Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and
commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey

YILDIZ, AHMET; OZENTÜRK, UGUR

doi:10.3906/vet-2012-91

Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey

Uğur ÖZENTÜRK, (Atatürk Üniversitesi, Veteriner Fakültesi, Hayvan Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Erzurum, Türkiye)

Ahmet YILDIZ (Atatürk Üniversitesi, Veteriner Fakültesi, Hayvan Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı, Erzurum, Türkiye)

Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences

2 0

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 45 Sayı: 6 Sayfa Aralığı: 1052 - 1064 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.3906/vet-2012-91 İndeks Tarihi: 15-06-2022

Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey

Öz:

In this study, production performance, stress, and immunity levels of native Turkish and imported commercial laying hens were investigated in two different cage densities. In the trial, a total of 06 groups were formed by using two different cage densities (312.50 and 468.75 cm2 /hen) on each of 03 different laying hen hybrids of Isa Brown (IB), Atak-S (A-S) and Novogen White (NW). The trial was carried out with 09 replicates in each group having 10 birds per replicate making 540 birds in total. Water and feed were provided as ad libitum. It was found that the native hybrid showed lower performance in comparison to the foreign hybrids in terms of production performance such as egg production (EP), feed consumption (FC) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) (p < 0.01), while its growth variables such as livability (L) and body weight (BW) were higher. In terms of stress and immunity levels, the native hybrid showed similar values to those of the brown foreign hybrid, while the stress levels were lower and immunity levels were higher in the white laying hens (p < 0.001). It was observed that the yield characteristics and stress levels were affected negatively in higher cage density (p < 0.01), while immunity levels were not affected (p > 0.05). It was concluded that the yield characteristics of the native hybrid were relatively lower in comparison to those of the foreign hybrids, while its stress and immunity levels were similar, and cage density decreased yield, increased stress and did not significantly affect immunity levels.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Rovers A, Christoph-Schulz I, Brümmer N. Citizens’ perception of different aspects regarding German livestock production. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 2019; 10 (4): 361-374. doi:10.18461/ijfsd.v10i4.24:
2. Proudfoot K, Habing G. Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: current knowledge and future directions. The Veterinary Journal 2015; 206 (1): 15-21. doi: 10.1016/j. tvjl.2015.05.024
3. Hofmann T, Schmucker SS, Bessei W, Grashorn M, Stefanski V. Impact of housing environment on the immune system in chickens: a review. Animals 2020; 10 (7): 1138. doi: 10.3390/ ani10071138
4. Widowski T, Caston L, Hunniford M, Cooley L, Torrey S. Effect of space allowance and cage size on laying hens housed in furnished cages, Part I: Performance and well-being. Poultry Science 2017; 96 (11): 3805-3815. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex197
5. Engel JM, Widowski TM, Tilbrook AJ, Butler KL, Hemsworth PH. The effects of floor space and nest box access on the physiology and behavior of caged laying hens. Poultry Science 2019; 98 (2): 533-547. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey378
6. Li JY, Liu W, Ma RY, Li Y, Liu Y et al. Effects of cage size on growth performance, blood biochemistry, and antibody response in layer breeder males during rearing stage. Poultry Science 2019; 98 (9): 3571-3577. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez102
7. Von Eugen K, Nordquist RE, Zeinstra E, Van der Staay FJ. Stocking density affects stress and anxious behavior in the laying hen chick during rearing. Animals 2019; 9 (2): 53. doi: 10.3390/ani9020053
8. Preisinger R. Innovative layer genetics to handle global challenges in egg production. British Poultry Science 2018; 59 (1): 1-6. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2018.1401828
9. Okoro V, Ravhuhali K, Mapholi T, Mbajiorgu E, Mbajiorgu C. Comparison of commercial and locally developed layers’ performance and egg size prediction using regression tree method. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2017; 26 (4): 476- 484. doi: 10.3382/japr/pfx018
10. Türkoglu M, Sarıca M. Tavukçuluk Bilimi (Yetiştirme, Besleme, Hastalıklar). 5. Baski. Ankara, Bey Ofset Matbaacilik; 2018: 604.
11. Kamanlı S, Boğa AG, Durmuş İ. Comparison of two-crossing combinations in terms of some performance and egg quality characteristics in white egg layer parents. Tavukçuluk Araştırma Dergisi 2016; 13 (1): 1-4 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
12. Ozenturk U, Yildiz A. Assessment of egg quality in native and foreign laying hybrids reared in different cage densities. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2020; 22 (4): 1-10. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2020-1331
13. Geng AL, Liu HG, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Wang HH et al. Effects of indoor stocking density on performance, egg quality, and welfare status of a native chicken during 22 to 38 weeks. Poultry Science 2020; 99 (1): 163-171. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez543
14. Fathel A, Elibol O. Comparison of production characteristics of local and commercial brown layer hybrids. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi 2006; 12 (2): 182-187 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
15. Türker I, Alkan S, Akcay S. Comparison of domestic and foreign commercial brown layer hens in terms of yield characteristics in free-range raising system. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 2017; 5 (7): 814-821 (in Turkish with an abstract in English). doi: 10.24925/turjaf. v5i7.814-821.1216
16. Gross W, Siegel H. Evaluation of the heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Diseases 1983; 27: 972-979.
17. Batkowska J, Brodacki A. Selected quality traits of eggs and the productivity of newly created laying hen hybrids dedicated to an extensive rearing system. Archives Animal Breeding 2017; 60 (2): 87-93. doi: 10.5194/aab-60-87-2017
18. Tůmová E, Uhlířová L, Tůma R, Chodová D, Máchal L. Age related changes in laying pattern and egg weight of different laying hen genotypes. Animal Reproduction Science 2017; 183: 21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2017.06.006
19. Onbaşılar E, Ünal N, Erdem E, Kocakaya A, Yaranoğlu B. Production performance, use of nest box, and external appearance of two strains of laying hens kept in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (4): 559-564. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev009
20. Ahmad S, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Javed K. Productive performance, egg characteristics and hatching traits of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive housing systems. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2019; 21 (2): 1-10. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0935
21. Anderson K, Jenkins P. Effect of rearing dietary regimen, feeder space and density on egg production, quality and size distribution in two strains of brown egg layers. International Journal of Poultry Science 2011; 10 (3): 169-175.
22. De Haas EN, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE, Groothuis T, Rodenburg TB. Fear, stress, and feather pecking in commercial white and brown laying hen parent-stock flocks and their relationships with production parameters. Poultry Science 2013; 92 (9): 2259-2269. doi: 10.3382/ps.2012-02996
23. Kozak M, Tobalske B, Springthorpe D, Szkotnicki B, HarlanderMatauschek A. Development of physical activity levels in laying hens in three-dimensional aviaries. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2016; 185, 66-72.
24. Kozak A, Kasperek K, Zięba G, Rozempolska-Rucińska I. Variability of laying hen behaviour depending on the breed. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2019; 32 (7): 1062-1068. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.10.004
25. Akbari Moghaddam Kakhki R, Bakhshalinejad R, Anderson K, Golian A. Effect of high and low stocking density on age of maturity, egg production, egg size distribution in white and brown layer hens: A Meta-analysis. Poultry Science Journal 2018; 6 (1): 71-87. doi: 10.22069/psj.2018.14112.1292
26. El-Tarabany M. Impact of cage stocking density on egg laying characteristics and related stress and immunity parameters of Japanese quails in subtropics. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2016; 100 (5): 893-901. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12404
27. Wang J, Qiu L, Gong H, Celi P, Yan L et al. Effect of dietary 25-hydroxycholecalciferol supplementation and high stocking density on performance, egg quality, and tibia quality in laying hens. Poultry Science 2020; 99 (5): 2608-2615. doi: 10.1016/j. psj.2019.12.054
28. Hosseini S, Farhangfar H, Nourmohammadi R. Effects of a blend of essential oils and overcrowding stress on the growth performance, meat quality and heat shock protein gene expression of broilers. British Poultry Science 2018; 59 (1): 92- 99. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2017.1390209
29. Cengiz Ö, Köksal BH, Tatlı O, Sevim O, Ahsan U et al. Effect of dietary probiotic and high stocking density on the performance, carcass yield, gut microflora, and stress indicators of broilers. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (10): 2395- 2403. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev194
30. Krause ET, Schrader L. Suggestions to derive maximum stocking densities for layer pullets. Animals 2019; 9 (6): 348. doi: 10.3390/ani9060348
31. Bozkurt Z, Bayram I, Bülbül A, Aktepe OC. Effects of strain, cage density and position on immune response to vaccines and blood parameters in layer pullets. Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies 2009; 42 (1): 149-158.
32. Mashaly M, Hendricks 3rd G, Kalama M, Gehad A, Abbas A et al. Effect of heat stress on production parameters and immune responses of commercial laying hens. Poultry Science 2004; 83 (6): 889-894. doi: 10.1093/ps/83.6.889
33. Clark P, Boardman W, Raidal S. Atlas of Clinical Avian Hematology. Wiley- Blackwell; 2009.
34. Peixoto MR, Karrow NA, Newman A, Widowski TM. Effects of maternal stress on measures of anxiety and fearfulness in different strains of laying hens. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2020; 7: 128. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00128
35. Pusch EA, Bentz AB, Becker DJ, Navara KJ. Behavioral phenotype predicts physiological responses to chronic stress in proactive and reactive birds. General and Comparative Endocrinology 2018; 255: 71-77. doi: 10.1016/j. ygcen.2017.10.008
36. Deng W, Dong X, Tong J, Zhang Q. The probiotic Bacillus licheniformis ameliorates heat stress-induced impairment of egg production, gut morphology, and intestinal mucosal immunity in laying hens. Poultry Science 2012; 91 (3): 575- 582. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-01293
37. Dhabhar FS. A hassle a day may keep the doctor away: stress and the augmentation of immune function. Integrative and Comparative Biology 2002; 42 (3): 556-564. doi: 10.1093/ icb/42.3.556
38. Astaneh IY, Chamani M, Mousavi SN, Sadeghi AA, Afshar MA. Effects of stocking density on performance and immunity in ross 308 broiler chickens. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 2018; 24 (4): 483-489. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2017.18869
39. Kang HK, Park SB, Jeon JJ, Kim HS, Kim SH et al. Effect of stocking density on laying performance, egg quality and blood parameters of Hy-Line Brown laying hens in an aviary system. European Poultry Science 2018; 82: 245.
40. Matur E, Eraslan E, Akyazi I, Ergul Ekiz E, Eseceli H et al. The effect of furnished cages on the immune response of laying hens under social stress. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (12): 2853- 2862. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev297
41. Olfati A, Mojtahedin A, Sadeghi T, Akbari M, Martínez-Pastor F. Comparison of growth performance and immune responses of broiler chicks reared under heat stress, cold stress and thermoneutral conditions. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2018; 16 (2): 0505.
42. Mousavi SN, Fahimi E, Taherkhani R. Effects of different feed forms and cage densities on laying hen performance and stress status. European Poultry Science 2016; 80: 163. doi: 10.1399/ eps.2016.163
43. Onbaşılar E, Poyraz Ö, Çetin S. Effects of breeder age and stocking density on performance, carcass characteristics and some stress parameters of broilers. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2008a; 21 (2): 262-269. doi: 10.5713/ ajas.2008.70409
44. Claver JA, Quaglia AI. Comparative morphology, development, and function of blood cells in nonmammalian vertebrates. Journal of Exotic Pet Medicine 2009; 18 (2): 87-97. doi: 10.1053/j.jepm.2009.04.006
45. Das AK, Kumar S, Rahim A, Kokate LS, Mishra AK. Association study of some immunological traits with layer performances in Rhode Island Red chicken lines. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 2015; 85 (7): 796-99.
46. Özdemir S, Arslan H, Özentürk U, Yıldırım F, Yıldız A. Estimated genetic diversity between Atak-S and Isa Brown chickens with SSR markers. Kocatepe Veterinary Journal 2018: 11 (1): 53-62 (in Turkish with an abstract in English). doi: 10.5578/kvj.66311
47. Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Hussain J et al. Blood biochemistry and immune response in Aseel chicken under free range, semi-intensive, and confinement rearing systems. Poultry Science 2017; 96 (1): 226-233. doi: 10.3382/ ps/pew278
48. Ahmed A, Alamer M. Effect of short-term water restriction on body weight, egg production, and immune response of local and commercial layers in the late phase of production. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2011; 24 (6): 825-833. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2011.10335
49. Nath M, Singh B, Saxena V. Estimation of crossbreeding parameters for humoral response in broiler. Livestock Science 2014; 170: 8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.09.025
50. Campbell DLM, De Haas EN, Lee C. A review of environmental enrichment for laying hens during rearing in relation to their behavioral and physiological development. Poultry Science 2019; 98 (1): 9-28. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey319
51. Onbaşılar EE, Demirtaş SE, Kahraman Z, Karademir E, Demir S. The influence of different beak trimming age on performance, HL ratio and antibody production to SRBC in laying hens. Tropical Animal Health and Production 2009; 41 (2): 221-227. doi: 10.1007/s11250-008-9179-5
52. Feng PG, Guo YL, Yang HM, Ban ZB, Liang H et al. Research progress on the effect of stocking density on the health and production of livestock and poultry. Heilongjiang Animal Science Veterinary Medicine 2018; 7: 34-38.
53. Palizdar M, Daylami M, Pourelmi M. Effects of high stocking density on growth performance, blood metabolites and immune response of broilers (Ross 308). Journal of Livestock Science 2017; 8: 196-200.

APA	OZENTÜRK U, YILDIZ A (2021). Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. , 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
Chicago	OZENTÜRK UGUR,YILDIZ AHMET Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. (2021): 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
MLA	OZENTÜRK UGUR,YILDIZ AHMET Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. , 2021, ss.1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
AMA	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. . 2021; 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
Vancouver	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. . 2021; 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
IEEE	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A "Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey." , ss.1052 - 1064, 2021. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
ISNAD	OZENTÜRK, UGUR - YILDIZ, AHMET. "Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey". (2021), 1052-1064. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2012-91

APA	OZENTÜRK U, YILDIZ A (2021). Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 45(6), 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
Chicago	OZENTÜRK UGUR,YILDIZ AHMET Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 45, no.6 (2021): 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
MLA	OZENTÜRK UGUR,YILDIZ AHMET Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, vol.45, no.6, 2021, ss.1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
AMA	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2021; 45(6): 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
Vancouver	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2021; 45(6): 1052 - 1064. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
IEEE	OZENTÜRK U,YILDIZ A "Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey." Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 45, ss.1052 - 1064, 2021. 10.3906/vet-2012-91
ISNAD	OZENTÜRK, UGUR - YILDIZ, AHMET. "Comparison of performance parameters, stress, and immunity levels of native and commercial layers reared in different cage densities in Turkey". Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 45/6 (2021), 1052-1064. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2012-91