Yumurtacı Tavuklarda Tüy Kalitesi ve Göğüs Kemiği Eğikliği ile Bazı Verim Özellikleri Üzerine Canlı Ağırlık ve Göğüs Kondisyonunun Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma yumurtacı tavuklarda tüy kalitesi ve göğüs kemiği eğikliği üzerine canlı ağırlık ve göğüs kondisyonunun etkisinin belirlenmesi amacıyla Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Kanatlı Ünitesinde yetiştirilmekte olan 4000 adet Lohman LSL genotipi beyaz yumurtacı tavuk sürüsünden seçilen 450 adet tavuk üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Deneme başında tavuklar canlı ağırlıklarına göre; canlı ağırlığı 1100-1400 g arası olanlar hafif; 1400-1700 g arası olanlar orta; 1700-2000 g arası ağır grup olmak üzere 3 gruba ayrılmıştır. Her ağırlık grubundaki hayvanlar göğüs genişliğine göre; göğüs genişliği 2,0-4,4 cm arası (dar) ve 4,5-6,0 cm arası (geniş) olmak üzere tekrar iki gruba ayrılmış, çalışmada 6 interaktif grup yer almıştır. Veri toplama işlemi 59 haftalık yaştan 67 haftalık yaşa kadar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Apartman tipi geleneksel kafes sisteminde; her kafes bölmesinde 5’er tavuk olacak olacak şekilde barındırılan tavuklar deneme süresince ticari yumurtacı tavuklar için standart koşullarda yetiştirilmiştir. Gruplarda; göğüs kemiği eğikliği; var/yok şeklinde tanımlanmış, tüy kalitesi; tüylerdeki hasar/kayıp durumuna göre; iyi (skor 0), orta (skor 1) ve zayıf (skor 2) şeklinde değerlendirilmiştir. Gruplarda günlük yumurta sayıları ve ölenler kaydedilmiş, deneme başı ve deneme sonunda her grupta ortalama yumurta ağırlığı belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada ortalama yumurtlama randımanı üzerine canlı ağırlığın etkisi önemli bulunmuştur (P<0,01). Göğüs kemiği eğikliği saptanan tavukların toplam içindeki payı deneme başı ve deneme sonunda değişmemiş, bütün gruplarda yaklaşık %50’ nin üzerinde tespit edilmiştir. Genelde deneme başı toplam tüy kalitesi canlı ağırlıktan önemli düzeyde etkilenmiş (P<0,01), ancak deneme sonunda bu farklılık ortadan kalkmıştır. Sonuç olarak yumurtacı tavuklarda yaşla birlikte tüy kalitesinin kötüleştiği, ancak canlı ağırlık ve göğüs kondisyonunun göğüs kemiği eğikliği ve tüy kalitesi üzerine önemli bir etki göstermediği tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• YUmurtacı tavuk
• canlı ağırlık
• göğüs kondisyonu
• tüy kalitesi
• göğüs kemiği eğikliği

Effects of live body weight and breast condition on plumage quality and keel bone deviation in laying hens

Abstract

This study was carried out on 450 hens selected from a flock of 4000 Lohmann LSL genotype white layers reared in Bursa Uludag University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, in the Poultry Unit to determine the effects of body weight and breast condition on plumage quality and keel bone deviation in laying hens. At the beginning of the experiment, the birds were divided into three groups according to the live weight of chickens ; those with a live weight of 1100-1400g were light; the ones between 1400-1700 g as the medium group, and between 1700-2000g as the heavy group. According to the breast width of the animals in each weight group, the birds were further divided into two groups 2.0-4.4 cm (narrow) and 4.5-6.0 cm (wide). Thus, six interactive groups were included in the study. Data collection was carried out from 59 weeks to 67 weeks of age. The hens with five chickens in each cage compartment were housed in the apartment-type traditional cage system and raised under standard conditions for commercial layers during the experiment. In the groups; keel bone deviation was defined as yes/no; and plumage quality was evaluated as good (score 0), moderate (score 1), and poor (score 2) according to their plumage loss. The daily number of eggs and deaths in the groups were recorded, and the average egg weight in each group was determined at the beginning and end of the experiment. In the study, the effect of live weight on the mean laying performance was significant (P<0.01). The proportion of hens with a keel bone deviation at the experiment's beginning and end was over 50% in all groups. The initial total feather quality of the birds was significantly affected by live weight (P<0.01). As a result, it was determined that feather quality deteriorated with age in laying hens. However body weight and breast condition did not affect the birds’ keel bone deviation and plumage quality.

Keywords

• Laying hen
• body weight
• breast condition
• plumage quality
• keel bone deviation

References

1. Ahrens W, Cox D, & Budhwar G, 1990: Use of the Arcsine and Square Root Transformations for Subjectively Determined Percentage Data. Weed Science, 38 (4-5), 452-458. doi:10.1017/S0043174500056824
2. Anene DO, Akter Y, Thomson PC, Groves P, O’Shea CJ, 2020: Variation and Association of Hen Performance and Egg Quality Traits in Individual Early-Laying ISA Brown Hens. Animals, 10, 1601.
3. Anonim, 2020: Lohmann LSL Classic Layers Management Guide-Cage Housing. Lohman Breeders. Lohmann Breeders Gmbh. https://lohmannbreeders.com/files/downloads/MG/Cage/LB_MG_Cage_LSL- Classic_EN.pdf (Son okuma 24.10.2022).
4. Casey-Trott TM, Guerin MT, Sandilands V, Torrey S, Widowski TM, 2017: Rearing system affects prevalence of keel-bone damage in laying hens: a longitudinal study of four consecutive flocks. Poult Sci, 96, 2029-2039.
5. Casey-Trott T, Heerkens JLT, Petrik M, Regmi P, Schrader L, Toscano MJ, Widowski T, 2015: Methods for assessment of keel bone damage in poultry. Poult Sci, 94, 2339-2350.
6. Chew J, Widowski T, Herwig E, Shynkaruk T, Schwean-Lardner K, 2021: The effect of light intensity on the body weight, keel bone quality, tibia bone strength, and mortality of brown and white feathered egg-strain pullets reared in perchery systems. Poult Sci, 100, 101464.
7. Coton J, Guinebretière M, Guesdon V, Chiron G, Mindus C, Laravoire A, Pauthier G, Balaine L, Descamps M, Bignon L, Huneau-Salaün A, Michel V, 2019: Feather pecking in laying hens housed in free-range or furnished-cage systems on French farms. Br Poult Sci, 60, 617-627.
8. Çelik R, Erar A, 2013: Değişken Dönüşümlerinin Kelebek Dağılan Artıklar için Değişen Varyanslılığa Etkileri. AKU FemUBİD 13, 1-10.

9. Dedousi A, Stojčić MĐ, Sossidou E, 2020: Effects of housing systems on keel bone damage and egg quality of laying hens. Vet Res Forum, 11, 299.
10. Dikmen BY, Ipek A, Şahan Ü, Petek M, Sözcü A, 2016: Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poult Sci, 95, 1564-1572.
11. Edgar JL, Omi Y, Booth F, Mackie N, Richards G, Tarlton J, 2023: Fear, anxiety, and production in laying hens with healed keel bone fractures. Poult Sci, 102 doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2023.102514.
12. Estevinho J, 2021: Welfare implications of cage-free egg production. Poult World https://www.poultryworld.net/health-nutrition/welfare-implications-of-cage-free-egg-production/ (Güncelleme; 25.03.2022, son okuma; 19.10.2022).
13. Dereli Fidan E, Nazlıgül A, 2013: Cage position and density effect on some welfare criteria in Denizli chicken. Indian J Anim Sci, 83 (6), 645-648.
14. Garant R, Tobalske BW, Sassi NB, van Staaveren N, Widowski T, Powers DR, Harlander-Matauschek A, 2022: Wing-feather loss in white-feathered laying hens decreases pectoralis thickness but does not increase risk of keel bone fracture. R Soc Open Sci, 9, 220155.
15. Grafl B, Polster S, Sulejmanovic T, Pürrer B, Guggenberger B, Hess M, 2017: Assessment of health and welfare of Austrian laying hens at slaughter demonstrates influence of husbandry system and season. Br Poult Sci, 58, 209-215.
16. Habig C, Henning M, Baulain U, Jansen S, Scholz AM, Weigend S, 2021: Keel Bone Damage in Laying Hens-Its Relation to Bone Mineral Density, Body Growth Rate and Laying Performance. Animals (Basel), 11, 1546.
17. Hardin E, Castro FLS, Kim WK, 2019: Keel bone injury in laying hens: the prevalence of injuries in relation to different housing systems, implications, and potential solutions. World's Poult Sci J, 75, 285-292.
18. Hedlund L, Jensen P, 2022: Effects of stress during commercial hatching on growth, egg production and feather pecking in laying hens. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0262307.
19. Jung L, Niebuhr K, Hinrichsen LK, Gunnarsson S, Brenninkmeyer C, Bestman M, Knierim U, 2019: Possible risk factors for keel bone damage in organic laying hens. Anim, 13 (10), 2356-2364.
20. Kaukonen E, Valros A, 2019: Feather Pecking and Cannibalism in Non-Beak-Trimmed Laying Hen Flocks-Farmers' Perspectives. Animals (Basel), 9 (2), 43.
21. Lampton SL, Knowles TG, Yorke C, Nicol CJ, 2015: The risk factors affecting the development of vent pecking and cannibalism in free-range and organic laying hens. Anim Welf, 24 (1), 101-111.
22. Mens AJW, Van Krimpen MM, Kwakkel RP, 2020: Nutritional approaches to reduce or prevent feather pecking in laying hens: any potential to intervene during rearing? World’s Poult Sci J, 76, 591-610.
23. Norman KI, Weeks CA, Tarlton JF, Nicol CJ, 2021: Rearing experience with ramps improves specifc learning and behaviour and welfare on a commercial laying farm. Sci Reports 11, 8860
24. North BB, Bell DD, 1990: Commercial Chicken Production Manual, USA.
25. Pereira DF, Vale MM, Zevolli BR, Salgado DD, 2010: Estimating mortality in laying hens as the environmental temperature increases. Rev Bras Ciencia Avi, 12, 265-271.
26. Petek M, Topal E, Cavusoglu E, 2015: Effects of age at first access to range area on pecking behaviour and plumage quality of free-range layer chickens. Arch Anim Breed, 58 (1), 85-91.
27. Petek M, 2021: Effects of Housing Locations on Feather Damages of Laying Hens in a Free-Range Housing System. J Hellenic Vet Med Soc, 71 (4), 2525-2530.
28. Petek M, Abdourhamane IM, Brav FC, Ünal C, 2022: Effects of keel bone deviation on post-peak egg production in a commercial laying hen flock with different breast condition. J Res Vet Med, 41 (2) , 74-79.
29. Petek M, Çavuşoğlu E, 2021: Welfare Assessment of Two Free-range Laying Hen Flocks in Turkey. J App Anim Welf Sci, 24 (1), 56-63.
30. Resmi Gazete, 2014: Hayvan deneyleri Yerel Etik Kurullarının Çalışma Usul ve Esaslarına Dair Yönetmelik. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, sayı: 28914.
31. Riber AB, Casey-Trott TM, Herskin MS, 2018: The Influence of Keel Bone Damage on Welfare of Laying Hens. Front Vet Sci, 5, 6.
32. Rieke L, Spindler B, Zylka I, Kemper N, Giersberg MF, 2021: Pecking Behavior in Conventional Layer Hybrids and Dual-Purpose Hens Throughout the Laying Period. Front Vet Sci. 8, 660400.
33. Rufener C, Baur S, Stratmann A, Toscano MJ, 2019: Keel bone fractures affect egg laying performance but not egg quality in laying hens housed in a commercial aviary system. Poult Sci, 98, 1589-1600.
34. Rufener C, Rentsch AK, Stratmann A, Toscano MJ, 2020: Perch Positioning Affects both Laying Hen Locomotion and Forces Experienced at the Keel. Animals, 10, 1223.
35. Rufener C, Makagon MM, 2020: Keel bone fractures in laying hens: a systematic review of prevalence across age, housing systems, and strains. J Anim Sci, 98(Supplement_1), S36-S51.
36. Sibanda TZ, Kolakshyapati M, Walkden-Brown SW, De Souza Vilela J, Courtice JM, Ruhnke I, 2020: Body weight sub-populations are associated with significant different welfare, health and egg production status in Australian commercial free-range laying hens in an aviary system. Europ Poult Sci, 84.
37. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG, 1994: Statistical methods (eighth edition). Calcutta, India: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.
38. Sözcü A, İpek A, Oğuz Z, Gunnarsson S, Riber AB, 2021: Comparison of Behavioral Time Budget and Welfare Indicators in Two Local Laying Hen Genotypes (Atak-S and Atabey) in a Free-Range System. Animals, 12, 46.
39. SPSS Statistics. 2018: IBM SPSS Statistics 22 Documentation, IBM Corporation, Somer, New York, USA.
40. Thøfner IC, Dahl J, Christensen JP, 2021: Keel bone fractures in Danish laying hens: Prevalence and risk factors. Plos One, 16 (8), e0256105.
41. Tok S, Şekeroğlu A, Duman M, Tainika B, 2022: Effect of age, stocking density, genotype, and cage tier on feather score of layer pure lines. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 46, 115-123.
42. Wall H, Boyner M, De Koning, DJ, Kindmark A, Mc Cormack HA, Fleming R H, Tauson R, 2022: Integument, mortality, and skeletal strength in extended production cycles for laying hens–effects of genotype and dietary zinc source. Br Poul Sci, 63 (2), 115-124.
43. Yamak US, Sarıca M, 2012: Relationships between feather score and egg production and feed consumption of different layer hybrids kept in conventional cages. Arc Geflügeld, 76, 31-37.