QUALITY OF LAYING EGGS USING PREBIOTIC ADDITIVES CREATED IN CAGE
-
Published:2021-08-01
Issue:8
Volume:9
Page:246-251
-
ISSN:2411-2933
-
Container-title:International Journal for Innovation Education and Research
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:IJIER
Author:
Fagundes Daiane Dantas,Bueno Leda Gobbo de Freitas,Teixeira Gislaine Trecenti,Valley Marcos Martinez do,Neto Mario Mollo
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the quality of eggs in laying hens reared at different densities in cage-free system, receiving diets with the addition of prebiotic additives. An observational study was carried out with 45 laying hens of the Novogen Brown scaling, which was in the phase of peak production (28 – 37 weeks), in prototypes of reduced scale without air conditioning and divided into group 1 (G1): density of two poultry /m² (11 poultry ) and diet with addition of a prebiotic pool; group 2 (G2): density of three poultry /m² (17 poultry ) and commercial diet without the addition of prebiotics and antibiotics; group 3 (G3): density of three poultry /m² (17 poultry ) and also diet with the addition of a prebiotic pool. In this study, the statistical evaluation was performed, the effects of densities 2 poultry /m² (G1) or 3 poultry /m² (G3) and the effects of diet with prebiotics (G3) and without prebiotics (G2) in laying poultry were performed. The data were submitted to variance analysis by the GLM procedure of the SAS Program V9 (2002), using the Student's T Test at a level of 5% significance. The results referring to eggeso (g), albumen height (mm), yolk color, haugh unit (UH), peel resistance (Kgf) between G1 and G3 showed no statistically difference, since in relation to the thickness of the shell (mm) differed (P>0.05). In the analysis between G2 and G3, the statistical difference (P>0.05) obtained among all the panels analyzed. In the face of the above, it can be reported that the results of quality variables undergo the action of prebiotics in laying hens created in the Cage-free system.
Publisher
International Journal for Innovation Education and Research
Reference7 articles.
1. Blokhuis, H.J., Ekkel, E.D., Korte, S.M., Hopster, H., Van Reenen, C.G. 2000. Farm animal welfare research in interaction with society. Veterinary Quarterly, Bilthoven, p. 217-222. 2. Pineda-Quiroga, C.; Atxaerandio, R.; Zubiria, I.; Gonzalez-Pozuelo, I.; Hurtado, A.; Ruiz, R.; Garcia-Rodriguez, A. Productive performance and cecal microbial counts of floor housed laying hens supplemented with dry whey poder alone or combined with Pediococcus acidilactici in the late phase of production. Livestock Science, v.195, p.9-12, 2017. 3. Rostagno, H. S.; Albino, L.F.T.; Donzele, M. I. H. J.L.; Sakomura, N.K.; Perazzo, G.G.; Hail, A.; Teixeira, M. L.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Oliveira, R. F.; Barreto, S.L. T.; Brito, C.O. Brazilian tables for poultry and pigs: food composition and nutritionalrequirements. Ed. UFV, 2017. 488 p. 4. Silva, L. P., Norberg, J. L. 2003. Prebiotics in the nutrition of non-ruminants. Rural Science,v. 33, n. 5, p. 983-990. 5. Silva, G. F.; Pereira, D. F.; Bueno, L. G. F. ; Santos, T. S.; Tavares, B. O. Performance of laying hens and economic viability of different climatization systems. Italian Journal of Animal Science (Online), v. 12, p. 286-294, 2013.
|
|