SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi / 2024 / Volume: 21 Issue: 2

Determination of the General Structure of the Enterprises Producing Eggs in Organic System in Ordu Province

Kardelen Güçcük(Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry)0000-0002-9314-506X
Sezai Alkan(ORDU UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOTECHNICS)0000-0003-0601-0122
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the same time egg yield was higher than 81% in 70.2% of the enterprises.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it was aimed to determine general structure of the enterprises engaged in organic system egg production in Ordu province.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the data obtained from face-to-face surveys with 47 breeders who produce eggs in organic system in Ordu province were used in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the same time egg yield was higher than 81% in 70.2% of the enterprises.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Survey · Egg production · Organic System

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine general structure of the enterprises engaged in organic system egg production in Ordu province. For this purpose, the data obtained from face-to-face surveys with 47 breeders who produce eggs in organic system in Ordu province were used in this study. In the study, 68.1% of organic system poultry breeders are older than 41 years and 46.8% of all breeders are farmers by occupation. It was determined that 83% of the egg production enterprises were established in the under-hazelnut land and 55.3% of them used sandwich panels in poultry house construction. 85.1% of the enterprises provided ventilation in the poultry house with a fan, 68.1% used individual nest boxes, 93.6% used nipple type drinkers and 83% preferred paddy husk as litter material. The number of hens was 750 or more in 68.1% of the enterprises and Lohman Brown breed hens were used in 97.9% of the enterprises. 51.1% of the enterprises had 6 or more hens per square meter (m2) in the roaming area and 48.9% had 4 hens per square meter (m²) in the indoor area. At the same time egg yield was higher than 81% in 70.2% of the enterprises.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güçcük, K., Alkan, S. (2024). Determination of the General Structure of the Enterprises Producing Eggs in Organic System in Ordu Province. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi, Volume: 21 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.34233/jpr.1594039

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Akkaya, C. A., İşgüzar, E. (2006). Isparta ili merkez ilçesindeki tavukçuluk işletmelerinin yapısal ve donanımsal yönden incelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(2):188-192.
  2. Anderson, K. E. (2009). Overview of natural and organic production: Looking back to the future. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18:348-354.
  3. Anonimous, (2014). Ordu İli Tarım Master Planı. Ordu İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü, 22, Ordu.
  4. Aydın, F., Çelen, M.F. (2017). GAP bölgesi yumurta tavukçuluğu işletmelerinin demografik ve sosyo-ekonomik yapısı. Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (2):107-117.
  5. Balık, V. (2016). Tunceli Organik Yumurtacılık Yatırım Rehberi. Tunceli, (Erişim tarihi:22.09.2023).
  6. Bardakcı, B. (2021). Organik yumurta ve tavuk eti tüketimini etkileyen faktörler: Bursa ili Örneği. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Bursa.
  7. Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Command Paper No. 2836 HMSO, London.
  8. Cönk, E. (2006). Afyonkarahisar ili merkez ilçe yumurta tavukçuluğu işletmelerinin yapısal özellikleri ve işletmelerde karşılaşılan sorunlar. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
  9. Çimrin, T., Parlakay, O., Akpınar, G. Ç., Tapkı, N., Yıldırım, H. (2019). Yumurta tavukçuluğu işletmeleri: Hatay ili örneği. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 22(5):787-793.
  10. Derebaşı, S., Alkan, S. (2018). Ordu ilinde yumurta tüketim bilincinin belirlenmesi. Akademik Ziraat Dergisi, 7(2): 237-244.
  11. Durmuş, İ., Alkan, S. (2015). Serbest sistem yumurta tavukçuluğu el kitabı. Olay ofset. Karapınar Mahallesi, Altınordu/ Ordu.
  12. İpek, A., Sözcü, A. (2015). Alternatif kanatlı yetiştirme sistemlerinde yetiştirme pratikleri ve refah standartları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1):133-146.
  13. Şekeroğlu A., Sarıca, M., Demir, E., Ulutaş, Z., Tilki̇, M., Saatçi, M., Omed, H. (2010). Effects of different housing systems on some performance traits and egg qualities of laying hens. Journal of Veterinary and Animal Advances, 9 (12):1739-1744.
  14. Öztürk, A. K., Türkoğlu, M. (2012). Türkiye’de organik tavukçuluk. Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 52(1):41-50.
  15. Sarıca, M., Akkalkan, N., Erensoy, K. (2020). Traditional poultry production and commercial production opportunities in Kastamonu province. Journal of Poultry Research, 17(1):35-40.
  16. Sözcü, A., Yılmaz, E. (2014). Yumurta tavuğu yetiştirme sistemlerinde refah problemleri. Hayvansal Üretim, 55(2):38-42.
  17. SPSS, (2008). SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
  18. Tuğluk, E., Yalçın, C. (2004). Nevşehir Ili Kozaklı İlçesindeki yumurta tavukçuluğu işletmelerinin genel yapısal özellikleri ve karşılaşılan sorunlar. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5: 41-46.
  19. Türker, İ., Alkan, S., Akçay, S. (2017). Yerli ve yabancı ticari kahverengi yumurtacı tavukların serbest (Free-Range) yetiştirme sisteminde verim özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Türk Tarım-Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 5(7):814-821.