Influence of the preplacement holding time and feeding hydration supplementation before placement on yolk sac utilization, the crop filling rate, feeding behavior and first-week broiler performance

Özlü, Serdar; Erkuş, T; Kamanli, Serdar; Nicholson, A.D.; Elibol, Okan

doi:10.1016/j.psj.2022.102056

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have shown that provision of hydrogels during the post‐hatch holding period improves growth performance of broilers, poults and emus (Dibner et al., 1998 ; Noy and Sklan, 1999 ; Batal and Parsons, 2002 ; Mozdziak et al., 2002 ), but has no effect on mortality rates (Noy and Sklan, 1999 ; Batal and Parsons, 2002 ; Henderson et al., 2008 ; Lowman and Parkhurst, 2014 ; Özlü et al., 2022 ). However, a recent study showed no effects of provision of hydrogels in the chick boxes during the preplacement holding period on the yolk‐free body mass or residual yolk sac of broilers at placement, the state of crop filling 3 h after placement in the barn or on the body weight gain and cumulative mortality after the first week (Özlü et al., 2022 ). No recordings were made of whether or to what extent the hydrogel was ingested by the chicks, complicating interpretations of the results.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasing space allowance in the chick boxes, increasing ventilation and reducing environmental temperature to the thermocomfort zone of the chicks and providing water via gel while in the boxes will reduce the risk of overheating (effective temperature > 35°C) and otherwise exacerbate the negative welfare consequences of prolonged thirst (Maman et al., 2019). Several studies have shown that provision of hydrogels during the post‐hatch holding period improves growth performance of broilers, poults and emus (Dibner et al., 1998; Noy and Sklan, 1999; Batal and Parsons, 2002; Mozdziak et al., 2002), but has no effect on mortality rates (Noy and Sklan, 1999; Batal and Parsons, 2002; Henderson et al., 2008; Lowman and Parkhurst, 2014; Özlü et al., 2022). However, a recent study showed no effects of provision of hydrogels in the chick boxes during the preplacement holding period on the yolk‐free body mass or residual yolk sac of broilers at placement, the state of crop filling 3 h after placement in the barn or on the body weight gain and cumulative mortality after the first week (Özlü et al., 2022).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare of broilers on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Scientific Opinion considers the welfare of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus) related to the production of meat (broilers) and includes the keeping of day-old chicks, broiler breeders, and broiler chickens. Currently used husbandry systems in the EU are described. Overall, 19 highly relevant welfare consequences (WCs) were identified based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: 'bone lesions', 'cold stress', 'gastro-enteric disorders', 'group stress', 'handling stress', 'heat stress', 'isolation stress', 'inability to perform comfort behaviour', 'inability to perform exploratory or foraging behaviour', 'inability to avoid unwanted sexual behaviour', 'locomotory disorders', 'prolonged hunger', 'prolonged thirst', 'predation stress', 'restriction of movement', 'resting problems', 'sensory under-and overstimulation', 'soft tissue and integument damage' and 'umbilical disorders'. These WCs and their animal-based measures (ABMs) that can identify them are described in detail. A variety of hazards related to the different husbandry systems were identified as well as ABMs for assessing the different WCs. Measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate each of the WCs are listed. Recommendations are provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of broilers and related to genetic selection, temperature, feed and water restriction, use of cages, light, air quality and mutilations in breeders such as beak trimming, de-toeing and comb dubbing. In addition, minimal requirements (e.g. stocking density, group size, nests, provision of litter, perches and platforms, drinkers and feeders, of covered veranda and outdoor range) for an enclosure for keeping broiler chickens (fast-growing, slower-growing and broiler breeders) are recommended. Finally, 'total mortality', 'wounds', 'carcass condemnation' and 'footpad dermatitis' are proposed as indicators for monitoring at slaughter the welfare of broilers on-farm.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Welfare of broilers on farm

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of cold stress on physiologic metabolism in the initial phase and performance of broiler rearing

Moreira,

Sousa,

Guamán

et al. 2024

Journal of Thermal Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects and Interactions of Incubation Time and Preplacement Holding Time on Mortality at Placement, Yolk Sac Utilization, Early Feeding Behavior and Broiler Live Performance

Elibol,

Özlü,

Erkuş

et al. 2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects and interactions of incubation time and chick preplacement holding time on mortality at placement, utilization of yolk sac, crop filling rate, early feeding–drinking behavior, and broiler live performance were investigated. Ross 308 broiler hatching eggs from a 39-week-old flock were set in two identical setters in a commercial hatchery, with the setting time 12 h earlier in one machine. At the end of incubation, chicks were removed from the hatchers at the same time. Thus, the incubation times were either 504 h (normal incubation time (NIT) treatment) or 516 h (longer incubation time (LIT) treatment). After the pull time, chicks from each incubation time group were subjected to either 6, 24, 48, 60, or 72 h preplacement holding times. At placement, chicks were given access to feed and water. In total, 19,200 chicks were randomly assigned to a total of 10 subtreatment groups (2 incubation times × 5 preplacement holding times). Therefore, a total of 1920 chicks were used in each subtreatment group for the grow-out period in a commercial broiler house. For the first week of the experiment, 160 randomly selected as-hatched (not sexed) chicks were placed in 12 replicate floor pens (120 total pens). From the second week of age onward, chicks from two pens were combined into six replicate pens, with 320 chicks per replicate (60 total pens). An interaction was found between incubation time and preplacement holding time for residual yolk sac (RYS) weight (g, %) (p < 0.001). RYS weight was greater at pull time and at 6 and 24 h of preplacement holding in the NIT treatment compared to the LIT treatment, while differences were no longer evident at 48–72 h. The lowest percentage of chicks with full crops and eating activity was observed in the shortest preplacement holding time (6 h) group at 3 h after placement. As expected, the initial BW at placement clearly decreased with increasing duration after the pull time (p < 0.05), with the highest and lowest weights found in the 6 and 72 h holding time treatments, respectively. This BW difference was still evident at 35 d after placement and chicks held for the longest period after the pull time (72 h) showed the lowest BW (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the 6 and 60 h preplacement holding times. Mortality during the first 7 d after placement increased only when the preplacement holding time was extended to 72 h (p = 0.031). Similarly to the 7 d results, chicks held for 72 h exhibited higher 0–35 day mortality compared to those held for 6 or 24 h (p = 0.028). Neither BW nor mortality was affected by incubation time treatment at 35 d after placement (p > 0.05). It can be concluded that there were no significant differences in average BW and mortality, up to and including a 60 h holding time under thermal comfort conditions, but a 72 h preplacement holding time resulted in final BW and mortality being negatively affected. In addition, LIT tended to have a beneficial effect on BW and mortality compared to NIT when the preplacement holding time was shorter (6–24 h) but had a negative effect for extended holding times (48–72 h).

show abstract

Influence of the preplacement holding time and feeding hydration supplementation before placement on yolk sac utilization, the crop filling rate, feeding behavior and first-week broiler performance

Cited by 4 publications

References 49 publications

Welfare of broilers on farm

Welfare of broilers on farm

Effects of cold stress on physiologic metabolism in the initial phase and performance of broiler rearing

Effects and Interactions of Incubation Time and Preplacement Holding Time on Mortality at Placement, Yolk Sac Utilization, Early Feeding Behavior and Broiler Live Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About