## 3 Results and Discussion
### Plumage Condition
Here, it was possible to record 100% intact plumage, in traditional cage housing. This is an interesting result because, on the one hand, in other studies, the greatest degree of damage was specifically measured in the case of the breast plumage, and also, as the age advances, the breast plumage deteriorates the most [30]. In our case, the opposite happened. In this plumage area, we received several surprising measurement results. Here, the highest damage rate (10%) was experienced in the 33 rd week in the traditional cage, while completely intact plumage was formed by the next test time and the highest values were also measured at the last test time. In the other investigated feather areas, the quality of the plumage regularly deteriorated with advancing age, while in the breast area we obtained small but continuously improving values for the RIR type. However, in the case of the housing technologies, in the furnished cage and the alternative pen, by the second examination date we found a deterioration, which then improved at the last examination date, which was better than the 33 rd week findings in the alternative pen. In addition to rectifices, remiges were examined from the feathers used for flight (Table 7). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Housing System**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Prob.**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**SE**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-10}
**Age (Weeks)** & **Rhode** & **Rhode** & **EU Standard** & **Alternative** & **Traditional** & & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-10}
33 & 3.69 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.91 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.70 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & 3.79 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 3.91 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.012 \\
45 & 3.38 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.72 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.48 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 3.66 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) & 3.51 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.017 \\
61 & 2.92 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.33 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.05 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 3.39 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 2.95 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.025 \\ Prob. & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & - & - & - & - \\ SE & 0.012 & 0.017 & 0.016 & 0.017 & 0.033 & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Effect of type and housing system on the plumage points on the remiges of non-beak-trimmed Rhode Island hens. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Housing System**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Prob.**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**SE**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-10}
**Age (Weeks)** & **Rhode** & **Rhode** & **EU Standard** & **Alternative** & **Traditional** & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-10}
33 & 3.69 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.91 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.70 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & 3.79 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 3.91 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.012 \\
45 & 3.38 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.72 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.48 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 3.66 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) & 3.51 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.017 \\
61 & 2.92 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.33 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.05 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & 3.39 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 2.95 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.025 \\ Prob. & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & - & - & - & - \\ SE & 0.012 & 0.017 & 0.016 & 0.017 & 0.033 & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Effect of type and housing system on the plumage points on the breast feathers of non-beak-trimmed Rhode Island hens. We detected a continuous deterioration of plumage quality with advancing age for all genotypes and husbandry technologies in this body area as well.