Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Poult Sci 2008. 87:133-137. doi:10.3382/ps.2007-00359
© 2008 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yahav, S.
Right arrow Articles by Shinder, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yahav, S.
Right arrow Articles by Shinder, D.

PHYSIOLOGY, ENDOCRINOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTION

The Effect of Ventilation on Performance Body and Surface Temperature of Young Turkeys1

S. Yahav2, M. Rusal and D. Shinder

Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel

2 Corresponding author: yahavs{at}agri.huji.ac.il


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Efficient ventilation affects thermoregulation and, thereby, the performance of domestic fowl. This became crucial as genetic selection for growth development significantly coupled with increased metabolic rate. The specific aims of this study were to elucidate a) the effects of different rates of ventilation on young turkey performance during exposure to constant 35, 30, and 25°C and b) their effects on body temperature and surface temperature. In 3 separate experiments, turkeys were raised under regular conditions up to 3 wk of age. Thereafter, they were acclimated for 1 wk to the targeted ambient temperatures (Ta) and to air velocities of 0.8, 1.5, 2.0, or 2.5 m/s and raised under those conditions up to 6 wk of age. Turkeys exposed to 35°C performed optimally at an air velocity (AV) of 2 m/s; they exhibited significantly higher feed intake and significantly lower body temperature. At 30°C, performance was optimal at AV of 1.5 to 2.5 m/s and significantly lower at 0.8 m/s. Performance of turkeys exposed to 25°C did not vary with AV. Comparison of BW and feed intakes of turkeys exposed to the 3Ta levels revealed significantly higher feed intake at 25°C but similar BW compared with those exposed to 30°C, meaning that those exposed to 25°C used more energy for maintenance than for growth. In general, surface temperature of the body declined significantly with Ta, whereas that of the face and legs was significantly lower at 25°C. It can be concluded that AV affects the performance of young turkeys. The range of AV within which BW was optimal expanded as Ta declined. It can be further concluded that the combination of 30°C with AV from 1.5 to 2.5 m/s was optimal for young turkeys.

Key Words: ventilation • turkey • performance • body temperature • surface temperature


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
During recent decades, significant progress in the genetic selection of fast-growing meat-type turkeys improved their growth rate, feed conversion, and livability (Havenstein et al., 2007). This improvement paralleled a significant increase in heat production but with no similar development in the visceral systems to match that in the cardiovascular or the respiratory one. This led to difficulties in coping with extreme environmental conditions.

The main environmental parameters affecting turkey performance are ambient temperature (Ta), RH, and air velocity (AV). Although the first 2 parameters have been extensively studied (Yahav, 2000), information on the effect of AV on turkeys performance and thermoregulation is scarce. Such information is available for broiler chickens, who exhibit significant effects of ventilation rate on performance (Lott et al., 1998; Czarick et al., 2000; Yahav et al., 2001) and on their ability to efficiently thermoregulate under optimal ventilation by losing heat by convection (Yahav et al., 2004, 2005).

In birds, heat is dissipated through respiratory-evaporative mechanisms (Richards, 1968, 1970, 1976; Seymour, 1972; Marder and Arad, 1989), a cutaneous evaporative mechanism (Webster and King, 1987; Ophir et al., 2002), and sensible heat loss via radiation, convection, and conduction. Evaporative heat loss via panting is associated with loss of body water content; therefore, excessive water loss will induce dehydration followed by reduction of heat loss via this pathway. Increased sensible heat loss may enhance thermotolerance at high Ta. The difference between the surface and ambient temperatures is the main driving force for sensible heat loss. The adoption of thermal-imaging radiometry technology in biological sciences has enabled measurement of surface temperature (Ts) and evaluation of the contribution of sensible heat loss to body energy balance.

The growth development of male turkeys indicates that there is a biphasic growth pattern, caused by differential growth of various organs [i.e., bone tissue in the first phase and mainly muscle tissue and the reproductive system in the second (Hurwitz et al., 1991)]. The fact that the main weight gain in turkeys is during the second phase of development does not detract from the importance of optimal conditions during the first phase in ensuring efficient performance later. In the present study, the effect of AV on the performance of young turkeys was evaluated, as coupled with its effect on body temperature (Tb) and Ts.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental Design
In 3 different experiments, in which different Ta were used, the effects of AV on turkey performance, Tb, and Ts were studied. All birds (British United Turkeys male turkeys) were obtained from a commercial hatchery and raised for 3 wk in battery brooders (under the recommended temperatures), situated in controlled room temperature (at 26°C). At the age of 3 wk, 240 male turkeys were selected by weight from a population of 280 birds; birds with extreme weights were excluded. The birds were divided among 4 treatments x 4 replicates of 15 birds each, with equal average BW. The birds were housed, 1 bird per cage, in cages measuring 40 x 28 x 45 cm in length, width, and height, with 2-cm wire mesh. The cages were situated in 4 computer-controlled environmental rooms that maintained constant temperature at ±1.0°C, RH at ±2.5%, and AV at ±0.25 m/s, under continuous fluorescent illumination. The AV was measured using Electronic Airflow Sensor AVS200 manufactured by Kele & Associates (Memphis TN). During the acclimation period (fourth week), Ta, RH, and AV were changed by equal increments to attain the target environmental conditions of the experiments (trial 1: 35°C, 50% RH, and AV of 0.8, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 m/s; trials 2 and 3: 30 and 25°C, respectively, with RH and AV exactly as in trial 1). Water and food in mash form were supplied ad libitum. The diet was designed according to NRC (1994) recommendations.

At weekly intervals, BW and food intake were recorded on individual and group bases, respectively. In each treatment, 8 birds (2 from each replicate) were selected randomly for further analysis. The local Animal Care Committee approved the use of the animals and all the experimental procedures used in the present study (IL 22–04).

After acclimation of the birds to the targeted environmental conditions (from 21 to 28 d of age), Tb and thermal images were recorded for each of 8 randomly selected birds per treatment.

Tb
Body temperature was measured with a digital thermometer (Newtron TM-5007, K-type thermocouple sensor; Extech Instruments, Waltham, MA), accurate to ±0.1°C, coupled to an external K-type thermocouple sensor inserted 3 cm into the colon.

Ts
The overall average Ts was measured with an infrared thermal-imaging radiometer. Thermal images were acquired with a radiometric infrared camera (model PM545, FLIR Systems, Danderyd, Sweden). The PM545 is an uncooled thermal-imaging camera equipped with a 320 x 240 pixel focal plane array microbolometer that yields high-resolution imagery; it is sensitive to long-wave radiation in the 7.5- to 13-µm range and has a thermal sensitivity of ±0.1°C. Full-resolution digital thermal images were analyzed with the ThermaCam (FLIR Systems) and Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ME (Adobe, San Jose, CA) software packages. The software enabled separation of the measurements of the Ts levels of the body (fully feathered area), facial area, and legs.

Statistical Analysis
All results were subjected to 1-way ANOVA and to Student’s t-test, by means of JMP software (SAS Institute, 2002). A combined analysis of BW, feed intake, and Ts of the 3 trials was made by Mann and Whitney test. Means were considered significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Trial 1
The effects of AV on performance, Tb, and Ts of young turkeys exposed to constant 35°C are summarized in Table 1Go and Figure 1Go. Body weight was significantly higher in turkeys exposed to AV of 1.5 and 2.0 m/s than in those exposed to 0.8 m/s, and this advantage paralleled significantly higher feed intake in the birds exposed to the same AV, but feed efficiency was not affected.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. The effects of various air velocity values coupled with constant ambient temperature (35°C – trial 1) and RH (50%) on the performance and body temperature (Tb) of young male turkeys
 

Figure 1
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. The effect of different ambient temperatures (35, 30, and 25°C) on surface temperature of the body (feathered area - upper graph), the face (middle graph), and the legs (lower graph) of 6-wk-old turkeys exposed to various ventilation rates. Each value represents a mean value of 8 birds. Different letters or asterisks indicate significant differences between treatments at the same ambient temperature, or between temperatures, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). The asterisk in the lower graph designated differences between legs surface temperature at air velocity (AV) of 1.5 m/sec at 35 and 30°C and between those and the values at 25°C, irrespective of air velocity.

 
Body temperature was significantly lower in turkeys exposed to AV of 2 m/s (Table 1Go). Surface temperature of the body and the face significantly increased as AV increased up to 2.0 m/s and then declined significantly as AV rose to 2.5 m/s. In the legs, Ts did not exhibit any significant response to AV (Figure 1Go).

Trial 2
In this trial, the effects of AV at constant 30°C on turkey performance, Tb, and Ts were evaluated; they are summarized in Table 2Go and Figure 1Go. Body weight at 6 wk of age was significantly lower in turkeys exposed to 0.8 m/ s than in those in the other treatments, all of which were similar to one another. These differences paralleled similar differences in feed intake, and feed efficiency was not affected.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. The effects of various air velocity values coupled with constant ambient temperature (30°C – trial 2) and RH (50%) on the performance and body temperature (Tb) of young male turkeys
 
Body temperature was significantly higher in turkeys exposed to 2.0 and 2.5 m/s than in those exposed 0.8 m/ s. Body Ts was significantly higher in turkeys exposed to 2.5 m/s than in those exposed to 1.5 m/s. No significant repose was found in the Ts of the face and the legs.

Trial 3
This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of AV changes, at constant 25°C, on performance, Tb, and Ts of young turkeys. There was no effect of AV on BW or feed intake of turkeys in the various treatments (Table 3Go), but feed efficiency was affected: feed efficiency was significantly higher in birds exposed to 0.8 m/s than in those exposed to 1.5 or 2.0 m/s.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. The effect of various air velocity values coupled with constant ambient temperature (25°C – trial 3) and RH (50%) on the performance and body temperature (Tb) of young male turkeys
 
Different treatments did not affect Tb but significantly affected Ts. Body, face, and legs demonstrated similar trends of Ts in response to changes in AV. Surface temperature was higher in birds exposed to 0.8 m/s, showed a nonsignificant to significant decline as AV rose to 1.5 and 2.0 m/s, and a nonsignificant to significant increase as AV rose to 2.5 m/s (Figure 1Go).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The crucial role that AV plays in growth development and thermoregulation of broiler chickens up to marketing age was established recently (Lacy and Czarick, 1992; Timmons and Hillman, 1993; Phillips and Sanborn, 1994; Lott et al., 1998; Yahav et al., 1998, 2001, 2004; Czarick et al., 2000; Simmons et al., 2003). Although turkeys at a similar age develop mainly the skeletal rather than the muscle tissue (Hurwitz et al., 1991), the role that ventilation may play during this period is of great importance, mainly because the second phase of growth and development is essentially based on the first phase. This study indicates the important role that AV can play in performance and thermoregulation of young turkeys at various Ta levels.

It is clear that after 1 wk of acclimation to new environmental conditions, followed by 2 wk of exposure to 35°C, turkeys exposed to optimal AV (1.5 and 2.0 m/s) gained an average of 100 to 136 g more BW than those exposed to 0.8 m/s. Broilers exposed to similar conditions exhibited a much better effect: up to 450 g of difference between those exposed to 2.0 m/s and those exposed to 0.8 m/s (Yahav et al., 2004). These differences may be explained by the fast and efficient muscle tissue development in broilers during this period. This effective gain in BW of young turkeys was coupled with increased feed intake, but with no change in feed efficiency.

It is well known that a combination of high AV with relatively low Ta may induce chilling. In such a case, more energy will be directed toward maintenance, at the expense of growth performance. Therefore, it is important to determine what is the Ta range in which chilling effect may be induced. In the present study, the second and third trials were conducted at 30 and 25°C, respectively, to address this question. These settings were based on the turning point in the response to ventilation that was found in the performance of broiler chickens, which was detected as Ta fell below 30°C, in which increased AV probably caused the chilling effect (Yahav et al., 2005). In the present study, exposure of turkeys to 30 and 25°C expanded the optimal performance range (1.5 to 2.5 m/ sec and to all treatments, respectively) but did not cause chilling effect. However, comparison between turkeys exposed to 25 and 30°C with regard to their BW at 6 wk of age and their feed consumption from 3 to 6 wk of age revealed that those exposed to 25°C had similar or lower BW than those recorded in turkeys exposed to 30°C but a dramatic higher feed intake (Figure 2Go). These results suggest that turkeys exposed to 25°C suffered from cold and, therefore, directed significantly higher amounts of energy to maintenance, irrespective of the AV.


Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. The effect of different air velocities on BW (upper graph) and feed intake (lower graph) of male turkeys at the age of 6 wk exposed to different ambient temperatures (35, 30, and 25°C). At any given time point, values represent 8 individuals. Values designated by different asterisks differ significantly among temperatures (P ≤ 0.05). The asterisk in the upper graph designated differences between BW at air velocity of 2.0 m/sec at 25 and 30°C and between those and the values at 35°C, irrespective of air velocity.

 
The fluctuations of Ts may shed some light on the thermoregulatory situation of turkeys exposed to 25 and 30°C. The face and the legs, which are the main organs for heat loss, exhibited a significant decline in Ts when the temperature was 25°C, meaning that they applied significant vasoconstriction. This was not seen when Ts was compared between turkeys exposed to 35 and to 30°C, when there were only small differences of Ts between the various treatments. When body Ts was compared among birds exposed to the 3 Ta levels, a significant reduction in this parameter was recorded as Ta dropped. This may be attributed to the fact that the body surface is covered with feathers; therefore, the surface area, rather than the vasomotor response, plays a major role (Yahav et al., 2005).

At 35°C, the body and face Ts increased significantly with AV. This was related to vasodilation, which provided an increased temperature gradient between the surface and the ambient air. The significant decline in Ts when AV was 2.5 m/s may have been related to vasoconstriction, which was probably needed to prevent passive water loss from the skin as a result of the high rate of ventilation (Yahav et al., 2004).

At 25°C, the decline in Ts when AV increased was crucial for reducing heat loss from the surface. However, the question arises of why vasodilatation occurred at 2.5 m/s; this phenomenon is not clear and will have to be elucidated.

In general, the Ts fluctuations of turkeys exposed to 30°C were shallow compared with those that occurred at the 2 other environmental temperatures. This, in conjunction with the high energy consumption of turkeys exposed to 25°C, may lead to the conclusion that 30°C is a favorable Ta for young turkeys.

Turkeys are known to be less sensitive than broilers to changes in environmental conditions (Yahav, 2000). Indeed, in all 3 experiments in the present study, the turkeys exhibited Tb at the bottom to the middle of the range (40.6 to 41.5°C) known for domestic fowl (Prinzinger et al., 1991). The fact that the Tb of turkeys was not affected by the highest Ta (35°C) is related to their better thermoregulation capability compared with broiler chickens, which, when exposed to the same environmental conditions, exhibited significantly higher Tb (42.8 to 43.9°C; Yahav et al., 2004).

It may be concluded that AV affects the performance of young turkeys. The range of AV that leads to optimal BW expands as Ta declines. It can further be concluded that 30°C coupled with AV from 1.5 to 2.5 m/s represents the optimal combination of conditions for young turkeys.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was supported by the Egg and Poultry Board of Israel (356–0416). We wish to thank B. Gill and P. Shudnovsky (Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel) for technical assistance.


   FOOTNOTES
 
1 Contribution from the Agricultural Research Organization, the Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. No. 503/07. Back

Received for publication August 26, 2007. Accepted for publication October 9, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Czarick, M., B. Lott, and M. Lacy. 2000. Is an air speed of 600 ft/min in a tunnel house harmful? Pages 1–3 in Poultry Housing Tips. Vol. 12. No. 6. Univ. Georgia, Coop. Extension Serv., Athens.

Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, J. L. Grimes, M. A. Qureshi, and K. E. Nestor. 2007. Comparison of the performance of 1966-versus 2003-type turkeys when fed representative 1966 and 2003 turkey diet: Growth rate, livability, and feed conversion. Poult. Sci. 86:232–240.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hurwitz, S., H. Talpaz, I. Bartov, and I. Plavnik. 1991. Characterization of growth and development of male British United Turkeys. Poult. Sci. 70:2419–2424.[Web of Science][Medline]

Lacy, M. P., and M. Czarick. 1992. Tunnel ventilated broiler houses: Broiler performance and operating cost. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 1:104–109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lott, B. D., J. D. Simmons, and J. D. May. 1998. Air velocity and high temperature effects on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 77:391–393.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Marder, J., and Z. Arad. 1989. Panting and acid-base regulation in heat stressed birds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 94:395–400.

NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Ophir, E., Y. Arieli, J. Marder, and M. Horowitz. 2002. Cutaneous blood flow in the pigeon Columba livia: Its possible relevance to cutaneous water evaporation. J. Exp. Biol. 205:2627–2636.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Phillips, P. K., and A. F. Sanborn. 1994. An infrared, thermographic study of surface temperature in three ratites: Ostrich, emu and double-wattled cassowary. J. Therm. Biol. 19:423–430.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

Prinzinger, R., A. Pre§mar, and E. Schleucher. 1991. Body temperature in birds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 99:499–506.

Richards, S. A. 1968. Vagal control of thermal panting in mammals and birds. J. Physiol. 199:89–101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Richards, S. A. 1970. The biology and comparative physiology of thermal panting. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 45:223–264.[Medline]

Richards, S. A. 1976. Evaporative water loss in domestic fowls and its partition in relation to ambient temperature. J. Agric. Sci. 87:527–532.

SAS Institute. 2002. JMP Statistics and Graphics Guide. Version 5. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.

Seymour, S. R. 1972. Convective heat transfer in the respiratory systems of panting animals. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 35:119–127.

Simmons, J. D., B. D. Lott, and D. M. Miles. 2003. The effects of high air velocity on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 82:232–234.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Timmons, M. B., and P. E. Hillman. 1993. Partitional heat losses in heat stressed poultry as affected by wind speed. 4th Int. Livest. Environ. Symp., London, UK. ASAE Spec. Publ., St. Joseph, MI.

Webster, M. D., and J. R. King. 1987. Temperature and humidity dynamics of cutaneous and respiratory evaporation in pigeons, Columba livia. J. Comp. Physiol. 157:253–260.

Yahav, S. 2000. Domestic fowl—Strategies to confront environmental conditions. Poult. Avian Biol. Rev. 11:81–95.

Yahav, S., D. Luger, A. Cahaner, M. Dotan, M. Rusal, and S. Hurwitz. 1998. Thermoregulation in naked neck chickens subjected to different ambient temperatures. Br. Poult. Sci. 39:133–138.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Yahav, S., D. Shinder, J. Tanny, and S. Cohen. 2005. Sensible heat loss – the broiler’s paradox. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 61:419–433.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

Yahav, S., A. Straschnow, D. Luger, D. Shinder, J. Tanny, and S. Cohen. 2004. Ventilation, sensible heat loss, broiler energy, and water balance under harsh environmental conditions. Poult. Sci. 83:253–258.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Yahav, S., A. Straschnow, E. Vax, V. Razpakovski, and D. Shinder. 2001. Air velocity alters broiler performance under harsh environmental conditions. Poult. Sci. 80:724–726.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yahav, S.
Right arrow Articles by Shinder, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yahav, S.
Right arrow Articles by Shinder, D.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS