DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study of Analysis on Comparison of Laying Performance and Disease Occurrence of Welfare Approved Farms of Laying Hens with Housing Type

산란계 동물복지 인증농가의 사육형태와 품종별 생산성 및 질병발생 비교 분석 연구

  • Hong, Eui-Chul (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kang, Hwan-Ku (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Park, Ki-Tae (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Jeon, Jin-Joo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Soo (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Park, Sung-Bok (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Chan-Ho (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Suh, Sang-Won (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Ho (Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA)
  • 홍의철 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 강환구 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 박기태 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 전진주 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김현수 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 박성복 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김찬호 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 서상원 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소) ;
  • 김상호 (국립축산과학원 가금연구소)
  • Received : 2017.06.05
  • Accepted : 2017.06.22
  • Published : 2017.06.30

Abstract

This study was carried out to collect basic data on the egg laying performance and disease occurrence on animal welfare-approved farms (AWAF) for laying hens with different housing types (windowless, open, and free-range house) and strains (Hy-line, Lohmann). Age at first egg laying was 151 d in the windowless house and 141 d in both the open and free-range houses, and the percentage peaks of each farm were 91.8%, 92.9%, and 86.3%. Average egg production according to housing types were 70.9%, 77.4%, and 65.6% at 18~38 wk old and 91.1%, 90.1%, and 76.2% at 32~36 wk. The average dirty and cracked egg ratio of the windowless, open, and free-range houses was 2.84%, 1.15%, and 0.23%, respectively. Mortality in the open house was lower than the other house types. Age of first egg laying for the Hy-line strain was 155 d and that for the Lohmann strain was 157 d, and the percentage peaks of the two strains were 92.9% (252 d) and 87.2% (237 d), respectively. Average egg production of the strains was 83.7% and 76.9%, respectively. The average dirty and cracked egg ratio of the Hy-Line and Lohmann strains was 3.85% and 2.97%, respectively. Mortality of the Hy-Line strain was lower than that of the Lohmann strain. There were significant differences (P<0.05) in the egg weight, HU, and egg yolk color of chickens raised in the open house compared with those of chickens raised in the other house types. In terms of antibody titer, that for Newcastle disease in open house chickens was lower than that of chickens raised in windowless and free-range houses. The antibody titer for low pathogenic avian influenza, avian infectious bronchitis, and avian pneumovirus was high at over 3.0 in all three farms. SG, Salmonella enteritidis, Salmonella pullorum, fowl adenovirus infection, and infectious laryngotrachitis were not detected in any of the three house types. The number of AWAF for laying hens has continuously increased in Korea, but there is currently little data on the housing types used on the AWAF for laying hens. Therefore, the results of the present study, in which analyzed the laying performance and disease occurrence on AWAF for laying hens, can use as basic data for the improvement of performance and prevention of disease on further AWFA for laying hens.

본 연구는 국내 산란계 동물복지 인증농가의 사육형태(무창, 개방, 방사)와 품종별(Hy-Line, Lohmann) 생산성과 질병발생에 대한 기초자료를 수집하기 위해 수행하였다. 초산일령은 무창 151일, 개방과 방사형 계사에서 각각 141일령이었으며, 각 계사의 산란피크는 91.8%, 92.9% 및 86.3%이었다. 사육형태에 따른 18~37주령 산란율은 무창, 개방, 방사에서 각각 70.9%, 77.4% 및 65.6%였으며, 32~36주령 산란율은 91.9%, 90.1% 및 76.2%였다. 평균 오 파란율은 무창, 개방, 방사형 계사에서 각각 2.84%, 1.15% 및 0.23%로 나타났다. 개방계사의 폐사율이 다른 사육형태에 비해 낮았다. Hy-Line의 초산일령은 155일, Lohmanndms 157일이었으며, 산란피크는 각각 92.9%(252일)와 97.2%(237일)이었다. 품종에 따른 평균 산란율은 Hy-Line 83.7%, Lohmann 76.9%였다. Hy-Line의 폐사율은 Lohmann종에 비해 낮게 나타났다. 난중, Haugh unit 및 난황색은 방사형 계사에서 유의적인 차이를 보였다(P<0.05). ND의 항체역가는 개방계사에서 낮았으며, IB와 APV의 항체역가는 3농가 모두 높게 나타났다. SG, SE, SP, FAdV 및 ILT는 사육형태에 따른 세 농가에서 검출되지 않았다. 국내 산란계 동물복지 인증농가는 증가하는 반면 산란계 동물복지 인증농가의 사육형태에 따른 자료들은 매우 부족하다. 따라서 본 연구는 산란계 동물복지 인증농가의 사육형태별 생산성 및 질병발생에 대해 분석한 자료이며, 향후 국내 동물복지 인증을 받은 산란계 농장의 생산성 향상 및 질병예방을 위한 기초자료로서 활용할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahammad M, Chae BJ, Lohakare J, Keohavong B, Lee MH, Lee SJ, Kim DM, Lee JY, Ohh SJ 2014 Comparison of aviary, barn and conventional cage raising of chickens on laying performance and egg quality. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 27:1196-1230. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13394
  2. APMS 2016 Animal welfare approved system. Animal Protection Management System.
  3. Appleby MC, McRae HE 1986 The individual nest box as a super-stimulus for domestic hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 15:169-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90062-6
  4. APQA 2015 Note of Standard Diagnosis on Animal Disease. Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency.
  5. Auerbach MI, Glunder G, Beyerbach M, Weber R 2014 Varying antibody response of laying hens housed in an aviary system and in furnished cages. Berliner und Münchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 127:267-273.
  6. Burch D 2012 Laying hen mortality by system - a welfare guide? George Sidney The Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association 171:649-650.
  7. Casey W, Schmitt M, McFarland R, Isbrucker R, Levis R, Arciniega J, Descamps J, Finn T, Hendriksen C, James YH 2011 Improving animal welfare and reducing animal use for human vaccine potency testing: State of the science and future directions. Procedia in Vaccinology 5:33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2011.10.003
  8. Duncan DB 1955 Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478
  9. Hammershoj M, Steenfeldt S 2012 The effect of kale (Brassica oleracea spp. acephala), basil (Ocimum basilicum) and thyme (Thymus vulgaris) as forage material in organic egg production on egg quality. 53:245-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.681770
  10. Han ST, Lee CS, Kwak HK, Song JH, Lee JI 2003 The comparative study on Newcastle disease virus antibody titer by hemagglutination inhibition test and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Korean J Vet Serv 26:215-219.
  11. Humphrey T 2006 Are happy chickens safer chickens? Poultry welfare and disease susceptibility. Br Poult Sci 47:379-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660600829084
  12. Jeon JH, Lee JY, Park KH, Kim DH, Song JI 2012 A farm on alying hens' welfare in Korea. J Lives Hous & Env 18:151-156.
  13. Kim DW, Kang SM, Yang YR, Kim JM, Yoon HS, Jeon JH, Choi YH 2016 Egg quality in battery cage and free range systems: With reference to comparison of eggs based on price and hen's age. Korean J Org Agric 24:115-112. https://doi.org/10.11625/KJOA.2016.24.1.115
  14. Kim JM, Yoon HS, Hwangbo J, Kim SH, Choi YH 2012 Effects of an unexpected change in housing environment on stress in poultry. J Lives Hous & Env 18:183-190.
  15. Kim MJ, Choi HC, Suh OS, Chae HS, Na JC, Bang HT, Kim DW, Kang HK, Park SB 2010 A study of different sources and wavelengths of light on laying egg characteristics in laying hens 2010 Korean J Poult Sci 37:383-388. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2010.37.4.383
  16. Krawczyk J, Gornowicz E 2010 Quality of eggs hens kept in two different free-range systems in comparison with a barn system. Arch Geflugelk 74:151-157.
  17. Lay Jr DC, 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. Poult Sci 90:278-294. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-00962
  18. Lee HR, Lim JM, Kim JH, Kim CM, So HH, Lee DW, Ha BD, Hong SC, Mo IP 2010 Serological survey for the major viral disease in the layers. Korean J Poult Sci 37:361-372. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2010.37.4.361
  19. Lewis PD, Perry GC, Morris TR 1997 Effect of size and timing of photoperiod increase on age at first egg and subsequent performance of two breeds of laying hen. Br Poult Sci 38:142-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669708417959
  20. Meijsser FM, Hughes BO 1989 Comparative analysis of prelaying behaviour in battery cages and in three alternative systems. Br Poult Sci 30:747-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668908417200
  21. Pohle K, Cheng HW 2009 Comparative effects of furnished 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
  22. SAS 2012 SAS/STAT Software for PC. Release 9.2 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  23. Sherwin CM, Richards GJ, Nicol CJ 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
  24. Singh R, Cook N, Cheng KM, Silversides FG 2009 Invasive and noninvasive measurement of stress in laying hens kept in conventional cages and in floor pens. Poultry Sci 88:1346-1351. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00300
  25. Sohn SH, Jang IS, Son BR 2011 Effect of housing systems of cage and floor on the production performance and stress response in layer. Korean J Poult Sci 38:305-313. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2011.38.4.305
  26. 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 88:698-707. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00369