Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|標題:||Investigating the welfare of laying hens in the conventional cage and floor production
systems by Welfare Quality®|
|引用:||方煒。1994。水牆設計與使用。農業機械學刊3(4)：57-70。 李淵百。2014。動物福祉。國立中興大學。台中。 廖玲喬。2014。平飼生產系統對商業蛋雞產蛋性能之影響以及蛋雞對巢箱位置之選擇。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 陳保基。2005。電解質在家禽飼養的使用。飼料營養雜誌，第6期。第45-59頁。 中華民國養雞協會。2013。蛋雞場飼養型態統計表。存取於2015年2月。http://www.poultry.org.tw/industry02.php 沙元安。2013。負壓密閉式雞舍對商業蛋雞與臺灣土雞產蛋性能之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 蘇家莉。2008。蛋殼顏色、遺傳背景和母雞年齡對雞蛋蛋殼品質性狀之影響。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 楊泠泠。1996。台灣土雞蛋品質之遺傳研究。碩士論文。國立中興大學。台中。 Abrati, F. 2006. Influenza del sistema di allevamento e dell'età dell'ovaiola sulla qualità dell'uovo in guscio. MS Università degli Studi di Milano. Andersson R. 1998. Der Tiergerechtheitsindex - TGI. In: Beurteilung der Tiergerechtheit von Haltungssystemen. KTBL-Schrift 377, Münster-Hiltrup, Germany. 99-109. Appleby, M., A. Walker, C. Nicol, A. Lindberg, R. Freire, B. Hughes, and H. Elson. 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 43:489-500. Bain, M. 1992. Eggshell strength: a relationship between the mechanism of failure and the ultrastructural organisation of the mammillary layer. Br. Poult. Sci. 33:303-319. Barbosa Filho, J., M. Silva, I. Silva, and A. Coelho. 2006. Egg quality in layers housed in different production systems and submitted to two environmental conditions. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 8:23-28. Bartussek, H. 1995. Tiergerechtheitsindex TGI 35 L 1995 Legehennen, Veröffentlichungen Heft 25, BAL Gumpenstein. Bell, D. 1972. Reverse cage demonstrates striking income advantage. Poult. Dig. 31:326-328. Bentham, J. 1879. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press. Bjedov, S. 2009. The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 25:1103-1108. Blokhuis, H., T. Fiks van Niekerk, W. Bessei, A. Elson, D. Guémené, J. Kjaer, G. Maria Levrino, C. Nicol, R. Tauson, and C. Weeks. 2007. The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World's Poult. Sci. Journal 63:101-114. Botreau, R., M. Bonde, A. Butterworth, P. Perny, M. Bracke, J. Capdeville, and I. Veissier. 2007. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Anim. 1(8):1179–1187. Botreau, R., and I. Veissier. 2009. Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality®. Anim. Welfare 18:363-370. Bouyssou, D. 1990. Building criteria: A prerequisite for MCDA. Readings in multiple criteria decision aid Springer 58-80. Dawkins, M. S. 2004. Using behaviour to asses animal welfare. Anim. Welfa. 13:S3-S7. DEFRA. 1983. Table Egg Storage on the Farm. Leaflt 563, TSO Publications Centre. London. Directive, E. U. 1999. Council Directive (99/74/EC of 19 July 1999) laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities 53-57. Dukić-Stojčić M, L. Perić, S. Bjedov and N. Milošević. 2009. The quality of table eggs produced in different housing systems. Biotechnol in Anim. Husbandry 25: 1103–1108. Duncan, I. J. 2002. Poultry welfare: science or subjectivity? Br. Poult. Sci. 43:643-652. Duncan, I. 2006. The changing concept of animal sentience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100 (1):11-19. Duncan, I., and M. Dawkins. 1983. The problem of assessing 'well-being' and 'suffering' in farm animals. Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare. Springer Netherlands. Dunnington, E., and P. Siegel. 1985. Long-term selection for 8-week body weight in chickens—direct and correlated responses. Theoretical and applied genetics 71:305-313. Englmaierová, M., and E. Tumova. 2009. The effect of housing system and storage time on egg quality characteristics. Proceedings of the 19th (XIX) European Poultry Symposium on Quality of Poultry Meat, XIII European Symposium on the Quality of Eggs and Egg Products. Estevez, I., L. J. Keeling, and R. C. Newberry. 2003. Decreasing aggression with increasing group size in young domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84:213-218. Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1992. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Vet. Record 131:357. Gerber, N. 2006. Factors affecting egg quality in the commercial laying hen: A review. Egg Producers Federation of New Zealand Inc. Hamilton, R. 1982. Methods and factors that affect the measurement of egg shell quality. Poult. Sci. 61:2022-2039. Haugh, R. 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. Poult. Sci. 41(5): 1461-1468. Hughes, B. O., and A. J. Black. 1976. Battery cage shape—It's effect on diurnal feeding pattern, egg-shell cracking and feather pecking. Br. Poult. Sci. 17:327–336. Hegelund, L., J. T. S?rensen, and N. Johansen. 2003. Developing a welfare assessment system for use in commercial organic egg production. Anim. Welfare. 12:649-653. Hegelund, L., J. T. S?rensen, J. Kjær, and I. S. Kristensen. 2005. Use of the range area in organic egg production systems: effect of climatic factors, flock size, age and artificial cover. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:1-8. Hidalgo, A., M. Rossi, F. Clerici, and S. Ratti. 2008. A market study on the quality characteristics of eggs from different housing systems. Food Chemistry 106:1031-1038. Hirt, H., P. Hördegen, and E. Zeltner. 2000. Laying hen husbandry: group size and use of hen-runs. Hughes, B. 1983. Conventional and shallow cages: A summary of research from welfare and production aspects. World's Poult. Sci. 39:218-228. Hughes, B., A. Gilbert, and M. F. Brown. 1986. Categorisation and causes of abnormal egg shells: relationship with stress. Br. Poult. Sci. 27:325-337. IEC. 2007. Comparison of international country data. International egg market. Annual review. 2007. London. International Egg Commission. Ingenbleek, P., and V. Immink. 2011. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: synthesis and implications. Anim. Welfare 20:11-19. Kirunda, D., and S. Scheideler. 2001. The efficacy of vitamin E (DL-α-tocopheryl acetate) supplementation in hen diets to alleviate egg quality deterioration associated with high temperature exposure. Poult. Sci. 80:1378-1383. Lang, T. 2010. Fromvalue-for-money'tovalues-for-money'? Ethical food and policy in Europe. Environment and Planning A 42:1814-1832. Lay, D., R. Fulton, P. Hester, D. Karcher, J. Kjaer, J. Mench, B. Mullens, R. Newberry, C. Nicol, and N. O'Sullivan. 2010. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 90:278-294. LayWel. 2006. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens: Deliverable 6.2 report on production and egg quality. LayWel. 2006. Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens: Deliverable 7.1 Overall strengths and weaknesses of each defined housing system for laying hens, and detailing the overall welfare impact of each housing system. Mashaly, M., G. Hendricks, M. Kalama, A. Gehad, A. Abbas, and P. Patterson. 2004. Effect of heat stress on production parameters and immune responses of commercial laying hens. Poult. Sci. 83:889-894. Mertens, K., F. Bamelis, B. Kemps, B. Kamers, E. Verhoelst, B. De Ketelaere, M. Bain, E. Decuypere, and J. De Baerdemaeker. 2006. Monitoring of eggshell breakage and eggshell strength in different production chains of consumption eggs. Poult. Sci. 85:1670-1677. Mills, A., Y. Nys, J. Gautron, and J. Zawadski. 1991. Whitening of brown shelled eggs: Individual variation and relationships with age, fearfulness, oviposition interval and stress. Br. Poult. Sci. 32:117-129. Nordskog, A. W., and G. Farnsworth.1953. The problem of sampling for egg quality in a breeding flock. Poult. Sci. 32(Suppl.):918(Abstract). Nicol, C., S. Brown, E. Glen, S. Pope, F. Short, P. Warriss, P. Zimmerman, and L. Wilkins. 2006. Effects of stocking density, flock size and management on the welfare of laying hens in single-tier aviaries. Br. Poult. Sci. 47:135-146. Odabaşi, A., R. Miles, M. Balaban, and K. Portier. 2007. Changes in brown eggshell color as the hen ages. Poult. Sci. 86:356-363. Olsson, I. A. S., and L. J. Keeling. 2005. Why in earth? Dustbathing behaviour in jungle and domestic fowl reviewed from a Tinbergian and animal welfare perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 93:259-282. Peebles, E. D., and C. D. McDaniel. 2004. practical manual for understanding the shell structure of broiler hatching eggs and measurements of their quality. Mississippi State University. Patterson P. H., K. W. Koelkebeck, D. D. Bell, J. B. Carey, K. E.Anderson and M. J. Darre. 2001.Egg marketing in national supermarkets: specialty eggs – Part 2. Poult. Sci. 80:390–395. Petek, M., F. Alpay, S. S. Gezen, and R. Cibik. 2009. Effects of housing system and age on early stage egg production and quality in commercial laying hens. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak 15:57-62. Pickett, H. 2007. Alternatives to the barren battery cage for the housing of laying hens in the European Union. Compassion in World Farming:1-40. Romanoff, A. L., and A. J. Romanoff. 1949. The avian egg. New York. Rossi, M., and K. De Reu. 2011. Alternative hen housing systems and egg quality. Improving the Safety and Quality of Eggs and Egg Products:351-375. Rushen, J. 1991. Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28:381-386. Sauveur, B., and M. De Reviers. 1988. Reproduction des volailles et production d'oeufs. Editions Quae. Sauveur, B., and M. Picard. 1987. Environmental effects on egg quality. Silversides, F., D. Korver, and K. Budgell. 2006. Effect of strain of layer and age at photostimulation on egg production, egg quality, and bone strength. Poult. Sci. 85:1136-1144. Singh, R., K. Cheng, and F. Silversides. 2009. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poult. Sci. 88:256-264. S?rensen, J. T., P. Sand?e, and N. Halberg. 2001. Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: the idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Anim. Sci. 51:11-16. Sundrum, A., R. Andersson, and G. Postler. 1994. Tiergerechtheitsindex-200, Institut fur Organischen Landbau, Bonn. Ternes W., L. Acker, and S. Scholtyssek. 1994. Ei und Eiprodukte, Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, Germany. Travel, A., Y. Nys, and M. Bain. 2011. Effect of hen age, moult, laying environment and egg storage on egg quality. Improving the safety and quality of eggs and egg products. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, UK:300-329. Van Den Brand, H., H. Parmentier, and B. Kemp. 2004. Effects of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Br. Poult. Sci. 45:745-752. Van Horne, P., and T. Achterbosch. 2008. Animal welfare in poultry production systems: impact of EU standards on world trade. World's Poult. Sci. 64:40-52. Vits, A., D.Weizenburger, H. Hamann, and O. Distl. 2005. Influence of different small group systems on production traits, egg quality and bone breaking strength of laying hens. First communication: Production traits and egg quality. 77 : 303 - 323 . Wageningen UR Livestock Research. 2012. Description of the calculations to transform measures into criterion for the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for laying hens. Report 590. Wegner, R. M. 1983. Production performance in laying hens kept under different housing conditions. Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare. p.189-196. Springer. Welfare Quality®. 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers and laying hens). Netherland.|
|摘要:||關心動物福祉已成為國際上之趨勢，現今所發展出數種福祉評估系統，除了能提供完善之評估項目予以飼養者自身檢視外，並能作為消費者選購畜產品時之依據。本研究係由較為著名的三種福祉評估系統中，選用Welfare Quality®系統來比較傳統籠飼與平飼系統蛋雞的福祉狀況，以探討適於台灣蛋雞福祉的生產系統。由於該系統在蛋雞方面尚未提供分數轉換之方法，因此，另使用荷蘭瓦格寧根大學研究中心所提出之方法，將評估結果轉為分數表達。產蛋母雞分別飼養於籠飼與平飼，於41與72週齡時進行福祉評估，分別代表產蛋期中與期末的福祉狀況，並測定65、72週齡時的蛋品質，以研究生產系統對於蛋品質之影響。結果顯示，籠飼在免於飢渴、舒適的溫度、社交行為的表現等標準中有較高的分數，社交行為之表現屬籠飼較佳，但其代表性需待進一步探討，在籠飼母雞無法測量人類與動物之關係。在人畜關係因條件因素方面，籠飼無法進行測量，故無法進行比較，而其餘標準皆為平飼較佳。蛋品質方面，平飼蛋重較重，但因室溫較高而新鮮度較差。Welfare Quality®能應用於多種系統，但由於歐盟已禁止巴達利籠之使用，因此，特定項目可能無法完全適用，且部份項目的分數轉換仍需進一步探討。因為以上之限制，Welfare Quality®目前仍無法作為本土飼養系統之福祉代表，但就平飼系統而言，是可作為評級之依據的。|
Concerning animal welfare had become a trend around the world. Several welfare assessment systems developed can, in addition to providing complete assessment of animal welfare to the farm keepers, serve as a reference for consumers to purchase animal products. This study selected Welfare Quality® from the one of three famous welfare assessment systems to compare laying hens' welfare status under traditional cage and floor production systems in order to discuss the appropriate egg layer production system in Taiwan. As the fractional conversion method of laying hens had not yet provided, therefore, the result will be converted into scores by the proposed method provided by the Wageningen University Research Centre. Laying hens were housed in either cages or floor, and the welfare assessment were carried out at 41 and 72 weeks of age which respectively represent the welfare status at the middle and the end of egg production period. The egg quality was determined at 65 and 72 weeks of age to study the effect of production system on the egg quality. Results indicate that cage system had higher scores in freedom from hunger, comfortable temperature, and social behavior. The performance of the social behavior of the cage system was better, but it's validity needs further consideration, since the relationship between humans and animals can't be measured in caged hens. But for other standards, the floor system was better overall. For the egg quality, the eggs laid in floor system were heavier but inferior for freshness due to higher room temperature. Welfare Quality® can be used in a variety of systems, but there were some specific measurements can't fully applied in cage because it had been banned in EU. Therefore, these score still needs to be studied in the future. That is the reason why Welfare Quality® might be unable to evaluate the welfare status of every local production system, but it can be used for rating in the floor system.
|Appears in Collections:||動物科學系|
Show full item record
TAIR Related Article
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.