| Literature DB >> 28371861 |
J de Los Mozos1, A I García-Ruiz1, L A den Hartog1,2, M J Villamide3.
Abstract
The aim of this work has been to assess the effect of diet density [control (CON) or 15% diluted (DIL)] and growth curve [recommended by the genetic line (RBW) or 15% heavier (HBW)] and their interaction on BW uniformity, feeding motivation, behavior, and body composition of broiler breeder pullets. A total of 3,000 one-day-old female breeders Ross 308, distributed in 20 pens, was randomly assigned to each treatment. Feed allowance was weekly adjusted to reach the desired BW. Feed was provided as pelleted (zero to 3 wk) and crumble (4 to 19 wk). Time eating was measured at 7, 11, and 19 weeks. A feeding rate test was performed after 11 weeks. Behavior was observed at 9 and 15 wk, by visual scan. At 6, 13, and 19 wk of age, one bird/pen was slaughtered for weighing different organs and analyzing the composition of empty whole bodies. Treatments did not affect BW uniformity; relative weights of the ovary, oviduct, or gizzard; or protein content of empty BW. Time eating varied with the growth curve at 19 wk (P < 0.05), HBW pullets spent 19 more min eating than RBW pullets. DIL led to 4 and 8 more min eating at 19 wk for pullets of RBW and HBW (P < 0.05), respectively. Pullets fed DIL consumed 30% (P < 0.05) less during the feeding rate test when kept on a restricted regimen, and they had lower compensatory energy intake after ad libitum feeding than those fed CON, indicating lower feeding motivation. Behavior was affected by the age and by the time of the d measured, but it did not change with the treatments. Birds spent most time pecking objects (50%), feeding (28%), and drinking (17%). Pullets fed DIL had 8% lower breast yield at different ages and higher empty digestive tracts at 6 weeks. Body composition varied with age; fat content increased from 12.7 to 15.9 to 19.8% for 6, 13, and 19 wk, respectively. The lowest body fat was observed for RBW pullets fed DIL (P = 0.003) at 19 weeks. Feeding DIL diets to HBW pullets could be done to increase the time spent eating and reduce their feeling of hunger without negative effects on body composition. However, its influence on behavior and BW uniformity was not proved.Entities:
Keywords: body composition; breeder pullet; diet density; eating motivation; growth curve
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28371861 PMCID: PMC5850354 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pex045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Poult Sci ISSN: 0032-5791 Impact factor: 3.352
Ingredient and nutritional (%) composition of the experimental diets.
| Starter-2 | Grower-1 | Grower-2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw materials | Starter1 | Control | Diluted | Control | Diluted | Control | Diluted |
| Corn | 30.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 18.8 | 28.0 | 30.8 |
| Wheat | 25.8 | 18.8 | 3.2 | 21.3 | – | 29.1 | 2.0 |
| Barley | – | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 12.2 | 10.0 | 18.0 |
| Oat | – | 10.0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | – | – |
| Wheat bran | 5.0 | – | 17.3 | 10.0 | 27.0 | 7.7 | 21.0 |
| Gluten feed | – | – | – | – | 10.0 | – | – |
| Sunflower meal | 4.7 | 8.5 | 10.0 | 9.0 | 11.0 | 10.0 | 11.9 |
| Soybean meal | 25.3 | 15.5 | 5.6 | 8.2 | – | – | – |
| Rapeseed | – | – | – | – | – | 7.7 | – |
| Sunflower seeds | 2.3 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Soybean hulls | – | – | 5.0 | – | – | – | – |
| Oat hulls | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4.0 |
| Cereal Straw | – | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 |
| Alfalfa | – | 2.0 | – | 1.2 | – | – | |
| Blend Fat | 2.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Soya oil | – | 1.5 | 1.5 | – | – | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Sodium bicarbonate | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| Calcium Carbonate | 1.61 | 1.59 | 1.23 | 1.16 | 1.14 | 1.40 | 1.52 |
| Monocalcium phosphate | 1.21 | 1.01 | 0.66 | 1.10 | 0.64 | 0.92 | 0.68 |
| Sepiolite | 0.84 | – | – | 1.25 | 2.00 | – | 2.00 |
| Salt | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 0.19 |
| L-Lysine | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.21 |
| DL-Methionine | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.02 | – | 0.02 |
| L-Threonine | – | 0.06 | 0.15 | – | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| Premix | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Calculated values, % | |||||||
| AMEn Kcal/kg | 2800 | 2700 | 2295 | 2550 | 2170 | 2650 | 2253 |
| dig Lys | 0.89 | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 0.55 | 0.47 |
| dig Met | 0.42 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.21 |
| dig M+C | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 0.39 |
| dig Thre | 0.60 | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.35 |
| dig Trp | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| Crude protein | 20.0 | 17.0 | 14.5 | 15.0 | 12.8 | 15.0 | 12.8 |
| Crude fiber | 4.2 | 6.6 | 10.8 | 7.0 | 9.6 | 7.1 | 10.1 |
| Crude fat | 4.9 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.4 |
| Ash | 7.2 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 7.0 | 8.1 | 5.4 | 7.7 |
| Calcium | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.77 |
| dig Phosphorous | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.27 |
| Analyzed values, % | |||||||
| DM | 89.4 | 89.5 | 89.6 | 89.3 | 89.9 | 92.8 | 93.3 |
| Crude protein | 20.8 | 16.8 | 14.2 | 14.7 | 12.4 | 14.9 | 13.0 |
| Crude fiber | 4.6 | 7.1 | 10.5 | 7.4 | 10.0 | 6.8 | 10.2 |
| Crude fat | 3.5 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.0 |
| Ash | 7.5 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 7.4 | 5.3 | 7.9 |
| Starch | – | 41.2 | 33.1 | 41.5 | 35.0 | 44.3 | 38.0 |
Ethogram of the behavioral measurements.
| Behavior | Description |
|---|---|
| Walking | Walking or running with no other discernable activity |
| Drinking | Drinking or releasing water from the nipple drinkers |
| Feeding | Feeding from the feeder |
| Pecking objects | Pecking at objects in the pen, including the empty feeder |
| Pecking other birds | Pecking birds, including the tail feathers or tail region of other birds |
| Foraging | Pecking, scratching the litter |
| Comfort | All other comfort behaviors, such as preening, scratching or wing stretching, sitting, standing and sand bathing |
Figure 1.Weekly average feed intake (A) and body weight (B) of broiler breeder pullets from one to 19 wk of age per treatment (means of 5 pens per treatment ± SEM). Treatments are identified in the graphs as CON/RBW: control diet and recommended growing curve; CON/HBW: control diet and reared to reach a 15% heavier body weight compared to the recommended; DIL/RBW: pullets fed 15% diluted diet and recommended growing curve; DIL/HBW: 15% diluted diet and 15% heavier body weight. In figure 1 (B), the pointed lines show the target body weight for the treatments with the RBW () and HBW ().
Effect of diet density and growing curve and their interaction on body weight, body weight coefficient of variation (cv), and body weight uniformity (%) at 19 wk of age and the accumulated mortality from 0 to 19 wk of age.
| Effects | BW, g | BW cv | BW uniformity, | Ac. mortality, |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | |||
| Diet density | ||||
| CON | 2318 | 14.2 | 51.6 | 6.0 |
| DIL | 2281 | 13.1 | 56.0 | 4.6 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 12 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Target body weight | ||||
| RBW | 2151 | 14.1 | 53.1 | 4.7 |
| HBW | 2449 | 13.2 | 54.4 | 5.8 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 12 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 0.9 |
| Treatments | ||||
| CON / REC | 2161 | 14.6 | 51.2 | 6.3 |
| CON / HEAVY | 2475 | 13.7 | 51.9 | 5.6 |
| DIL / REC | 2140 | 13.6 | 55.0 | 3.1 |
| DIL / HEAVY | 2422 | 12.6 | 56.9 | 6.0 |
| SEM (n = 5) | 16 | 0.6 | 2.6 | 1.3 |
|
| ||||
| Diet | 0.039 | 0.107 | 0.113 | 0.299 |
| Target body weight | <.0001 | 0.174 | 0.624 | 0.407 |
| Interaction | 0.353 | 0.872 | 0.809 | 0.192 |
Time eating (min) and eating rate (g feed/min) in broiler breeder pullets at 7, 11, and 19 wk of age.
| 7 wk | 11 wk | 19 wk | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effects | Eating time | Eating rate | Eating time | Eating rate | Eating time | Eating rate |
| Diet density | ||||||
| CON | 83.7 | 0.64 | 73.6 | 0.90 | 98.9 | 0.89 |
| DIL | 86.0 | 0.72 | 76.9 | 0.98 | 105.0 | 0.95 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 4.6 | 0.04 | 5.3 | 0.07 | 4.7 | 0.05 |
| Target body weight | ||||||
| RBW | 81.8 | 0.65 | 70.3 | 0.94 | 92.6 | 0.95 |
| HBW | 87.9 | 0.70 | 80.2 | 0.94 | 111.3 | 0.88 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 4.6 | 0.04 | 5.3 | 0.07 | 4.7 | 0.05 |
| Treatments | ||||||
| CON / RBW | 81.0 | 0.61 | 69.2 | 0.88 | 90.6 | 0.91 |
| CON / HBW | 86.4 | 0.67 | 78.0 | 0.91 | 107.2 | 0.86 |
| DIL / RBW | 82.6 | 0.70 | 71.4 | 1.00 | 94.6 | 0.99 |
| DIL / HBW | 89.4 | 0.73 | 82.4 | 0.96 | 115.4 | 0.91 |
| SEM (n = 5) | 6.5 | 0.06 | 7.5 | 0.10 | 6.6 | 0.06 |
|
| ||||||
| Diet | 0.729 | 0.174 | 0.376 | 0.414 | 0.368 | 0.322 |
| Target BW | 0.364 | 0.415 | 0.341 | 0.974 | 0.008 | 0.313 |
| Interaction | 0.810 | 0.841 | 0.418 | 0.721 | 0.050 | 0.812 |
Figure 2.Feeding rate test (g of feed consumed in 2 min) after feed withdrawal of 24 h in pullets subjected to daily feed restriction (81 d) or ad libitum feeding (87 d) (A) and compensatory energy intake (MJ/kg 0.75) 24 h (first d) and 48 h (secong d) after ad libitum feed supplied (B) between the different diets (control vs. diluted).
Figure 3.Percentage of animals (%) performing different activities per treatment (A), per wk of age (7 and 15 wk of age) (B), and per time of the d (morning: with feed in the feeder; afternoon: without feed) (C).
Effects of diet density and growing curve (target body weight) and their interaction on breast meat yield, digestive tract, and gizzard (% BW) at 6, 13, and 19 wk of age and oviduct and ovary (g/100 kg BW) at 19 wk of age.
| Breast meat yield | Empty digestive tract | Gizzard | Oviduct | Ovary | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effects | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk | 19 wk | 19 wk |
| Diet density | |||||||||||
| CON | 10.9 | 15.2 | 19.6 | 6.37 | 3.26 | 3.04 | 3.31 | 2.36 | 1.96 | 17.5 | 29.4 |
| DIL | 9.92 | 13.6 | 18.6 | 7.33 | 3.35 | 3.21 | 3.40 | 2.49 | 2.06 | 15.7 | 33.9 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Target body weight | |||||||||||
| RBW | 10.5 | 13.7 | 19.1 | 7.05 | 3.36 | 3.14 | 3.42 | 2.45 | 2.04 | 16.0 | 33.3 |
| HBW | 10.3 | 15.0 | 19.2 | 6.66 | 3.25 | 3.11 | 3.30 | 2.40 | 1.98 | 17.3 | 30.1 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Treatments | |||||||||||
| CON / RBW | 10.8 | 15.1a | 19.7 | 6.67a,b | 3.20 | 3.04 | 3.31 | 2.35 | 2.01 | 16.7 | 28.9 |
| CON / HBW | 10.9 | 15.2a | 19.6 | 6.08b | 3.32 | 3.04 | 3.52 | 2.56 | 2.08 | 18.4 | 29.9 |
| DIL / RBW | 10.2 | 12.4b | 18.6 | 7.42a | 3.53 | 3.25 | 3.30 | 2.38 | 1.91 | 15.3 | 37.6 |
| DIL / HBW | 9.70 | 14.7a,b | 18.7 | 7.24a,b | 3.18 | 3.17 | 3.29 | 2.42 | 2.05 | 16.1 | 30.2 |
| SEM (n = 5) | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 1.6 | 3.1 |
|
| |||||||||||
| Diet | 0.084 | 0.010 | 0.039 | 0.001 | 0.505 | 0.146 | 0.702 | 0.319 | 0.331 | 0.308 | 0.194 |
| Target BW | 0.744 | 0.042 | 0.940 | 0.120 | 0.425 | 0.748 | 0.633 | 0.676 | 0.550 | 0.471 | 0.347 |
| Interaction | 0.312 | 0.003 | 0.217 | 0.002 | 0.232 | 0.488 | 0.913 | 0.608 | 0.708 | 0.787 | 0.223 |
a,bLeast square means not sharing a common superscript differed as compared using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test (Tukey, 1953).
Effects of diet density and growing curve and their interaction on body composition (% body weight on DM basis) of broiler breeder pullets at 6, 13, and 19 wk of age.
| Crude protein, % DM | Ash, % DM | Fat, % DM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effects | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk | 6 wk | 13 wk | 19 wk |
| Diet density | |||||||||
| CON | 65.6 | 64.4 | 62.4 | 12.8 | 13.5 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 15.2 | 22.2 |
| DIL | 66.0 | 61.0 | 64.6 | 11.8 | 13.2 | 11.3 | 12.6 | 16.7 | 17.4 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Target body weight | |||||||||
| RBW | 67.2 | 64.3 | 62.9 | 12.2 | 14.5 | 11.5 | 12.4 | 16.4 | 18.6 |
| HBW | 64.4 | 61.2 | 64.1 | 12.5 | 12.2 | 11.8 | 13.1 | 15.4 | 21.0 |
| SEM (n = 10) | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Treatments | |||||||||
| CON / RBW | 67.2 | 67.8 | 61.0 | 13.7a | 15.1 | 12.0 | 12.8 | 16.0 | 23.1a |
| CON / HBW | 64.0 | 61.1 | 63.8 | 12.0a,b | 11.9 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 14.3 | 21.3a,b |
| DIL / RBW | 67.2 | 60.8 | 64.9 | 10.7b | 13.8 | 11.0 | 12.1 | 16.8 | 14.0b |
| DIL / HBW | 64.8 | 61.3 | 64.3 | 13.0a,b | 12.6 | 11.6 | 13.2 | 16.5 | 20.8a,b |
| SEM (n = 5) | 1.6 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
|
| |||||||||
| Diet | 0.805 | 0.178 | 0.210 | 0.122 | 0.783 | 0.515 | 0.877 | 0.323 | 0.009 |
| Target BW | 0.095 | 0.218 | 0.509 | 0.678 | 0.074 | 0.767 | 0.685 | 0.492 | 0.166 |
| Interaction | 0.407 | 0.120 | 0.410 | 0.012 | 0.271 | 0.892 | 0.961 | 0.713 | 0.003 |
a,bLeast square means not sharing a common superscript differed as compared using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test (Tukey, 1953).