...... ..,.,.._._", .. t._u""""lPi __ "'_'_' __ .... ·_a ,_._ ..... c:w ..... .., __ ,_. 1II!tl\_._'" .-. ----7' ·r-"-~~~·_'---~:

C.'

FIC 1 OIS ~IIC fAT DEPOSm .. III -I,LBl CHICIEIIS

by .

Dlv1 dE. Lauri n

"'-A thesh subIrItted tG the f'lculty of GrldU.te Stud1es

and ResHrch in Partial fulfillleftt of the requ1r_nts for ~ clegree of Master of SCi.fIC'

. . Deparbl ... t of Antal Science MIc"'ld'College of McG111 ~nty.rs1ty .... ~1. Quebee, CA..... '

..

•

. '

.' ,

®JÙ1~, 1984

\

1

" ,

!lIlft • L lM tu 1 la

o ,\

t , f

1 l ' f

l \

t , \

1

, , 1 ... 1)

• 'It,

SUliested short title':

, FACTORS APFECTING FAT DEPOSITION IN BROILER CHICKENS

j

/

1 1

/

1

/ 1

. '(

\

)

"

o

n •

,!Ir-

FACTORS AFFECTING-PAT DEPOSITION IN BROILER CHICKENS

DA.VID E. LAURIN

ABSTRACT

M.Sc. ANIMAL SCIENCE

Genetic selection for increased growth rate has led to an increase '.

in abdominal fat deposition. Feeding low energy (LE) diets (2,700-2,800

kcal AMEn/kg) versus high energy (HE) diets (3,200-3,300 kcal AMEn/kg)

significantly (P<. 01) reduced abdominal fat at 7 weeks of age from 3.38 .. to 2.17\ of liveweight. This reduction," however, was at the expense of

growth. Qy switching diets at 3 weeks of age from HE to LE, growth was

slightly less than broilers fed only the HE diets but abdominal fat was

reduced to the same leve l as broi lers fed the LE diets throughout.

Switching diets from LE to HE maintained high growth performance but did

not reduce abdominal fat as compared to thosc broilers fed only HE diets.

Feeding a high protein finisher diet (21%'CP) versus a loow protein

finisher diet (19% CP) signi ficantly (P<" 01) reduced abdominal fat at 7

weeks of age from" 3 .16 to 2.58% of li veweight. Dietary animal fat ~~

supplementation significantly (P<.Ol) increased abdominal fat and growth < • -

at 1 weeks of age when assigned a calorie value of 7,9lO but _not when

assigned 9,000 kcal AMEn/kg. Fine control of dietary energ,y/ i s'\~ssential , for any nutri tion program to minimize abdominal fat deposition. The AME

- \ assay, determined on ad libitum fed broilers at 1 kg body wei-ght" j:s the

measurement of choice for young broilers because i t produced precise

resul ts and did not require ni trogen correction. The TME assay 1 determined'

on restricted fed broilers at 1 kg body weight, did not produce precise

results and did require nitrogen correction: TMEn values; however, were

not as precise as AME values.

l ,

• 1

, .

c FACfEURS AFFECTANT LA DEPOSITION DE GRAS DES POULETS DE CHAIR

RESUME

~ :1\

D~VID 'E. LAURIN ( M.Sc. ANIMAL SCIENCE

o \! La sélection génétique visant à augmenter le taux de croissance

chez l~ poulet de chair provoque l'augmentation de la déposition de

gras abdominal. L'apport d'un régime alimentaire énergiquement faible

(LB) (2,700-2,800 kcal AMEn/kg) à l'opposé d'un régime alimentaire

énergiquement élevè (HE) (3,200-3,300 kcal AMEn/kg) réduit signifi­

cativement (P<.Ol) la présence de gras abdominal de 3.38 à,2.77% du

poids vif à l'âge de 7 semaines. Cependent, cette réduction se fait

aux d~ends du taux~de croissance. En changeant la diète HE pour la

dUte LE à l'âge de f~semaines, la croissance est légèrement moindre 1

que celle des poulets de chair nourris uniquement avec la diète HE

mais la déposition de gras abdominal est réduite à un niveau similaire

~ celle des poulets de chair nourris uniquement avec la diète LE. Le

changement de la diète LE po~r la Jiète HE maintient le taux de croissancè

élevé mais ne réduit pas la dépostion de gras abdominal par rapport aux

• pou,lets de chair nourris seulement avec la diète HE. Une diète de

finition contenant 21% de protéines à l'opposé d'une diète de finition

contenant 19% de protéines réduit significative~ent (P<.Ol) la déposition

de gras abdominal de 3.16 à 2.58% du poids vif à l'age de 7 semaines.

L'addition de gras animal dans la diète augmente significativement la

déposition de gras abdominal ainsi que la croissance, à l'âge de 7

semaines, quand une valeur de 7,920 kcal AMEn/kg lui est assignée et

non pas quand une valeur de 9,000 kcal AMEn/kg lui est assignée. Un

contrôle adéquate du niveau energétique, de la diète est essent1el pour

tout programme nutritif afin dè minimiser la déposition de gras abdominal.

Le test AME, déterminé sur les poulets de chair de 1 kg nourris ad libitum,

est la référence de choix pour les jeunes poulets de chair parce qu'il

donne des résultats précis et ne necessite aucune correction du niveau

d'azote. Le test 1ME, déterminé sur des poulets de chair de 1 kg,

nourris restrictivement ne donne pas de résultats précis et necessite

une correction du niveau d'azote. Les valeurs TMEn sont, c~pendant.

moins précises que les valeurs AME.

c

•

,- '

ACKNOWLEOGEMENTS

Iike to express his sincerest gratitude "to

Dr. S.P. Touchburn for his guidance and encouragement during this

project. '.,

The author would al,so like to express his appreciation to Or. ,

,E.R. Chavez and C.W. Chan for their advice and assistance.,

Special thanks, to Ors. G.A. Ansah and F. Hayes for their help

on analyzing the data.

The author would aiso Iike to express his gratitude to Mrs.

,B. Gill and my sister, Barbara for typing this manuscript.

'The,author would aiso like to thank the following people for

1 their much appreciate~ assistance: Serge Boutet, Linda Chin, Hugh

Oimock, ?ascal de Henau, Chee Wee Lee, Bob McEwen, Brian Mitchell,

Yola Moride, Daniel Robidoux, Jean-Paul Roy, José Segura, Serge

Tremblay, and Don Zura. , The author would also like to thank Dr. Bernard Leclercq

for supplying the fat and lean line broilers.

The financial aSSistance of the Conseil des Recherches et

.... Services Agricoles du Quebec and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is aise appreciated.

-.

"/

, .

()

"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •• , ............. el ...................... , ........... Il ••••••• i

LIST OF • 1 l '

TABLES •••••• ..,.. • • • .. • ......... \' <II <1'. ... .............. 1 ......... ~ ••• li • Iii " .-'

LIST OP FIGURES ••••••• , ••••• i .............. ~ ~...................... .. vi

1.

'-

REVIEW OF LlTE~TURE ••••••• /II ................................ . 1

In trod.uction •••••.•• ' ............................... '. • •• 2 , ,

Genetic factors affecting the fat content of broilers and methods of selection against "

i t .......................................... ',' • . • . . . ... 7.

Environmental factors affecting the fat content of broUers (.' 13 .................................... éompar~son of the dietary ~nergy systems devel,oped for poul try. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . • . . . • • • . . .• 1S

'.

Effect of dietary energy and protein on the fat content of broilers ................... ' ...... 31

The effect of fat supplementation on the uti lization of broUer diets........................ 34

, II. EFFECT OF DIETARY ENERGY AND PROTEIN ON THE GR<MrrH PERFORMANCE AND ABDOMINAL FAT Of. BRQILERS 41

CJI:> j ecti ves .....•..•..•.....•••••••.•••••.••••••..•• JI 42

Ma terial s and methods ••••••.•••• ~ •• : .... • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 43

Resul ts ........•...•....••.••• ~ • • . • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 50

Discussion ...................... • ' • •...•.•..••••••• ~ .• 63

~UIIIIIlarY and conclusions ••••• : .................. : •••• : 68

Ill. METHODS OF MEASURING. ENERGY UTILIZATION IN BROII.ERS: EFFECT OF GENETIC LINE AND PRESENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL DIETARY FAT 69

CIljectives ........................................... 70

MIlt:erial sand Methods .. , .•.••••••...•••• ' •..• ; • • . • • .• 71 1

Results •........•.•...• ~ ••..•.••.••.••••.•••••••.... 80

Discussion .......................................... 111

SUllUlary élnd conclusions .•.....•.......••.•.•••• ; • . . •. 126 v

IV. 'GENERAL S~Y AND CONCLUSIONS .................. : ......... 129 'V. . l'I''rft .. ..,.,me ' L 1. &;,ftI\.1 UI\,.I; C ITED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 131

VI. APPENDIX .................................. ;,' ••• ' •••••••••••••• 168

.. wt )4 ".... t!Z .. ,;z _ ... x

ii

1

'1

o

-- ------- --- -----.------~----~-_.~------------------ .----- -~--------- ----- ---- ------------------

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

TABLE 6 -

TABLE 7

TABLE 8

-TABLE 9

tr

LIST OF TABLES

~ Dietary energy programs, Experiment 1 •••.•••••••••• 46

Dietary energy and prote in programs, Experimen. t 2............................................. 48

Dfetary energy and prote in programs, Experiment 3 ...................... I, ... ~,. • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • •• 49

Effeet of sex on body weight and abdominal fat content, 'ExpeTiment 1. •.•••.••.•.•..•.••.•..•.. 51

Effeet of ~ietary fat supplementation and its assignéd calorie value on feed consumption, body weight, feed ~onversion and abdominal fat content, Experiment 1 ••••.••••••• 52

Effeet of dietary energy program on feed consumption, body weight, feed conversion and abdominal fat content, Experiment 1 .......•.....•.•.....••..•.•. .-.; -. -••.••. 94 Effeet of dietary energy program on 'f~ed consumption, body weight, feed conversion and abdominal fat content, Experimen t 2 ............................. ' ..... '. . . . . .. 56

Effeet of dietary protein program ~

and fat supplementation o~ feed. consumption. body weight, feed conversion and abdominal fat content,

:;::::m:;td:~~~~~'~~~~~~';~~~~~'~'~""""" 57

feed consumption, body weight, fee~ conversion and abdominal, fat content. Experimen t 3............ ~)'~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... S9

TABLE 10 Effeet of dietary fat supp1 ementation. at an assigned calorie value of 9,000 kcal AMEn /kg, on feed consumption. body weight. feed conversion and abdominal ,fat content. Experiment 3 •••••••••••••••• 61

.. ..TAB Effeet protein content of the

ni er diet and fat supplementation on feed consumption. body weight gain, feed conversion and abdominal fat con ten t. Experimen t 3............................... 62

Composition of purified diets, ExpertDents 4 8Ud 5. 72

Compj)sition of purified diets, Experiment 6 •••• ' •••• -18

'.

iii

•

/1

4

!

1

1 ("

,

o

Cl

TABLE 1

TABLE lS

Effec:t of sex and 'diet on apparent "'I1P"'Q.l:izable energy values at 5 weeks

'\.

. ' of age. ~"G:.en't 4 ••...•..••••.••..•....•.•.• '. •• 81

Effect of gene . cline of broiler and' dietary fat con nt 'on. apparent and true metabolizabl energy val'ues at 1 and 3 weeks of a 84

TABLE 16 Effeet of genetie li

TABLE 17

" TABLE 18

Y

TABLE 19

TABLE ,20

TABLE 21

TABLE 22

and dietary fat eonten ........ ~~ and nitrogen retention at 1 and 3

-weeks of age, Experiment 5 •••••. • ,-1". • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 85

Eff,eet of genetie !ine of broiler and dietary fat content on eareass composition at 3 weeks of age, Experiment S ••••••• 87

Effeet of genetie line of broiler and dietary fat content OF' apparent metabolizable energy values st 5 wèeks of age, Experimen t S................................ 89

Effeet of genetic line of broiler and dietary fat content on fat digestibility and ni trogen retention at S weeks of age and at 1 kg body weight, Experiment 5 ••...••.• 90

Comparison of metabolizable energy (ME) values with net energy for production (HEp) values, Experiment S· •••••••••••••••.•• ," '.' • •• 92

Effeet" of genetie !ine of broiler and dietary fat content on the nitrogen correction of metabolizable energy values obtained at 1 kg body weight, Experiment S ••••••.•••••••.•• 93

Endogenous excretion, during a 24, bour fast, of ~ genetic lines of broilers at 1 kg ilbody weight, Experiment 5 ..••.•.•..•..... :... 95

TABLE 23 Error variance estimates of metabolizable energy values obtained with 1 kg broilers restricted to a 2S grq meal or fed ad lib i tum, Experiment 5 •••••• :....... 96

TABLE 24 Errer variance estimates of endogenous ... energy excretion of l kg broilers fasted ,

for 24 hours, Experiment 5 •••••••.•••••.•••••• '. • •• 97

TABLE 25 Effect of 'genetic !ine .of broUer and ,'. dietary fat content on the eost of utilization (AME-NEp) of dietary \" Iletabolizab1e energy from 3 weeks of age to 1 kg body weight., Experiment s~ ...... f •••• ·.;,.98 ,

• s;

_f< ___ _

iv

~-""O"I' ""-~"'.v, __ " ___ .. __ --. ......... ~ __ ..... _ ........... : , , r

, ......... ~. ~..,"i'~~"'_~ __ .......... ~ __ .......... ., ..... ___ -..Hf.~~.,1~\ .. 1' ~

(

,0

, '

. ,

TABLE 26 E~fect of ge~etic lin~ of broiler 'and dietary fat content on carcass composition

TABLE 27

at 1 kg body weight. Experiment 5 •..•.•..•••.•..•. 99

Effect of genetic.line of broiler and dietary fat content on apparent and true metabolizable energy values at 1 and 3 weeks of age, Experiment 6 •••..••••.•• 102

. \

TABLE 28 Effect of genetic line~of broiler and dietary fat content on fat digestibHi ty ~ and nttrogen retention at 1 and 3 weeks of age J Experiment 6 ........... '* • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 104

TABLE 29

TABLE 30

Effect of genetic line of broiler and dietary fat content on carcass cOmposition at 3 weeks of age,. Experiment' 6 •.....•..•••.•••••

Effeet-of genetic line of broiler and dietary fat content on apparent metabolizable energy values af; 5 ~eeks of age. Experiinen t 6 ...................... I~ ••••••••••••••

TABLE 31 Effeet of genetie line of broiler and dietary fat eo~tent on fat digestibility and nitrogen retention at 5 weeks of age and at 1 kg body weight.

106

107

Experimen t 6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... , 108

TABLE 32

TABLE 33

TABLE 34

TABLE 35

Comparison of metabolizable energy (ME) values with net energy for p;oduction (NE ) values, Experiment 6 ••••••.••.•••.•.•••.•••

p, " Effect of genetic line of broifer él9d dietary fat content on the nitrogen correction'of metabolizable energ~, values obtained at 1 kg body weight, Experiment 6 ..... * ••••••••••• 'q* ••••••••••••••••• -:

Endogenous excretion. during a 36 hour fast, of 3 'genetie lines of broilers at 1 kg body weight, E~eriment 6 .••••••..••••..•

Error variance estimates of metabolizable energy val~es obtaineq with 1 kg broilers restricted to a 25 gram mèal or fed ad libitum, Experiment 6 ........................ .

TABLE 36 Error variance estimat~s of endogenous energy excretion of 1 kg broilers fasted ~

,110

112

113

114

for 36 hours, Experiment 6....................... Ils .., TABLE 37 Effect of genetic line of broiler and

dietary fat content on the cost of utilization (AME-NE ) of dietary metabolizable energy from 3 weeksPof age to l kg body weight, Experiment 6 .. , ......................... '",. 116

TABLE 38 Effect of genetic line of broiler and dietary fat content on carcass composition " a t 1 kg body weight, Experiment 6............... fls

, .

•

" ,

1

Figure 1

Figure 2

(

• f

LIST OF FIGURES

Growth perforDÎance of 3 lines of broilers from 1 day of age to 1 kg body weight. Experiment S...................... ... ". . . . . . . . .. 83

Growth performance of 3 lines of broilers from 1 day of age to 1 kg body weight. . Experiment 6 .. ::.; .... __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101

-- .

vi

.. .

1

c -~-

1

1. BIO CF LI'J'EIA'..-

(,

<

<' . \

~j.o

,/ \, .... ,

....

f' \

#

..1" ( .c-'

~ ..

, \ 1 ."

)

Introduction f

2 __ .....

The broiler chicken of toda')' repreaenta a near-miracle

of i.pr?ved growth rate and efficienc)' of feed utilization.

In 1946, broilera took 14 weeka to reach a live weight

of 1.8 kg. In 1951, broilera were 1.7 kg ~t 12 weeka of age.

Thaae birde ete almost 3 kg of feed for each kg of weight

gained (Biely!!. aL, 1971). Today. our broilera average

weIl over 1.8 kg by 7 weeka of age and need Ieee than 2 kg of

foad for each kg gained.

One sour note in thi. per farllance la that today' 8

brailer ia tao fat.

It appear. that broilers are nqw conau.ing energy far ln ..

exce •• of their .etabollc ability for non-fat tissue growth, .

leading to ace ruaI 0' gr.ater fat deposi ta (Su .... ra and

lesaon, 1979). The.. authors also hypothealz.d that, in

•• 'lecting for .axiau. growth .rate, we aay in fact have .' •• lect.d fqr incr ••• ed appetite, leading ta thi. fat ptobI •••

A large port-ion of the carca •• fat in broil.ra i.

located in the abdoaen and i. callad the abdo~l f.t pad.

Beek.r et .1. (1981) dater.ined that the abdoainal rat pad --Il

repre •• nted 22S of the total fat in the broiler. Griffith.

et 81. (·1977b) de.ctibed abdo.inal '.t •• Itthat fat --

..

J

•

1

1

....

o

- o

3,

"-

surrounding the gi~zard and intestines, extending within the

ischiu. and adjacent abdominal muscles."

A~doRllnal fat depoai t ion la used as an indiea tor for

eatimating total careass fat becâtae c~rrelation8 from 0.4 to'

U • 9 ha v e been found between the twà (Delpech and Ricard,

1965; Shigeno, 1973; Van· Middelkoop ét .!l" 1977 f Gri ffi ths

.!!. .!l., 1978; Becker .!l.!!.., 1979; Elwinger, 1980; Leclercq

II al., 1980).

Broilera containing excessive abdominal fst are lesa

des i rable for (1) the consumer when the fat pad eompri8~8

part of the marketable product (Bartov et .!l., 1974), (2) the

producer becauas the abdominal fat ia a non-profitable

conversion of dietary energy (B~rtov .!!. .!l., 1974) and (3)

the poultry processing plant gecause the partially removed

fat increaasa waate disposaI problems (Kubena !!.!!., 1,,974a).

In addition, sorne supermarket chaina and Rlost fast-food _.

f~.anchise restaurants demand the removal of· ttl, .. apron of

abdoMinal -fat from the csrcass, requiring an extra proça8sing

atep.for the proceaaor • ~

Goodwin (1979) eatiroated that a plant proceesing SO,üOO

broilers per day lost an average of 57 graMS in fat pad per ill. -

bird. which would result in a losa of 2835 kg/day. At a

.arkat, v"alus of il.ll/kg this plant would lose $8l2,5ûu peI' .

year. 'In an aarller report by Mabray (1979), it was

eati.ated that ths excessive abdominal and visceral fat

."

(1

,

0-

4

problem in broilera coat procesaors in the United Statea.$Z5C

million in 1978.· Nelaon (1980) repor ted ~hat if the p reaent

b 1'0 i 1 el' abdominal fat content Q f 3. 5~ _ could be reduced ta

2.5~·it would result in an annual savinga of $177 million in

the United States. In Canada, abdominal fat coat proceaaora

$11 million in 1983 (Touchburn and Laurin, 1984). In Quebec

the L08S was weIl over $3 million (Touchburn and Laurin"

1984) •

The" growing concern ab'Out huma.n conaumption of large

quantitiea of animal fats and pollutiGn control in processing

plants requiring the removal of fat from proceaaing water , l'

emphasizea the need to inveatigate factora influencing the

quantity of fat in broilera.

Strain of, birg, sex, age, diet and environment have

already baen racogniz!td aa influe'ncing fat èfepoaition in

broilera. However, there has been no agreement by

resaarchers aa to which of theae factors plays the moat • Ii. lMportant l'ole. Nordatro.!i!l. (1978) showed that strain

and sex have a greater influence on abdominal fat depoaition

in broilera than dietary energy level. Edwards (1980)

reported' that producera could grow birds with desired fat

content by regulating the calorie-to-protein ratio of the

fin.! shing diet. Cherry ~ al. (1978) indicated that both

nutritiona! and genetie factors influenced depoaition of

.bdo.inal fst.

•

lij~'

1 J

(

()

a 1 e 1. Id t_. l " l tt:::

5

Other factors not mentionéd previously, but which -

undoubtedly will play an important raIe in controlling

carcaes fat in broiler~, aré (1) the energ)' system used to

de termine the calo'r ic valu-e 0 f poul try diets, and (2) the

aasigned calorie value of supplementsl fat in poultry diets.

In the recent literature, thers 'have been man)' articles

either" supportive or critical of the true metabolizable

energy system developed by ~ibbald (19768), 8a an alternative

to the conventional apparent metabolizable energy system uaed

in the poultry industry today. Beeause calorie denaity of

the diet esn affect fat deposition (Kubena II al., 1974b)',

aelectiOEnf the dietary energy system that best refleets net

energy alues mus~ be done earefully to eneure fine control

of dietar energy.

"

The use of added fat ta inereaee the energy

concentration of poultry diets ie common practice. However,

because fat exerts an "extracaloric effect" (Touchburn and

Naber, 1966), the poultry feed produeera are underestimating

the calorie value of supplemental dietary fat when

formulating diets, thus amplifying the abdominal fat problem

(Laurin, ~.!l., 1983).'

Even though the abdominal fat problem will be solved

ove r the' long term pr imar il y by genetic ael,ec t,ion, i t ia

necessary to atudy aIl the nutritional factors affecting

abdominal fat deposition so that this problem can be handled "

if ., • fAll'4UJ!'t1 RI!. 1

L ,

o •• 1>

1

zJ ; t

6

over the short ter.. Nutrition will still p~ay an important

raie over the long ter. becau •• of its effects on carcass

composition.

"

•

; ,

••• ,""",!II'

1

/

1 t

1· f t

1 1 ,

1

1

/

() Gen.tic '.ct~r8 a"acting the fat ~ontent 0' broilera

~hods of selection against it "

7

Traditiona11y, the genetic improvement of growth rate

has been achieved by poultry breeders' without much

consideration being given for body composition. 1 t is

be1ieved that selection for increased rate of growth or body

weight has created prob1ems with over1y fat carcasses sinee

the genetic and phenotypic correlations between growth rate

and fat deposition have been found to be positive (Ricard and

Rouvier, 1967, 1969; Proudman et aL, -)-

1970; Wethli and

Wessels, 1973; Becker, 1978). Furthermore, selection for

improved feed efficiency was reported to deerease poul try

carcass fat (Thomas ~ !!l., 1958; Pym and Sa1vyns, 1979).

Theae reports suggest the neceasity of critica11y examining

the interrelatianships amang feed efficiency, body weight,

and fat depositian.

There are signifieant differences among breeds in fat

depositian. Mitchell ~ al. (1926, 1931) reported that White

Plymouth Rock cockerels had a higher percentage of fat than

White Leghorn cockerels. Edwards and Oenman (1975) observed

that the Oark Cornish had the lowest percent of total cafcaas

1 i P ids among fi ve breeds 0 f chickens tes ted. Lin et aL

(1980) have suggested that the Cornish could be used as a

foundation stock for producing a 1eaner broiler.

Jackson ~!l. (1982) fed a range of isoca1oric diets (16

3 ,<

,

- 1 1 !

,;,

----~----... -~

•

() .

()

•

to 361 crude prote!n) and found that wi h high protein dieta 1

there was 8 decreaae in percent and abs lute careasa fat, an ~

incuaae in percent and absolu te C~99 moiatU-l'e, and an r

increase in percent protein but no difference in absolute u

protein smounts. They suggested that the introduction of

absolute carcsss protein content as a selection criterion in

broiler breeding programs would be of more importance than

direct selection against caressa fat in arder ta get a 1eaner

broller.

Research has lndicated that strain differences exist in

careass fat deposition. Among several strains of brailers,

significant differences in abdominal fat deposition were

found (Llttlefield, 1972; Farr et ~., 1977; MerkleY!l al.,

1977; Van Middelkoop ~ al., 1977; Griffiths ~ al., 1978;

Nordstrom !l !l., 1978; Chambers ~ !l., 1981). 1 -

Sex differences in fat deposition existe remaie

brollera contain more carcass fat than males (Thomas !l al.,

1958; Van Mlddelkoop!!. al., 1977; Secker, 1978; Pym and

Solvyns, 1979).

1 t h 8S been we Il known tha t fa t content increaaea aa

birda age (Edwards ~ ~., 1973; Deaton ~ !l., 1974; Becker,

1978) • As careass fat percent increases with age, the

percentage of careass water~ protein and ash should deerease

aince these four body constituents must add up ta lLO%.

(l I( " .. il '- i i

, ,

o

, Heritability e.ti.ate. for abdo.ina! rat waight are

r-eported ta range froll O. J ta 0.79 baaed on aire vari.nce

co.panent (Ricard and Rauvier, 1967, 1969; 'Beclf.er, 1978).

_ Su ch ~ hi9h heritabl1ity augge8t~ that the arnount of fat can

be redueed by ,genetie aelection. Several authara have

~talned f8't a"ù:f lean' I1ne8 of éhiekena by selection

(Leelereq et .!l.; 1980, Lilburn et .!l., 1980; Gylea and

Maeza, 1981; Ouaterpout., 1981).

.. The di fficul ty wi th selection agalnat rat 18 how ta

estlmate the amoun t 0 f fa t w i thout saer 1 fieing the blrda.

Poultry breeders and researehers need rapid and eeonamieal

methods for estimating abdominal fat in broilera.

Heasurements on live birds ta predict abdominal fat' wou1d be

of great value to the poultry industry.

Pym and -Thompson (1980) deaeribed a ealiper technique

for estimating the amount of abdominal fat in live broilers.

Phenotypic correlations between caliper measure and the

proportion uf abdominal fat were + 0.80, + 0.90, and + 0.81

in males, females and the heaviest- 20% of males,

reapeetively. Gyles ~!l. (1982) evaluated the use of"

caliper measures as a genetic tooi for selection against

abdominal fat and found that the correlation between caliper

measurement and abdominal fat weight was belaw + 0.20. They

suggested that selection for leaner birds should be done by

determining the abdominal fat content of spent broiler

breeders and retaining as future breeders the offspring of

f t , t :t t

~ t i';

~ ~

• [1"

" ~

i J ,<

( { ,l ~

1 • 1. z

...-...... *'#liil% 4 <=",4'*2; $ ~ SA 1111 l .. ....,., t; •• /1 ..-.-.

e

.. C"

10

tho •• brdl1er br •• dar. with low abdo.inal r.t.

Gutteridg8_(1937). working with Barred'Rock c~ck.r.l. of,

6 .ontha age. re.oved akin with lSubeutaneo~a fat fro. the

1eft aide of the careasa ana found the percent cutaneoua and . .

auboutaneoua 'at to be hig.hly correlated with percenb

abdo'Minal 'at.

Moran .!!. al. (1968) re.oved a trianguler .ection 0' ,baekskin anterior to t~ preen gland fro.,9 week old broilera

and calculatad correlatione of r= - 0.513 in one experi.ent

and r= - u.867 in the 'ae~ond experi.ent between subjective .

finish grade and per'centage baekakin fat on a dry weight ,

baais. This finding was similar to the results of 8artov ~ ,,'

A.!!. (1974) whoae correlations between' dry, matter in baekskin

and visual scoring of the degree of fatness in the abdoMinal

cavity were r= + 0.668 and + 0.811 while visual scoring and

quantity of abdominal fat was r= + 0.896 on male and female

Cornish X White Rock broilere. Ehri,~~!E (1977) alao found ; ..

backskin fat ta ba significantly correlated with total

carcasa fat (r= + 0.78) rrom fiva atrains conaisting of 200

male and female broilera, 46 days of age.

Miroah èt al. (1980) correlatad abdominal fat in

brailera with thickness measurements taken on the skin and

with the fat content of feather tracts. They concluded that

abdominal fat should be dire<?tly measured rather than

estimated From indirect measurements on tissues.

,\

1

\ Il

",

Uaing braileta divergently aelected ror high (fat line)

or Low (le.n line) abdo.inal -fat (leclercq et al., 1980). --Touchburrr ll!l. (1981) fa und higher . fa.ting ~l.e.a level. of

ineulin and lower level., of g).uco.e in th.f'at line bird.. \~.

latar. Leclercq and S._doun (1982)'found that the difference

between \he-linea, in tera. of lipid retention i. not due ta

hype rphagia in the fat line birda, bec.u.e they re.ained

'" '-a t ter even wi th re.tr icted feed intake. They agreed wi th

the previou. result. of Touchburn et al. (1981), that the

pd.ary causative factor of fatne •• ln the fat line birda was y

a higher insulin releaae. These reaulta open the poaaibility

0' .electing. for leaner broi~er. on, the b •• ia of high fasting

plaa.a glucoee lev el. or poa.ibly a lowar ineulin ~a.pon.a ta

rereeding after _ fa.t or to a glucose tolerance telt.

Gr i ff 1 n a t al. (1982) have u.ed pla •• a lipoprotein

concentration aa an indicator of fatne •• in broilere. They

.elected broiler. for high or 10. pla •• a VLDl plu. LDL

triglyceride concentrations and produced group. with

aignl ficant difference. in body fat content but litt!e­

di f fa r ence in body wa ight. Upon furthar investigation,

Whitehead and Gri ffin (198'2) detar.ined that body fat waa

lIore clo •• ly correlated with pla.lla VlDL plue LDL

triglyceride mea8ured st 7 weeks than'et J weeka. They aleo

found that phenotypic correlations batNeen body fat content ,;

and plasma VLDL plu. LOL triglyceride concentrations st seven

weeks were 0.41 and û.43 for males and females, respectively,

fed on a h 19h fa t die.t and 0.70 and 0.60 for .lIIaJea and : "t:;~

. ,

(

12

f ••• l •• fad ."lo-w fat diet. aaaad -on these reau1 t. Gri FFin

and Whit.head (1982) have daveloped a turbidi.etrie asaay for "

.ea.uring pla ••• VLDL concentration, ta provide a method of

•• ti •• ting 'atne88 in live brollera that could be applied to

co.lércial broiler breeding progra •• es.

Since the broiler induatry la oriented tawarda e~cellent

growth perfor.ance, it ia eS8ential ta develop a rapid and

.cona.iesl .election .ethod that will re~ce the fatneaa of

broiler. without adveraely affecting growth perforMance •

. (

, v

..

t .

""'>-..... "" ~ -~ - ...

f ~

~

lü f ,

o

13

Environmental factors affecting the fat content of brollers

There is limited information in the literstur~ on the

environmental fac'tors sffecting the fatnees of .brollers. li

rOeatan !!.!.!. (1974) found that broilera reared in cages

contained more abdominal fat than those resred in'

1 i t ter- f loor pens. Jeffrey and 8rH t (1941) obser ved tha t

egg-type chickens confined in cages contained a greater

amount of abdominal and 'neck fat than those maintained on the "

floor. Merkley .!.i .!l. (1973) observed a significan!:

difference in the percent abdominal fat between birds ra,ised

on the fI oor and thase in coops. These rssults shpuld be

expe~ted aince, chickens confinsd in cages do not apend, 8e

much energy for movement 8S those on the floor.

Csresas fat content 19 also reported ta increeee ss the

rearing temperature increaees (Winchester and Kleiber, 1938; -""

,Kubens !!. àl., 1972, 1!-?4a) .-­

'v Touch'burn et!l. (1970) investigated the effect of light

intensity on the fatness of turkey toms. They found thet low

light intensil:y rssulted in significantly increaaed fat f

deposi tian and h igher plasma free fa t ty acid levels. Cave

(1981) invest~gated the uae of intermittent lighting in

reduc Ing car cas e fat' 0 f brollera and found tha t i t càn

enhance careass quality by reducing csresss (stness while

r

D.

1

1

). l

j l 1

j

14

retaining the seme weight gain and improving the efficiency /'

of broiler production. ..

Environmental factC!ra in the p.roduction of any type of

" poultry ahould not be ignored becauae they may affect careasa

c~mpoeltion and quality.

II'

\..

0'

(

(

, 1

Co.pariaon of the dietary energy syete.a

developed for poultry

\

IS

Many dietar{ energy systellls have been developed for

poultry, 1I0St notably, AHE (spparent lIIetabolizable energy)

and THE (true lIIetabolizable energy).

Since lIIany nutritional factors, such as calorie density

of a diet (Kubena ~ !l., 1974b), can affect fat deposition,

selection of the best dietary energy system must be done

carefully.

Basically, two chick bioassays are uaed to deterlline the

AME of feedatuffs.

. -

...

(1) Hill et al. (1960) - th!a a,saay invol ves a

reference diet containing 45.1~ of glucose in which

a portion of the glucose ia replaced by the

.aterials to be 8ss8yed. A fund.aental a8sumption

is that glucose has a constanf ~HE value.

(2) Sibbald and Slinger (1963a) - th1a aS8ay uses

a basal diet composed of practical ingredients and

three levels of substitution with Bach test .. lIIateria!. AlI diets contain a constant amount of

mineral-vitamin suppl •• en! •

..

(

16

Th. t_o •••• y. produc.d v.ry di ff.rant v.lu.. for

r.p •••• d a •• 1 (R.o .nd Cl.ndinin, 1910).

Sch.ng!! ~ •. (198') coap.r.d the two bio •••• y. on young

chick., betwe.n , .nd ~ week. of .ge, for 12 f •• d.tuff ••

They found that the AME bio •• say of Sibbald .nd Sling.r

(196'.) gave aignificantly higher r.aulta for B f.edstuff.

than that deterained by the bio.ssay of Hill et!l. (196G).

They alao found that AME values of ania.l protein feedstuffs,

but not of plant protein or high energy feedstuffs, v.ried

accQrding ta their leve! of inclusion in the basal diet of

Si bbald and Slinger (1963a) • Johns and Ed.undson (1977)

found a lack of linearity between the level of .eat a •• 1

inclusion and AME of th. diet. Th. poe.ible c.use of

curvi1inearity of ani.al protein suppl •• ant faed.tuffs i.

that they contained .ore f.t t~.n the other t •• t .aterials, ~

plant protein auppleaenta and high energy '.adatuff. (Sch.ng

.nd Haailton, 1982). Curvi!inearity could alao h.ve been

C auae d b Y l,ow 1 ev e la 0 f .ni.al p rotein suppleaenta

ati.ulating 'eed int.ke (Sibbald, 1975.).

Becauae AME valuea aay vary a.ong •••• y., coaparison of

AME valuea within a table •• y b. aisleading.

March and Biely (1913) deacribed an AME bio •• aay in

which 3 week old chicks are' ' .. sted for 2~ houts and then

offered either a reference diet or 8 teat 8aterial-ref.rence

die~ mixture for a perioq of J da ys following which the birda

~.., ... ... "'

17

are again fasted 24 houra. Feed intaka ia lIeasurad and

axereta ie eollacted fro. the enp of the firat fàet until the 1

and of th. s.cond fast. The aaaay tanda to give low

•• ti.etee of AME ~robabl~ becauae endogenoua energy yoided

ovar a period of 4 days ia charged againat '.ed consà.ed in

) daya (SibbeId, 1975b).

Ferrell (1978a) haa daveloped a ·"rapid •• thod" for

deter.ining AME. He trained adult coc;erels to conau~e their .

daily fead allowanee of approxi.ately 100 gra.a in one hour.

Excreta were collacted for the next 24 houra and the AME of

the diet waa deter.ined. The "rapid lIethod" gave reaulta

ai.ilar to that obtained with young chiekena and aduit. , coekerela fed continuoualy uaing conventional •• thoda' of

total collection of exereta ove~ aeveral daya. To enaure

that endogenoua exereta do not have undue influence"on AME

yaluaa, birda ahould conau.~ at 1eaat 70 gra •• of r •• d during

th. hour (rarrell, 1978a). Jhia a.ount ia aubatant'ially

higher than the 45 gra._ auggeeted by Guillau.e and Su •• era

(1970).. Muztar and Sling_r (198.0a) found that conau.ption of

66 gra.a of corn ahowad no effect of endogenou8 axereta on

AME valuea ..

" ,~ .. Seing .ware th.t ao •• feadatuffa •• y not p.a. through

th. d,igeative ayate. in 24 houre. Farrell (1980a) extended

th. "rapid lIethod" axereta· collection ti.e ta 32 houra, 'but

thia •• y still be inaufficlent (Sibb.ld, 1982.). o

\

l,

t , 1: ,

1 1.

J,

(,

o

"",J t .... ;;:e • !$

18

The diaadvant.age 0' the "rapid .ethod" ia that birda

auat be~trained, and .uat ba kept in training; thia ia a

dal1y job which doè. not recognize holidaya. The 'eed .uat ~

be pelleted prior ta an a88ay, thua reqùiring acceaa ta a

pellating device which can cauae dalaya (Sibbald, 1982a).

, There have been proble.a with 10w feed int.akea with the

"rapid aethod" (Muztar and Slinger, 1980b; Schang and

ija.ilton, 1982). Thia prohle. occura becauae the birda are

traihed 14 days, on a basal dist, ta conauae thair daily 'eed

allowanee in one hour. On the lSth day, a teet diet (eg. S~I

aea t .eal, SOS baaal) ia given, eauaing palatabili ty and

aceeptability proble •••

-Uaing t.he "rapid aethod" Sehang and Ha.ilton (1980)

produced ~ighly variable data which the y aactibed to the reed

intake probl ••• They auggeated thia problea could be

----i»vercoae by u.ing a large nuaber of birda, and diacarding

tho.a w1 th low int.kae or by .aking a correction for

andogenoua axcreta.

Vohra .!!. .!l. (1982) uaed the "rapid aethod n for AME

deter.in.tion of a _aah diet with adult cockersls. They

round little variation in one hour feed consumption, unlike

the afore.entioned authors. Precise results were obtained

fro. the' "rapid method tl, but the effects ,of tannins, guar

gua, or goeaypol were not consistent on the AME values of the

diet8, raising a question of the 'reliability of this method.

4e ..

[ i [

i f

1 ; ~ ,

1 \ ~

19

Axalsson (19'9) augg.atad that AME velLles of poultry

'aada .ight be calculated fro. digeatible protein, fat and .

carbohydrate content; an idea &ubssquently investigated 'by

HaInan (1951). Meanwhi1e, Frapa et al. (1940) stated that,

the AME valuea 0' chicken feeda cao be ca1culated using the

'C 0 e f fic i e n t a 18 • " , ) 9 • 6 , and 1 7 • 6 k J / 9 for di 9 est i b le

protein, ether extract, and nitrogen free extract plus crude

(iber, reapect!.vely. Subaequently, general prediction

equattona were published by Carpenter and Clegg (1956),

Bolton (1962) and Sibbald .!!..!!. (1963)., Titus (1958)

extended and refined the work of fraps .!l.!l. (1940) by

deriving a 8sriea of "pereentage Multipliera" which permit

ca1cu1ation of the AME values of individual feedatuffs.

Schang and Hamilton (1982) compared AME calculated from ,

the prediction equations of Carpenter and Clegg (1956),

Bolton (1962), Sibbald et al. (1963), and Janssen etaI. --(1979) with AME determined by the method of Farrell (1978a).

The comparisoh showed litt!e agreement between chemical and ,

biological methods.

Davidson and" Grsham (1981) compared ths prediction

equations of Carpsnter and Clsgg (1956) and Bolton (1962)

wi th AME determined during a 6 dey feeding period. They

round that the energy of high fibre wheat by-products ia les8

available ta poultry than expected from energy values

obtained from prediction squations •

.. il; "'" ~ ,,~ ___ ... #:

~

1 1 1 ! i

1 1

1

, ,

-" --- _._~. - . __ .-.;..~_._._-------­,

20

Shannon (1971) derived an equation ta predict the AME

value of fat which .akea allowanc8a for the level of intaka

and 'ree 'atty acid content. Subesequently, Te~p8tra (1976)

publiahed a prediction equàtion baaed on linoleic acid

contan~, .eltlng point, and ladine number.

Prediction equatione provide a more rapid eetimation of

AME than bioasaays, but the accuracy of the resulta can be

que. tioned. Many apparently good equationa do no t pe r form

satiafactorily when tested with independent data. Thè

assumption that each chemical fraction has the same

me t abo l i z able coe ff icient and is independent 0 f the feed

appears ta be the main limitation in using these equations

(Sibbald, 1979a).

A system for converting AME values of feedstuffs ta

estimates of net energy was described by DeGroote (1974).

This system uses coefficients of 0.6, 0.9, and 1I.75 ta

con vert to net energy the AME contributed by erude prote in,

crude fat, and starch plus sugar. The relative percentages

of crude protein, crude fat and starch plus sugar are

lIultiplied by the appropriate conversion coefficients,

summed, and then multiplied by the AME value. The error in

this syste~ is the assumpti~n that erude protein, erude fat,

and stareh plus sugar contribute equal amounts of AME per

unit weight, whereas erude fat contributes approximately 2.25

times more AME then either crude protein or carbohydrate.

The signi ricance of the error increases as the erude fat

(j

o

21

content or the diet increaaes (Sibba1d, 1982).

Apparent metabolizable energy (AME) values unlike true

lIetabolizable energy (THE) values fail to account for

endogenous energy losses (Harris., 1966). Even though AME

assays have yielded useful data, they are still open ta

criticism becauae they are influenced by many variables

incluâing species (Slinger et ~., 1964; Bayley 2l ~., 196&;

Fisher and Shannon, 1973), strain (Slinger et al., 1964;

Foster, 1968; March and Biely, 1971), age (Sayley et .!l.,

1968; Zelenka, 1968; lodhi et aL, 1969), dietary intake

level (Patter ~ ~., 1960; Guillaume and Summera, 1~70;

Sibba1d, 1975a; Sibblald and Kramer, 1977), the levei of

dietary fat in the diet (Yacowitz, 1970), and the addition of

bile salts ta the diet, (Gamez and Palin, 1974, 1976;

Kussaibati ~ al., 1982a).

Correcting AME for endogenous excreta ta obtain TME was

propoaed by Guillaume and Summers (1970) and Sibbald (1976a).

5ibbald (1976a) developed a b10assay for determining TME

uaing adult coc~~rels, previously fasted 24 haurs, force-fed

25 grams of feed. Feed residuea are then coUected for each·.

bird for 24 hours. The endogenous component is est1mated by

selecting a bird of similar body weight ta the one force-fed.

The bird ia fasted for 48 hours, the first 24 hours ta empty

the digestive tract of any faed residues and the last 24

hours ta collect the endagenaus excreta.

..

1 , t 1

-

o

· . -- " .. -.-._._------...... ~, -,,...,..---

22

.' Sibbald· •. ( 1976.) bioessay for TNE ia b.aad on 2

allau.ptions 1

(1) In a praviously fasted bird, thera ia a lin.ar

relationahip between energy vpided aa exereta and

nerg~ input aa feed.

(.2) The intereept of the regreasion line ia a

valid eati.âte of endogenoua energy.

The first assumption ia not in serious dispute. Linear

relationships between excreta energy and energy input as feed

have been demonstrated in sever al labo.ratoriee (Sibbald,

1975a, 1976a; Tenesca and Sell, 1979; Johnsson, 1980; Shire~

li aL, 1980). The second assump tion, however, has been a

subject of several publications.

There is substantia1 evidénce to show(Wide variation in j

the day to day output of endogenous excreta for an idividual,

etarved cockerel (Patchell and Edmundson, 1977; rarrell,

1978a,b) and variation between cockerels (Sibbald, 1976b;

Sibbald and Priee, 1978). However, recent work of Sibba1d

and Price (1980) indicates that endogenous excreta may be

somewhat characteristic of the bird. The mean endogenous

excreta of groups of starved adult cockerels of about 2 kg

llveweight varied from 8.5 to 13.6 kcal/day, with, some

individusl birds ovel' 20 kcal/day (Sibba1d, 19758, 1916a;

Patchell and Edmundson, 1977; Guillaume and Summers, 191û).

... ; ::

_1

_____ ' ..... ..,.,._ ... _._ ..... '_.~_~~T.,.,...........

23

Suqh yeriation 1. no~ cloaaly related to weight of the bird

(Patchell and Ed.undaon, 1977; Sibbald and Priee, 1978,

1980) • Neyertheleaa, Sibbald (1981a,b) auggeated that

endogenoua exereta .ay increase with body weight.

Fae tor. euch aa te.paratura (farrall and Swain, 1977)

and strain of bird (PYla and farrall, 1977) can also cause

yariation in endogenoua exereta.

Sinee .any factora can contributa ta variability in the

alloun t of endoganoua ane r gy axe re tad, Si bba 1 d (198Ib)

amphaeized tha i.portan~a of u.ing a uni fora population in

the THE bioessey ao that andogenoua anergy aatilletea srlJl

releyant ta tha fad birda. Howeyar, Ed.undaon (198G) furthar

auggeated that the aa.e bird ahould be uaed aa ita own

eontr 0 1 to prov ide the correction for andoge,,-oua excrata

~nargy •

An underlying aaaullption in tha calculation 0" THE ia

that the amount of andogenoua axeration la independant of ~he

diat and that tha allount la not di ffarant batw.en fad and

atarvad birda.

Sibbald (1976.) ragrassad enargy voidad aa axereta on

feed inteke with 12 feedatu('fa. The aimilarity of tha

intercepta of the regreaaion line8 wa8 preaented aa evidenca

tbat the endogenou8 excretion of a bird ia independent of the

nature and quantity of faad ingested. rarrell (1980b)

~

! 1 1 • i

t ,

•

1 t t ! • 1 r r i f'

o 24

rightly criticized the analysas because compariaons of the 1

intercepte for the individuel feedstuffs were based on

cal'culations including the observations at zero input.

Sibba l d and Horae (1983a) subsequent ly reanalyzed the data

From Sibbsld (1976a) snd upheld the original conclusion.

Sh ires !.i.!l. (1980) a1so found no di f'srencee in inte rcept ,

values of equstions relating feed intake and excreta output

of cockerels on various diets.

The belief that endogenous excretion do es vary with the

nature and quantity of fead may stem froll! a report that the

severity of erosion of the intestinal mucosa increases with

the intake of dietary fiber (He!laworth and Coates, 1962);

hOW8ver, the report provides no evidence of cha.ngea in energy

excretion. The addition of· wheat bran ta a diet had no ,

effect on the rate of ranewal of intestinal epitheliulD in

conventional and ger.-free chicka (Rolle !l ~., 1978).

Sibbald (1980a) force-fed cockerels 25 gra.a of

dif'erent graina with va~ious a.ounta (1-4 gra.e) of fin~

ground cellulose or silics'sand. Sand and celluloae had no

aignifieant effect on the THE values of the graina. Farrell

(1981) eriticized Sibbald'a (l9~Oa) reaults, reporting that

.oat of the sand was retained by the gizzard (since little

was exereted) thereby negating any substantial physical

sffect on the mucoaa 0 f the small intes tine. rar re Il (1981)

aleo 8ugges ted tha t Alpha floc (celluloae) may not have the

ea.e propertiss 8S intact, natural fibre that occurs in

s

25

faedatuff ••

'" Sibbald (1981a) placed celluloae or sawduat ip the cropa

of fasted adul t cockerels and found that the regresaion of ~

energy voided a8 excreta on energy input had coefficients 80

clos8' ta 1_000 that fiber could not have aitered endogenoua

energy.

Van Ea (1980) and Teneaca and Selle 1981) have ahown that

endogenoua excreta 10aee. depend on the alIIount and kind of

feed eaten. 'far rell (l980b,c, -1981) preaented equa tions for

sever al feedatuffa, with variat~on alIIong intercepta regarded

aa evidence that the'feed ingredient aignificantIy inf1uenced . endogenoua e"creta. Farrell (1980e) alao .howed a

curvilinear relationahip between endogenoue energy excretian

and the neutral detergent 'fiber (NOF) content of feedatuff ••

50 epe~ulation etill re.ain. whether feed intake and/or

fead quality affect endogenau. enargy .xeretian and thu8 the

validi ty a f the THE' •••• y.

A potenti.l prob!e. 1n the TMÈ bio •••• y (Sibb.Id, 1976.)

invalv.. th. di ffarance in! tha energy .a.ociated wi th the

la.. of ni trog1to by the f.atad birde .nd the auch a.alle.r

10.8 or g.in of nitrogen of the fed b~rd.. A. a r.au1t. the

aet.bolie 'eca1 and endoganoua urinary ~nargy .eaaured with <-

f.astad birda shou1d theoretica11y provide a ~reater

cOrrection for endogenous energy than juatlfied.

," .

i t . ...1, .. 5' i i

/

( " l J

j

c

o

26

Shir •• !i.!.!. (1980) fa und that nitrogen correction, on •

the sverage, reduced TME sstimstes obtained with chieka and

adult cockerels by 8 and 61 reapectively.

Sibbald and Morae (l98Jb, c) ahawed that by correcting ta

zero nitragen balance, chance variation in energy voided as

endagenoua excreta was greatly reduced. This is reasonable

ainee a faated bird degrading tissue protein as a source of

energy excretes urie aeid, which contributes energy ta the

endogenous exereta, whereas another bird may degrade fat and

void carbon dioxide.

"'-~ . ~~raona et al. (1982) noted a differenee in nitrogen

retentio~etween force fed adult malea and 'emalea. Because ~

of the varia~~~in nitrogen balance between sexea, it was

è'Oneluded that both '-~ and AHE values should be correeted ta -~

ze ra ni t rogen balance, ~int raised aleo by Muztar and ~"

Slinger (198la).

Sibbald (1978a) examined the effeet of age of bird on

the TMt of diffe'rent diets and concluded 'the absence of

consistent sge-induced trends in the two experiments make it

probable that THE values obtained with adult Single Comb

Whi te Leghc;»rn rooatera can be iJaed in the formulation of

die ta for younger birda'. Shirea et al. (1980) also found 'hO

di fference, due ta age 0 f bird, on the TME of several

faad.tuffs .xcopt for rap.a.ed •• al. Howevor. C~ll.ction .Of

exerete was for 24 hours after fee.ding which, may not have

>. ,,'

, i 1

1 . _~~~~~~ ________ ~--__ ~--______ ~~ __ ~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------------.J - ~, &i:ee.» ... _::,~zt $ .. ( .... ( .. 4 ... ~ "'"',,..,-.............. -- ~,

1· i! {

t ~ r ~ , "

" , L

"

1

27

been long enough for complete passage of a high fibre faed

like rapeseed meal.

Dale and Fuller (1980) reported consistently lower THE

values for the game feeds tu ff in brailer chickens than in

adult cockerels, however, Kussaibati (1979) indicated that - ,-

for the same diet, THE' was consistently lower for adult

cockerels th an for growing chickens. Kusaaibati (1979) also

remarked that TME values in growing chicks, but not adulte,

are

al •

affected by dietary intake level. , (l982b) found that correcting

Later, ~~aibati et

THE ~zero ni trogen

. balance in young chicks eliminated the effect of dietary

intake level on THE values.

When Sibbald (1976a) outlined the TME Bsasy, he noted

thst 24 hours was sufficient time to collect feed reaidues.

There ia little doubt that for Many feedatuffa, particularly

those with high fibre contents, a collection period of 24

hours is inauffiéient to collect aIl feed residues.

Sibbald (.1979b) observed for a range of feedatuffs,

inpluding oats, that 24 hours ia not auffi6ient to collect

aIl -excreta of fsed origine Sibbald (1980b) has now

recommended a collection period of 48 hours for high fibre

faada. Feedstuffs BU ch as lucarne Meal, Meat meal and fiah

mea 1 h a va a consisten tly lower THE wi th ,a 48 hour than' wi th

a 24 hour excreta collection period (Sibbald, 1979c,d).

O'

,

" k ,

.. i f 1 r

! ;, • 1.

· · t f

__ ,,_.~, .. e ..

-..

28

There have been some articles dealing with the

spplicability of the THE aasay in practical feed formulation.

ln evaluating the applicabi1ity of,an energy system, at

lesst three aspects muet be considered. The sssay must give

reproducible results, the energy values determined for

individusl feedstuffs must be additive, and most importsnt,

the energet~c content ascribed te diets. by the sssay must

reflect observed production parameters.

Dale and Fuller (1981a) determined with several

feedstuffs, repeated1y assayed over a six month period, that

THE values were incredibly---r-e-peti tive. Sibba1d (l978b) ci ted

a study in which eight participants at different laboratories

re p or ted THE values ranging From J. 98 to 4.15 kcal/g (dry

matter) for a single sample of corn.

Sibbald (19'77a) asssyed the THE contel)t of five

feedstuffs and formulated 10 diets bssed on thase

ingrediants. The resul ts indicat&d that tHE values are '. additive. renasca and Se1l (1979) reported the THE contents

of corn and oats to be additive whan thsse fesdstuffs wsre

fed in various combinations. Dale and Fuller (1980a)

rs p orted THE addi ti v i ty for fi ve fsed ingredienta wi th J

classes of pou1try.

Two sxperi.ents by Dale and Fuller (1982a) conducted

with Sin~ Co.b ~hite Leghorn roostera have shown that THE

\

3 i W ~ t (. _;U~i - == ..

'.

(

,. \.'

_k .... _

29

valuea can be uaed aucceaafully in formulating broiler

rationa. In the firat study, a comparison between feed

efficiency and calorie density of the diet indicated that THE . values more cloaely reflected observed chick pe?,ormance than

did AME. In the second atudy, 4 isocalor ic, i80ni trogenous

diets were prepared using the THE assay. In a 3 week growth

study, chicks receiving each of the teat diets exhibited

virtually identical body weight gaina and feed conversion

ratioa. 1 t waa concluded that the THE ayate. pro v ided an

accurate .easure of metabolizable energy.

The uae of fasted roostera in the THE assay has been of

lIuch concern to both scientists and feed producera.

. COllpa r iaon of AHE and THE values for several feedstuffs

(Hubbell, 1982, show that in the vast .ajority of cases, TH(

values are higher. Muztar and Slinger (1981b) have reported

that there ia no consistent relationship batween the THE and

AME, although theoretically there should be.

~ Dale ·and Fuller (198lb) found aixturea of corn atarch

and glucose to be co~pletely absorbed by the roostera.

Feeding this .ixture tq faated roostera aigni'icantly reduced

endogenoua excreta output (Dale and Fuller, 1982b). It ia

assullad that the energy provided by the glucose and corQ

starch sparad estabolis. 0' body tissue.

Dele and Fuller (l982b) co.parad the THE '.~"Of ~orn snd soybesn .eal, using both '.sted roo,tera and thoae teo tu

t @ Sr " sc -~ _-.' : " ~ t Ci

c

(,

.... ~ __ ...,~ ___ ..... ___ ~>'n"'~"1'~ ........... 'r' ..... .,...-- --.--

c}

30

grams of glucoao, to ostimate endogenoua energy lossea. Wh en

glucoae-fed rooatera were used as contraIs, the TME of corn

and aoybean mesl decreaaed 1.7 and 2.1~, reapectively. Thua,

in prectice, it seeme that the use of fasted rooaters to

estimete the endogenous energy loas of fed birda doea not

aeem to be seriou~ly in error~ assuming feed-intake and

quality have no effoct o~ it.

Ono of the proble.s in the acceptance of THE by the

poultry industry has been the lack of THE require.ent data.

Sibbald (1977b) has proposed using a factor of 1.(,97 to ':

convert AME n

require.ent "data to TMfn , aa an inter,ill

solution. However, a8 each feed .anufacturer has hie own set

of AMEn require.ent data it is adviseble that he develop his

o.~ conversion factor.

There is no doubt that the poultry industry i. in nead

of a atandardized, and univar.~lly .ccepted energy a •• ay. ,

Even though the AME .nd THE a •• ay. have be.n rlghtly

criticized, perhaps a atandardized •••• y, incorporating the

a.rit. of both energy a ••• ya can be de"eloped and univer •• lly

accept.d.

t ~ tl e ~ ~

.' r·

(~

t ~ !i' t ..

!

J

t ! f ~

i t

C Effect of dietary enèrgy and protein

on th. fat content of broilera

r rapa ( 1943) waa tha fi ra t ta dellonatrate that by

.anipulating the calorie-ta-prote in ratio of the diet, \

broilera with Yarying fat contents can be pr,oduced, an effect

whieh haa since been de.onstrated .any ti.es (Donaldaon !i

~., 1956; Lipetein !l al., 1915; Griffith. et ~., 1911.;

P.ati t 1982) Theae authors found that by increaaing the

calorie-ta-pratein ratio, carcaea fat depasitian increaaed, \

an eff.ct that ia reyeraible (,aartay .!i al., 19~4).

A1though carca.. fat can b. r.duced by incr.a.ing

dietary protein, thia s.y be at ti •• e un.conosiea1 (Su •• erl "

and Lee.on, 1919; SaIson et al., 1981), .aking a decrea •• in --dietary en.rgy level aora-deairabl. a. a .eana for reducing

carc ••• f.t.

ftestriction of calorie lntalc. during .'a1'ly life tand.d

to d.cr •••• fat dapo.ltion in chickena (P'af'~ and Au.tic,

1914; Moren, 1976, "arch and Haneen, 1911). In contr •• t, 1 ~

Griffith. !!. .!!. (1917) repor-t.d that calorie ra.triction"

'1'0. 0--\0 } weeka of age had no .igni'1eant .ffect on

abdoainal f.t pad at 56 wsek. of age. Th.y augge.ted,

heurev.r, that the ealor ie ra.triction applied in their

a.peri •• nt .a. no,t .evera enough to influence .bdo.inal 'rat

depoeition. Cherry .t .~. (1918) 'ound that •• rly growtft -- 1

.$~.$j CA •• _aws z:'eer:;w::::a::::c .- At ...

---------~ .. -._----,-----~--- \ ... - -' .-_0 .~ • ..., ... ___ , __ • _. _._. ________ ... __ .. r....,.""·"lil'bO>I'

c~

32

restriction increaaed abdOMinal 'at weight in aoae broiler

.traina while decreasing it in othera, possibly auggesting an

interaction between genotype .nd feed restriction praetice.

50lte authors (Oe.ton et al •• 1973; Kubena et al., 1974b) - -..-. ---..-

have ahown that a 10w energy starter in co.bination with a

high energy finieher produced abdoMinal fat percentagea

. ei ther as high or higher then broilers fed on1y high energy

diets.

Araf. et !l. (1983) inveatigated the effeet of energy

restriction during the f1ni8hing pariod on the abdoMinal fat

pad of b roilera 'and found that both weight gain and f-at pad

weights were aignificantly decre •• ed, an .ffeet also observed

by Kubena .!i.!.!.. (1974b) wl,th low energy brotler fin1sher

di.ta. \

Deaton et al. (198') conducted 8 trial ta det.rMine the --ef'ect of diet .• ry en.r9Y lav.l on the a.ount of abdoai.nal fat

depoeited when broilera are 9rown to th. a.ae body weight by

They found that feading low energy

di.ta conaietently producad broilera, of bath aexe., with

le •• abdo.inal 'at then tho •• 'ed high enargy dieta.

Wh.n atte.pting ta reduc. abdo.inal fat by d.cre.aing

diatary .nergy, it ia i.portant that th. reduetion in dietary

anergy be aufficient to r .• duce total calorie tnt.ke, the .ain

factor influ.ncing abdaaina!l fat depa8ition (Su •• era and ,

•

(

..

c) 1

_ t

· .

La •• on, 1979). furtheraara t 1t app.ara that th. phyaical ,

'arll of the diet can hava an effect on the ralationahip

betwean dietary denai,ty and abdominal faL Peati et al. --(l98J).found that cruabling a ION energy veraus a high energy

diet increaaed abdaMfnal fat by 23 and l~, respectively.

Becauae brailera obtain dietary energy frall pratein: fat

and carbohydratea and becauae manipulation of dietary energy

and p rot e in a ft an invol vaa tha 81Jbati tuUan of one feed

Ingredient for anather, it ia important ta knaw how eaeh

nutritltnt affacts brailer fat deposition. Increasing dietary

pratei.n w,ithaut changing the dietary' carbohydrate and fat

leve l ai gni fie antly redueed !!l vitro hep,atie l1pogeneais

(Rosebrough and Steele, 1982; Tanaka .!l al., 198Jb).

Inereaaing dietary fat without changing dietary prote in and

carbohydrate levela, alao eaused a reduetton in .!.!! [!itro " .'

hapatic lipaganeaia (Tanaka .!l al., 1983b). Hawever,

inereaafng dietary earbohydrate wit~out changing dietary

prote in and fat "aigni ficantly increaaed .!!!. vitro hepatie

1ipagen ... ls (lto.ebrough and Staele, 1982; Tanaka .!i .!l.,

1983.) •

Çi! _ _ 4 _ ~....-~ _

o

.4*

34

The eff.ct of fat supplellentatian •

on the utilization af broller diete

r •• d-grade ,.ta have been uaed in poultry ration. for

.any y •• ra to i.prova phyaical charaet.ri.ties of feede .nd

r ta inerea.e the calorie denaity of ratians. 1 ndeed,

faad-grade fats have be.n instru.ental in facilitaling high

anargy paultry faeding programs.

----Biely and Mareh (1954) reparted that up to lO~ ani.al

ta110w in dieta improvad efficieney of 'aad uti1ization by

turkays From 1 day to 10 weeks of age. Sund. (1954) &180

obaarved improvementa in feed e ffieieney of turkeya fed dieta

aupplemented with whi te grease, tallow, or soybean oil.

Subsequently, Yacowi tz etaI. (1956), Waibe1 (1958). Pepper

et al. -- (1960) and Joshi and Sell (1964) reported that fat

supplementatian of meal-type dieta consistently impl'oved feed

.ffieieney and occassionally stimulated weight gaina by

turkeya •.

In 1966, Touehburn and NBber obaerved that the magni tude

of illprovernent in the growth pe r formance a f turkeya l'eau l ting

froll dietary fat supplementation, exceeded that expeeted on

tha b aaia 0 f i ta reeogni zed c ontribu tian 0 f ene rgy to the

diet. They termed this "the extracaloric affect of fat".

Jenaen et al. (1970) confirmed that fats exerted an

"extracaloric effect" when Bdded to dieta of turkeys re8~ed ....

, -

-

50

1:.. -~

o

• Il * J 1i.'.~1I * 'A. *,U, ... 4#tJ WWW

-3S

fraM 8 ta 24 weeka of age. Pot ter (1976) found that the Fsed

sffielency of turkeya fraM 8 weeka of age anward waa improved

1.5 to 2.5' for each lS qf aupplellenta1 fat. Sim!lar resu1ta

were reported by Waibe1 .!!.. .!l. (1917) and Waibel (1978). ,

• Owen and' Wa1droup (1979) preaented data ahawing that

aupp.lellental dietary fat atilllulated the growth of lIIale

turkeya froll (j ta 22 week8 of age, with maxillulll .ffect.

occurring with 2 and 4~ added dietary fat.

"Supplellental dietafY fat ha8 a180 been 'reparted ta

illprove protein utilizatian. Wide calarie-ta-prate!n ratios

have ~een ta1erated by turkeya only wh en fat waa added ta the

ration (Touchburn and Naber, 1966'; Jenaen !l .!l., 1970; Se11

and O~ inga, 1981; Owinga and Sel1, 1982). Theae authafa ,

attributed th!a ta the "extracalorie effect" of fat. 1

Studies on the affect of dietary fat on careass

caMpoaition are conflicting. Many authors (Edwarda and

Ha.rt,

8artov

1971; Bartov et .!l., 1974; Griffiths !.l !l., 1977b; , and Bornstein, 1976; fuller and Rendofl, 1977) have

reported that if supplemental dietary fat ia sdded at the ... expense of carbohydrate and that the calorie-ta-pratein ratio

relllains unchanged, there is no significant affect on careBsa

composition. However, Deaton et!l. (1981) rep~rted that, Ba

dietary supplemental fat levels incraase, the amount of

abdominal fat increaaes. Edwarda ~!l. (1973) reported a

nan-aignifieant tendency of supplemental dietary fat ta ., .

inerease abdominal fat.

1

i 1 t l' 1 1

! f ~ 1 \

l '

( ,

\

*

36

Many explanationa hava bean offered to account for the

-."tracaloric ~ffe~t- of ,.t. " Touchburn and Haber (1966) 8uggeated that the effect of,

~letary 'at wa. due to 'the reduced .nergy co.t of depoaiting ,

i t directly in the carceaa, a. opposad to de ~ ayr:ttheaie

froa diatary carbohydrata. Thare ie Auch evidence th.t the

fatty acid co.poaition of the chicken rafl.cta that of _he

dietary fat (Edward. and Hart, 1971, Si. et ~., 1973. Pan!1

.!l .• ~979).

Fuller and Rendon (1977) l.ter found that he.t incre.ent

w.. conaid,rably lower for fat euppl •• ented diete th.n for

low fat controle. Thay. aleo found that poultry fat w •• the

.oat efficiently utilized and that it had a lo",er h •• t

incra •• nt th an other distary fata.

, l •• aon an d 5 ua •• ra (1976) e"pl.inad tha t t.he

-.xtracalorie. effect .. 0' fat could be due partI y to a

aynargi.tic action bet",een the aaturated supplea.ntal and

unaatu'rated dietary Ingredient cOllponent fsts. Mateos and'

5.11 (1980a) confir.ed this by showing that diets containlng

a aixture of y8llow greaae and soybean oil had higher

apparent aetabolizable energy values than those in which

suppleaental fst was aupplied exclusively as yello\lll greaae. ,

Sibbald (1978c) found that aa little as 2 parta of aoybean

oil for' each 98 parta of' tallo", waa able to increaae tha true

•• tabolizable energy value of tallo",. Horani and S~ll

( tt

>

f 1 i

--,._ ........ p; .... ' .. I. _IJIIS&ZIl!!l_.Ii!IIJFI_AII!J$S ... ""u ____ ea .... _-.... * ............. U""". __ ._, - .. _.---1rl ........ - .... -' ___ ~..:..._ .. ____ , .... ___ ~ .. "--"' ___ .. _~ _____ ....

37

(1977a,b), however, ob.erved that the -extracaloric efrect­

of r.t waa observed coneistently in corn ba.ed rations but

only oec.~ionally in rationa baaed on either oats or barley.

They"conc~uded that bec.ùae the lipid ,portiona of barley and

oate are aaturated and unaaturated, re.peetively, it ie

di rrieul t to explain the extracaloric benafit oJ fat on

aynargieM 8lone.

Go.ez and Polin (1974), Sibbald and Kra.er (1978) and

ruIler and Dale (1982) reported that fat aupple.entation

i.proved the utilization of non-lipid conatituents of diet •• ,

Rao and Clàndinin (1970) ahowed that diatary

Metabolizable energy increaaed by slowing tha rate of feed'

paaaage in the digestive tract. Evidence preaented by D~ke 'l't

and Evanson (1972) a'howed that the influx of fat into the

duodénuM of a~iana inhibits gastric e.ptying via a horMonal

feedbsck .achanis.. Mateos!i!l. (1982) round thst graded

levela of dietary'fat exerted a linear effect on the rate of

feed,paesage.

The rate of pa •• age 0' a sucro.e-baaed diet·ia fa.ter

than that of a ... tareh-based diet (Monaon, 19S0).,

furtherMore, dietary energy utilization fro. aucrose w ••

iMProved More by fat supple.entation than was that of atarch

(Mataoa and Sell, 1980a,b,c, 1981a). This occurred becauaa

dietary fat aupple.entation alowed down the rate of passage

of aucroae-containing diets lIora than it did the

---""_ ..... -._--"- -

!

r _ •

..

! l) l

1 f ~

\ ~

, ~,

38

.tarch-containing di.{. (Mateos and Sell, 1981b).

larbier (1981) ehowed that supple.ental fat in the di.t ..

of growing ehickena greatly increaaed the rat. of

aceu.ulation of a.ino acid8 in jejuna1 fragMenta !n vitro.

Gauthier (1979) de.onstrated the 8aae pheno.enon for glueo8e

and fructose - an inereaaed !n vitro abaorption rat. when the

diet eontained f.t •

Even though ther •• re' aev.ral proven .xplanationa for

. th. ".x t racaloric • ff.et" of fat, there .ppears to b. no

agr •••• nt in th. literatur. as ta which p'heno •• non

predolllinat •••

Becauae fat ex.rt. an '·extracaloric .f'ect" • .

•• tabolizabl. energy values for 'ats are not constants. This

has been ob.erved in bath spparsnt .etabollzable en.rgy

(Kal.baeh and Pott.r. 1959; Culle" et al., 1962, Mataos and --Sell, 1981e) aAd tru ••• tabolizabLs .nargy studi •• (Sibbald

and Kralller, 1978, 1980).

In ao •• instancea, the aetabollzabl •• nsrgy va1u._ of

,supple.sntal dietary fats have be.n report.d to excesd their

gr08. energy values (Hor.ni and 5.11, 1977a, Hateoe and Sel1,

Dal. and ful1er, 198Ib). Hor.ni and 5.11 (1917a) -thi. an "extra .et.bolle .'faet" to di_ti.nguiah i t

'1'0. the -sxtracaloric effect" 0' Touchburn and Naber (1966) •

. '

.. -,

@ I!iliWJIlII_1I$1 .... li • 1 ut au 1 w d:a. 2"'II_t"j.~.'

c

39

Sibb.ld and Kra.er (1978a) showed that aa the lavel of

be.f tal10w increaaed.in the diet from 5 ta 15~, its true

.etabolizable energy value decreaaed, indicating that there

was an ini;eractio.n between the supplemental fat and other

diatary co.ponanta which reached a maximum at a low level of

fat inclusion. Sibbald and Kramer (1980) determined that the

decrease of the true metabolizable energy value of tallow at

high . dietary levels of inclusion was due to a significant

decrease in the absorption of palmi tic and stearic acids.

Mateos and Sell (l980d) later showed a positive relationship

between percent total dietary linoleic acid and the apparent )

or true metabolizable energy of yellow grease. This

relationahip shows the importance of synergia. between

aaturated and unsaturated fatty acide.

Sibbald and Kra.er (1977) explained that degre8 o"f

satur.tion~could not explain the true .et.bolizable energy

values ,of fata ainee the calorie value of lard waa ai.ilar to

tapeseed oil. They further stated th.t the distribution of

fatty acide on the glyeerol .oiety·.ay be a better indicator

of the calorie value of fat. Lard and tallow have ai.iler

fatty acid co.positions, but lard haa a high calorie value

becau ••• ore of the saturated fatty acids are at position 2.

A~oth.r factor affecting the utilizatlon of aupple.ental

diet.~y fat la th. age of the bird. ------ -~-:------

rallow, but not corn ail

or lard, is poorly utilized by very young birde (Renner and

Hill, 1960; Whiteh.ad and Fisher, 1975).

t

L t 1 F

! 1

!

l

(

* .. 4

40

Hateoa and 5ell (1981c) comparad 2 mathoda of 8stimating

the calorie value of supplemental dietBry fat. They found

that lipid digestibility data gave consistantly lawer values

, a r a u p p 1 e • e n t a 1 die ta r y fat th a n t h 0 s e a b t a i n e d b y

calculating it fro_tthe difference beh"een a reference and a

test diet. These authors further suggested that calorie

values" far supplemental dietary fat be caleulated by

regression analysis rather than by conventional means because

a.all errors made during the aasay ean be greatly magnified

by uaing small dietsry fat levela.

Dale and rullèr (1982b) found that the true

.etabolizable energy of supplemental dietary fat at levels

between 2.5 and 151, is extremely sensitive ta the conditions

und. r which i t le aesayed. Adequate replicationa mus t be

ueed ta deter.ine the true lIetabolizable energy of

suppl •• enta l ,fats at low levels of inclusion. Oale~ and

ruIler (Î98lb) ~ave found that a glucose-corn atareh carrier,

which is 1001 digestible, is an ideal atarting point for

.. aàuring the caloric value of verious type. and .ixturea of

diet.ary 'at ••

aecauae supple.entsl diatsry fat. are an lntegral part

of high energy broiler feeda, wa .uet underatand how they

interaet with baaai dietary co.ponenta ao that we can assign

• calorie value ta the supplellental dietary fat that will not \

•• plify the carcasa fat probl •• in broilera.

41

(

Il. - EFFECT CF DIETMY EIERGY AlI» PROTEI. CIl nE GROII'IJt"

(

c

42

Objectivea

ln the last 40 yeara, braeding and selection of broilera

haa been priaarily for aora rapid growth. 8ecauae there la

a poai ti va inher Ued relatlonahlp bet_ssn growth rate and

'atnssa, today'a broller ls too fat.

Although genetic aelection for lean body aaaa will ---..,. provide the ultiaate solution, the priaary br~ra are

reluctant to re18x select! .. n presaure for rapid gro_th

bec8uae of the intense coapetition ta produce faater growlng

broilera.

Sinee the ab,doaina! fat prob~ea will continue for ao.e p

years, we auat eaploy every tool of nutrition and a.nage.ent

to ainiaize fat depoaition.

Modern high energy faada ara contributing ta the

abdoainal fat problea. raading only 10_ energy '.ada l'aduces

abdOMinal fat but at the expenae of body weight which ia a

liability ta both the fead producer and faraer.

Ta reduce abdo.inal fat without aeriouely affacting

growth rate, feeding progra •• uaing low energy feada for only

part of the gro_ing period will be tested. High protain

,feeda will alao be rad a8 a aa.na of raducing abdOMinal fat.

/,

.,.

(

c . "

43

The addition of fat to feeda. ia, general.ly blalled for

con,tributing to the abdoainal rat problem. Diets containing

added fat st different"assigned calorie values will be fed to

investigate ita effeet on growth perforaance and abdo.inal

fat depoaition.

Materiala and Methods

Thrtte exper iaents were conducted to inYestigate the

effect of .dietary energy and protein on broilar growth

perfora.nce and abdosin,a1 fat depoaition.

For each experisent, 3,120 Ros. X Arbor-Acre. day-old

chieks were re.rad in • windowleaa houae wi th 24 pena. Each

pen contained 65 .ale and 65 f •• ale chicka st a deneity of

.07 ri2 '. Wood .hav ing. were used as li tter. re.per.ture and

ventilation were ther.ostatieally regulated to ai.ulate

c~rcial conditions. Artificial lighting wa. aupplied for

23.5 hours/day. Feed and water .ere provided ad libitu •• -Each diet wa. analyzed for nitrogen to verify that crude

prote in wa. at the expected level.

Feed consuaption, body weight and ' •• d eonveraton ware

.eaaured st J, 6 and 7 w.ake of age.

-In Experi.ant l, 2 .al •• and 2 ' •• a1. •• 'ra. •• ch p.n

\ .. ___ • t.à

(

\ •

(:

were .eighed and alaughtered et 6 end et 7 weeka of age. ln

Experi.enta 2 and l, •• ales and 4 fe.alea 'ra. eech pen were

weighed and slaughtered at the .a.e age. The brai 1er a were

p lucked and the carca.s.. placed in a cold roo. (SC) 'or

chilling overnight. Their ebdo.inal fat pads .ere then

re.oved and .eighed. Abdo.inal 'at .aa th. 'at pad lining

the abdo.inal eavity plus the 'at surrounding the glzzard.

The date fro. the 3 Experi.ent •• ete analyzed by the

general linear .odela procedure and Ouncan'a .ultiple range

teat {Statistical Analyat. Syste.,1979}.

La. energy end high energy broiler atarter (2760 va.

3200), gro.er (2750 va. 3250) and finiahet (Z8~0 v. 3300 kcal

AMEn Ikg) dieta __ ith 2 levela ci, aupple.en,tal blended ~ni.al

fat we re co •• ercially for.ulated· and .ixed. The fat waa

either not added ta the diet or.added at a lev.l of 2.S' for

the atarter and SI for the gro.ar and fintshar. Starter,

gro.ar and finiaher diet •• era forsulated ta c~ntain 2l. 21

and 19$ erude protein, re.pectively.

At 3 .aeke of age, hal' the group. on the high an.rg~

diet •• re •• itched to the low anargy diat (high-to-low) and

vice-vera. (lo.-to-high). ·The other groupa ta •• inad an

•

i i i

1

(

\

c

either the 10. enetgy or high energy progra. thtoughout. AlI

diet.ry change. w.re .ade within the •••• auppl ••• ntal"at

l.vel. The di.tary anerOr progra ••• te liated in Tabl. 1.

The supple •• ntal blend.d ani •• l fat .as a •• igned a

calorie value of 7,920 kcal AHEu/kg; a value used by the feed

industry here. The entire experieent .8. repeated at a later

date with the eupple.ental blended ani.al f.t baing a.signed

a value of 10,000 keal AMEn/kg.

This >experi.ent w.s eonductad to atudy tha effscts of

d'1etary energy and protein progrs., .ith or without

supple.ental ani.al f.t, on broiler gro.th~ -plir'or •• nce and

abdo.lnal fat depoaition.

The diet.ry protein progr ••• for.ulated were 23, 21 and

19~ (low protein progra.) or 25, 2) and 211 (high protein

progtaa), for the starter, grower .nd finiaher dista,

respectively. The dietary ensrgy p~ogr.es ware 'or.ulated to

be 3200, )150 and l100 kcal AM~ /kg (decre.aing energ)'

progr •• ) or '200,)250 and "00 kc.l AMEn /kg (incra •• ing

energy prograe), for the starter, gro.er and finisher diets~

r •• pectively. Supple.enlal blended ani.al fat wa. eilher not

added to the dieta or added .t a level of 2.51, for the

_____ ~-.-~~->-'_·-------.--~-~--.~.-I~%W-,"-Z--.-.~.~iJ'"~~~_~_~.----,,-----------------J j a œ~ *4,.J ~ .... $2. ; .~~-

<.

Dieur, _,.. , ...... -Low •

Law-to-hi Ih

Hfgll

Hf .... to-low

.. Starter (0-3 .) Grower (3-6 .) . F1n1sher (1-7 .)

231 CP 21' CP 1. CP ~--~"""---.-.-........... lIEn (kc.l,/tll ...... ---.. __ ..... ~-----~ .....

2700

2700

3200

3200

. \

2750

3250

3250

2750

2800

"3300

3300

2800

1 Blenc1ed .1.1 fit .ither not Idded or lcIcIed It 1 1 ... 1 ()f 2.51 for the starter and 51 for the- gf'C*V Incl finis ..... dieU. .

f

(

\ ..

47

The addad fat aterter and '1 for ~ha grower and finr.h.r. 1

.a. aeelgnect a calo~ic: value of 7,920 kaal AMEn /kg. Ttnt

di.tary .nergy and protein progra •• Ar. li,t.d in Tabl. 2.

Th. d,cre •• ing .nergy prOgre. u •• ct in Experi.ant 1 w.~

further inve.tigatad with differant finieher cruda protein

end suppl •• ent.l blend.d ani.al fat levaI ••

The dietary energy ptogr ..... re for.ulated to provid. \ 3200, J2S0 and 3100 kcal AMEn/kg (incre.eing energy progre.)

or 1200, 27S0 and 2800 kcal AMEn /kg (d.cr .... lng en.rgy

progra.), for the atarter, grower and fini.her diet"

r •• pectiv.ly •. The dietary crud. protein progr-a .... ere

(or.ulatad ta pro~ida 2), 21 .nd i91 (10. protein ptogra.) or

2). 21 and 2'11 (high prot.in progre.). for the atartar,

grower and fini.h.r di.ta, r.apectively. -b1endad ani.al 'at wa. ailher not added ta the die ta or added

at a level of 51. The addad fat wae aeeignad a calorie valua

of 9,000 kasl AMEn/kg; • valua o~telned (roM en.rgy etudie. \ il!

on purified di,te. The dietary en.rgy and prot.in progra.,

are liated in Table J.

\

..

.r

48

TMU 2. D.eury ..... and protetn progr_. Exper1 .. t 21

DM.'· Starter (0-3 __ ) Grower (3-6- ,*) Finisher (6-7 wk)

CP ,. CP ,. CP -, n _ ...... (S) (tca1"',) (S) Uccal?t,) (1) (tcalir,) •

•

Htllt IncI'RS1ng 25 3200 23 3250 21 3300 Dec: .... sfng ZS 3200 23 3150 21 ' 3100

Leif IlICrMStng 23 3200 21 3250 19 3300 OcrMsing' 23 3200 21 3150 19 ~100

..

. 1 .1 ..... anf.1 fat ettller IlOt: .... or ...... et a l .. el. of 2'.11 for the

starter ... ft for tM ""Ir and ft .. ts ..... dfets.

) .'

<.

o

, J

•

. .

,

Ffft1sher Diatar" d1et IMr.

protei n progr~

Starter (0-3 wk)

H1gh

Law

CP > AME (s) (tcal?tg)

Incr.lsing 23 Decrels1ng 23

1 ncreasfng 23 Decrels1ng 23

3200 3200

3200 3200

Growar (3-6 wk) CP AME (S). (tcll?tg)

21 21

21 21

3250 2750

3250 2750

Finish.r (6-7 wk)

CP .' (s) (tcIliig)

21 21

19 19

3300 2800

3300 2800

1 Blended ani., fat ,.1ther not addecl or added It- a la,al of 5$ for the starter. grower and finish.r diets.

..

.'

..

..

(

. .,...

sa

R •• ult.

Expert •• nt 1.

,

Fe.alea dit'ered ai9nifieantly (P<.05) 'rOM ~h.ir· .ai.

counterparta in that they gained leae weight and depoaited J

aore abdoMinal f.t'(Table 4).

~ , .. Dietary fat auppl •• ent.tion inerea.ed 'eed eonau.ption . .

.ignifieantl)' (P<.OS) rro. 0-7 weeka, regardle.e of it. l ,

a.elgned calorie value (Tabl. 5). F.ed coneullption w.a

signifie.ntly (P(.OS) affected by dietary fat eupple.entation

on1)' during the 0-3 .eek period, when the added di.tar)' fat t .

• a •••• igned a calorie value of 7,920 kea! A~En/kg, and onl)'

during the 3-6 w •• k period, when the added dietar)' f~t wa. ,

as.igned'â calorie value of 10,0&0 keal .AMEn/kg (Table 5) • .. Body weight. at J, 6 and 7 weeka of age wer. aignifieantl)' .. (P(.05) ieproved b)' distary fat .upple.entation at an

. a.signed calorie value of 7,920 keal AMEn /kg but nct at

10,060 kcal AMEn /kg (Table 5). Supple.ental dietar)' fat.

when a •• igned a calorie value of 7,92G keal AMEn/kg, iMproved

'e.d converaion, a1though on1y aigni ficant1y (P<. 05) at 6

weeka (Table 5). When the value of lO,uOû kcal AMEn/kg waa

a •• igned to the added dietary fat, feed conversion was

nonaignifieantly (P).G5) poorer (Table 5). Supplemental

di.tary fat, when ass~gned a calorie value of 7,9,2G keal '

,.

1 ! 51 ;

TAlLE 4. Effect of. MX an bocCY wight and' ~ ... 1 fat cantHt. Exper1..m l

~,; , ~_1rt ~nal fat (E- (S of H .. weii!t)

3 1 Af! (wk)

1 7 ~ ,

" 647+9& 1835+13a 2340+151 " 2.47.!.08a 2.65+.091 - -F 568+71» 1548+1 ob 1934+nb 3.04+.101» 3.54+.11 b -,

'" '.,

Mans vithtn the ... col ... wtth different letters ctlffer stgniftcantl.Y ('<.05)

(i

. ,

()

. ,

. .'

f't .- ,.--

TMLE!5. Effect of dlet..-y fat tuPPle.ntatlon Md Ih •• tgMd calorlc .. lue on fMel CQUUllptlon, bodr .. Ight, fM4

conversion end ebdoIallMll fat content. E..,. • ....t 1

Supp'" FMd COftlUllpt Ion Bodv .. Ight Abdolll nal fit

-.rtal CII!:_) (I!:-' FeecVgaln (. of 1'.- .. Ight) fat

AfII (.U

0-3 • 3-6 6-7 0-1 , 6 1 , 6 7 6 1

Aa.I~c:alor'-~_~ .. lueoL~I~,,'t.L!~~7.920 kcl!l AMEaAg "

o 173+'" 2265+2!5c 1073+16b 4211+34d 6'7+1ob 1685+':sb 21"+47b 1.49+.0}b 1.93+.04b 2.04+.05b 2.91+.':sb ,.09+.16ab

+ .,..,. 2303+36c 1071+11 b 4269t-4,c 664+108 17'2+378 2193+491' 1.4,..ozb 1.89+.04c 2.01+.Q!5b 3.26+.16a 3.43+.1sa

AsIJ~ calorie v.,. of suppl-.t., fat • 10,000 ke.1 ~g

o 847+,c 2.tG1+3()b t141+1oa 4J89t.]9b '66+1OC 1657+3()b 2100+4ZC 1.64+.03. 2.03+.04. 2.16+.058 2.40+.0,c J.07+.11-

+ 853+4c 24!U+3'· 115l+~ . 449+4oa '66+1ZC 1671+3)P 212:s+44C 1.66+.048 2.06+.058 2.17+.058 2.45+.1ZC 2.79+.14b

.,b,c,44. .. wlthln the ... col ... Ith dlfferent leH ... dlUer slgnlflantly (P~0!5'

•

• ~I- ." ...... ~ ... ~ ........ - -

VI N

(

\,

53

AMEn Ikg incr •••• d .bdoMinal fat depoaition, but only

aignificantly (P(.o,) .t 6 w.eka (Table 5). When th. added

di.tary f.t ••• • aaigned a calorie value of 10,000 keal

AMEn/kg th.re wer. no aignifiean't (P<.05) difr.reneea

al though the added dietary fat decreaaed abdOMinal rat

depoaition (Tabl. 5).

Dietary energy progr~. aignifieantly (P(.05) affected

fe-ad eonau.ptic:tn (Tabla 6). Thoaa brailera fed law energy

die ta during the grawing and finishing period eonaullled

.ignifiea~tly (P(.05) aare fead but their body weighta were

aignifieantly (P<.05) lawer (Table 6). Brailera on the

2700/3250/3300 (law-to-high) and 3200/2750/2800 (high-to-low)

dietary energy pragraMa ~ad siMilar (P).05) body weighta at

6 an~ 7 weeka tha~ were inter.ediate to thaae abtained on the

2700/2750/2800 (standard low) and' 3200/325(;/J300 (standard

high) dietary energy pragra.s (Table 6). reed conversion waa

si gni fi cantly (PC 05) poorer for brailere fed low anergy

die ta'. Brailere on the 2700/3250/3300 and ~2QO/2750/2800

dietary energy prograM. had signifieantly (P(.05) different

feed eonveraiona at 6 and 7 weeka due ta differenee. in feed

consu.ption (Table 6). AbdOMinal fat content at 6 and 7

weeks waa signifieantly (P(.(;S) af'ected by dietary energy

progra .. (TablC!l 6). Thoae broilera fed low ·.nergy die te

during the growing and fînishing period had signifieantly

(P<.OS) lower aMounta of abdOMinal fat.

f .

1 i

1 i

1 1

1 'b!

1

1

r'\ -

TAIlLE 6. Effect of dletry .... gy ..... _ on f~ conaUllptlon, body wight, fMd conwwalon Md ___ rnal fat œntent, ûpw, ...... 1

FMd conaUllptlon

(gr-'

Body .Ight

Cgr_' FMdlgain

........ , fet

C' of "ve w'ght, Dletry ...... pr.-Age ".It) ------------------

0-3 ]-6 6-7 0-7 3 6 7 3 6

2700/275011800 819+6' 2487+16' 1 tO+l:za 4'IOt2:za 589+1;sb 16!6+35b 2081+44c 1.64+.04' 2.11+.058

270013~0/'lOO 181+8' 2191+19C I072+1~ 4144+2'" '94+1~ 1618+34' 2149+4~ 1.63+.04' , • 89+.04d

'2OOI'250/l3OO 858+4b 263+21 b I078+14b 4200+26b 6'1+11 8 1747+'28 2193+4,8 1.47+.0]b 1.85+.04c

32001215012800 851+eb 2481+3)1 1142+ea 4414+38' 6111+I:za 16114+328 2124+4~ 1.50+.olD 2.05+.04b

.,b,c,fIM._ .Itt!ln the ... col ..... Itt! dltf .. ~ letter. dlU ... Ignlflc8ntly (P~.05)

~

~-------,

7 6 1

2.24+.05' 2.'4+.',0 2.17+.'4b

1.99+.04c 2.75+.t,1b 3.41+.21' '-

1.98+.04c 2.96+.13' 3.38+. U8

2.18+.~ 2.76+.141b 2.82+.1]b

0. CIl ~

(

(

ss

Expariment 2:

Broilera conaumed aignificantlY (P<.05) more fead, From

0-7 weeka, on the 3200/3150/3100 dietary energy program

(Table 7). Feed conaumption, within the 7 week growing

period, W8B only significantly (pe05) affected during the

6-7 week period (Table 7). Dietary energy program had no

signi f ican t ct on body weight at 3, 6 and 7 weeks

(Table 7). F conversion was the same for the 2 dietary

energy programs at 3 and 6 weeks (Table 7). However,

broilers on the 32uO/3150/3100 dietary energy program had a

aignificantly (P<.05) poorer feed conversion at 7 weeks

(Table 7). Abdominal fat at 6 and 7 weeks waa not

aignificantly (P>.05) affected by dietary ,

energy prl.0gram

(Table 7).

Dietary fat aupplementation, at an assigned caloric

value of 7,920 kcal AMEn/kg, significantly increased feed

consumption From 0-7 weeks (T-;ble 8). Ouring the 7 week ,

growing period, broilers on the 25/23/21 dietary protein

program with no added dietary fat consumed significantly

(P<.05) less 'eed then broilera on~the other progisms (Tabla

8). Dietery pr'otein program had no significant (P).05)

affect on body weight at 3, 6 and 7 weeks (Table 8).

Supplemental dietsry fat had no significant (P>.OS) effect on

body weight st J weeks but did aignifican~ly (P<.G5)Jimprove

body weight st 6 and 7 weeks (Table 8). Feed conversion at

J weeka was not aignificantly (P<.Û5) affected by either

i __ ~ ______ ------__ ----~(~t~~~----------------~J

~./'("'~~.I<"\~~'r ,~ , j

li

"

..... ,.- ',",,--' ...

t tl

r,.-...." ,

1 -.#

.......

TABlE 7. Effect of dle1'ry energy progrèm on feed consuq,tlon, body _elght, feed conversion and abdcnllnal fat content, Experlment 2

-"<

01 .... .,.., .... gy

progr-

0-3

Fe8d con.u~tlon

(gr-)

3-6 6-7 0-7 3

Body .. Ight

(gr-) Fe8d/glln

Abdonll nll f et

(S of live .elphtl

A~ <.k) --------------------------------------------

6 7 3 6 7 6 7

'200/31'0/3100 809+61 2319+23' 978+71 4106+29' 607+101 1732+338 2150+39' 1.44+.02' 1.87+.04' 1.96+.041 2.82+.08' 3.13+.08'

3200/3250/3300 B2~1 2259+161 916+12b 3995+28b 614+18' 1706+32' 2136+39' 1.44+.02' 1.87+.03' 1.92+.0lb 2.93+.061 3.17+.081

.,~ .Ithln the ... colu~ .Ith dlff.,..nt I.tter. dtff .. Ilgnlflclntly (P(.05)

'.

V1 0\

h

'"

_ ... 1o'Wt~ .. , .. ~-~ .. 1< ..

.J

......... --

TABU: 8. Effect of cf1e1"ry proteln prosr- and f.1" suppl_n1'atlon on feed conSUlllp1"lon, body wight, feed conversion end

ebdoalnal fat content, Experl~t 2

DI.tory Suppl ... Feed consu..,'tlon Body .. Ight

proteln .ntlll (1:-) (I:-) prOfT- fllt

Age (wk)

0-3 J.6 6-1 0-1 3 6 1 ,

2)/21119 0 816+68 2318+JOC 90+14- 4076+3:za 605+10. 1674+45b 2076+48b \.46+.02· -'

23121119 + 82&+ga 2298+3,80 962+13· 4088+39· 616+13. 1131+'oa 2183+51· 1.46+.03·

25/23/21 0 m+6b 222:5+2gb 918+2Jb ")936+52b 600+128 1714+4,ab 2120+58.b 1.44+.03.

, 2'/23121 + 1

820+78 2'19+191 964+1,1 4102+)01 621+1611 1758+468 219)+5411 1.43+.0311

Levet of slgnfflçanc:e CF ........ t' Pr-otel n CP) .0361· .2245 .'479 .116' .9684 .0661 .2994 .1808

F.t CF) .0071- .2166 .0122* .0300* .4302 .0063- .0012- .7074

P Je F .3565 .0628 .2896 .0570 .55'2 .7162 .4968 .9456

,,-(

•• b~CMeInS .'thln the .... colu.n .Ith dltferent lettera dlffer ,Ignlflcently CP<.05)

*P<.05

*1Ip(.OI

Abcmlnal fllt

Feed/g8ln (J of II~ welAht)

6 7 6 7

1.94+.0511 2' .02+.058 2.14+.ogb '.15+.1'"

1.81+.0,b , .9:5+.O')b

1.82+.05c t.91+.05b

1.85+.05bc 1.92+.0<4b

.0001·· .0041··

.0935 .0322*

.()()()9H .0072··

3. 16+.()98 3.44+."-

2.'50+.oec 3.00+.t1b

3.10+."a 2.99+.08b

.0101

.0001-

.2919

.0037··

.1430

.0849

en .....

c

(

J

. t

(~

[

58

dietar)' protein progra. or dietar)' fat auppleaentation (Table

8). There waa, howaver, a signifie.nt (P<.05) i.ftteraction

between dietar)' protain progra. and supple.ental dietar)' fat \

on feed converaion at 6 and 7 weeka (Table 8). Dietary fat

auppleaentation aigni ficantly (P<'05) illpraved the 'eed

conversion of' brailera at 6 and 7 weeke on the 23/21/19

dietar)' protein prograa, but did not. iaprave the 'eed

conversion of brailera on the 25/23/21 dietar)' protein ,

progra. (Table 8). Dietar)' fat suppleaentation aignific.ntly

(P<.05) increaaed abdo.inal fat depoeition at 6 weeka but nat

a t 7 weeka (Table 8). The 25/23/21 dietar)' pro tein~ progra.

signifieantly (P<.05) deareased abdo.inal fat depoaitian st

) weeka but not at 6 weaka.

Broilera on the 320G/27S0/280& di.tar)' energy progra.

did not consuae signifieantl)' (P>.05) .ore r •• d fra. 0-7

weeks tha" broilera on the J20û/JZ50/"C,O dietar)' energ)'

progra. (Table 9). Within the 7 waek growing period onl)' the

faad eonau.pUon froa 6-7 w.eka wa. aignifieantl)' (P<.05)

a ffected b)' diatar)' energ)' progra. (Table 9). Body weight

and feed canveraion, .t 3, 6 and 7 we.ka were not

signifiea'\tly (P>.05) affacted b)' dietar)' energ)' progra.

(Table 9). "bdo.inal r.t d.posi,tion at 6 and 7 we.ka w ••

lawer, but not eignifie.ntly sa (P>.~S), for brailera on tha

.2$4 4

c'

1~"""''1' ",."",. _ .. ,*" ... ~ ...... $ ~~~4

r'I. .....

TABLE 9. Effect of dletil'y IMf'ty prC9'- an .eed can ..... tlon. body .. Ight. fNd COftywslon end 1b .. ln_1 fltt conteftt. bperl .... t }

"

Feitcl CIOftIUlpt 1 on Body .. Itht ,.-.In.' fltt

Oletry ....,.." c.-_, (gr_t F..t,Igeln C. Qf Ih ... Ightt

progr-Age ",It)

0-3 l-6 6-7 0-7 , 6 7 , 6 7 6 7

]200"~OIllOO 1O':!..48 2618+2]8 1129+1ob 4609+]08 '79Ha 1881+40- 2300+498 I.'H.OZ8 1.92+.048 2.07+.058 2.,,...10- 2.94+.168

32001275012800 .....,. 2621+'1' 121)+101 4649+55. '79+68 1872+])8 2213+44. 1.51+.01. 1.90+.048 2.10+.058 2.41+.()911 2.19+.11-...

'.br4.ens wl,",'" the ... co ..... witt. dlt ...... t 1ett.'1 dlfter algnlfle.ntly CP<.05,

VI tO

(

,

!( ~

1

60

1260/27S6/2866 diet.ry enargy progr •• (T.bla 9).

Diat.ry f.t .uppl ••• nt.t.ion, at .n ••• ign.d caloric

v.lu. of 9,000 ke.l AMEn/kg, aignific.ntly (P<.Ci5) incr •••• d

f •• d con.u.ption fro. 0-7 w •• ka (T.ble lCi). Within th. 7

we.k growing p.riod, diet.ary f.t suppl •• ent.ation

.ignific.nt)y (P<.~S) incr •••• d feed conau.ption during tha

O-J and 6-7 wsek p.rioda (Table 10). Body weight, .t J and

7 w.eka, waa aignifieantly (P<.05) incr •••• d by .ddad di.tary

fat (Tabl. 10). re.d conver.ion, et " 6 and 7 w.ak., w ••

not aignificantly (P>.G5) aff.cted by di.tary fat

supple •• nt.tion (Tabl. la). Abdo.inal f.t .d.po.ition, .t 6

and 7 wsak., w.. no t s.tgn! f ic.ntly (P) .6S) .ffactsd by

d1atary fat supple.entation.

Dietary prote in progr •• had no .ignifieant (P:>.Os)

.ffsct on feed conau.ption dur in; the 6-7 ••• k p.riod (T.ble

Il). Dur!n; th!a p.rlod, body waight g.in w.a .ignirie.ntly

(P<. 6 S) dee r •••• d and f.ad conv.raion ••• a 19n1 ficantly

(P<. 05) incr •••• d by tha 23/21/21' diat.ry protein ~rogr ••

(Table Il). Incr ••• ~n9 th. crud. prat. in content of the

fini.h.r diet r.duc.d .odo.in.l f.t d.poeition at 7 w •• k.,

but only .ignific.ntly (P<.Ü5) wh.n auppl ••• ntal r.t w •• not

add.d ~o th. di.t. (Table Il).

.~$i*_ ... _

f' r ~

61

( • ln " .. - -.1 1i - i' il

1 - 1 • 0

1 '. N N

• .. J ~ --J 10 +1 +t - ,.. - ln ... - 0 0

N N

8 S 1: cà

~ ,.. ,t ~I i~ - -0 •

N N

i i c i • J - ~

il ) +1 0, - i CIl ';'" • 0 - -..

il -• • s S N 0 î '" +1 il -ln ln

U ~ 0 . ~ - - -

\i : 1. • i - . - !t 3 c t -,.. ... II - i -

f ;; la

N N -l..: • -i ) ï 1 ~ '1 ~ 10 i' ..

1 1 ,... -f- I •

~i - - j ,

l' • .. .! 1 i' 1i 1 ... ... .. i: I~ l, )1 - ... .. .. I! A ;; ... -. 1i 1

... ... ~ --f 1 '!. " Jt

li ,... -, i' 1-- J. ! .. B , , - -t - -t ;; 1 1 '5 - J- •• t J i' l ,

1 ït' , ... • ! / .. ..! \AI

Al • ~ 0 '" i' Il 0 A .. -i

;;

J', . ~ -, - . t Ji! 0 • ft ..

(-:- •

/

(

c

62

TABLE Il. Effect of protein content of the ffnisher diet and fat supplementation on~feed consumptfon, boQy weight gain, feed

conversion and abdominal fat content, Experiment 3,

Feed BodY weight Abdom1 nal fat Fi nisher consumpt1on gain

diet Csrams) (grams) Feed/ga1n protefn Suppl emental Age (wlc)

~, fat 6-7 6-7 6-7

23/21/19 0 1132+23<: '434+30ab 2.60+. Ï4b 23/21/19 + 1194+1Sb 458+25a 2.61+.17b 23'/21121 0 1159+13bc 371+'19b 3.07+~ 16ab 23/21/21 + 1200+14a 372+29b 3.22+.17a

Level of sisnificance CF-test)

Protei n program (P), .- .1954 .0044** .0027'--Fat CF) .0003** .6758 .4066 P x F .4210 .5489 .4027

a,b,CHeans ~fthin the same column with differeot letters differ' s1gn1ffcantly CP .05)

*P<.05

**P(.Ol

l , l'

'.

C' of live-wefsht)

7

3.30+.16a 3.0l+.21ab ,2 • 46+. 1:8c 2.69+.1Sbc

.0001**

.8054

.0303*

c.

C-,

(

63

Oi8cu8aion

Low ene"rgy dieta were only effective !,n reducing

abd om ins 1 fa t when fad' dur ing the growing and' f iniahing

periode (Table 6). This is becauee fat deposltion, which le

cloeely a8eociated wlth high ratee of growth, moetly occurs

during the growing and finishing periode Summers and Leeaon

(1979) reported that broilers consume energy far in exceaa of

theï r metsbolïc abili t y for tiasue growth, lesding to the

accrual of body fat.

The energy. content of the starter,diet ~ffected 7 week

body weights ~ut did not affect abdominal fat deposition

(Table 6).' Kubena et !.!._ (197~b) found that the dietary

enargy level of the starter influenced the quantity of

'abdominal fat at 7 and .8 weeks of age, bu't not at 9 weeke. 0>

Th le discrepancy ia probably due ta the slower growth t""ate

aince the broilera ueed by Kubena !i!l. (l974b) weighad ? kg

at 9 weeka, a weight achieved in the present experimenta at

7 weeke of age.

The high energy .tarter waa particularly uaeful for

i.proving the 7 week body wèighta of broilera f.d laN energy

grawer and 'iniehera withaut any ef'ect on abdo.inal fat

deposition (Table 6). However, brailer. on any 0' the

dietary energy pragr ••• uaing ION energy diet., did not grow

8S weIl a. the broiler. on the '200/'~5Q/"OO dietary energy ..

(

64

progr •• (Table 6).

Broiler. on ~he 2700/3250/3300 dietary energy progra.

'depoa i ted aa lIuch abdoMinal fat: as thoae broilera on the

3200/3250/3300 progra •• oeaton et al. (1973) and kubena et -- -!.l. (1974b) obaerved the aalle effect on broilera fed low

~ ,

energy startera in co.bination with high energy finisherl.

The 3200/2750/280Q die,t.ry energy pr,ogra. whieh was

aucce.aful in reducing abdo .. inal fat depoaition in Experiment

1. wea again tested in Experi .. ent 3. There were no

signifieant (P(.05) differences, even fhough broilera on the

. 3 Z (j (j / 2 7 5 (j / 2 8 0 0 die t a r yen e r 0 y pro 9 r a Il de p.o s i t e d les s

abdominal fat and gained leaa weight at 7 weeka than tho.e

broilera on the 3200/3250/ J300 distary energy program (Table

9). Although the reaulta froll Expert.ent 3 differ ao'.ewhat

froll those of Experi.ent 1, the 3200/2750/2800 dietary energy

program ia,. nevertheles8, a uaeful prograll ta reduce

abdo.inal fat depoaition with lIinla.1 la •• orgrowth.

Abdoainal fat depoaition and body weight were not

signifieantly (P).05) arfseted by the dietary energy progr •••

~ __ --------~~~~ln Experi.ent 2 (Table 7). This ia not lurpriaing .inee y ;\,

those broilere on the 3200/31S0/l100 dietary anergy prograll;~ i;>o"

ai.ply conauaed .ora 'eed to keep up with the dietary energy

intake Af the broilera on the 3200/J2S0/JJOO dietary energy

C.' prograa. Thia confiraa the re.ulta of Su •• era and Leeaon

(1979) that energy tntaka, rather then diat.ry energy level, ..

»4E .. *12 Ag~ : i ... iP~

, -

\

(

2:a ~ $22 aLli * ±A@.."

6$

ia the .ain factor influenalng abdoMinal fat depoaition.

High prote in intaka. cause a reduction in carca.e fat

depoaition by requiring the broiler to expend .ore energ~ in

e1i~inating exce.s nitrogen fro. the body (Bartov, 1979).

Increaeing the crude protein content of the finieher

diet eignificantly (P<.05) reduced.abdoainal rat deposition

(Table Il). Fro. the reeul t. of Exper i.enta 2 and 3 t i t

appeare that high protein dieta are More ef'ective during the

finiahing (6-7 weèka) period, a ti.e w~en a large a.ount of .,

abdoainal fat ie depoaited.

reeding the high protein dieta did not iaprove the

growth perfor.ance of broilera (Tabl •• 10 and Il). ln

Experiaent 3, growth perror.anc. wa., in fact,~ignifica~tly

- (P<.OS) reduced by f •• ding high protein 'inia~r dieta (T~ble Il). Thi. i8 ai.l1ar to the reau1ta of Touchburn .t al. --(1981) and leclercq and Saadoun (1982). Thea. authora found

that broilara genetically a.lect.d to depoait larg. a.ount.

of abdo.inal fat did not weIl tolarats dieta .fith narrow

éalorie-to-protein r.~ioa.

t'ne r.aaiog dietary prote in, al though ."ect ive in

reducing abdoainal 'at d.poaition, .ay not ba econoaica1ly

-feaaibl. unl •• a producera receive a pre.iu. for .arket.ing

leanar broil.r ••

c·

66

In ExperiMent J, there, was a signifieant (p<.ûS)

interaction between the finisher dietary protein content and

dietary fat auppleaentation on abdominal fat daposition at 7

weeka (Table 11). In the fat 8upple!Dented diet, the

inef'activaness of the high protein finiaher diet to

aignificantly (P<.~S) rsduce abdominal fat deposition may be

related ta the dietary supple.entsl fat supplying !Dore

caloriea than can be aeeo~nted for by .etabolizable energy

calories.

1 n Ex pe r i.ent 2, the high _protein, 'at supplelienteCli

diets did not significantly (P<.05) reduce abdOMinal flft

depoai tian at 6 weeka, aa call1pared ta the law pro tein fa t

supple.entecl dieta, but did at! 7 weeka (Table 8). The

interaction between dietary protein level and fat

supple.entation needa to be further inv.etigated.

ln Experi.ent J, there wa. n,O eignificant (P).05)

int.raction batw.en dietary proteln cbntent of the finianer

and dietary energy progra. on abdo.inal fat depoeition.

raading 10w energy diet. during the growlng and finishlng - .

periode reduced abdo.inal fat depoaition ta the aa.e extent

a. feeding a high protsin fini.her diet.

The sti.u1ation of 'eed intake by aupp1 •• ental dietary

rat. (Table. 5 and 10) •• y be a'iMp1y due ta i.p,roved

palatablllty. 1t •• y a1eo ba due to the ract t.hat the

broiler', energy .enaing .echania. ia 1 ••• t.h.n pertact in

(

67

aonitoring energy entering in the for. of fat, thue allowing

an overahoot of the set point.

Body weight .t 7 weeke was eignlficantly (P<.05)

increased by euppleaental dietary fat, e~cept when aasigned

a caloric value of 10,000 kcal AMEn/kg (Tablea 5 and 10).

Touchburn and Naber (1966) referred to the illprovellent in

perforaance, reaulting froa dietary fat supplellentation, as

the "extracaloric effect" of fat.

The increaaed abdo.inal fat obaerv.d when added dletary

fat was aaeigned 7,920 kcal Af4E n /kg suggests an

undervaluation of th. dietary fat (Table 5). Th. fset th8t

10,000 kcal AMEn/kg .asigned ta dietsry fat tended ta reduce

abdoainal fat 8uggeata that thi. value ia a little too high

(Table 5). When the interaediate value of 9,000 kcal AMtn/kg

was tested, broilera 'ed dieta with ,dded r:at had the, aaae

aaount of abdoainal fat as thoae fed dieta with· no added fat

(Table 10). This ia in agTee.ent with the 'indinga of .any

tnv.stigatora (Edwarde and Hart, 1971; Bartov .!!. !.!., 1974;

Griffith. et ~., 1977b; Bartov and Bornetein, 1976; fuI 1er

and Rendon, 1977) that if aufficient calories are attributeo -

to added dietary fat, th.r. ie no incr •••• in abdoainal fet

depo.i tion.

(

(

68

Sua.ary and Conclusions

The deposition of abdominal fat is associated with the

rapid growth that occurs during the growing and finishing

periode It ia at this time that nutrition playe a key role

in liaiting the amount of abdominal fat depoaited.

High protein dieta and low energy diets are effective in

reducing abdominal fat deposition. Low energy diets elightly

reduce growth rate but are a more economical method for

reducing abdoMinal fat depoeition than high protein diete.

Suppleaental fat can be added to broiler diets without

fear of increaaing abdolllinal fat deposition, if sufficient

calories are attributed to the added fat.

'-

Since producers are not interested in producing 188ner

broilera at the expenae of SOMe growth, a aystem whereby the

producer ia pa id a pre.lulII for lean broilera ie needed. 'The

need for thie ayate. ia sven more apparent aince primary

breedera are raluctant ta relax selection preseure for rapid

growth for fear of fa11ing behind their co.petitora.

H 8 r k e tin 9 b roi l e r a a tan e a r lie r ~a gai 8 a n 0 the r

alternative, but one whieh the producer or consumer may be

reluet.nt to accepte

(

-

III. JVHOOS CF taSURllIG DERGY UTILIZATION IN BROILERS: EFFe!t

CF GalETIe LItE AlI) PRESEJEE CF SlI'PlDEIITAL 0 DIETARY FAT

..

69

( ..

70

Objeetlves

Thtfre 18 no standardlzed lIIethod for lIIeasurl.ng energy

utilization in broilera. Most feed produeere uae values fro.

the eonventlonal AME aeaay but eOlIIe are 8dopting the lIore

reeently developed TME aeaay (Slbbald, 1976a).

Fine control o~ dietary energy i. neee.Bary to reduee

carcaas fat deposition in broilera.

Ta deterllllns the be~t lIetabolizable energy (ME) 8s8ay,

AME and THE vslues obtained From 3 genetie lines of broilers

fed purified diets differing in fat content will be eompared /1

to net energy values. The effect of feed lntake durlng the

assay period and age of broile~ on AME and THE values ,~11

also be determined.

Determined ME values are normally eorrected for nitrogen

balance. The usefulness of this correction in bath AME and

TME assays will be evalu~ted.

The abi~ity of ME a888y8 ta aceurately aecount for

calories from dietary fat will be determined by careass

composition studies.

.. 1

L .,

"

l ( ,

71

Materiala and ~thads

low and .I}J.gh fat purified die ta were for.ulatad ta ba

iaa~alarie and isanitroganaua ta study the effeet of sax of

brailar on apparent lIetabalizabla energy (AME) and nitrogan

cor r e e t a d a p par e nt .. e t a bol i zab 1 a a n a r 9 y ( A H En) val u e a •

Thi rty lIale and thifty fellale Roas X Arbor-Acras day ald

eh~cka "were reared in Peteraille batteries untii 3 weeks of

age. Teaperature was set st 35C and deereaaed 2.8C per week

thereafter. Artificial light was provided for 24 hours/day.

Feed and water were aupplied ~ libitum.

The brailers were fed one of twa purified starter diets

'formulated ta contain 23~ erude protein and 3150 kcsl

AHEn1kg. The low fat diet cantained 2~ corn ail and the high

fat diet eontained 2~ corn ail and 7~ animal-vegetable

blended fat (Table 12).

At J weeks of age. 12 male and 12 female brailera per

diet were randamly placed in individusl metabalic cages with

autamatic water cupa. Temperature was s;t It 27C and

gradually lawered ta 24C within 4 days. Artificiel light was

pravided 'for 22.5 houre/day. The brailera were fed ad

libitu. one 'of two purifi.d growar die ta according to'lhe ./

E

I-f ~

1

t l (' i J t f , , i , r

.i.

12

TABLE 12. Co.poaition of purified dieta, Experi •• nt. 4 and 5

laal.ted 80ybaan prote in

(Pro.oaoy 100)

O-glucoae, anhydrou8

Corn .tarch

Refined corn oil (Mazola)

Ani.a1-vegetab1e fat b1end '

OL-.ethionine

L-glycine

Vitallin pre.ix z.

Mineral pre.ix1

Ground cellulose (Alphace1)

~ determined crude prouin

~ d.etermined ether-e)(tract

10

Starter

Law f.t High fat

".92 33.92

27.79 19.38

28.05 19.64

2.00 2.00

~ 7.00

.:n .31

.25 .25

.50 .50

5.65 5.65

1 • .53 Il.'5

22.44 22.37

1.96 8.33

Grawer

Low '.t High f.t

29.50 29.50

29.65 21.23

29.91 21.49

2.00 2.00

7.00

~,t8-,/'

1

.18

.15 .15

.50 .50

~,. 65 5.65

2.46 12.30

18.14 18.19

1.93 8.52

,-' The animal-vegetabl~ fa~ b1end had a gross energy of 9,213

\

\

kcal/kg, an iodine number of 6~ an,d a melting point of 24C. .--, Ite (etty acid composition by .~a1ysia was: myrietic, 1.3'; paillitic; 22.6'; pallllitoleic, 4.3%; staaric, Il.5'; oleic, 47.8~; linoleic, Il.2'; linoi8nic, .8~.: 2. .

As per Scott) M.l.i M.C. Nashai. snd R.J. Young, ~utrition 0' the Chicken. 'rd Ed., M.l. Scott and -A •• dblie,., pu611.her., ItR.ea. Nr,11l850. .. ..

..

_4~ a xe _ w.... ~_. s::

'.

(:

13

atarter diet th.y had been fed; a low fat di.t for.ulated to

contain 19~ crude protein, 3100 kcal AME;,/kg and 2$ corn oil,

or a high fat diet for.u1ated to contain 19~ erude protein,

'100 keal AMEn /kg, 2" corn ail and 7" anillal-vagetable

blended fat • At 5 weeka a f age, faed con.u.ption was

•• a.ur.d and fac.s collected for 3 days. tecal sallples were

oven-dried, equilibr~ted ta atlloaph.ric .oiature, weighed and

ground. The feed and fecal- samplea wer. then analyzed for

groae energy and nitrogen to deterlline AME and AH~ •

The data were ana1yzed by the gen.ral I1near lIodela

procedure and Duncan' a -.ul tiple rang. teet eStatistical

Analys!e System, 1979).

Experillent 5:

This experiment, de1ligned to etudy the ~effects of

9 e ne tic -nutr i tian interactions on energy u tiliza tian, wes

conducted on broilers in two age groups: from day old to 3

weeks of age and from 3 weeks of age until the)' reached 1 kg

body wsight. -\ , 1

8) 0 .. 3 weeks of <,

age

• forty-eight broilera of each line, a co.mercial line

(Roas x Arbor-Aerea), a lins .elected for low abdo.inal fat

1 l­i -

1

(

(,

74

(lean line) and a lin. eelected for high abdo.inel fat (fat

1.1ne) we re rando.l y p laced in groupa 0 f 8 in Peterai ••

batter1... The lean and fat line broilera are the reaulta of "\

, generationa of aelection by Leclercq .!l al. (1980). The

lean (lL) and 'at (FL) linea were unaexed and the co •• ercial

1 ine (Cl) conaiated 0' equal nulltbera of each aex in each

group. Tellperature waa aet at J5C and decreaaed" 2.8C per

week, thereafter. Artificial light was pravided for 24

houre/dey. raed and water were auppliad ~ libitum.

The brailera were fed one of two purified atarter dieta

forlllulated ta cantain 23' crude pratein and 3151:1 Jc:cal

AME /kg. The low fat diet contained 2" corn ail and the high n

'at diet cantained 2' corn oil and 7" animal-vagetable

blanded fat (Table 12). Body weight wa8 mea8ured weekly.

Three days before the first and third weeks of age,

apparent, metabolizable energy, apparent and true fat

digestibility, and apparent and true nitragen retention (or

."ch group were determined bY~"Uring f •• d"conaumption and

collecting feces for 3 days. V~lues for endogenous excretion "/

of fat and proteln were obtained by feeding a prateln-fat

free diet ta the 3 linee of broilere together ~uring the 3

day collection·, period. The,se figures were applied to

apparent fat digestibility and apparent nitrogen r&tention 'to

~arrive ~t true fat digesttbility and tr~e nitrogen-retention,

respecti vely: Theae broilera 'were lni tljlly adapted to the

protein-fat~free dist by f.eding it 1 day befot. th. atart of ,;

( .

1 f • 1

1S

the ME •••• y.

four •• le broil.ra/lin./di.t w.r. kill.d .t :3 week.

without lo.s of blood and then freeze-dried for Iater

snalyse. (crude protein, .th.r-extract, ssh and tot.l dry

•• tter content). fecal aampl.a w.re freeze-dri.d,

equilibr.ted ta atlloepheric MOlatura, weighad and ground.

Groae .nergy, ether-extract and nitrogen content were· then . deter.ined for the feed and fecal as.plea. , b) 3 wBeka of SgB to l kg body w.ight

Eight mal. broil.ra/lin./diet, t.k.n from th. 0-3 weeka

of age group, were randomly plac.d in individual metabolic

cages with automatic wat.r cups. Temperature was s.t at 27C'

and gradually lowered ta 24C within 4 daya. Artificial light

was provided for 22.5 houra/day. The broilera were fad ad

libitum the same purified starter dieta the y were rBceiving

from 0-3 ~eeks of age (Table 12). Body weight was meaaured

weekly.

Durfng the J dey M~ aasay period, the broilera were fad

either .!& libitum· or given a single 25 gram meal. The

details of this procedure were as follows:

Three daya before tha fifth week of age, apparent and true

metabolizable energy (AME, TME) and- nitrogen corrected

apparent and true metabolizable energy (AMEn' TMEn) ware

det,~min.d on CL b~oilera r.atricted to a 25 gram meal ~uring

th •.•• aay. Th.ae broilera wer. atarved for 24 houre ta empty r '\\ ..

'"

1 1 1

1

1 •

(

\

l

76 r

their dige.tive tract •• They Were then atarved fat an

additional 2. haut. 'or the collection of endogenoua exereta.

The broilera were then fed (not rorce~red) a 2S gra •• eal,

vi th r •• d re.idu •• collecte'd arter 24 houra. AlI broilere

re.tricted during the HE .asay wererthen killed and exa.ined

'or 'e.d raaidues in th. digeativa tract. At,the aa.e ti.a,

AMt, AHEn' THt, THEn' apparent fat digaatibility and apparant

nitrogen retention .ere deter.ined for J daye on CL broilera

fed ~ llbitu •• The endagano.ûa correction, r.quired ta

c al cu 1 a te T HE and THEn on .!.!! libitu. 'ed brailera, waa

abtained fro. the 4 brailera/line/diet on the re8tricted fed

ME aa8ay (the average waa multiplied by a factor of J ta .<

eati.ate endagenoua energy excretion over a 72 hour period).

Three da ys before the rirth .eek of age, only AME, AMEn'

apparent fat digeatibility and apparent nitrogen retention ')

were determlned on ad libitum rad LL and FL broilera for J -days.

When the LL and FL brailera at.tained the same weight

that the Cl broilere had at 5 w.eks (appraximately 1 kg body

weight), they undefwent the :aame procedure 8S had )the CL

broilera at that time.

Fecal samples were freE!ze-dried, equil'ibreted ta

«8 tm~ephe r ic moiature, weighed and ground _ GraBa energy,

ether-extract and nitrogen content .ers' then deterlllined on

the 'sed and fecal aa.plea. ....

, .

...

(

'.

,

j

1

c.')

77

AlI CL, LL and F'L broi1.r. '.d .!.!! 1ib!tu. dur!ng thé

.. t.boliz.ble .nargy •••• y ~.r. kil1.d ~ithDut la •• 0' blood

at epproxi •• t.1y 1 kg body ~.ight. Th. c.re..... ~.t.

fr •• l.~dri.d .nd .nalyz.d for crvde protein, eth.r-extr.et,

•• h and tot.l dry a.tt.r. Gro.a .n.rgy 0' the •• c.rca ••••

and tho •• 'ro. th. 0-3\ ~e.k. of .g. group w.rs alao

d.ter.in.d to calcul.t. net .nergy" of production (NEp) for

.ach broi1sr 'ro. J w •• k. 0' .g. ta 1 kg body weight~

The data w.re ana1yzed by th.· gener.1 linear .odela

p rocedur. and Ouncan' a .u1 tipls r.ng. tset (Stetieticsl

Analyeie Syate., 1979). l "

This expetillent ~as aimilar to Exp.riment 5 with the

differencea explained below. -(

j

a) 0-3 weeka of age

\ .... ~ -'"

The pur i fie d -d i a t à we~e reformulated to be more 010aely

iaocaloric at 3150 kcal AMEn/kg. The etude protein level was

the same aa in Experiment 5 (Tabla 13).

1 nad dit ion t 0 AH E and A H ~ , , TM E a n.cJ .

TME , were n

deter.ined on .!.!! libitUII 'ed broi1era J days before the ,firat

•

,

\

(

\ i

1

, .

.F ()

.,

78

\ ...

TA8t.,( 11. Co.po.tHon of purified dieta, Experi •• nt ,

low fat High rat

la01ated aoyb.an p~o.te-tn

(Pro.oeoy 100) )'.92 )3.92

D-g1ucoae, anhydroua ' 27.79'" 20.61

Corn atarch . 28.05 20.87

Refined corn ail , (Ma,%.ola) 2.00 2.00

Anillal-vegetable' fat blend , ... 7.00 ,

Dl-Ile thionine .31 r .31

l-glycine .·2.5 .25

Vita,llin premix 2.

.$0 .50

Mineral p relli xl. 5.65 5.65

Ground cellulo8e (Alphacel) 1.53 8.89

% determined crude protein 22.64 22.62

0

i'

" determined '. ather-extract 2-. J 7 8.97 . .;

1 The animal-vegetable fat blend had a gros8 energy of 9,213 kca1/kg, an iodins number of 69 and a melting point of 24C. lts fatty acid composition by analysis was: myristic, 1.J~; paillitic, 22.6~; palmitoleic, 4.''''; aharic, ll.5~~ ol1,ic, 47.8=; 1in01eic, 11. 2=; 1in01enic, .6=.

. .

%.Aa per' Scott, M.L.; M.C. Nesheim and R.J. Young, Nutrition of the Cnicken t'rd Ed., '4 M.l. Scott and A •• octatea, Publlahers, Ithaca, NV,14850. .

-.. -

••

(

79

and third weeka of age. The length of the HE assay waa 3

daya. To obtain THE and TMEn valuea, andogenaua excreta were

collected for 24 haurs fro. a group of 8 broilera for each

line. The average endogenoua energy for each line of broiler

wa. c.lculated and Multiplied by a factor of ) to eatimate

endogenoua energy over the 72 hour period the HE aaaay wae

conducted.

True fat digeatibility and true prote in digeatibility

we re also determined. However, endoge,nous protein snd fat

were determined' aimultaneoualy and independently. An ,

additional group of a broilera for each line was fed the

protein-fst fr~~ dlet during the 3 dsy ssssy period. Theae

broilera were initially sdapted to this diet by f~eding it

one day before the stsrt of the ME aasay.

1 b) J weeks ta 1 kg body weight

1

in

d,iges

Experiment 5, many of the broilera rad a 25 gram mesl

-ME sassy were found ta have feed roaic;tuea in their

tracta after the 24 haur collection period.

on

,quently, in thia experWnt, the feating period w,ss

ded to 36 hours to enaure cOMplete emptying' of the

tract. \ î

The details of the procedure to dateraine THE and TMEn

broilera ia aa follow8:

After a 36 hour fa8ting period to e.pty their digestive .

tract, broilera were fe~ (not force-fad) a 25 graM •• al, with

. .

(

.. . '.

80

'e.d r,aidue. collected a'ter 36 noura. Endoganou. axcreta

'or a.ch broiler wa. then collected during the next 36 houra.

The endogenoua correction required to calculate THE and

™En on .!.!! libitu. 'ed br~r., W8a obtained froll the 4

broilerr/line/diat on the reatrietad fad ME aeeay (the

average wae lIultiplied by a factor of 2 to eatillate

andogenoua energy over a 72 hour pariod).

Re.ulta )

Experi.ent 4:

Sax and diet nad no signifieant (P>.05) .f'act on AME

and AM~ valuea (Table 14). The nitrogen correction factor

(AME-AMEn)' however, W8S signifieantly (P<.05) lower on the

high fat diet. Sex had no significant (P>.OS) effeet on the

nitrogen correction factor •

, , , , j l l (" f . L

t

-~\

{ .......

TABLE 14. Bffect of sex and diet on apparent aet.bo11 •• ble energy values at 5 w.eka of aqe, IKperiment 4

!.!!.

Mal.e

P_üe

Grower ~

Law fat

Bigh fat

3211!,ls a

32S1!,11 a

a 3262.±14

3211.±12 ~

AME AME-AME n

kca1/ kg

3090.:,14 a 181+3 a - 0

3014.:,10 a 183~3 a

a b 3068+12 194 +2

3096+11 a 175+3 a

Leve1 of significance ~P-testl

n

.iS847 ** Ciet .0160 .0001

Sex .2561 .3066 .2489

Diet X Sex •. 9337 .9730 .7859

a ,b . Means within the same co1umn with different

1etters differ s ign if icant1y (P< .05) **

P<.Ol

l

81

/

l .' i c,

l L ..

82

Experillent 5:

Tne LL and rL brollers nad 8illlilar growtn rates,

nowever, tney did not grow as rapidly as the CL brollera "

(rigure 1). Tna LL and rL broilera attained tne sa me body

welgnt (approxillately l kg) as tne 5 week old CL broilera

wnen tney were 5 weeke and 6 da ys of age (r~gure 1).

a) u-J weoks of age

AME but not AMEn values were sign~ficantly (P(.05) lower

at J weeks tnan at l week of age (Table 15). Nitrogen

co~rsction of AME was aignificaQtly (P(.Ol) nigher st l week

of age (Table 15). AME and A M En val u e a we r a no t

significantly (P>.05) affected by line of broiler (Table 15).

Nitrogen correction of AME, nowever, was significantly

(PCOl) affected by line of broiler. rL broilera had the

lowest nitrogen correction factor st both ages, but this wss

significant (P<.Ol) only at J weeka (Table 15). AME and AMEn

values wera significsnt1y (P<.Ol) lower for the high fat diet

,( Tabla 15). The nit r 0 g e n cor r e ct i o-n fa ct 0 r w a s a la a

signi ficantly (PC 05) lower for" the high fat diet (Table 15).

Line of brdiler had no significant (P).05) effect on

apparant or true fat digestibility (Table 16). Apparent fat

d-igestibility, at l woak of 8g-8, was significantly (PCQ,l)

lo.?" for the 10w fat diot. There was, however, no '1

/

,

'.

• 1

! 1 , 1 , , , • .. Il

1

Figure 1.

1 • Il,

a.nc.. 1.,. l' • • • ,- ,"

,. ,. IIYI ...... a. -Z-n. ....... LL

, . Growtq performance of 3 lines 1 0f broilers from 1 day of age to 1 kg body weight. >.Experiment ~.

83

•

~-------~.~I,--~~----~----~~----~----~~--~I*~(--~~~--~----~------------------__ ~ __ '\ . ,. ,- -._~- .. /' , , :

\

o

84

TABLE 15. ~ffect of genetic line of broi1er and dietary fat content on . apparent and true metabolfzable energy values at

1 and 3~ets of age. Experiment 5 ) AMEn AME-AMEn

---------- kcal/kg ----------

line!

CL II FL

Dfet

Law fat H1gh fat

Une l

CL LL FL

Di et

Law fit H1gh fat

,

3374+281

3382+34a 3364+31 ab

3434+8a 3313+1Sb

33~25Ib 3352+2gab 331a+38b

3400+6a 3280+21b

Level of s1~ificlnce CF-test)

Diet .0001** li ne .1889 Age .0317* line x Diet .1342 Diet x Age .9697 Une x Age .5414 Line x Oiet x Age .6551 " ,

1 week of age

3151+27a 3152+321

3158+281 ....

3210+71

3097+13b

3 wetb of age

/

7

3162+281 3161~21 3137+361

3207+7' 3098+1ab -

.0001**

.8081 • 9713 .8111 .8445 .5792

.4650

. ' .

222+41b 230+41

20f+4ab

223+3a 216+51

196+7C

191"+10c I1md -193+6b lSf+7b

.0457*'

.0020**

.0001** •

.3287

.6376

.4945

.1850

lel, c.-rcill bron.r line; Ll and Fl. genetical1y selecttcl leln line and f.t 11,..s. respectively , ~ l' ,

a,b,c._.ns'wftJI1n the Ai. co1 __ • w1th diff.ieRt letters cHff.r s1gn1f1ca,ntly (P<.05)' '. "

""<.05

**'<.01 , "

, "',' '

, ~L

(

~,

'\ )

(

~

85

TABLE 16. E"eet of genetic 11ne of broner Ind di.ury 'It content on 'It digestfbflf~ Ind nftrogen retentfon It

Line1,

CL LL FL

D1et

Low fit

1 and 3 ~s of age, Experf .. nt 5

Fat dfsestf&f1ftl Apparent l!!! ---s---

1 weet of Ige

93+11b 99+2ab 93+llb 101+21 92+lb 101+21

91+1b 103+11

N'trogen r.tëritfon Apparent !!!! ---1---

75+llb 77+1b 78+11 80+11 7a+lbc: 7rob - -

76+1 a 77+11

High fit 9S+l,1 !MJ+lb 73+21 75+21b

3 wetts of II!

Line1

CL 96+11 98+1bc: 61+2c 12+zb LL 94+11b 97+lbc 6mc 71+3b FL '3+2l b 96+2C S'!2d 65+!c

Dfet ( Low fit 94+11 "..lb 65+2b n+zbC Hfgh fit 94+11 9S+1c 61* 6IJ+2C - - -

«

Le,.1 of s1gn1ficiftCe (F~test)

Dfet .0057** .0001** .0604 .0501 Li ne .1958 .81. .0020** .0027** Age .0648 .0001** .0001'" .0003** Line x Di.t .1046 .0181* .3208 · ISO Dfet x Age .0038** .2187 , .6150 • 52 Lfne x Ar. .4185 .0996 .4910 .5805 L f ne x 0 et x Age .1882 ."22 .1873 .2179

lel, cOIIere1al brofler lfne; LL and.FL, genetfeally selected lean Ind fit lfnes, res~fvely ,

I,b.c''''-Ins vithin the $.al col ... wtth ctffferent lette" cHff.r sfgniffeantly (P<.OS)

, "'<.05 '**'(.01

1\

" "

j '1

1

f J

(

(

86

aignifie.nt (P>.QS) difference betwe.n the law and high fat

di.ta at 3 w •• lca (Table 16). In eontra.t, t.l'ue fat -

dige.tibility w.e .igni fieantly (P< .01,) lawer for the high

fat di.t .t both ag •• (Table 16). Apparent fat dig.etibility

a f the low fat, but not the high-- -rat diet, aigni fieantly •

(P <.01) i.proved with increaeing age (Table 16). True fat

digeeUbility, hawever, of bath dieta 8~~~)

decr ••• ed with inerea.ing age (Table 16).

Apparent and true nitro~en retention were .ignificantly

(P<.ûl) a'fect..d by lin. of broUer (Table 16). LL broilera '">-

alwayl had • aignificantly (P<.OI) higher appar.nt or true

nitragen retention than FL bro~ler. (Tabl. ~~~'r-ând ~..-

true nitrogen r.tention- were not aignifieantly (P>.05)

a'fected by diet (Table 16). lUth incr.a.ing ag., apparent

and true nitrogen ratention d.cr •••• d eigni'ieantly (P<.Ol)

(T able 16).

\ LL brailera had a aigni'icantly (P<.05) higher

If'

parc.ntage of care ••• protein et. l we.k. of ag. than CL and

fl brail.ra (Table 17). Carea •• waters ath.r-extraet and •• h

wer e not. aigni ficantlf (P> .05) a"acted by line of brailer

(Table 17). Carc.a. watar and aah wara aigni'icantly (PC.05)

reduced in brailera 'ed th. high fat diet.

ether-.xtr.ct, hawever, w.a aignificantly (P(.05) lawer t'or 1

brai 1er. '.d the low 'at diet (Table 17). Carcae. protein ,

~ not aignlricently (P>.05) a"a~t.d by diet (Tabla 17)., "'-

•

<.

'"' ,

..

\.. \

o

~.., ..... _"t> ...... -to.", ... _~ __ ~~_ .. , ___ ......... "'M'" _

, 87

TABLB 17. Bffect of genetic line of D~oiler and diet~ry fat content on caroass composition at 3 weeks of age, Blcper tment 5

Mater

1 Line -a. 69.0.± • ..

a

LI. 69.·4.± ... a

IL 68. 4'±."

D1et -LOIf fat\ 0.5+.3 -

a

.1gb f.t b •• 3+.4 -

~"

r...J: of .WIllf !canee ,r-t •• t!

Lu.. .2592

* D~ .0322 . Li ... X Diet: ."85

erude protein

'ri'

18.1..:t. 2

19.0±.1

18. l...:t. 3.

18.4±.2

18.3.±,.2

.

.. .0211

.83.1

.'932

b

a

b

• •

•

Ether extract

10.3.:!:.5 a

9.5+.5 a -11. OZ.,,7 1

9.5±. ... b

• 11.0±-5 .

.1202

• Ql15 ..

.4233

l .

Ash

2.6±..1 1

. , 2.7:t.. l

2.6:t. ll

~~ . 2.1:t;'t

, 2.5+.1 b -

.2'CO

.0092-

.9291

. a.. ~_c i&1 Ixoiler: l ine, LL and PL, genet loally selected le. ane! fat 1 ln .. , ,r •• pectively .,b .

Meana vithin the .... coluan vith e!iller.nt lettera e!iffer: lignlf lcantly (P<.OS)

P<.05 .. P<.dl

.

1 t , 1 i

... 1 ~ 1

88

b) ) woeka of aqo to 1 ka body weiqht

.AME and AMEn values at 5 we.ka of age were not

eignificantly (P>.05) different among Cl, lL and F~ broilera

f.d the low fat di.t (Table 18). However, a.ong b~oiler. 'ad

t~hi9h fat diet, FL broilera had aignificantly (P<.OS)

lower AME and AMEn values (Table 18). AAlong CL and FL

broilera at 5 weeka Df age, valuea for AME and AMEn of the . " high fat diet were aignificantly (P<.OS) lower than tho.e of

the low fat diet (Table 18). Nitrogen correction of AME at '

5 w_eka 0 f aga waa a 1 gn-1 fi cant ly (PC CIl) lower' for FL

broilera (Table 18). Ni trogen correction of AME waa not

aignificantly (P>.Cl5) affected by diet (Table 18).

Lina of broiler had no aigni ficant (P >.05) effect on

apparent fat digeatibility at 5 weeka of age and at 1 kg body

weight (Table 19). Apparent fat digestibi1ity was not

algni f icantly (P>. (5) a ffected by die t a t 5 weeks 0 f age

(Table 19). At 1 kg body weight, however, apparent fat

dlgeatibili ty of the high fat diet was signi f icsntly (P< .'05)

hlgher than tha~ of the low fat diet (Table 19). Apparent

nitrogen retention, st 5 weeks of age and st 1 kg body

weight, was signifieantly affeeted by line of broller (Table

19). Fl brailera, at 5 weeks of age and st 1 kg body weight,

had a significant1y (P<.Ol) lower apparent'nitrogen retention

than the CL brailera (Table 19). Diet had no aignifieant

(P<.Ol) effect on apparent nitrogen retention at 5 we.ka of

age or at 1 kg body .eight (Table 19).

Il ". , ~ __ .. ~~ __ ,.-~_"-...-..-__ ~ ..... ____ .. _ .. ~ ___ ... ____ ............ ~ ______ -> ~_ .. ~ ___ ......... _ ..... ___ ~ ... -'i ___ • ______ ....-. __ .:t.._ ..... _--:--_:-___ ._ .. _

1

l

..

1

1

1

1

. (

1 1

.1

fAIIr.B 18. 'ffect of genetic 1 ine of brotler and, dletary rat content on apparent aetabollzable energy valu •• at 5 w.eka at age, BlCpe r imen t 5

ex. CL

Ù.

IL

PL

Lew fat

Law fat

81gh fAt

Law fat

8igh fAt

____ kcal/ 10;

..... a 3346+5 -3249+4f

C

- abc 3300.:!:,33

3233,:t1 :f . jlb 33l4:t15

31 31,!22d

a 3155:!:,7

3067+48 - ab

3110+30 b

3056+8

3146+11

2962+1§

Lptl of 8teillcance (l'-test)

, **. **

LU. .0041 ~01S4

** ** Dtet. .0001 .0001

* ** :L1ne X Dlet .0115 .0029

1

AMB-AMB

a 191+3 -

"

181+6ab

-a 18.9+5

ab l 77±.8

'b 1 68:!:,3

b 169+5

** .0058

.1758

.5411

CL, commerclal broller I1ne; LL and PL, genetically selected le4n and fat 11nes, re.pact ively a,b.c,d

Means within the sanae co1umn wlth dilferent lettera dlffer slgnlftcantly (P<.05)

1 .' * P<.05 **

P<.Ol

, .

.

,~

•

()

<1-

'-

90

'l'ABLB 19. Effect of génette 11ne of broiler and dietary fat content on fat digestib 111ty and ni trogen retent ion

e·at 5 weeks of age and at l kg body .weight, !Xpe riment 5

liœ a.

LL

PL

~

1

LOlIf fat

B1gh fat

o

APparent fat digestib il it y

5 weeka 1 kg BW

------------------ , 92i2a

a 9li1

a 90i1

90ila

a 9lil

92j;.2a

a 94j;.1

a 94j;.l

Leve1 of signlf lcanee (F-test)

Line

Dlet

L1ne X 0 iEtt

.5627

.7370

.0562

.5115

.0426*

.5455

Apparent nitrogen retention

5 weeks

a' 63j:.2 .

• a 62.±2 b

57.,!1

61.!! a a

58..:tl

.0053**

.1139

.5249

1 kg BN

63j;.2 a

ab 60j;.2 •

b 55j;.3

6l.,!24

58.,i2 4

.0420*

.1683

.8015

1 CL, commercial broUer 1ine, LL and PL, genettca11y se1ected 1ean and fat lines, respectively a,b

Means withln the sae colUftln ,*tth ditferant 1etters differ signifieant1y (P<.05)

* P<.05

1'<.01

o

, i .

1 t (1 ~

1 f , ,

1 i

(

9,1

FL ,broilera rad a 25 gram meal during the ME aasay "

conducled at 1 kg body weight, had significantly (peaS)

lo.er AME and TME values' t~an their CL counterparts (Table

20). AMEn and TMEn' however, were nat (significantly (P).05)

affected by line of broUer (Table 20). AME, AMEn' TME and'

'TMEn values, obtained From restricted fad brollera, showed no

lignificant (P).05) differances among diets (Table 20). Wh en

broilera on the HE assay with restricted feeding were killed

for inspection of fead residues in the digestive 'system, ovar

hal f of the broilera Nere observed ta have retained some

reed. The data f.rom these broilera could not be excluded

fro. the ~ean ME values in Table 20. 1

ME values, obtained from broilera fad !! libitum during

the aaaay conducted at 1 kg body weight were not

aignificantly (P).05) affected by line of broiler (Table 20).

Theae metabolizable energy values were also not signi flcantly

(P).OS) affected by diet, except for AME values (P<.û5).

Nat energy for production (Nep) wa8 not aignificantly

(P).05) affecled by line of broiler or diet (Table 20).

Nitrogen correction of AME and THE were not

aigni ficantly (P >.05) a ffected by line 0 f broiler or diet .

when feed was reatricted during the ME assay (Table 21).

Ni t rogen correc tion 0 f AME was not signl fican tly (P>. (;5)

affected by line of broiler or diet when feed was provided ad

'libitum during the ME assay (Table 21). Line of broiler, bu,t

". \ /1

1 ---­/

,-

1

/

~ r- r""---'~.-

fi

TABlE 20.

, 1 ~ _ ~ COIplr1son of Ietlbol1zIble energyl (ME) VI es w1th net energy fo

values, Exper1 nt 5

Line3

el LL Fl

D'fet

n ------ restr1eted ----------- keal/kg -----

3018+36a 3017+53a 2982+241b 2986+37a 2869+7 lb 2916+68a

3407+42a 3213+54a 3358+30ab 3189+431

3246+49b 3127+47a

'\

p ---...,.----- ad n~b1tum --------------- kcal/kg -------

3290+32a 3346+17a 3328+231

3104+31a 3179+18a 3169+21a

3401+32a 3453+17a 3438+20a

,J

3161+32a 323tH4a 3229+19a

1007+351

953+52a 1069+271

.-/ \-, ,j -"

Law fat 2988+381 2970+361 3353+34a 3159+33a 3357+12a 3183+13a 3457+12a 32:32+1fà '~-'1a4!lfo2~ H1gh fat Z934!4Sa 2980+521 3330+431 3195+4Si 3284"+2Zb 3117+24a 3402+23 a - - - - - >-

i 3182+26a 975+43a

Level of s1gnifieance (F-test) !

li ne .0489* .4650 .0450* .4650 .4063 .1506 .4811 b .1257 .1364 D1et .3454 .6899 .5225 .6899 .0328* .0619 .1140 .1340 .1435 li ne x D'fet .1820 .1513 .2871 .1513 .7603 .7464 .7576 .6118 .9447

lM( values obtained with 1 kg bro1lers fed ad libitum or restricted ta a 25 gram meal over a 24 hour fetal collection period. --

2NEp values obtained from bro11ers grown from 3 weeks of age to 1 kg boqy we1ght

3el. commercial broiler l1ne; LL and FL. genetically seleçted lean and fat l1nes, respecttvely

a.bMeans w1thin the same colu.n with d1fferent letters differ signif1cantly_fP<.05)

*'<.05 '1) N

"

1

l 1 , 1

i f

1 1

·1 r

, .

, '

"

()

, . )

93

"-ta 21 •. 8ft~ Of genetic ·line of btoller .... d· d~""Y fat content on the nitrogen correétlon of aet4bo1is4b1e eqergy values obt4ined 4t 1 kg body& welght, Blcper iment S

7 NIB-AME' 'l'ME-1'ME

n n AME-AME TMB-TMB n n

___ restrloted-:-_ __ ad 1 th i tUftl ___ _

kc~l/kg

-' 1~,

LW 1 -CL ~3. 'i

94.:t3" 186±t 1 240+11 -

U. -4 11 '167+9 • 217+,·b -., - , -{J.

IL :-47 .... ,1 160.t.18 209+1 Ob - -Diet -

'Law fat 18,iil21 194j;,24~ 175+21 225+'· - -

81gh f.t -46.±32 a 134.±31 168+6 a - 220.:t7·

L-.l of 81sniflcance (P-teatl

Lw .5153 .2166 .1310 .0295 '* ~

Diet .1114 .0707 .3915 .5296

Lifte X D let .9034 .6159 .8729 .139'

1 a., commercial broller l ine, LL and PL, genettc.l1y •• lected 1ean and tat l ines, respect lv.1y

a.b Means wlthln the sae co1U1Dn wlth dtfterent latters ditter signtficant1y (P<.05) '*

P<.os

.,.

(>

;,-r

•

not di.t, eigni'icant1y (P<~&5) a"ect.d nitrogan carraction

0' THE, obtainad 'ro. ad libitwe 'ad broi1ir. (T.b1a 21). - - . 'i ,r ..... , .

, ~ 'V , \

Line 0' broilar and diet did not .igni'icantly (P>.G5)

"'ect endogenou. exeretion during a 24 hou~ f •• t (T.bla 22).

Nitcogen correction of AME .nd THE, obtained 'ro. ,/

broil.r. r •• tricted ,.d during the ME •••• y, inc~a •• ad arror

yarianee a.ti.at •• (T.b1a 2). trror yari.nce •• ti •• t •• ware

.1ao incr •••• d by nitrogan correction of AME but not or TME

. obt.in.d 'ro. broilar. t'ad .d libitu. during the Hf •••• y -. (Table 2).

....--. , The error v.rianc ••• ti •• ta -w •• r.duced by correcting-·

endogenou. ~nergy 'or nitrogan b.lanca (T.ble 24).

Coat ot' utiliz.tiGn (AME-NEp) 0' diet.Ary ME w.e not

eignificantly (P>.OS) ,"ectad by lina 0' broi,ler or diat

(Table 2S).

c.a8 water was srgn! ficantly

ers (Table 26). Carcass

pro te in 0 f CL br 0 il e. r son 1 y \II a S 9 i 9 nif i c an t 1 Y . ( p <. 05)

affected by diet (Table 26). Thoae CL broilera fed the high

fat diet had a higher amount of carcaaa protein th8~ theiF

,

, .

1 1 1 ! f

f ( f

,1

'"

" ,

... ,.. 2~. -.faDO- ecl'etlO1l, c!ur:lng _ 24 hoœ fast, of 3 geDetlc 11 ... of beoll.l'. et 1 kg, body .elght,

, .par u..nt 5

1 Line

CL

Ut

PL ,

BnrJogenoua energy

(tee-li blrd)

a "'.05+.4' -7.78+.60 a - a 8.10+.58 -

B n:!ogenoua R -cor rected ni trogen endogenoua energy 2

(gr •• ) (kc:.a'l/ bird)

a a • 53+.04 4. 13.!", 29 -• <l2,!_ 05

a ' a 4. 27t,. 37

a a .44+.06 ' 4. 53.:!:.. 40 -

-~

\ ...1 )~-

fu

•

'\

'l'ABLE

AME

9fi4-.

=-~ --._. -------....... ----~---.. _~ - ~~-~ ....... --"'....,----.-.. ,..-,-....:- ~~--- .. r-..... ~~-~i'O!!'?'I~...,...~7~-• 0'

, J

• !",

'"

. 2 3. Error var tance est i~ ies of' metabol izabl~

en.~gy values obt4inedf w Ith l kg broilers reat,r 1etat! 1 t'o a 25 qràm, meal Qr led J.!! 1ib1tua, IKperlment 5

AMEn 'Dm 'Dm AME AME TME '!'ME 1

n n n ....

restrleted <lad libitum

16661 13207 16933 )4.693 5208 5563 5472

- --l pecal coll.ct i~n per Lod ~4S 24 ncturs

\

, ,

. \

, .

. "

. , . ... l, '

.....

/

, , t

, i ~

1

TABLE 24. Error var iance estimates of endogenous ener 9Y excretlon of l kg brol1ers fasted for 24 hourà, Experiment 5

Endogenous energy . .

2.5~ .

• ,1iA

• N-corrected

endogenous ener 9Y

.99

r {

97

( '!'AB LE 25.

\

1

Bffect of genetic 1 ine of broiler and dietuy fat cont.nt on the coat of utilization CNIB,-MBp') 1 of dletuy aetabol izable energy fra. 3 tleeka of age to 1 kg body weight, lDcper iaent 5

lJ!!!. 2

CL

LL

PL

~

Law fat

8igh fat

Q)s t of ut il iza t ion (kcal/ kg feed)

2273.;!:37 a

2 370.:!,58 a

2 2 91.;!:3 4 a

2327'1:.231

2301,.i53 1

Level of • 19ft if icanee (P-te. t) <'

Line .3279

Diet .8598

Line X D let .9177

1 Difference betee.n AMB, obtained fraa S

lib ittB fee! broilera at ]. kg body veight, and pp

a., comllercial broiler 1 ine, LL and P'{.; genet lcally .elected 1ean and fat 1 ines, respect ively a

Meana w1tbin the' .... colta.n are not slgn1f icanUy 41fferent (P>.05)

98

--

1

(

c'

,

(

/,99

TABLE 26.

i~1 Bffect of genetic line of brol1er and dietary fat content on carcass composition at 1 kg boftt ,veight, BlCper 1.8'1t 5 ___' \.

1 Line

CL

CL

LI.

LI.

PL

Fr.

Lll Line

Diet

Line X

1

D let: 'Nater

Law fat 70. O±.. 1 a

8igh fat 70.1+.4 a

LOIf fat 70.1+. S a

81gh fat 69. 3.:t1. f LOIf fat 65.8±,.3

b

B1gh fat 67.3.±,.7 b

erude protein

19. 8+.3 b

21.2+. " a -

20.6±.. 2 ab

20.4±.. 2ab

20.1+. 2 b

20.3± ... ab

of s 19n if icance ,p-testl ~

** .0002 .5337

.6306 .. • 0835

Diet .2300 .0294 *

,

Ether enr4ct

8.3+. " bc -7.9;t. "

bc

6.8+.5 c

- • 8.1$ • .pc

Il. 7+." a

10.5+1./b

** .0009

• 9186

.2730

Allh

'2. 7±.. 1 b

3.0.±.1 a

2.8±..1 ab

2. 8±..1 ab

2. 9:t,.1 ab

2.8±'.1 ab

.6893

.5030 .

.089S

Cla, commeccial broller 1 ine, LL and PL, genetically selected lean and fat lines, respectively a b

• Means withln the s.-e QOIUlln with different l,etters differ signif icanUy (P<.OS)

* P<.05

** P<.Ol

.~ ! ,

j i V • >

(

l

100

counterpar~e '.d th. low 'at di.t (Table 26). Carca •• water,

athar-axtract and .ah wera not aignifieantl)' (P>.G5) a"aeted

by diet (Table 26).

1 J

! ,

# /

The LL and FL broilera h.d ai.ilar growth rates;

howavar, the)' did not grow aa rapidly aa the CL broilerè

(F igura 2). The LL .nd FL broilera attained the same bod)'

we ight (.pproxi.ately 1 k?) aa the 5 week old CL broilera /

when they were 6 weeka and 1 day of age (figure 2). J

~

a) 0.3 weeka 0 f 851e

1

AME and AMEn valu.a wete aignifieantl)' (P<.OS) lowar st

1 week than At' J w •• ka of age for CL and LL but not in fL

broilera (Table 27). Nitrogen correction of A~E waa

aignificantl)' (P<'Ol) higher for 1 week than J week old .

broilera (Table 27). Nitrogen correction of AME wae alao

~nlfic.ntlY (P<.OI) affected by line of broiler (Table 27).

ft. broilera alwa)'a had the higheat nitrogen correction 'actor

followed b)' CL and fL broilera at both agea (Table 27). Diet

signifie.ntl)' (P<.Ol) affacted AME and AMEn (Table 27). AME

and AMEn 0 f the I)igh f.t diet was signi f lcantl)' (PC 01) lower

th en the t 0 f the low fat dl.et at bo th agea (Table 27).,

Ni tragen correction of AME wa. nat aignificantly CP>.",>

( \

-"

/

\ • __________ .... ___ • ____ .... ,.. ... n .. 1-. 1; .11 JICNP!'i" lU 1 a: S t 4iJiCh'" JtIJ~

•

1/

................. q ._ .. , ....... ...... .........

'laure 2. ·Growth perfcml&llce of 3 lines of bToUen fra. 1 day of -ae to 1 ka body weiaht. ExperiMnt 6.

l 101

lCL, commercial brofler line; lL and FL. genetfcallj selected lean and fat l1nes, respect1vely

2Al1 broflers fed ad libitum during the AME and THE assay 1

a,b,c Means within the same column with d1ffirent letters d1ffe~ s1gn1f1cantly (P<.05)

*P<.05

'"P(.Ol ..

---- ---------- - ----

1

, i {, •

, ~ , i

Mt .. , -""" ~--_-....._. -~-,,-~ ...... _- --

• >---..

103-

a".ct.d by diet (Tabl. 27).

, THE, of Cl broilera, c.a. aigol f icaotly (P(. 01) high.r at

, w •• k. of age wher.e. that of Fl broilera, waB aignificantly , .

(P(.Ol) low.r et J w •• ka than et 1 week of age -(Table 21).

THE, 0' II broilera, was oot significantly (P).Û5) affected

by age (Tabl. 27). Cl broilera only had signifieently

(P(.05) higher~ values at 3 weeka of age (Table 27) ..

Nitrogen correc7on of THE wa9 significantly (P<.05) lower et

3 weeka of age, but on1y for LL and FL brailers (Table 27).

O~et signif1cantly (P<.ûl) affected THE and THEn (Table 27) •

THE and TMEn of the high fat diet was signiflcantly (P(.ùl)

lower than that of the low fat diet, at both 9gea (Table 27).

Nitrogen correction of THE was not significantly (P).(J5)

affeeted by 'diet (Table 27).

Apparent and true fat d1g8sttbility wa8 signifieantly

(P(.Û5) higher at J weeka of ag8, but on1y for CL 'and LL

broilera (Table 2B). Apparent and true fat digeatibility waa

a tgn1 f icant l y (P<. 01) higher st both ages for broilera fad

the low fat diet (Table 28).

1

Apparent and true nitrogen retentioo wa8 signifieantly

(P<. 05) lower for Fl broilera at 3 weeka of age (Table 28).

At 1 week of age, however, there were no eignificant (P>.05)

differences among lines (Table 28). Oiet nad no significant

(P>.05) effect on apparent and true nitrogen retention (Table

28) •

\

-------

1 J l ("

r t t f l

\ 8

t r

.

1

f 1 ~

~ i

r

1 t f t • , . , ,

p,

l' ,

(

Ir <;J

.( \

104 ,

TAlLE 28. Ef'ec:t of' flnetic Hne of broner and dfetary fat content on fat d1gest1b11ity and nitrogen retention at

1 .nd 3 weeles o.f age, Experfment 6"

~at a'testf5f'ftl Apparen True

Aftrosen retentfon Apparent True ,

0::

Lfne1 -CL LL FL

Dt et -,..-.

Law fat H1gh fat

Linel -CL LL FL

01et

Law fat Hfgh fat

Level of significanee (F-test)

D1et Line "ge Line x D1et D1et x Age Line x Age Line x D1et x Age

~

1 wee~ 0' ase

84+2d 89+2c 86+1c 91+2bc 91'+lbc 93+1b

89+2c - ~lb 8?+lc +lc

3 weeis of Ige

92+1Ib 95+1 a 92+1ab

94+1 a 9mb

.0082**

.0078**

.0001**

.8702

.8553

.0116*

.8931

94+1b 98+21

93+1b

97+1a 92+1b

.0001**

.0098**

.0001'**

.6132

.5045

.0090**

.4497

66+3ab 71+2 a 67+2ab

67+1 a 70+2 a

60+3c 62+1bc 5J+2d

6O+2b 5mb

.7542

.0139*

.OOOl~

.0513

.0573

.2373

.9235

"

69+3' 73+21 69+21

69+1 lb 72+21

68+3' 72+11 59+'2b

68+21b 64+2b -

.5039

.0026**

.0262*

.057.

.0384'*

.0654

.9150

lel, commercial brofler linej LL and Fl, genet1cllly selected leln and fit 11nes, respeFtfvely

l.b.C.dMeJns w1thfn the s ... colUin with different letters diff., sign1f1cantly (P<.05)

*P(.05

**P<.01

. ~

1

1 ~ 1

\ 1 .Î

1

1 t t , ,

•

\.

"

(

. ----_._---••

lOS

Li ne a f brail,er did nat signl f icantl y (P). 05) a ffset

careaas water at J weeks af age but did significantly (P(.05) 4 .

affect carcass protein, ether~extrect and Bsh (Table 29). LL ","'''''''-~-

broilers hsd the higheat percentage of caressa protein

ash and the loweat pereentage of careasa ether-extract (Table

29). Oiet significantly (PC01) affected only careass ssh

(Table 29). Broilers fed the high fat diet had a

aignificsntly (P(.Ol) lower'percenta~e of carcsss ash (Table

29) •

b) J weeka of age to 1 kg body weighi

FL broilera fed the high fat diet hsd ths s{gnificantly

(P(.05) lowest AME and AMEn st 5 weeks of ijge (Table JO).

Ni trogen cor rection 0 f AME wes s igni f icantl y (PC 01) .higher

for LL broilera (Table 30). Diet did not significantly

(P).05) affect nitrogen correction of AME, except for Ft

broilera (Table 30). FL broilera fed the high fat diet had \

a significantly (P<.05) lower nitrogen correction than thOS8

fad the low fat diet (Table JO).

Lins of broiler or diet had no signifieant (P>.05)

.ffeet on apparent fat digeatibility at 5 waeka or st 1 kg

body weignt (Table JI).

Apparent nitrogen retention, at S we.ka of age or at 1

kg body weight, wa. eignifieantly (P<.Ol) a'fectèd by line of 1

broiler (Tlble JI). LL broilera had a aignificantly (P<.ul)

1 , -_ ... ~ ~ .-

"

, t (I(

J,

J

1

1 , 1 1 1 i 1 1

t ! i

1 \..J f . ' ()

,

(

~' . ---_._----! ~.". --.., ........ --....... --- ......... ----~~ ~ ........ -- " ~ ... .-..... " ........... - ..... -~ -

1

l~

,

'l'ABL8 29. Sffect of gene~ le l ine of broller and èlietuy fat content pn carce •• COIIlposltlon .t 3 " •• k. of age .. IIcper iaent 6

J

"eter" Crude E tI1er Ash

( proteln extr4ct

< , 1

Line - • .. ..

a b a b CL 69. 2.±. 5 17.8;t. 1 10.6:!:.. 5 2.6.t. 1

'IL . a 70.1+.3

a 18.4+. 2

b 8. 7±.- 4 2. 9+.1

a

a ab a a PL 68.4.±.6 18.1.±.2 10.7:!:..7 2.8.t- 1

Diet -, ' a a a a

Law fat 69.7+. 4 18.2+.1 .- 9. 5:!:.. 5 2.9.t. 1

B1gh fat 68. 9±.. 5 a a

18.l.±.1 10. 5:!:.. ~ 2.7±..1 b

Leve1 of s Ign If lcane, CF-test) ----* * ** Line .0757 .0413 .0267 .0029

ô

** Diet .1709 .6061 .1305 .0011

Line X Dlet .5873 .9604 .8713 .2790

l CL, commercial broiler 11ne; LL and FL, genetica11y se1ected

1ean and fat 1ines, reapectively

~.bMeans with~n the same co1umn with different 1ettera differ s ignif icantly (P< .05) *

P<.os

** P<.Ol

, 1

f {

1 i J

~'-

____ ... '-_. __ ............... ...,~, ......... ~_~ __ .. ~ .. ____ , _____ ~_. _______ .::__,,_._,_tl __ .. _.!;_, _'_J._I1'~~_."" .• _il_t._ltl

Ct

p

(>

(.:

... DI la •• ff.ct of. genet1c 11_ of lxol1er _cl cS1etary fat content on apparent lMItabo11nbl. enel'gy ".lue. at 5 ..-ta

, of &ge, "peri.et 6 J

~tD.l " , Dlet AME AD . AMB-MB

n n

kc.1/1ag

a. LCIf fat 3365+13&- 3199+141

167+5bc

- - -a. . 81gb fat 3322Z36a 31'52+391 170+8b - -'aJ

3168+12· 193+1· U. Lcw fat 3360+13 a - - -U. 8igb rat

, 3334+11 a 3151~Oa ,183+fiab -IL Law fat 3366+9 a 3182+10· 183+8

lb - - -

IL ,Bigh fat 3220±3Sb

3011Z37b

149+" -Left1 of 81snif lcance (P-t •• t)

* • 0246 * , .. Lifte .0194 .OOM

** ** ** Diet .0001 .0014 .00 .. 9

* .. * Line X Diet .0212 .0994 .0265

1 CL, cOJllm er cial broi1er 1 ineJ LL and PL,

genetlca11y se1ected 1ean and fat 11nes, respect ively

"

abc , • Means within the sane co1umn with dlfferent letters differ significantly (P< .05) *

P<.05 **

P<.Ol

107

. , .'

",

.. "

-.., . .. .. ". ...... 8' '11& ':D<~ .... T.R"'~~~_

- - ..----,_.------

1

108

.. ra 31 •. Bffect of gan.tic llne of "oller .nd t!letary fat content on fat cUga.tlb U lty and nltr09ln retentlon At 5 "aeta' of ag. and At l kg body v.lght, _perim.t 6 f

Jpparant fat dlg.atlb U lty

5 v.eta l kg 8.

1 i!!!

CL 954.1 95''':/ - -Il.

~ '1"" - 97411 -,

r.r. 94$' ...... -~ • Lar fat. • +1 -Ili9b fat !!S.a .' -Le,., of !iI!&'t.gpC4t '~l.~! Lifte .. .13. .nfS

Diet , .t004' .517.

LiM le Di_ .3 .... .1713

1

•

Apparent nltrogen retentlon

5 vaata l kg 8.

57:!f

15'" -54":/ -

• 61 .. -H.J' -

" '

.. • 0001

.Ol?! .-

.'0957

57~ 'Q.J -54"; .-

.0051' .. * .01tl: '

.oas,

a;, ~_cl&1' broller l1ne, LL and PL, genet lCA1Iy aelected lean and fat l1n .. , r .. pectlvely •• b

.. ..,. vtthln the s.e coluan vith" different lettera differ ,l9ftlf icantly (P<.05) ,

P<.05 **

.<.01

, ,

-.... - --- - ........ ~

f l,

l' 1 (.

1 ~

. A

0

109

,<..

better apparent nitrogen retention than the other two linea

(Table JI). Diet alao ei'tni ficantly (P(. 05) affeeteo

apparent nitrogen retention at 5 weeka of age or at 1 kg body

weight (rable 31). ijroilera fed the high fat diet had a

signifieant1y (P(.OS) lower apparent nitrogen retention <-(Table 31).

T'ME and THEn but not ,:~ME and AMEn' obtained frolR ..

broi1era fed a 25 gra. lIIeal at 1 kg body weight, were

aignifieantly (P(.OI) .ffected by line of broiler (Table 32).

Ll and fL broilera had a signifieantly (P<.Ol) lower TMEnJ

but on1y fL broilers had ~_aignificant1y (P(.Ol) lower THE

(Table 32). ~iet aigniricantly (P·(.Ol) affected aIl ME ,~

value. obtained fro. broilera restricted fed du~lng the ME

.. aay (Table J2). AME, AMEn, TME and TMEn were aignific.n~y

(P<.Ol) lowe~ for the high fat diet than for the low fat diet

(rable J2). \

, When brai 1er. ver. fed ad libitua during th,e a.say -

conduc.ted at ,1 kg body weight, the AME, AMEn, THE and TME,.. "

valu •• , vere n~t .ignifie.ntly (P>.OS) affaeted by lin. of

b~oil.r or diet (Tabl. 32). ' .

. N.t en.rgy for production (N~) was only significantly

(P<.01) aff.~ted by line of,broiler (Table 32). lL and fL

broilera had a aigni ficant"!y (P(,,01) lover NEp then the CL

broilera (Table 32). "

,

•

• "'1.;,...~>~ ........ ,.':1t .. .....,.:~-a" .. ""'; .. _( ....... ~~·~r~$ .. ~ . ~....., -~""",.,...-.. ~~ ........... '--'- ........ .-~- -.. "~ ....... ,-~~------ .............. ~.--. -~ ~-~~.~

f'. -r ~ ("",

--

TABlE 32. Coapar1son of aetabol1zable energyl (ME) values w1th net energy for product10n2 (NEp) j values, Experfment 6

lHE values obtained w1th 1 kg br01lers fed ad libitum or restricted to a 25 gram meal over a 36 hour fecal collection periode -- ) •

, ~ \,"

2NEp values Obtained from broflers grow~'OB 3 weeks of ag~ to 1 kg bo~ ~1ght

, 3CL, commercial broiler l1ne; lL and FL, genetically selected lean and fat lines, respectively

a,hHeans within the same column wfth différent letters d1ffer' s1gnificantly (P<.05)

**P<.Ol .... ... o

l 1

1

\ 1

• j

J l

1

(

!

ll1

Ni t rogen cor rec tion 0 f AME and TME was no t sign! fican \l y

(P>.1l5) affected by line of broiler or diet when feed wk

reatricted during the ME sBsay (Table 33). Nitrogen

correction of AME and TME were only significantly (P<.G5.)

affected by line of broiler when feed waB provided ~ libitum

dur i n 9 the .M E a s s a y (T ab 1 e 3 3 ) • Fl broilera had a

significantly (pe05) lower nitrogen correction then the

other two linea (Table 33).

End age n 0 u 8 e x cre t ion dur i n 9 B "3 6 hou r f B 8 t w a 8

SignifiCanfl y (peOS) affected only by line of broiler (Table

34). Endogenou8 energy excretion was significantly (P<.Ol)

lower for Ll and Fl broilera (Table 34). Endogenous nitro~en

e x cre ti 0 n wa,s sig nif i c an t l Y ( P < • 05 ) l 0 w e r for F" L br 0 i 1 e r a

(Table 34).

,. With broilera reatricted fad or fed ad libitum during

the ME assay, nitrogen correction of AME increased error

variance estima tes (Table 35). In contrast, nitrogen

correction of TME decreased error variance estimetes (Table

35).

The error variance estimata W8S reducêd by correcting

endogenous energy for nitrogen balance (Table 36). (.

C 0 8 t 0 fut i l i z a t ion ( AME - NEp) 0 f -d i e t a r y ME w a s

signlficantly (P<.Gl) affected only by line of broUer (Tabltt­

J7 ).~ LL and FL brollera had 8 signi ficantly (PCOl) higher

(

~

('\

112

'rABΠ33. B'ffect of genetie line of brol1er and dletary fat content on the nitrogen correction of metabo11zable energy values obtalned at 1 kg body weiqht, EXperlment 6

AME-AME n

i 'THE-THE

n AME-AME

n TME-'l'MB

n ______ restricted~ __ _ _ ___ ad 1 th 1 t\R~ __

kc.1/ kg (

/ ,

Line 1

'-.

9:t,12 a 281:t,26 a ab a

CL l 68:!:.,4 225+6

LL 2.±l1a 283+20 a 181+5 a 239 -t-6a

19.:!:11 a 222.:!:19 a 162+6 b b

PL 203+5 -~

a a a a Law fAt 17+7 290.±23 176+4 227+6 -

3.;tlf a a a

81gh f~t 238+13 166+5 219+7 ~ l'

Level of signif icance (F-testl

* \ *'* Line ... .5812 .1429 .0243 "''',1J24

Diet .2718 .0625 .0588 .2283

Line X Diet .0908 .5292 .1504 .5931 .,. '\

1 CL, commercial broller l1ne, LL and l'L, genetica1ly

se1ected 1ean and fat 1 ines, respeetively a,b

wtthin the eo1uIIln with d1fferent letters Me4ns sae differ s ignif t.cantly (P<.OS)

* P<.os .. ** jt

P<.01

l l

1 J t

• J J i l l ! l 1 • ~ \ , i j

1 i ~

J . 1 i

(

113

TABLE 34. Bmogenous ellleretion, dur ing a 36 hour fast, of 3 genetic 1ines of broilera at 1 kg body weight, _pey laent 6·

1 ~

a,

LI.

PL

/'

B ndoge nous en er gy

(kca11 bird)

14. 46±.. 83 1

b 1 o. 77±.. 62

b 8 _ 75±.. 80

B nc!ogenous nlttogen

(gr_s)

• 86±.. 06 1

a • 8l.±_ 07

b .59+.08 -

Leve1 of signit icanee SP-teat)

Line .0012

Diet .2956

Line X 0 let .6783

1

** .0477

.5068

.4342

*

N -corrected endo~noU8 energy 2

(kca1/ bird)

7.40+.44 -4.08±..3l

3.93+.25 -

• 0001

.1127

.9317

..

a

b

b

CL, cOlllmercial broller line; LL, and PL" .. genetic4lly selected 1e4l1 and fat 1 ines, re.pect 1 .. 1y 2 ' Calculated' frca:

endogenous energy - endogenoua N X 8.22 kcal/g N Itb

Means within the s.e coluan vith different lettera are a 19nif tcant1y dlfferent C, <.05)

• , . P< .OS.

'*. P<.Ol.

. " .

(

(

114

TABLB 35. arroI' .arlanc •• stt •• t •• of •• t.bolts.bl. ener9!' v.~ea obtained "itb 1 Jt9 brailera r •• tl'lcted to. 25 gram ••• 1 or lee! ad liblt •• JlKper i.ent 6 -

-r ~ 'DIB

, 1 ,,'ftmn

_~\:---_r .. tricted _____ _ \

_ ___ aS 1 ib it .. ____ _

11756 14866 16813 10703 -~3204 3505 '5031 4231

(

lpecal. collection pel' iod .as 36 hours

,

•

, '

' .. • 0

, i

j

l

,.

· .

'fMLW 36. Buor var tance e.t 1II.t •• of enclog_noua e~.rgy .xcr.t1on of 1 kg brollera f_ted for 36 houa, IIIcper iJaent 6

BndogellOWi energy

5.57

"-correctecl endogenoWi energy

.88

115

"

, '

t ()

, , Ir

\( , !

--- --"-_ .. ------------- -:.., __ ~ __ ,,_ .... ,, __ 1 ,.: ..... I!IlI .... _&lII!l!!!l!l~_,..""-M ... '

, \ ,

... ra 37. affect of genetic; line of ~oller :..nd dletaty fat eont,n t on the cos t of ut 11 i.At lon (MB-Ml p ) of dietary lIet.bolt.able energy fra. 3 v.eks of age to 1 kg body veight, Blperillent 6

~ ,

,;l .,.;

" ,--

J" ~,. ,

~ "'j.-<J

L1ne 2 -'

CL

Lt.

IL

Dlet ~.

LCIIf· .at

81gb fat,

Q)8t of ut il t. .. tlon (kc.l/Ia; feed)

2106-t5l b. -2432.±1'

" 2304+47' -a

2291+48 -2261.!',a

1

L!!!l of .19n if tCanee ' CP-test)

LJ.ne, ,

Dtet

.oooa** :5136

.1838

1Difference between AME# obtained frca ad lib ltUlll fed brol1ers at 1 kg body weight # aiid

NB 2 P a., commercial broi1er 1 ine; LL and PL,

genetically selected 1ean and fat 1 tn~8, r aspect ively a.b

Means wlthin the sa_ <Xllu11ln with diffarent lettera diffar significantly. (P<.05) ** ,

P<.Ol

116

"-

.~

'-

1 1

t ; ,

Cf

(:

117

coat 0' utilization than the CL broilers (Table 37).

~.-~

Carca.s composition, at l kg body weight, WBS

aignificantly (P<.Gl) affected only by line of broiler (Table

38). LL broilers had the highest percentage of eareass

water, protein and ash, and the lowest percentage of careaas

ethar-extract (Table 38).

Discussion

Tna absence of aex differences among AME and AMEn values •

(Table 14) la not 8urprising becauae the chicka were sexually

ia.ature. Hueller!l.!l. (1956), Begin (1967) and Slbbald

and Slinger (196Jb) found no difference among AME valuea

lIeasured with young male and female chicka.

From 1-3 weeks of age, AME and AHEn decreased in

Experiment 5 (Table 15) but increased in Experiment 6 (Table

27). The result obtained in Experimenl: 6 is' due ta the

significant (P<.Ol) increase in fat digeatibility with

increasing age (Table 28). Baldini (1961) explained that the

increase ln AME, associated with increaslng age, resulted

from a better utilization of dietary fat. Whi tehead and

Fisher (1975) found thst the apparent digestibility of corn

oil, tallow and lard were 96, 57, and 91%, respectively at 4

weeks of age; and 98, 74 and 9tJ~ at 8 weeks of age,

.... '2 A s ...

1 t 1

1

()

le f

1

118

TABLE 38. Effect of genettc line of broiler and dietary fat content on carcaSs composition at 1 kg body weight, Blcper iment 6

Line 1 -b a. 67.9+.5

LL 70.4.±.3 a

P'L 67.2+.7 b

Diet -a

Law fat 68. 7±.. 4

High fat 68. 3.±. 7 a

1

Level ofl signlf icance (F-test)

~~, ~-L{---~ J ** ne .- .0007

Oiet .5267

Line X Diet .0510

erude protein

b 19.5+.2

a 20.8±.. 2

a 20.4+.3

a 20.l.:t. 2

20'.4.:t. t

, ** .0046'

.3133

.3209

Ether extract

a 10. 4±.. 6

6.5+. 4 b

10.1,:!:.8 a

a 8.9+.6 -9.2+.9 a

-

** .0005

.7184

.1958

Ash

b 2.4+.1

a 3.0+. 1

2.8±..1 a

a 2.8±..1

2.7±..1 a

... .0002

.4442

.9352

1 CL, commercial broiler linei LL and FL, genetica11y se1ected

lean and fat 1ine5, respective1y atb

Me40s within the same column with different letters differ signif icant1y (P<.05) ** P<.Ol

*

(

1 1

~

1 ,

" \ \. ,1 '.

l t , i

,

t c' f f (. ~ t

1

1 _. --

... 119

respecti vely. The e"ect of AME and AMEn decreaaing rro. 1-3

wèeka 0 f age, canno t be exp 1ained from fa t digeatibili ty 1

resulta (Table 15 and 16). Siregar and Farrell (1980) found

that AME Îbtained From ducks and chickens fed a high energy

diet decr~eaed with age From 5 to 22 deys. Zelenka (1968)

found tha~ the AME oF a practica1 diet decreased rapid1y

until 7 da~s of age, when a progressive increese in AME wss

observed.

THE and TMEn. obtained from ad libitum fad broilera st

land J weeka of age, gave similar Aifferences among 1ine of

'broiler and diet, as AME and AMEn' but were les8 affected by

age (Table 27). Shires ~!.l. (1980) found that, with the

exception of high glucosinolate rapeseed mesl, THE and TMEn

obtBined from broilers red re~tricted amounts of feed during

the assay were not affected by age of broiler.

Nitrogen corrections of AME and THE, at 1 and J weeka of

age, were significantly (P<.ûl) affected by age of broiler

(Tables 15 and 27). The higher nitrogen correction factor at

l week of age ia due ta the broiler retaining more nitrogen

at a .younger age (Tables 16 and 28). ,

Nitrogen correction of THE st land J waaks'of age ia

a1w~y9 higher than the nitrpgen correction of AME (Table 27)

bec~uae fasted broilers, whieh excrete large amounts of urie

acid nitrogen, are used to deterMine endogenous energy.

t «

120

Nitrogen correction of AME, at 1 and ) we.ka 0' age, had

vary littla .'fact on i.proving tha preeieion 0' the r.aulta

(Tablea 15 and 27);

lt ia .lntereating that in Experi.ent. 5 and 6, the AME

and 'AMEn valuea of the high 'at di.t 'ad to FL broilera at S j/

•• aka of aga .ara aignificantly (P<.05) lowar than thase of

the low fat diet (Tabl,. 18 and lO). This i. diffieult ta.

axplain aine. lt w •• not dus ta fat digs.tibllity (Tabls. 19

and ~l). Thara wera no signifieant (P).05) dif'eranca. in

the AMf; and AMEn 0' tha law and high fat diata fad ta FL

broilara et 1 kg body waight.

With broilara weighing 1 kg body w.(ght, the 24.nour

'ecal callectioIT period usad in Experiment ·5 for the

te.trictad rad HE sassy was tao ahort becsuae moat proilera,

upon inspection sFter the Fecal collection period, .had

ratained faad. Becaus. moat brollera had retained feed, the

dsta From thaae broilara could not be deleted. Sibbald

( l 9 19 b· ) 0 b El a r \1 e d For a r an g a 0 f f e a d a th a t 24 hou r 8 i a no t

eufficient tima to collect aIl excreta of fead origine The

facal collection time waa tharafore extendad ta 36 haurs for r

Experiment 6.

At 1 kg body waight, ME value. obtained From resticted

'ed broilera "era lIore variable than thoae obtained From

broilera red ad libitum (Tables 20 and 32). This conflicta - . with the raaults of Dale and Fuller (1961.) and Sibbald

,

[

121

(1978b) who .how.d th.t TME re.ulte, 'ro. tdult cockerela,

wer. incredibly rapatitive.

AME .nd AMEn. obtained 'rOM re.ticted rad brailer., wera

lower than other ME v.lue. (Table. 20 and 32). Thia occurrad

bec.uae the endogenoua COMPonentl h~. a negattve e"ect on AME

.nd AMEn valuea at low 'aed int.ke.. Farrell (197*,a) and "

Guill.u.e and SUMMer. (1970) h.va found, for adult cocker.l.,

th.t the endogenoue co.ponent influence. AME value. .t 10w

'a ad intake ••

An intera.ttng di ,rerance b.tween ME v.lus. obtained

rrOM r •• trictad, or ad 'libitUM rad broiler. et 1 kg body -weight ia the e"ect of diet (Table 32). AlI HE value. of

the high fat diet obtained froM ree~rictsd fed broil~ra were

.ignifieantly (P(.Ol) lowar than thoae of tha low fat di_te

Thi. did not al.o agree with NEp resulta which sh~wed the.e

two dt.t. ta be iaoe.lorie (Table ,32). It eeeMS that young

broiler. under aevare 'aating conditions cannat handis large ~.

a.aunta or fat. Thia la an iMportant a88URlption that Muat be

con.idered wh an ueing the TME aasay. dev,eloped by Sibb.ld,

(1976.).

THEa. obtainad froRi raltricted 'ed broilere t but not AME

or AMEn obtained froRi broilera fed .!.!! libituM, cloaely

reflected growth perforMance and N~ ineach of the 3 broiler

lines (Table 32). This ia not due to endogenous correction

bec.use TMEn , obt.lned froRi ~ libituM red broilera ahowad no

4 ,

\

l J t i t (. t

i , 1 .. 1 ~ r

f f ! i

1 l;

122 -......-...

.igni'ie.nt (p>.o,) .f'eet of 1ine. Wh.n conducting an AME

•••• y on ~ ~1_l_b_i_tu_._ ,.d broi!er. it i. i.portant to re.1iz.

th.t' thl ••••• y do •• nat expl.in dl'ferenc •• ln growth.

Sibbald and Mor.e (l98Jb,c) h.ve .trongly raco •• endad

nitrogen c~raction of THE v.lue •• In the pre.ent .tudy,

nitrogen correction of TME obtained froa ra.tricted or !.!!

libltua f.d brai 1er •• t l kg body weight reduced error

varianc ••• tia.t.a by J6 and 161, re.pectively (T.ble J5).

Nitrogen correction of endogenoua energy obtained froa,

brai 1er. fa. ted 24 or 36 hourI reduced arror variance

•• ti •• te. by 62 and 841, reapective1y (Table. 24 .nd J6).

In contraat, nitragan corr~ction 0' AME, obtainad rro.

ra.tricted or .!.t libitu. fed broilera, incre.aed erraI'

v.rianca a.ti.ata. by 26 andl

91, ra.pacti vely (Table J5).

Th. need '01' nitrogsn correction 0' AME, obtained froa !.!!.

I1bltu. red broilera, ha. been queationed on ths ba.i. th.t

it i. difflcult to juati'y a penalty to a diet which perait. 1

nitrogsn ret.ntion (Swift and Franch, 1954; 8.ldini, 1961).

The nitrogen corr~c~lon factor i. con.iderably higher

, J ( when •• ted broilera are u.ed during th. ME a •• ay Tabl •• 21

and JJ). Dale and fullel (1982b) round that feeding a

~gluco.e-corn 8tar~h mixture to 'aatad rooaters aignificantly

(P(.05) reduced endogenoua excreta output. Sibbald and Morse

(1983c), howaver, Buggeatad that provision of supplemental

.nergy to 'astad (endogenous control) birds can introduce

i ) f

, , ( )

•

123

bi.a to THE valu.a if the lource of aupple.ental energy la

not co.pletely digeatible.

lt aee.a that the AME aasay, obiained froM ~ libitum

fed broilera, ia the beat aaasy becauae it producea preciae

reaulta, doea not raquire nltrogen corrèction and cloael'y

reae",blea pr.ctic.l conditions, unlike ME aaaaya that uae

broilera under faating conditioné.

The difference between apparent and true fat

digeatibility, obtain'ed fro. broilera at 1- and 3 wee!ca of

age, waa greater fo~ broilera fed the low than the high fat

diet. (Tables 16 and 28). The, reaaon for this ia that

endogenoua fat haa a ,greater influence on "apparent" val,uss

obt.ined with broilera fed low fIt dieta. Thua, endogenoua

fat greatly af'ected apparent fat digeatibility of the 10"1

fat diet at 1 waek of age (Table' 16). Beceuae dietary fat la

uaually added at low lev.la, it ia neceeaary ta correct for .... andagenaua fat. Thia ie parallel to the observation that AME

and AMEn' obtained fra. reatricted red broilera, must be

c~rtected for end~genous excretion (Tables 2Q and 32). Sinee

apparent fat digeatibility waa only .eaaurad at S weake of

age and at 1 kg body weight, it ie diffieult to asaeSa the

r.aulta (Tablee 19 and 31).

f'L brailera, geared metaboliéally ta dapoait large

quantiti8a of 'fat (Touchburn .!!. !.!., 1981), do ~ digeat

dietary 'at Any batter than the other 2 11nea •

1 1

1

- - - ---~-_....-----,-~ -- -~-----.._-- _ .. ---,,_._------------ ........... ~ -,-

.. ,

124 ;

Cor rec t ing ni trogen retention for endogenous axe reta

doee not seem necessary because nitrogen, in the form of

pro tein, is not usually added a t low dietary levels. 8y

feeding a.protein-free diet, endogen9us nitrogen is obtained

From broilera in negative nitrogen balance which le,

obvioualy" a queetionable practice.

Ll broi le ra, geared metabolically ta depoai t pro tsin

(Touchburn !i al., 1981), ueually had the higheet nitrogen

retention, while Fl broilera, geersQ metabolically to deposit

large quanti t'les 0 f fu (Touchburn II al., 1981), usually had

'the lowest nitrogen retention ~Table8 16,19,,28, and 31).

These results sgree with those obtained by leclercq (1983)

with lL and fL bro~er~. This is further evidence supporting

the metab01ic differenc8s resu1ting froln selection for

, fa tnesa or 1eanea8.

Coat of 'uti1ization of distary metabolizable energy ,

("HE-AHEn) wa8 lower for CL broilera (Tablea 25 and 37).

This ia nat aurpr!sing, since theae broilera grew faster and

thus utilized dietary metabolizab1e energy more efficient1y

tha:n \the LL and FL broiler"s which required addi tional day's to

reacn a body weight of l kg.

,

1 n Exp e r i men t ~ b roi 1 ers" f el t. h e hi g h fat die t ,>

de p 0 sHed none i gni f icant.l y (P >. (j5) more' car.cass fat, a t -,

'weets of .ge and at 1 kg bo~y wet~ht, than those fed the low

fa't, di'et. (Tablee 29 "and/'8). This occurred even though the

i f

f C' t

two diets were isocalotic /ith respect ta AMEn obtaiiled

!!! libitum 'ad broilera ~l kg body weight (Table 32).

125

From

ln

Experiment 5, broilers fed the high fat diet, whieh had a

slightly Iower AME (obtained From ad libitum rad broilera at n -- ~~~~

1 kg body weight) than the Iow fst diet (Table 20), deposited

aignif'icantly (P(.05) more carcasa fat at J weeks of age

(Table 17). lt appears that metabolizable energy calories do

not account for aU calories attributed ta dietary fat,

cauaing an lncrease in careasa fat deposition. Touchburn and

Naber (1966) explained that the the "extracaloric effect" of

fat wes due to the reduced energy coat of depositing fat

direct1y in the carcass, as opposed to 2..! ~ synthesia from

dietary carbohydrate. Fuller and Rendon (1977) later found

that heat increment was considerably lower for fat

supplemented dieta then for low fat controla.

E d warde !l al. (1973) reportad tha t, if supplemen tal

dietary fat ia added at the expense of carbohydrate and thet ~

the calorie-protein ratio remaina unchânged, there la a

nonaigni ficant (P>. 05) increase in abdominal fat depoaif ion.

The high fat diet did not signl ficant1y (P). (5) affect

careaas proteine There waa, however, an intereatinq 'Line )(

Diet interaction in Expariment 5 (Table 26) which ia

difficult to explain.

The high fat d lot aigni ficantly (P<. (1) reduced percent

careass ash at.. 3 ~ka of age (Tables 17 and 29) but not at

'.

f.

f

(

126

1 kg body weight (Tablea 26 and 38). Stevena.!l al. (1983)

found that diets containing 7~ tallow reduced tibial aah in

turkey pou1ta at J weeka of age. In broilera, Attah .ll .!l.

(1983) f ound that increasing dietary f. t, al though benefic/al

for growth, was detrimental to calcium retantion and pone

cal c if i cation and 1;hat increaaing die tary calcium did not

alleviate the problem.

Summary and Con~lusion8

The AME aaaay deter.ined on ad libitu. fed broilera la r-'

the bes t 'meaau ra of dietary energy becauae i t produced the ~

most precise raaulta. It did not require nitrogen

" correction. Further.ore, theae AME values did not naed to be . corrected for endogenous .nergy to obtain THE becauae the

large amount of feed conauaed a.aka the endogenoua effect.

This assay also most cloaely reflecta the physiologiea1 atàte ~

of the broiler under practical conditions.

/ THE, obtained fro. reatricted fed broilera, did no~

.'. - ·.produc·e precise Feaulta and required nitrogen correction.

Ni t rogen correction greatly i.proved the preciaion of the ... reaulta but not ta the levei of preciaion att.tned by AME

obtained 'ra. ad lib! tu. fed broi lere.

Sibbald (1978a) ahowed that THE, obtained froa Single

\ \

(

127

COMb White Leghorn rooatera, can be uaed in tha forMulation

of dieta for younger birda. This cannat be diaproven in the

p reaent a tudy aince rooatera were not uaed. However, the

st u d iea reported here indicate de fini te age effecta which

8uggeat that .etabolizable energy ~aluea ahôuld be obtained

f rOll birda the aalDe age to which theae valuea are to be

applied. This would eliminate a possible source of error,

eapecially for dieta containing large a.ounts of fat.

-The 36 hour collection period following a a.all lIeal

appeara to be tao aevere for young broilera even though it

waa neceasary for co.plete passage of 'eed reaiduea. This ia

eapecially true for young broilera fed diets eontaining high

levela of supple.ental fat .ince they h.d lower TMEn ~.lu.a

than those f.d ~ libi tu ••

Sibbald (1976a) reported th.t th. TME •••• y .a. More

r.pid th an convention.l AME. In the' pre •• nt study. THE,

obtained fros re.ticted "ed broiler.. .a. not f •• ter tha"

AME, obtained froM .!! libituM f.d broile'r. bec.u.e the ••••

broilera reatricted red were .lao u.ed to deter.in.

endogenoua excretion. Sibbald and P~ice (19aU) indlc.ted , ,

that endogenoua exereta output •• y be charaet.ri.tie of the "

bird. Edsundson (1980) further 8ugge.ted that the •••• bird

ahouldl be uaed aa it. o~h control ta provide the 90rr.ction

for endogenoua energy excreta.

• Wi th the political atrength of ani •• l wel'ere groufit •

..

:.

j

,

(

..

, . J.,

l'

121

incr ••• ing it •• y be illegal to .tarve aroil.r. for long

periode 0' ti •• to obtein THE. In the United Kingdo., a

licence i8 rlquired to conduct an experi.ent in whieh birda

are to be deprived of raed for More then 48 houre.

/

1 ....

,

, . \

. , .

l ..

1 , J

1

r c'

1 t t

lzt

D • ....... IU., _CI CI __

\

1 !

1

_ ......... _ .... _____ ~ ____ .. .._ __ ...::.~ .. _____________ • _, ........ tu ..... tll_

130

Di.tary e"argy p1a)'.- a key l'ole in tha aaount 0' abdo.inal 'at depoaited. To r.duee abdoainal fat d,polition,

low energy dieta ehould be fed during th. growing (3-6 wk)

and flnlehing (6-7 wk) p.riode. The low en.rgy di.ta- luat ba

lufficient to r.duce th. daily calotic int,ka Dr btoilera aa

coapared to tho •• red high anargy di.ta.

High protein diet, are an efficient but expenaive .eana

0' redueing abdo.inel r.t depolition. Th ••• diat, Cln only

be fed if a eubatantiel pre.iu. il paid to the producer roI'

growing lean broilera. At th!1 ti.e, fe.ding a low .nergy

diet i. the be.t econoaical •• thod ta produce l.an broilera • .

F in. control of dietary enlrgy i, e •• entiei for any

nutri tian progra. ta have .axi.ua e'feet on redue!ng

abdoainal 'at depoaition. AME, obtained frol ~ libitu. 'ad

bl'Oilera, ie tha beat di.tary energy 888ay for young broilere

b.ca~a. it givea preeia. reaulte.

...

-------------------~.~

Ul

()

"

•• LJ1DI1* a'lD

\.1

L , A>

, 1

.. )

~.,. ... ___ ... _114 ...... __ ~

< ()

_ .. _,,' .. ","" ~ "'- -... , ..... ""~ .. '

132

Ara'a, A.S •• M.A. Boone. D.M. Janky; H.R. Wilaon; R.D. Miles

and R.H. Harlls, 1983 • Energy restriction as •

• e.na of reducing fat pada in broilera. Poultry

Sei. 62: 314-320.

Atteh, J.O.; S. Leeaon and R.J. Julian, 1983. Ef'eët. of

dietlry levela and typea of fat on the perforaance

and .ineral metabolism of broiler chicka. Pou1~ry

Sei. 62a 2403-2411.

Axalaaon, J., 1939. The general nutr i tive value (energy

value) of poultry feed. pp. 165-167. Proe. 7th

World'. Poultry Congrese.

aaldini, J.T., 1961. The effect of dietary de'iciency on the

energy IIs_tJboli •• of the chiek. Poul try Sc 1. 4(.:

1177 .. 1183.

aartov, 1., 1979. Nutritiona1 factors aff.cting quantity and

quality of careaaa fat in chiçkena. Fed. Proe. 38:

2627-2629.

..)

aar~ov, 1. and S. aornstein, 1976. Effecta of th. degre. of

fatn ••• in broilera on other carc •••

charact.ristics; ralationahip betw.en fatn.8. and

co.position of carc •• e fat. 8rit. Pou1try Sei. 17a

,17-27.

("

133

aartov, I. J S. Bornetain and B. Lipetein, 1974. .(ffact of

calorie ta pr~tein ratio on the degree of fatnesa

in broilara fed on practical diets. Brit. Poultry

Sei. 15: 107-117.

aayl.y, H.S.; J.O. 5u •• ers and S.l. Slingar, 1968. (ffect of

heat treatllent on tha lIetabolizable energy value of

wheat ger. maal and othar wheat lIli111ng

~ by-producta. Careal CheMiatry 45: 557-563.

8ecker, W.A., 1978. Genotypic and phenotypic relationa of ~

abdoMinal fat in chickena. 27th Annual National

areadera Raundtabla, Kana.a City, Mieaouri.

aecker, W.A.; J.V. Spencer; L.W. Mirosh' and J.A. Ver.trata,

1979. Herit.bilitiea and genetic correlationa of

liva and carcaa. weighta and abdo.inal fat in'

fe.ale broilera. Poultry Sei. 58: 1035 (abatr.).

aecker, W.A.; J.V. Spancer; L.W. Miroah and J.A. Varatrata,

1981. AbdoMinal and carc.e. fat in five broilar

.train.. Poultry' Sei. 60: 693-697.

8.gin, J.J., 1967. The relation of braed and aax of chicken.

ta the utilization of enargy. Poultry Sei. 46:

379-383.

8iely, J. and8.E. March, 1954. rat etudie. ln poultry. rat

-

c)

e}

._--.......;~---- ,-------_._-"'-,--~--

134 ,

auppl ... nt. in chick and pault ration.. Paultry

Sci. ", 1220-1227.

'11.1y, J •• H.C. Ga.pardone and W.H. Pope, 1971. ~orld'a

Poultry Sci. 271 241-262.

Bolton, W., 1962. Energy value 0' poultry 'ooda and co.pl.te

diata. pp. 33-42. 12th World'a Poultry Congre.s ,

Saction Papers.

Brown, H.8. snd M. G. McCartney, 1982. t"ecta of diatary

energy and pro,tain and feeding ti.e on broiler

perfor.ance. Paultry Sei. 61a 304-310.

Carpe"tet, --J(. J. and 1(. M. Clegg, 1956.· The .atabolizable

en.rgy a f paul try raadingsturfs in relation ta

their che.ical co.position. J. Food Sei. Agric. 7.

Cava, H.A •• 1981. The affact of Inter.tttent light on

Cha.ber.,

Cherry,

carcas. qusllty, feed, effieiency t .nd growth of 1

brailera. Poultry Sci. 60: 956-9'0.

J.R.; J.S. Gavora and A. Fortin, 1981. Genetic ,

chsnge. in .eat-type chlckena in tha la.t t.enty

yaar •• Cano J. Ani •• Sei. 611 555-"3.

J • A • J P • B. Sel0al- and, W.l. a. an.a,' ' 1978.

(

135

G.netic-n1r1tional r.l.tionahipa in growth- and

. c.rc... ch.racteriatic. 0' broiler chicken •• ,

Poultr)' Sei. 57: 1482-1487.

Cull.n," M.P.J O.G. R ••• u ••• n and O.H. Wilder, 1962.

M.t.bol.1zabl, ,n.rg)' valu •• nd utilization 0', dif'.r.nt typ ••• nd grad •• of fat by th. chick.

Poultry Sei. 411 '60."7.

I)al., N.M. and H.l. Full.r, 19'80. Addlt:Îv~ty 0' tru •

•• tabolizabl. energ)' value •• a •••• ur.d with

roo.ter., broiler ch.1ek., and paulta. Poultry Sei.

591 1941-1942.

Dai., N.M .. and H.l. Full.r, l'8la., Th. u.e 0' tru •

•• tabalizabl •• n.rgy ln 'or.ul.ting paultry

r.tiana. p_. 50-57. Proc •• ding8 of th. G.orgia

Nutrition Conf.rence, 1981 •

. Dela, N.M. and H.l. Full.r, 1981b. E".ct 0' carri.r on th.

tru ••• tabalizable ,nergy 0' corn ail. Poultry

Sei. 60. 1504-1508.

DaI., N.H~ and H.l. Fuller, 1981a. Applicability a' the tru •

•• tabaliz.ble energy sy.te. in practtcal ,.ad

'ar.ul,tion. Poultry Sei. 'l~ 351-'56.

0.1., N.M. and H.l. Fuller, 1982b. True •• t,boliz,bl. In,r9Y

J

(l

o

136

or f.t. at low l.vel dietary lncluaia". Paultry

Sei. 6la 2.15~2420.

Davidaon, J. and S. Gr.ha., 1981. The .ati •• tian of ME in

.. iz. and in whe.t by-producta ueinQ chicken., with 1

oba.rvatian. on proble •• of prediction 'roa

cha.icil co.poeition. J. Agric. Sei. 96: 221-225.

O.aton, J.W.; F' .N. ReecI; l.F'. Kubana; B.D. lott and J.O.

MlY, 197'. The ability of the broiler chicken ta .

ca.pena.ta '01' ,ar ly growth d.pre.aion. Poul tty

Sei. 521 262-26'.

-" Oeaton. J.N.; L.r. Kubena; T.C."Chen and F.M. Reeca, "1974.

ractor. influeneing' the quantity 0' abdo.!nal fat

in broiler.. Cag' veraua 'loor ra.ring. Poultry

5ci. 5': 574-576. '"

O.aton. J.W.; J.l. McNaughton; f .N. Raaca and B.D. Loti.

1981. Abdo.inal fat ot broilara aa -inf1u'Read by

diet.ry 1av.1 of ani •• l 'at" 'oultl'Y Sci. 601

1250-125'.

O.,.)on, J.W.; J.L. NcNaughton and 8.0. latt, 1981. Tha

/

affeet of diatary anel'gy 1ev.l and brai laI' body

weight on abdo.inal rat.

2'94-2397.

l..

PQ.ul try Sei. 621

o

137

OeGroote, G., 1914. Utilization of .etabolizable energy. pp

113-133. tnergy Require.enta of Poultry. Ed. T.R.

Marrie and B.M. treeman, Brit. Poultry Sei. Ltd.,

Edinburgh.

Oalpech,P. an~ t.H. Ricard, 1965. Relation entre lea depots <

adipeux viseraux et les I1pidee corporels chez le

poulet. Ann. Zooteeh. 14: 181-189.

Donal d,a on , W.E.; G.f. Coaba and, G.L. Roaoeert' 1956~ Studies

on en.rgy levels in poultry ration •• 1. The effect

\ of caloti.-prot~in ratio o( the ration on growth

nutrient utilization and body co.position of

ehicka. Poultry Sei. 351 1100-1105 • . /

Duke, G.E •• nd D.A. Evanaon, 1972. Inhibition of ga.tric

.otl11ty by duod.nal~cont.nta in turkeys. Po~ltry

Sei. 51a 1625-1633.

" L

Eo.undaon, I.C., 1980.' The true •• tabolizabls energy of aeat

and bon. a •• l datar.inad"\ at di'farant doa. rat.a. . Proc. South 'aci'ie Poultry Sei. Conv., Auckland,

Octobar, l,aCt.

Edward., H.M., Jr., 1980. Prob1a.. .aaocia~.d with body

. ,

coapoal tian of brail.ra. pp. 145-154.

'lorida Mutr. Canf., Orlando, 'L.

•

Proc.

, .

c

(J

o

13~/ compas! t!on( Edward., H.M., Jr. and r. Oenman, 1975. Carcasa

studies. 2. Influence of breed, sex and d!et on

groes compas! tian of the carcass snd fatty aè!d

COlllp08 i tion of ths adipose tissue. Poul try Sei.

54: ' 1230-1238.

Edwards, H.M., Jr. and P. Hart, 1971. Careasa compoeition of

chickens, fed carbohydrate-free diets conta!n!ng

vatious lipid energy sources. J. Hutr. 10It

989-996.

Edwards, H.M. Jr.; F. DenmanJ A. Abor-Ashour and O. Nug'ra,

1973. Carcass composi tian studies. 1. Influences

,of age, sex and type of dietsry fat supplementation

on to ta 1 ca r cIsse and fa t ty a cid compas i tion.

Poultry Sei. 52: 934-948. ,

Ehringer., F'., 1977. Relations bel:ween skin fat, to'ta1 body ,

fat and plaalfta #valuea in broilera of diffarant

origina. Archiv tur Ga1flugalkunda 41: 35-37.

Elwlnger, K.,1980. Performance and abdominal ',nd carcass, fat

in brollera as influenoed by 8tr~in and diet ~nergy .

concentration. 6th European Poultry Conl"erence ~, \

(Hamburg) J: 2S6-263 •

.. rarr, A.J., A. Herbert and W.A. Johnson, 1977. 5tudiea on

, . /"",--the effecta of dietary energy lavels and commercial

\,'

(

(,

139

br 0 il e r a traina on 1 i VI birdl, dry carcass anctl

abdominal fat weighta. Poultry Sei. 56: 1713

(abatr.).

farrell, D.J., 1978a. Rapid deteraination of .etabol1zable

anergy of fooda uaing cockerels.

Sei. 19: JOJ-~ë;

Brit. Poultry

farrell, D.J., 1978b. The caae for retaining the apparent

.etabolizable energy syste. bec.u.~ ~ation in

en d 0 genoue axe r a ta. Proe. 2nd Aua t. Pou l t. and

Stock Fd. Canv., Sydney, March, 1978. pp. 204.

farrell, D.J •• 1980a. The "rapiet .ethod" of .e •• uring the

.et.bolizable energy of feed.tufTs. Feadstuffs 52

(45): 24-26.

farrell, D.J., 1980b. True .et.balizable energy (TME) and

the alternative. p. 146-153. Recent Advane •• in

Anieal Nutrition 1980. Ed. D.J. Farrsll, Univ. New

England Pub. Unit, ArMidale, N.S.W., Australia.

Farrell, O.J., 1980c. The c •• e for retaining the .pparent

aetabolizable enargy .yst •• becau.a of v.riation in

endogenou. excreta. Proc. Pouitry Huabandry Res.

round. Sy.p., Sydney, N.S.W., Australia.

farrell, O.J., 1981. An •• sess.ent of quick bio •••• y. for

/

(:

(

•

140

detar.ining the trua .etabolizabla enargy and

.. pp.rant .atabolizabla enetgy for poultry 1

fead.tuff.. Norld'a Poultry Sei. 37 (2): 72-83.

r.rrell, O.J. and s. swain, 1977. Effecta of te.peratura

t ra. t.en t. on the hea t production of a tarv ing

cockerals. Brit. Pbultry Sei. 18: 725-734.

risher, C. and o. W. F. Shannon, 1973. Metabolizable enargy

detar.inationa uaing chicks and turkeya. Brit.

Poultry Sei. 14. 609-613.

Foster, W.H., 1968. The re.ponae of Brown leghorn and Light

susae x lay i"g f locks to dilution of the diet.

Record Agriculturel Reaearch 17: 13-17.

Frapa, G.s., 1943. Relation of the protein, fat and energy

of the ration to the co.po.ilion of chickana. r,

Poultry Sei. 22: 421.

Frapa, G.S.; E.C. Carlyla and J.F. Fudge, 1940.

Metabolizable .nargy of ao •• chicke~ada. Tex.

Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 589.

Fuller, H.l. and N.M. DaI., 1982. Effsct of ratio of basal

diet fat to t •• t f.t on the true •• t.b01izable ,;r energy of the t •• t fat. Pouitry Sei. 61: 914-918.

f 1 1

1 t t

(.

(

141 ç fuller, H.L. and H. Rendon, 1977. Energetic e"ic18ncy of

dif'erent dietary fata 'or growth 0' young chick ••

Poultry Sei. 56: 549-557.

Gauthier, A.; M. Larbier and J.C. Blum, 1979. In'lu.nce d ••

glucidea ali.entairea aur la croisaanc. et 1.

vites.e d'absorption intestinale du glucose et

fructose chez le poulet. Ann. Biol. Ania. Bioch.

~Biophys. 19: 703-707.

Go.ez, M.X. and D. Polin, 1974. Influence o~ cholic acid on

the utilization of fats in the growing chicken.

Poultry Sei. 53: 773-781.

Goaez, M.X. and D. Polin, 1976. Tha u.e 0' bile •• lta to

iaprove .baorption Ir' tal10w in chicka, one to

three weeka 0' ag.. Poultry Sci. 55: 2189-2195.

Goodwin, T.l., 1~79. Ganatfc8, nutrition, .ax involvad in

.xce •• ive abdo.in.l 'at proble.. Cobb R •••• rch

World, Vol. 2, Ho. 2.

Gri"in, H.D •• nd C.C. Whit.h •• d, 1982. Pl •••• ~ipoprot.in

concentr.tion .a .n indic.tor 0' 'atn ••• in

broil.ra ~Dev810p •• nt and ua. of • ai.pl • •••• y 'or

pl.... very low den.i ty lipaprat.ina.

Pouitry Sei. 2'= J07-11'.

{

8rit.

, , ;

1

".

(

:c ut 'ZP~

142

Gri'fin, H.D., C.C. Whitehead and L.A. 8roadbent, 1982. The

relationahip between pl •••• triglyceride

concentrationa and body content in 8ale .nd fe.al.

broilera - A baei. for e.lection. 8rit. Poultry

Sei. 2J: l5-2J.

Griffitha, L., 5. Lee.on and J.O. Su •• era, 1977a. Fat

d.poeition in broilere, Effact of dietary energy to

protein balance .nd e.rly lifa calorie reatric~ion

on productive perfor.anc. and abdoainal 'at pad

.ize. Poul~y Sci. S6, 638-646.

(

Griffitha, L.; S. Le.eon and J.O. Su •• era, 1977b. Influence

of energy ayat.a and levaI 0' veriou. fat .ourc ••

on parforaanca and carca •• co.poaition of broilara.

Poultry Sei. S6: 1018-1026. 1

Griffitha, l.S., S. lea.on and J.O. S~i., '1918. Studia • .,.---- -------- -

on abdoainal.t.r with 'our coeaerciel atrain. of

.a1e broil.r chickan. 'Poultry Sei. '7 J 1198-120'.

Gu.l11au •• , J. and J.O. Su.er., 1970. Maintenanca anergy

require.ent of the rooater and in'luence 0' plane

of nutrition on •• taboli%abla energy.

Ani •• Sei. SOI '61-'69.

Cano J.

Gutteridge, N.S., 19}7. Mathoda and rationa for f_tt.ning

poultry. Sei. Agr_ 17, 140-"a.

( 1 AIA seD.-, s~ .. ___ , ..

c

143

Gyl •• , N.R. and A. Ha.za, 1981. Abdo.inal fat in paranta and

broilar progany. Poultry,Sc!'. 60. l"} (abatr.).

Gylaa. N.R.I A. Ma.za and T.l. Goodwin, 1982. .egr.aaion of . abdo.inal fat in broilera on abdo.inal fat in apent

parenta. Poultry ~ci. 611 1809-1814.

Hallaworth, E.G. and J.I. Coate., 19'2. The growth of the

ali.antary tract of the fowl and the gooa.. J.

Agric. Sei. 58: 15'-16'.

, Ha~n.n, E.T., 1951. The nut"iti~e (.nergy) v.lue of po~ltry

·foodl. pp. }-,. Proc. Ilth Vorld'. Poultry

Harri., L.E., 19". Biologieal .nergy interr.lationahip. and

gloe.a"y of anerg)' ter ••• Publication 1411,

National Acada.y of Scienc.a. Nattonel R •••• rch

Couneil, Va.hington, O.C.

Hill, F.V., D~L. And.raon; R. Rannar and L.S. Caraw, 31'.,

1960. Studie. of the .etabolizable anergy of g1'a1n

and gr.tn producta.for chickana. 'ouitry Sei. }9s

571-579.

Horani, F. and J.L. Sali, 1977a. Ef'act of 'a.d grada anl •• 1

f.t on laying hen perfora.nca and en •• taboliz.bla

anergy of rat1ona. Poultry Sei. 56& 1972-1980 •

•

Qk ........ ",.. M" .. ;au ...... • , fi .. r '"

Horani, F. and J.l. S.ll, l'77b. Th •• odi'y!n, ."aet a' 1

caloril' protein ratio on'lay1n9 hln p.r,or •• nc1

and on thl -axtra •• tabolic al'act- 0' addad ,.t.

Poultry Scl. 561 18'1-1988.

Hubball, C.H., 1'82. 'aadltu"a Analya11 Tabll, 1982.

Jackaon, S.J J.O. Su •• ~ra and S. Leeaon, 1'82. E"act 0"

. . di.tary protein and ane1'lY on brai 1er earc •• a

co.poaition and e"iei.ncy 0' nutri.nt utilizatian.

Poultry Sei. 611 2224-22Jl.

J"'rey, F.P. and R.E.,8ritt, 1'41. E"act a' eanfina.ant in

laying cagll on th. phyaica1 co.poattion 0' hana.

Poultry Sei. 20, l02-JOl.

Jan.an, l.S. J G.W. Schu.ailr and J.O. lat.ha., 1970.

Extra-calorie af'lct 0' di.tary 'at 'or davllapint

turkay. - •• influ,ncad br caloria-proteln l'ati'a.

Poultry Sei. 491 l6'7-170.~

John., D*C. and I.C. Ed.undaon, 1977. Matabalizabl. anergy

pp. 84-'1. Proc. 2lrd' Annuel

Poultry Conv., M •••• y Univ.

'John •• on, G.. 1'80. Nutritive vIlue 0' gra.,a •• a1' for " poultry. M. Phil. Theaia, Univ. Endinburgh.

, 4

)

; Pp; 'lit" .11........... a. ___ , ~_."..,....--- -------~-------

o

-. ...

us

lo.h1, S .k. and J.L. ·Se11, 19'.\. Co.paratlve di.tary v.lu.

0' loyb •• n ail, aun'lower ail, r.p •••• d ail and

ani.al talla" for turkay poult ••

Sci. 44, 34-38.

Can. J. Ani ••

Kat.bach, M.P. and L.M. Pott.r. 1959. Studi •• in .valuatlng

.nerg)' contant of fe.d. fol' th. chiek. J. Th.

eoap.ratlve valu. of corn oil and talla". Paultry 1

Sci./JI. 1217 (abatr.).

Kub.na, L.r., B.D., Lotta J.W. Oa.ton. F.N. R •• c •• nd J.O. ,

May, 1972. Body eo.poaition of chicke ,e

lnfluanced by environ •• ntal. ~ •• perature and

•• lect.d diet'ty f.ct.ora. Pôultry Sei. 511

'17-522.

Kub.na, l'.F _1 J.W. Oe.ton, T .C~ Chen and F .H. Reece, 1974,. , \

ractora influencing th. quantity 0' abdo.inai fat

ln broilera. 1. R.aring te.p.rature, sex, age, or

w.lght end dietary choline chloride and inaeital

auppla.antation. Poultry Sei. 5J: 211-214.

Kubana, L.F., T.C. Chen; J.W. Deaton and F.N. Reece, 1974b.

ractar.· influencing the quantity of abdOMinal fat

in broilera. J. Dietery energy levela. Poultry

Sci. 53: 974-978.

- .Ku •• ~ibati, "R •• 1979. Influence of dietary lntake, level of

•

'.

c>

..

146

•• t.bolizable a"argy .nd tha digaatibility 0' lipida ln growing chick. and th. adult ~ock.r.l •

. "~o •• ading. of' the Second Europaan Sy.poalu. on 'oultry Nutrition, a.ekburgan, Th. Natharlanda.

. t Ku ••• ibati. R., J. Guillau •• and 8. Leclercq, 1982a. Th •

• ".cta 0' _g.. dietary ,.t .nd bi~. ..1 t., and

'aading r.te on apparant .~·~ru. .at.boliz.bla

enargy yalu!_ in chick.na. -~;~. Pau~try Sei. 2).

"'-40'.

Ku ••• lbati. 'R. J J.. Gu111.u.. and a. Leclercq,' l'982b. Tha ~), If

., '.cta a' andag.nau. an.rgy, type of' di.t. .nd

~ddltion of' bil •• alta on th. tru ••• t.bollz.bla

.nargy v.lu.. in young chick.. Poul try Sei. 611

2218-222) •.

Larbl.r, M •• 1981. Etud.. d. ..c.ni.... contralant

l'ab.orption lnt •• tin.le d. la ly.ln. ch~z G.llu.

gallua L. Th •••• d. Doctor.t •• Sclence.

Natur.ll •• , L'Unlv.r.ite de Toura, Fr.nc ••

Laurin. O.E. J S.P. TauchburnJ C.W. Ch.n .nd Ê.R. Ch.vez,

198). Ef"act 0' di.t.ry .n.rgy .nd .nl •• 1 f'.t on

.bdo.in.l rat or broilar.. C.n. J. Ani •• Sei. 611

1012 (abatr.).

L.clercq, 8., 1983. Tha' in'luanc. 0' diat.ry prote in l.val '

---~--L-------__ ----____ .--____ '~4~~~.~ .. _~4~_~----____________________ ------H' ). • ... 11 .~ •• ,~ ... --

. .. -

0,

,"on the growing perfor.ancee .of geneticilly 1ean or

"at chickena. Brit. Poultry 5ci. 24, S8l-587.

-Leclercq, 8. and A. Seedoun, 1982. 5e1ectlng broilera 'or

10w and high abdoMinal f.ta Co.pariaon of energy

_taboli •• of 1.,n and fat line.. 'Poultry Sei. 61 t

1799-180' •

'Lec1ercq, jJ.' J.C., 811111 and J.P. Boyar, 1980. 5electing

broilera for low or high abdolinal fat. initial

ob.arvations. 8rit. Poultry Sei. 2la 107-113.

Le.eon, 5. and J.O. Su •• era, 1976. r.t aetabolizable enargy

y al u a a , The a f f e c t 0 f f. t t Y e cid •• t u ra tian. \ 1

reedaturf. 48(46): 26-28.

Lilburn, M.S"., R.M. la.ch and E.G. 8u •• , 1980. Dev,lopa.ntal •

co.pariaolls batween atraina .elact.d for .nd

again.t exce.eiv.'abdoMinal fat. Poul~ry Sei. 591

16~1 (abetr.).

Lin, C.Y., G.\II. "rriara and E.T. Moran, 1980. Gan.tic and

anviro •• ntal a.pecta of obe.ity in broilera • •

~orld·. Poultry Sei. }6: 10'-111.

, \, ~~Q

L~t.in" 8.; S. 80rnetain and 1. aartov, 1915. The

replaca.ent of ao.e of the .oya be.n .a~l bye the

tirat 1iaiting a.ino acid. in practical broilar

c

•

o

~ 14.

dleta. Brit. Poultry Sète 16, 627-"5.

Llttle'leld, L.H., 1972. Strein dif'erence. in quantlty 0' .bdo.in.l ret ln broilera. Poultry Sei. SIl 18%'

(abatr.) •

Lodhl, G.N.; R. Renner end O.R. Cl.ndinin, 19'9. Studiee on

the .etabolizab1e energy of repeseed .sa1 'or

~rOWing chicksna and 1eying hsn.~ Pouitry Sei. 48s

964-970 •

•• bray, C.J., 1979. The inflùence of energy and e.ino-.cid

leyale or the di et on ths ebdo.inal rat ped or the

broi1er chick.

F.yettev~lle, AR.

M.S. Th •• ie, Univ. Arkan ••• ,

March, B.E. and J. Biely, 1911. Facto~a a".cting the

reapon •• of chick. to diet. of differant prot.in'

yalues braad and ag.. Pouitry Sci. 5G. 10'6-1640.

N_loCh, B.E. and J. Biely, 197'. Che.icel, phyeical end

nutritiona1 characterietlc. of di'fal'ent a •• ple. 0' wh.et. Cano J. Ani •• Sci. S'a '69-S77.

March, 8.E. and G. Hane.n, 1977. Lipid accu.ulation and, cell

aultiplicetion in adipo.e bodiea in W~ite leghorn

and bl'oilel'-type ehicka. Poultry Sei. 56: 886-89 •• D ---~

U U+ .Iii

"

149

Matao., G. G. and J,.L. Sa11, 1980a. Influence of carbohydr.ta

a~d .upple •• ntal' rat .ource on th. ..tabolizabla

anargy of the di.t. Poultry Sci. 59: 2129-213S.

Mateoe, G.G •• nd J.l. ,S.l,l, 1980b. Influence of gradad

lavele of ,.t on utilization of pure carbohydrate ,

by the l.ying hen. J. Nutr. 110s 1894-1903 •

.... t.o., G.G. and J.l. Sa11. 1980ct. Influ.nc. of fat .nd

~ •• bohYd •• t •• ou.~. on ~ •• gy utl11zatlon by l~ylng h.na. Nutr. Rep. Int. t2: 79 .. S9. .

... te 0 a , G • G • • n d J. l. 5 el1 " 1980 d • True and appar.nt

.. t.boliz.ble anergy valu. of fat for l.ying hen.,

Influence of leve1 of u.a. Poultry Sci. 59&

'69-373.

"at ••• , G.G. and J.l. Sali. 1'81 •• N.ture 0' th. L extr ••• tabolie effect of .uppl .. ent.l 'et u •• d in

••• ipurif1ed di.te for 1.y1n, h.n.. 'oultry Sel.

601 1925-19)0 •

... t.... a.c. .nd J.l. Sail, 1911b. Influ.nce 0' f.t .nd

c.~boh1dr.~a .ou~c. on th. rate of food p •••• g. of

••• ipuri'i.d di.t. 'or larin, hen.. 'Guitry Sei.

"h 1114-2119 •

• ataoe, Q.a. and, J.l. 5.11. 19810'. Met .. 1i._l ..... ~.' 0'

a4

(j . /

150

aupp~ •• anta1 ,.t •• re1ated tu diatary fat levei

and •• thoda of e.ti •• tion. Poultry Sei. 60a

1509-1515.

H.~aoa, G.G.J J.L. 5.11 .nd J.A. Ea.twood, 1982. R.ta of

food p •••• g. (tranait ti •• ) a. influenced by levaI

of .upple.ent.l fat. Poultry Sei. 61: 94-100.

HcCartney, M.G. and H.B. Brown, 1977. The effecte of fa.d

reatrition ti.e on th. g~owth and f •• d converaion

of broiler •• 1... Poultry Sei. 56: 713-715.

Harkley, l.W •• L.H. Littl.field and G.W. Chalaupk., 1973.

/

-Abdo.inal fat, skin and aubeut.neoua f.t frae six

~roil.r atrains rai.ad on tha floor and in coop ••

'oultry Sei. 52: 2064 (abatr.).

Harklay, J.W •• L.H. Littlafiald; G.W. Halon. and G.W.

Chaloupka, 1977. Fraa~ aviacerat.d yi.lda of 'ive

c .... rci.l bruilar atraina. Poultry Sei. 56: 17J8 '

(abatr.).

Hiroah, L.W •• W.A. aacker, l.V. Spencar .nd J.A. V.ratr.te,

1980. Pradicrtion 0' abdo.in.l 'at in live hroi~.r .'

chickan~. Pouitry Sei. 59a 9.5-95G~

Mi~Ch.11, H.H. J L.E. C.rd and T .5. Ha.ilton, 1926. The

growth 0' Whita Plyaouth Rock chickari •• ~111inoia

•

r ~ ,-

~ ~ ~ ;' , .'

ÉI

t .. 'f ,L t. ~ d'

1 \

1 f

C

•

151

Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 278: 71.

Mitchell, H.H., l.E. C.rd .nd T.S. He.ilton, 1931. A

technical atudy of the growth of White Leghorn

chickena. ll~inoia AgI'. Exp. Sta. Bull. l67: 1.

Hon.on, W.l., L.S. Dietrich and C.A. Elvehje., 1950. Nature

of the extra •• tabolie effe~t of .uppl •• ental fat

u.ed in .e.ipurified die ta for 1aying hen.. Proc.

Soc. Exp. Biol. M.d. 15: 256-259.

Moran, E.T., 1976. Broil.r carc.a. finiahl .lteratian with

nutrition, .gg aourc •• nd chick .anaga •• nt. Proc.

Maryland Nut~. Conf.

Mor.n, E. T., Jr.; J.O. Su ••• r •• nd H;L. Orr, 1968. aack f.t)­

qu.ntitativ ••••• ur. of broi1er -care,a. fini.h:

technique with grade and .ff.ct of di.t,ry calorie

den.ity. food Teehnol. 22: 999-1002.

Mu.l1.r, W.J.; R.V. Bouch.r and E .• W. C.ll.nb.ch, 1956.

Influence of age and .ex on the utilization of

proxi.,te nutrient •• nd energy by chlckena. J.

Hutr. J8: J1-S0.

Muztar, A.J. and S.J. S11ng.r, 19B'ta. The effect of l!»vel of

fe.d' iaput 1.n •• hort ter ••••• y for deter.ining ,

AME of sOlle -'eedstuffs. Nu t r. R.p. Int. 221

~'

~ i

~ " ,. ~ "

te C {

'. J,

•

~

C ·7 ! .. ,l

" l '1

1 J

152

117-122.

Mu%tar, A.J. and S.J. Slinger, 1980b. An evaluation of the

rapid apparent metabolizable energy asaay in'

relation ta feed intake using mature cockere1s.

Hutr. Rep. Int. 22: 745-750.

Huztar, A.J. and 5.J. Slinger, 1981a. An evaluation of the

nitrogen correction in the true metab"o1izable

energy assay. Poultry Sei. 60: 8J~J9.

Muztar, A.J. and S.J. Slinger, 1981b. A compariaon of the

true and apparent metabolizab1e energy lIeaaures

ueing corn end soybean mea1 eamples. Poultry Sei.

60: 611-6,16.

.. Heleon, T.S., 1980. Feeding changea in body composition of

broilera.. pp. 159 .. 162. Proc. F lor ida Nutr. Con f. ,

Orlando, FL. "

Nordatro., J.O.; R.H. Tower; G.B. Havenatain and G.L. Walker,

1978. Influence of g~netic atrain, aex and di~tary

energy level on abdominal fat depoeition in

broi1era. Pou~try Sei. 57: 1176 (abatr.).

Ouaterhout, L.E., 1981. The effect of atrain, aex, diet. age J .

and 1ighting on broiler performance and proce.sing

paralleHara. Poult,ry Sei. 60, 1707 (abatr.).

,

(

(

•

153

,Owan, J.A. and P.W. Waldroup, 1979. Reaponae of growing ;

turkeya to dieta varylng in energy content.

Poultry Sci. 58: 1090-1091 (abatr.).

Owinga, W.J. and J.t. Sell, 1982. Perfor.anee of grollung

tu rkey hena a8 Influeneed by aupp le.enta 1 dle tary

fat and dl fferent NE : nut r lent ra tl08. Pou 1 try

Sei. 61: 1897-1904.

Pan, P.R.; B.C. Ollworth; E.J. Day and T.C. Chen, 1979.

(ffect of season of year, 8ex~\ sn-d d18tary fats on ,

broiler perfor.ance, abdO"lnal fat, and preen gland

secretlon. Poultry SC1. 58: 1564-1574.

Parsons, C.M •. ; l.M. Potter and B.A. 811a8, 1982. T rue

lIetabolizable energy eorreeted to nitrogen

equilibriu.. Poultry Sei. 61: 2241-2246.

Patchell, H.R. and I.C. Ed.undaon, 1977. pp. 14t.L

Metabollzable energy. 2. Metabolizable energy

(claaaical) of rive ingredlenta. Poultry Re ••• rch

Centre: A Su •• ary of Flnal Report. and Current

R.asarch. Ma.aey Univer'lty.

Pepper, W.F.; S.J. S11nger and J.O. -Su •• era, 1960. Studiea

wi th chickena and turkeya on the relationahlp

between fat, unidenti f ied factora and pelleti ng.

Poultry Sci. 39: 66-74.

/

(

{

154

Pa.U, G.M., 1982. Characterisation of the raaponae of •• le

broilar chickene to dieta of vsr10ua protein and

enargy contenh. 8rit. Poultry Sei. 23: 527-537.

Peah, G."'.; T.S. Whiting and L.S. Jenaen, 1983. The effect

of c:ruabling ,on the relationahlp between dletary

dena i t Y and chick growth, fsed ef.lenCY, and

abdo.ina1 fat pad weighte. Pou 1 t r y Sc l • 62:

490-494.

Pffafe, F.L, Jr. snd R.E. Auetic, 1974. Influence of d'let

on adipoae tissue accu.ul.tlon in tha pullet.

Proc. Cornell Hutr. Conf.

r, Patter, L.M., 1976. fat 1.n tu J:'key diata: How auch i t • •

worth. Turkey World 51: 6-8.

Patter, L.M.; L.O. "atteraon; A.W. Arnold; W.J. Pude1kiewicz

and E. P. 5ing.sn, 1960. 5tudiea in evalulting

- energy content of f.ada for the chick. 1. The

avaluation of the .etebollzab1e energy and

productive energy of alpha-cellulose. Poul try Sei.

39: 1166-1178.

Proudaan. LA.; W.J. "ellen and 0.,1.. Ander.on, 1970.

Utilization of f •• d in f •• t and .low growlng lin ••

of chick.na. Poul try Sc i •• 9: 961-972.

(

(

15S

Pya. R.A.t. and D.J. farrell, 1971. A coapariaon of the

energy and nitrogen aetaboliaa of broiler chickena .

• elected for incr ••• ed growth rete, food

conauaption and converaion of food to gain. Brit.

Poultry Sei. 18: 411-426.

Pya, fLA.t. and A.J. Solvyna, 1979. S.lection for food

conv.r.~on in broiler.: body eoapo.it10n of birda

.e1ect.d for 1nèrea.ed body weight, food

c on.u.pt 1 on and food e anveraion ratio. Brit.

Poultry Sei. 20: 87-97.

Pya, R.A.E. and J.H. ThQipaon, 1980. A .i.ple calipar

technique for th. eati.atien of abdoainal fat in

live brail.r.. Brit. Pouitry Sei 21: 281-286.

Rao, P.Y. and D.R. Clandlnin, 1970. Effact of aathod of

detaraination on the •• tabolizab1. anargy of

r.p •••• d a.al. Poultry Sei •• 9: 957.960.

Renner. R. and f.W. Hill, l'60. The utilization of corn ail,

lard .nd tallow by chickena of varioua ag •••

Poultry Sci. '9: 8.9-8' ••

, Ricard, f.~.; B. Leelarcq and C. Touraille, 1981. Seleeting

broilera for 10w or high abdo.inal fat:

" Diatribution of careaaa fat and quality of ••• t.

8rit. Poultry Sei. 24: 511-516.

(

\

1 .]

i -------------------.-------------------------------~~~------------------..... --------,~. . r f!t'~

/

(

, .' i ~ i

t ~ i.

'" ~ 156

Ricard, r.H. and R. Rouvier, 1967. ~de de la compo8ition ji.

anatoaique du pouleL 1. Variabilite de la

reparti tion des differentea parties corporelles

chez de. coquelet. "Bre.ae Pile". Ann. Zootech.

16: 2J-J9.

Ricard, r.H. and R. Rouvier, 1969. Etude de la cOMpoaition

anatoaique du poulet. J. Variabilite de la

repartition de. parties corporelles dans une souche .

de type Cornish. Ann. Genat. SaI. Ania. 1: ISl.

Rolla, B.A.; A. Turvey and M.E. Coat.s, 1978. ~ influence

of gut aicroflora and of dietary. fibre on

epithslial cell aigration in chicle intéatin ••

Brit. J. Hutr. 39: 91-98.

Ro.abrough, R.W. and N.C. Steale, 1982. Tha,role of

carbohydrata and protain l.vai in th. ragulation of

lipogan •• i. by th. turkay poult. Poultry Sei. 61&

2212-2217.

Salaon, R.E.; H.l. Cl •••• n .nd R.K. Mc.illan, 1981. Effaet

0' .t.rtar .nd fini.har protein on. perfora.nca,

carca •• grada, and, a •• t yield of broiler.. Pou~t,ry

Sei. 621 8J7-8.5.

,

Sehang, M.l. and R.M~G. H •• llton, 1982. C..,.rlaon of two

di rac t b io-•••• y. uaing adul t cook. .nd. four

1 ~ 9

c

(

• _, $O'

157

indirect .ethoda for eati.ating the .etaboliza~l.

energy content of different feedingatuff.. Poultry

Sei. 6la 1344-1353.

Schang, H.J.; 1.R. Sibba1d and R.H.G. Hallilton, 1983.

C a.par i son 0 f two direct biolssaya using young

chick. and two internaI indicatora for •• ti.ating

tha .etabo1izable enargy content of feadingatuff ••

Paultry Sei. 62:>117;124.

Se11, J.L. j"d W.J. Owi"., 1981. Supple.ental f.t and ~

.etabo1izable anergy-to-nutrient ratios for growing

turk.ya. Poultry Sei. 60: 2293-2305.

Shannon. D.W.f., 1971. The affact of leve1 of intaka a"d

rraa ratty acid contant on the •• tab011zabla an.rgy

valu. and nat abaorption of" talION by th. laying

hen. J. Atrie. Sei. 7'. 217-221.

5hlgano, 1( •• 197'. Ral.tion.hlp bat •• an abdoaln.l fat

contant, and care.aa fat contant of chick. 3.p.

'oultry Sel. 101 114-122.

Shlr... A. J A.R. RobbIa.; R. T. Hardin and O.R. Clandini",

1980. Ef'act of ag. 0' chiclee .. a an trua

.. tabal1zabla an.rgy 0' ' •• d tngr.dianta~ Pouitry

Sei. "a "'-403.

il 2 il " * & j~!J, :-; .je ;

:

. ,

1 , -, ,

~ ( l, ~,

l

158

Sibb.ld, I.R., 1975a. The effect of level of fe,d intake on

.etabolizable energy valuea lIeaaured with adult

1'00. tera. Poul tr)' Sc.i,. 54: 1990-i 9'91 • .,.--- --

. S ibbald, 1. R., 1975b. Co.par i.on 0 f .et.boliz.ble anergy

valuea of creaI grain. '.ea.ured with poultry in

thr •• laboratori.a. Cano J. Ani •• Sei. 55:

-283-285.

Sibbald, I.R., 197~ •• A bio •••• y for trua •• tabolizabla

an.rgy in ' •• d.tuffa. Poul tr)', Sei ~ 55:' '03 ... ](;8.

Sibbald, I.R., 1976b. l , 4

The .ffact of duration bf .t.rv.tion

of th. • ••• y bird' on tru. .at.boliz.bla .n.argy

y.lu... Poultry Sei. S5, IS78-l579.

Sibb.ld. I.R. J 1977 •• A t •• t of th •• dditlvit, of tl'u.

a.t.boliz.bl. .nargy v.lu.. of '.~ding.tu" ••

Poultry Sei. 56, "3-366 •

... Slbbald. 1 ••• , 1977b. Th. -tl'u ••• t.~.llz.bl •• nargy .1at .. -

P.I'~ 2. r •• datu". .alua. and conv.ralon data.

r •• d.tuf' •• , (.3). 21.

S1bbald. I.R., 1978.. Th. a".ct of .ge 0' tha •••• t bird on.

~t h a t ru. •• t • bol i zab 1. • n. l' OY, y al u.. 0 f

'aading_tu".. Poultl', Sci. S7. lOG8-1012.

(

f C' r

t

159

Sibbald, I.R., 197ab. Sçientiata atudy M.tabolizabla energy

vari.tion. in awine and poultry dieta. reed,tu",

SO (48), 20 ... 22.

Sibbald, I.R., 1978c. The true •• tabolizable energy valu ••

0' .ixtur •• 0' tallow with either -.o)'b.an ail or

lard. Poul try Sei. S7, 47'-477.

4"

Sibbald, 1. R .,' 1979.. A new technique for •• ti.ating t,.,. HE

Sibbald,

Slbbald,

content 0' , •• da 'or poultry. pp. :J8-4J.

Standardization of An.lytical M.thod010gy 'or

r •• d.. IDRC-14J ••

1.R., ' 1979b. , •••• g. '0' , .... through 'th •• dult

rooat.r.- Poultry Sei. ,a, •• '-.'9.-

1.R., 1919c. E"act 0' ' •• d input,' dilution 0' t •• t

> .at.rial, .nd dUl'atiQn 0' •• crata coll.-ction on

tru ••• t.bolizabl •• nal'gr valu... Poultl'Y Sei. sa. - ,

1)25-1)29.

S~ld. I.R., 1'79d. Th •• ".ct 0' dur.tion of the axcrèta

coll.ctlon p.l'iod on th. tl'U8 .. tabolizabl •• narl'

valu •• 0' t •• ding.tutta with alow l'at •• or p •••••••

"oult.I'Y Sel. saI .96'-199.

S,"ald,_ I.R.. 19'O~., Th •• ".ct 0' d1.t.r~ calluloa. and

.and on t.... ooùin.d .e~"'.11. plue andog,nou.

1 l 1 (',; l l ! r ;

"

160

energy and a.ina aeid outputs af aduit cockerll ••

Paultry Sei. 59: 8'6-844.

Sibbald, i.R., 1980b. Sel.ction of a bio •••• y for availabla

• n.rgy. pp. 10 • Prae. South P.ci 'ic Paultry

sei.nce Confer.nce, Auckland, Oct./ao.

Sibb.ld, 1.R., 1981e. Hetabalie plua endogenoua energy and

nitrogen loeeea of adult cockerelal the correction

uaed in the bioaasay for true metabolizable energy.

Poultry Sei. 60: 805-811.

sibbald, I.R., 1981b. Hetabolie plue end.ogenaua energy

axer.tion by fàwl. Poultry Sei. 6Gl 2672-2677.

Sibbald, 1.R., 1982. H ••• ur •• ent of bioav.ilable energy in

pou 1 try feedingatuff.. A rev iew. Can. J. Ani ••

Sei. 621 983-1048.

Sibbald, 1.R. and J.k.G. kra •• r, 1977. Th. trua

•• taboliz.bla anergy valua. a( fat •• nd fat

aixtur... Poultry Sei. 561 2079-2086.

Sibb.Id, 1.R. and J.K.G. kr •• er, 1978. Thl afflet of the

baaai diat on tha tru ••• taba1izlbla .nergy value

0' fat. Paultry Sei. 51, 685-691.

Sibb.ld, 1.1t. and J.K. Kra.art 198p. Tha ."act of ba •• l ,

{ i

..

1~1

l. dl.t on th. utilizltion of f.t ••• lourc. ot tru.

•• t.boliz.bl •• n.rgy, lipid, .nd ,.tty acid ••

Poultry Sei. S9a 316-324.

Sibb.ld, I.R •• nd P.M. Mor •• , 1983a. Th. etf.et Q' f •• d

"

iaput .nd .xcr.t. coll.ction tia. on •• tia.t •• of

•• tabolic plus endog.noul ·en.rgy la •••• in th.

bio"8ay for true .etabolizable energy. Poultry

Sci. 62a 68-76.

SibbaId, I.R. and P.M. Morae, 198Jb. Eff.cte of nitrogen

corr.ction and of feed intak. on true Metabolizable

.n.rgy valuea. Poultry Sci. 62: 138-142.

:~ibbald, I.R. and P.M. Mor.e, 1983c. Provision of

.upple •• ntal feea·and the applic.tion of a nitrogen

correction in bio •••• y. for tru ••• t.bollz.ble

.n.rgy. Poultry Sci. 62. lS87-l60S.

Sibb.ld,'" I.R •• nd 1(. Prie., 1978 • Th. ' •• t.bolle and

endogenou. la •••• of .dult rooet.r.: P'oultry Sci.

57: 556-557.

Sibb,ld, I.R •• nd K. Priee, 1980. V.rlability in .at.bolic

/

plu. endog.nou. energy 10 •••• of .dult cock.r.l.

and ln the tru. .et.boliz.bl. .n.rgy v.lue.' and

ra~ •• of p •••• g. of d.hydr.tad alf81f.. Poultry

Sei. 59. 1~57-1279.

, '

< l

! i , • 1

" ~ c)

\

SibbaId, 1. R. and S. J. Sling.r, 1'6)a. A biologieal .as.y

ror .atabolizable snergy in poultry f.ed

ingr.diente together with findinga which.

d •• onstrate ao.. of the proble.a a.aocisted with

the evaluation of f.t.. Pou1try Sei. 42, )1)-)25.

Sibbald, I.R. and S.J. Slinger, 196Jb. Ef'eet. of br..oed,

.ex, an areenica1 and nutrient denaity on the

utilization of dietary energy. Pou1try Sei. 422

1125-1)]2.

SHabald, 1.R.a J. Czarnocki; S.J. Slinger and G.C. Aehton,

l"). Th. prediction of the .etabolizabl. energy

contant of poultry feading.tuffa 'ro. a knowladge .'-

or their che.ical co.poaition. Poultry Sei. 422

4"-492.

Si., J.S •• 0.8. 8ragg and G.C., Hodgaon, '197). E,raet or

diatary ani.al tallow and vagatable oil on fatty

~eid co.poaition of a99 yolk, adipoa. tiaaue and

livar or laying hana. Poultry Sei. 522 51-57.

Sil'a.ar, A.P. and D.J. Farrall, 1980. A co.pariaon or tha

anargy and nitrogan •• tabolia. or rad ducklinga and

ehick'na. Brit. Po~ltry Sei. 21a 211-227.

511n,er, S. J. J 1.1. Sibbald and W.f'. 'appar. 1'64. Tha

,elative abl11tl.a 0' two bra.da or chicle.na, and -

<.

(

•

163

two var i .ti.. of turkey. to •• taboliza di.tary

energy and dietary nitrogen. Poultry Sei. .'s )29-111.

Stati.tical Analyel. Syat •• (SAS), 1979. SAS Inatituta lnc.,

Box 8000, Cary, North Carolina, 27511.

Stevena, V.I.; R. Blair and C. Riddell. 1983. Oietary l.vela

-of fat, a.lclu., and vita.ine A and 0-1 ae

contributing factors tO rick.t. in poult.. Pou1try

Sei. 62: 2073-20B2.'

Su •• era, J.O. and S. Le •• on, 1979. Co.poeition of poultry

.eat aa à'fected by nutrit'ion.l ractora. Pou1try

Sund., M. L., 1954. The u.. of ani •• l rat. in poultry f •• da.

J. A •• r. Oil Ch ••• Soc. Hs 49-.52.

\.

Swift, R.W. and C.E. French, 1954. Energy .etabolia. and

'nutrition. The Seareerow Pr.aa, Waahington, D.C.

Tan.ka, k.; S. Oht •• i and k. Shigeno. 1981 •• Effact of .

incr.aaing diet.ry .nergy on hapatic lipogan •• ia in

gro..,ing chick •• 1. Incr.a.ing energy by

carbohydr.te auppl ••• ntation. Poultry Sei. 62a

..

1

<.

(

l' ,

..... ~ ;" - ~

164

Tanaka, K.J S. Ohta.i and K. Shigeno, 1983b. Efflct of

incr.aeing dietary energy on hepatic lipogen.aie in

growing chicka. 2. Increasing enefgy by fat Of

protein lupple.entetion. Poultry Sei. 62: 4S2-4S8.

Ten •• ca, G.L. and J.L. Sell, 1979. True .etabolizable energy

of corn and oate. Poultry Sci. 58: 1115 (abatr.).

Teneeca, G.L. and J.L. 5ell, 1981. Influence of an

indigeetible •• terial on .nergy axeretion by

rooatera and on true .etabolizable energy of corn.

Pou1try Sei. 60: 623-630 •

.rerpatra, K., 1976. Reaearch on the dige.tibility and

• etabo1izable en.rgy of ani.al fate. Rep. no •

124.76 Nutrition Oept., Spelderholt Inet. Poult.

R ••• , 8 •• kburgen; The Matherl.nde.

Tho •• e, C.H.; E.W. Glazener and W.L. 810w, 19S8. The

tel.tionahip between f.ed converaion and

ethe r-e)Ct r .ct 0" brai lera. Pouitry Sei. 37:

1177-1179.

Titua) ".W~, 19S8. The 5cientific r.eding of Chickena. lrd

Ed., The Interatate, 111inoia.

'Touchbu~n. S.P. and D.E. Laurin, 1984. pp. 19-)0. Diet.ry

en.rgy and .x~.aa fat in brailera. Procaedinga of

"

. l

1 C f,

1

165

the Nutrition Day Conference for the Quebec

Division of the Canadian reed Industry Assoc.

Touchburn, S.P. and E.C. Naber, 1966. The energy value of-

f.ts for growing turkeys. pp. 190-195. Proc.13th

Wor1d'a Poultry Congress, Kiev, U.S.S.R. 1966.

Touchburn, S.; W. Bacon and M. Topscher, 1970. The effect of

light intensity and dietary fat on the growth

perforllance of turkeys. pp. 99-105. Prac. 14th

World's Poultry Congres8, Madrid, Spain. Sep t:.

6-12, 1970.

Touchburn, S.P.; J. Si.on and B. leclercq, 1981. Evidence of

a glucose-insulin i.balance and effect of dietary

protein and energy levaI in chickens ae1ected for

high abdo.inal f,t co~tent. J. Nutr. Ill: 325-335. 'j /, ... ",,' /

"'\ )

Von Ea, A.J.H., 1980. Food EvaluaUon, 7I~~aY in Enorgy

pp. 8 5 • t dj l. K • E • Mou nt, Metabolia ••

.Butterworth., London. J

,

", Van Middlekoop, J.H.; A.R. Kuit and A. Zegwa.rd, 1917.

Genetic 'actora in brQller fat depoaition. Growth

and Poultry Meat Production. Ed. K.N. Boor .. an and

B.J. Wilson. Brit. Poultry Sei. ltd, Edinburgh •

Vohra, P.; D.8. Cha.i and E.O. Oy.woye, 1982. ~Detèr.in.tion

il ~tJj ~&Q. ...

, , "

, '

, \' ,

J,

c

le

166

of m.tabolizab~. energy by a faat method. Poultry

Sci. 611 766-769.

Waibel, P.E., 1958. Effectivenes8 of unknown growth factors,

antibiotic and animal fat in turkey pou1t rations.

Pou1try Sei. 37: 1144-1149.

Waibe1, P.E., 1978. Studies on protein and energy

requiremente of turkeys 'during the growing per'iod.

pp. 143-154. Proc. ,39th Minnesota Nutr. Conf., ri"

Univ. Minneeota, St. Paul, MN. , Waibal, P.E., G. Deveg,owda and J. Palarski, 1977. Estimation

of the value of animal fat in diets for turkeys.

pp. 33-46. Proe. 38th Minnesota Nutr. Conf., -Univ.

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Wethli,vE. and J.P.H. Wease1e; 1973. The aasociation between

body fat content and thyroid activity, fead intake,

Maaa gain, feed conversion and final body maas in

growing chickens. Agroanimalia 5: 83r88.

Whitehea'a, C.C. and C. Fisher, 1975. The utilization of

various fats by turkeys of 'ldifferent ages. Brit • . (

Poultry SC1. 16: 481-485.

Whitehead, C.C. and H.D. Griffin, 1982. Plasma lipoptotein

concentration as .an indicator of fatness in

s <->- .... cc • ...,. ..... ~ ... ~ __

167

. ( broilera. Effect of age and dlet. Brlt. Poultry

Sci. 23.: 299-305.

Winchester, C.t. and H. Kle.lber, 1938. The effec't of

envlron.ental tellperature on mortallty, rate of

growth and feed utllization of food energy ln Wh.lte

Leghorn chicka. J. Agrlc. Rea. 57: 529-544.

Yscowitz, H., 1970.

fsed fats fro. che.lcal analysia. Poultry SCI. 49:

Eat.l .. atlon of\ lIetabol.lzable energy of (

1452 (abatr.).

Yacowitz, H.; R.D. Carter; J. Wyne and H.G. HcCartney, 1956.

Effact of vary.lng protein and fat le"els .ln 8

finiahing ration for turkey broilera. Poultry SCL

35: 227-229.

Zelenka, J., 1968. Influence of age of the chieken on the

metabolizable energy values of poultry diets.

Brit. Poultry Sei. 9: 135-142.

,

( , t

r , '

-,

168

(

YI • • '~D

( ,

(

• ,

i " , i

~

''''''r-~~!'I'1'\.''''"··''l'''~I<II'III:.,'II!!'J'I''''~~~~'''~·

,..,' ~

j

APPel) 1 XI. Leve 1 of sI gn If 1 canee - F -tes t probeb Il! ty ve' 11ft. Exper IlIIent 1

~

(

\

0-3

Sex (S) ~

Fat (F) .0188-

Energy progrM (E) .0001*·

Assi gned calorie

value of addad fat' .0001--ExF

E )( S

S x F ExFxS

"'.05 Hp .01,

..

.0211·

•

~

/----~ ..... -/

Feed consUllPtlOfl )

3-6 6-7 0-7

~ .0095- .6238 .0024**

.0001- .000'·* .0001*·

.0001- .0001** .0001**

.().451· .191" .1 ().4'

1

Body .. Iaht

Ag. en)

,3 6 7

.000'**

.020'*

.0001··

.0001!·

.7726

.6003

.9912

.9116

~}

\

.000'-

.004'-

.()()294t*

.0002**

.1202

.8566

.1119

.9041

\

"

.OOO'*-

.0(5).*

.0001·*

.Oenl**

.2889

.61.5

.8665

.'7U

)

.5669

.0001*·

.0001**

.)9"

-f

FeedI~ln

,. .. lIl1l f.t

~t

•

6"';pL 6 1

.ooot*· .000'·* .6149 .")4 .00Jl .1J9O

.0001·* .0001** .0616 .000'··

.0001" .0001*· .0001** .0090"

.000)·· .0]8')· .5'!Sa .202"

.1"2 .16!J1

.1620 .2"'

.9821 .1'14

.... ~

01 ID ,

~ ..::-,.....

~ ry

N'fEN>IX 2. Leve 1 of s}gnlfleance - F-t .. t probabltl1y v.tues, ~t ..... , 2

, AlHlaalneJ ,et r-r· .... 'oo Body .. Ight

Age (wIlL)

FeecIIge'" -,-y 0-3 3-6 6-7 0-7 , 6 7 , 6 7 6 .,

~

.0001- .0001- .0001-~

.0001- .0001-

.0072- .2166 .0122* .0lO()lt .4302 .006'- .0012·· .7074 .0935 .OSZ2* .000'" .14:JO ~

at.ln progr_ (Pl .0361· .2245 .3419.:.:.:......,.165 .9684 .0661 .2994 .1Il0l .0GeU·· .0041- .0101 .00»"

Energy pl"Ogl"'_ (E). .0936 .0567 .0001·· .0082- .4302 .1449 .5128 .99" .9411 .0"" .ZO!II .'791 PxE .'311 .~54 .50" .4175 .2760 • .3210 .61103 .5361 .6635 .1578 .te04 .9.

PxF c ."65 .0628 .2896 .0570 .5"2 .7162 .4968 .9456 .~. '.0012- .2919 .0149

PxS .3499 ."50 .8759 .1]91 .0557

ExF .7700 .4037 .0022- .0921 .2176 .0407* .16lB • "14 .10:57 .9046 .9843 .1997

ExS .43'9 .7171 .9672 .1024 ••• ,0

~~ FxS .3068 .5861 .904' P x'E;F .3696 .8177 .0442* .'349 .7438 .2190 .0229·_

PxExS .8896 .1740 .4906

.nn .1122

.94" - .2350 .0501 .1206 .3312

.0261* .0'0 PxFxS .8662 .8146 .2748 .001"'· .'791

ExFxS .8506 .3312 .7114 .:5844 .11253 j

PxExFxS .1247 ."94 .8501 .':S03 .9274

~

"P .05

+IIp .01 \

-~

.. :"'''5 ... OJ-'l.~,....- ..... I> ........... ·~,"-, < ~_ .. u....",..._""",,"'''''''h_

Il;: titll UlII!l\4t.eU .'1I'C~1oi!;}r.~""J·- .... "' ... ,_~"-- ..... ~."""".

_.~ .<

,-.. /" ~

1. APPENDIX 3. Level of slgnfflcance - F-test probêlllty y.I ..... Elcpwl..m )

Body .Ight ~ . FMd c:onsUlllptlon Body .. Iiht geln F"" .. 'n ..... ... 1 tet

\ Ao- ",II)

0-3 3-6 6-7 0-7 l 6 7 6-7 l 6 1 6-1 6 1

$ex (S) .0001" .0001" .0001·· .000'" .000'" .000'" 't .1 Fat CF) .000'" .3250 .0003" .0063- .0016" .0946 • 016'· .6151 .9981 .72A .92el .4061 .... .1054

Proteln .. P"'- (P) .1954 .0001·· .0044" .000.·· .0021" .000'" ~ ... 9V

<

(1)r0gl"~ (E) .:n14 .1081 .0001·· .2717 .8712 .6996 .1829 .44:5 .64169 .,''" .t412 .0115 .0lI0 .2QI, S x P .1362 .8711 .84tI .,"" .MOS

S x E .2783 , .1292 .03'52* .1639 .649. ,.n11

5 x F .8019 .8791 .2696 .2691 .... ,. .9111

PxE .0198* .1946 .6950 .11'51 .292" ."", .1'" ~ -PxF .4210 .1166 .1126 .S489 .11'11 .402l .0,.,,. •

E)CF .9012 .2004 .'784 .1946 .8236 • 8108 .'013 ... no .71 .... .]192 .622' .IMO .9596 .7J1O 0 $)(PxE ~ .2661 .3722 .2tOi .]0215 .I!IOJ

S.x Px F .cm?- . ., .0971 .7050 .. , ... , PxExF .5197 .17eC» .2769 .3021 .... 2

SXElCF .'850 .6068 .0130 .2939 .... . .... 01 SxPxExF .7729 .,., , .0000

~ 1 \ .0.,

~ ~ "'.05 Hp .Ot· • .... ...., ....

\ .~

-,

, <

1 , ~

c

C-"

172

"DDIX 4. Bartl.tt' a -t_t of tx.ogen.lty of var t .. cea -OIICJ •• tatDltub1. energy valu •• obtalned '"ith 1 kg "'011 •• l'_tricted' to a 2S 91'- .eal or fee! ad lib ltwa, .pel' 1_.t S

ME df ·1st ...

r .. tricted AMB 18

reatricted AMB 18 n

reatrlcted TMB 18

re.tricted TMB 18 n

~ 1ibitœa AME 19

~ lib itl1ll ~ 19

~ libitUll '!'ME 19

~ libitum '!'ME 19 n

2 Ex

298774

336522

259922

269135

83769

90497

77802, !

84897 ,

TorALS 148 1501318

POOLING

2 • 2, 2

ln. (n-1) ln a l/(n-]J

16599 9.72 174.91

18696 9.84 117.05

'14\40 9.58 112.40

14952 9.61 173.03

4408 8.39 159.43

4763 8.47 160.90

4094 8.32 158.03 -4468 8.40 159.69

1335.44

10144 9.22 1365.25

.0556

.0556

.0556

.0556

.0526

.0526

.0526

.0526

.4328

X 2 - 29. 81 w i th 7 df

corr~cted >ê • 29.8'l/1..02 .29.23, signific4nt (p<.OOS)

! /

........

f -

..

"

, f

l t

f

1 t

i 1;

1

..,.-

~-

• St: r'""'

, J,

173

1

.... DIX 5 ... ~t.lett • t.t of tx.ogen.ltyof vul_ce •• ong aetabol iMble energy value. obtainecJ vith 1 kg brol1era , .. trlet.cS to • 25 gr .... al. or fee! .!ê lib lt-.., aper l •• t 6

re.trleted AMB 19 28~421

,e.trict.d AMB n 19 313095

r .. trlcted '1'MB 19 664739

r .. trleted TMB n 19 408376

ad libtta AME ,22 52415 -.!!! 1 ib l!: UIIl AMEn 22 54259

.!!!" lib lta 'ftΠ22 91911

ad 1 ib ltUlll 'l'MB 22 69282 - ,A

TorALS 164 1943498

POŒ.ING

2 •

15233

16479

2 ln •

9.63

9.71

34986 10.46

21493 9.98

2383 7.78

2466 7.81

4178 8.34

3149 8.05

(n-l)1n.2

l/(n-l)

182.97 .0526

184.49 .'0526

198.74 .0526

189.62 1

.0526

171.16 .0455

171.82 .0455\

183.48 .0455 1

177.1'0 .0455

1459.38 .3924

11851 9.38 lS38.3A

x 2 • 78.96 with '1 df

co~rected x 2 ,. 78.9611.02 .77.40; significant (P<.OOS)

"

, , (

J ,= t' P Pi 'A'.AS vs: ;:1 #zp l ::::;.t; Ct Je

) / ~,

\

, III

_~L __ ~ _____ ----

114

APPENOIX ,. Equation. u.ad ta calcul.ta .etabolizabl. anergy,

n1 trolan ratantion, 'at diga.tibilty and nat

anerg, 'or production

AMEs (GE f x fI) - Yf/ rI. whare

GE,. groaa anargy 0' tha .'.ad

FI • 'aed int.ke . ( Yf= enargy voided as exersta

AMEnsAME - (NR/FI) x 8220 ke~l/kg. whara

NR= nitro~an ratainad

FI = 'aad, intaka

TME= (GEf x rI) - (Yf - y )/ FI, wher. u GE

f: grosa anèrgy of ~ha -raad

FI = reed intaka

Yf = enargy voidad aa axereta in

-y u = enargy v9ided aa axereta in

rad bird

unfed bird

™En= THE - (~'f -NRul rI) x 8220 ~cal/kg; where

NRt = nitrogen retained by the 'ed bird

'NRu= nitrogen retained by the unfed bird

rI :: feed intake

ANR: NR/NI x lOG; whare

-1

r',

/ ,

1 ... 1

10

1 j

, '

Ci •

Na. nitrogan r.t.in~4

NI. nitro,an int.k • .,

175

NRta nitrogan ret.inad by blrd r.d th. ta.t dl.t

NIc. nitrogan ratainad by b!rd red th. control di.t

containing 01 eruda protein

NI = nitrogen intake or bird on the taat diet

AFO.LR/ LI x 100; whare

L~= rat rat.inad by the bird /

LI. rat int.ka by the ~ird

TFD. (LRt - LI\: > / LI x 100; whera

LRe' fat ratained by the bird red ~ di~t .

LRc = fat retained by the bird fed a control diet·

containiqg DI/fat

LI = f.t intak. of' bird fed the t •• t diat

N~ = (ER f -ERi ( FI xCE f > x CEt J where

').'

E,Rf = careaaa energy ratainad at tha end of the

'axperiment

E~ = carcass energy retained at the start of ~he

experiment

FI = fead intake

GEf = gro88 energy of· the fsed

. (. .

J

.,

0.