Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine (2008), 11, No 4, 243−249

UTILIZATION OF GRAIN BARLEY AND ALFALFA MEAL

AS ALTERNATIVE MOULT INDUCTION PROGRAMMES
FOR LAYING HENS: BODY WEIGHT LOSSES AND EGG
PRODUCTION TRAITS

M. PETEK & F. ALPAY

Department of Zootechnics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Uludag, Bursa, Turkey

Summary

Petek, M. & F. Alpay, 2008. Utilization of grain barley and alfalfa meal as alternative moult
induction programmes for laying hens: Body weight losses and egg production traits. Bulg.
J. Vet. Med., 11, No 4, 243−249.
A total of 54 Lohman, brown egg laying hens, older than 70 weeks of age, were used in this study.
The hens were randomly divided into two treatment groups and a control group (in total 18 experi-
mental units with 3 hens each; 473 cm2 per bird). The hens in the first treatment group were fed 100%
grain barley ration, while the second group received 100% alfalfa meal. The control group of hens
received a commercial layer feed. The respective diets and water were allowed ad libitum, and the
animals were housed in natural light during the 10-day moulting programme. The body weight
changes of hens in the groups, moult and post-moult egg production, egg size, and mortality were
determined. The most significant body weight loss (19.54%) occurred in the alfalfa fed hens, while in
grain barley fed hens the lost was calculated as 17.54% at the end of moulting period. Significant
differences were found for egg production and cracked egg percentage between non-moult control
and moulting treatment groups. There were no significant differences between moult and post-moult
average periods egg weights and mortality rates in all groups. Based on the results of the study, grain
barley appeared to be the best alternative to non-feed removal moulting methods.

Key words: alfalfa meal, egg production, grain barley, laying hens, moulting

INTRODUCTION

The forced moulting of laying hens is an sion (Alodan & Mashaly, 1999), and re-
economic practice (McDaniel & Aske, sults in increased flock susceptibility to
2000) extensively employed by Turkish Salmonella (in particular Salmonella En-
egg producers in order to reduce costs and teritidis) infection (Barbour et al., 2004;
maximize profits (Petek, 2001). Most Kubena et al., 2005). It is also detrimental
commercial forced-moulting programmes to the skeletal integrity of hens (Mazzuco
entail food withdrawal for different peri- & Hester, 2005). These difficulties and
ods (Ruszler, 1996; Narahari, 2001). For- consumer pressure has resulted in non-
ced moulting may be economically bene- fasting moulting procedures, which pro-
ficial, but its inhumane practices also raise vide laying hens with access to feed du-
difficult ethical questions. The stress of ring moult (Koelkebeck & Anderson,
feed withdrawal leads to immune suppres- 2007). Feed withdrawal is banned in Eu-
Utilization of grain barley and alfalfa meal as alternative moult induction programmes for laying ...

rope, and is rarely practiced in the USA or traditional battery cages (six replicate
Canada (Hester, 2005). groups of 3 hens each, 473 cm2 per bird).
“Non-fasting” or “non-feed removal” The hens were provided ad libitum access
methods for moulting laying hens are new to a complete layer ration and water for a
to commercial egg industry. Previous data period of 2 weeks to ensure that all hens
suggest that alfalfa can potentially be com- were healthy and in active production.
bined with layer ration to limit Salmonella After the acclimatization was complete,
Enteritidis infection and still induce a all birds were randomly divided into three
moult comparable with feed withdrawal groups and they were allowed ad libitum
(McReynolds et al., 2006). McCovan et al. access to water and their respective diets
(2006) suggest that non-fast induced moul- during the moulting period. The hens in
ting treatments provide an effective method the first and second treatment groups were
for inducing moulting in hens and impro- fed complete grain barley and alfalfa meal
ving their well-being by minimizing dis- rations, respectively. Hens in the non-
comfort due to food deprivation. moult control group were fed layer ration.
Some non-feed removal methods have The moulting programme lasted for 10
been previously studied (Biggs et al., days. Afterwards, the animals were al-
2003; 2004; Donalson et al. 2005; Lan- lowed ad libitum access to a complete
ders et al. 2005a, 2005b), but none of layer ration and water until the end of
them was found suitable for use in com- cycle (ten weeks). Light was reduced to
mercial programs due to inconsistent re- 10 h (only natural light) during the 10-day
sults. Considering these facts, we investi- moulting programme. A lighting pro-
gated whether grain barley and alfalfa gramme of 16 h light/8 h dark was used in
meal would effectively induce moulting the post-moult laying period.
and also monitored their influence on egg
production and quality in the early phase Parameters
(first 10 weeks) of the second cycle of egg
production (Petek et al., 2008). The influ- Individual body weights of hens in each
ence of non-feed removal moulting meth- group were measured at days 0, 3, 5, 7, 9
ods on the weight of ovary, oviduct and of moulting and at 1-week intervals until
skeletal quality of hens was examined too post-moult day 36. Egg production per-
(Yildiz & Alpay, 2008). formance was measured for 10 weeks fol-
The aims of this research were to exa- lowing initiation of feed removal. Egg
mine the body weight losses of hens sub- production and feed consumption values
jected to non-feed removal moulting prog- were recorded on daily and biweekly basis
rammes by feeding grain barley and alfalfa from the beginning to the end of the ex-
meal and to monitor egg production under periment, including the moulting period.
moulting and early post-moult period. Mortality was recorded on “per group
basis” as it occurred. Egg weights were
weekly measured on all eggs collected in
MATERIALS AND METHODS
a 1-day period. Egg production and feed
Moulting Procedure intake of the hens in the groups were cal-
culated on the basis of number of hens at
Fifty-four Lohman Brown laying hens the beginning of experiment (hen-housed)
older than 70 weeks of age were housed in

244 BJVM, 11, No 4

 M. Petek & F. Alpay

as previously described (North & Bell, trols are presented in Table 1. There were
1990). no significant differences among the
groups with regard to the pre-moult body
Statistical Analysis weight. Both treatment groups exhibited
significant differences in percentage body
Results for all the traits measured are ex- weight lost during the moulting program-
pressed as mean values ± SEM. Data were me. The most significant loss (19.54%)
analyzed by analysis of variance proce- occurred in the alfalfa fed hens, while grain
dures. Duncan test was used to determine barley fed hens lost 17.54% of their body
significant differences among treatment weight at the end of moulting period. Hens
means (Snedecor & Cochran, 1989). Sta- fed layer ration (non-moult controls) gained
tistical analysis was performed using 1.80% of body mass in the same period.
SPSS v. 13.00 (2004). Significance im- The results for moult and post-moult
plied a probability value of P < 0.05. period egg production traits are shown in
Table 2. Significant differences were
found between the non-moult control and
RESULTS moulting treatment groups for egg produc-
tion and cracked egg percentage. There
Pre-moult (in the beginning of the moul- were no significant differences between
ting programme), moult and post-moult moult and post-moult average egg weights
body weights of hens fed the grain barley and mortality rates in all groups. No sig-
or alfalfa meal diets and non-moult con-

Table 1. Pre-moult, moult and post-moult body weights and cumulative body weight changes in Loh-
man Brown laying hens, submitted to non-feed removal moulting procedures by feeding either grain
barley or alfalfa meal, and in non-moult controls. Data are presented as means ± SEM

Grain barley (n=18) Alfalfa meal (n=18) Non-moult control (n=18)

Period Body weight Body weight Body weight
g change, % g change, % g change, %
Pre-moult 2024±54 2134±76 2056±39
period,
Moult period
day 3 1833±51 b −9.43 1859±65 b −12.88 2056±41a 0.00
day 5 1701±50 b −15.95 1776±64 b −16.77 2080±31 a +1.16
day 7 1681±51 b −16.94 1743±63 b −18.32 2100±43 a +2.14
day 9 1675±50 b −17.24 1717±56 b −19.54 2093±38 a +1.80
Post-moult period
day 15 1983±37 b −2.02 2065±67 ab −3.23 2184±35 a +6.22
day 22 2100±42 +3.75 2221±67 +4.07 2202±40 +7.10
day 29 2113±44 +4.39 2241±91 +5.01 2221±35 +8.02
day 36 2154±47 +6.42 2245±98 +5.20 2245±38 +9.19

Values with different superscript (a, b) within rows differ significantly at P<0.05.

BJVM, 11, No 4 245

Utilization of grain barley and alfalfa meal as alternative moult induction programmes for laying ...

Table 2. Molt and post-molt egg production traits in Lohman Brown laying hens, submitted to non-
feed removal moulting procedures by feeding either grain barley or alfalfa meal, and in non-moult
control. Data are presented as means ± SEM

Parameter Grain barley Alfalfa meal Non-moult

Period
(n=18) (n=18) control (n=18)

Egg production, % Moult 15.20±1.15 b 27.30±2.11 b 61.60±1.41 a

Post-moult 55.40±1.89 b 47.00±1.88 b 67.26±1.31 a
Cracked eggs, % Moult 24.24±0.99 a 40.00±0.88 a 5.07±1.87 b
Post-moult 6.11±1.01 b 14.63±1.31 a 5.17±2.18 b
Average egg weight, g Moult 76.07±3.91 75.41±2.56 75.65±1.87
Post-moult 78.11±5.67 75.13±4.76 73.44±3.22
Cumulative Moult 5.55 5.55 0.00
mortality, % Post-moult 5.55 5.55 0.00
Daily feed intake, g Moult not evaluated not evaluated not evaluated
Post-moult 125.43±3.55 110.34±4.25 115.14±3.89

Values with different superscript (a, b) within rows differ significantly at P<0.05.

nificant differences were found for post- pared to the traditional fasting moult
moult daily feed consumption in all (Ruszler, 1996; Scheideler & Beck,
groups. 2002). The grain barley and alfalfa moul-
ting treatments resulted in no total cessa-
tion of egg production within the 10-day
DISCUSSION
moulting period. The moult hen-housed
The goals of a successful moult are 1) egg production in all groups was 15.20,
about 20−25% body weight loss, 2) cessa- 27.30, and 61.60% for grain barley, al-
tion of lay long enough for total regres- falfa meal and control groups, whereas the
sion of the reproductive tract, and 3) ac- 10-week post-moult hen-housed egg pro-
ceptable and persistent second cycle per- duction was 55.40, 47.00, and 67.26% in
formance (Scheideler & Beck, 2002). In the groups, respectively. The best post-
this study, the hens in the two moulting moult egg production in moulting group
treatment groups exhibited inadequate occurred after grain barley treatment.
body weight losses probably due to im- Unmoulted hens fed layer ration had a
proper palatability effects of novel diet. significantly higher level of moult and
Total body weight of moulted hens at the post-moult egg production than hens
end of moulting period decreased signifi- moulted by either grain barley or alfalfa
cantly to 17.24 and 19.54% of the initial meal. This may stem from low body
body weight for grain barley and alfalfa weight loss in the moulting groups be-
meal groups, respectively. Grain barley cause weight loss is closely associated
treatment resulted in lower body weight with reproductive tract regression and egg
loss than alfalfa meal treatment. production was negatively correlated to
Hens in the treatment groups did not body weight loss (Buhr & Cunningham,
leave lay as quickly in this study com- 1994). Achieving adequate weight loss
and cessation of lay will probably take

246 BJVM, 11, No 4

 M. Petek & F. Alpay

longer in a non-feed removal moulting non-feed removal groups was not at ac-
programme than in the traditional fasting cepted level the technique may provide
moult programme. satisfactory results in a long term period if
Egg breakage was markedly increased there is no other more performant tech-
by inducing moult in both treatment nique. This is consistent with the finding
groups due to dietary imbalance of a par- of Landers et al. (2005) who reported that
ticular nutrient or nutrients in moult pe- early post-moult production (0−7 weeks)
riod, particularly Ca (Berry, 2003). The of moulted hens was lower than that of
rate in the alfalfa meal group was greater unmoulted hens. It is probable that pro-
than in the other groups during the moult- longement of post-moult laying period
ing and post-moulting period. In this stu- results in higher egg production level in
dy, cracked egg percentage in all groups, the moulting group.
including the non-moult controls was Due to increasing public awareness
found to be greater than standard values regarding animal welfare issues with feed
(North & Bell, 1990). withdrawal moult induction, alternative
Although there were no significant dif- non-feed removal moulting techniques are
ferences for daily hen-housed post-moult becoming much more important for the
feed intake among the groups, feed intake commercial egg laying industry in the
per hen in the alfalfa group was found to future. The egg quality, bone and repro-
be numerically lower than the other ductive traits examined by us (Petek et al.,
groups. Since the feed intake in moulting 2008; Yildiz & Alpay, 2008) indicated
groups was very low, feed intake values that satisfactory performance could be
regarding the moult period were not achieved from non-feed removal methods,
evaluated. As expected, post-moult mean particularly by a grain barley moulting
egg weight in the groups was much higher programme. Further studies would be use-
than in non-moult control hens (Petek, ful to investigate the effects of grain bar-
2001; Aksoy et al., 1987). There were si- ley and alfalfa meal on long-term post-
milar moult average egg weights when moult egg production traits.
birds were fed the grain barley and alfalfa
diets in the experiment. In this study, only
2 birds died during the moulting period in REFERENCES
the treatment groups. Total mortality at
Aksoy, T., H. Duvencioğlu, S. Altenler & T.
the end of experiment was 5.55% for both Savas, 1987. A research on egg qualities of
experimental groups. The rate of mortality early age force molted commercial layer.
during a moult varies due to factors such Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal
as the health and vigour of the flock, sea- Sciences, 21, 141−146.
son of the year, age of the flock, and the Alodan, M. A. & M. M. Mashaly, 1999. Effect
flock's previous mortality rate. A properly of induced molting in laying hens on pro-
culled flock should only have a very mo- duction and immune parameters. Poultry
derate rise in mortality (Ruszler, 1997). Science, 78, 171−177.
In general, compared to unmoulted Barbour, E. K., M. Farran, R. Talhouk, D.
birds, moulted ones exhibited increased Haddad & G. Banat, 2004. New animal
productivity and better feed efficiency welfare approach to moulting maintains
(Alodan & Mashaly, 1999). Although immunity in layers. World Poultry, 20,
early post-moult performance of hens in 36−37.

BJVM, 11, No 4 247

Utilization of grain barley and alfalfa meal as alternative moult induction programmes for laying ...

Berry, W. D., 2003. The physiology of induced quality and consumer acceptability. Biore-
molting. Poultry Science, 82, 971−980. source Technology, 96, 907−911.
Biggs, P. A., M. W. Douglas, K. W. Koelke- Mazzuco, H. & P. Y. Hester, 2005. The effect
beck & C. M. Parsons, 2003. Evaluation of of an induced molt and a second cycle of
nonfeed removal methods for molting pro- lay on skeletal integrity of White Leg-
grams. Poultry Science, 82, 749−753. horns. Poultry Science, 84, 771−781.
Biggs, P. A., M. A. Persia, K. W. Koelkebeck McCovan, B., J. Schrader, A. M. Dilorenzo, C.
& C. M. Parsons, 2004. Further evaluation Cardona & D. Klingborg, 2006. Effects of
of nonfeed removal methods for molting induced molting on the well-being of egg-
programs. Poultry Science, 83, 745−752. laying hens. Journal of Applied Animal
Buhr, R. J. & D. L. Cunningham, 1994. Welfare Science, 9, 9−23.
Evaluation of molt induction to body McDaniel, B. A. & D. R. Aske, 2000. Egg
weight loss of fifteen, twenty, or twenty- prices, feed costs, and the decision to molt.
five percent by feed removal, daily limited, Poultry Science, 7, 1242−1245.
or alternate-day feeding of a molt feed. McReynolds, J. L., R. W. Moore, L. F.
Poultry Science, 73, 1499−1510. Kubena, J. A. Byrd, C. L. Woodward, D. J.
Donalson, L. M., W. K. Kim, C. L. Wood- Nisbet & S. C. Ricke, 2006. Effect of
ward, P. Herrera, L. F. Kubena, D. J. Nis- various combinations of alfalfa and
bet & S. C. Ricke, 2005. Utilizing differ- standard layer diet on susceptibility of
ent ratios of alfalfa and layer ration for laying hens to Salmonella Enteritidis
molt induction and performance in com- during forced molt. Poultry Science, 85,
mercial laying hens. Poultry Science, 84, 1123−1128.
362−369. Narahari, D., 2001. Performance of force-
Hester, P. Y. 2005. Impact of science and moulted hens. Cheiron, 30, 153−156.
management on the welfare of egg laying North, M. O. & D. D. Bell, 1990. Commercial
strains of hens. Poultry Science, 84, Chicken Production Manual. Chapman &
687−696. Hall, London, pp. 472−473.
Koelkebeck, K. W. & K. E. Anderson, 2007. Petek, M., 2001. Effect of different force molt-
Molting layers − alternative methods and ing programmes on main production pa-
their effectiveness. Poultry Science, 86, rameters in commercial laying hens. Jour-
1260−1264. nal of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,
Kubena, L. F., J. A. Byrd, R. W. Moore, S. C. University of Uludag, 20, 39−44.
Ricke & D. J. Nisbet, 2005. Effects of Petek, M., S. S. Gezen, F. Alpay & R. Cibik,
drinking water treatment on susceptibility 2008. Effects of non-feed removal molting
of laying hens to Salmonella enteritidis methods on egg quality traits in
during forced molt. Poultry Science, 84, commercial brown egg laying hens in
204−211. Turkey. Tropical Heat and Animal Pro-
Landers, K. L., C. L. Woodward, X. Li, L. F. duction, 40, 413−417.
Kubena, D. J. Nisbet & S. C. Ricke, Ruszler, P. L., 1996. The keys to successful
2005a. Alfalfa as a single dietary source force molting. Virginia Cooperative Ex-
for molt induction in laying hens. Biore- tension Service, Publication 408-026 (re-
source Technology, 96, 565−570. vised), Blacksburg, VA.
Landers, K. L., Z. R. Howard, C. L. Wood- Ruszler, P. L, 1997. The keys to successful
ward, S. G. Birkhold & S. C. Ricke, induced molting of Leghorn-type hens.
2005b. Potential of alfalfa as an alternative Virginia Cooperative Extension Service,
molt induction diet for laying hens: Egg Publication 408-026, Blacksburg, VA.

248 BJVM, 11, No 4

 M. Petek & F. Alpay

Scheideler, E. & M. M. Beck, 2002. Guide-

lines for a non-fasting feeding program for
the molting of laying hens. Neb Guide
G1482, University of Nebraska, USA.
Snedecor, G. W. & W. G. Cochran, 1989.
Statistical Methods, 8th edn, Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, USA.
Yildiz, H. & F. Alpay, 2008. Effects of diffe-
rent moulting diets on bone characteristics
and reproductive tracts in commercial Correspondence:
brown egg laying hens. Veterinarski Arhiv, Prof. Dr. Metin Petek
78, 227−234. Uludag Universitesi, Veteriner Fakültesi,
Zootekni Anabilim Dal, Bursa-16059, Turkey
Phone: +90 224 2941352; GSM:+90 535
Paper received 28.05.2008; accepted for 7705994,
publication 26.09.2008 Fax: +90 224 4428025
E-mail: [email protected]

BJVM, 11, No 4 249