KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 23 Issue: 1

Effect of Genotype and Feed Restriction on Productivity and Enteric Resilience Indicators in Commercial Chickens under Controlled Coccidial Challenge

Ibrahim Akıncı(University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences)0000-0002-3619-7146
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-08
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The results indicate that genotype and nutritional plane explained more phenotypic variation than the applied challenge, supporting a genotype-dependent interpretation of productivity and enteric resilience in commercial chickens.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Enteric stress impairs poultry productivity, but the magnitude and direction of the response depend on host genotype and nutritional status.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ross 308 broilers, Hy-Line Brown pullets, and H&N Nick Brown layers were assigned to ad libitum or restricted feeding (10% quantitative reduction) and challenged or not challenged with a 10× dose of Paracox®.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The results indicate that genotype and nutritional plane explained more phenotypic variation than the applied challenge, supporting a genotype-dependent interpretation of productivity and enteric resilience in commercial chickens.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Host genotype · Disease resilience · Feed efficiency

Abstract

Enteric stress impairs poultry productivity, but the magnitude and direction of the response depend on host genotype and nutritional status. This study evaluated the effects of genotype and feed restriction on productivity and enteric resilience indicators in commercial chickens using a controlled coccidial challenge. Ross 308 broilers, Hy-Line Brown pullets, and H&N Nick Brown layers were assigned to ad libitum or restricted feeding (10% quantitative reduction) and challenged or not challenged with a 10× dose of Paracox®. Body weight, live weight gain (LWG), egg production, feed conversion ratio (FCR), lesion score, and faecal oocyst output were measured. The coccidial challenge did not produce significant differences between treatment groups. Feed restriction, on the other hand, had clear genotype-dependent effects. It reduced body weight across all genotypes, lowered LWG in broilers, reduced total egg weight in layers, improved FCR in layers but worsened it in broilers. Broilers showed higher lesion scores and greater oocyst output than pullets and layers. The results indicate that genotype and nutritional plane explained more phenotypic variation than the applied challenge, supporting a genotype-dependent interpretation of productivity and enteric resilience in commercial chickens.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akıncı, I. (2026). Effect of Genotype and Feed Restriction on Productivity and Enteric Resilience Indicators in Commercial Chickens under Controlled Coccidial Challenge. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi, Volume: 23 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.34233/jpr.1929414

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (29)

  1. Athar, M., Farina, K., Zena, A., Talat Naseer, P., & Farooq, U. (2006). Early feed restriction, a tool to improve the feed efficiency in broilers. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9, 1178-1180. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2006.1178.1180
  2. Aviagen. (2014). Ross broiler management handbook. http://goldenpoultry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ross-Broiler-Handbook-2014i-EN.pdf
  3. Bachaya, H. A., Raza, M. A., Anjum, M. A., Khan, I. A., Aziz, A., Manzoor, Z., & Munawar, S. H. (2012). Prevalence of Eimeria infection in local and exotic breeds of chicken. Science International (Lahore), 24(1), 29-31.
  4. Belkaid, Y., & Hand, T. W. (2014). Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell, 157(1), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.011
  5. Bortoluzzi, C., Fernandes, J. I. M., Contini, J. P., Gurski, T. J., Esser, A. F. G., & Prokoski, K. (2013). Quantitative feed restriction from 35 to 42 days of age for broiler chickens. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, 14, 778-784. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402013000400011
  6. Buzała, M., Janicki, B., & Czarnecki, R. (2015). Consequences of different growth rates in broiler breeder and layer hens on embryogenesis, metabolism and metabolic rate: A review. Poultry Science, 94(4), 728-733. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev015
  7. Caron, L., Abplanalp, H., & Taylor, R. (1997). Resistance, susceptibility, and immunity to Eimeria tenella in major histocompatibility (B) complex congenic lines. Poultry Science, 76(5), 677-682. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.5.677
  8. Conway, D. P., & McKenzie, M. E. (2007). Poultry coccidiosis: Diagnostic and testing procedures (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing Professional. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344620
  9. De Jong, I. C., Voorst, S. V., Ehlhardt, D. A., & Blokhuis, H. J. (2002). Effects of restricted feeding on physiological stress parameters in growing broiler breeders. British Poultry Science, 43(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660120121355
  10. Fondevila, G., Archs, J. L., Cámara, L., de Juan, A. F., & Mateos, G. G. (2020). The length of the feed restriction period affects eating behaviour, growth performance, and the development of the proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract of young broilers. Poultry Science, 99(2), 1010–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.10.011
  11. Hangalapura, B. N., Nieuwland, M. G., De Vries Reilingh, G., Buyse, J., Van Den Brand, H., Kemp, B., & Parmentier, H. K. (2005). Severe feed restriction enhances innate immunity but suppresses cellular immunity in chicken lines divergently selected for antibody responses. Poultry Science, 84(10), 1520-1529. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/84.10.1520
  12. Hy-Line International. (2015). Hy-Line Brown commercial management guide. https://www.hyline.com/filesimages/Hy-Line-Products/Hy-Line-Product-PDFs/Brown/BRN%20COM%20AUS.pdf
  13. Johnson, J., & Reid, W. M. (1970). Anticoccidial drugs: Lesion scoring techniques in battery and floor-pen experiments with chickens. Experimental Parasitology, 28(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4894(70)90063-9
  14. Kau, A. L., Ahern, P. P., Griffin, N. W., Goodman, A. L., & Gordon, J. I. (2011). Human nutrition, the gut microbiome and the immune system. Nature, 474(7351), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10213 Klasing, K. C. (1998). Nutritional modulation of resistance to infectious diseases. Poultry Science, 77(8), 1119-1125.
  15. Levine, N. D. (1985). Veterinary protozoology (1st ed.). Iowa State University Press.
  16. Long, P. L., Millard, B. J., Joyner, L. P., & Norton, C. C. (1976). A guide to laboratory techniques used in the study and diagnosis of avian coccidiosis. Folia Veterinaria Latina, 6(3), 201-217.
  17. Moreira, R. F., Freitas, E. R., Sucupira, F. S., Diógenes, A. L. F., Abe, M. S., & Araújo, F. W. S. (2012). Effect of feed restriction with voluntary hay intake on the performance and quality of laying hen eggs. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, 34(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v34i2.12451
  18. Olawuni, K. A., Ubosi, C. O., & Alaku, S. O. (1992). Effects of feed restriction on egg production and egg quality of exotic chickens during their second year of production in a Sudano-Sahelian environment. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 38(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90071-D
  19. Orso, C., Moraes, M. L., Aristimunha, P. C., Della, M. P., Butzen, M. F., Krás, R. V., Ledur, V. S., Gava, D., McManus, C. C., & Ribeiro, A. M. L. (2019). Effect of early feed restriction programs and genetic strain on humoral immune response production in broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 98(1), 172-178. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey382
  20. Pellerdy, L. (1974). Coccidia and coccidiosis (2nd ed.). Akadémiai Kiadó.
  21. Quiroz-Castañeda, R. E., & Dantán-González, E. (2015). Control of avian coccidiosis: Future and present natural alternatives. BioMed Research International, 2015, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/430610
  22. Smith, A. L., Rose, M. E., & Wakelin, D. (1994). The role of natural killer cells in resistance to coccidiosis: Investigations in a murine model. Clinical & Experimental Immunology, 97(2), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.1994.tb06080.x
  23. Trocino, A., White, P., Bordignon, F., Ferrante, V., Bertotto, D., Birolo, M., Pillan, G., & Xiccato, G. (2020). Effect of feed restriction on the behaviour and welfare of broiler chickens. Animals, 10(5), 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050830
  24. van der Klein, S. A., Silva, F. A., Kwakkel, R. P., & Zuidhof, M. J. (2017). The effect of quantitative feed restriction on allometric growth in broilers. Poultry Science, 96(1), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew187
  25. Vervelde, L., Vermeulen, A. N., & Jeurissen, S. H. M. (1996). In situ characterization of leucocyte subpopulations after infection with Eimeria tenella in chickens. Parasite Immunology, 18(5), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3024.1996.d01-94.x
  26. VSN International. (2011). GenStat for Windows (14th ed.). VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UK. https://www.vsni.co.uk/software/genstat
  27. Wright, D., Rubin, C., Schutz, K., Kerje, S., Kindmark, A., Brandström, H., Andersson, L., Pizzari, T., & Jensen, P. (2011). Onset of sexual maturity in female chickens is genetically linked to loci associated with fecundity and a sexual ornament. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 47(Suppl. 1), 31-36.
  28. Zhao, L., Wang, G., Siegel, P., He, C., Wang, H., Zhao, W., Zhai, Z., Tian, F., Zhao, J., Zhang, H., Sun, Z., Chen, W., Zhang, Y., & Meng, H. (2013). Quantitative genetic background of the host influences gut microbiomes in chickens. Scientific Reports, 3, 1163. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01163
  29. Zulkifli, I., Dunnington, E. A., Gross, W. B., Larsen, A. S., Martin, A., & Siegel, P. B. (1993). Responses of dwarf and normal chickens to feed restriction, Eimeria tenella infection, and sheep red blood cell antigen. Poultry Science, 72(9), 16309-1640. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0721630