Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:25:12.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of feed form and energy levels on growth performance, carcass yield and nutrient digestibility in broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2020

A. Massuquetto Open the ORCID record for A. Massuquetto [Opens in a new window] ,
J. C. Panisson ,
V. G. Schramm ,
D. Surek ,
E. L. Krabbe  and
A. Maiorka
A. Massuquetto*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, 80035-050 PR, Brazil
J. C. Panisson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, 80035-050 PR, Brazil
V. G. Schramm
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, 80035-050 PR, Brazil
D. Surek
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) – Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, 89715-899 SC, Brazil
E. L. Krabbe
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) – Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, 89715-899 SC, Brazil
A. Maiorka
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, 80035-050 PR, Brazil
*
†E-mail: andreiamassuquetto@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Feed form is well recognized to improve broiler performance, specially by increasing feed intake (FI). However, when different diet energy levels are used, the results differ in the literature. Therefore, this experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence of feed form and dietary metabolizable energy (ME) levels on broiler performance, carcass yield and on the digestibility of DM, CP, starch and gross energy. In total, 1152 male Cobb 500 broilers were evaluated between 35 and 47 days. The birds were distributed according to a completely randomized design in a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement, consisting of two feed forms (mash or pellet) and four ME levels (12.73, 13.06, 13.40 or 13.73 MJ/kg), totaling eight treatments with eight replicates of 18 birds. Broilers fed the lowest ME level presented the lowest weight gain (WG) and worst feed per unit gain (P < 0.01). Metabolizable energy intake increased (P < 0.01) with progressive increments of ME, which, however, did not affect caloric conversion (CC, P > 0.05). Pelleted diets promoted higher FI, WG, ME intake (P < 0.01) and better feed per unit gain and CC (P < 0.05) compared with mash. In mash diets, increasing dietary ME levels promoted a linear increase in WG (P < 0.01) and reduced feed per unit gain (P ≤ 0.05), but did not affect FI (P > 0.05). In pelleted diets, on the other hand, increasing ME levels linearly reduced FI (P < 0.05) and feed per unit gain (P < 0.01). Broilers fed pelleted diets presented higher abdominal fat deposition than those fed mash (P < 0.05). Increasing ME levels reduced the coefficients of ileal apparent digestibility of DM (P < 0.01) and total starch (P < 0.05) but did not affect the digestibility of other evaluated nutrients. The digestibility of all nutrients was lower when pelleted diets were fed compared with mash. Increasing inert material inclusion in the diets at the expense of soybean oil to reduce dietary ME levels promoted higher pellet durability index values (P < 0.05) and the percentage of fines (P < 0.01). Overall, the results suggest that pelleted diets promote better broiler performance because they increase FI, since the digestibility of dietary fractions is reduced. Chickens consuming low-energy pelleted diets may increase FI to compensate for energy deficit. In contrast, broilers fed mash diets may have reached their maximum intake capacity and did not regulate FI by changing feed energy density. When feeding pelleted diets, dietary energy reduction should be considered to reduce feed costs and to improve the carcass quality of broilers.

Keywords

fatmetabolizable energyoil inclusionpelletingpoultry
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 1139 - 1146
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdollahi, MR, Ravindran, V and Svihus, B 2013. Influence of grain type and feed form on performance, apparent metabolisable energy and ileal digestibility of nitrogen, starch, fat, calcium and phosphorus in broiler starters. Animal Feed Science and Technology 186, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of the Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Classen, HL 2017. Diet energy and feed intake in chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology 233, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corzo, A, Mejia, L and Loar, II RE 2011. Effect of pellet quality on various broiler production parameters. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 20, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dozier, WA, III, Behnke, KC, Gehring, CK and Branton, SL 2010. Effects of feed form on growth performance and processing yields of broiler chickens during a 42-day production period. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 19, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dozier, WA, III, Gehring, CK, Corzo, A and Olanrewaju, HA 2011. Apparent metabolizable energy needs of male and female broilers from 36 to 47 days of age. Poultry Science 90, 804–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duke, GE 1986. Alimentary canal: anatomy, regulation of feeding and motility. In Avian physiology (ed. Sturkie, PD 1986. Alimentary canal: anatomy, regulation of feeding and motility. In Avian physiology (ed. ), pp. 269–288. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, LS 2000. Influence of pelleting on the nutritional needs of poultry. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 13, 35–46.Google Scholar
Jensen, LS, Merrill, LH, Reddy, CV and McGinnis, J 1962. Observations on eating patterns and rate of food passage of birds fed pelleted and unpelleted diets. Poultry Science 41, 1414–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecznieski, JL, Ribeiro, AML, Kessler, AM and Penz, AM, Jr 2001. Influência da forma física e do nível de energia da ração no desempenho e na composição de frangos de corte. Archivos latinoamericanos de producción animal 9, 6–11.Google Scholar
Leeson, S, Caston, L and Summers, JD 1996. Broiler response to energy or energy and protein dilution in the finisher diet. Poultry Science 85, 522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiorka, A, Dahlke, F, Penz, AM, Jr and Kessler, AM 2005. Diets formulated on total or digestible amino acid basis with different energy levels and physical form on broiler performance. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 7, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massuquetto, A, Panisson, JC, Marx, FO, Surek, D, Krabbe, EL and Maiorka, A 2019. Effect of pelleting and different feeding programs on growth performance, carcass yield, and nutrient digestibility in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 98, 5497–5503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mckinney, LJ and Teeter, RG 2004. Predicting effective caloric value of nonnutritive factors: I. Pellet quality and II. Prediction of consequential formulation dead zones. Poultry Science 83, 1165–1174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meinerz, C, Ribeiro, AML, Penz, AM, Jr and Kessler, AM 2001. Níveis de energia e peletização no desempenho e rendimento de carcaça de frangos de corte com oferta alimentar equalizada. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 30, 2026–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mingbin, LV, Lei, Y, Zhengguo, W, Sha, A, Miaomiao, W and Zunzhou, LV 2015. Effects of feed form and feed particle size on growth performance, carcass characteristics and digestive tract development of broilers. Animal Nutrition 1, 252–256.Google Scholar
Moran, ET, Jr 1982. Comparative nutrition of the fowl and swine. The gastrointestinal system. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontário, Canada.Google Scholar
Morel, PCH, Timmers, JA, De Wit, TATH, Wood, GR, Sherriff, R, Camden, BJ, Thomas, DV and Ravindran, V 2001. Prediction of feed intake in modern broilers. In Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium, 12–14 February 2001, Sydney, Australia, pp. 152–155.Google Scholar
Nir, I and Ptichi, I 2001. Feed particle size and hardness: influence on performance, nutritional, behavioral and metabolic aspects. In Proceedings of the 1st World Feed Conference, 7–8 November 2001, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 157–186.Google Scholar
Nir, I, Shefet, Y and Aroni, G 1994. Effect of particle size on performance. I. Corn. Poultry Science 73, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plavnik, I, Wax, E, Sklan, D and Hurwitz, S 1997. The response of broiler chickens and turkey poults to steam-pelleted diets supplemented with fat or carbohydrates. Poultry Science 76, 1006–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plumstead, PW, Romero-Sanchez, H, Paton, ND, Spears, JW, Brake, J 2007. Effects of dietary metabolizable energy and protein on early growth responses of broilers to dietary lysine. Poultry Science 86, 2639–2648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, MP and Proszkowiec-Weglarz, M 2007. Mechanisms regulating feed intake, energy expenditure, and body weight in poultry. Poultry Science 86, 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rostagno, HS, Albino, LFT, Donzele, JL, Gomes, PC, Oliveira, RF, Lopes, DC, Ferreira, AS, Barreto, SLT and Euclides, RF 2011. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais de aves e suínos, 3rd edition. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Saleh, E, Watkins, S, Waldroup, A and Waldroup, P 2004. Effects of dietary nutrient density on performance and carcass quality of male broilers grown for further processing. International Journal of Poultry Science 3, 1–10.Google Scholar
Scott, TA 2005. Variation in feed intake of broiler chickens. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia 15, 237–244.Google Scholar
Scott, TA and Boldaji, F 1997. Comparison of inert markers [chromic oxide or insoluble ash (CeliteTM)] for determining apparent metabolizable energy of wheat- or barley-based broiler diets with or without enzymes. Poultry Science 76, 594–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, TA and Silversides, FG 2003. Defining the effects of wheat type, water inclusion level, and wet–diet restriction on variability in performance of broilers fed wheat–based dits with added water. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner-Noble, DO, McKinney, LJ and Teeter, RJ 2005. Predicting effective caloric value of nonnutritive factors: III. Feed form affects broiler performance by modifying behavior patterns. Poultry Science 84, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundu, B 2008. The effect of diet and pellet size on the passage rate of feed in the digestive tract of broiler chickens. Journal Agroland 14, 330–335.Google Scholar
Svihus, B 2011. Limitations to wheat starch digestion in growing broiler chickens: a brief review. Animal Production Science 51, 583–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svihus, B, Kløvstad, KH, Perez, V, Zimonja, O, Sahlstrom, S, Schuller, RB, Jeksrud, WK and Prestløkken, E 2004. Physical and nutritional effects of pelleting of broiler chicken diets made from wheat ground to different coarsenesses by the use of roller mill and hammer mill. Animal Feed Science and Technology 117, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, M and Van der Poel, AFB 1996. Physical quality of pelleted animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turk, DE 1982. The anatomy of the avian digestive tract as related to feed utilization. Poultry Science 61, 1225–1244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, M, Silva, LP and Perdomo, DMX 2005. Amido disponível e resistente em alimentos: adaptação do método da AOAC 996.11. Alimentos e Nutrição 16, 39–43.Google Scholar