day old chick quality evaluation

Day old chick quality evaluation

Dr. Marleen BoerjanMay 2014


Outline of presentation

• Definition chick quality in hatchery practice:

. Batches of chicks

. Individual chicks

• Evaluation day old chick quality. Quantitative parameters. Scoring based on qualitative parameters

• Factors influencing chick quality parameters

A batch of good quality chicks:

• Is uniform with respect to uniformity parameters (weight,

size, chick yield, growth first week, etc………)

• Performs according to standards (breeder companies, hatchery reference data)

• Is uniform with respect to quantitative scoring systems(Tona-score. Pasgar-score)

Chick quality: batch


• Is uniform with respect to uniformity parameters (weight,

size, growth first week, etc………)


Xn = 44.2 + 3.6 (g); n = 59

Uniformity = 88.1 %


• Is uniform (> 80%) with respect to uniformity parameters like chick weight


Flock age29 wks 39 wks 62 wks

Flock age

N Mean s.d. CV Uniformity( mean 10 +/-%)

29 502 33.3 2.7 8.3 77.3

39 699 38.6 3.2 8.3 78.0

62 201 46.8 4.5 9.6 66.7


• Is uniform with respect to uniformity parameters within a class of flock age


• Performs according to standards

Example chick yield= weight of chicks at hatch as percentage of egg weight at setting



• Performs according to standards (breeder companies)

• Chick yield determined by hatchery

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Flock ID-1 Flock ID-2 Flock-ID3

chick yield

standard

Too heavy Dehydrated



• Chick yield > 68%: weight loss problem?

• Chick yield < 67%: dehydrated in hatcher?

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Flock ID-1 Flock ID-2 Flock-ID3

chick yield

standard

Too heavy Dehydrated


Hatchabilities of eggs from farm 1 and 2 compared to overall hatchery average.

Farm 1Overall average

Farm 2Overall average


• Performs according to hatchery reference data


• Results of Dutch reference hatcheries

• Average results for one flock*: 87 % of eggs set (single stage incubation)

*Presented results summarize different breeds

** Pasgar-score

Flock age(weeks)

Hatchability(eggs set)

Hatchability(after candling)

Chick quality**

Mortalityfirst week

30 85 94 9.2 < 1 %

32 89 96 9.3 < 1 %

45 89 96 9.3 < 1 %

54 85 95 8.8 < 1 %

63 60 92 8.5 < 1 %



• Performs according to hatchery reference data

Chick quality: individual


• Is uniform with respect to quantitative scoring systems individual chicks (Tona-score. Pasgar-score)




. Batches of chicks

. Individual chicks

• Evaluation day old chick quality. Scoring based on qualitative parameters. Quantitative parameters


Pasgar-score and Tona-score are based on qualitative parameters

• Reflex-activity

• Navel and navel area

• Legs/eyes

• Beak

• Belly (absorbed yolk)

Chick quality: qualitative parameters


Ref: Tona et al. (2003) Poultry Science 82: 736-741)

Tona-score are based on qualitative parameters total score 100






• Level of score is related to importance to contribution of survival of chicken

Parameter characteristic scores

Legs •Normal legs and toes•One infected (red) leg

•Two infected (red) legs

•16•8•0

activity •Good•weak

•6•0


Pasgar©score: top quality chick = 10


Pasgar©score: poor reflex =

10 minus 1


Pasgar©score: poor navel =

10 minus 1


Pasgar©score: red hocks =

10 minus 1


Pasgar©score: red spot/dirty beak =

10 minus 1


Pasgar©score full belly =

10 minus 1


Pasgar©score: an example

Chick reflex navel leg beak belly Pasgar©score

1 0 1 0 0 1 8

2 0 0 0 0 0 10

3 0 1 1 1 0 7

4 0 0 0 0 0 10

5 0 1 0 0 0 9

6 0 1 0 0 0 9

7 1 0 0 0 1 8

total 1 4 1 1 2 61

Average Pasgarscore = 61/7 = 8.7

Navel problems in 4 out 7 chicks = 57%


Pasgar-score and Tona-score are based on qualitative parameters

• Tona-score more detailed

• Pasgar-score simple easy to teach





. Batches of chicks

. Individual chicks

• Evaluation day old chick quality. Scoring based on qualitative parameters. Quantitative parameters



How to use the Tona- and Pasgar-score?

What do they tell us?

• Relationship performance in farm low!(except red hocks De Jong et al 2004)

• Get more insight in ‘chick quality’

• Tool to improve incubation protocols


How to interpret Pasgar-score?

• Relationship red hocks and leg weakness week 6 (De Jong et al. 2004)

Test Parameter Pasgar-score 7*

Pasgar-score 10

P-value

Growth Relative growth fist week (%) 215.4 225.1 0.03

Walking ability

Step width (cm) at day 39

9.55 8.61 0.006

Latency –to-lie (sec) at day 40

210 263 0.06

* Including red hocks

Pasgar-score used to improve incubation protocol

• Low incubation temperature (red line)related to low Pasgar score

Temperature set points

Egg shell temperatures


Pasgar-score used to improve incubation protocol

• Low incubation temperature (red line)related to low Pasgar score


Tempera-ture

Number of chicks

Reflex(%)

Navel(%)

Legs(%)

Beak(%)

Belly(%)

MeanPas-gar-score

LOW 238 9.7 44.1 13.9 21.0 29.4 8.7

HIGH 146 2.1 40.4 5.5 11.6 6.8 9.2


How to use the Tona-score?

• What do we learn about influence of storage of eggs on chick quality

Quality parameters

Storage days

33 1818 77 d

Average score 96 92

Chicks score 100

62% 48%

!Relativegrowth

185% 158%

Weight at 42 d 2.579 g 2.376 g



What do quantitative score tell us?

• Relationship performance in farm low!(except red hocks De Jong et al 2004)

• Get more insight of egg storage and incubation temperature on ‘chick quality’

• Tool to improve incubation protocols

Thank you

Dr. Marleen BoerjanMay 2014

day old chick quality evaluation

Career