Yumurta tavukçuluğunda kullanılan yetiştirme sistemleri

Avrupa Birli ğ i (AB)nin 1999/74/EC konsey kararı yla 1 Ocak 2012den itibaren konvensiyonel kafessistemlerinin ABye üye ülkelerde yasaklanmas ı yla yumurta tavukçulu ğ unda alternatif sistemlerinkullan ı lmas ı gündeme gelmi ş tir. Türkiyenin ABye üye olma sürecinde oldu ğu göz önüne al ı narakyumurta tavukçulu ğ unda kullan ı lan yeti ş tirme sistemlerinin yap ı ları n ı n, avantaj ve dezavantajları n ı nbilinmesi mevcut i ş letmelerin sürdürülebilirli ğ i ve sektöre yeni ad ı m atacak yeti ş tiricilerinde ğ i ş ikliklere haz ı rl ı kl ı olmaları aç ı s ı ndan önemlidir. Bu konuda Türkiyede yap ı lacak ara ş tı rmaları nyumurta tavukçulu ğ u sektörüne katkı ları olaca ğ ı dü ş ünülmektedir.

Breeding systems used in laying hens

Since conventional cage systems banned in European Union (EU) member states in January 1,2012 with council directive 1997/74/EC, a need of using alternative systems for egg production hasincreased. Considering accession process of Turkey to EU, knowing structure, advantage anddisadvantages of the breeding systems of egg poultry are important for the sustainability of theexisting enterprises and preparedness for the changes of new enterprises. Researches which willbe conducted in Turkey on this subject are expected to have contribution to the egg productionsector.

PDF

___

1. Yı ld ı z T. Tavukçuluk sektör analizi. http://www.kuzka. org.tr/ContentDownload/GG3D1Tavukculuk_Sektor_Analizi .pdf/ 08.07.2013.
2. Şekero ğ lu A, Sarica M, Demir E, et al. Effects of differenthousingsystems on some performance traits and egg qualities of laying hens. J Anim Vet Adv 2010; 9: 1739- 1744.
3. Anonim. Hayvanc ı l ı k istatistikleri. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/ PreTablo.do?alt_id=1002#/ 31.10.2013.
4. Anonim. Livestock and fish primary equivalent. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostatgateway/go/to/download/C/CL /E/31.10.2013.
5. Anonim. Yumurta tavukçulu ğ u veriler 2012. http://www.yumbir.org/UserFiles/File/yumurta%20tavukculu gu%202012.pdf/08.07.2013.
6. Anonim. The review of Layer hen housing. http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-planthealth/welfare/reports/ layer-hen/review/ 28.08.2013.
7. Bozkurt Z. Kafes ve alternatif sistemlerde yumurtac ı tavukları n refah ı . Kocatepe Veteriner Dergisi 2009; 2: 59- 67.
8. Anonim. Description of housing systems for laying hens. http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/deliverable%2023.pdf/ 28.04.2013.
9. Türko ğ lu M, Sarı ca M. Tavukçuluk Bilimi Yeti ş tirme, Besleme, Hastal ı klar. 3. Bask ı Ankara: Bey Ofset Matbaacı l ı k, 2009.
10. Anonim. Animal husbandry guide lines for U.S. egg laying flocks. http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/UEP_ 2010_Animal_Welfare_Guidelines.pdf/ 02.05.2013.
11. Anonim. Council Directive. 99/74/EC. Minimum standarts for the protection of laying hens. Brussel, 1999.
12. Anonim. The case against cages evidence in favour of alternative systems for laying hens. http://www.rspca. org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetI d=1232712906556&mode=prd/ 02.05.2013.
13. Knight A. Advancing animal welf are standards within the veterinary profession. http://www.veterinaria.org/revistas/ redvet/n101008B/BA023.pdf/ 01.07.2013.
14. Anonim. Fact sheet: Battery Cages. http://www. animalvisuals.org/projects/empathy/virtualbatterycage/ 02.05.2013.
15. Pickett H. Alternatives to the barren battery cage for the housing of laying hens in the European Union. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/ a/alternatives_to_the_barren_battery_cage_in_the_eu.pdf/ 02.05.2013.
16. Appleby MC. The European Union ban on conventional cages for laying hens: History and prospects. J Appl Anim WelfSci 2003; 6: 103-121.
17. Dereli Fidan E. Türkiyede çiftlik hayvanları ile ilgili refah uygulamaları . Animal Health Prodand Hyg 2012; 1: 39-46.
18. Atasoy F. Tavuk yeti ş tiricili ğ inde altl ı ğ ı n kullan ı lmas ı ve önemi. Lalahan Hay Ara ş t Enst Derg 2000; 40: 90-97.
19. Shields S, Duncan IJH. An HSUS report: A Comparison of the welfare of hens in battery cages and alternative systems. http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/ hsus-a-comparison-of-the-welfare-of-hens-in-battery- cages-and-alternative-systems.pdf/ 28.04.2013.
20. Anonim. Resmi Gazete. Çiftlik hayvanları n ı n refah ı na ili ş kin yönetmelik. 18.08.2010 tarihli, 28151 sayı l ı yönetmelik 21.09.2013.
21. Thiele HH, Pottgüter R. Management recommendations for laying hens in deep litter, perchery and free range systems. Lohmann Information 2008; 43: 53.
22. Anonim.Housing systems of poultry. http://agriinfo.in/ default.aspx?page=topic&superid=9&topicid=103/ 02.05.2013.
23. Anonim. Laying hens: Free-range requirements. http:// www.certifiedhumane.org/uploads/pdf/Fact%20Sheets/free _range_hens.pdf/ 29.07.2013.
24. Anonim. Cage-free eggs: A comparison of labels. http://www.humanefood.ca/pdf%20links/cage-free-eggs- new-logo-v4.pdf/ 02.05.2013.
25. LayJr DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Sci 2011; 90: 278- 294.
26. Anonim. Critical welfare issues and possible solutions in layers. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/seminars/ docs/01022011_budapest_Knut%20NIEBUHR%20%20Crit ical%20welfare%20issues%20%20layers.pdf/ 06.08.2013.
27. Tuyttens FAM, Sonck B, Staes M, et al. Survey of eggproducers on the introduction of alternative housing systems for laying hens in Flanders, Belgium Poultry Science 2011; 90: 941-950.
28. Poyraz Ö. Bir ticari yumurtacı tavuk sürüsünde kümes sisteminin verim performans ı üzerine etkisi. AÜ VetHek Fak Derg 1987; 34: 503-512.
29. Anonim. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. http://www.laywel.eu/web/pdf/ deliverable%2071%20welfare%20assessment.pdf/ 06.09.2013.
30. Rodenburg TB, Tuyttens FAM, De Reu K, et al. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non- cage systems: An on-farm comparison. Anim Welf 2008; 17: 363-373.
31. Fossum O, Jansson DS, Etterline PE, Vagsholm I. Cause of mortality in laying hens in different systems in 2001- 2004. Acta Vet Scand 2009; 51: 3.
32. Valkonen E, Rinne R, Valaja J. Effects of perch on feed consumption and behaviour of caged laying hens. Agr Food Sci 2009; 18: 257-267.
33. Hester PY, Enneking KY, Haley BK, et al. The effect of perch availability during pulletrearing and egg laying on musculo skeletal health of caged White Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci 2013; 92: 1972-1980
34. Donaldson CJ, OConnell NE. The influence of Access toaerial perches on fear fulness, social behaviour and production parameters infree-range laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012; 142: 51-60.
35. Van Der Zijpp AJ, Mollenhorst H, Berentsen PMB, Deboer IJJ. Alternatives for the battery cage system: A comparison of economic, envorimental and societal performance. World's Poult Sci J, 2006; 62: 587-588.
36. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R. Effects of group size on performance, healt hand birds use of facilities in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agric Scand 1997; 45: 191- 203.
37. Vits A, Weitzenburger D, Hamann H, Distl O. Production, egg quality, bone strength, claw length, andkeel bone deformities of laying hens housed in furnished cages with different group sizes. Poultry Sci 2005; 84: 1511-1519.
38. Pedersen S, Nonnenmann M, Rautiainen R, et al. Dust in pig buildings. J Agric Saf Health 2000; 6: 261-274.
39. Guarino M, Caroli A, Navarotto P. Dust concentration and mortality distribution in an enclosed laying house. Trans ASAE 1999; 42: 1127-1133.
40. Guesdon V, Faure JM. Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Anim Res 2004; 53: 45-57.
41. Tanaka T, Hurnik JF. Comparison of behavior and performance of laying hens housed in battery cages and an aviary. Poultry Sci 1992; 71: 235-243.
42. Abrahamsson P, Tauson R, Elwinger K. Effects on production, health and egg quality of varying proportions of wheat and barley in diets fortwohy brids of laying hens kept in different housing systems. Acta Agric Scand Anim Sci 1996; 46: 173-182.
43. Mertens K, Barnelis B, Kemps B, et al. Monitoring of egg shell break age and egg shell strength in different production chains of consumption eggs. Poultry Sci 2006; 85: 1670-1677.
44. Tauson R, Wahlstrom A, Abrahamsson P. Effect of two flor housing systems and cages on health production, and fear response in layers. J App Poultry Res 1999; 8: 152-159.
45. Petek M, Alpay F, Gezen SS, Çı b ı k R. Effects of housing systemand age on early stage egg production and quality in commercial laying hens. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 2009;15: 57-62.
46. Karadas F, Wood NAR, Surai PF, Sparks NHC. Tissue- specific distribution of carotenoid sand vitamin E in tissues of newly hatched chicks from various avian species. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2005; 140: 506511.
47. Pistekova V, Hovorka M, Vecerek V, et al. The quality comparison of eggs laid by laying hens kept in battery cage sand in a deep litter system. Czech J Anim Sci 2006; 51: 318-325.
48. Samman S, Kung FP, Carter LM, Foster MJ, Ahmad ZI. Fatty acid composition of certified organic, conventional and omega-3 eggs. Food Chem 2009; 116: 911-914.
49. Anderson KE. Comparison of fatty acid, cholesterol, and vitamin A and E composition in eggs from hens housed in conventional cage and range production facilities, Poultry Sci 2011; 90: 1600-1608.
50. Küçüky ı lmaz K, Bozkurt M, Yamaner Ç, et al. Effect of an organic and conventional rearing system on the mineral content of hen eggs. Food Chem 2012; 132: 989-992.