Effects of stocking density on large white, commercial tom turkeys reared to 20 weeks of age: 1. growth and performance

Abstract

Industry standards for turkey stocking densities are variable and may not represent the more rapidly growing strains currently available. Therefore, a study was completed to evaluate 4 stocking densities: a nominal density (0.3525 m 2 /bird), 10% tighter density (0.3169 m 2 /bird), 10% looser density (0.3882 m 2 /bird), and 20% looser density (0.4238 m 2 /bird) on the effects on large white, commercial male turkeys with regard to performance from 5 to 20 wk of age. Brooding stocking density was fixed for all pens of birds with 60 birds per replicate pen at 0.46 m 2 /bird to 5 wk of age. Density treatments were applied from 5 to 20 wk by altering pen size with pen population held constant at 60 per pen. There were 4 pens of birds per density treatment. Birds were weighed individually at 0, 5, and 20 wk of age and performance parameters were calculated. There were no differences in bird performance at 5 wk, which was expected because stocking density was fixed. From 5 to 20 wk and at 20 wk, birds that were reared at the nominal standard (0.3525 m 2 /bird) and 10% tighter density (0.3169 m 2 /bird) had significantly lower body weight compared with the 10% looser density (0.3882 m 2 /bird) and 20% looser density (0.4238 m 2 /bird) ( P = 0.03 and 0.01, respectfully). The feed conversion ratio ( FCR ) tended ( P = 0.08) to be improved for birds reared at looser density. In addition, based on linear regression, as stocking density decreased (i.e., m 2 /bird increased), BW ( P < 0.05) increased, and FCR ( P = 0.10) tended to decrease (improve) at 20 wk. It was concluded that birds reared at looser density had improved performance.

Stocking density effects on turkey hen performance to 11 weeks of age

“…Though these studies provided valuable information, there have been many advances in genetic selection for improved growth rate and feed efficiency since then. When evaluating SD, some studies have altered group size and maintained floor space ( Moran, 1985 ; Noll et al, 1991 ; Martrenchar et al, 1999 ; Beaulac and Schwean-Lardner, 2018 ; Beaulac et al, 2019 ) while others have maintained group size but altered pen size/floor space ( Coleman and Leighton, 1969 ; Denbow et al, 1984 ; Leighton et al, 1985 ; Buchwalder and Huber-Eicher, 2004 ; Bartz et al, 2020 ). For the practical application of SD guidelines, altering group size rather than changing rearing facilities is more easily implemented on farm.…”

“…Though there has been more extensive research with broiler chickens, the available literature focusing on turkeys found that as SD increased, BW of toms and hens decreased ( Coleman and Leighton, 1969 ; Proudfoot et al, 1979 ; Leighton et al, 1985 ; Moran, 1985 ; Noll et al, 1991 ; Martrenchar et al, 1999 ; Beaulac et al, 2019 ; Bartz et al, 2020 ). However, the effects on feed efficiency varied between studies.…”

“…However, the effects on feed efficiency varied between studies. Some studies found that increasing SD resulted in poorer feed efficiency ( Leighton et al, 1985 ; Noll et al, 1991 ; Beaulac et al, 2019 ; Bartz et al, 2020 ) and others found no effect on feed efficiency ( Coleman and Leighton, 1969 ; Proudfoot et al, 1979 ). Stocking density has shown few negative effects on mortality of turkeys in previous literature, with only numerical differences or tendencies ( P < 0.06) for higher mortality rates with increasing SD observed in the studies by Coleman and Leighton (1969) and Noll et al (1991) respectively.…”

Efectos de la restricción del pienso y suplementación con alfalfa sobre el rendimiento productivo, características de carcasa, índices cardiacos y parámetros hematológicos del pavo criado en condiciones hipobáricas

“…Posiblemente el mayor consumo de fibra de los pavos con ingestas de alfalfa pudo haber generado menor eficiencia alimenticia, por ser la fibra uno de los principales componentes químicos del alimento que afectan la digestibilidad ileal de los nutrientes en aves (Singh et al, 2019). El ICA de los pavos estuvo por debajo del ICA reportado por Jankowski et al (2020) en pavos en fase alimenticia similar, pero criados a nivel del mar, con el uso único de pienso y sin suplementación de alfalfa; condiciones que pudieron influenciar en este indicador, por cuanto, las condiciones ambientales en las que se crían las aves están asociadas directamente con el peso corporal e ICA de los pavos (Bartz et al, 2020).…”

“…También se sugiere el uso de aceites funcionales en la dieta del pavo como una alternativa viable a los antibióticos promotores de crecimiento (Ferket et al, 2020) y que mayores niveles de metionina y arginina en la dieta favorecen el estado inmunológico del pavo (Jankowski et al, 2020). Por otro lado, densidades de crianza de 0.42 m 2 por ave de 5 a 20 semanas de edad favorece la crianza de pavos más saludables y con mejor rendimiento (Bartz et al, 2020), en tanto que la crianza en condiciones hipobáricas naturales, el imidapril inhibe la remodelación ventricular derecha inducida por baja la temperatura ambiental (Hao et al, 2013).…”