| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Vpliv odvračal na obnašanje, operjenost in poškodbe grodnice pri kokoših nesnicah
Authors:ID Šraj, Uroš (Author)
ID Zupan, Manja (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
ID Terčič, Dušan (Comentor)
Files:.pdf MAG_Sraj_Uros_2019.pdf (1,64 MB)
MD5: A6DB5B62F33CA144007D8AC387B3BE7D
PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/244861e3-a62f-470a-a4e3-26989e20321c
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:FKBV - Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Abstract:Namen raziskave je bil ovrednotiti uporabnost odvračal pri kokoših nesnicah za preprečevanje kljuvanja perja in kanibalizma. Uporabili smo dve odvračali iz patenta US2967128 A, katerih poglavitna aktivna snov je bil dimetil antranilat. Vsako od odvračal smo z razprševanjem nanašali na skupino 60 kokoši prelux-R uhlevljenih v obogatene kletke. Raziskava je potekala skozi celoleten proizvodni cikel kokoši v komercialnih pogojih reje. Poudarek smo dali vplivu odvračal na počutje kokoši, pri čemer smo obravnavali njihovo obnašanje, operjenost in poškodbe grodnice. Spremljali smo tudi proizvodne lastnosti in pogin. Ugotovili smo, da uporabljeni odvračali nimata vpliva na obnašanje kokoši. Kljub dejstvu, da v skupinah z odvračali nismo ugotovili več kljuvanja perja, so bile kokoši v teh skupinah, v primerjavi s kontrolno skupino, slabše operjene. Nezmanjšana podvrženost poškodbam grodnice je logična posledica dejstva, da odvračali nista doprinesli k boljši operjenosti kokoši. V nesnosti in porabi krme med kokošmi, na katere smo nanesli odvračali ter med kokošmi v kontrolni skupini, nismo ugotovili statistično značilnih razlik. Uporabljeni odvračali nista pokazali pozitivnega učinka na počutje kokoši nesnic, zato njuno uporabo v komercialne namene odsvetujemo.
Keywords:kljuvanje perja / kanibalizem / počutje živali
Place of publishing:Maribor
Year of publishing:2019
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-74057 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:Q4LVUSKF
Publication date in DKUM:30.08.2019
Views:1435
Downloads:163
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:FKBV
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share



Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:30.07.2019

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Effects of Repellents on Behaviour, Feather Condition and Keel Bone Damage of Laying Hens
Abstract:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of repellents when it comes to the prevention of feather pecking and cannibalism in laying hens. We used two repellents from the US2967128 A patent, both of which had dimethyl anthranilate as the major active substance. Each of the two repellents were periodically sprayed on a group of 60 Slovenian provenance Prelux-R hens, housed in furnished cages. The study was carried out in a commercial setting throughout a one-year production cycle of hens. The main objective of the study was to investigate the effects of the repellents on the hens’ welfare, whereby we monitored their behaviour, feather condition and keel bone damage. In addition, we also monitored the production characteristics and mortality. We found the repellents to have no effect on the behaviour of hens. Despite the fact that we did not find more feather pecking in the repellent-treated groups, these hens had poorer plumage condition compared to the hens from the control group. We did not find less keel bone damage in the repellent treated hens. This is a logical consequence of the repellents not attributing to a better plumage condition. We found no statistically significant differences in the laying performance and feed consumption between the repellent treated hens and the hens from the control group. The two repellents used had no positive impact on the hens’ welfare, thereby we advise against commercial use.
Keywords:feather pecking / cannibalism / animal welfare


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica