| Literature DB >> 33091228 |
Fatemeh Bekri1, Mehran Torki1.
Abstract
To investigate the effects of replacing maize with various levels of raw and processed oak fruit in diet on productive performance of laying hens and egg quality traits, the total number of 168 Bovans white laying hens (30-week age) were randomly distributed between 28 replicate cages and assigned to 7 experimental diets. Based on a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement of treatments including two dietary levels (10% and 20%) of raw, soaked or boiled oak fruit as well as a corn-soybean meal-based diet, 7 experimental diets with 4 replicates and 6 chickens per replicate cages were evaluated during an 8-week period. The data were analysed using GLM procedure of SAS. Significantly higher feed consumption was observed in 10% boiled oak compared with soaked oak (p < .05). Significantly improved feed conversion ratio was observed in 10% boiled oak compared with soaked oak (p < .05). Diet inclusion of 10% oak fruit caused significant increased shell weight. Significant interaction between oak level and processing method on the egg-specific gravity was observed (p < .05), and higher egg-specific gravity was detected in hens fed the diets included 20% boiled or 20% raw oak compared to 20% soaked oak. Significantly increased blood LDL level was observed in hens fed the diets that included boiled and soaked oak (p < .05). In conclusion, based on the results of the present study, 10% boiled oak can be substituted corn in diet of laying hens with no unfavourable effect on performance.Entities:
Keywords: blood biochemicals; egg quality traits; laying hens; oak fruit; performance
Year: 2020 PMID: 33091228 PMCID: PMC8025638 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Sci ISSN: 2053-1095
Composition and chemical analyses of experimental diets
| Ingredients (%) | Control diet | 10% oak | 20% oak |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | 52.07 | 41.53 | 31.00 |
| Oak acorn | 0 | 10 | 20 |
| Soybean meal | 30.39 | 32.61 | 34.83 |
| Wheat bran | 0.7 | 0.35 | 0.01 |
| Vegetable oil | 4.27 | 4.27 | 4.27 |
| Limestone | 9.78 | 9.02 | 8.26 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.74 | 1.22 | 0.7 |
| Common salt | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Mineral premix | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Vitaminpremix | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| DL‐Methionine | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.05 |
Vitamin premix supplied per kg of diet: vitamin A: 7.2 g; vitamin D3: 7 g; vitamin E: 14.4 g; vitamin K3: 1.6 g; vitamin B1: 0.72 g; vitamin B2: 3.3 g; vitamin B3 (Calcium pan‐thotenate): 12.16 g; vitamin B5 (Niacin): 12 g; vitamin B6: 6.2 mg; vitamin B12: 0.6 g; Biotin: 0.2 g and Cholin chloride: 440 mg.
Mineral premix supplied per kg of diet: Manganese: 64 mg; Iron: 100 mg; Zinc: 44 mg; Copper: 16 mg; Iodine: 0.64 mg and Selenium: 8 mg.
Proximate analysis of oak fruit (% DM)
| Component | DM | Ash | CP | EE | CF | Tannin | Phenolic compounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw oak | 88.74 | 1.4 | 4.19 | 8.36 | 2.34 | 5.60 | 6.24 |
| Soaked oak | 90.21 | 1.9 | 6.95 | 9.12 | 2.19 | 4.14 | 4.69 |
| Boiled oak | 93.61 | 1.11 | 7.15 | 9.98 | 2.10 | 3.88 | 4.53 |
Dry matter.
Crude protein.
Ether extract.
Crude fibre.
Effect of different levels of raw and processed oak fruit on performance of laying hens
| Treatments | Feed intake (g f/hen/day) | FCR | Egg mass (g egg/h/d) | Egg production (%) | Egg weight (g) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks | 30–34 | 34–38 | 30–38 | 30–34 | 34–38 | 30–38 | 30–34 | 34–38 | 30–38 | 30–34 | 34–38 | 30–38 | 30–34 | 34–38 | 30–38 |
| Oak (%) | |||||||||||||||
| 10 | 109.5 | 109.8a | 109.6 | 2.5a | 2.0b | 2.1b | 51.2a | 53.0a | 52.1a | 89.6a | 89.7a | 89.7a | 51.2a | 53.0a | 52.1a |
| 20 | 109.0 | 1.9.2b | 109.1 | 2.1b | 2.4a | 2.4a | 44.9b | 44.1b | 44.9b | 81.0b | 78.5b | 79.8b | 44.9b | 44.1b | 44.9b |
|
| 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 1.34 | 1.06 | 1.14 | 2.37 | 2.00 | 2.10 | 1.34 | 1.06 | 1.14 |
| Processing | |||||||||||||||
| Raw | 109.5 | 109.2b | 109.3 | 2.2b | 2.3ab | 2.2b | 49.7a | 48.3b | 49.0ab | 87.9a | 82.1a | 85.4ab | 49.7a | 48.3b | 49.0ab |
| Soaking | 109.0 | 109.5a | 109.2 | 2.6a | 2.3a | 2.4a | 43.6b | 47.2b | 45.4b | 76.9b | 80.8b | 78.9b | 43.6b | 47.2b | 45.4b |
| Boiling | 109.3 | 109.8a | 109.5 | 2.1b | 2.1b | 2.1b | 50.8a | 51.5a | 51.2a | 91.1a | 88.6a | 89.9a | 50.8a | 51.5a | 51.2a |
|
| 0.32 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 1.64 | 1.30 | 1.39 | 2.91 | 2.44 | 2.58 | 1.65 | 1.29 | 1.39 |
|
| |||||||||||||||
| O | 0.26 | 0.006 | 0.07 | 0.009 | 0.0001 | 0.0009 | 0.003 | 0.0001 | 0.0003 | 0.02 | 0.0009 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.0001 | 0.0003 |
| P | 0.57 | 0.03 | 0.65 | 0.009 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| O × P | 0.86 | 0.12 | 0.93 | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0.70 | 0.56 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0.70 |
The existence of similar letters indicates that there is no significant difference.
FCR, feed conversion ratio; O, oak; P, processing.
Pooled standard error of the mean.
Effect of different levels of raw and processed Oak fruit on egg quality traits of laying hens
| Treatments | Shell weight (g) | Yolk weight (g) | White weight (g) | Shell thickness (mm) | Shape index (%) | Yolk index (per cent) | Yolk colour (Roch) | Haugh unit | Special Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oak (%) | |||||||||
| 10 | 6.0a | 16.5 | 34.4 | 39.4 | 74.9 | 42.0 | 4.3 | 95.7 | 1.0 |
| 20 | 5.6b | 16.6 | 33.4 | 38.4 | 75.6 | 43.7 | 4.3 | 94.8 | 1.0 |
|
| 0.15 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.63 | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.14 | 1.14 | 1.28 |
| Processing | |||||||||
| Raw | 5.9 | 33.9 | 34.0 | 39.2 | 74.4 | 43.0 | 4.5 | 95.6 | 1.09 |
| Soaking | 5.9 | 34.3 | 33.9 | 38.6 | 76.5 | 41.1 | 4.4 | 94.1 | 1.08 |
| Boiling | 5.8 | 34.0 | 34.3 | 38.8 | 74.9 | 43.6 | 4.0 | 96.0 | 1.09 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 1.08 | 0.18 | 1.40 | 0.001 |
| CV | 9.06 | 6.91 | 4.22 | 5.68 | 2.30 | 7.16 | 12.14 | 4.18 | 0.48 |
|
| |||||||||
| O | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.33 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.20 | 0.84 | 0.60 | 0.44 |
| P | 0.86 | 0.43 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.06 | 0.57 | 0.14 | 0.60 | 0.37 |
| O × P | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.58 | 0.16 | 0.64 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.004 |
The existence of similar letters indicates that there is no significant difference.
O, oak; P, processing.
Pooled standard error of the mean.
Interaction of treatments on specific gravity and Haugh unit
| Treatments | Special weight | Haugh unit |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 1.09abc | 93.9ab |
| 10% raw oak | 1.08bc | 95.7ab |
| 10% soaked oak | 1.09abc | 97.5a |
| 10% boiled oak | 1.09ab | 93.8ab |
| 20% raw oak | 1.10a | 95.4ab |
| 20% soaked oak | 1.08c | 90.7b |
| 20% boiled oak | 1.08bc | 98.3a |
|
| 0.002 | 1.91 |
The existence of similar letters indicates that there is no significant difference.
Pooled standard error of the mean.
Orthogonal comparisons of treatments for egg mass and egg production
| Treatments | Egg mass | Egg production | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week | 34–38 | 30–38 | 34–38 | 30–38 | ||||
| Orthogonal contrasts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Control vs. other treatments | 96.3 vs. 80.9 | 0.002 | 95.5 vs. 84.7 | 0.007 | 57.8 vs. 49.0 | 0.0001 | 56.5 vs. 48.5 | 0.0006 |
| 10% R vs. 20% R | 90.0 vs. 75.9 | 0.005 | 90.1 vs. 80.8 | 0.06 | 53.6 vs. 43.0 | 0.0003 | 52.8 vs. 45.3 | 0.009 |
| 10% P vs. 20% P | 89.8 vs. 75.8 | 0.006 | 89.5 vs. 79.3 | 0.006 | 52.8 vs. 45.9 | 0.0008 | 51.8 vs. 44.8 | 0.001 |
| 10,20% R vs. 10,20% P | 82.1 vs. 84.7 | 0.53 | 85.4 vs. 84.4 | 0.71 | 48.3 vs. 49.4 | 0.49 | 49.0 vs. 48.3 | 0.65 |
O, oak; P, processing.
Effect of different levels of raw and processed oak fruit on blood biochemicals of laying hens
| Treatments | Glucose (mg/dl) | Triglyceride (mg/dl) | Total protein (g/dl) | Cholesterol (mg/dl) | HDL (mg/dl) | LDL (mg/dl) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oak (%) | ||||||
| 10 | 133.9 | 173.1 | 4.6 | 147.2 | 41.2 | 67.1 |
| 20 | 144.2 | 168.1 | 4.0 | 140.5 | 46.1 | 54.8 |
|
| 14.62 | 10.86 | 0.25 | 11.78 | 1.74 | 8.9 |
| Processing | ||||||
| Raw | 154.8 | 183.1 | 4.7 | 124.3 | 44.2 | 41.0b |
| Soaking | 125.3 | 172.9 | 4.4 | 164.9 | 43.3 | 81.4a |
| Boiling | 136.9 | 155.9 | 3.7 | 142.3 | 43.5 | 60.4ab |
|
| 17.91 | 13.30 | 0.30 | 14.43 | 2.14 | 10.97 |
| CV | 36.43 | 22.06 | 20.30 | 28.39 | 13.89 | 50.92 |
|
| ||||||
| O | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.11 | 0.6 | 0.06 | 0.34 |
|
| 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.08 | 0.1 | 0.94 | 0.05 |
| O × P | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.18 | 0.6 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
The existence of similar letters indicates that there is no significant difference.
HDL, high‐density lipoprotein; LDL, low‐density lipoprotein; O, oak; P, processing.
Pooled standard error of the mean.
Orthogonal comparisons of treatments for feed intake, feed conversion ratio and shell weight
| Treatments | Feed intake | FCR | Shell weight | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week | 34–38 | 30–38 | 34–38 | 30–38 | 34–38 | 30–38 | ||||||
| Orthogonal contrasts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Control vs. other treatments | 109.6 vs. 109.5 | 0.72 | 109.4 vs. 109.4 | 0.96 | 1.1 vs. 2.3 | 0.02 | 1.9 vs. 2.2 | 0.0007 | 1.9 vs. 2.3 | 0.003 | 6.0 vs. 5.8 | 0.46 |
| 10% R vs. 20% R | 109.7 vs. 108.7 | 0.001 | 109.6 vs. 109.0 | 0.21 | 2.1 vs. 2.2 | 0.33 | 2.0 vs. 2.5 | 0.001 | 2.1 vs. 2.4 | 0.03 | 5.9 vs. 5.8 | 0.89 |
| 10% P vs. 20% P | 109.8 vs. 109.5 | 0.20 | 109.6 vs. 109.2 | 0.20 | 2.1 vs. 2.5 | 0.005 | 2.1 vs. 2.4 | 0.001 | 2.1 vs. 2.5 | 0.001 | 6.2 vs. 5.5 | 0.01 |
| 10,20% R vs. 10,20% P | 109.1 vs. 109.6 | 0.02 | 109.3 vs. 109.4 | 0.85 | 2.2 vs. 2.4 | 0.14 | 2.3 vs. 2.2 | 0.67 | 2.2 vs. 2.3 | 0.45 | 5.9 vs. 5.8 | 0.85 |
Abbreviations: FCR, feed conversion ratio; FI, feed intake; O, oak; P, processing.