Search

This paper is an integral part of the special publication series that arose from the multidisciplinary and multi-institutional project of the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES). The CSES project involves 3 housing systems for egg production at the same research farm site in the Midwest, USA, namely, a conventional cage (CC) house, an aviary (AV) house, and an enriched colony (EC) house. The CC house (141.4 m L × 26.6 m W × 6.1 m H) had a nominal capacity of 200,000 hens (6 hens in a cage at a stocking density of 516 cm2/hen), and the cages were arranged in 10 rows, 8 tiers per cage row, with a perforated aisle walkway at 4-tier height. The AV house (154.2 m L × 21.3 m W × 3.0 m H) and the EC house (154.2 m L × 13.7 m W × 4.0 m H) each had a nominal capacity of 50,000 hens. The AV house had 6 rows of aviary colonies, and the EC house had 5 rows of 4-tier enriched colonies containing perches, nestbox, and scratch pads (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm2/hen). The overarching goal of the CSES project, as stated in the opening article of this series, was to comprehensively evaluate the 3 egg production systems from the standpoints of animal behavior and well-being, environmental impact, egg safety and quality, food affordability, and worker health. So that all the area-specific papers would not have to repeat a detailed description of the production systems and the management practices, this paper is written to provide such a description and to be used as a common reference for the companion papers.

As an integral part of the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES) Project, this study simultaneously monitored air emissions of 3 commercially operated egg production systems at the house level and associated manure storage over 2 single-cycle flocks (18 to 78 wk of age). The 3 housing systems were 1) a conventional cage house (CC) with a 200,000-hen capacity (6 hens in a cage at a stocking density of 516 cm2/hen), 2) an enriched colony house (EC) with a 50,000-hen capacity (60 hens per colony at a stocking density of 752 cm2/hen), and 3) an aviary house (AV) with a 50,000-hen capacity (at a stocking density of 1253 to 1257 cm2/hen). The 3 hen houses were located on the same farm and were populated with Lohmann white hens of the same age. Indoor environment and house-level gaseous (ammonia [NH3] and greenhouse gasses [GHG], including carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]) and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) emissions were monitored continually. Gaseous emissions from the respective manure storage of each housing system were also monitored. Emission rates (ERs) are expressed as emission quantities per hen, per animal unit (AU, 500 kg live BW), and per kilogram of egg output. House-level NH3 ER (g/hen/d) of EC (0.054) was significantly lower than that of CC (0.082) or AV (0.112) (P < 0.05). The house-level CO2 ER (g/hen/d) was lower for CC (68.3) than for EC and AV (74.4 and 74.0, respectively), and the CH4 ER (g/hen/d) was similar for all 3 houses (0.07 to 0.08). The house-level PM ER (mg/hen/d), essentially representing the farm-level PM ER, was significantly higher for AV (PM10 100.3 and PM2.5 8.8) than for CC (PM10 15.7 and PM2.5 0.9) or EC (PM10 15.6 and PM2.5 1.7) (P < 0.05). The farm-level (house plus manure storage) NH3 ER (g/hen/d) was significantly lower for EC (0.16) than for CC (0.29) or AV (0.30) (P < 0.05). As expected, the magnitudes of GHG emissions were rather small for all 3 production systems. Data from this study enable comparative assessment of conventional vs. alternative hen housing systems regarding air emissions and enhance the U.S. national air emissions inventory for farm animal operations.

To comprehensively assess conventional vs. some alternative laying-hen housing systems under U.S. production conditions, a multi-institute and multi-disciplinary project, known as the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES) study, was carried out at a commercial egg production farm in the Midwestern United States over two single-cycle production flocks. The housing systems studied include a conventional cage house (200,000 hen capacity), an aviary house (50,000 hen capacity), and an enriched colony house (50,000 hen capacity). As an integral part of the CSES project, continual environmental monitoring over a 27-month period described in this paper quantifies indoor gaseous and particulate matter concentrations, thermal environment, and building ventilation rate of each house. Results showed that similar indoor thermal environments in all three houses were maintained through ventilation management and environmental control. Gaseous and particulate matter concentrations of the enriched colony house were comparable with those of the conventional cage house. In comparison, the aviary house had poorer indoor air quality, especially in wintertime, resulting from the presence of floor litter (higher ammonia levels) and hens' activities (higher particulate matter levels) in it. Specifically, daily mean indoor ammonia concentrations had the 95% confidence interval values of 3.8 to 4.2 (overall mean of 4.0) ppm for the conventional cage house; 6.2 to 7.2 (overall mean of 6.7) ppm for the aviary house; and 2.7 to 3.0 (overall mean of 2.8) ppm for the enriched colony house. The 95% confidence interval (overall mean) values of daily mean indoor carbon dioxide concentrations were 1997 to 2170 (2083) ppm for the conventional cage house, 2367 to 2582 (2475) ppm for the aviary house, and 2124 to 2309 (2216) ppm for the enriched colony house. Daily mean indoor methane concentrations were similar for all three houses, with 95% confidence interval values of 11.1 to 11.9 (overall mean of 11.5) ppm. The 95% confidence interval values (overall mean) of daily mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, in mg/m3, were, respectively, 0.57 to 0.61 (0.59) and 0.033 to 0.037 (0.035) for the conventional cage house, 3.61 to 4.29 (3.95) and 0.374 to 0.446 (0.410) for the aviary house, and 0.42 to 0.46 (0.44) and 0.054 to 0.059 (0.056) for the enriched colony house. Investigation of mitigation practices to improve indoor air quality of the litter-floor aviary housing system is warranted.