Genotip ve Kafes Tipine Göre Ticari Yumurtacı Sürülerde Tavuk Performansı ve Ölüm Oranlarının Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu araştırmada ticari yumurtacı tavuk sürülerinde genotip ve kafes tipinin yumurta verimi, ölüm oranı ile kirli ve kırık yumurta oranları üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma Afyonkarahisar'daki orta ölçekli kanatlı işletmelerinde bulunan dört ticari yumurtacı tavuk sürüsünde yürütülmüştür. İki beyaz (Hy-line ve Super Nick) ve iki kahverengi (Nick Brown) yumurtacı sürü geleneksel ve zenginleştirilebilir kafeslerde barındırılmıştır. Yumurtacı sürüler 19-56 haftalık yaş döneminde haftalık olarak ziyaret edilmiş ve günlük yumurta üretimi, ölen tavuk sayısı ile kirli ve kırık yumurta sayıları çiftlik kayıtlarından toplanmıştır. Genotip ve kafes tipi tavuk-gün ve tavuk-kümes (%) yumurta üretimini önemli ölçüde etkilemiştir. Kahverengi genotiplerin (%2.74) ve geleneksel kafeslerde barındırılan tavukların (%2.61) ortalama yumurta üretimi daha yüksek bulunmuştur. En yüksek ölüm oranları zenginleştirilebilir kafeslerde gözlenirken 32 haftalık yaştan sonra genotipin haftalık ölüm oranlarına etkisi önemsiz hale gelmiştir. Haftalık kirli ve kırık yumurta oranları genotip ve kafes tipi grupları arasında önemli derecede farklılık göstermiştir. Genotip x kafes tipi interaksiyonlarının yumurta üretimi, kirli ve kırık yumurta oranlarına etkisi önemli bulunmuştur. Zenginleştirilebilir kafeslerde barındırılanlara göre geleneksel kafeslerdeki beyaz ve kahverengi yumurtacı tavukların yumurta üretimi daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, kahverengi genotiplerin beyaz genotiplere göre önemli derecede daha yüksek yumurta üretimine sahip olduğu, zenginleştirilebilir kafeslerde barındırılan tavukların yumurta üretiminin daha düşük, ölüm oranı ile kirli ve kırık yumurta oranlarının daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Genotip
• Kafes tipi
• Kirli ve kırık yumurta
• Ölüm oranı
• Yumurta verimi

Comparison of Hen Performance and Mortality of Commercial Layer Flocks by Strain and Cage Type

Öz

The study aimed to compare the effects of strain and cage type on egg production, mortality and the rates of dirty eggs and broken eggs in commercial flocks of laying hens. The study was conducted on four commercial flocks of layers in medium-sized poultry farms in the city of Afyonkarahisar. Two white (Hy-Line and Super Nick) and two brown (Nick Brown) layer flocks were housed in conventional cages and enrichable cages. The laying flocks were visited weekly, and the egg production and the number of dead birds, dirty eggs, and broken eggs were collected on a daily basis from flock records between 19 and 56 weeks of age. Both strain and cage type had a significant effect on hen-day and hen-housed egg production. The brown strains (2.74%) and hens housed in conventional cages (2.61%) had higher mean egg production. The effect of strain on weekly mortality became insignificant after 32 weeks of age, while the highest mortality rates were observed in the enrichable cages. The weekly rates of dirty eggs and broken eggs showed significant differences between the groups of strains and cage type. The effects of strain x cage type interactions on egg production and on the rates of dirty eggs and broken eggs were found to be significant. White and brown laying hens in conventional cages had higher egg production than the hens kept in enrichable cages. In conclusion, brown strains had higher egg production than white strains and enrichable cages had lower egg production and higher mortality, as well as dirty and broken eggs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cage type
• Dirty and broken eggs
• Egg production
• Mortality
• Strain

Kaynakça

1. Alig, B. N., Malheiros, R. D., & Anderson, K. E. (2023). Evaluation of physical egg quality parameters of commercial brown laying hens housed in five production systems. Animals 13(4), 716. doi:10.3390/ani13040716.
2. Anonymous (2014). Yumurtacı Tavukların Korunması İle İlgili Asgari Standartlara İlişkin Yönetmelik. Resmi Gazete No: 29183, 23 Aralık 2014.
3. Appleby, M. C., Walker, A. W., Nicol, C. J., Lindberg, A. C., Freire, R., Hughes, B. O., & Elson H. A. (2002). Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science, 43, 489–500. doi:10.1080/0007166022000004390.
4. Brown Nick (2016). Brown Nick new management guide. H & N International GmbH (https://www.feedonline.ir/aa18.pdf;).
5. Campo, J. L., Gil, M. G., & Davila, A. S. (2007). Differences among white-, tinted-and brown-egg laying hens for incidence of eggs laid on the floor and for oviposition time. Archiv Fur Geflugelkunde, 71(3), 105-109.
6. Cunningham, D. L., & Ostrander, C. E. (1982). The effects of strain and cage shape and density on performance and fearfulness of White Leghorn layers. Poultry Science, 61(2), 239-243. doi:10.3382/ps.0610239.
7. David, B., Oppermann Moe, R., Michel, V., Lund, V., & Mejdell, C. (2015). Air quality in alternative housing systems may have an impact on laying hen welfare. Part I—Dust. Animals, 5(3), 495-511. doi:10.3390/ani5030368.
8. Ershad, S. M. E. (2005). Performance of hybrid layers and native hens under farmers’ management in a selected area of Bangladesh. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4(4), 228-232.

9. Freire, R., & Cowling, A. (2013). The welfare of laying hens in conventional cages and alternative systems: first steps towards a quantitative comparison. Animal Welfare, 22(1), 57-65. doi:10.7120/09627286.22.1.057.
10. Fulton, R. M. (2017). Causes of normal mortality in commercial egg-laying chickens. Avian diseases, 61(3), 289-295. doi:10.1637/11556-120816-RegR.
11. Gerzilov, V., Datkova, V., Mihaylova, S., & Bozakova, N. (2012). Effect of poultry housing systems on egg production. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 18(6), 953-957.
12. Hamilton, R. M. G., & Bryden, W. L. (2021). Relationship between egg shell breakage and laying hen housing systems–an overview. World's Poultry Science Journal, 77(2), 249-266. doi:10.1080/00439339.2021.1878480.
13. Heflin, L. E., Malheiros, R., Anderson, K. E., Johnson, L. K., & Raatz, S. K. (2018). Mineral content of eggs differs with hen strain, age, and rearing environment. Poultry Science, 97(5), 1605-1613. doi:10.3382/ps/pey025.
14. Hy-Line W-80 (2016). Hy-Line W-80 Commercial Layer Management guide, Hy-Line International (https://hylinena.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/W-80_English-1.pdf).
15. Ledvinka, Z., Zita, L., & Klesalová, L. (2012). Egg quality and some factors influencing it: a review. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica, 43(1), 46-52.
16. Ortiz, D., Lawson, T., Jarrett, R., Ring, A., Scoles, K. L., Hoverman, L., Rocheford , E., Karcher , D.M., & Rocheford, T. (2021). Biofortified orange corn increases xanthophyll density and yolk pigmentation in egg yolks from laying hens. Poultry Science, 100(7), 101117. doi:10.1016/j.psj.2021.101117.
17. Pavlik, A., Jezova, D., Zapletal, D., Bakos, J., & Jelinek, P. (2008). Impact of housing technology on blood plasma corticosterone levels in laying hens. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica, 56(4), 515-527. doi:10.1556/avet.56.2008.4.9.
18. Philippe, F. X., Mahmoudi, Y., Cinq-Mars, D., Lefrançois, M., Moula, N., Palacios, J., Pelletier, F., & Godbout, S. (2020). Comparison of egg production, quality and composition in three production systems for laying hens. Livestock Science, 232, 103917. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2020.103917.
19. Riczu, C. M., Saunders-Blades, J. L., Yngvesson, H., K., Robinson, F. E., & Korver, D. R. (2004). End-of-cycle bone quality in white-and brown-egg laying hens. Poultry Science, 83(3), 375-383. doi:10.1093/ps/83.3.375.
20. Sherwin, C. M., Richards, G. J., & Nicol, C. J. (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science, 51(4), 488-499. doi:10.1080/00071668.2010.502518.
21. Singh, R., Cheng, K. M., & Silversides, F. G. (2009). Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science, 88(2), 256-264. doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00237.
22. Stojčić, M. D., Perić, L., Milošević, N., Rodić, V., Glamočić, D., Škrbić, Z., & Lukić, M. (2012). Effect of genotype and housing system on egg production, egg quality and welfare of laying hens. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 10, 556-559.
23. Super Nick (2017). Super Nick White egg layes new management H & N International GmbH (https://feedonline.ir/aa17.pdf).
24. Tactacan, G. B., Guenter, W., Lewis, N. J., Rodriguez-Lecompte, J. C., & House, J. D. (2009). Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry science, 88(4), 698-707. doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00369.
25. Vits, A., Weitzenbürger, D., Hamann, H., & Distl, O. (2005). Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, and keel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry science, 84(10), 1511-1519. doi:10.1093/ps/84.10.1511.
26. Wall, H., R. Tauson, &K. Elwinger. (2002). Effect of design, passages, and hybrid on use of nest and production of layers in furnished cages. Poultry Science, 81, 333–339. doi:10.1093/ps/81.3.333.
27. Wolc, A., Arango, J., Settar, P., O'sullivan, N. P., Olori, V. E., White, I. M. S., Hill, W.G., & Dekkers, J. C. M. (2012). Genetic parameters of egg defects and egg quality in layer chickens. Poultry Science, 91(6), 1292-1298.
28. Xin, H., Gates, R. S., Green, A. R., Mitloehner, F. M., Moore Jr, P. A., & Wathes, C. M. (2011). Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 263-277.
29. Yılmaz Dikmen, B., 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). Poultry Science, 95(7),1564-1572. doi:10.3382/ps/pew082
30. Zita, L., Tůmová, E., & Štolc, L. (2009). Effects of genotype, age and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg laying hens. Acta Veterinaria Bruno, 78(1), 85-91