Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi

Year 2019, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 18 - 28, 18.07.2019

Enver Çavuşoğlu Metin Petek

https://doi.org/10.30782/uluvfd.420306
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma, piliç eti üretiminde genotip ve zemin tipinin büyüme performansı ve ekonomik verimlilik üzerine etkilerini incelemek amacıyla
yapılmıştır. Çalışmada; yavaş gelişen Hubbard JA57 genotipi ve hızlı gelişen Ross 308 etlik piliç genotipleri ile ızgaralı ve geleneksel derin altlık
zemin sisteminin etkisi incelenmiş, çalışmada dört ana grup yer almış (2 genotip x 2 zemin tipi) ve her ana grup 5 tekrarlı gruptan oluşmuştur.
Her tekrarlı grupta 10 adet erkek civciv olmak üzere çalışmada toplamda 200 adet günlük civciv kullanılmıştır. Büyütme dönemi süresince
(8 hafta) gruplarda haftalık tartımlar ile canlı ağırlık izlenmiş, yem tüketimi ve ölenler kaydedilmiştir. Ekonomik verimliliği belirlemek için,
gruplarda değişken giderler ve toplam içindeki payları belirlenmiş, brüt kar ve karlılık oranı hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmada beklenildiği gibi hızlı
gelişen genotiplerin büyüme performansı yavaş gelişenlere göre daha yüksek bulunmuş, zemin tipinin büyüme performansı üzerine etkisi ise
önemsiz bulunmuştur. Hızlı gelişenlere göre yavaş gelişenlerin ekonomik verimliliği daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak; hızlı gelişen
genotiplerin büyüme performansı daha yüksek bulunsa da deneme sonu itibari ile ekonomik verimlilikleri yavaş gelişenlere göre daha düşük
bulunmuştur. Ancak yavaş ve hızlı gelişenlerin ticari koşullardaki kesim yaşlarının farklı olduğu dikkate alınarak aynı birim alanda bir üretim
yılındaki toplam üretime göre ekonomik karşılaştırma yapılması daha faydalı olacaktır.

Keywords

Etlik Piliç Genotip Zemin performans

References

  • 1. North MO, Bell DD. Commercial chicken production manual, 4rd Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, Newyork, USA, 1990.
  • 2. Bilgili SF, Hess JB, Blake JP, et al. Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. J Appl Poult Res. 2009;18(3): 583-589.
  • 3. Petek M, Üstüner H, Yeşilbağ D. Effects of stocking density and litter type on litter quality and growth performance of broiler chicken. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2014; 20: 743-748.
  • 4. Bassler AW, Arnould C, Butterworth A, et al. Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poult Sci. 2013; 92: 2811-2826.
  • 5. Kaukonen E. Housing conditions and broiler and broiler breeder welfare: the effect of litter condition on contact dermatitis in broilers and breeders, and the effect of elevated structures on broiler leg health. Doktora Tezi, 2017.
  • 6. Dawkins, MS, Roberts SJ, Cain RJ, et al. Early warning of footpad dermatitis and hockburn in broiler chicken flocks using optical flow, bodyweight and water consumption. Vet. Rec. 2017; 11: 1–5.
  • 7. Shields S, Greger M. Animal welfare and food safety aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages. Animals. 2013; 3: 386-400.
  • 8. Almeida EA, Arantes de Souza LF, Sant’Anna AC, et al. Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries—Experiment 1: Thermal Comfort. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(9): 3155-3162.
  • 9. Li H, Wen X, Alphin R, et al. Effects of two different broiler flooring systems on production performances, welfare, and environment under commercial production conditions. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(5): 1108–1119.
  • 10. Bokkers EAM, De Boer IJM. Economic, ecological, and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands. Brit Poult Sci. 2009; 50(5): 546-557.
  • 11. Berri C., Le Bihan-Duval E, Baéza E, et al. Further processing characteristics of breast and leg meat from fast, medium and slow-growing commercial chickens. Anim Res. 2005;54(2): 123-134.
  • 12. Gocsik É, Brooshooft SD, De Jong IC, et al. Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Agric Sys. 2016; 146: 55-69.
  • 13. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Hester PY, et al. Performance, livability, and carcass yield of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult Sci. 2008; 87(6): 1012-1021.
  • 14. Petek M. Bursa il merkezine yakın çevre broyler işletmelerinde farklı genotiplerin üretim parametreleri ve ekonomik verimlilik. Lalahan Hayvanc Araş Enst Derg. 1999; 39 (1): 61 – 72.
  • 15. Ross Broiler Management Handbook, http://tr.aviagen. com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross- Broiler-Handbook-2014i-EN.pdf (05.01.2018). 16. Çobanoğlu F, Kucukyimaz K, Cinar M, et al. Comparing the Profitability of Organic and Conventional Broiler Production. Rev Bras Cienc Avic. 2014; 16(1): 89-96.
  • 17. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods, Eigth Edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA, 1989.
  • 18. IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  • 19. Mikulski D, Celej J, Jankowski J, et al. Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with and without outdoor access. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2011; 24(10): 1407-1416.
  • 20. Sarıca M, Ceyhan V, Uçar A, et al. Yavaş Gelişen Sentetik Etlik Piliç Genotipleri ile Ticari Etlik Piliçlerin Büyüme, Karkas Özellikleri ve Bazı Ekonomik Parametreler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. J Agric Sci. 2016; 22(1): 20-31.
  • 21. Michalczuk M, Jozwik A, Damaziak K, et al. Age-related changes in the growth performance, meat quality, and oxidative processes in breast muscles of three 28 chicken genotypes. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2016; 40(4): 389-398.
  • 22. Anderle V, Lichovníková M, Nevrkla P, et al. The Effect of Grass Pasture on the Performance of Slowly Growing Chickens. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun. 2016; 64(5): 1435-1439.
  • 23. Hoan ND, Khoa MA. Meat quality comparison between fast growing broiler ross 308 and slow growing sasso laying males reared in free range system. J Sci Devel. 2016; 14(1): 101-108.
  • 24. Cengiz O, Hess JB, Bilgili SF. Effect of protein source on the development of footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens reared on different flooring types. Arch Geflugelkd. 2013; 77: 166-170.
  • 25. Ertürk Y, Tatlıdil F. Ankara İli Kızılcahamam İlçesinde Köy-Tür’e Bağlı Olarak Faaliyet Gösteren Broiler İşletmelerinin Ekonomik Analizi, Proje Raporu 4, 2001.
  • 26. Ike PC, Ugwumba COA. Profitability of small scale broiler production in Onitsha North local government area of Anambra State, Nigeria. Int J Poult Sci. 2011; 10(2): 106-109.
  • 27. Sakarya E. Ankara İli Kazan İlçesi broyler tavukçuluk işletmelerinde karlılık ve verimlilik analizleri. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak. 1990; 37(2): 375-398.
  • 28. Baéza E, Arnould C, Jlali M, et al. Influence of increasing slaughter age of chickens on meat quality, welfare, and technical and economic results. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90(6): 2003-2013.

Year 2019, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 18 - 28, 18.07.2019

Enver Çavuşoğlu Metin Petek

https://doi.org/10.30782/uluvfd.420306
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • 1. North MO, Bell DD. Commercial chicken production manual, 4rd Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, Newyork, USA, 1990.
  • 2. Bilgili SF, Hess JB, Blake JP, et al. Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens. J Appl Poult Res. 2009;18(3): 583-589.
  • 3. Petek M, Üstüner H, Yeşilbağ D. Effects of stocking density and litter type on litter quality and growth performance of broiler chicken. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2014; 20: 743-748.
  • 4. Bassler AW, Arnould C, Butterworth A, et al. Potential risk factors associated with contact dermatitis, lameness, negative emotional state, and fear of humans in broiler chicken flocks. Poult Sci. 2013; 92: 2811-2826.
  • 5. Kaukonen E. Housing conditions and broiler and broiler breeder welfare: the effect of litter condition on contact dermatitis in broilers and breeders, and the effect of elevated structures on broiler leg health. Doktora Tezi, 2017.
  • 6. Dawkins, MS, Roberts SJ, Cain RJ, et al. Early warning of footpad dermatitis and hockburn in broiler chicken flocks using optical flow, bodyweight and water consumption. Vet. Rec. 2017; 11: 1–5.
  • 7. Shields S, Greger M. Animal welfare and food safety aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages. Animals. 2013; 3: 386-400.
  • 8. Almeida EA, Arantes de Souza LF, Sant’Anna AC, et al. Poultry rearing on perforated plastic floors and the effect on air quality, growth performance, and carcass injuries—Experiment 1: Thermal Comfort. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(9): 3155-3162.
  • 9. Li H, Wen X, Alphin R, et al. Effects of two different broiler flooring systems on production performances, welfare, and environment under commercial production conditions. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(5): 1108–1119.
  • 10. Bokkers EAM, De Boer IJM. Economic, ecological, and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands. Brit Poult Sci. 2009; 50(5): 546-557.
  • 11. Berri C., Le Bihan-Duval E, Baéza E, et al. Further processing characteristics of breast and leg meat from fast, medium and slow-growing commercial chickens. Anim Res. 2005;54(2): 123-134.
  • 12. Gocsik É, Brooshooft SD, De Jong IC, et al. Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Agric Sys. 2016; 146: 55-69.
  • 13. Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Hester PY, et al. Performance, livability, and carcass yield of slow-and fast-growing chicken genotypes fed low-nutrient or standard diets and raised indoors or with outdoor access. Poult Sci. 2008; 87(6): 1012-1021.
  • 14. Petek M. Bursa il merkezine yakın çevre broyler işletmelerinde farklı genotiplerin üretim parametreleri ve ekonomik verimlilik. Lalahan Hayvanc Araş Enst Derg. 1999; 39 (1): 61 – 72.
  • 15. Ross Broiler Management Handbook, http://tr.aviagen. com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross- Broiler-Handbook-2014i-EN.pdf (05.01.2018). 16. Çobanoğlu F, Kucukyimaz K, Cinar M, et al. Comparing the Profitability of Organic and Conventional Broiler Production. Rev Bras Cienc Avic. 2014; 16(1): 89-96.
  • 17. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods, Eigth Edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA, 1989.
  • 18. IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
  • 19. Mikulski D, Celej J, Jankowski J, et al. Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with and without outdoor access. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2011; 24(10): 1407-1416.
  • 20. Sarıca M, Ceyhan V, Uçar A, et al. Yavaş Gelişen Sentetik Etlik Piliç Genotipleri ile Ticari Etlik Piliçlerin Büyüme, Karkas Özellikleri ve Bazı Ekonomik Parametreler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması. J Agric Sci. 2016; 22(1): 20-31.
  • 21. Michalczuk M, Jozwik A, Damaziak K, et al. Age-related changes in the growth performance, meat quality, and oxidative processes in breast muscles of three 28 chicken genotypes. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2016; 40(4): 389-398.
  • 22. Anderle V, Lichovníková M, Nevrkla P, et al. The Effect of Grass Pasture on the Performance of Slowly Growing Chickens. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun. 2016; 64(5): 1435-1439.
  • 23. Hoan ND, Khoa MA. Meat quality comparison between fast growing broiler ross 308 and slow growing sasso laying males reared in free range system. J Sci Devel. 2016; 14(1): 101-108.
  • 24. Cengiz O, Hess JB, Bilgili SF. Effect of protein source on the development of footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens reared on different flooring types. Arch Geflugelkd. 2013; 77: 166-170.
  • 25. Ertürk Y, Tatlıdil F. Ankara İli Kızılcahamam İlçesinde Köy-Tür’e Bağlı Olarak Faaliyet Gösteren Broiler İşletmelerinin Ekonomik Analizi, Proje Raporu 4, 2001.
  • 26. Ike PC, Ugwumba COA. Profitability of small scale broiler production in Onitsha North local government area of Anambra State, Nigeria. Int J Poult Sci. 2011; 10(2): 106-109.
  • 27. Sakarya E. Ankara İli Kazan İlçesi broyler tavukçuluk işletmelerinde karlılık ve verimlilik analizleri. Ankara Üniv Vet Fak. 1990; 37(2): 375-398.
  • 28. Baéza E, Arnould C, Jlali M, et al. Influence of increasing slaughter age of chickens on meat quality, welfare, and technical and economic results. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90(6): 2003-2013.
There are 27 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Veterinary Surgery
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Enver Çavuşoğlu This is me 0000-0002-9018-3511

Metin Petek 0000-0003-4560-2438

Publication Date July 18, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 38 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Çavuşoğlu, E., & Petek, M. (2019). Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine, 38(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.30782/uluvfd.420306
AMA Çavuşoğlu E, Petek M. Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi. J Res Vet Med. July 2019;38(1):18-28. doi:10.30782/uluvfd.420306
Chicago Çavuşoğlu, Enver, and Metin Petek. “Genotip Ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı Ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi”. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 38, no. 1 (July 2019): 18-28. https://doi.org/10.30782/uluvfd.420306.
EndNote Çavuşoğlu E, Petek M (July 1, 2019) Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 38 1 18–28.
IEEE E. Çavuşoğlu and M. Petek, “Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi”, J Res Vet Med, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 18–28, 2019, doi: 10.30782/uluvfd.420306.
ISNAD Çavuşoğlu, Enver - Petek, Metin. “Genotip Ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı Ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi”. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine 38/1 (July 2019), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.30782/uluvfd.420306.
JAMA Çavuşoğlu E, Petek M. Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi. J Res Vet Med. 2019;38:18–28.
MLA Çavuşoğlu, Enver and Metin Petek. “Genotip Ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı Ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi”. Journal of Research in Veterinary Medicine, vol. 38, no. 1, 2019, pp. 18-28, doi:10.30782/uluvfd.420306.
Vancouver Çavuşoğlu E, Petek M. Genotip ve Zemin Tipinin Etlik Piliç Büyüme Performansı ve Ekonomik Verimlilik Üzerine Etkisi. J Res Vet Med. 2019;38(1):18-2.

Cited By

The Effects of Partially Slatted Floor Designs on Some Early Behavioral Traits in Broiler Chicks
Black Sea Journal of Agriculture
https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1121919