*3.3. Body Condition*

The examined flocks of both transport variants showed an average plumage score of 24.62 ± 1.37 (mean ± SD) before and after transportation, indicating a good feather condition (maximum possible score = 28, for seven body areas with four degrees of severity). Flocks D4 and D5 of Variant II had a better plumage score after transportation than before (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** Difference across flocks in plumage score before and after transportation in two transport variants. Thick black lines show mean values, boxes represent upper and lower quartiles, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals, and dots show outliners. A mean value above zero indicates a better plumage score after than before transportation.

Altogether, we found no significant differences in the plumage condition of the body areas scored with four degrees of severity before and after transportation, regardless of layer line, transport variant or flock, with one exception: HNB in comparison with HNS showed less plumage deterioration (−0.28, 95% CI: (−0.8; 0.25)) in Variant I, and in Variant II, greater deterioration (0.35, 95% CI: (−0.03; 0.73)). The total plumage score, including those body areas scored with two forms of severity (flight and tail feathers, fault bars) apparently significantly improved after transportation compared with before transportation in Variant II (OR: 0.672; 95% CI: (0.53; 0.863)) but not in Variant I (OR: 1.454; 95% CI: (0.931; 2.218)). Integument injuries of body areas scored with three degrees of severity were not sufficiently variable in their distribution of characteristics, and only isolated injuries were found. The same applies for integument injuries of the eyelid (binary score). Both comb and head (evaluated with a binary score) were scored positive in 13% and 4% of the cases, respectively. We could find no major differences in integument injuries before and after transportation.

Following the transit from the rearing farm to the farm of laying hens, the birds showed a weight loss of −2.9% ± 1.9% (mean ± SD). Comparing both transport variants, birds of Variant I lost significantly more weight (2.1 percentage points; 95% CI: (−2.6; −1.5)) than birds of Variant II. Regarding the layer lines, HNB lost significantly less weight than HNS (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI: (0.3; 0.7)). Considering the transport variants, differences in weight loss between layer lines can solely be found for Variant II: HNS showed higher loss in weight (−2.38% ± 1.46%) compared with HNB (−1.3% ± 0.71%) (effect: −0.01603; 95% CI: (−0.02026; −0.01180)). Differences in relative weight losses between flocks hardly existed (Figure 6). None of the mean temperature variables on the rearing farm, the transport vehicle, and the farm of laying hens showed a significant effect on the change in body weight.

Birds of the control flock, which were not transported and were kept in the winter garden overnight, free to move around without access to food and water, showed a mean weight loss of −5.9% (95% CI: (−6.3; −5.6)). HNB hens of the control flocks lost significantly less weight (−5.4%; 95% CI: (−5.8; −5.0)) than HNS hens (−6.5%; 95% CI: (−6.9; −6.1)). Comparing the weights of all birds (study and control flocks) calculated as means, birds of the control flock showed on average a higher loss of −2.0% (95% CI: (−2.5; −1.6)) than birds of the study flocks.

**Figure 6.** Linear assorted regression model. Estimated body weight differences across flocks before and after transportation in two transport variants, considering the factors of the layer line, the transport variant, and the average temperature on the rearing farms. The figure shows estimates (solid circles) and 95% confidence intervals (bars) of the effect of flocks on body weight changes. Estimates that cross zero do not deviate significantly from the mean values.

The target weight of the 18-week-old pullets, which is defined by the breeder and distributor H&N International, is set at 1300 g for HNS and 1479 g for HNB. It was not reached by all weighed hens: HNS hens weighed on average 1339 ± 102 g (mean ± SD), and HNB hens 1679 ± 156 g. With age included, no differences could be found within each layer line in reaching the target weight (Figure 7). The only significant effect was the effect of the layer line. The chance of HNS observing a shortfall was on average elevated by a factor of 8.1 (95% CI: (5.1; 12.7)).

**Figure 7.** Body weight before transportation in two layer lines, according to age in days. Thick black lines show mean values, boxes represent upper and lower quartiles, whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals, and dots show outliers. The dashed lines represent the target weight according to H&N International for layer lines H&N Super Nick (HNS; 1300 g) and H&N Brown Nick (HNB; 1479 g).
