Effects of Different Force Molting Methods on Post Molt Performance, Egg Quality Traits and Heterophil-Lymphocyte Ratio in Denizli Chickens

Abstract

Background/Aim: Denizli chicken is an indigenous chicken breed of Turkey and there is limited information related to the effects of different force molting methods on production performance, egg quality traits and stress level of this breed. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of different force molting methods on post-molt performance, egg quality traits and heterophil-lymphocyte ratio in Denizli chickens.Material and Methods: A total of 144 Denizli chickens, 58 weeks old of age, were used as the material in this study. Hens were randomly divided into three groups according to the force molting program. In the first group, feed was withdrawn for 10 days, and hens were fed with cracked corn diet ad libitum from d 11 to 28 California method . The hens in the second group were fed with feed supplemented 15,000 mg zinc oxide to kg ration for 10 d and they were provided 100 g of a layer diet from d 11 to 28 Zn method . Hens in third group were fed with 100 % alfalfa meal ad libitum for 10 days. They were provided 100 g of a layer diet from d 11 to 28 Alfalfa method . All groups were fed with standard layer diet ad libitum from 29 days of age to the end of the study. Results and Conclusion: Egg weight and heterophil-lymphocyte ratio in post-molt period were higher in California group than those in the other groups. There were no statistically significant different among molting groups in terms of mortality rate, egg production, egg quality, feed intake and feed conversion ratio. In conclusion, Zn and alfalfa methods was more suitable than to California method which caused to a high level stress in Denizli chickens.

Keywords

• Denizli chicken,molting,performance,egg quality traits,heterophil-lymphocyte ratio.

Denizli Tavuklarında Farklı Tüy Dökümü Yöntemlerinin Tüy Dökümü Sonrası Performans, Yumurta Kalite Özellikleri ve Heterofil-Lenfosit Oranı Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Özbilgi/Amaç: Denizli tavuğu, Türkiye’nin yerli bir ırkıdır ve farklı tüy döküm yöntemlerinin bu ırkın verim performansı, yumurta kalite özellikleri ve stres düzeyi üzerine etkileri ile ilgili sınırlı sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Denizli tavuklarında farklı tüy dökümü yöntemlerinin tüy dökümü sonrası performans, yumurta kalite özellikleri ve heterofil-lenfosit oranı üzerine etkilerinin belirlenmesidir. Materyal ve Metot: Araştırma materyali olarak 58 haftalık yaştaki toplam 144 adet Denizli tavuğu kullanılmıştır. Tavuklar, tüy dökümü metoduna göre tesadüfi olarak üç gruba ayrılmıştır. Birici gruptaki tavuklara 10 gün yem verilmemiş ve 11.-28. günler arasında ad libitum olarak kırılmış mısır verilmiştir California metodu . İkinci gruptaki tavuklara 10 gün süreyle 15 mg/kg Zn içeren ticari yumurtacı tavuk yemi, 11.-28. günler arasında günde tavuk başına 100 g ticari yumurtacı tavuk yemi verilmiştir Zn metodu . Üçüncü gruptaki tavuklara 10 gün ad libitum yonca unu, 11.-28. günler arasında günde tavuk başına 100 g ticari yumurtacı tavuk yemi verilmiştir yonca metodu . Tüm gruplardaki tavuklar, 29. günden deneme sonuna kadar ticari yumurtacı tavuk yemi ile ad libitum olarak beslenmişlerdir. Bulgular ve Sonuç: Çalışmada, tüy dökümü sonrası dönemde Kaliforniya grubundaki tavukların, diğer gruptakilere göre önemli düzeyde daha yüksek yumurta ağırlığına ve heterofil-lenfosit oranına sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yumurta verimi, yumurta kalite özellikleri, yem tüketimi ve yemden yararlanma oranı bakımından ise gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önem taşıyan bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. Bu araştırma sonucunda, Denizli tavuklarında, rasyona çinko ilave edilerek ve yonca unu kullanılarak yapılan tüy dökümü yöntemlerinin, hayvanlar üzerinde yüksek düzeyde stres yaratan Kaliforniya metoduna göre daha uygun olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denizli tavuğu,tüy dökümü,performans,yumurta kalite özellikleri,heterofil lenfosit oranı

References

1. Alodan MA, Mashaly MM (1999). Effect of induced molting in laying hens on production and immune parameters. Poultry Science, 78, 171-177.
2. Anonymous, (2003). Japanese evaluation of egg quality. International Poultry Production, 11, 13–15.
3. Aygun A (2013). Effects of force molting on eggshell colour, egg produ- ction and quality traits in laying hens. Revue de Medicine Veterina- ire, 164, 46-51.
4. Baker M, Brake J, McDaniel GR (1983). The relationship between body weight loss during an induced molt and postmolt egg production, egg weight and shell quality in caged layers. Poultry Science, 62, 409-413.
5. Bar A, Razaphkovsky V, Shinder D, Vax E (2003). Alternative procedures for molt induction: Pratical aspects. Poultry Science, 82, 543-550.
6. Berry WD, Brake J (1985). Comparasion of parameters associated with molt induced by fasting zinc and low dietary sodium in caged layers. Poultry Sciences, 64, 2027-2036.
7. Biggs PE, Persia ME, Koelkebeck KW, Parsons CM (2004). Further eva- luation of nonfeed removal methods for molting programs. Poultry Science, 83, 745-752.
8. Brake J, Thaxton P (1979). Physiological changes in caged layers during a forced molt. 2. Gross changes in organs. Poultry Science, 58, 707- 716.

9. Brake J (1993). Recent advances in induced molting. Poultry Science 72, 929-931.
10. Burton M, Burton R (1980). The New International Wildlife Encylope- dia. N.C.L.C, Limited, London, UK.
11. Donalson LM, Kim WK, Woodward CL, Herrera P, Kubena LF, nisbet DJ, Ricke SC (2005). Utilizing different ratios of alfalfa layer ration for molt induction and performace in commercial laying hens. Poultry Science, 84, 362-369.
12. Duncan DB (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1-42.
13. Gross WB, Siegel HS (1983). Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocy- te ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Disease, 27, 972- 979.
14. Hassanabadi, A, Kermanshahi H (2007). Effects of force molting on postmolt performance of laying hens. International Journal of Poul- try Science, 6, 630-633.
15. Hussain AS (1996). Induced moulting procedures in laying fowl. Worlds Poultry Science Journal, 52, 175-187.
16. Landers KL, Howard ZR, Woodward CL, Birkhold SG, Ricke SC (2005). Potential of alfalfa as an alternative molt induction diet for laying hens: egg quality and consumer acceptability. Bioresource Technol- ogy, 96, 907-911.
17. North MO, Bell DD (1990). Commercial Chicken Production Manual. 4thed. Chapman Hall, Newyork.
18. Onbaşılar EE, Erol H (2007). Effects of different forced molting methods on postmolt production, corticosterone level, and immune respon- se to sheep red blood cells in laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 16, 529-536.
19. Park SY, Birkhold SG, Kubena LF, Nisbet DJ, Ricke SC (2004). Effects of high zinc diets using zinc propianate on molt induction, organs, and postmolt egg production and quality in laying hens. Poultry Science, 83, 24-33.
20. Petek M, Gezen SS, Alpay F, Cibik R (2008). Effects of Non-feed removal molting methods on egg quality traits in commercial brown egg laying hens in Turkey. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 40, 413-417.
21. Petek M, Alpay F (2008). Utilization of grain barley and alfalfa meal as alternative moult induction programmes for laying hens: Body wei- ght losses and egg production traits. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 11, 243-249.
22. Reddy KV, Malathi V, Reddy BSV (2008). Effect of iduced moulting in male and female line broiler breeder hens by zinc oxide and feed withdrawal methods on post-molt performance parameters. Inter- national Journal of Poultry Science, 7, 586-593.
23. Soe Hnin Yi, Makino Yukihiro, Uozumi Norio, Yayota Masato, Ohtani Shigeru (2007). Evaluation of Non-feed removal induced molting in laying hens. The Journal of Poultry Science, 44, 153-160.
24. SPSS (2004): Statistical package for social science for windows. Version 13.0 (Chicago, IL, SPSS Inc.)
25. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd Ed., 1980, New York.
26. Webster AB (2003). Physiology and behavior of the hen during induced molt. Poultry Science, 82, 992-1002.
27. Yardimci M, Bayram I (2008). The response of two commercial laying hen strains to an induced molting program. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 7, 1613-1617.