Abdel-Azeem, A. (2025). EVALUATION OF FLOOR VS. CAGE SYSTEM OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF ENCLOSED HOUSES ON PRODUCTIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal, (), -. doi: 10.21608/epsj.2025.20068.1060
Abdel-Azeem Fahmy Abdel-Azeem. "EVALUATION OF FLOOR VS. CAGE SYSTEM OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF ENCLOSED HOUSES ON PRODUCTIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE". Egyptian Poultry Science Journal, , , 2025, -. doi: 10.21608/epsj.2025.20068.1060
Abdel-Azeem, A. (2025). 'EVALUATION OF FLOOR VS. CAGE SYSTEM OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF ENCLOSED HOUSES ON PRODUCTIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE', Egyptian Poultry Science Journal, (), pp. -. doi: 10.21608/epsj.2025.20068.1060
Abdel-Azeem, A. EVALUATION OF FLOOR VS. CAGE SYSTEM OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF ENCLOSED HOUSES ON PRODUCTIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal, 2025; (): -. doi: 10.21608/epsj.2025.20068.1060
EVALUATION OF FLOOR VS. CAGE SYSTEM OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF ENCLOSED HOUSES ON PRODUCTIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE
Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available Online from 19 May 2025
ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of two housing systems cage vs. floor on productive performance and physiological response of broiler chicks reared in three rearing area in enclosed houses including side cooling (vent area) , middle and at the end of the house (fan area). A total number of 3120 chicks were randomly selected for both housing systems, where enclosed houses of cage and floor systems having 83200 and 22500 birds respectively.The randomly selected number has been divided into two housing systems: the first was housed in cages (n=1560) and the second was housed in the floor (n=1560), where birds placed in three different rearing area containing 520 birds each, where each area per housing system was replicated four times containing 130 birds each. Results showed that LBW, BWG, FI, FCR, viability and EPEF recorded significantly (P ≤0.05) higher values for birds housed in cages than birds housed in floor. However, the former traits showed better (P ≤0.05) results for birds placed in vent area than birds placed in middle and fan area. Housing systems or rearing area significantly (P ≤0.05) affected total microbial count, where the birds housed in floor and placed in fan area exhibited (P ≤0.05) higher values than birds housed in cages and placed in middle and vent area. Titer response detected for birds placed in vent and middle area showed higher values than birds placed in fan area. It may be concluded that birds reared in cages and placed near the vent area exhibited better performance than birds reared in the floor and placed in middle and fan area. Clearly, rearing birds in cage system and placed in vent area were better in obtaining the highest productivity and physiological response.