0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of stocking density on large white, commercial tom turkeys reared to 20 weeks of age: 1. growth and performance

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Industry standards for turkey stocking densities are variable and may not represent the more rapidly growing strains currently available. Therefore, a study was completed to evaluate 4 stocking densities: a nominal density (0.3525 m 2/bird), 10% tighter density (0.3169 m 2/bird), 10% looser density (0.3882 m 2/bird), and 20% looser density (0.4238 m 2/bird) on the effects on large white, commercial male turkeys with regard to performance from 5 to 20 wk of age. Brooding stocking density was fixed for all pens of birds with 60 birds per replicate pen at 0.46 m 2/bird to 5 wk of age. Density treatments were applied from 5 to 20 wk by altering pen size with pen population held constant at 60 per pen. There were 4 pens of birds per density treatment. Birds were weighed individually at 0, 5, and 20 wk of age and performance parameters were calculated. There were no differences in bird performance at 5 wk, which was expected because stocking density was fixed. From 5 to 20 wk and at 20 wk, birds that were reared at the nominal standard (0.3525 m 2/bird) and 10% tighter density (0.3169 m 2/bird) had significantly lower body weight compared with the 10% looser density (0.3882 m 2/bird) and 20% looser density (0.4238 m 2/bird) ( P = 0.03 and 0.01, respectfully). The feed conversion ratio ( FCR) tended ( P = 0.08) to be improved for birds reared at looser density. In addition, based on linear regression, as stocking density decreased (i.e., m 2/bird increased), BW ( P < 0.05) increased, and FCR ( P = 0.10) tended to decrease (improve) at 20 wk. It was concluded that birds reared at looser density had improved performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density.

          Intensive broiler (meat) chicken production now exceeds 800 million birds each year in the United Kingdom and 2 x 10(10) birds worldwide, but it attracts accusations of poor welfare. The European Union is currently adopting standards for broilers aimed at a chief welfare concern--namely, overcrowding--by limiting maximum 'stocking density' (bird weight per unit area). It is not clear, however, whether this will genuinely improve bird welfare because evidence is contradictory. Here we report on broiler welfare in relation to the European Union proposals through a large-scale study (2.7 million birds) with the unprecedented cooperation of ten major broiler producers in an experimental manipulation of stocking density under a range of commercial conditions. Producer companies stocked birds to five different final densities, but otherwise followed company practice, which we recorded in addition to temperature, humidity, litter and air quality. We assessed welfare through mortality, physiology, behaviour and health, with an emphasis on leg health and walking ability. Our results show that differences among producers in the environment that they provide for chickens have more impact on welfare than has stocking density itself.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Comparison of the performance of 1966- versus 2003-type turkeys when fed representative 1966 and 2003 turkey diets: growth rate, livability, and feed conversion.

            Body weight, livability, and feed conversion of a randombred control turkey line (RBC2) started in 1966 at The Ohio State University was compared with that of modern commercial turkeys hatched in 2003 when fed representative 1966- and 2003-type diets from hatch (March 5, 2003) through 196 d of age. Each pen of modern turkeys consisted of 5 birds each of the Nicholas, British United Turkeys of America, and Hybrid strains. Eight groups (i.e., 2 strains (RBC2 vs. modern), 2 sexes, and 2 dietary regimens) were randomly assigned into each of 4 blocks of 8 litter floor pens (32 total) for growout. Using the BW performance of the 2 strains on the modern feed as the basis, the study showed that the 2003 turkeys were approximately twice as heavy as the 1966 RBC2 at the 4 slaughter ages and that tom weights have increased by 186, 208, 227, and 241 g/yr, and hen weights have increased by 164, 179, 186, and 205 g/yr at 112, 140, 168, and 196 d of age, respectively, over the past 37 yr. Cumulative feed conversion (kg of feed/kg of BW) was approximately 20% better in the 2003 tom turkey on the 2003 feed (2.638) than in the RBC2 tom on the 1966 feed (3.278) at 20 wk of age. Feed efficiency to 11 kg of BW in the 2003 toms (2.132 at 98 d of age) was approximately 50% better than in the RBC2 toms (4.208 at 196 d of age). The number of days to reach that weight was halved during this period of time. Growth performance during the different periods of the study appeared to be strongly affected by type of feed used and seasonal changes in ambient temperature. Overall livability was very good for all groups, but the mortality level of the RBC2 was consistently higher, although not significantly so, than for the modern birds.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Review of the social and environmental factors affecting the behavior and welfare of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo).

              In modern rearing systems, turkey producers often face economic losses due to increased aggression, feather pecking, cannibalism, leg disorders, or injuries among birds, which are also significant welfare issues. The main underlying causes appear to relate to rapid growth, flock size, density, poor environmental complexity, or lighting, which may be deficient in providing the birds with an adequate physical or social environment. To date, there is little information regarding the effect of these factors on turkey welfare. This knowledge is, however, essential to ensure the welfare of turkeys and to improve their quality of life, but may also be beneficial to industry, allowing better bird performance, improved carcass quality, and reduced mortality and condemnations. This paper reviews the available scientific literature related to the behavior of turkeys as influenced by the physical and social environment that may be relevant to advances toward turkey production systems that take welfare into consideration. We addressed the effects that factors such as density, group size, space availability, maturation, lightning, feeding, and transport may have over parameters that may be relevant to ensure welfare of turkeys. Available scientific studies were based in experimental environments and identified individual factors corresponding to particular welfare problems. Most of the studies aimed at finding optimal levels of rearing conditions that allow avoiding or decreasing most severe welfare issues. This paper discusses the importance of these factors for development of production environments that would be better suited from a welfare and economic point of view.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Poult Sci
                Poult Sci
                Poultry Science
                Elsevier
                0032-5791
                1525-3171
                28 August 2020
                November 2020
                28 August 2020
                : 99
                : 11
                : 5582-5586
                Affiliations
                [1]Prestage Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
                Author notes
                [1 ]Corresponding author: jgrimes@ 123456ncsu.edu
                Article
                S0032-5791(20)30562-9
                10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.024
                7647858
                33142475
                4eef1642-8151-4ad8-8b0a-96e561ddeb6f
                © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Poultry Science Association Inc.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                : 12 August 2020
                Categories
                Management and Production

                turkey,stocking density,growth,performance
                turkey, stocking density, growth, performance

                Comments

                Comment on this article