
layers compared to caged layers and that the difference
could not be corrected by increasing dietary phosphorus.
The lower breaking strength of bones from caged layers
resulted in more broken bones during processing. In a his-
tological study of medullary bones, Riddle gt gl. (1969)
reported the most massive medullary bones were found in
layers maintained on litter. Birds maintained on wire
floor and in cages fed the same diet had less massive me—
dullary bones, respectively.

Rowland gt gl. (1971) raised broilers in wire bat—
teries. Results of this experiment indicated that bone
breaking strength and tibia ash of broilers grown on wire
were not substantially different from broilers grown in
floor pens. This would indicate that bone breakage which
is a characteristic of caged layers, does not occur to any
extent in eight—week—old battery grown broilers. Bone
breaking strength was significantly lower for battery grown
broilers. Although the battery grown.broilers had weaker
bones, this did not appear to have any substantial effect on

processing. The incidence of breast blisters was less

 

 

14

than 2 percent and no significant difference between the
battery and floor birds was observed.

Rowland §t_gl. (1972) reported that within four weeks
after housing there was a highly significant difference in
breaking strength between floor and caged pullets' bones.
This difference in breaking strength increased from the
fourth to eighth week. They suggested that pullets placed
in cages had a gradual decrease in breaking strength of
bones While pullets on floor had an increase in their ini—
tial tibia breaking strength. It was Rowland §t_al. (1972)
who also reported a significant strain difference in tibia
ash among strains. They also found that caged hens had a
significantly lower tibia breaking strength when compared
to floor hens of the same strain; there were, however, some
strains of pullets that were maintained in cages that had
a higher breaking strength than other strains maintained on
the floor. Wabeck EE.QA° (1972) conducted trials to deter-
mine if a bone fragility problem existed in broilers reared
in cages with different bottoms when compared to broilers
reared in a floor pen with built—up pine shavings litter.
The results showed that wing and leg breakage after pro—
cessing was higher for broilers reared in cages with the
highest pr0portion of breakage in wings. Breaking strength
of the humeri from broilers reared on the litter floor was
twice that of the humeri from broilers in the cage bottom
treatments. Breaking strength difference of the tibiae

was not as great, but tibia bone strengths for the cage

 

 

15

treatments were significantly less than for those from the
litter floor treatment.

Andrews §t_§l, (1975) reported no significant dif—
ferences for 8—week live body weights among broilers grown
on floor and in cages; however, they found that birds grown
in cages were heavier than those grown on the floor. They
reported the occurrence of breast blisters to be higher on
broilers grown on plastic mesh than those grown on litter
or rubber covered nylon. There was no difference among the
cage and the floor reared broilers as to tibiae breakage
strength.

Merkley (1975) undertook a study to determine if
broilers raised in c00ps could be force exercised to counter—
act the development of bone fragility in the wings. The
breaking strength of bones from the cockerels in the screened
pens was significantly lower than that of other floor birds.
Siegel gt QT. (1975) compared the bone characteristics and
growth of broilers in plastic c00ps and on floor litter
under two temperature regimes (high and moderate tempera-
tures). They reported that high temperature significantly
restricted growth, especially in the coop reared birds.

The difference between c00p and floor reared birds grown
under moderate temperature was not significant. Breaking
strength of tibiae was less for birds reared at high tem—
perature, and this reduction was greatest in c00p reared

birds. Humeri of birds grown at high temperature in plastic

 

 

16

c00ps had lower breaking scores than those of birds in
moderate temperatures or on litter. In a second experiment,
they also found that tibiae of birds reared on litter at
moderate temperature were strongest, while tibiae from coop
reared birds at high temperature were weakest. Breaking
strength of humeri was greatest for litter reared birds at
moderate temperature While the lowest value was found in
coop reared birds at high temperature.

Lack of exercise has been suggested to be one of the
causes for brittle bones from birds reared in cages or
plastic c00ps.

Wabeck and Merkley (1974) measured the effect of
stocking density upon humeri and tibiae strength. Humeri
and tibiae from male broilers placed in cages were compared
to those from birds reared in floor pens. Storage effect
on bone strength from drying immediately and drying after
two weeks'frozen storage was also measured. Humeri breaking
strengths were numerically greater for floor reared broilers
in all trials and significantly higher (22.45 vs 14.65; Psi
.01) for the last two trials regardless of technique used.
Tibiae breaking strengths were numerically greater for
floor reared broilers than for cage reared and the dif—
ferences were significant (17.99 vs 15.78; P<1.05) in the
last trial. Freezing significantly (P<(.01) reduced the
breaking strength of the tibiae (14.5; vs. 20.77) and
humeri (14.19 vs 19.44) when compared to bones dried

immediately.

 

 

17

Berg (1972) reported that the 17—week body weight
and feed efficiency of caged turkey hens were slightly
better than for floor reared controls; however, nearly
100 percent downgrading occurred because of breast blisters.

Poss §t_gl. (1972) in two separate experiments,
pointed out that cage brooding of turkeys appears to be
feasible; on the contrary, poults raised in cages per-
formed better on their legs than did floor reared controls.
In the first experiment, they reported that ten—day mortality
was higher in the cages, but lower than that of the floor
reared birds in a second experiment after a change in
heating system. Average body weight of broad, white toms,
in the first experiment, was less than that of the floor
reared birds at eight weeks of age when transferred to the
floor, but it was equal to the controls at 18 and 22 weeks
of age. In the second experiment with both hens and toms,
the 12—week weights for the cage reared poults were slightly
below those of the controls.

Carson.§t_§l, (1975) reported that large white
turkey hens adapted quite well to cage rearing up to 18
weeks of age and had only a 6.8 percent incidence of breast
blisters. Cage rearing of toms was less successful because
at 22 weeks of age, cage reared toms averaged 1.04 kg. less
than floor reared controls. Furthermore, 15.5 percent of
the cage reared toms had fluid filled breast blisters. Feed

efficiency was significantly poorer in the cage reared birds

 

18

than in the floor reared birds. The incidence of perosis
was greater in the cage reared birds.

Manley and Muller (1975) reported that caged Broad
Breasted White turkey hens gained significantly (P<:.05)
more weight from 6 to 24 weeks of age than did floor managed
controls. No differences in growth rate, due to cage floor
type (hail screen, ne0prene matting, tire link matting and
Bressler polyethylene plastic) had significantly (P<:.05)
lower foot scores (foot swelling) than did birds from any
other cage treatment. The floor reared birds had signifi—
cantly (P<<.05) lower foot scores than did the cage reared

birds, except for the birds reared on the Bressler flooring.

 

OBJECTIVES
The objectives in these experiments were fourfold.

1. To evaluate cage system as an environment for growing
market turkeys with respect to the following parameters:
a. Growth
b. Breast blister
c. Livability

d. Feed conversion

2. To compare cage density for brooding and growing market

turkeys.
5. To compare floor type materials for growing turkeys.

4. To compare breaking strength of bones of floor reared

and cage reared turkeys.

19

 

 

 

MATERIALS & METHODS
EXPERIMENT 1.

Procedure

 

A total of 440 day—old large white turkeys (Nicholas
variety) were sexed, wing banded, injected with 5 mg.
apectinomycin and placed at random in cage or floor rearing
pens. The room temperature at the bird level was pro—
grammed to be 52.800 (91oF) and 55.000 (950F) for the cage
and floor pens, respectively, during the first week and
reduced 2.8OC (50F) weekly until a 21.1OC (700E) tempera—
ture was attained. Heat was provided by gas fired brooders.

Light intensity was maintained at 86 to 107 lux4 (8 to
10 foot candles; depending on bird location in relation to
light source) for the first two weeks; thereafter, light
intensity was 5.4 to 10.8 lux (0.5 to 1.0 foot candles).
This low light intensity was used as a cannibalism control
tecnhique because the birds were not debeaked. Rheostats
were employed to increase the light intensity to 45 to 54
lux (4 to 5 foot candles) whenever caretakers entered the
rooms. During the first 10 days, continuous light was
provided; after which, a 12—hour artificial light day was

provided. Feed and water were supplied gd libitum.

 

4One foot candle:=10.76 international lux.

2O

 

 

21

Medication included tylosin in the water and con—
tinuous chlortetracycline (100 g./ton) in the feed. Tylosin
was added to water at 2 grams per gallon for the first five
days and for three days at monthly intervals thereafter.
Composition of the diets used in this experiment is shown
in Table 1. These diets were fed to both the males and
females according to the following schedule:

Prestarter — fed until 1 kg. (2.2 lbs.) consumed
per bird

Starter — fed to 8 weeks
Grower #1 — fed to 12 weeks
Grower #2 — fed to 17 weeks

Grower #5 — fed to 21 weeks

The cage and floor housing descriptions are pre-
sented in Table 2. All cage birds were started on the wire
floor (Groups 2, 5, 4, 6, 7, and 8) Which was covered with
an absorbent, non—slip, laboratory animal paper for the
first 10 days. At one week of age the cage started birds
were randomly reassigned for floor space equalization. At
8 weeks of age part of the cage reared birds were trans-
ferred to the litter floor (Groups 10 and 17) and part
were transferred to cages having a different type cage
bottom as shown in Figure 1.

Body weights were recorded at 1 and 8 weeks of age
for both sexes and again at 17 weeks of age for the females
and 21 weeks of age for the males. Feed conversion was

obtained for the first 8—week growing period and for

 

 

 

22

 

 

Table 1. Dietary composition
Ingredient Percentage of Diet-
Prestarter Starter Grower Grower Grower
(Crumbl e) (Crumble) #1 112 5
(Pellet) (Pellet) (Pellet)
Corn 59.175 45.175 54.675 61.425 68.075
Soybean Oil 42.750 58.100 52.000 24.750 20.250
meal, 4996
Alfalfa meal, 5.000 5.000 2.500 2.500 2.500
1796
Fish meal, 6096 5.000 5.000 2.500 2.500 ——
Meat & bone 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500
meal, 5096
Whey, dried 2.500 2.000 —— —— ——
Fat, stabild, .500 1.500 2.000 2.500 5.000
A—V
Salt .250 .400 .400 .400 .400
Dicalcium phos., 1.750 1.750 1.500 1.500 1.500
2496 Ca,
1896 P
Limestone 1.000 1.000 .500 .500 .700
Vitamin—mineral .750 .750 .600 .600 .450
premix
Aurofac 10 .500 .500 .500 .500 .500
Biotin2 .100 .100 .100 .100 .100
Vitamin E5 .025 .025 .025 .025 .025
Choline chloride4 .200 .200 .200 .200 .200

 

lContained/lb. premis: 600,000 U.S.P. vitamin A; 166,667
I.C.U. vitamin D ; 400 mg. riboflavin; 800 mg. pantothenic
acid; 5.55 g. niacin; 42.55 g. choline chloride; 116.7 mg.
folic acid; 1.0 mg. vitamin B42; 500 I.U. vitamin E; 154.0
mg. menadione sodium bisulfite; 66.0 mg. thiamine monomi—
trate; 6.96 g. manganese; 90.8 mg. iodine; 75.0 mg. c0pper;
25.2 mg. cobalt; 4.54 g. zinc; 2.27 g. iron.

2Contained 0.45 g. biotin/lb. premix.
50ontained 20,000 I.U./lb. premix.

4Contained 115.4 g. choline/lb. premix.

 

 

 

 

23

m.om
m.om
m.om
o.o¢
o.o¢

m.om
m.om
m.om
m.om
m.om

6.0:
6.6:
m.om
n.0m
m.om

6.6:
m.om
m.om
m.om
6.0a

led

.wflm

s-TWrV‘V' OHUVMV<-

Tx—VTUOJ

ms—rs-N

mom
\oz

nmflsm
ream
ream
domQSob
somqgob

sheen
spasm
spasm
been
been

floodgom
downgoh
seem
ream
ream

domqgon
seem
been
been
domqgob

T‘V‘MMN

NWOOHUOJ

TMMMV N\N\N\T‘T

omwe com

 

\oz

 

Hoeoom qmmlopfie

odo psoaflaogxo.sfl eoflpmfimomoe mmflmSOQ Hooam

QWO Hope:

mm.rNdO.v
NNOVN¢O.V
mm.vN¢O.r
rm.mxdm.m
rm.m8#m.m

mm.rNdO.v
rw.ON¢O.r
NN.VN#O.V
NN.VN¢O.V
NN.VN#O.V

mm.¢xmm.m
rm.m8¢m.m
mm.rN¢O.v
mm.vN¢O.v
mm.vN¢O.r

rm.mx¢m.m
mm.rxdo.r
mm.rN#O.r
NN.vN¢O.r
em.m8#m.m

omflm mom

oflpmmfim Hoammogm
0983 m\v N r
one: S, a e
mmdflkmflm @003
mmdflkmflm ©ooB

m

oflpmmam Hoammosm
moflpmmam Hoammosm
moflpmmam Hoammosm
oHHB m\r N r
oHHB m\v N r

mmqflkmflm 60oz
mmdflkmflm ©ooB

oaH3_m\v N r
oHHS m\r N v
oHH3,N\r N r

quflkmgm 6003
@983 m\v N r
osflz m\r x r

0H8: v\r N r
qufl>mflm @003

 

rodwa Hooam

OflPmmHmlommo
oHHBIowmo
ohfl3lowwo

MoOHMIommo
# Hooam

oflpmwamlommo
oflpmmamlommo
oflpmmamlowmo
osflzlowmo
osfizlowmo

‘—
‘—

hoOHMIommo
# Hooam
oHHBIommo
ohfizlommo
oHHBIowmo

Hooam
omflzlommo
oHH31ommo
ohflzlowmo

Q] TWMNdem \DE\QMYC> 0Hn<tm\ UDDIDOVO
r s’vx-V' vx—Vw—N

Hooam
ampmHm Sosa
mqflzohw
ps8 ommo .m oases

 

24

.pgmmm whoposfipsoo ®.v eoomdm ego ooHMMSm pram HoposHPQoo m.m m mqflkmfl mophp oflpmmfim ehmmw

.Hopwmohoflp Hooam Hoppfla 8 do was mMooB w op mowmo Hooag 09H: m\rxr 05p SH Q3090

.wQHHooHM thH5om mQHpHOQQSmIMHom odofihflpohaom Hoammohmm

4V
.ASQV whoposflpdoo #m.mnuflodfi oQOm

.poom mm.m.uAsv Hobos odom

.r omsmfim oomr

 

m.om
m.om
m.om
m.om
m.om

Ham.

.mflm \oz

T'V'T'TT‘

 

Hoeoom nmmlopse

 

Qmflzm m
flmflzm m
Qmfizm m
Qmflzm m
flmflsm m
omHE Qom
\oz
Qflo Hopmz

mm.rNdo.v
mm.rNdO.r
NN.VN#O.V
rm.ON#O.r
v®.OM¢O.r

 

mAaNsv
omflm Qom

manner oanmoam nnosmuomoo mm
@mpmam ofipmmam mpmamlowmo #m
oflpmmam Hoammohm oflpmmfimlowmo mm
moflpmmam scammosm oHPmHHmlommo mm

MOflpmmHQ Hmfimmmhm 0memfimlmmmo TN

 

 

oflfie Hooam Sopmhm @3098
r mmflsohw

possessoouu.m magma

 

 

 

25

the 8 to 17—week (females) and 8 to 21—week (males) growing
periods. A foot and breast blister evaluation was made at
the time of the 17—week (females) and 21—week (males) body
weight recording. Mortality was recorded as it occurred
and all dead birds were aut0psied at the Michigan State
University Diagnostic Laboratory. Mortality rec0rded as
perosis was done on the basis of visual observation while
the bird was alive and confirmed at autopsy. It was
assumed that the perosis incapacitation was the primary
mortality problem even if another disease problem was also
diagnosed in the same bird. The foot scoring system used
was patterned after Manley and Muller (1975) and had the

following scale:

 

HEQEE Severity of Foot Disfigurement
1 Normal (No swelling)
2 Slight swelling
5 Moderate swelling
4 Severe swelling

The data collected were analyzed by analysis of
variance (Snedecor and Cochran, 1962) and differences between

means by the multiple range and F test (Duncan, 1955).

 

26

 

Figure 1. Cage Floor Materials Used.

A. Bressler plastic
B. 1/2 by'1 welded wire
C. Plastic slats

 

27

 

 

 

J 'mwhua-lu-
' -.-‘--J-n-n--I--a
'v '1' urn-II: -f; if..-
‘P-’."‘ —
' :‘ . ".al'i‘
V i- . " ‘f—‘m.
u- « mph-4... "----I--
. -- ~ «won. -;~-u--——---
ooflt.l'iu "tt I r‘----

 

.. l-flu-m-n‘p‘ ‘"----===
quaflm-mrnu-u-n--
Irma—u:rm—--Ia---

Mi
III!
"I!
ll"

'1

llllllllll
omit-mum-

1!

 

 

 

RESULTS

Results of body weight and livability during the
first week brooding period are presented in Table 5.
During the first week of age, livability was greater for
the turkeys housed on the litter floor (98.5 percent) than
for those in the cages (81.8 percent). Starvation and
dehydration were the diagnosed mortality reasons and prob-
ably resulted because the birds became chilled immediately
after placing them in the cages. At the time the birds
were placed in the cages, the bird level temperature was
25.5OC (74oF), and the 52.8OC (91oF) temperature originally
desired was not attained until 4.5 hours later. The birds
huddled together in order to keep warm and did not move
about to locate the feed and water. The light intensity
(86 to 107 lux) used may have been too low and may have
contributed to the problem of locating the feed and water.
No attempt was made to save the birds by dipping their beaks
in water or feed. It was considered more important to
observe the effect of their management problem on body
weight.

Body weight, feed conversion and mortality from two
to eight weeks of age are presented in Table 4. Male and
female body weights were not significantly (P;>.05) affec—

ted by housing the birds on a litter floor or in cages.

28

 

 

 

29

.88

.A.mv 889m @.mm¢Wu©qsOm oqom

Hopes madden ®m®0.0nupoom chosen odOr

 

m.mme
n.8de
8.8ae
r.ose

®.w#v
m.m#r
®.®#r
r.mmr

.PBNMUom

v.mm
m.m@
n.6n
o.ms

s.w®
o.ms
m.mw
¢.©@

 

8pmwwwmkag

mm

om
mi

mm
00
N®
ow

wvr.
@rv.
mwo.
mmo.

mwo.
mmo.
rto.
mmo.

 

 

oorsmnm
nesam .oz

esflb\l
swwneom m

av

Ham

(\Imir

OJCU d‘s—

dom.oz

ommo
ommo
ommo

ommo
ommo
owmo

noose seeped
ops: m\r a e
one: m\e k e
baa: m\e a v

 

new:

noose noenag
baa: m\r 8 6
one: m\e a v
mesa m\e 8 r

cameom

 

S®QmKMAMQHHwom

owe mo Moo: pmhflw
map mQHHSS mkoMHfip Search MOOHM Gem ommo mo pgmfioz heop.©dm hpflaflpm>fla .m oapme

 

 

.hHopmHmmom dothmqm mons can

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

monSom .nmo.v.mv pdoHoHHHe thqmoHHHmmHm 0H8 mHoppoH HQoHoHHHp hp woBOHHOH mfimozé

.Qmos HoHHo Showdown um

.mSQSom m.mnuA.va smeOHHM oqom

.Amsv Hopes chosen mmmo.onupoom chosen mace
e.am om.m a moo.n86r.m ea mmo. osszuomoo m
a.mm mm.m o omo.nmmm.m mm roe. onasuomoo s
8.68 am.m w rmo.omem.m om sme. onszuommo o
m.m® mr.m m Swo.umrr.m it vwm. Hoon m

onz
8.68 mo.m o smo.noas.m on mac. osazuomso a
o.mm me.m so mso.ammm.m on mac. osazuommo m
6.66e me.m s soo.nmes.m ma Hoe. osazuomso m
©.®m mr.m dpmmmto.nw@m.m d6 twv. HOOHm r

onSom

Abmq oHpmm AWMV Home .mMB mv vAeHHQ\s aopmww ozohw

SPHHHbmkHH QHmw\©oom pQwHoz meom hHHmeHQH thmmom wQHBon
Mooslw mGHHm .oz

own Ho mxoos w op

mkoMHfip QBOHm HOOHH ego ommo Ho thHmpHos wen QonHo>Qoo doom .pflmHoB heom .3 oHQme

 

 

51

However, as the cage bird density increased, there was a
trend of a body weight decrease (significant, P<:.05, in the
females and non-significant, P:>.05, in the males). The
floor and cage reared females had nearly equal body weight
averages, 2.568 kg. (5.6 lbs.) vs 2.585 (5.7 lbs.), at

eight weeks of age. Cage reared males averaged 5.175 (7.0
lbs.) at eight weeks of age in comparison to 5.112 kg.

(6.8 lbs.) for the floor reared males.

Feed efficiency was nearly equal for the females
housed in cages (2.10) and on a litter floor (2.10). How—
ever, more feed was required for the cage reared males
(2.29) than for the floor reared males (2.12). Livability
from two through eight weeks of age averaged 96.9 percent
for the floor reared females and 95.0 percent for the cage
reared females. For the males, the livability figures
were 95.2 and 90.2 percent for the floor and cage reared
birds, respectively. Starvation and dehydration accounted
for 71.4 percent of the mortality that occurred in the cage
reared birds; apparently a ”carry over” of the problem
encountered during the first week. Other diagnosed mor-
tality reasons for the cage reared birds were perosis (14.5
percent), roundheart (9.5 percent), and aortic rupture
(4.8 percent). Of the floor birds that died, 60 percent
were diagnosed as having perosis problems and 40 percent
were undetermined.

Results of 8 to 17 weeks parameters studied are

presented in Table 5. Seventeen—week body weights were not

 

 

.mmo.v.mv onHoHHHe themoHHHmmHm 6H6 mHoppoH onHoHHHS hp eoSOHHOH mane:

OAN

.66Q50m m.m "A.va smHmOHHM oQO

.dmos HoHHo epmpompm I

j
+6
m

av Hopes onsvm ©m®0.0.upoop opmsvm mace

 

 

 

 

6.6 68 6.66.6 6.66 66.6 6e.p66.6 mm 666. oapnsHmlomeo 6e
6.6 8 6.66.6 6.666 66.6 mm.ne6.6 6 e66. oapnosmuommo er
wk 6.6 so 6.H6.v 6.666 6¢.6 66.nr6.6 me New. oapmosmuomso 66
6.6 8 6.66.6 6.66 66.6 66.H66.6 66 666. oaazlomeo me
6.6e eop6.H6.r 6.666 66.6 6m.u66.6 me New. osazlomso er
6.6 98H.n6.e 6.66 66.6 6v.a66.6 m6 6em. sooHHIoweo or
6.6 68H.H6.e 6.66 66.6 66e.u66.6 66 666. Hoon 6
AdeHQ bfiu oHoom nomv 0Hp6m NAWMV moms .mMB wv vAeHHp\wav aopmhm QSon
aopna m poop HpHH ppeap sHs6 pnwaos Heom HHHerHdH Hpaasom 6da3od6
pmmon \6oom Moozlbr mSHHm .oz

IHoQH HopmHHp pmmoHp 6gp oHoom poop athHprpHH hQ6H6H6>Qoo 666p nppwHoz 666m

owe Ho mxoms 6v op mkokHSp onsop spopm HOOHH 6mm 6&60 Ho oodoe

.mofiHE

 

 

 

53

significantly (P:>.05) different for turkey females grown
on a litter floor or in cages Which had either a wire or
Bressler plastic floor. A trend for lowered body weight,
although not significant (P:>.05), was observed as bird
density increased.

Breast blisters were not observed in the birds grown
on the-litter or in cages having the Bressler plastic floor;
whereas, a 10.8 percent incidence was observed in the birds
grown in cages having a wire floor. However, no detrimental
bird maneuverability problems were observed. <}rowing
turkey females from day—old to 8 weeks of age in cages and
thereafter on a litter floor did not significantly (P:>.05)
alter body weight or foot score.

A better feed efficiency was observed in the litter
floor housed birds; however, some feed wastage did occur
in the cage system because feed depth in the feeder pan
could not be positively controlled.

Perosis accounted for 66.6 percent of the female
mortality. Cannibalism and liver hemorrhage were the other
diagnosed mortality problems. Mortality averaged 5.1 per—
cent for all treatments during the 8 to 17—week growing
period.

Results of parameters studied from 8 to 21 weeks of
age in males are presented in Table 6. Twenty—one—week body
weights were not significantly (P;>.05) different for turkey

males grown on a litter floor or in cages which had either

 

 

54

.Amo.vvmv psopmppHe 6Hp660HHHQmH6 6H6 HmppoH onHoHHHU 6 hp 6630HHOH md6oz

I:

.Q6os Hoppo 6966Q6p6 Hm

.66d56g m.mnuA.mMV E6HmoHHM odom

 

 

 

.Amsv Hopms 6H6566 mmoo.onupoop 6H6566 6Q0r
6.6: 6 6.6Hr.6 6.666 66.6 s 66.6666.6e 6 66v. mpsH6Io666 66
6.66 p 6.666.6 6.66 66.6 6 66.eH66.6v a 666. mpmHmio666 :6
6.66 on 6.666.6 6.66 66.6 e 66.6666.6r 6 66¢. oapmmHmlo686 66
6.66 p 6.666.6 6.666 66.6 a 66.6666.er 6 666. oHp66H616686 66
6.66 on 6.666.6 6.66e 66.6 s 66.6666.6r 6 e66. oppmmfimno686 66
6.66 6 6.666.6 6.66e 66.6 a 66.6666.6e 6 666. oppnmpmuo686 66
6.666 o 6.666.a 6.66 66.6 a 66.rfi66.re 6 66v. psazuomso 6e
6.66 s 6.666.6 6.66e 66.6 s 66.6w66.6 6 666. osazuomeo 6r
6.66 86.6Ne.e 6.666 66.6 6 66.6666.vr 66 666. eooHHIo666 66
6.6 66.6H¢.e 6.66 66.6 68666.6666.er 66 666. noose 6v
Ameme @\v oHoom poom Ab\u 6Hp6m mAmMu 6666 .mp3 6 HHp\msv aopmhm Q5096
Hosea 6 6pHHHQm>HH spew pampos 66o6 HHHerHs 6pHmdo6 66Hson6
pmmoem \eopm soosur6 madam

.666 Ho mxmoz em op whodep 6H6s QBOHm HoOHH 666 6660 Ho oodop
IHqu HopmHHp pm6oHp 6Q6 oHoom poop hthHHp6>HH .Qonmmpq60 6666 nppmHms 666m .6

6HQ6B

 

55

a wire, Bressler plastic or plastic slat floor. A trend for
lowered body weight, although not significant (p:>.05), was
observed as bird density increased.

Breast blister incidence was 8.5, 52.1, 44.4 and 81.8
percent for the litter, Bressler plastic, plastic slat and
wire floor grown birds, respectively. Birds grown in cages
had significantly (p‘:.05) higher foot scores than those
grown on the litter floor. Birds having swollen foot (5 or
4 score) had maneuverability problems and sat with their
breast touching the cage floor unless forced to move.
Growing turkey males from day—old to 8 weeks of age in
cages and thereafter on a litter floor did not significantly
(P:>.05) alter body weight or foot score.

A better feed efficiency was observed in the litter
floor housed birds; however, some feed wastage did occur
in the cage system because feed depth in the feeder pan
could not be positively controlled.

Perosis accounted for 66.7 percent of the male mor—
tality. Aortic rupture (55.0 percent) was the other diag—
nosed mortality problem. Mortality averaged 10.0 percent
for the birds in all treatment groups during the 8 to 21—
week growing period. Mortality averaged 12.7 and 7.8 per—

cent for the cage and floor grown birds, respectively.

EXPERIMENT #2

Procedure

 

A total of 495 day—old large white turkeys (Nicholas
variety) were obtained from a commercial hatchery. The
poults had been sexed, toms desnooded and each bird injected
with 0.04 ml. of a streptomycinpenicillin—vitamin B mixture.
Each poult was wing—banded and placed in either cage or
floor rearing pens. The room temperature at the bird level
was 55.900 (950R) for the first three days, 52.200 (900E)
for the fourth through the tenth days and reduced 2.800
(50F) weekly until a 21.100 (700F) temperature was attained.
Heat was provided by gas—fired brooders.

Light intensity was maintained at 129 to 161 lux
AL(12 to 15—foot candles), depending on bird location in
relation to the light source for the first three days and
21 to 45 lux (2 to 4—foot candles) from the fourth through
the tenth day. Thereafter, light intensity was 5.4 to 10.8
lux (0.5 to 1.0—foot candles). The low intensity was used
as a technique to control cannibalism because the birds
were not debeaked. Rheostats were used to increase the
light intensity to 45-54 lux (4 to 5—foot candles) whenever

the caretakers entered the rooms. During the first ten days,

 

40ne—foot candle 210.76 International Lux

56

r

 

 

57

continuous light was provided; thereafter, a 12—hour per
day artificial light was provided.

Feed and water were provided gd libitum. Medication
included tylosin in the water and continuous chlorotetra—
cyceine (100 g./ton) in the feed. Tylosin was added to the
water at 2 g. the first five days and for three days at
monthly intervals thereafter. Composition of the diets
used is shown in Table 1. These diets were fed to both

males and females according to the following schedule:

Prestarter — Fed until 0.9 Kg. (2.0 lbs.) consumed/
bird
Starter — Fed to 8 weeks

Grower #1 — Fed to 12 weeks

Grower #2 Fed to 17 weeks

Grower #5 — Fed to 21 weeks

The cage and floor housing descriptions are presented
in Table 7. All cage birds were started on wire floors
(pens 1—16) which were covered with an absorbent, non—slip,
laboratory animal paper for the first ten days. The wood
shavings that covered the litter floor were also covered
with the same type of paper for the first ten days. At
six weeks of age, the cage brooded birds were either kept
in cages with wire floors or were transferred to a litter
floor or to other cages with different type of floors.

Body weights were recorded for each sex at six weeks
of age and at 17 weeks and 21 weeks of age for the female

and males, respectively. Feed conversion (feed—gain ratio)

 

 

 

58

.pH6m6 .80 6.6 660696 6q6 606HH56 p6Hp .80 m.m 6 6QH>6£ 6695p 0Hpm6Hm 6H6m

6

.A6666v .66 .mfifipasmpmpfiaoz
..qu .moOHpHom .969 8H6m H6Ev 6QHH00HH 66HpHomQSmIHHmm 6Q6thpthom Honmonm

.Aad666 .66 .opoo dogma .noppmwfim empasaqv
66QHq6m0 .so m.® N .80 6.6 66p 6Q6 Mopr .ao d.r 663 poHQB p68 pHmqu 0660 oHpm6HQ ppom

I:

.60HH6Q 6qH30H6 6H6s M66: 66 0p 6 map dmmzpop 6Qpr6Q 6HH3 dmonpo 66Hpsmmop poHps
£668 0Hpm6Hm dep p606 6 psz 6696>00 6H6: mr 666 mv .66 .0 666m qH 6H00Hp oHHB 6396

.ASOV mHmpmsdemo #m.muupodH oqo

m

.pomm 66.6.umsv Hopoa mace

 

6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66

VNNT'VVX‘T‘V'K—

 

Aswleopms6Hm Q6@\.oz
m Ho6oom Q6m|6ppa

nnpsm
spasm
nanm
smHsm
gnasm
smas6
smHsm

Qomgpob
somgpob

p666

6666 6666466

MTVNNNNNNN

ado Hop63

NN.VN¢O.V
mm.vN¢O.r
r6.QN¢O.r
mm.vx#o.v
r6.ox#o.r
mm.vx#o.r
mm.VN#O.r
66.¢xom.m
rm.mN#m.m
mm.rN#O.v

36.6.6.

p62 0Hpm6Hm
.66Hm HmHmmon
.66Hm Honmon
66p6H6 oHpm6Hm
.m6Hm HmHmmon
.66Hfl HmHmmmhm
i6p6z 0Hpm6Hm
66QHP6£6 6003

.6

66QH>6pm 6003
moHHB m\v N v

 

odfig Hoon

03p pgmsHHmmNo SH qOHpmHH0666 6QH650£ HooHH 6:6 @660

66:66
66:66
HMINM
VMIwm
66166
#6166
mmlrm
ON
mrlbv
wrlr

.oz smm

.Dofifie

 

 

59

xmas obtained for the first six—week growing period and for
'the 6 to 17-week (female) or 6 to 21—week (male) growing
jperiods. The hock width (inside, outside hock thickness
at the hook joint) was recorded each time the birds were
weighed. A caliper rule was used to measure the hook
width by approaching the hook dorsally and increasing the
caliper rule jaw distance until the rule could be moved up
and down freely.

When the birds were 17 (females) or 21 (males) weeks
of age, a foot disfigurement evaluation was made. The
scoring system used was the same as that employed in
Experiment 1.

A breast blister evaluation was made at 17 (female)
and 21 (male) weeks of age. The evaluation was made after
the birds had been slaughtered and defeathered. Immediately
after defeathering, the left leg of each bird was removed
at the hook joint, identified and placed in a plastic bag
and stored for four weeks at —17.8OC (00F) until tested for
the force required to break the leg in an Instrom Universal
Testing Machine (Bourne gingl., 1966) type TTEM (Instron
Engineering Corp., 2500 Washington Avenue, Canton, Massa—
chusetts) as shown in Figure 2. The leg bone was placed
across two supports 10 cm. apart. A probe, 5 cm. thick
with a 5.1 cm. equilateral triangular notch, was driven
against the bone, about 5 cm. from each support, at a speed

of 50 cm./min. The force registered during the breaking of

 

 

 

40

the bone was recorded on a printout of force versus dis-
placement of the probe. The peak force was used as a measure
of breaking strength.

Mortality was recorded and all dead birds were autop—
sied at the Michigan State University Diagnostic Laboratory.
IMortality recorded as perosis was determined on the basis
of visual observation while the bird was alive and confirmed
at aut0psy. It was assumed that the perosis incapacitation
was the primary mortality problem even if another disease
problem was also diagnosed in the same bird.

The data collected were subjected to statistical
analyses, using methods of analysis of variance (Snedecor
and Cochran, 1968) and differences between means by the
multiple range F test (Duncan, 1955). Significant dif—

ferences were assumed at (P<<.05).

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.

41

Instron Universal Testing Machine
used to measure breaking strength

of bone.

42

 

 

 

 

 

45

Results

Results of the first six weeks are presented in
Table 8. The cage brooded turkeys had heavier body weights
than did the litter floor brooded birds at six weeks of age.
A bird density of .046 square meter (0.5 sq. ft.) per bird
in the cage systems was satisfactory for growth when com—
pared to the litter floor group. However, the heaviest
average body weight was observed in the cage brooded fe—
males at .064 square meter (0.7 sq. ft.) per bird and in
the cage brooded males at .091 square meter (1.0 sq. ft.)
per bird.

Livability averaged 95.4 percent for the cage brooded
birds and 96.9 percent for the litter floor brooded birds.
At the end of the first week livability averaged 97.8 and
98.5 percent, respectively, for the cage and floor grown
birds. Perosis accounted for 50 percent (12 or 24 birds)
of the mortality observed in the cage brooded birds. The
hooks of the cage brooded birds were larger than those of
the litter floor brooded birds. The average difference in
width was .04 cm. (.016 in.) and .07 cm. (.028 in.) for the
females and males, respectively.

The feed—gain ratios (feed efficiency) averaged 1.77
and 1.74 for the cage brooded female and male turkeys,
respectively. The feed—gain ratios averaged 1.65 (female)
and 1.71 (male) for the litter floor brooded birds.

Table 9 shows results for females from 6 to 17 weeks

 

 

 

 

 

.mo.v.m p6 pumHoHHH6 thn60HHHq6Hm 6H6 meppoH pdoHoHMH6 hp 6030HH06 md6ozm

.6605 H0696 6H66d6pm H6
.A.SOV HmpoEHpGoo #m.mnuponH 6QOm
.m6gdog m.m ”6.6Mv E6H6OHHM oqom
.Amsv Hopms 6H6svm mmoo.0nupoom 6H6dwm once

 

 

 

6 e 6 r v.66 666.666.6 V6.6 6666.6666.e 66 666. noose . 6e
6 6 6 6 6.666 h66.666.6 e6.e o6666.6666.r 66 6re. 6666 66.6
e 6 r 6 6.66 666.666.6 66.6 6666.6666.6 66 666. 6666 66.6
e r 6 a 6.66 666.666.6 66.6 or66.6666.e 66 666. 6666 66.6
6 6 6 6 e.e6 n66.666.6 66.6 96666.66e6.e 66 666. 6666 6.6
mmfldz
6 e 6 6 6.66 6e6.666.6 66.6 6666.6666.e 66 66v. soosm 6r
6 6 r 6 6.66 666.666.6 66.v h6666.6666.e 66 e66. 6666 6r.6
6 6 6 6 6.666 opeo.666.6 66.6 o666.6666.e 66 666. 6666 66.6
e 6 6 6 6.66 o66.666.6 66.6 o666.u666.e 66 666. 6666 66.6
e 6 e a 6.66 966.666.6 66.r 666666.6666.v 66 666. 6666 66.6
mmfimamh
66666 666666666 6666666 66666 .Ilnnnwnwu. .nlnm666quu. 66666 M666 666H63 .oz Aeeamx6s6 .6666666.. 466
spHHHnmeaq asses Room s666 6 6om 666316 eepn6p6 r mppnspm mspeoosm 666
Amesam .ozv 666H6pso: \6666 66666

666 go 6x663 me op mhoMHSp p6MH6a M6 thHHp6>HH
6q6 £p6H3 Moon .GOHmHopgoo 666H .pp6H63 6609 so 6cH6ooHp HOOHw 6d6 6660 mo powmmm .6 oHQ6B

 

 

45

.mo.Vm p6 630.8936 hapHHmOHwHfimflm 6,66 mumppmfi pcmhmwmfld mp Umzoafiom mfimozm
.5665 .893 69669665 M d

.A .53 mumpmafipdoo #md u £65” 650m

.665on m.m n A .93 amnwoaflx 665m

.ANEV 686165 686566 omaodupoom 6.56566 mflOr

 

médo .mm
6m .MB . r0
Mdfiofio

60 .m w.oo

66.66.66
66.66.66
66.66.66
66.66.66
66.66.66
66.66.66
.I646mqu
momom

waflxmwnm
defipflddoo

Dmmo H mm .N
oormo .u#m. .m
mmo sumo .N

opmo .H #D . m

69666.666.6
opmmo.um6.m
666.666.6
o66666.6
66666.666.6

mrofimbd
MN .Eow

66663 6666

  

 

n6r.nr.v 6.6 6.666 66.6 966.666.6 66 666. 6666 66666 66.66
onv.um.r 6.6 6.66 66.6 666.666.6 66 666. 6666 66666 66.66
n6r.ur.r 6.6 6.666 66.6 6666.666.6 6v 666. 6666 6666666 .66
66 66
p6r.6r.v 6.6 6.666 66.6 6666.66r.6 66 666. 6666 6666666 .66
66 66
n6v.nr.r 6.6 6.666 66.6 666.666.6 66 666. 6666 6666666 66.66
266.6r.v 6.6 6.666 66.6 9666.66v.6 66 666. 6666 6666666 66.66
66.66.v 6.66 6.666 66.6 666.666.6 66 666. 6666 6663 66.66
66.66.r 6.66 6.666 66.6 9666.66696 66 666. 6666 6663 66.66
66.uo.r 6.6 6.666 66.6 666.666.6 66 666. 6666 666666 66
n66.Hr.r 6.6 6.66 66.6 66¢66.666.6 66 666. 666666 666666 66
666mm 666nfln 666 A6\v 6.663 66166 66.666 .663 6 p6 666mfln\6av .63 6-6 .63 66-6 .oz 666
6666 6666666 .63 Mru6 66666 666663 6666666 6666666 966666 6666666
66666666 6666696>Hg 6666\6666 6666 .63166 66666.62
pmmmmm
mhwxfifi 6:636“ mo nounpfludoo wmfi 696 npzohw do 8656666 wqflmdog M6276} op 6 mo pommmm .0 63.68

 

 

 

 

46

of age. Cage grown birds at a density of .212 Square meter
(2.5 sq. ft.) per bird had heavier 17—week body weights
than litter floor grown birds at the same density or cage
grown birds at a density of .141 square meter (1.5 sq. ft.)
per bird. However, the average body weights of the cage
grown birds at a density of .141 square meter (1.5 sq. ft.),
although not significantly different, were heavier (7.10

vs 6.95 kg.) than those of the litter floor grown birds.
Growing female turkeys to siX weeks of age, in a wire cage

and then on a litter floor, to 17 weeks of age did not

 

significantly alter body weight in comparison to the birds
grown on a litter floor throughout the entire 17 weeks.
Althouth three different types of cage floor material
(wire, Bressler, plastic or plastic slats) were used, the
average body weights at 17 weeks of age were not signifi—
cantly altered.

A lower feed/gain ratio (feed efficiency) was ob—
served in the cage housed (5.22) birds than in the litter
floor housed (3.35) birds. Livability averaged 99.1 percent
for both the cage and litter floor grown birds.

The average force required to break the legs (break-
ing strength of bones) of females at 17 weeks of age was
not significantly affected by the type of growing floor
used. There was no statistical difference between the
breaking strength of bones from birds that were housed in
floor and those housed in cage housing systems even though

they were numerically weaker. The lowest force required to

 

 

47

break the legs was recorded for those birds that were
housed in pen numbers 18, 25, 16 and 27; and the highest
force required to break the legs was registered for those
birds that were housed in pen numbers 52, 53 and 54.

Foot disfigurement and hook size were greater in
the birds grown in the cages with wire floors than those
grown on litter floors. The highest average foot score
was recorded for those birds that were grown in pen num-
bers 10 and 12, and the lowest average foot score was
recorded for those that were grown in pen number 20.
Though there were numerical differences between floor and
caged birds, yet the differences were not significant
statistically; however, there were significant differences
(TH<.OS) between.birds grown in wire cages and those grown
in cages with plastic bottoms and between those grown in
floor and those grown in wire cages. In terms of hock
size, the highest average was that recorded for those
birds grown in pen numbers 14 and 16, and the lowest for
those birds grown in pen numbers 52, 55 and 54. Even
though there were numerical differences between floor
reared birds and cage reared birds, yet the differences
were not significant statistically; however, a significant
difference (P<:.05) was observed between birds maintained
in litter floor housing system from O to 17 weeks of age
and those grown in cages from O to 6 weeks and later grown
in cages with plastic bottoms or wire cages from 6 to 17

weeks of age.

 

48

There was a significant difference between the
breaking strength of legs of males housed in cage or floor
and females housed in cage or floor. Numerically, the
males housed in either cage or on.floor had higher foot
score and hook size than comparable females.

Breast blisters were not observed in any of the birds
grown in cages with either Bressler plastic or plastic slat
floors. However, 55.5 percent of the birds grown in cages
with wire floors had breast blisters. Of those with breast
blister, the lowest incidence was observed in those main—
tained in pen number 18 and the highest in those grown in
pen numbers 14 and 16.

Results of males grown in cages and floor from 6-21
weeks of age are presented in Table 10. Litter floor grown
birds at a density of .519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.) per
bird had heavier 21—week weights than birds grown in wire
floor cages at a density of .182 (2.0 sq. ft.) or .519
(5.4 sq. ft.) square meter. However, birds grown in cages,
which had a soft plastic mat over the wire floor, at a den—
sity of .519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.) had.heavier (15.78
vs 15.40 kg.), although not significantly different, body
weights than the litter floor grown birds. The average
body weights of the birds grown in wire cages to 6 weeks of
age and then on a litter floor to 21 weeks of age were lower
(12.55 vs 15.40 kg.) than those for the birds grown on a

litter floor throughout the entire 21 weeks.

 

 

 

nr.nwu.mov
w, tw.mrfli.mmr
mn.muv.m¢r
n¢.wum.r¢e
we.muu.oor
mo.mu¢.m¢v
Iladmfll

mohom
mnHMmmHm

wrv.Mw#.m
meAom.m
m¢o.uo¢.m
arr.hmm.m
mmo.flom.m
mNO.Mr#.m

mA.sov

anon: Moom

 

nonpaeuoolmmq .xznvm

.mo.uvm pm pqumMMHc hapQMOHMHdem ohm mkmppoa pdohomwfiw mp UmonHom mqmem

.HHGGE .HO.H.H® UHMUHHmpm H +\

.A.aov whopmaflpdmo dm.mnn£odH mGOm
.qusOm m.mnuA.va EdeOHHx mnom

Amav hopes ohtddm mmmo.ouupoom ohmsom mqu

 

 

p¢.ue.m m.me c.00e mm.m cem.wmn.me w mem. mmmo onnnmfim mm.rm

oe.uu.m r.mm o.mo om.m pmm.wmo.me er mme. nmmo onpmmam mm.sm

em.nm.m m.mm c.00e mm.m pmom.nwo.mv m arm. nwto mun: me.mv

em.Hm.m n.e¢ m.mw te.¢ mum.nem.ee er mar. mmmo the: ev.m

pr.um.v ¢.mm m.nm mm.m pmv.wmm.mv om arm. om8 nonpag me

mr.wm.v o.m w.¢m no.m moimr.wo¢.mr an arm. amppaq noppaq Br
onoom Amenflp two mt\v A.x3 emunv mfi.mnq .mx3 6 pm rfienflp\mav .x3 610 .x3 emit .02 com
pooh dmaafl 8 .MB r no OHPmm meHoz vmpnwpm mpflmdom ampmhm mqflmSOm

nnopmaam mnflflfinm>flq nfimo\nmmm atom .Mzurm nenflm .oz

pmmmnm

mmmxudp mama mo doapaquo mod can npzonm do ampmhm mdfimdon zoozlvm 0p 0 mo pommwm .0r manna

   

 

 

 

so

A lower feed/gain ratio (feed efficiency) was ob—
served in the cage housed (5.52 and 5.57) birds at a
density of .519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.) than in the
litter floor housed (5.64) birds. However, at a density
of .182 square meter (2.0 sq. ft.) the cage housed (5.86
and 4.16) birds required more feed than the litter floor
housed (5.64) birds. Livability averaged 85.9 percent for
the litter floor housed birds and 95.2 percent for the
cage housed birds. Of the mortality observed in the litter
floor housed birds, 72.7 percent (8 of 11 birds) was
diagnosed as being due to perosis, 18.1 percent (2 of 11
birds) was diagnosed as being due to roundheart disease, and
9.2 percent (1 of 11 birds) was diagnosed as caused by
aortic rupture. Of the mortality observed in the cage
grown birds, 66.7 percent (2 of 5 birds) was diagnosed as
being due to perosis, and 55.5 percent (1 of 5 birds) was
diagnosed as caused by aortic rupture.

Breaking strength of legs for males was not signi—
ficantly affected by the type of growing floor used. The
average force required to break the legs of caged birds was
not significantly different (P;>.OE) from those maintained
in the floor housing systems; however, the cage reared birds
had weaker leg breaking strength numerically than floor
reared birds. The greatest average force required to
break the legs was recorded for those birds housed in pen
numbers 21 and 22, and the weakest force was recorded for

those in pen numbers 57 and 58.

 

.‘ \

IV

 

51

Numerically, birds grown on floor had a lower foot
score in comparison to those grown in cages. The lowest
average foot score was recorded for birds in pen number 17,
and the highest average foot score was recorded for those
in pen numbers 9, 11, 15 and 15. There were statistical
differences (P4:.O5) between cage reared birds and floor
reared birds and between birds reared in wire cages and
those reared in cages with plastic bottoms. Birds reared

in pen number 19 had the narrowest hock size while those

 

reared in pen numbers 9 and 11 had the widest hock size.
Floor reared birds had narrower hock size in comparison to
cage reared birds; however, there was no significant
difference (P:>.O5) between floor reared birds and cage
reared birds.

Generally, hock size was not significantly altered
by the type of housing system.

Breast blisters, which were trimmed at the time the
birds were processed, were observed in 5 percent of the
birds grown on a litter floor for the entire 21 weeks of
age and in 19 percent of the birds grown on the soft plas—
tic mat. Of the birds housed in the cages with wire floors,
4 percent had breast blisters which were trimmed at the
time the birds were processed. A breast blister percentage

of 29.4 was observed in the birds grown in wire cages to

 

six weeks of age and then on a litter floor to 21 weeks of

age.

"\

   

 

DISCUSSION

The results of the first experiment in the study were
generally not consistent with the finding of Manley and
Muller (1975) regarding body weight of birds grown in cages
and on the floor, but were consistent in terms of foot score.
Manley and Muller (1975) reported that caged, Broad Breasted
White turkey hens gained significantly (P<:.05) more weight
than did floor managed controls. The floor reared birds
had significantly (P<:.05) lower foot scores than did the
cage reared birds, except for the birds reared on the
Bressler flooring. In this study, 17—week body weights in
Experiment ’1 were not significantly (P>.O5) different for
turkey females grown on a litter floor or in cages which
had either a wire or Bressler plastic floor. Birds grown
in cages had significantly (P<:.05) higher foot scores than
those grown on the litter floor. In terms of feed efficiency,
the finding of Carson et al. (1975) is in agreement with
that observed in.Experiment 1 of the study; i.e., a better
feed efficiency was observed in the litter floor housed birds.

The cage environment did not adversely affect the
growth of female turkeys to 17 weeks of age or male turkeys
to 21 weeks of age. Market quality in terms of breast
blister incidence was acceptable for the cage grown females;

however, the high incidence observed in the cage grown

52

 

 

 

 

55

males would make the cage floors used in the study an un—
economical practice for the commercial turkey producer.

A cage brooding system to 8 weeks of age, followed
by a litter floor growing system thereafter, has potential
as a commercial practice. The body weights attained at 17
(female) or 21 (male) weeks of age demonstrate that body
weight should not be adversely affected by a cage rearing
environment. In view of the data collected in a subsequent
experiment (unpublished), the first week mortality problem
could have been eliminated by maintaining a 5500 (95oF)
temperature and a light intensity of 161 to 215 lux (15 to
20 f.c.) at bird level. Other possible factors which may
have influenced mortality could be heat and water source
location. Water may have to be available on both the in-
side and outside cage partition rather than just on the
outside partition, as in this study. Likewise, heat may
have to originate from the house wall rather than the
center of the pen, as was the case in this study. The
management technique of low light, 5.4 to 10.8 lux (0.5 to
1.0 f.c.), intensity was successfully employed in this
study to prevent cannibalism. The low light intensity was
used in place of the typical debeaking technique employed
by the commercial turkey industry.

In experiment two, livability of the cage brooded
birds during the first week was considerably better (97.8
versus 81.8 percent) than previously observed in the first

experiment. The two managerial differences of the two

 

 

54

experiments were a greater light intensity, 129 to 161 lux
(12 to 15 f.c.), a better control of environmental tempera—
ture, 55.900 (950E) for the first three days followed

by 52.200 (9OOF) for the next four days. Based on the
observations in the two experiments, light intensity and
environmental temperature play an important role in getting
cage brooded poults ”off—to—a—fast—start.”

It is the author's observation that debeaking was
eliminated as a management procedure in this study by con—
trolling light intensity. Light intensity was 129 to 161
lux (12 to 15 f.c.), depending on bird location in relation
to the light source for the first three days and 21 to 45
lus (2 to 4 f.c.) from the fourth through the tenth day.
Thereafter, light intensity was 5.4 to 10.8 lux (0.5 to
1.0 f.c.). Rheostats were employed to increase the light
intensity to 45 to 54 lux (4 to 5 f.c.) whenever caretakers
entered the rooms. However, an observant caretaker is
necessary if this program is to operate effectively because
a greater light intensity than that listed, even if for
only three or four hours, resulted in some toe and feather—
picking in this study.

Based on the results of this study, commercial fe—
male turkeys can be successfully brooded and grown in cages

that have either Bressler plastic or hard plastic slats as

flooring material. The use of wire floor cages would appear

to be uneconomical because of the breast blister incidence

observed in the first and second experiments.

  

 

55

Cage growing of commercial male turkeys shows prom—
ise because using a soft plastic mat as a floor material
in wire cages resulted in heavier 21—week body weight than
that of litter grown birds. This is in agreement with the
result reported by Manley and Muller (1975). In addition,
a lower feed/gain ratio was observed in these cage grown
birds. However, a slightly higher breast blister inci-
dence (12.5 versus 5.0 percent) was observed in the cage
grown birds.

Of particular concern in this study was the lower
21—week male body weight and greater incidence of breast
blisters observed in the cage floor grown birds in com—
parison to the litter floor grown birds. A visual obser—
vation was made which may offer an explanation of greater
incidence (44.1 versus 9.1 percent) of leg lameness in this
study. This lameness was very similar to that described
by McCapes (1967). The birds were reluctant to walk and
upon being forced to walk, a hobbling or limping gait was
observed. As soon as possible, the birds would sit; how—
ever, when continually forced to walk, they would use their
wings to continue forward motion. Quivering of the legs
was a common symptom. The majority (7O percent) of the
birds with breast blisters which were trimmed when the
birds were processed exhibited the leg lameness. Since
the cage grown birds did not exhibit the lameness to any
greater incidence than the litter floor grown birds, it

would seem that cage brooding per se was not the problem.

 

.’ m ‘a—R“ t:‘_T—‘r~3 5‘ «‘3: ‘1‘

 

56
Further, the problem has been recognized by the commercial
industry for several years (McCapes, 1967).

The data from the second experiment indicated that
there was a significant difference between floor grown and
cage grown birds when a comparison was made between the
breaking strength of legs. No sex difference in breaking
strength existed between the type of flooring material used
and the control treatment; however, the control had a lower
breaking force than any of the treatment groups. No dif—
ference in hock size in the males was found between the
flooring materials used and the controls; but, there were
differences between the type of flooring materials and
control for the females. In both males and females, there
were significant differences (P‘:.O5) between controls and
types of flooring materials used (floor versus cage reared
turkeys) in foot disfigurement. This is in contrast to the
findings reported by Manley and Muller (1975). Foot dis-
figurement is considered a contributing factor to overall

performance (Woodward gt al., 1961).

illlhu-‘n

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the cage
system as an environment for growing turkeys to market age
with reSpect to growth, cage density, type of flooring
materials and bone characteristics.

In experiment one, 440 day-old commercial large
white turkeys (Nicholas variety) were utilized as experi—
mental birds. The birds were brooded in a wire cage or on
a litter floor from 1 to 8 weeks of age. From 8 to 17
(females) or 8 to 21 (males) weeks of age the birds brooded
on a litter floor were continued on litter floor; whereas,
the cage birds were kept in the wire cage.

Male and female 8-week body weights were not signi—
ficantly (P:>.O5) affected by housing the birds on a litter
floor or in cages. The average body weights for females
reared in either cage or floor housing system were almost
identical, 2.568 kg. (5.6 lbs.) versus 2.585 kg. (5.7 lbs.)
at 8 weeks of age. Cage reared males averaged 5.175 kg.
(7.0 lbs.) at 8 weeks of age in comparison to 5.112 kgo
(6.8 lbs.) for the floor reared males.

There was no significant (P;>.O5) effect on the 17
or 21—week body weights when the females were grown to 17
weeks and the males to 21 weeks of age, respectively, in

cages, on a litter floor, or in cages to 8 weeks and then

57

   

 

 

 

58

on a litter floor thereafter. The average 17-week female
body weights were 6.77 kg. (14.9 lbs.), 6.95 kg. (15.2 lbs.)
and 7.18 kg. (15.8 lbs.) for the cage, cage floor, and floor
grown birds, respectively. The average 21—week male body
weights were 10.75 kg. (25.7 lbs.), 11.20 kg. (24.6 lbs.),
and 11.71 kg. (25.8 lbs.) for the cage, cage floor and
floor grown birds, respectively.

The incidence of breast blisters was not a problem
in the female turkeys grown to 17 weeks of age on a litter

floor or in cages having a Bressler plastic floor; however,

 

a 10.8 percent incidence was observed in the females grown
in cages with wire floors. Males grown in cages with wire
floors had an 81.8 percent incidence of breast blisters;
however, the incidence was considerably lower (52.1 percent)
in the males grown on the Bressler plastic floor. Despite
this difference, the economic considerations obviously
dictate different type of cage floors than any used in this
experiment.

In experiment two, 495 commercial turkeys (Nicholas
variety) were brooded to 6 weeks of age in a wire cage or
on a litter floor. From 6 to 17 (females) or 6 to 21 (males)
weeks of age, the cage brooded birds were either kept in
cages with wire floors or were transferred to a litter floor
or to other cages with different types of floor bottoms.
Cage brooded turkeys had heavier body weights than did the
litter floor brooded birds at 6 weeks of age. Livability

for the first 6 weeks averaged 95.4 percent for the cage

 

59

brooded birds and 96.9 percent for the litter floor brooded
birds. A bird density of 0.046 square meter (0.5 sq. ft.)
per bird in the cage's system was satisfactory for growth
to 6 weeks of age when caged birds were compared to the
litter floor brooded birds.

The 17—week body weight of cage grown female turkeys
was heavier, 7.59 kg. (16.5 lbs.), than that of comparable
litter grown females, 6.95 kg. (15.5 lbs.), when housed
at 0.212 square meter (2.5 sq. ft.) per bird. The average
body weights of birds grown in cages at 0.141 square meter
(1.5 sq. ft.) per bird or in cages to 6 weeks of age and
then on a litter floor to 17 weeks were not significantly
(P:>.O5) altered when compared to those of the litter floor
brooded and grown birds. All turkeys grown on a litter
floor at a density of 0.519 square meter (5.4 sq. ft.) per
bird had heavier 21—week body weights than birds grown on
wire floor cages at a density of O.182 (2.0 sq. ft.) or
0.519 (5.4 sq. ft.) square meter. The average 21—week body
weights were 15.40 kg. (29.5 lbs.), 12.55 kg. (27.6 lbs.),
11.86 kg. (26.1 lbs.), and 15.06 kg. (28.7 lbs.) for birds
on litter floor, cage floor, wire cage floor, and soft
plastic mat cage floor, respectively.

A lower feed/gain ratio (feed efficiency) was ob-
served in the cage housed (5.22) females than in the litter
floor housed (5.55) females from 6 to 17 weeks of age. Feed
efficiency for the males (6 to 21 weeks of age) was lower

for the cage housed (5.52 and 5.27) birds at a density

 

 

 

 

60

of 0.519 square meter than in the litter floor housed
(5.64) birds.

The average force required to break the legs was not
significantly affected by the type of growing floor used.
Breaking strength of legs of both sexes grown in cages was
not substantially different from that of birds grown in
floor pens. Bone breakage was numerically weaker for the
cage reared birds in comparison to the floor reared birds.
Foot disfigurement was greater in the cage grown birds than
in comparable litter floor grown birds and was greater in
birds housed on the wire than for those on the soft plastic
mat cage. Hock size was not significantly altered by the
type of housing system; however, it was greater numerically
in the cage grown birds than in the control (litter floor
grown) birds.

Breast blisters were not observed in the birds grown
in cages that had either Bressler plastic or plastic slats
as flooring material. Breast blisters, which were trimmed
at the time the birds were processed, were observed in 5.0,
29.4, 40.0 and 19.0 percent of the litter floor, cage
floor, wire cage floor, and soft plastic mat cage floor
birds, respectively.

These experiments have shown that cage brooding
systems to 8 weeks of age followed by a litter floor growing
system has potential as a commercial practice and that com-

mercial female turkeys can be successfully brooded and grown

 

 

 

 

61

in cages that have either Bressler plastic or hard plastic
slats as flooring material. This practice also shows
promise for the males except for the high incidence of

breast blister.

 

    

Literature Cited

 

 

 

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, R. L, R. B. Harrington, D. D. Jackson, C. C. Haugh
and W. J. Stadelman, 1968. Bone breakage and bone
fragmentation in spent hens. Poultry Science.

47:1951.

Adams, R. L., R. L. Pybe and C. G. Haugh, 1971. Comparing
measurements of bone strength. Poultry Science.
50:1545.

Andrews, L. D., and T. L. Goodwin, 1975. Performance of
broilers in cages. Poultry Science. 52(2):725—728.

Bailey, B. B., J. H. Quisenberry and J. Taylor, 1959.
A comparison of performance of layers in cage and
floor housing. Poultry Science. 58:565—568.

Bell, D., 1969. Crowding in cage rearing affects pullet
weights. Poultry Tribune, January, 75:18—19.

Berg, R. W., 1972. Research on environmental practices to
improve confinement rearing. Gobbles (Publication
Minn. Turkey Growers Assoc.), January Issue, pp. 15
and 22.

Bourne, M. C., J. C. Moyer and D. B. Hand, 1966. Measure—
ment of food texture by a universal testing machine.
Food Technology 20 (April): 170—174.

Brooks, D. L., C. C. Judge, F. H. Thayer and G. W. Newell,
1957. The economic impact of floor space on broiler
production. Poultry Science. 56:1107.

Burr, J. W., 1970. A comparison of the A— and V—type
sloping wire floor systems. M.S. thesis, Penn State
University, as cited by Carter 33 al., Poultry
Science. 51:445—448.

Carson, J. R., R. G. Berry, R. L. Adams and W. J. Stadelman,
1975. Growing turkeys in cages. 62 Annual Meeting
Poultry Science Assoc., Brookings, S. D., p. 16
(Abstract).

Carter, T. A., G. O. Bressler and R. F. Gentry, 1972. Wire

and litter management systems for broiler breeders.
Poultry Science. 51:445—448.

62

 

65

Claybaugh, J., 1966. Cages for growing pullets. Poultry
Tribune. 72(11):26.

Cooper, J. B., and B. D. Barnett, 1972. Performance of
broiler breeders on slats vs slat—litter floor.
Poultry Science. 51:1265-1267.

Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple tests.
Biometrics. 11:1—42.

Francis, D. W., 1957. A comparison of seven strains of
purebreds and hybrids in cages. Poultry Science.
56:178—181.

Gowe, R. S., 1955. A comparison of the egg production of
seven White Leghorn strains housed in two environ—
ments-—floor pens and a laying battery. Poultry
Science. 54:1198.

Hartung, T. E., 1955. Floor space for broilers. Poultry 1
Science. 54:1200. 5

Heishman, G. F., C. J. Cunningham and T. B. Clark, 1952.
Floor space requirements of broilers. Poultry
Science. 51:920.

Koonz, C. H., E. J. Strandine and V. E. Gray, 1965. A
study of factors responsible for Keel blisters in
poultry. Poultry Science. 42:1281.

Lloyd, R. W., 1969. Growing broilers in cages. Poultry
Digest. 28:542—545.

Lloyd, R. W., 1972. Growing broilers in plastic c00ps.
Poultry Digest. 51:121—124.

Logan, V. A., 1964. Influence of cage versus floor, density
and dubbing on laying house performance. Poultry
Science. 44:974—979.

Lowry, D. C., I. M. Lerner and L. W. Taylor, 1956. Intra—
flock genetic merit under floor and cage management.
Poultry Science. 55:1054—1045.

Magruder, N. D. and J. W. Nelson, 1965. Long term studies
of the effect of slatted floor versus litter on
laying performance. Poultry Science. 44:1595
(Abstract).

Magruder, N. D. and J. W. Nelson, 1968. Comparison of
three growing programs on pullet performance. Poultry
Science. 47:1691.

 

 

 

64

Manley, J. M. and H. D. Muller, 1975. Growth of cage
reared turkeys. Poultry Science. 52:625-629.

Marion, J. E., 1968. An evaluation for processing of layers
housed in cages and on the floor. Poultry Science.
47:1250—1254.

McCapes, R. H., 1967. Lameness in turkeys due to faulty
bone formation. Animal Nutrition and Health, June

McCume, E. L. and H. D. Dellman, 1968. Developmental
origin and structural characters of breast blisters
in chickens. Poultry Science. 47:852—858.

Merkley, J. E., 1975. Bone strength of broilers as affected
by increased activity in c00ps and restricted activity
on the floor. 62nd Annual Meeting Poultr Science g
Assoc., Brookings, S. D., p. 71 (Abstract . l

Meyers, W. A., and M. L. Sunde, 1974. Bone breakage as
affected by type of housing or an exercise machine
for layers. Poultry Science. 55(5):878—885.

Miller, M. M. and J. H. Quisenberry, 1959. Factors affecting
feed efficiency for egg production in selected strains
of caged layers. Poultry Science. 58:757—766.

Moreng, R. E., H. L. Enos, E. G. Buss and T. E. Hartung,
1961. The relationship of floor space to factors
influencing broiler growth. Poultry Science. 40:

1059.

Osborn, D. L., K. T. S. Yao and J. L. Adams, 1959. Slat
floor vs floor pens for laying hens. Poultry
Science. 58:1254.

Olsen, M. W., and L. M. Lucas, 1965. Special floor reduced
egg breakage in turkey laying cages. Poultry Science.
48:45—45.

Parker, J. E., and J. B. Rodgers, 1954. Open houses and
cages for laying hens. Oregon Agr. Expl. Stat. Bull.

545:1—15.

Peterson, R. A., M. A. Hellickson, W. D. Wagner and A. D.
Longhouse, 1971. The effect of humidity and floor
type on body weight and severity of keel bruisal in
broilers. Poultry Science. 50:285—287.

Poss, P. E. and E. B. Olson, 1972. Cage brooding of turkeys.
Poultry Digest, March Issue: p. 159.

 

 

65

Reece, F. N., J. W. Deaton and J. D. May, 1971. Cage versus
floor rearing of broiler chickens. Poultry Science.

Reed. M. J., H. D. White, T. M. Huston and K. W. May, 1966.
The use of different types of cage bottoms to reduce
breast blisters in battery reared broilers. Poultry
Science. 45:1418—1419.

Riddle, C., C. F. Helmboldt and E. P. Sinsen, 1969. A
histological study of medullary bone of laying hens
under different diets and housing conditions.

Avian Disease. 15:165—170.

Rowland, L. O. Jr., R. H. Harms, H. R. Wilson, I. J. Ross
and J. L. Fry, 1967. Breaking strength of chick
bones as an indication of dietary calcium and
phOSphorous adequacy. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.
126:599—401.

 

Rowland, L. O. Jr., H. R. Wilson, J. L. Fry and R. H. Harms,
1968. A comparison of bone strength of caged and
floor layers and roosters. Poultry Science. 47:
2015—2015.

Rowland, L. 0. Jr., and R. H. Harms, 1970. The effect of
wire pens, floor pens and cages on bone characteris—
tics of laying hens. Poultry Science. 49:1225—1225.

Rowland, L. O. Jr., B. L. Dameron, G. Ross and R. H. Harms,
1971. Comparisons of bone characteristics between
floor and battery grown broilers. Poultry Science.
50:1121—1124.

Rowland, L. O. Jr., and R. H. Harms, 1972. Time required
to develop bone fragility in laying hens. Poultry
Science. 51:1559—1541.

Rowland, L. 0. Jr., J. R. Fry, R. B. Christmas, A. W.
O'Steen and R. H. Harms, 1972. Differences in tibia
strangth and bone ash among strains of layers.
Poultry Science. 51:1612—1615.

Seay, R. L., G. S. Nelson, L. D..Andrews and G. C. Harris,
Jr., 1972. The develOpment of a covered slat floor
for loading broilers from cages. 62nd Annual Meeting
Poultry Science Assoc., Brookings, S. D., p. 91
(Abstract).

Siegel, H. S., L. N. Druny and W. C. Patterson, 1975.
Bone characteristics and growth of broilers housed
in plastic coops or on litter in moderate and high
temperatures. 4th Eur0pean Poultry Conf., Longon,

pp. 159—164.

 

 

 

66

Siegel, P. B. and R. H. Coles, 1958. Effects of floor space
on broiler performance. Poultry Science. 57:1245.

Shupe, W. D. and J. H. Quisenberry, 1961. Effect of certain
rearing and laying house environments on performance
of incross egg production type pullets. Poultry
Science. 40:1165—1171.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran, 1968. Statistical
Methods 6th Edition. The Iowa State College Press,
Ames, Iowa.

Wabech, G. J., and L. H. Littlefield, 1972. Bone strength
of broilers reared in floor pens and in cages having
different bottoms. Poultry Science. 51:897-899.

wabech, C. J. and J. W. Merkley, 1974. Cage density effect
on bone strength of broilers. 65rd Annual Meeting
Poultry Science Assoc., Blacksburg, Virginia, p. 1987
(Abstract).

Welch, S. W., P. E. Metcalfe and R. Wesley, 1970. Broilers
in cages. World Poultry Science Journal. 27:152—142.

Wells, R. G., 1972. The effect of varying stocking density
on the development and subsequent laying performance
on floor reared pullets. British Poultry Science.

15:15-25.

Wildey, H. E., C. J. Flegal and T. H. Coleman, 1968. Cage
versus floor rearing of replacement pullets. Poultry
Science. 47:1752 (Abstract).

Woodard, A. E., H. Abplanalp and F. X. Ogasawara, 1961.
Egg and semen production performance of turkeys
under cage management. Poultry Science. 40:884—890.

Woodard, A. E., and H. Abplanalp, 1967. Semen production
and fertilization capacity of semen from broad
breasted bronze turkeys maintained in cages and on
the floor. Poultry Science. 46:825—826.

Yates, J. D. and C. C. Bruhson, 1971. Quality of cage
reared broilers. Poultry Science. 50:1684 (Abstract).