KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Agricultural Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 22 Issue: 1

Yavaş Gelişen Sentetik Etlik Piliç Genotipleri ile Ticari Etlik Piliçlerin Büyüme, Karkas Özellikleri ve Bazı Ekonomik Parametreler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Slow Growing Synthetic Broiler Genotypes with Commercial Broilers in Terms of Growth, Carcass Traits and Some Economic Parameters

Musa Sarıca(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Zootekni Bölümü, Samsun, TÜRKİYE)
Vedat Ceyhan(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Ekonomisi Bölümü, Samsun, TÜRKİYE)
Umut Sami Yamak(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Zootekni Bölümü, Samsun, TÜRKİYE)
Ahmet Uçar(Ankara Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Zootekni Bölümü, Ankara, TÜRKİYE)
Mehmet Akif Boz(Bozok Üniversitesi, Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Fakültesi, Zootekni Bölümü,Yozgat, TÜRKİYE)
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2016-01-01
🏛️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)

SG1, SG2, FG1 ve FG2’nin teknik etkinlik skorları 0.9632, 0.9639, 0.9664 ve 0.9699 bulunmuştur P

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmada yavaş gelişen 2 etlik piliç genotipinin SG1, SG2 49 günlük ve hızlı gelişen bir ticari etlik piliç genotipinin 42 FG1 ve 49 günlük FG2 besi süresi sonunda besi performansları, karkas özellikleri ve bazı ekonomik parametreleri karşılaştırılmıştır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:İki dönem yürütülen denemede; her dönemde her genotipten 260, toplam 1560 260 x 3 x 2 civciv kullanılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:SG1, SG2, FG1 ve FG2’nin teknik etkinlik skorları 0.9632, 0.9639, 0.9664 ve 0.9699 bulunmuştur P
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Commercial broiler · Feed efficiency · Carcass traits

Özet

Bu çalışmada yavaş gelişen 2 etlik piliç genotipinin SG1, SG2 49 günlük ve hızlı gelişen bir ticari etlik piliç genotipinin 42 FG1 ve 49 günlük FG2 besi süresi sonunda besi performansları, karkas özellikleri ve bazı ekonomik parametreleri karşılaştırılmıştır. İki dönem yürütülen denemede; her dönemde her genotipten 260, toplam 1560 260 x 3 x 2 civciv kullanılmıştır. Civcivler her genotipte 10 tekerrür olacak şekilde yer bölmelerinde büyütülmüştür. Besi süresince gruplarda SG1, SG2, FG1, FG2 canlı ağırlık, yem tüketimi, yemden yararlanma oranı ve ölüm oranı, besi süresi sonunda ise kesim ve karkas özellikleri belirlenmiştir. Üretim masrafları ve piliç eti satış değerlerine ait verilerden yararlanılarak gruplarda maliyet, karlılık ve teknik etkinlik skorları hesaplanmıştır. Grupların teknik etkinlik skorları stokastik sınır modeli SSM ile tahmin edilmiştir. SG1 ve SG2 genotipleri kesim canlı ağırlığına 2.0-2.5 kg 49 günde ulaşmış; yem tüketimleri ise FG1’in yem tüketim düzeyine yakın olmuştur. Göğüs oranı FG1 ve FG2’de, but oranı ise SG1 ve SG2’de yüksek bulunmuştur. En yüksek nispi karlılık FG1 grubunda olmuş, bunu FG2, SG2 ve SG1 izlemiştir. SG1, SG2, FG1 ve FG2’nin teknik etkinlik skorları 0.9632, 0.9639, 0.9664 ve 0.9699 bulunmuştur P

Abstract

In this study, 2 slow growing broiler genotypes SG1 and SG2 slaughtered at 49 days of age were compared with a fast growing commercial genotype slaughtered at 42 days of age FG1 or 49 days of age FG2 with respect to fattening performance, carcass characteristics and some economic parameters. The study was carried out in 2 periods and 260 chicks from each genotype in each period a total of 1560 chicks; 260 x 3 x 2 were used. Ten replicates of chicks from each genotype were reared on litter system. Live weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency and mortality in groups SG1, SG2, FG1, FG2 were determined throughout the production periods, while slaughter and carcass traits were determined at the end of production periods. Cost, efficiency and technical efficiency scores were calculated by using production expenses and meat sale prices. Stochastic frontier analysis SFA was used to estimate the technical efficiency scores of groups. SG1 and SG2 genotypes reached to slaughtering live weight 2.0-2.5 kg at 49 days of age, and the feed consumptions of these 2 genotypes were similar to the consumption of F1. The breast ratio was higher in FG1 and FG2, whereas the thigh ratio was higher in SG1 and SG2. The highest relative profit was determined in FG1 genotype and FG2, SG2 and SG1 followed this genotype, respectively. The technical efficiency scores of SG1, SG2, FG1 and FG2 were 0.9632, 0.9639, 0.9664 and 0.9699 P

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sarıca, M., Ceyhan, V., Yamak, U. S., Uçar, A., Boz, M. A. (2016). Yavaş Gelişen Sentetik Etlik Piliç Genotipleri ile Ticari Etlik Piliçlerin Büyüme, Karkas Özellikleri ve Bazı Ekonomik Parametreler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume: 22 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000001364

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (34)

  1. Abdullah A Y, Al-Beitawi N A, Rjoup M M S, Qudsieh R I & Ishmais M A A (2010). Growth performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics of different commercial crosses of broiler strains of chicken. Journal Poultry Science 47: 13-21
  2. Anonymous (2013). The Statistical Reference for Poultry Executives. WATT Executive Guide to World Poultry Trends. www.WATTAgNet.com
  3. Arthur J A & Albers G A A (2003). Industrial perspective on problems and issues associated with poultry breeding. Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology (Edited by W.M. Muir and S.E. Aggrey), 1-12, CABI Publishing, USA
  4. Battese G E (1992). Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: A survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics. Agricultural Economics 7: 185-208
  5. Battese G & Coelli T (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics 20: 325-332
  6. Bessei W (2006). Welfare of broilers: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62: 455-466
  7. Blagojevic M, Pavlovski Z, Skrbic Z, Lukic M, Milosevic N & Peric L (2009). The effect of genotype of broiler chickens on carcass quality in extensive rearing systems. Acta Veterinaria 59(1): 91-97
  8. Castellini C, Berri C, Le Bihan-Duval E & Martino G (2008). Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free-range poultry meat. World’s Poultry Science Journal 64: 500-512
  9. Cheema M A, Qureshi M A & Havenstein G B (2003). A comparison of immune response of a 2001 commercial broiler with a 1957 randombred broiler strain when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poultry Science 82: 1519-1529
  10. Chen X, Jiang W, Tan H Z, Xu G F, Zhang X B, Wei S & Wang X Q (2013). Effects of outdoor access on growth performance, carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 92: 435-443
  11. Chin V (2003). Patterns of chicken consumption in South- East China. British Poultry Science 44: 784-785
  12. Coelli T, Rao D S P & Battese G E (1998). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts, USA
  13. Decuypere E, Bruggeman V, Barbato G F & Buyse J (2003). Growth and reproduction problems associated with selection for increased broiler meat production. Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology (Edited by W.M. Muir and S.E. Aggrey), 13-28, CABI Publishing, USA
  14. Dou T C, Shi S R, Sun H J & Wang K H (2009). Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according of three raising systems. Animal Science Papers and Reports 27(4): 361-369
  15. Fanatico A C, Cavit L C, Pillai P B, Emmert J L & Owens C M (2005a). Evaluation of slower- growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Meat Quality. Poultry Science 84: 1785-1790
  16. Fanatico A C, Pillai P B, Cavitt L C, Owens C M & Emmert J L (2005b). Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass yield. Poultry Science 84: 1321-1327
  17. Fanatico A C, Pillai P B, Cavitt L C, Emmert J L, Meullenet J F & Owens C M (2006). Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Sensory attributes. Poultry Science 85: 337-343
  18. Fanatico A C, Pillai P B, Emmert J L, Gbur E E, Meullenet J F & Owens C M (2007). Sensory attributes of slow- and fast-growing chicken genotypes raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poultry Science 86: 2441-2449
  19. Grashorn M A & Clostermann G (2002). Performance and slaughter characteristics of broiler breeds for extensive production. Archiv Geflügelkunde 66(4): 173-181
  20. Havenstein G B, Ferket G B & Qureshi M A (2003). Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when feed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poultry Science 82: 1500-1508
  21. Kokoszynski D & Bernacki Z (2008). Comparison of slaughter yield and carcass tissue composition in broiler chickens of various origin. Journal of Central European Agriculture 9(1): 11-16
  22. Mikulski D, Celej J, Jankowski J, Majewska T & Mikulska M (2011). Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with and without outdoor access. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24(10): 1407-1416
  23. Phongpa-ngan P, Jung J, Antony N B, Karnuah A B, Mulligan J H, Aggrey S E & Wicker L (2014). Quality attributes in breast muscle from broilers of an Arkansas randombred line varying in growth rate. Poultry Science 93: 187-193
  24. Remignon H & Le Bihan-Duval E (2003). Meat quality problems associated with selection for increased production. Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology (Edited by W.M. Muir and S.E. Aggrey), 53-66, CABI Publishing, USA
  25. Sarica M (1997). The effect of slaughter age on carcass traits of broilers. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 21(5): 413-420
  26. Sarica M, Karacay N, Ocak N, Yamak U, Kop C & Altop A (2009). Growth, slaughter age and gastrointestinal tract traits of three turkey genotypes under barn and free-range housing systems. British Poultry Science 50: 487-494
  27. Sarica M, Ocak N, Turhan S, Kop C & Yamak U S (2011). Evaluation of meat quality from 3 turkey genotypes reared with or without outdoor access. Poultry Science 90: 1313-1323
  28. Sarica M, Türkoglu M & Yamak U S (2014a). Tavukçuluktaki gelişmeler ve Türkiye tavukçuluğu: Tavukçuluk Bilimi: Yetiştirme, besleme, hastalıklar (Editörler: M. Türkoglu & M. Sarıca) s: 1-39, Bey Ofset, Ankara
  29. Sarica M, Yamak U S, Turhan S, Boz M A, Saricaoglu F T & Altop A (2014b). Comparing slow-growing chickens produced by two- and three-way crossings with commercial genotypes. 2. Carcass quality and blood parameters. European Poultry Science 78. DOI: 10.1399/eps.2014.XX
  30. Sarica M, Yamak U S, Boz M A & Uçar A (2014c). Geriye melezlemeyle üretilen etçi genotiplerin bir ticari etlik piliç genotipiyle büyüme, kesim ve karkas özellikleri bakımından karşılaştırılması. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi 11(1): 5-9
  31. Shim M Y, Tahir M, Karnuah A B, Miller M, Pringle T D, Aggrey S E & Pesti G M (2012). Strain and sex effects on growth performance and carcass traits of contemporary commercial broiler crosses. Poultry Science 91: 2942-2948
  32. Türkoğlu M & Sarıca M (2014). Damızlık tavuk yetiştiriciliği. Tavukçuluk bilimi, yetiştirme besleme hastaklıklar. Editörler: M. Türkoğlu, M. Sarıca. s. 344-350. Bey Ofset. Ankara
  33. Yamak U S, Sarica M & Boz M A (2014). Comparing slow-growing chickens produced by two- and three- way crossings with commercial genotypes. 1. Growth and Carcass Traits. European Poultry Science 78. DOI: 10.1399/eps.2014.XX
  34. Yang N & Jiang R S (2005). Recent advances in breeding for quality chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61: 373-381