Unlocking the Power of ChatGPT and AI in Testing - A Real-World Look, present...
Hernandez.Atlanta080107.Mz
1. Dietary Protein and Energy Effects on Broiler
Live Performance to 42 Days
F. I. L. Hernandez1, D. R. Korver2, R. A. Renema2,
M. J. Zuidhof1
1
Alberta Agriculture and Food, Agriculture Research Division, AB. Canada
2
Agricultural Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, AB. Canada
2. The Problem
• Story of the fat chicken – Producers were paid
for BW and this resulted in carcasses with high
fat content
4. Materials and Methods
• 3,700 Chicks
• 2 x 2 x 3 x 5 factorial experiment
– 2 sexes
– 2 prestarter nutrient densities (High and Low)
• Prestarters were nested within Sex x ME x DBP
– 3 levels of metabolizable energy (ME) - 94, 97 and 100
% of COBB recommendations for maximizing growth
and FCR
– 5 levels of dietary balanced protein (DBP) – 85, 92.5,
100, 107.5 and 115 % of recommendations
5. Materials and Methods
• Parameters measured
– Body weight
– Feed intake
– Carcass yield (breast, wings, legs)
• Statistical analysis
– Data were analyzed as a four way factorial using the
MIXED procedure of SAS (2003)
6.
7. Hypothesis
• High energy diets increase deposition as fat
• High protein diets increase lean meat
• Decrease dietary protein reduce yield
• Decrease dietary protein increase feed intake
10. Effect of ME on 42 d BW
2.7
BW (kg)
2.5
2.3
94.0% 97.0% 100.0%
Energy (% of recommended)
P=0.40
11. Ef fect of DBP on 42 d BW
a a a
2.7
b b
BW (kg)
2.5
2.3
85.0% 92.5% 100.0% 107.5% 115.0%
Protein (% of recommended)
P=0.0005
12. BW (42 d)
a
2.9
BW (kg)
2.7
b
2.5
2.3
Males Females
Sex
P<0.0001
13. Body Weight (42 d) Males
Females
Energy (% of recommended)
3.1
2.9
BW (kg)
94%
2.7
97%
2.5
100%
2.3
85.0%
92.5%
100.0%
107.5%
115.0%
DBP*ME*Sex P=0.003
ME*Sex P=0.025
Protein (% of recommended) DBP*Sex P=0.0003
14. Feed Intake (0 - 42 d)
6100.0
ab a ab
b b
4100.0
Feed (g)
2100.0
100.0
85.0% 92.5% 100.0% 107.5% 115.0%
Protein (% of recommended)
P=0.04
15. Effect of Energy on Feed Intake
6100
4100
Feed (g)
2100
100
94.0% 97.0% 100.0%
Energy (% of recommended)
P=0.17
16. Effect of Sex on Feed Intake to 42 d
6100.0
a
b
4100.0
Feed (g)
2100.0
100.0
Males Females
Sex
P<0.0001
17. Feed Intake Males
Females
Energy (% of recommended)
6100
Feed (g)
4100 94%
2100 97%
100%
100
85.0%
115.0%
92.5%
100.0%
107.5%
DBP*ME*Sex P=0.027
ME*Sex P=0.849
Protein (% of recommended) DBP*Sex P=0.014
18. Feed Conversion Ratio (11 to 42d)
2.5
2.061 a
2.0 1.915 b
1.5
FCR
1.0
0.5
0.0
Females Sex Males
Sex P<0.0001
19. Feed Conversion Ratio (11 to 42d)
2.5 Males
Females
abc a ab abcd
bcd
2.0
1.5
FCR
1.0
0.5
0.0
85.0% 92.5% 100.0% 107.5% 115.0%
Protein (% of recommended)
Sex*DBP P<0.0650
20. Effect of Dietary Balance Protein on
Carcass Yield
2500
ab a
bc bc c EBW
2000
Other
Weight (g)
1500
ab a bc bc c Wings
1000
Legs
500
c bc ab a a Breast
0
85.0% 92.5% 100.0% 107.5% 115.0%
Protein (% of recommended) Evis-BW P=0.0076
Wings P<0.0001
Breast P<0.0001
21. Breast Yield
510
a
500 a
ab
Weight (g)
490 bc
c
480
470
460
85.0% 92.5% 100.0% 107.5% 115.0%
Protein (% of recommended)
P<0.0001
22. Carcass Yield
2500
2000
Other
Weight (g)
1500
ab b a Wings
1000
Legs
500
a ab b Breast
0
94.0% 97.0% 100.0%
Energy (% of recommended)
Wings P=0.0860
Breast P=0.0811
23. Carcass Yield
2500 a Ev-BW
b
2000
Other
Weight (g)
1500
1000
b a Wings
500 Legs
Breast
0
Females Males
Sex Evis-BW P<0.0001
Wings P=0.0018
Breast P=0.0759
24. Effect of Prestarter on Carcass Yield
2500
a b EBW
2000
Weight (g)
1500
1000 Wings
Legs
500
Breast
0
High Low
Prestarter Evis-BW P=0.0118
Wings P=0.0748
Breast P=0.9251
25. Feed Intake to 11 d
400
341 335 337 326 Males
300 Females
Feed (g/bird)
200
100
0
High Low PS P=0.14
Prestarter Sex P=0.09
PS*Sex P=0.66
26. Nutrient Intakes to 11 d
100 1200
a
b 1000
Energy Intake (kcal)
80
Protein intake (g)
800
60 a
CP
b 600
ME
40
400
20 200
0 0
High Low CP ME
Prestarter PS <.0001 0.0002
Sex 0.0879 0.0882
PS*Sex 0.6661 0.6586
27. Conclusions
• High prestarter increased BW at 42 days
– 2.73 vs 2.66 kg
• Breast yield increased with increasing DBP
– 1 g of breast meat for every 1.5% increase in DBP
• Males were more efficient than females
– 1.91 vs 2.06 FCR
29. Acknowledgments
• Alberta Livestock Industry Development Fund
• Agriculture and Food Council
• Poultry Industry Council
• University of Alberta
• Alberta Agriculture and Food
• Cobb-Vantress
• Alberta Chicken Producers
• Maple Leaf