Avaliação do uso de ventilação mínima em galpões avícolas e de sua influência no desempenho de aves de corte no período de inverno

Objetivou-se com este trabalho avaliar um sistema de ventilação mínima ou de higiene e sua influência no conforto térmico, na qualidade do ar e no desempenho zootécnico de aves criadas durante o inverno. Foram utilizados dois galpões similares, cada um com 9.500 aves, da linhagem Cobb, durante um ciclo produtivo completo. Em um dos galpões, foi instalado um sistema de ventilação positiva que atendia à necessidade mínima de renovação de ar, composto por três ventiladores com vazão de 300 m³/min, instalados no forro, paralelamente ao piso. O outro galpão foi considerado controle e não possuía sistema de ventilação. Houve diferença na temperatura e umidade relativa do ar nas duas primeiras semanas de vida das aves, sobretudo no sistema de ventilação mínima que apresentou as piores condições de conforto. As aves mantidas no galpão sem sistema de ventilação tiveram os melhores resultados de peso ao abate (com ventilação - 1,549 kg; e sem ventilação - 1,577 kg), conversão alimentar (com ventilação - 1,63 kg/kg; sem ventilação - 1,59 kg/kg) e eficiência produtiva (com ventilação - 285 e sem ventilação - 297). Houve diferença também na concentração de gases contaminantes, que foi menor no sistema com ventilação mínima. O sistema com ventilação mínima, da maneira como foi concebido no experimento, diminui significativamente a temperatura no interior do galpão avícola, comprometendo o conforto térmico e o desempenho animal. Apesar de o sistema com ventilação mínima resultar em menores concentrações de gases, nenhum dos sistemas promove concentração média de dióxido de carbono e monóxido de carbono prejudicial às aves.The objective of this work was to evaluate a system of minimal or hygienic ventilation and its influence on thermal comfort, air quality and broiler zootechnical performance of poultries raised during the winter. Two similar sheds were used, with 9,500 Cobb broiler chickens per shed, during a complete productive cycle. In one of the sheds, a positive ventilation system that met minimal need of air renovation, composed by three fans with flow of 300 m³/min, was installed on the ceiling parallel to the floor. The other shed was considered control and did not have a ventilation system. For the first two weeks of age of the broilers, temperature and air relative humidity differed, and the system with minimal ventilation showed the worst comfort conditions. Broilers kept in no ventilation system showed the best results for slaughter weight (with ventilation - 1.549; with no ventilation - 1.577 kg), food conversion (with ventilation - 1.63 kg/kg and with no ventilation - 1.59 kg/kg) and productive efficiency (with ventilation - 285 and without ventilation - 297). There were some differences for concentration of contaminant gases, which were lower in the system with minimal ventilation. The system with minimum ventilation, the way it was designed in the experiment, significantly decreases the temperature inside the poultry shed, compromising the thermal comfort and damaging animal performance. Although the system with minimum ventilation results in lower gas concentrations, none of systems promotes average concentration of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide harmful to birds

Light, vision and the welfare of poultry

The visual system of domestic poultry evolved in natural light environments, which differ in many respects from the artificial light provided in poultry houses. Current lighting systems are designed mainly around human vision and poultry production, ignoring the requirements of poultry vision and the fimctional development of visual abilities during rearing. A poor correlation between the light provided and that required for effective vision may influence visually mediated behaviours such as feeding and social interaction, leading to distress and poor welfare. To understand fully the impact of the light environment on the behaviour and welfare of domestic poultry we need (i) to measure the physical properties of the light environment in a standard and relevant manner; (ii) to identify the limits of visual abilities in various light environments; (iii) to determine how light environments during rearing may disrupt the functional development of vision; and (iv) to resolve how visual abilities and lighting interact to affect visually mediated behaviour. Some conclusions can be drawn about the impact of current lighting regimes on bird welfare but there remains a pressing need to resolve various issues in this interaction. We propose, first, that dark periods should have a minimum duration of six hours; second, that bright light should be used in cases where pecking damage and cannibalism do not pose a problem; and third, that it is unlikely that the 100 Hz flicker associated with fluorescent light can be perceived by poultry. With less certainty, we can suggest that ultraviolet-supplemented lighting may have some welfare benefits, and that very dim lighting may adversely affect ocular development. We can only speculate on other issues, such as preferences and motivations for different coloured lighting or the ways in which lighting affects recognition of conspecifics. Several organisations and authorities have issued guidelines for poultry house lighting that strive to safeguard welfare and that are consistent with our current, but limited, understanding. One omission is a standard system for measuring light levels in poultry houses. Illumination with natural daylight would be an ideal solution to many lighting problems. Although some systems require artificial lighting for production purposes, we argue that it may be possible to rear birds humanely in artificial environments that contain some features of natural light. These features should be those for which poultry show some motivation, or whose exclusion would damage visual development