مقایسه اثرات لانه‏ های تخم گذاری ماشینی و مرسوم بر کیفیت تخم‏ های مرغ مادر گوشتی

نوع مقاله : سایر

نویسندگان

گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد قائم شهر، قائم شهر، ایران

چکیده

به منظور مقایسه اثرات لانه ‏های تخم گذاری اتوماتیک و مرسوم بر برخی متغیرهای مربوط به کیفیت تخم در مزارع مرغ مادر گوشتی، از یک واحد پرورش مرغ مادر با پنج سالن مجهز به لانه‏ های تخم‏ گذاری اتوماتیک و پنج سالن با لانه ‏های مرسوم دستی استفاده شد. فراوانی هفتگی تخم‏ های ترک دار، کثیف، ضایعاتی، بدشکل، دوزرده و قابل جوجه کشی طی یک دوره تولید (34 هفته) در سالن‏ ها اندازه ‏گیری شد. مشاهدات درصد هفتگی هر متغیر با استفاده از مدلی آماری شامل اثرات تصادفی سالن و هفته تخم گذاری در رویه mixed نرم ‏افزار SAS تجزیه و تحلیل شدند، و میانگین درصد متغیرهای دو گروه از سالن‏ ها مقایسه شدند.در سالن‏ های با لانه ماشینی اتوماتیک، فراوانی تخم ‏های بدشکل کم تر و فراوانی تخم‏ های کثیف و تخم‏ های ضایعاتی بیش تر بود (p<0/01). هم چنین درصد تخم‏ های قابل جوجه ‏کشی در سالن‏ های مجهز به لانه ‏های اتوماتیک بیش تر بود (p<0/01). درصد تخم‏ های ترک ‏دار و تخم‏ های دو زرده تحت تاثیر نوع لانه ‏ها نبود (p>0/01). نتایج نشان داد استفاده از لانه های ماشینی اتوماتیک در مزارع پرورش مرغ مادر گوشتی و مدیریت صحیح آن می ‏تواند موجب بهبود کیفیت تخم‏ مرغ و درصد تخم ‏های قابل جوجه‏ کشی شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of the effects of automatic and conventional laying nests on egg quality of broiler breeders

نویسندگان [English]

  • Rohullah Abdullahpor
  • Vahid Rezaeipour
  • Hamed Karimizadeh
  • Mojtaba Zamani
Department of Animal Science, Faulty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr branch, Qaemshahr, Iran
چکیده [English]

To compare the effects of automatic and conventional laying nests in broiler breeder houses on some egg quality variables, a broiler breeder farm in which 5 houses equipped with automatic laying.nests and 5 houses had the conventional laying nests was used. The weekly percentages of misshapen eggs, double-yolked eggs, cracked eggs, dirty eggs, wasted eggs, and hatchable eggs were measured in houses during a production period (34 weeks). The observations of weekly percentages of each variable were analysed using a model included the random effects of houses and production weeks using proc mixed of SAS software, and the mean percentage of variables were compared between the two groups of houses. The frequency of misshapen eggs were lower and the frequency of dirty eggs and wasted eggs were higher in houses with automatic laying nests, (p<0.01). The percentage of hatchable eggs was also higher in houses equipped with automatic nests (p<0.01). The cracked eggs and double-yolked eggs percentages were not affected by the nest type. It is concluded that equipping broiler breeder houses with automatic laying nests and its proper mangement could improve egg quality and percentage of hatchable eggs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Laying nest
  • Broiler breeders
  • Egg quality
  • Hatchable eggs

مراجع

  1. Appleby, M.C., 1984. Factors affecting floor laying by domestic hens: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal. Vol. 40, No. 3, pp: 241-249.
  2. Barnett, D.M.; Kumpula, B.L.; Petryk, R.L.; Robinson, N.A.; Renema, R.A. and Robinson, F.E., 2004. Hatchability and early chick growth potential of broiler breeder eggs with hairline cracks. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp: 65-70.
  3. Bartolo-Guerrero, A.; Landín-Grandvallet, L.A. and Villagómez-Cortés, J.A., 2015. Effect of Automatic Nests versus Conventional Nests on Laying Performance of Commercial Hens in Veracruz, Mexico, Journal of Applied Life Sciences International. Vol. 3, No. 3, pp: 114-121.
  4. Belali, H. and Esfahani, S.J., 2014. Application of data envelopment analysis to measure efficiency in poultry farms (case study in South Khorasan). J of Agricultural Economics and Development. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp: 45-54. (In Farsi)
  5. Brake, J., 1998. Equipment design for breeding flocks. Poultry science. Vol. 77, No. 12, pp: 1833-1841.
  6. Britton, W.M., 1977. Shell membranes of eggs differing in shell quality from young and old hens. Poultry Science. Vol. 56, No. 2, pp: 647-653.
  7. Decuypere, E.; Bruggeman, V.; Everaert, N.; Li, Y.; Boonen, R.; De Tavernier, J.; Janssens, S. and Buys, N., 2010. The Broiler Breeder Paradox: ethical, genetic and physiological perspectives, and suggestions for solutions. British poultry science. Vol. 51, No. 5, pp: 569-579.
  8. De Jong, I.C.; Swalander, M.; Sandilands, V. and Hocking, P., 2012. Housing and management of broiler breeders and turkey breeders. In: Proceedings of the 30th Poultry Science Symposium, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, 2011. pp: 225-249.
  9. Dhawale, A. and Nagpur, N.H., 2008. Abnormal eggs cause subnormal profits. World Poult. Vol. 24, pp: 20-23.
  10. Estevez, I., 2009. Behaviour and environmental enrichment in broiler breeders. In B.M. Freeman (Ed.), Biology of breeding poultry. CABI, Wallingford, UK. pp: 261-283.
  11. Glatz, P., 2013. Housing and management of breeders. In PoultryDevelopment Review, FAO. pp: 37-38.
  12. Hunton, P., 2005. Research on eggshell structure and quality: an historical overview. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp: 67-71.
  13. Hocking, P.M., 2009. Feed restriction. In P.M. Hocking (Ed.) Biology of breeding poultry. CABI. pp: 307-330.
  14. Holt, P.S.; Davies, R.H.; Dewulf, J.; Gast, R.K.; Huwe, J.K.; Jones, D.R.; Waltman, D. and Willian, K.R., 2011. The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality. Poultry science. Vol. 90, No. 1, pp: 251-262.
  15. King’ori, A.M., 2012. Egg quality defects: types, causes and occurrence: a review. Journal of Animal Production Advances. Vol. 2, No. 8, pp: 350-357.
  16. Kjaer, J.B. and Mench, J.A., 2003. Behaviour problems associated with selection for increased production. In W.M. Muir & S.E. Aggrey (Ed.), Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology. CABI. pp: 67-82.
  17. Ledvinka, Z.; Zita, L. and Klesalová, L., 2012. Egg quality and some factors influencing it: a review. Scientia Agriculturae Bohemica. Vol. 43, No. 1, pp: 46-52.
  18. Leeson, S. and Summers, J.D., 2010. Broiler breederproduction. Nottingham University Press.
  19. Lentfer, T.L.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Fröhlich, E.K. and von Borell, E., 2011. Influence of nest site on the behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Vol. 135, No. 1, pp: 70-77.
  20. Lentfer, T.L.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Fröhlich, E.K.F. and von Borell, E., 2013. Nest use is influenced by the positions of nests and drinkers in aviaries. Poultry science. Vol. 92, No. 6, pp: 1433-1442.
  21. Mench, J.A.; Sumner, D.A. and Rosen-Molina, J.T., 2011. Sustainability of egg production in the United States-The policy and market context. Poul sci. Vol. 90, pp: 229-240.
  22. Ringgenberg, N.; Fröhlich, E.K.; Harlander-Matauschek, A.; Würbel, H. and Roth, B.A., 2014. Does nest size matter to laying hens? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. Vol. 155, pp: 66-73.
  23. Sengor, E.; Yardimci, M.; Cetingul, S.; Bayram, I.; Sahin, H. and Dogan, I., 2007. Short Communication Effects of short chain fatty acid supplementation on performance and egg characteristics of old breeder hens. South African Journal of Animal Science. Vol. 37, No. 3, pp: 158-163.
  24. Stämpfli, K.; Buchwalder, T.; Fröhlich, E.K.F. and Roth, B.A., 2012. Influence of front curtain design on nest choice by laying hens. British poultry science. Vol. 53, pp: 553-560.
  25. Trampel, D.W.; Frank, M. and Evans, K., 2013. Broiler Industry Manual. FAD PReP.
فصلنامه محیط زیست جانوری
دوره 10، شماره 3
مهر 1397
صفحه 107-112

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار