SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Animal Health Production and Hygiene / 2012 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

The Effect of Cage Position and Density on Some Production Traits in Denizli Chickens

Denizli Irkı Tavuklarda Kafes Pozisyonu ve Yoğunluğunun Bazı Verim Özellikleri Üzerine Etkileri

Evrim Dereli FİDAN
Ahmet NAZLIGÜL
Pages
31–37
Publication Date
2012-01-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Egg weight were found as 51,25, 51,03, and 50,60 g for top, middle and bottom tier level position groups, respectively and differences among position groups were found statistically significant P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of cage position and density on some production traits in Denizli chickens.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the experiment, 252 hens were allocated to California type battery cages per partition 48x41x46 cm systematically to from cage position top, middle and bottom tier level and cage density three, four and five hen/cage partition groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Egg weight were found as 51,25, 51,03, and 50,60 g for top, middle and bottom tier level position groups, respectively and differences among position groups were found statistically significant P
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Denizli tavuğu · Kafes pozisyonu · Kafes yoğunluğu

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of cage position and density on some production traits in Denizli chickens. In the experiment, 252 hens were allocated to California type battery cages per partition 48x41x46 cm systematically to from cage position top, middle and bottom tier level and cage density three, four and five hen/cage partition groups. The birds were housed three, four and five birds per cage partition which resulted in 656.0, 492.0 and 393.6 cm2 of cage floor surface area per hen, respectively. Feed and water were provided ad libitum. In the study, differences between feed consumption, feed convertion ratio, and egg production among cage position groups were found statistically non-significant. Egg weight were found as 51,25, 51,03, and 50,60 g for top, middle and bottom tier level position groups, respectively and differences among position groups were found statistically significant P

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kafes pozisyonu ve yoğunluğunun Denizli tavuklarında bazı verim özellikleri üzerine etkilerinin araştırılmasıdır. Araştırmada, 252 adet tavuk, kafes pozisyonu üst, orta ve alt kat ve kafes yoğunluğu üç, dört ve beş tavuk/kafes gözü grupları oluşturularak üç katlı Kaliforniya tipi kafes sisteminde 48x41x46 cm ölçülerindeki kafes gözlerine sistematik olarak yerleştirilmiştir. Böylece yoğunluk gruplarında tavuk başına kafes taban alanı sırasıyla 656.0, 492.0 ve 393.6 cm2 olarak gerçekleşmiştir. Yem ve su ad libitum verilmiştir. Araştırmada, yem tüketimi, yemden yararlanma oranı ve yumurta verimi bakımından kafes pozisyon grupları arasındaki farklar istatistiksel açıdan önemsiz bulunmuştur. Yumurta ağırlığı üst, orta ve alt kat kafes pozisyon gruplarında sırasıyla 51.25, 51.03 ve 50.60 g olarak bulunmuş olup, gruplar arası farklar istatistiksel bakımdan önemli P

🔖

Cite This Article

FİDAN, E. D., NAZLIGÜL, A. (2012). The Effect of Cage Position and Density on Some Production Traits in Denizli Chickens. Animal Health Production and Hygiene, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 31–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/734069

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Aksoy FT, Ertuğrul O, Nazlıgül A ve Yılmaz S (1996). Denizli tavuklarının kan grupları ve kan grubu allelleri üzerinde bir araştırma. III. Uluslararası Tavukçuluk ve Tavuk Hastalıkları Sempozyumu, 3-5 Ekim 1996, Manisa, s: 43. Altan Ö, Altan A, Özkan S, Özkan K, Akbaş Y and Ayhan V (2002). Effects of cage density on the performance of laying hens during high summer temperatures. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 26, 695-700.
  2. Anderson KE, Davis GS, Jenkins PK and Carroll AS (2004). Effects of bird age, density and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains in cages. Poultry Science, 83, 15-23.
  3. Anderson KE, Havenstein GB and Brake J (1995). Effects of strain and rearing dietary regimens on Brown-egg pulled growth and strain, rearing dietary regimens, density and feeder space effects on subsequent laying performance. Poultry Science, 74, 1079-1092.
  4. Bell DD (2002). Cage mangement for layers. In: Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production, 5th Edit., DD Bell and Jr WD Weaver (Eds.), Norwell MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1007-1040.
  5. Benyi K, Norris D and Tsatsinyane PM (2006). Effects of stocking density and group size on the performance of white and brown Hyline layers in semi-arid condition. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 38, 619-624.
  6. Bishop RJ (2009). Cage density effects on production and welfare of layers. A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/EGGS/DAW-4E.doc, Erişim tarihi: 10.04.2009.
  7. Duncan DB (1955). Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. In: Biometrics, 11, 1-42.
  8. Harvey WR (1987). User’s guide for LSMLMWPC-1 versiyon mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio Univ. Columbus, Mimeo. Hemsworth PH and Barnett JL (1989). Relationships between fear of humans, productivity and cage position of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30, 505-518.
  9. İpek A, Şahan Ü ve Yılmaz B (2002). Kafes konumu ve grup büyüklüğünün yumurta verim ve kalite özelliklerine etkisi. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi, 4, 8-12.
  10. İşcan Mİ, Tekin ME ve İnal S (1998). Yumurta tavuklarının kafeslerde farklı yerleşim sıklığında performansları. Hayvancılık Araştırma Dergisi, 8 (1-2): 111-114.
  11. Kaplan G (2004). Bir Denizli tavuk sürüsünde telek çıkarma özellikleri ile ilgili bir araştırma. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  12. Kum E and Kocaoğlu GB (2006). The effect of organic acid supplementation on performance of laying hens re