## 3 Results and Discussion
### Plumage Condition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Age (Weeks)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Housing System**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Prob.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SE**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-11}  & **Rhode Island** & **Rhode Island White** & **EU Standard** & **Alternative** & **Traditional** & & & \\ \hline
33 & 18.3 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 19.0 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 18.4 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & 19.1 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 18.5 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.030 \\
45 & 17.4 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 18.4 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 17.6 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 18.6 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) & 17.4 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.047 \\
61 & 15.5 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 17.2 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 15.9 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 16.9 \({}^{\text{BA}}\) & 16.1 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.082 \\ Prob. & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & - & - & - \\ SE & 0.037 & 0.057 & 0.050 & 0.054 & 0.092 & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Total plumage score could be ranged from 5 (worst) to 20 (best). \({}^{\text{AB}}\) Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (\(p\leq 0.05\)). \({}^{\text{ABC}}\) Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effect of type and housing system on the total plumage score of non-beak-trimmed Rhode Island hens. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Age (Weeks)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Housing System**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Prob. **} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S. E.**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-11}  & **Rhode Island Red** & **Rhode Island White** & **EU Standard** & **Alternative** & **Traditional** & & \\ \hline
33 & 3.46 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.79 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.51 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & 3.87 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 3.50 \({}^{\text{AC}}\) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.013 \\
45 & 3.24 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.59 \({}^{\text{BThe condition of the neck feathers deteriorated with age in all the tested housing technologies. The most favorable neck feathering results were determined in the alternative posture at each test time. The use of a different type of feeder in cage housing, where the allocation of the anti-scratch grid was different than in the troughs of cage housing, may have played a role in this. In the 33 rd and 61 st weeks, the results measured in the furnished and traditional cages did not vary statistically. At the same time, in the middle of the study, all postures differed significantly from the others. Examining the feather area of the back (Table 4), the high decomposition results are striking, since at the beginning of the measurements there were values close to the maximum (3.98; 3.99) and at the end of the test period, we did not receive ratings falling below the average of 3.0. This means that the wear and tear of this pen area was remarkably small. Evaluating the genotypes, it can be concluded that the RIV flocks received higher values than the RIR birds at all test times. Their plumage was in better condition, and wear was less typical, even at the end of the test. The effect of the housing methods on the plumage of the back was less pronounced, since, while in the 33 rd week every system was different from the others, at the second examination date only the alternative system diverged verifiably from the two cage systems, and finally, in the 61 st week, there was no verifiable difference between the housing technologies, so all of them remained above 3.5 points, i.e., less than 12.5% pen wear and tear could be measured on the back. At 33 weeks, the condition of the hens' back plumage was significantly better in the furnished cage with perches and in the alternative pen with even more perches.