نوک زدن پر مرغ‌های تخمگذار در تراکم در واحد سطح و نوع قفس متفاوت

Subject Areas : Camel

اس. خومپوت ¹ , اس. موآنگچوم ² , اس. یودپروم ³ , آ. پانیاساک ⁴ , جی. تی انجتام ⁵

1 - Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
2 - Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
3 - Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
4 - Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand
5 - Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

Received: 2018-06-02 Accepted : 2018-08-15 Published : 2019-09-01

Keywords: مرغ تخمگذار, نوک زدن پر, خانه‌سازی, واحد سطح,

Abstract :

هر دوی تعداد در واحد سطح و سیستم‌های خانه‌سازی فاکتورهای اصلی تأثیرگذار بر وقوع پرکنی در مرغ‌های تخمگذار پرورش یافته در سیستم قفسی سنتی هستند. این مطالعه به بررسی اثرات انواع مختلف قفس و تراکم روی رفتار پرکنی در مرغ‌ها می‌پردازد. مجموعه‌ای از 216 مرغ Hisex Brown در سن 16 هفتگی به ‌طور تصادفی انتخاب شدند و درون 2 نوع از قفس‌های باتری قرار داده شدند: قفس‌های سنتی و قفس‌های اصلاح شده متناسب با نشیمن‌گاه پرنده. هر گروه شامل 3 زیر گروه شد: 2 مرغ به ازای قفس (943 سانتی‌متر مربع/مرغ)، 3 مرغ به ازای قفس (7/627 سانتی‌متر مربع/مرغ)، و 4 مرغ به ازای قفس (5/417 سانتی‌متر مربع/مرغ). رفتار نوک زدن در سن‌های 25، 28، 31، 34، 37 و 40 هفتگی با استفاده از تکنیک اسکن نمونه‌گیری زمانی مشاهده شد. امتیازدهی بال مرغ‌ها در سن 42 هفتگی انجام شد، نه اثر نوع قفس و نه اثر متقابل آنها به تراکم‌های در واحد سطح روی رفتار نوک زدن و امتیاز بال مشهود نبود. نتایج نشان دادند که اثرات معنی‌داری از تراکم روی رفتار نوک زدن، و امتیاز بال وجود دارند (05/0>P). مرغ‌ها در 3 و 4 مرغ به ازای قفس شدت‌های نوک‌زنی بالاتری نسبت به 2 مرغ به ازای قفس نشان دادند (05/0>P). امتیازهای وضعیت بال در قسمت‌های از سینه، بال، کپل، دم، و شکم پرندگان در 2 مرغ به ازای قفس نسبت به دیگر گروه‌ها بهتر بود (05/0>P). مرغ‌ها در 2 مرغ به ازای قفس همچنین تغییر وزنی بدنی بیشتری نسبت دیگر تراکم‌ها داشتند (05/0>P). این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که تراکم در واحد سطح اثر قابل ملاحظه بیشتری روی رفتار نوک زنی نسبت به نوع قفس داشت. بنابراین، استفاده از تعداد در واحد سطح بهینه یک انتخاب بالقوه همراه با در نظر گرفتن رفاه با سیستم خانه‌سازی بکارگرفته شده اخیر خواهد بود.

References:

Abudabos A.M., Samara E.M., Hussein E.O., Al-Ghadi M. and Al-Atiyat R.M. (2013). Impacts of stocking density on the performance and welfare of broiler chickens. Iranian J. Anim. Sci. 12, 66-71.

Anderson K.E. and Adams A.W. (1992). Effects of rearing space and feeder and water spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers. Poult. Sci. 71, 53-58.

Appleby M.C. (1998). Modification of laying hen cages to improve behavior. Poult. Sci. 77, 1828-1832.

Appleby M.C. and Hughes B.O. (1991). Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: Environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World's Poult. Sci. J. 47, 110-128.

Appleby M.C., Mench J.A. and Hughes B.O. (2004).Poultry Behavior and Welfare. CABI International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.

Bilaik B. and Keeling L.J. (2000). Relationship between feather pecking and ground pecking in laying hens and the effect of group size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 68, 55-66.

Brake J.D. and Peebles E.D. (1992). Laying hen performance as affected by diet and caging space. Poult. Sci. 71, 945-950.

Broom D.M. (2001). The European Union laying hen directive and other European Union developments. Pp. 79-82 in Proc. 13^th Australian Poult. Sci. Symp., Sydney, Australia.

Campbell D.L.M., Makagon M.M., Swanson J.C. and Siegford J.M. (2016). Perch use by laying hens in a commercial aviary. Poult. Sci. 95, 1736-1742.

Council of the European Union. (2007). Presidensy Conclusions. WebMD. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/en/ec/93135.

De Haas E.N., Bolhuis J.E., De Jong I.C., Kemp B., Janczak M.C. and Rodenburg T.B. (2014). Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 160, 75-85.

De Jong I.C.D., Gunnink H., Rommers J.M. and Bracke M.B.M. (2013). Effect of substrate during early rearing on floor and feather pecking behaviour in young and adult laying hens. Arch. Geflugelkd. 77, 15-22.

Dereli Fidan E. and Nazligul A. (2012). The effect of cage position and density on some production traits in Denizli chickens. Anim. Health Prod. Hyg. 37, 31-37.

Dereli Fidan E. and Nazligül A. (2013). Cage position and density effect on some welfare criteria in Denizli chicken. Indian. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 645-648.

Enneking S.A., Cheng H.W., Jefferson-Moore K.Y., Einstein M.E., Rubin D.A. and Hester P.Y. (2012). Early access to perches in caged White Leghorn pullets. Poult. Sci. 91, 2114-2120.

Gentle M.J. and Hunter L.N. (1990). Physiological and behavioural responses associated with feather removal in Gallus gallus var domesticus. Res.Vet. Sci. 50, 95-101.

Gibson S.W., Dun P. and Hughes B.O. (1988). The performance and behaviour of laying   fowls in a covered strawyard system. Res. Dev. Agric. 5, 153-163.

Glatz P.C. (1998). Productivity and Profitability of Caged Layers with Poor Feather Cover. Rural Industries Development and Corporation (RIRDC) Publication, Barton, Australia.

Guo Y.Y., Song Z.G., Jiao H.C., Song Q.Q. and Lin H. (2012). The effect of group size and stocking density on the welfare and performance of hens housed in furnished cages during summer. Anim. Welf. 21, 41-49.

Hansen I. and Braastad B.O. (1994). Effect of rearing density on pecking behavior and plumage condition of laying hens in 2 types of aviary. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 40, 263-272.

Hartcher K.M., Tran K.T.N., Wilkinson S.J., Hemsworth P.H., Thomson P.C. and Cronin G.M. (2015). The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 94, 852-859.

Hindex Genetic. (2015). Hisex brown management guide. Available at: https://www.hisex.com.

Humber-Eicher B. and Audige L. (1999). An analysis of risk factors for the occurrence of feather pecking in laying hen growers. Br. Poultry. Sci. 40, 599-604.

Huo X. and Na-Lampang P. (2016). Effects of stocking density on feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in Thai crossbred chickens. Agric. Nat. Res. 50, 396-399.

Jalal M.A., Scheduler S.E. and Marx D. (2006). Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolizable energy level on production parameters in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 85, 306-311.

Keeling L.J. (1995). Feather pecking and cannibalism in layers. Poult. Int. 6, 46-50.

Keeling L.J., Estevez I., Newberry R.C. and Correia M.G. (2003). Production-related traits of layers reared in different sized flocks: The concept of problematic intermediate group sizes. Poult. Sci. 82, 1393-1396.

Kjaer J.B. (1999). Feather pecking in laying hens: Genetic and environmental factors. Ph D. Thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural Univ., Copenhagen, Denmark.

Leeson S. and Summers J.D. (1984). Effects of cage density and diet energy concentration on the performance of growing Leghorn pullets subjected to early induced maturity. Poult. Sci. 63, 875-882.

Leone E.H. and Estévez I. (2008). Space use according to the distribution of resources and level of competition. Poult. Sci. 87, 3-13.

McAdie T.M. and Keeling L.J. (2002). The social transmission of feather pecking in laying hens: effects of environment and age. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 75, 147-159.

Moesta A., Ute K., Briese A. and Hartung J. (2008). The effect of litter condition and depth on the suitability of wood shavings for dust bathing behavior. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 115, 160-170.

Nicol C.J., Brown S.N., Glen E., Pope F., Short J., Warriss P.D., Zimmerman P.H. and Wilkins L.J. (2006). Effects of stocking density flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. Br. Poult. Sci. 47, 135-146.

Nicol C.J., Gregory N.G., Knowles T.G., Parkman I.D. and Wilkins I.L. (1999). Differential effects of increased stocking density, mediated by increased flock size, on feather peaking and aggression in laying hens. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 65, 137-152.

Onbasilar E.E. (2003). Some immune response and stress parameters of layers under different cage position and bird intensity conditions. Ph. D. Thesis. Ankara Univ., Ankara, Turkey.

Qaid M.I., Albatshan H.I., Shafey T.I., Hussein E.I. and Abudabos A.M.I. (2016). Effect of stocking density on the performance and immunity of 1- to 14-d- old broiler chicks. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 18, 683-692.

Ravindran V., Thomas D.V. and Morel P.C.H. (2006). Performance and welfare of broilers as affected by stocking density and zinc bacitracin supplementation. Anim. Sci. J. 77, 110-116.

Rhim S.J. (2013). Effect of floor space on the behavior of laying hens in commercial cages. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2, 95-101.

Rodenburg T.B. and Koene P. (2007). The impact of group size on damaging behaviours, aggression, fear and stress in farm animals.Appl. Anim. Behav.Sci. 103, 205-214.

Rodenburg T.B., Komen H., Ellen E.D., Uitdehaag K.A. and Arendonk J.A.M.V. (2008). Selection method and early-life history affect behavioural development, feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens: a review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 110, 217-228.

Saki A.A., Zamani P., Rahmati M. and Mahmoudi H. (2012). The effect of cage density on laying hen performance, egg quality, and excreta minerals. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 21, 467-475.

Sarica M., Boga S. and Yamak U.S. (2008). The effects of space allowance on egg yield, egg quality and plumage condition of laying hens in battery cages. Czech. J. Anim. Sci. 53, 346-353.

Savory C.J. (1995). Feather pecking and cannibalism. World's Poult. Sci. J. 51, 215-219.

Savory C.J. and Mann J.S. (1997). Behavioural development in groups of pen housed pullets in relation to genetic strain, age and food form. British Poult. Sci. 38, 38-47.

Savory C.J. and Mann J.S. (1999). Feather pecking in groups of growing bantams in relation to floor litter substrate and plumage colour. British Poult. Sci. 40, 565-572.

Schrader L. and Muller B. (2009). Night-time roosting in the domestic fowl: The height matters. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 121, 179-183.

Scientific Veterinary Committee. (1996). Report on the Welfare of Laying Hens.Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities Directorate-General for Agriculture VI/B/II.2.

Yamak U.S. and Sarica M. (2010). Relationships between feather score and egg production and feed consumption of different layer hybrids kept in conventional cages. Arch. Geflügelkd. 76, 31-37.

Yin L., Yang H., Xu L., Zhang J., Xing H. and Wang Z. (2017). Feather performance, walking ability, and behavioral changes of geese in response to different stocking densities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 196, 108-112.

Zepp M., Louton H., Erhard M., Schmidt P., Helmer F. and Schwarzer A. (2018). The influence of stocking density and enrichment on the occurrence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking behavior in laying hen chicks. J. Vet. Behav. 24, 9-18.