Korean Journal of Poultry Science (한국가금학회지)

The Korean Society of Poultry Science (한국가금학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Housing Systems of Cage and Floor on the Production Performance and Stress Response in Layer

계사 사육 형태가 산란계의 생산성과 스트레스 반응에 미치는 영향

  • Sohn, Sea-Hwan (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jang, In-Surk (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Son, Bo-Ram (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology)
  • 손시환 (경남과학기술대학교 동물생명과학과) ;
  • 장인석 (경남과학기술대학교 동물생명과학과) ;
  • 손보람 (경남과학기술대학교 동물생명과학과)
  • Received : 2011.09.28
  • Accepted : 2011.10.28
  • Published : 2011.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of housing systems on the productivity and physiological response as stress indicators in White Leghorn chickens. The chickens subjected to the conventional cages had a significantly lower viability, hen-housed egg production, egg weight and body weight compared with those to the floor pens. However, the hens housed in the conventional cages had a shorter day of the first egg and a greater egg quality compared with those housed in the floor pens. In addition, this study was also investigated to identify biological markers for assessing the physiological response of chickens under stress conditions. As biological markers, the amount of telomeric DNA was analyzed by quantitative fluorescent in situ hybridization on the nuclei of cells. The DNA damage rate of lymphocytes was also quantified by the comet assay. The amount of telomeric DNA of the lymphocytes, kidney and spleen was significantly higher in the chickens under floor pens than those under conventional cages. The DNA damage also increased in chickens raised under conventional cages, as compared to the chickens under floor pens. As results, we conclude that the chickens housed in conventional cages have a greater stressful status than those housed in floor pens.

계사 사육 형태에 따른 닭의 스트레스 정도를 알아보기 위하여 단관백색레그혼종을 대상으로 케이지 사육 및 평사 사육으로 관리 후 이들의 생산 능력과 스트레스 관련 표지를 비교 분석하였다. 개체의 생산 능력에 있어 생존율, 산란 지수, 난중 및 체중은 평사 사육군이 케이지 사육군에 비해 유의하게 높은 성적을 보였고, 반면 초산 일령 및 난질의 경우 케이지 사육군이 양호한 결과를 나타내었다. 사육 형태에 따른 닭의 스트레스 관련 표지로 형광접합보인법에 의한 텔로미어 함량 분석 및 comet assay에 의한 DNA 손상율을 비교 분석하였다. 텔로미어 함량 분석 결과, 혈액 세포 및 신장, 비장 세포의 경우 평사 사육군이 케이지 사육군에 비해 유의하게 높은 텔로미어 함유율을 보이고, 연령이 증가함에 따라 이의 차이는 더욱 커지는 것으로 나타났다. DNA 손상율은 케이지 사육군이 평사 사육군에 비해 유의하게 높은 손상율을 나타내어 케이지 사육이 평사 사육에 비해 훨씬 높은 스트레스 상태임을 알 수 있었다. 따라서 생존율을 포함한 생산 능력과 스트레스 표지 분석 결과, 산란계에 있어 케이지 사육 방식이 평사 사육 방식보다 개체들에게 생리적 스트레스 요인이 상대적으로 큰 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R, Appleby MC 1996 Behaviour, health and integument of four hybrids of laying hens in modified and conventional cages. Br Poult Sci 37:521-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071669608417882
  2. 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.
  3. Anderson KE, Adams AW 1994 Effects of cage versus floor rearing environments and cage floor mesh size on bone strength, fearfulness, and production of single comb White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci 73:1233-1240. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0731233
  4. Baxter MR 1994 The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Vet Rec 134:614-619. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.134.24.614
  5. Beloor J, Kang HK, Kim YJ, Subramani VK, Jang IS, Sohn SH, Moon YS 2010 The effect of stocking density on stress related genes and telomeric broiler chickens. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 23:437-443. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2010.90400
  6. Butterworth A 2009 EU FP6 Welfare $Quality^{\circledR}$ poultry assesment systems. Korean J Poult Sci 36:239-246. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2009.36.3.239
  7. Chen JH, Hales CN, Ozanne SE 2007 DNA damage, cellular senescence and organismal ageing: causal or correlative? Nucleic Acids Res 35:7417-7428. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm681
  8. Cottliar AS, Slavutsky IR 2001 Telomeres and telomerase activity: their role in aging and in neoplastic development. Medicina 61:335-342.
  9. Felten SY, Madden KS, Bellinger DL, Kruszewska B, Moynihan JA, Felten DL 1998 The role of the sympathetic nervous system in the modulation of immune responses. Adv Pharmacol 42:583-587.
  10. Freire R, Wilkins LJ, Short F, Nicol CJ 2003 Behaviour and welfare of individual laying hens in a non-cage system. Br Poult Sci 44:22-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007166031000085391
  11. Guesdon V, Ahmed AM, Mallet S, Faure JM, Nys Y 2006 Effects of beak trimming and cage design on laying hen performance and egg quality. Br Poult Sci 47:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660500468124
  12. Hangalapura BN, Kaiser MG, Poel JJ, Parmentier HK, Lamont SJ 2006 Cold stress equally enhances in vivo proinflammatory cytokine gene expression in chicken lines divergently selected for antibody responses. Dev Comp Immunol 30:503-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2005.07.001
  13. Kang SH, Ko YH, Moon YS, Sohn SH, Jang IS 2011 Effects of the combined stress induced by stocking density and feed restriction on hematological and cytokine parameters as stress indicators in laying hens. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci 24:414-420. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.10315
  14. Langhout DJ 2005 Development of European poultry industry in a global market. Proceedings of 2005 KSPS International Symposium:25-39.
  15. 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
  16. Mashaly MM, Hendricks GL 3rd, Kalama MA, Gehad AE, Abbas AO, Patterson PH 2004 Effect of heat stress on production parameters and immune responses of commercial laying hens. Poultry Sci 83:889-894. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/83.6.889
  17. Mashaly MM, Webb ML, Youtz SL, Roush WB, Graves HB 1984 Changes in serum corticosterone concentration of laying hens as a response to increased population density. Poultry Sci 63:2271-2274. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0632271
  18. Meeker AK, Coffey DS 1997 Telomerase: a promising marker of biological immortality of germ, stem, and cancer cells. Biochemistry 62:1323-1331.
  19. 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
  20. Richter C, Park JW, Ames BN 1988 Normal oxidative damage to mitochondrial and nuclear DNA is extensive. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:6465-6467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.17.6465
  21. Richter T, Proctor C 2007 The role of intracellular peroxide levels on the development and maintenance of telomeredependent senescence. Exp Gerontol 42:1043-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2007.08.004
  22. Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FA, Sonck B, De Reu K, Herman L, Zoons J 2005 Welfare, health, and hygiene of laying hens housed in furnished cages and in alternative housing systems. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 8(3):211-226. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0803_5
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Taylor AA, Hurnik JF 1996 The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Sci 75:47-51. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0750047
  27. 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
  28. Turkyilmaz MK 2008 Effect of stocking density on stress reaction in broiler chickens during summer. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 32(1):31-36.
  29. Tuyttens FA, Sonck B, Staes M, Van Gansbeke S, Van den Bogaert T, Ampe B 2011 Survey of egg producers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Sci 90(4):941-950. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01122
  30. Vits A, Weitzenburger D, Distl O 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.
  31. Von Zglinicki T 2002 Oxidative stress shortens telomeres. Trends Biochem Sci 27:339-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0004(02)02110-2

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Stress Response between Korean Native Chickens and Single Comb White Leghorns subjected to a High Stocking Density vol.41, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2014.41.2.115
  2. Inheritance and Heritability of Telomere Length in Chicken vol.41, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2014.41.3.217
  3. Dynamics of telomere length in the chicken vol.70, pp.04, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933914000804
  4. Comparison of Stress Response in Diallel Crossed Korean Domestic Chicken Breeds vol.43, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2016.43.2.77
  5. The Relationship of the Expressions of Stress-related Markers and Their Production Performances in Korean Domestic Chicken Breed vol.43, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2016.43.3.177
  6. Effects of Production Performance, Immunity and Egg Quality by Raising on Exercise Yard in Laying Hens vol.40, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2013.40.2.097
  7. Glutamine-supplement Diet Maintains Growth Performance and Reduces Blood Corticosterone Level in Cage-reared Growing Chicks vol.52, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2018.52.3.91