Effects of genotype and housing system on some bone biomechanical characteristics in broiler chickens

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of two genotypes (slow-growing and fast-growing) and three housing systems (deep litter, plastic slat and free-range) on some bone biomechanical properties of broiler chickens and to evaluate the interaction between genotype and housing systems. Broilers from two genotypes were reared at three different housing conditions. Fifteen bones were randomly selected from each housing system in both slow-growing and fast-growing groups, and the experiment was performed on 90 bones in total. To determine bone characteristic and biomechanical traits of tibiotarsi, bones collected from right leg and then weighed, cortical area measurements and three-point bending tests were applied. Both live body weight and carcass weight were significantly affected by genotype and housing systems. There was no interaction between genotype and housing system in terms of bone weight, cortical area, breaking strength, bending strength, and deflection. Also, housing systems had no statistical effect on these parameters. Fast-growing broilers were significantly had heavier tibiotarsi, larger cortical area and higher breaking strength than slow-growing broilers, while bending strength was significantly lower in fast-growing broilers. Deflection was not affected by genotype or by housing system. In conclusion, bone geometry and biomechanical properties were not affected by housing systems but by genotype. Fast-growing broilers had better bone morphology and stronger bones than slow-growing genotype. Therefore, fast-growing genotype can provide positive effects on bone growth and mechanical properties in broilers.

Keywords

• tibiotarsus,Biomechanics,broiler,genotype,housing,tibiotarsus

Etlik piliçlerde genotip ve barınma sisteminin bazı kemik biyomekanik özellikleri üzerine etkileri

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki genotip (yavaş ve hızlı gelişen) ve üç barınak sisteminin (derin altlık, plastik ızgara ve serbest dolaşım) etlik piliçlerin bazı kemik biyomekanik özellikleri üzerindeki etkilerini belirlemek ve genotip ve barınak sistemleri arasında etkileşimi değerlendirmektir. İki farklı genotipe ait etlik piliçler üç farklı barınma sisteminde yetiştirildi. Hem yavaş gelişen hem de hızlı gelişen genotipe sahip etlik piliçlerde her bir konut sisteminden 15 kemik olacak şekilde rastgele seçildi ve deney toplam 90 kemik üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. Kemik özellikleri ve biyomekanik karakterlerinin belirlenmesi için sağ bacaklardan elde edilen tibiotarsuslar kullanıldı ve sonra bu kemikler tartılarak, kortikal alan ve üç nokta eğme testine tabi tutuldu. Hem canlı ağırlık hem de karkas ağırlığı, genotip ve konut sistemlerinden istatistiksel olarak etkilenmiştir. Kemik ağırlığı, kortikal alan, kırılma mukavemeti, eğilme gerilimi ve bükülme açısından genotip ve barınma sistemleri arasında herhangi bir etkileşim bulunamadı. Ayrıca, barınma sisteminin istatistiksel olarak bu parametreler üzerinde herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığı gözlendi. Yavaş gelişen etlik piliçlerin daha düşük eğilme gerilimi sahipken, hızlı gelişenlerin belirgin şekilde daha yüksek kemik ağırlığı, kemik kortikal alanı ve kırılma mukavemeti değerlerine sahip olduğu gözlendi. Ne genotipin ne de barınma sisteminin bükülme üzerine herhangi bir etkisi bulunamadı. Sonuç olarak, kemik geometrisi ve biyomekanik özellikler, barınma sistemlerinden değil, genotipten etkilenmiştir. Hızlı gelişen etlik piliçler, yavaş gelişenlerden daha iyi kemik morfolojisine ve daha güçlü kemiklere sahip olduğu gözlendi. Bu nedenle hızlı gelişen genotip, etlik piliçlerde kemik gelişimi ve mekanik özellikleri üzerinde olumlu etkiler sağlayabilir.

Keywords

• Barınma,biyomekanik,etlik piliç,genotip,tibiotarsus

References

1. Almeida Paz ICL, Garcia RG, Bernardi R, et al. (2010): Selecting appropriate bedding to reduce locomotion problems in broilers, Braz J of Poultry Sci, 12, 189-195.
2. An YH, Draughn RA (2000): Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant Interface, CRC-Press, Boca Raton, USA.
3. Benyi K, Tshilate TS, Netshipale AJ, Mahlako KT (2015): Effects of genotype and sex on the growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens, Trop Anim Health Prod, 47, 1225-1231.
4. Bessei W (2006): Welfare of broilers: A review, Worlds Poult Sci J, 62, 455-466.
5. Bogosavljević-Bosković S, Kurćubić V, Petrović M., et al. (2006): The effect of season and rearing systems on meat quality traits, Czech J Anim Sci, 51, 369-374.
6. Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A (2002a): Meat quality of three chicken genotypes reared according to the organic system, Ital J Food Sci, 14, 401-412.
7. Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A (2002b): Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality, Meat Sci, 60, 219-225.
8. Cavusoglu E, Petek M, Abdourhamane IM, et al. (2018): Effects of different floor housing systems on the welfare of fast-growing broilers with an extended fattening period, Arch Anim Breed, 61, 9-16.

9. De Almeida EA, De Souza LFA, Sant’Anna AC, et al. (2017): Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries-Experiment 1: Thermal Comfort, Poult Sci, 96, 3155-3162.
10. De Jong IC, Gunnink H (2014): Wet litter not only induces footpad dermatitis but also reduces overall welfare, technical performance, and carcass yield in broiler chickens, J Appl Poultry Res, 23, 51-58.
11. De Jong I, Berg C, Butterworth A, et al. (2012): Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders, EFSA Supporting Publications, 9, 1-116.
12. Emmerson DA (1997): Commercial approaches to genetic selection for growth and feed conversion in domestic poultry, Poult Sci, 76, 1121-1125.
13. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Cavitt LC, et al. (2005): Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass yield, Poult Sci, 84, 1321-1327.
14. Gardner MJ, Silva MJ, Krieg JC (2012): Biomechanical testing of fracture fixation constructs: Variability, validity, and clinical applicability, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 20, 86-93.
15. Gordon SH, Charles DR (2002): Niche and organic chicken products, Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
16. Hester PY (1994): The role of environment and management on leg abnormalities in meat-type fowl, Poult Sci, 73, 904-915.
17. Hunton P (1997): Poultry genetics 1950-1997: Some unexpected side effects, In: Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney.
18. Husak RL, Sebranek JG, Bregendahl K (2008): A survey of commercially available broilers orginating from organic, free-range and conventional production systems for meat yields, composition and relative value, Poult Sci, 87, 2367-2376.
19. Jepsen KJ, Silva MJ, Vashishth D, et al. (2015): Establishing biomechanical mechanisms in mouse models: Practical guidelines for systematically evaluating phenotypic changes in the diaphyses of long bones, J Bone Miner Res, 30, 951-966.
20. Jones DR, Guard J, Gast RK, et al. (2016): Influence of commercial laying hen housing systems on the incidence and identification of Salmonella and Campylobacter, Poult Sci, 95, 1116-1124.
21. Kestin SC, Su G, Sorensen P (1999): Different commercial broiler crosses have different susceptibilities to leg weakness, Poult Sci, 78, 1085-1090.
22. Kestin SC, Knowles TG, Tinch AE, et al. (1992): Prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens and its relationship with genotype, Vet Rec, 131, 190-194.
23. Knowles TG, Broom DM (1990): Limb bone strength and movement in laying hens from different housing systems, Vet Rec, 126, 354-356.
24. Leeson S, Caston L, Summers JD, et al. (2000): Performance of male broilers to 70d when fed diets of varying nutrient density as mash or pellets, J Appl Poult Res, 8, 452-464.
25. Lewis PD, Perry GC, Farmer LJ, et al. (1997): Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and “Label Rouge” systems: I. Performance, behaviour and carcass composition, Meat Sci, 45, 501-516.
26. Lilburn MS (1994): Skeletal growth of commercial poultry species, Poult Sci, 73, 897-903.
27. Marin RH, Fretes P, Gusman D, et al. (2001): Effects of an acute stressor on fear and on the social reinstatement responses of domestic chicks to cage mates and strangers, Appl Anim Behav Sci, 71, 57-66.
28. McDevitt RM, McEntee GM, Rance KA (2006): Bone breaking strength and apparent metabolisability of calcium and phosphorus in selected and unselected broiler chicken genotypes, Br Poult Sci, 47, 613-621.
29. Merkley JW, Wabeck CJ (1975): Cage density and frozen storage effect on bone strength of broilers, Poult Sci, 54, 1624-1627.
30. Moyle JR, Arsi K, Woo-Ming A, et al. (2014): Growth performance of fast-growing broilers reared under different types of production systems with outdoor access: Implications for organic and alternative production systems, J Appl Poult Res, 23, 212-220.
31. National Research Council (NRC) (1994): Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, The National Academic Press, Washington.
32. Ono Y, Yamamoto S, Akao T, et al. (2012): Mechanical testing of bone strength after radiofrequency ablation treatment, Journal of JSEM, 12, 261-266.
33. Petek M, Ustuner H, Yesilbag D (2014): Effects of stocking density and litter type on litter quality and growth performance of broiler chicken, Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 20, 743-748.
34. Petracci M, Mudalal S, Soglia F, et al. (2015): Meat quality in fast-growing broiler chickens, World Poultry Sci J, 71, 363-374.
35. Pierson FW, Hester PY (1982): Factors influencing leg abnormalities in poultry: A review, World Poultry Sci J, 38, 5-17.
36. Ponte PIP, Rosado CMC, Crepso JP, et al. (2008): Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers, Poult Sci, 87, 71-79.
37. Rath NC, Huff GR, Huff WE, et al. (1999): Factors regulating bone maturity and strength in poultry, Poult Sci, 79, 1024-1032.
38. Ravindran V, Thomas DV, Thomas DG, et al. (2006): Performance and welfare of broilers as affected by stocking density and zinc bacitracin supplementation, Anim Sci J, 77, 110-116.
39. Regmi R, Nelson N, Haut RC, et al. (2017): Influence of age and housing systems on properties of tibia and humerus of Lohmann White hens: Bone properties of laying hens in commercial housing systems, Poult Sci, 96, 3755-3762.
40. Reiter K, Bessei W (1995): Influence of running on leg weakness of slow and fast growing broilers, In: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the International Society of Applied Ethology, Exeter, UK.
41. Richards M, Poch S, Coon C, et al. (2003): Expression of selected genes related to fat metabolism in broiler breeder chickens, J Nutr, 131, 707-715.
42. Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FAM, De Reu K, et al. (2008): Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: an on-farm comparison, Anim Welf, 17, 363-373.
43. Santos AL, Sakomura NK, Freitas ER, et al. (2005). Comparison of free range broiler chicken strains raised in confined and semi-confined systems, Braz J Poult Sci, 7, 85–92.
44. Silversides FG, Singh R, Cheng KM, et al. (2012): Comparison of bones of 4 strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens, Poult Sci, 91, 1-7.
45. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989): Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.
46. Sorensen P (1992): The genetics of leg disorders. In: CC Whitehead (Ed). Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry. Carfax Publishing, London. 213-229.
47. Świątkiewicz S, Arczewska-Wlosek A (2012): Bone quality characteristics and performance in broiler chickens fed diets supplemented with organic acids, Czech J Anim Sci, 57, 193-205.
48. Taha AE, Abd El-Ghany FA, Sharaf MM (2011): Strain and sex effects on productive and slaughter performance of local Egyptian and Canadian chicken strains, J World Poult Res, 1: 11-17.
49. Tolon B, Yalcin S (1997): Bone characteristics and body weight of broilers in different husbandry systems, Br Poult Sci, 38, 132-135.
50. Tong HB, Wang Q, Lu J, et al. (2014): Effect of free-range days on a local chicken breed: Growth performance, carcass yield, meat quality, and lymphoid organ index, Poult Sci, 93, 1883-1889.
51. Tufekci K, Kayacan R, Kurbanoglu C (2014): Effects of gamma radiation sterilization and strain rate on compressive behavior of equine cortical bone, J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 34, 231-242.
52. Udeh I, Ezebor PN, Akporahuarbo, PO (2015): Growth performance and carcass yield of three commercial strains of broiler chickens raised in a tropical environment, J Biol Agric Healthc, 2, 62-67.
53. Vercoe JE, Fitzhugh HA, Von Kaufmann R (2000): Livestock productions systems beyond 2000, Asian Australas J Anim Sci 13, 411-419.
54. Vitorovic D, Nikolic Z (1995): Longitudinal growth of leg and wing bones of chickens reared in cages and on the floor, Anat Histol Embryol, 24, 81-83.
55. Wang KH, Shi SR, Dou TC, et al. (2009): Effect of a free-range raising system on growth performance, carcass yield, and meat quality of slow-growing chicken, Poult Sci, 88, 2219-2223.
56. Wolff J (1986): The Law of Bone Remodeling. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.
57. Yalcin S, Ozkan, S, Coskuner E, et al. (2001): Effects of strain, maternal age and sex on morphological characteristics and composition of tibial bone in broilers, Br Poult Sci, 42, 184-190.
58. Yildiz H, Petek M, Gunes N, et al. (2003): Effects of different housing systems on various parameters of the humerus and tibiotarsus in chickens (Tetra SL), Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 27, 979-982.
59. Yilmaz BD, Ipek A, Sahan U, et al. (2016): Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range), Poult Sci, 95, 1564-1572.
60. Young LL, Northcutt JK, Buhr RJ, et al. (2001): Effects of age, sex, and duration of postmortem aging on percentage yield of parts from broiler chicken carcasses, Poult Sci, 80, 376-379.