Yemleme Zamanı ve Kafes Yoğunluğunun Yumurta Tavuklarında Performans Üzerine Etkisi

Year 2020, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 191 - 199, 01.12.2020

Oğuzhan Kahraman Tahir Balevi Süleyman Dere Varol Kurtoğlu Esad Sami Polat Mustafa Çam , Huzur Derya Arık

https://doi.org/10.32707/ercivet.828311

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırma 58 haftalık yaşta toplam 656 adet Hysex-Brown yumurtacı tavuk kullanılarak yürütüldü. Araştırma-da 2 x 4 multifaktöriyel deneme düzeni oluşturuldu. Farklı zaman ve sıklıkta yetiştirilen tavuklarda yumurta verimi, gün-lük yem tüketimi, yemden yararlanma oranı, yumurta ağırlığı, hasarlı yumurta oranı, canlı ağırlık ve spesifik gravite verileri incelendi. Kafeslere 412.5 ve 495 cm2/tavuk olacak şekilde yerleştirilen ve 8 grup oluşturulan tavuklara yemler saat 06:00, 09:30, 06:00-06:30; 09:30-13:30’da verildi. Deneme 60 gün sürdürüldü. Deneme sonunda gruplar arasında yumurta verimi, günlük yem tüketimi ve yemden yararlanma oranları bakımından istatistiksel farklılığın olduğu (P<0.05), yumurta ağırlığı, hasarlı yumurta oranı, canlı ağırlık ve spesifik gravite bakımından ise herhangi bir farklılığın olmadığı tespit edildi (P>0.05). Yerleşim sıklığı 495 cm2/tavuk olan ve saat 09:30’da tek seferde yemlenen gruplarda yumurta veriminin en yüksek, yem tüketimi ve yemden yararlanma oranının ise en düşük olduğu tespit edildi. Yerleşim sıklığı 412.5 cm2/tavuk olan ve saat 09:30-13:30’da yemlenen gruplarda yumurta veriminin en düşük, yemden yararlan-ma oranının ise en yüksek olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca tavukları 06:00 ve 06:30’da olmak üzere iki öğünde yemlemenin yem tüketimini artırdığı, sabah saat 09:30’da tek seferde yemlemenin ise yem tüketimini azalttığı tespit edildi.

Keywords

Kafes yoğunluğu, performans, yemleme zamanı, yumurta tavuğu

The Effects of Feeding Time and Stocking Density on Performance of Laying Hens

Abstract

This study was carried out with 656 Hysex-Brown layer hen with 58 weeks old. 2 x 4 Multifactorial test setup was used. Egg production, daily feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, egg weight, damaged egg ratio, body weight and specific gravity datas were examined in laying hens fed at different times and raised at different stocking density. Hens placed in cages as 412.5 and 495 cm2/hen and formed 8 groups and feeds were given at 06:00, 9:30, 06:00-06:30 and 09:30-13:30h. The trial was continued for 60 days. At the end of the experiment, it was determined that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of egg production, daily feed consump-tion and feed conversion ratio (P<0.05), and there was no difference in egg weight, damaged egg ratio, body weight and specific gravity (P>0.05). It was determined that egg production was the highest and feed consumption and feed conversion ratio was the lowest in groups with a frequency of 495 cm2/chicken and fed at one time at 09:30h. Egg production was the lowest and feed conversion ratio was highest in groups with a frequency of 412.5 cm2/hen and fed at 09:30-13:30h. It was also determined that feeding two times at 06:00h and 06:30h increased the feed consumption, but feeding one time at 09:30h decreased the feed consumption.

Keywords

Laying hens, feeding time, performance, stocking density

References

• Al-Rawi B, Craig JV, Adams AW. Agonistic behavior and egg production of caged layers: Genetic strain and group-size effects. Poult Sci 1976; 55(2): 796-807.
• Anderson KE, Adams AW. Effects of rearing space and feeder and waterer spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers. Poult Sci 1992; 71: 53-8.
• AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. Thirteenth Edi-tion. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, 2003.
• Asghar Saki A, Zamani P, Rahmati M, Mahmoudi H. The effect of cage density on laying hen perfor-mance, egg quality, and excreta minerals. J Appl Poultry Res 2012; 21(3): 467-75.
• Balnave D. The effect of energy restriction on laying hens given either a single morning or single eve-ning meal. Br Poult Sci 1977; 18(2): 115-9.
• Bootwalla SM, Wilson HR, Harms RH. Performance of broiler breeders on different feeding system. Poult Sci 1983; 62: 2321-5.
• Connor JK, Burton HW. Effects of cage population and stocking density on the performance of layers in Queensland. Aust J Exp Agric and Anim Husb 1975; 76: 619-25.
• Dorminey RW, Arscott GH. Effect of bird density, nutrient density and perches on the performance of caged White Leghorn layers. Poult Sci 1971; 50: 619-24.
• Farmer M, Roland DA, Eckman MK. Calcium meta-bolism in broiler breeder hens. 2. The influence of the time of feeding on calcium statUs of the diges-tive system and egg shell quality in broiler bree-ders. Poult Sci 1983; 62: 465-71.
• Hamilton RMG. Methods and factors that affect the measurement of eggshell quality. Poult Sci 1982; 61: 2022-39.
• Hempe JM, Laukxen RC, Savage JE. Rapid determi-nation of egg weight and spesific gravitiy using a computerised data collection system. Poult Sci 1988; 67: 902-7.
• Harms RH. The influence of changing time of feeding on performance of broiler breeder hens. Poult Sci 1991; 70: 1695-8.
• Iqbal J, Mukhtar N, Rehman ZU, Khan SH, Ahmad T, Anjum MS, Umar S. Effects of egg weight on the egg quality, chick quality, and broiler performance at the later stages of production (week 60) in broi-ler breeders. J Appl Poultry Res 2017; 26(2): 183-91.
• Jalal MA, Scheideler SE, Marx D. Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolizable energy level on production parameters in laying hens. Poult Sci 2006; 85: 306-11.
• Kivimae A. The influence of floor area per hen and the number of hens per cage on the performance and behaviour of laying hens. Archiv-fur-Geflugelkunde 1976; 40(6): 202-5.
• Lee K, Moss CW. Effects of population density on layer performance. Poult Sci 1995; 74(11): 1754-60.
• Leeson S, Summers JD. Effects of cage density and diet energy concentration on the performance of growing Leghorn pullets subjected to early indu-ced maturity. Poult Sci 1984; 63: 875-82.
• Mathew PV, Siddiqui SM, Reddy CV. Effect of floor and cage-housing in relation to stocking density on the performance of layers. Indıan J Anim Sci 1979; 49(10): 822-7.
• Mench JA, Tienhoven AV, Marsh JA, Mccormick CC, Cunningham DL, Baker RC, Van TA. Effects of cage and floor pen management on behavior, production, and physiological stress responses of laying hens. Poult Sci 1986; 65(6): 1058-69.
• Moradi S, Zaghari M, Shivazad M, Osfoori R, Mardi M. The effect of increasing feeding frequency on performance, plasma hormones and metabolites, and hepatic lipid metabolism of broiler breeder hens. Poult Sci 2013; 92(5): 1227-37.
• Mtileni BJ, Nephawe KA, Nesamvuni AE, Benyi K. The influence of stocking density on body weight, egg weight, and feed intake of adult broiler bree-der hens. Poult Sci 2007; 86: 1615-9.
• Nagarajan S, Narahari D, Jayaprasad IA, Thyagara-jan D. Influence of stocking density and layer age on production traits and egg quality in Japanese quail. Br Poult Sci 1991; 32(2): 243-8.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirement of Poultry. Ninth Edition. Washington: National Research Council, National Academy Press; 1994.
• Onbasılar TEE, Aksoy FT. Stress parameters and immune response of layers under different cage floor and density conditions. Livest Prod Sci 2005; 95: 255-63.
• Owings WJ. Management and nutrition factors affec-ting egg quality. South Dakota Poultry Field Day Proceedings and Research Reports 1981; Paper 11. http://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_poultry_1981/11; Accessed Date: 24.02.2020.
• Oyedeji JO, Orheruata AM, Omatsuli M. Effects of feed rationing on the laying performance of 40-weeks in-lay hens. J Food Agric Environ 2007; 5(3/4): 301.
• Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FAM, Sonck B, De Koen R, Lieve H, Johan Z. Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J Appl Anim Welf. Sci 2005; 8: 211-26.
• Rozempolska-Rucińska I, Zięba G, Łukaszewicz M, Ciechońska M, Witkowski A, Ślaska B. Egg speci-fic gravity in improvement of hatchability in laying hens. J Anim Feed Sci 2011; 20(1): 84-92.
• Samara MH, Robbins KR, Smith MO. Interaction of feeding time and temperature and their relations-hip to performance of the broiler breeder hen. Poult Sci 1996; 75(1): 34-41.
• Sarica M, Boga S, Yamak US. The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech J Anim Sci 2008; 53(8): 346-53.
• Sohail SS, Bryant MM, Roland DA. Effect of reducing cage density on performance and economics of second-cycle (force rested) commercial Leghorns. J Appl Poult Res 2004; 13: 401-5.
• Soltanmoradi MG, Seidavi A, Dadashbeiki M, Lauda-dio V, Centoducati G, Tufarelli V. Influence of feeding frequency and timetable on egg parame-ters and reproductive performance in broiler bree-der hens. Avian Biol Res 2014; 7(3): 153-9.
• Taherkhani R, Zaghari M, Shivazad M, Zare Shahneh A. A twice-a-day feeding regimen optimizes per-formance in broiler breeder hens. Poult Sci 2010; 89(8): 1692-702.
• Teng MF, Soh GL, Chew SH. Effects of stocking den-sities on the productivity of commercial layers in the tropics. Singapore J Primary Ind 1990; 18(2): 123-8.
• Wilson HR, Keeling LJ. Effect of time of feeding on oviposition time and production parameters in broilerbreeders. Poult Sci 1991; 70(2): 254-9.