DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Production Performance, Immunity and Egg Quality by Raising on Exercise Yard in Laying Hens

산란계 운동장 사육이 생산성, 면역성 및 계란의 품질에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Ki Soo (Livestock Institute, Jeollanamdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services) ;
  • Lee, Suk Kyung (Livestock Institute, Jeollanamdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services) ;
  • Choi, Young Sun (Livestock Institute, Jeollanamdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services) ;
  • Ha, Chang Ho (Livestock Institute, Jeollanamdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services) ;
  • Kim, Won Ho (Livestock Institute, Jeollanamdo Agricultural Research and Extension Services)
  • 김기수 (전라남도농업기술원 축산연구소) ;
  • 이숙경 (전라남도농업기술원 축산연구소) ;
  • 최영선 (전라남도농업기술원 축산연구소) ;
  • 하창호 (전라남도농업기술원 축산연구소) ;
  • 김원호 (전라남도농업기술원 축산연구소)
  • Received : 2013.03.25
  • Accepted : 2013.06.14
  • Published : 2013.06.30

Abstract

The present study examined effects of production performance, immune activity and egg quality by raising on exercise yard in laying Hens, the results of which could be used as baseline data to enhance animal welfare and the safety of livestock products. A total of 90 Hy-line-Brown laying hens of 13 weeks old were used in the experiment for 38 weeks. The cage group (Cage group) was raised in a cage, where an area of $0.084m^2$ was assigned to two hens, while hens in the exercise yard $1.1m^2$ group ($1.1m^2$ group) was assigned to a combination of a chicken house ($0.11m^2$) and a exercise yard ($1.1m^2$) per a hen. Hens in the exercise yard $2.2m^2$ group ($2.2m^2$ group) was assigned to a combination of a chicken house ($0.11m^2$) and a exercise yard ($2.2m^2$) per a hen. Treatment was replicated 3 times with ten birds per replication. Ten birds were arranged according to randomized block design. While initial egg production rate was significantly higher in the Cage group, $1.1m^2$ group exhibited a slightly higher rate in the mid- and late-stage of the experiment, although the difference was not statistically significant. Exercise yard treatment groups exhibited a higher feed intake rate than the Cage group up until the hens were 39 weeks old (P<0.05), but the difference dissipated from that age on. The age at first egg in the exercise yard treatment groups was 16 days later than that for the Cage group (P<0.05), although differences in the quality of the eggs were not observed. The results of immune activity test showed that IgA in the exercise yard treatment groups was significantly higher than that in the Cage group (P<0.05). IgG, IgM, and corticosterone were also higher in the exercise yard treatment groups. The soil in exercise yard increased of organic matter and decreased of cation exchange capacity (CEC) in raised hens. In sum, raising hens in a exercise yard raise style decreased the rate of initial egg production, which was followed by a slight increase during the latter part of the experiment. The exercise yard raise hens' immune activity was heightened.

본 연구는 산란계의 동물복지를 적용한 운동장 면적에서 사육한 산란계의 생산성, 면역성 및 스트레스 반응에 미치는 영향을 조사하여 동물복지농가 육성과 안전축산물 생산을 위한 기초자료로 활용하고자 수행하였다. 사양시험은 13주령의 Hy-line-Brown 계열의 실용 산란계 90수를 공시하여 38주간 실시하였다. 대조구는 수당 $0.042m^2$ 면적의 케이지에서 사육(케이지 사육), 수당 축사 $0.11m^2$(평사)와 운동장 $1.1m^2$를 결합한 환경에서 사육($1.1m^2$ 운동장), 수당 축사 $0.11m^2$(평사)와 운동장 $2.2m^2$를 결합한 환경에서 사육($2.2m^2$ 운동장)으로 시험구를 편성하여 처리구당 3반복, 반복당 10수씩 난괴법으로 배치하여 시험하였다. 초기 산란율은 유의적으로 케이지 사육에서 유의적으로 높았으나(P<0.05), 중 후반기에는 운동장 사육 시험구에서 다소 높은 산란율을 보였다. 사료섭취량은 39주령까지 운동장 시험구에서 유의적으로 많았으나(P<0.05), 이후에서 종료 시 까지는 차이가 없었다. 시산일령은 대조구 비해 운동장 사육 시험구에서 16일 지연되었으며(P<0.05), 사육 환경이 계란의 품질에는 영향을 미치지 않았다. 면역 활성을 조사한 결과, 운동장사육 시험구에서 IgA는 유의적으로 높았고(P<0.05), IgG, IgM 및 corticosterone은 비교적 높았다. 결론적으로 산란계운동장 사육은 산란 초기의 생산성을 저하시키나, 중 후기의 생산성은 약간 증가를 보였으며, 면역성은 증가하였으나 스트레스는 다소간 더 받는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 초기 산란율을 향상시키고, 적절한 외부의 환경에 의한 스트레스를 줄일 수 있는 사육 환경이 뒷받침된다면 운동장 사육이 동물복지형 사육으로 매우 적합한 사양방법이라고 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Albentosa MJ, Cooper JJ 2004 Effects of cage light and stocking on the frequency of comfort behaviors performed by laying hens in furnished cages. Anim Welfare 13: 419-424.
  2. Bong MH, Ji1 SY, Park JC, Moon HK, Lee SC, Lee JH, Hong JK 2011 Effect of feeding plum and red ginseng marc on vital reaction in broiler stress. Korean J Poult Sci 38(3):213-223. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2011.38.3.213
  3. Butterworth A 2009 EU FP6 Welfare $Quality^{(R)}$ poultry assesment systems. Korean J Poult Sci 36:239-246. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2009.36.3.239
  4. Deaton JW, Reece FN, Lott BD 1986 Effect of summer cyclic temperatures versus moderate temperature on laying hen performance. Poultry Sci 65:1649-1651. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0651649
  5. Duncan DB 1955 Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11:1-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478
  6. Emery DA, Vohra P, Ernst RA 1984 The effect of cyclic and constant ambient temperatures on feed consumption, egg production, egg weight and shell thickness of hens. Poultry Sci 63:2027-2035. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0632027
  7. Herman JP, Figueiredo H, Mueller NK, Ulrich-Lai Y, Ostrander MM, Choi DC, Cullinan WE 2003 Central mechanisms of stress integration: hierarchialcircuity controlling hypothalamus-pituitary adrenocortical responsiveness. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 24:151-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2003.07.001
  8. Lay DC Jr, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjaer JB, Mench JA, Mullens BA, Newberry RC, Nicol CJ, O'Sullivan NP, Porter RE 2011 Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Sci 90:278-94. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00962
  9. Muller WH 1966 Effect of rapid temperature changes on acid-base balance and shell quality. J Poult Sci 45:1109-1118.
  10. Pohle K, Cheng HW 2009 Comparative effects of fur nished and battery cages on egg production and physiological parameters in White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci 88: 2042-2051. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00171
  11. Rhoades JD 1996 Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks, D.L. et al ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI.
  12. Sherwin CM, Richards GJ, Nicol C 2010 Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. Br Poult Sci 51:488-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2010.502518
  13. Singh R, Cheng KM, Silversides FG 2009 Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Sci 88: 256-264. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00237
  14. Sohn SH, Jang IJ, Son BR 2011 Effect of Housing Systems of Cage and Floor on the Production Performance and Stress Response in Layer. Korean J Poult Sci 38(4):305-313. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2011.38.4.305
  15. Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC, House JD 2009 Performance and welfare of laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poultry Sci 88: 698-700. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369
  16. Thaxton JP, Dozier WA 3rd, Branton SL, Morgan GW, Miles DW, Roush WB, Lott BD, Vizzier-Thaxton Y 2006 Stocking density and physiological adaptive response of broilers. Poultry Sci 85:819-824. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.5.819
  17. Turkyilmaz MK 2008 Effect of stocking density on stress reaction in broiler chickens during summer. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 32(1):31-36.
  18. 국립종축원 1994 톱밥 우사 기생충 감염 실태 및 방지에 관한 연구; 축산 폐수 처리에 관한 연구.
  19. 농림수산연구논문해제 1994 가축 분뇨 처리이용 기술.