EFFECT OF TWO HOUSING SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE AND SOME PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN ENCLOSED HOUSES

EFFECT OF TWO HOUSING SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE AND SOME PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS OF BROILER CHICKENS REARED IN ENCLOSED HOUSES

Abdel-Azeem, F. Abdel-Azeem ; Mohammed A. Al-Gamal

and Ahmed S. El-Deen

Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Agriculture,

Al-Azhar University, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt.

Corresponding author:Abdel-Azeem, F. Abdel-Azeem: abdelazeem.fahmy@yahoo.com

Key Words:- Broiler chickens, housing systems, productive and physiological traits.

ABSTRACT:

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two housing systems (cage vs. floor) on productiveperformance and some physiological traits of broiler chickensreared in enclosed houses. A total number of 3120 chicks were randomly chosen for both housing systems. The number of 3120 chicks were divided into two groups: the first was housed in cages (n=1560) and the second was housed on the floor (n=1560). A selected number of birds for each housing system were divided to four replicates containing 390 birds each. Results showed that LBW, BWG, livability % and EPEF recorded significantly (P ≤0.05) higher values for birds housed in cages than birds housed on floor. Also, the best FCR was observed for birds stocked in cages compared with birds housed on floor (P ≤0.05). While, total faecal microbial count showed higher values for birds housed on floor than birds housed in cages. However, data revealed that there were insignificant differences detected for most blood parameters, except with H/L ratio, where birds housed on floor exhibited higher (P ≤0.05) levels than birds kept in cages. The present result clearly indicated that, antibody titer response detected against NDV showed similar trend for both housing systems. While, birds preserved in cages exhibited significantly higher (P ≤0.05) values of giblets, dressing carcass and abdominal fat than birds housed on floor system. While, insignificant differences were observed between housing systems concerning carcass chemical compositions. Interestingly, it was concluded that cage reared broiler showed better performance compared to littered floor rearing system.

INTRODUCTIO:

The increasing growth of the world population and its food economy has resulted in a shift in diet and food consumption patterns toward animal products. Available data indicated that the poultry industry assumes a significant proportion of this increase in animal protein production and consumption (Thornton, 2010), which is characterized by a global increase in the production and consumption of poultry meat compared to other livestock products. Its demand is expected to continue increasing to meet the animal protein requirement for ever increasing human population (Yadav and Jha, 2019). However, housing system is the most important factor affecting poultry production; therefore, many researchers studied the effect of housing systems on behavioral, productive and reproductive traits of poultry (Roshdy et al., 2010). A study reported by Pakage et al. (2015) indicated that a cage system in closed housing enables the control of the microclimate inside the facilities, improves productivity, land and labor efficiency, and renders broiler production more environmentally friendly. Therefore,Olawumi (2015) stated that superiority of cage system over that of deep litter in all the evaluated production traits, where body weight of cage birds was higher than those on deep litter. On the other hand, keeping litter dry and in good condition in deep litter floor housing is very difficult due to drinker type, bedding material, outdoor and indoor temperature and humidity, the ventilation system, and high stocking density (Petek et al., 2014). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of housing system on productive and some physiological traits of broiler chickens maintained in enclosed houses.

MATERILAS AND METHODS

To compare the productive performance and some physiological traits of broiler chickens maintained on floor and cages system in enclosed houses, the following approach was followed:

Site and aim of the experiment: This field study was conducted in a commercial farm (Golden Broiler Breeder Company), which located in the desert back of Sadat city of Monufia governorate, during the summer season from the first of August to the beginning of September 2017. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of two housing systems (cage vs. floor) on productiveperformance and some physiological traits of broiler chickensreared in enclosed houses.

Birds, husbandry and experimental procedure: To determine the examined parameters, a total number of 3120 chicks were randomly chosen for both housing systems. The number of 3120 chicks were divided into two groups: the first was housed in cages (n=1560) and the second was housed on the floor (n=1560). Each housing system was was containing four replicates of 390 birds each in fully environmentally controlled houses. Environmental conditions in both housing systems were organized according to the needs of broiler chickens. House temperature was set through the automatic control system to be 32^oC at the first day of age, which was daily reduced 0.4°C till reaching temperature required for both systems. Birds in both houses were allowed free access to fresh water and feed of starter, grower and finisher rations which were given to satisfy the strain requirements stated in the broiler management guide (Aviagen, 2016). For the first 14 days a starter ration (23.0% CP and 2960 kcal ME /kg feed) was offered. Subsequently, a grower ration (22% CP and 3040 ME /kg) was offered from day 15 up to day 28. While, finisher ration (20% CP and 3139 kcal ME /kg feed) was offered from 29 to 35 days of age. All birds were fed the same commercial rations which offered ad libitum. Adequate numbers of designated feeders and drinking nipples were provided to ensure similar feeding and drinking space, regardless of the housing system. A light: dark pattern of 23L: l D was provided with light intensity of 10 Lux/m². Both housing systems received the same managerial condition. The dimensions of the enclosed cage house were 130 x 13 x 4.3 m and contained 4 longitudinal batteries consisting of 4 vertical tiers with 640 cage unit. Each unit measuring 4.930 m² containing 130 birds each with a stocking density in cages 26 birds per m² so that each unit contains the number of 130 birds each, to ensure not to exceed of 58 kg/m². While broiler floor house measuring (110x 12x 2.6 m), where birds housed at a stocking density of 17 bird/m². In the floor house system, barriers were made to ensure the presence of selected birds in the same area, where each group contained number of 390 birds. Wheat straw was used as litter material and was uniformly distributed to cover the floor area to a depth of 5 cm. Each house had identical cooling and ventilation equipment’s with an environmental controller.  All exhaust fans were monitored with current magnetic sensors and fan ON/OFF status was recorded with a four-channel data logger. Ventilation rates of the houses were measured using fan status, fan curves (airflow rate vs. static pressure). The in-situ calibration of the exhaust fans was conducted with a handheld anemometer with traverse measurement, from which an overall ventilation curve for each house was established. The east side of both houses had 3 sections of 132 m² experimental cooling pads on the wall with a thickness of 15 cm. The cooling pad openings were covered by 2 rows of static pressure-controlled sliding doors on the inside when not in use. Temperature and relative humidity sensors were evenly distributed in each house at 60 cm height with 5-min sampling intervals to measure the thermal environment of the houses. Portable monitoring units (PMUs) housing NH₃ and CO₂ sensors were used to continuously monitor air quality data from the two broiler houses. The flocks were vaccinated against common diseases indicated in the vaccination programs, like Newcastle disease virus (NDV), infectious bronchitis (IB) and Gumboro (infectious bursal disease) at the appropriate age as recommended by veterinarians.

Data collection

Productive performance: The performance parameters such as live body weight (LBW), body weight gain (BWG), feed intake (FI), feed conversion ratio (FCR), livability and European production efficiency factor (EPEF) were recorded at 7 and 35 days o

Blood parameters: At the end of experiment approximately 2 ml of blood was randomly taken from 3 birds of each replicate of housing system to study some hematological and biochemical parameters. Blood samples were collected with Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetate (EDTA) to examine white blood cell counts (WBCs). The values were determined using improved Neubauer haemocytometer respectively (Natt and Herrick, 1952).One drop of fresh blood was smeared on a clean microscope glass slide. However, the biochemical traits including total protein, glucoses, and ALT and AST were calorimetrically estimated using commercial kits purchased from (Spectrum Bio- Diagnostic Company, Hannover- Germany).

Carcass traits, chemical carcass composition, lymphoid organ weights and antibody titer response: At the end of the experiment 6 birds (3 females and 3 males from each replicate) whose body weights were closest to the mean weight were randomly chosen for each housing system. Lymphoid (immune) organs including liver, spleen, thymus and Bursa of Fabricius were removed and weighed. Samples of  a carcass were taken and analyzed in triplicate for crude protein, ether extracts and ash according to the standard methods outlined by A.O.A.C. (1980). However,the antibody titer response was measured against Newcastle disease virus (NDV), where blood samples were collected from right jugular vein at 35 d of age for Hemagglutination inhibition test according procedure outlined in OIE (2012). Antibody titer response was expressed as the log² of the reciprocal of the highest dilution giving visible Hemagglutination. The reciprocal of the last serum dilution showing inhibition of hemagglutination of the 4 hem-agglutinin units of the NDV was considered as the HI antibody titer of the serum (log² value of HI titer).

Total faecal bacterial count (TFBC): For a determination of TFBC one gram of faecal samples were taken from each housing system and enumerated on plate count agar after incubating at 37°C for 48 h (Jang et al., 2007). The microbial counts were determined as colony forming units (CFU) per gram of samples.

Statistical analysis: All data were subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the SPSS software 16.00 (SPSS, 2010), where t-test of all experimental data was performed.

RESULTS

Productive performance: Results presented in Table 1 shows the effects of housing system on productive performance of broiler chickens at the end of experiment. Data indicated that birds housed in cages recorded (P ≤0.05) higher values for LBW and BWG than birds housed on floor system at 35 days of age.  While, feed intake was insignificantly affected due to housing systems. However, birds raised in cages exhibited better FCR than birds housed on floor system (P ≤0.05). On the other hand, livability and EPEF were significantly (P ≤0.05) differed between both systems, where birds housed in cages have higher values than birds housed on floor. In contrast, TFBC exhibited the converse trend, where birds housed on floor showed higher values than birds housed in cages in TFBC (P ≤0.05)

Table (1): Effect of housing system on productive performance of broiler chickens at 7 and 35 days of age.

a, b, c … Means having different superscripts within column in the same effect are significantly different (P≤0.05) 

NS; not significant   SEM; standard error of mean

Blood parameters: Table 2 illustrates the data of blood parameters measured at 35^th  days of experiment. It is interesting to note that there were insignificant differences in most blood parameters including total protein, total albumin, total globulin, glucose, ALT and AST due to housing systems, except with H/L ratio, where birds housed on floor have higher (P<0.05) value than birds housed in cages.

Table (2): Effect of housing system on blood parameters of broiler chickens.

a, b, c … Means having different superscripts within column in the same effect are significantly different (P≤0.05) 

NS; not significant   SEM; standard error of mean

Lymphoid (immune) organ weights and immunity titer response: Table 3 shows the effect of housing systems on lymphoid organ weights and immunity titer response of broiler chickens measured at 35 days of age. Results indicated the lymphoid organ percent including spleen and thymus were insignificantly affected due to housing systems, while bursa percent showed the converse trend, where it significantly (P ≤0.05) increased when birds housed in cage than birds housed in floor. However, similar trend was observed for antibodies titer response against NDV due to housing system.

Table (3) Effect of housing system on lymphoid organs and immunity of broiler chickens.

a, b, c … Means having different superscripts within column in the same effect are significantly different (P≤0.05) 

NS; not significant   SEM; standard error of mean

Carcass traits and composition: Table 4 illustrated some carcass traits and meat compositions of broiler chickens as affected by housing systems. The analysis of variance indicated that dressing, giblets and abdominal fat showed higher (P ≤0.05) values of birds housed in cages than those recorded for birds housed on floor system. While, carcass composition including crude protein, ether extract and ash was insignificantly affected due to housing systems. 

Table (4): Effect of housing system of some carcass traits of broiler chickens.

a, b, c … Means having different superscripts within column in the same effect are significantly different (P≤0.05) ) 

NS; not significant   SEM; standard error of mean

 DISCUSSION

Productive performance

Productive performance: It is well known that LBW is a qualitative trait, controlled by few pairs of genes, highly heritable and influenced also by the environment. For more details birds bred in the cages were significantly superior in LBW and BWG at 35 days of age than birds bred in floor

system. The difference in growth performance is most likely attributed to the fact that birds in the cage are not as free as those on the floor; where birds in cages were able to utilize feeds given optimally and converted same into more meat than birds reared on the floor (Olawumi, 2015). This finding was similar with Çavu̧sŏglu et al. (2018) found the average body weight of broilers was significantly higher in the slatted-floor and the litter slat than birds reared in conventional deep-litter floor housing. In addition, Thanga et al. (2001) reported that broiler chicken reared in cage performed better than birds housed on floor system.However, voluntary feed intake is linked to growth rate (Scott, 2005), therefore, under the current of this study insignificant differences was observed between tow housing systems. These finding are disagreeing with Khan and Khan (2018) indicated birds housed on the floor consumed 10% more feed than birds housed in cage on a daily basis. Also, Rodriduez et al. (2005) reported that broiler reared in cage consumed less feed than birds housed on floor system. On the other hand, broiler reared on the floor showed worst FCR as compared with birds reared in cages. This attributed to birds housed in cage utilized feed more efficiently than floor housed birds. Further, better feed utilization observed by caged birds might be due to higher weight gain of caged bird and minimum expenditure of energy on physical activates (Swain et al., 2002). These results are similar with Alam et al. (2008) who demonstrated that birds reared on cage showed superior efficiently of feed compared to birds reared on floor. Interestingly,cages system are commonly used in poultry houses to provide some commercial and health benefits (Vits et al., 2005).Therefore, flooring system apart from litter may be attributed to one of a number of major factors, where chickens contact with fecal material and its hazardous effect (Petek et al., 2015), therefore thesurvival rate was higher in cage birds than floor housing system. Accordingly, the better survival rate may be attributed to several management factors that favored health and hygiene. Cage housing increased birds spatial density, eased the control of microclimate, simplified waste disposal, reduced labor costs and eased the supervision of individual birds for health and production status additionally (Pistikova et al., 2006). In addition, frequent manure removal facility in multitier cage ensured cleanliness and uniform feed allowance per bird, being more particularly required for the nutrition of less active birds to maintain sound health. This finding similar with Khan and Khan (2018) indicated that survival rate was higher for broiler reared in cage than floor housing.  Moreover, EPEF showed higher value for broiler housed in cages than those in floor system, this attributed to uniform altitude and community conditions of living. In this context, Thanga et al. (2001) reported that broiler chicken reared in cage system performed better, higher survival rate and finally more profits per bird than floor rearing system. In contrast, Santos et al. (2012) who reported that birds reared on floor showed better production efficiency than birds reared in the cages.

Blood parameters: Clearly, blood parameters were affected by different environmental conditions (Onbaşilar et al., 2007), therefore, blood parameters are an important measure as diagnostic tools indicators in birds (Hauptmanova et al., 2006). Also, blood is profiled to judge the flock health status and is one of the trusted indicators for health status assessment (Ladokun et al., 2008). Accordingly, it is observed from the present results that housing systems insignificantly affected most blood parameters, except with H/L ratio, where birds housed on floor recorded higher values than those housed in cages. Variations in H/Lt ratio due to housing systems is considered as stress factor (Puvadolpirod and Thaxton, 2000), therefore the present results indicated there were significant differences for H/L ratio due to housing systems. In this context, it is observed H/ L ratio of 0.2 indicates low, 0.5 medium and 0.8 high stress, thus H/L ratio has proved to be a valuable measurement in stress (Gross and Siegel., 1993). It is noted that, the immune response was not altered negatively by the housing system as observed in the values of the WBCs, which were within the normal range of bird's blood (Simaraks et al., 2004). In general, the results indicate that the studied blood of the present experiment were not adversely affected by the housing systems and depicted equally sound health status and no infection among the experimental birds as a result of the housing system. These finding are confirmed by Sogunle et al. (2008) found that no significant difference observed in the hematological parameters of broiler chickens due to housing system. Also,Alabi et al. (2015) foundthatthe hematological parameters of laying chickens were not significantly affected by the housing system.

Lymphoid (immune) organ weights and immune response: it is well known that the most commonly assessed immune parameters in poultry are the weight of lymphoid organs, where avian immune cells differentiate and which also reflects the body’s ability to provide lymphoid cells during an immune response (Yang et al., 2011). Therefore, it is important to maintain immune function in broilers because poor immune status can decrease disease resistance leading to reduced productivity. It has been well documented that, spleen, bursa of Fabricius are used for anatomical and physiological stress indicators for birds (Freire et al., 2003), where decreased bursa percent are associated with increased levels of physiological stress. It is expected that birds could survive the ND virus challenge when they show relatively greater titers. In the present study there is no increased in lymphoid organ weights, except with bursa of Fabricius, and immune response due to housing systems reflecting no negative effect of housing system on growth of lymphoid organs and immunity. In this context, Swain et al. (2002) indicated that organ weights of broiler reared in deep litter did not differ from birds reared in cages.

Carcass traits and compositions: The results showed that the housing system significantly effect on dressing, giblets and abdominal fat, where these traits exhibited higher values for birds housed in cage system than birds housed on floor. In contrast carcass chemical composition was insignificantly affected due to the housing systems. In this context, Wang et al. (2009) indicated significant impacts of housing system on relative abdominal fat weight, where low weights observed for free-range systems.In contrast, Diktaş et al. (2015) found that the housing systems insignificantly affected internal organ of broiler chickens. Also, Swain et al. (2002) who found insignificant influence for house system on carcass traits of broilers.

CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION:

Based on the findings, it is concluded that broilers reared in cage exhibited better growth performance as compared to birds housed on floor.

REFERENCES

Alabi, O. M. ; F. A. Aderemi and O. B. Adeniji (2015). Effect of alternative housing systems on blood profile of egg-type chickens in humid tropics. Amer. J. of Exp. Agr., 7(4): 197-204.

Alam, M.A. ; M.A.R. Howlider ; A. Mondal ; K. Hossain and R. Bostami (2008). Pattern of egg production in Japanese quail reared on littered floor and in cage. Bangladesh Res. Pub. J.,1(3): 239-249

A.O.A.C. (1980). Official methods of analysis of the association of official analysis chemists. Association analytical chemists, Washington.

Aviagen (2016). Ross 308 Broiler: Performance Objectives.
Available at http : // www.winmixsoft.com/files/info/Ross-308-Broiler-PO-2016-EN.pdf

Çavu̧sŏglu, E. ; M. Petek ; I. M. Abdourhamane ; A. Akkoc and E. Topal (2018). Effects of different floor housing systems on the welfare of fast-growing broilers with an extended fattening period. Arch. Anim. Breed., 61: 9–16

Diktaş, M. ; A. Şekeroğlu ; M. Duman and A.Yildirim (2015). Effect of different housing systems on production and blood profile of slow-growing broilers. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg., 21 (4): 521-526

Freire, R. ; L. J. Wilkins ; F. Short and C. J. Nicol (2003). Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. Br. Poult. Sci., 44:22-29.

Gross, W. B. and P. B. Siegel (1993). General principles of stress and welfare. Pages 21–34 in Livestock, Handling and Transport. T. Grandin, ed. CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Hauptmanova, K. ; M. Maly and I. Literak (2006). Changes of haematological parameters in common pheasant throughout the year. Vet. Med., 51: 29-34.

Jang, I.S. ; Y.H. Ko ; S.Y. Kang and C.Y. Lee (2007). Effect of a commercial essential oil on growth performance, digestive enzyme activity and intestinal microflora population in broiler chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 134:304–315.

Khan, I.A. and S. Khan (2018). Production performance of broiler breeders under cage versus floor housing systems. Inter. J. of Bioscience. 13 (1): 449-462

Ladokun, A.O. ; A. Yakubu ; J.R. Otite ; J.N.  Omeje ; O.A.  Sokunbi and E.  Onyeji (2008). Haematological and serum biochemical indices of naked neck and normally feathered Nigerian indigenous chickens in a sub humid tropical environment. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 7(1): 55-58.

Natt, M.P.  and C. A. Herrick (1952). A new blood diluent for counting the erythrocytes and leucocytes of the chicken. Poult. Sci., 31: 735-738

OIE (2012). Newcastle disease. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals. Chapter 2.3.14.  Available at:  http://www.oie.int/ international-standard- etting /terrestrial-manual/access-online.

Olawumi, S. O. (2015). Effects of housing and sex on Growth performance of Coturnix Quails in the derived savannah zone of Nigeria. Inte. J. of Agri. Forestry and Fisheries, 3(6): 227-231

Onbaşilar, E.E. ; H. Erol ; Z. Cantekin and Ü. Kaya (2007). Influence of intermittent lighting on broiler performance, incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia, tonic immobility, some blood parameters and antibody production. Asian. Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 20(4): 550 555

Pakage, S. ; B. Hartono ; Z. Fanani and B.A. Nugroho (2015). Analysis of technical, allocative and economic efficiency of broiler production using closed house system in Malang District of East Java Indonesia. Livest. Res. Rural. Dev., 27:174.

Petek, M. ; E. Çavusoglu ; E. Topal ; C. Ünal and I. M.Ab-dourhamane (2015). Effects of slatted floor housing on animal welfare in broiler production. Proceedings of 3rd International Poultry Meat Congress, 22–26 April, Antalya, Turkey, Proceedings.

Petek, M. ; H. Ustüner and D.  Yesilbag (2014). Effects of stocking density and litter type on litter quality and growth performance of broiler chicken, Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak., 20, 743–748.

Pistikova, V.M. ; M. Hovorka ; V. Veeerek ; E. Strikeover and P. Suchy (2006).The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cages and in a deep litter system. Czech J. Ani. Sci., 5(7):318-325.

Puvadolpirod, S. and J. P. Thaxton (2000). Model of physiological stress in chickens. 1. Response parameters. Poult. Sci., 79:363–369.

Rodriduez, B. ; M. Valdivie and O. Dieppa (2005).  Body damages associated with high stocking densities of broiler chickens in cages. Cuban J. Agri. Sci., 39: 61-66.

Roshdy, M. ; H.A. Khalil ; A.M. Hanafy and M.E. Mady (2010). Productive and Reproductive Traits of Japanese quails as affected by two housing system. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 30 (1):55- 67

Santos, F.B.O. ; A.A. Santos Jr. ; E.O. Oviedo-Rondon and P.R. Ferket (2012). Influence of housing system on growth performance and intestinal health of Salmonella-challenged broiler chickens. Current Res. Poult. Sci., DOI: 10.3923/crp.2012.

Scott, T.A. (2005). The impact of pelleting and enzyme supplementation on feed value of twenty–five Canadian wheat samples. Aus. Poult. Sci. Symposium., 17: 138–44

Simaraks, S. ; O. Chinrasri and W.L. Aengwanich (2004). Hematological, electrolyte and serum biochemical values of the Thai indigenous chickens (Gallus domesticus) in north eastern, Thailand. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 26(3): 425-430.

Sogunle, O.M., L.T. Egbeyale, T.T. Bajomo, O.V. Bamigboje and A.O. Fanimo (2008). Comparison of the performance, carcass characteristics and haematological parameters of broiler chicks reared in cage and floor. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 11: 480–483.

SPSS 16.0. (2010). Statistical package in Social Science for Windows. Statistical innovation INC., Chicago, USA.

Swain, B.K. ; R.N.S. Sundaram ; S.B. Barbuddhe and A.V. Nirmale (2002). Influence of cage and deep litter rearing systems on the performance of broilers. Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 79: 467-469

Thanga, T. ; M. Thiagarajan ; V. Ramesh ; P.T. Gnanarajand and T. Sivakumar (2001). Performance of broiler chicken under cage and floor systems of management fed differently processed feeds. Ind. J. Anim. Sci., 71: 985-988.

Thornton, P.K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 365:2853–67. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0134

Vits, A. ; D. Weitzenburger and O. Distl (2005). Comparison of different housing systems for laying hens in respect to economic, health and welfare parameters with special regard to organized cages. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr, 112:332–342.

Wang, K. H. ; S. R. Shi ; T. C. Dou and H. J. Sun (2009). Effect of a free-range raising system on growth performance, carcass yield, and meat quality of slow-growing chicken. Poult. Sci., 88:2219–2223

Yadav, S. and R. Jha  (2019). Strategies to modulate the intestinal microbiota and their effects on nutrient utilization, performance, and health of poultry. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 10:2-11

Yang, X. ; W. Li ; Y. Feng and J. Yao (2011). Effects of immune stress on growth performance, immunity, and cecal microflora in chickens. Poult. Sci., 90:2740-2746.

تأثیر نظامین للإسکان على الأداء الإنتاجى وبعض الصفات الفسیولوجیة لدجاج التسمین المربى فى مساکن مغلقة

عبد العظیم فهمی عبدالعظیم – محمد عبدالمنعم الجمل – أحمد صلاح الدین

قسم الإنتاج الحیوانى – کلیة الزراعة – جامعة الأزهر – مدینة نصر – القاهرة - مصر

تم تنفیذ هذا البحث لدراسة تأثیر نظام التربیة على الأرض مقارنة بالتربیة فى بطاریات على الأداء الانتاجى وبعض الصفات الفسیولوجیة لدجاج التسمین المربى فى مساکن مغلقة. حیث تم اختیار عدد 3120 کتکوت بشکل عشوائی لکل من النظامین (نظام التربیة على الأرض – نظام التربیة فى بطاریات). تم تقسیم عدد الکتاکیت التى تم اختیارها عشوائیًا إلى مجموعتین لکل من النظامین النظام الاول وهو نظام التربیة فی بطاریات أحتوى على عدد 1560 کتکوت، بینما النظام الثانى وهو نظام التربیة على الأرض أحتوى أیضًا على عدد 1560 کتکوت. تم توزیع الطیور التى تم اختیارها عشوائیًا على أربع مکررات لکل نظام إسکان بحیث تحتوی کل مکررة على 390 کتکوت. أظهرت النتائج أن الأداء الإنتاجى للطیور والمتمثل فی وزن الجسم الحی ووزن الجسم المکتسب والحیویة ومعامل کفاءة الإنتاج الأوربى کانت أعلى معنویًا للطیور المرباه فى نظام البطاریات مقارنة بتلک الطیور المرباه على الأرض، ومعامل تحویل الغذاء کان أفضل للطیور المرباه فى بطاریات مقارنة بالطیور المرباه على الأرض. بینما أشارت النتائج إلى أن العد الکلى للبکتریا فى الزرق کان أعلى معنویًا للطیور المرباه على الأرض مقارنة بتلک الطیور المرباه فى بطاریات. کما أظهرت النتائج عن وجود فروق غیر معنویة لمعظم قیاسات مکونات الدم الکیمیائیة باستثناء نسبة خلایا الهیتروفیل إلى خلایا اللیمفوسایت حیث کانت قیم مکونات الدم الکیمیائیة للطیور المرباه على الأرض أعلى من الطیور المرباه فى بطاریات. أظهرت النتائج أیضًا أنه لا یوجد اختلافات معنویة فى الاستجابة المناعیة للطیور المربأة سواء فی بطاریات أو على الأرض. فى حین أظهرت النتائج أن قیم کل من الحوائج (الکبد + القلب + القانصة) ودهون البطن والذبیحة الفارغة کانت أعلى معنویًا للطیور المرباه فى بطاریات مقارنة بتلک المرباه على الأرض، بینما لوحظ اختلافات غیر معنویة فى الترکیب الکیماوى للذبیحة بین نظامى الإسکان. وعمومًا من خلال النتائج المتحصل علیها یمکن أن نستخلص أن دجاج التسمین المربى فى البطاریات أظهر أداء إنتاجى وفسیولوجى أفضل من دجاج التسمین المربى على الأرض.