Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T09:20:05.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of different managerial systems on productive and reproductive traits, blood plasma hormones and serum biochemical constituents of geese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

A. M. El-Hanoun ,
Y. A. Attia ,
H. A. M. Gad  and
M. M. Abdella
A. M. El-Hanoun
Affiliation:
Department of Waterfowl and Rabbit Breeding, Animal Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Dokki, Giza, Egypt
Y. A. Attia*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour, Egypt
H. A. M. Gad
Affiliation:
Department of Waterfowl and Rabbit Breeding, Animal Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Dokki, Giza, Egypt
M. M. Abdella
Affiliation:
Department of Waterfowl and Rabbit Breeding, Animal Production Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Dokki, Giza, Egypt
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A flock of 117, 10-month-old Egyptian geese consisting of 90 females and 27 males were utilized in this investigation. Birds were randomly divided into three equal groups, each made up of three replicates of 10 females and 3 males each. The first group was kept under a pasture system (PS) and allowed to swim in water ducts during the daytime (PS) and kept inside the house during the night. The second group of birds were kept in confinement in a house and fed ad libitum on a commercial feed (intensive system (IS)). Birds in the third group (semi-intensive system (SIS)) were released from the house for 6 h a day and given access to the pasture and water ducts. Each group was housed in three pens (replicates) in the SIS. They were given ad libitum access to the commercial feed when in the house. Each pen measured (2 × 3 m2). Natural mating was practiced during the period from November to the end of May. BW of geese under ISS was significantly (P ⩽ 0.05) higher than those under PS and SIS. Egg number, weight and mass of geese in the SIS system were significantly (P ⩽ 0.05) greater than those of geese in the PS and IS systems. Fertility and hatchability percentages were significantly (P ⩽ 0.05) greater in the PS (84.2% and 88.6%) than in the IS (77.5% and 82.8%) and SIS systems (80.7% and 85.5%). Shell weight and thickness were significantly (P ⩽ 0.05) better in the IS and SIS systems than in the PS system. Geese in the PS and SIS systems exhibited significantly higher plasma estradiol-17 and progesterone than those in the IS. Testosterone was significantly higher in IS than in the other systems. Semen quality factor was significantly higher in the PS and SIS systems than in the IS system. Carcass weight was significantly greater in IS and SIS geese than in PS geese, but the PS system resulted in a decreased percentage skin, abdominal fat and liver. Total amount of meat produced per geese was significantly greater in the SIS than in the IS system and greater in the IS than in the PS system.

Keywords

geesemanagement systemproductive and reproductive traits
Type
Physiology and functional biology of systems
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1795 - 1802
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
Abraham, GE 1977. Handbook of radioimmunoassay, Vol. 5, Marcel Dekker, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Armstrong, WD, Carr, CW 1964. Physiological chemistry laboratory direction, 3rd edition. E. Burses publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
Attia, YA, Al-Hanoun, A, Bovera, F 2011. Effect of different levels of bee pollen on performance and blood profile of New Zealand White bucks and growth performance of their offspring during summer and winter months. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 95, 17–26.Google Scholar
Attia, YA, Burke, WH, Yamani, KA 1994. Response of broiler breeder hens to forced molting by hormonal and dietary manipulations. Poultry Science 73, 245–258.Google Scholar
Attia, YA, Burke, WH, Yamani, YA, Jensen, LS 1995. Energy allotments and performance of broiler breeders. 2. Females. Poultry Science 74, 261–270.Google Scholar
Bielinska, H, Pakulska, E, Bielinski, K 1993. Effect of low protein, low energy feed mixtures on egg production in geese. Roczniki-Naukowe-Zootechniki 1983, 157–165.Google Scholar
Bogenfürst, F 1998. Effect of feed restriction during the laying period on the reproductive performances of geese kept under intensive conditions. Proceedings of 10th European Poultry Conference, Jerusalem, pp. 781–784.Google Scholar
Bogenfürst, F, Karakas, P, Palmai, L, Taraszenkó, ZS 1997. Investigation into the summer egg production of geese under intensive conditions. Proceedings of 11th European Symposium on Waterfowl, 8–10 September 1997, Nantes, France, pp. 404–409.Google Scholar
Branckaret, RD 1995. Development of waterfowl production. Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Waterfowl, Halle Saale, Germany, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Bcgenfurst, F 1999. Correlation between nutrient supply and reproduction performance in geese. Proceedings of the 1st World Waterfowl Conference, Taichung, Taiwan, pp. 139–146.Google Scholar
Butler, PJ, Turner, DL, Al-Wassia, A, Bevan, RM 1988. Regional distribution of blood flow during swimming in the Tufted duck Aythya fuligula. Journal of Experimental Biology 135, 461–472.Google Scholar
Cowan, PJ 1980. The goose: an efficient converter of grass? A review. World's Poultry Science Journal 36, 112–115.Google Scholar
Duncan, DB 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hammady, HY, Abdelnabi, MA, Youssef, HS, Abou El-ezz, FK 2007. Growth performance of the Egyptian geese under sub tropical conditions in Assiut. Proceedings of the 4th World Poultry Conference, 27–30 March, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, pp. 775–787.Google Scholar
El-Sayad, GAA 1999. Development waterfowl in the Egyptian village. Proceedings of the Poultry Production Symposium in the Egyptian village on the beginning of the 21st Century. Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt, pp. 45–49 (in Arabic).Google Scholar
Etuk, IF, Ojewola, GS, Nwachukwu, EN 2006. Effect of management systems on semen quality of Muscovy drakes. International Journal of Poultry Science 55, 482–484.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2011, form http://faostat.fao.org/site/570/default.aspx#ancor.Google Scholar
Fringes, CS, Fendly, TW, Dunn, RT, Queen, CA 1972. Improved determination of total serum lipids by the sulfo-phospho-vanillin reaction. Clinical Chemistry 18, 673–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, JC, Hsu, FC 1992. Effect of dietary fiber level on hepatic lipogenesis in gosling. Proceedings of the 21th World Poultry Congress, 20–24 September 1999, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 501–502.Google Scholar
Kacheva, D, Nikolon, I, Koleva, JGerzilov, N 2004. Ultra structural assay of in vitro stored Muscovy spermatozoa at temperature 0–4 degrees C for six hours. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 10, 263–267.Google Scholar
Kosba, MA 1999. The situation of geese production in Egypt. Proceedings of the 1st World Waterfowl Conference, Taichung, Taiwan, pp. 501–502.Google Scholar
Kovács, E 1972. The effect of different vitamin supplements on fertility of goose eggs. Baromfiipar 19, 6–9 cited in Animal Breeding Abstract 1974, 42, 1603.Google Scholar
Liu, SJ, Zheng, JX, Yang, N 2008. Semen quality factor as an indicator of fertilizing ability for geese. Poultry Science 87, 155–159.Google Scholar
Łukaszewicz, E 2000. Effect of semen filtration and dilution rate on morphology and fertility of frozen gander spermatozoa. Theriogenology 55, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Łukaszewicz, E, Kruszynski, W 2003. Evaluation of fresh and frozen-thawed semen of individual ganders by assessment of spermatozoa motility and morphology. Theriogenology 59, 1627–1640.Google Scholar
Meulen, A, Van der, SJ, Dikken, GD 1999. Duck keeping in the tropics, CTA Agrodok Series, No. 41033.Google Scholar
Nageswara, AR, Ravindra Reddy, V, Ramasubba Reddy, V, Eshwaraiah Acharya, NG 1999. Performance of Indian nondescript duck, Kaki Campbell and their reciprocal crossbred layers under different management systems. Proceedings of the 1st World Waterfowl Conference, 1–4 December, Taichung, Taiwan, China, pp. 454–461.Google Scholar
Pingel, H 1992. Reproduction of duck and geese. Proceedings of the 21th World Poultry Congress, 20–24 September 1992, Vol. 3, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 292–296.Google Scholar
Richmond, W 1973. Clinical. Chemistry BioMerieux, Laboratory Reagents and Products, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Rosinski, A, Bednarczyk, M 1997. Influence of genotype on goose egg hatchability. Archive Geflugelkunde 61, 33–39.Google Scholar
Sarkar, BCR, Chauhan, UPS 1967. A new method for determining micro quantities of Calcium. Analytical Biochemistry 20, 155–166.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) 1996. SAS User's guide: statistics. Version 6th edition SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Setioko, AR, Hetzel, DJ 1984. The effect of collection method and housing system on semen production and fertility of Alabio drakes. British Poultry Science 25, 167–172.Google Scholar
Shi, ZD, Tian, YB, Wu, W, Wang, ZY 2008. Controlling reproductive seasonality in the geese: a review. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 64, 343–354.Google Scholar
Sonbol, SM, Abdella, HM, Yamani, KA, Attia, YA 1991. Interrelationship between calcium and energy levels for laying hens. 2. Egg quality, fertility, hatchability and some blood constituents. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science 6, 300–312.Google Scholar
Vetesi, M, Mezes, M 1992. Effect of feeding forages for the utilization and digestibility of feed in geese. Proceedings of the 21st World Poultry Congress, 20–24 September 1992, Vol. 3, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 310pp.Google Scholar