EFFECT OF SKIP-A DAY FEEDING REGIME AT DIFFERENT PERIODS ON BROILER CHICKEN PERFORMANCE

Makled et al., 2004.

The 4th

Scientific Conference of Agricultural Science, Assiut, Egypt, December, 901-912.

901

EFFECT OF SKIP-A DAY FEEDING REGIME AT DIFFERENT PERIODS ON BROILER

CHICKEN PERFORMANCE

Makled M.N., El-Sagheer M., and Mohamed M.A.,

Department of Animal and Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Assiut,

Egypt.

ABSTRACT One hundred and eighty one-day old broilers (Arbor Acres) were used to study the

effect of different procedures of skip-a-day feeding regime on broiler ferformance. Four groups

were used: Group 1 (control) birds were fed ad libitum from 0 to 42 days of age; Group 2 birds

were fed ad libitum for the first three weeks, then the feed was removed for one day every week

until the end of the experiment; Group 3 feed was removed for one day every week for the first

three weeks, then the birds were fed ad libitum up to the end of the experiment; and Group 4 the

feed was removed for one day every week from the first week until the end of the experiment.

The results obtained could be summarized as follows:

At marketing age (6 weeks), the control birds had heaviest body weight (BW) of all feed restricted

birds (P<0.05). Also, the overall mean indicated that the control birds showed the highest (P<0.05)

daily weight gain of all other feed restricted groups. The overall mean feed consumption (FC) was

decreased significantly (P<0.05) in restricted groups when compared to the control. However, there

was no difference among all groups in the overall mean of feed conversion ratio (FCR).

Broilers fed ad libitum had the heaviest (P<0.05) carcass weight of all feed restricted birds.

Although there were no significant differences between ad libitum and restricted fed birds in feet

and shank (legs), neck, drumsticks, femurs, breast and wings weights, the ad libitum birds had

significantly heavier (P<0.05) back weights than the birds of groups 2 and 4. Restricted fed birds

had significantly greater (P<0.05) blood shed than ad libitum birds. It was found that broilers of

control and group3 had significantly (P<0.05) less liver weights than groups 2 or 4. Birds of groups

2 and 4 had significantly greater (P<0.05) giblets weights than birds of the control group. Heart

weight of the control birds was significantly greater (P<0.05) than birds of group2. However, there

were no significant differences between control and all treatment groups in proventriculus, spleen,

lungs, intestines, gizzard, and kidneys weights.

Birds of group 1 had significantly higher fat deposition in drumstick, femur, and breast muscles

than all restricted treatments (P<0.05). There were n differences between broilers fed ad libitum and

restricted birds in keel and shank length. It was proved that feed restriction had no effect on

mortality rate (MR) but reduced leg problems and abnormalities. Red blood cells (RBCs) increased

significantly (P<0.05) in restricted fed birds than the birds fed ad libitum. Hemoglobin (Hb)


The 4th


902

concentrations and heamatocrit (HC) were decreased significantly (P<0.05) in ad libitum birds as

compared to restricted fed birds, with the highest concentrations in groups 2 and 3. Also, HC

showed a similar trend as that of Hb.

It was proved that restricting feed from 4-6 weeks of age was more economically efficient than

restricting feed from 0-3, 0-6 weeks of age or than feeding ad libitum.

In general, it could be concluded that although feeding ad libitum program resulted in higher BW,

but economically was less efficient than feed restriction programs. The most suitable feeding

program was by using ad libitum feeding from 0-3 followed by skip-a-day from 4-6 weeks of age.

This program is also recommended because it resulted in a less fat product which matches with the

consumer desire and health.

(Keywords: broilers performance, skip-a-day restriction, fat deposition, economic efficiency).

INTRODUCTION It was generally assumed that when broilers eat more, they have greater

body weights at marketing age. However, it should be noted that feed is the most expensive item in

broiler production. Also, broiler chickens at marketing age may contain more body fat than protein

on a dry weight basis. Thus, the desirable feed strategy would be to produce chickens with

maximum lean body mass, minimum feed intake, and maximum final BW (Summers et al., 1990).

One method to reduce the cost of feed and to control obesity is to restrict the feed in the

early life of the birds. Limiting feed intake depresses growth in broiler chickens during the period of

restriction, but the reduced growth may be compensated for upon refeeding. Hence, compensatory

growth is defined as the rate of growth exceeding that normally observed in the same breed of

chicken at the same age (Acar et al., 1995).

There are several methods of feed restriction such as skip one or two days feeding program,

quantitative feed restriction, feed withdrawal, using diets deficient in protein or amino acids,

reducing energy in diets, feeding on diets high in fiber, or using of distasteful feedstuffs in diets

(Plavnik and Hurwity, 1985, 1989; Fantana et al., 1992). Many benefits were observed when feed

restriction programs were used in broiler production. Some of these benefits are improving feed

efficiency, reducing fat deposition in carcass, reducing mortality especially from sudden death

syndrome, reducing ascites and leg disorders (Urdaneta and Leeson, 2002). Also, it is widely used

in rearing turkey and laying breeder hens to control their body weights at sexual maturity (Crouch et

al., 2002).

Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine and compare the effect of skip-a-day

feeding regime at different periods on broiler chickens performance and fat deposition in their

carcass.


The 4th


903

MATERIALS AND METHODS The present work was carried out at the Research Poultry Farm

of Animal and Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, from 5

December 2001 to 15 January 2002. In this experiment, it was planned to study the effect of

different schedules of skip-a-day feeding on performance, carcass criteria, and some blood

parameters of broiler chicks.

One hundred and eighty one-day old broilers (Arbor Acres) were used in this study. All

chicks were wing banded, individually weighed, and randomly distributed into 4 experimental

groups, (control and 3 treatments). The four experimental groups were as follows: Group 1 (control)

birds were fed ad libitum from 0 to 42 days of age; Group 2 birds were fed ad libitum for the first

three weeks, and then feed was removed for one day every week until the end of the experiment;

Group 3 feed was removed for one day every week for the first three weeks, and then the birds were

fed ad libitum until the end of the experiment; and Group 4 feed was removed for one day every

week from the first week until the end of the experiment. The first and second groups included three

replicates of ten chicks each, while the third and fourth groups included 6 replicates of 10 chicks

each. Each replicate was kept in a partition of 2 square meter provided with deep litter of wheat

straw (8 - 10 cm). The chicks were maintained under continuous lighting program where at water

available all time. All birds were housed on a floor pens which were provided with suitable number

of fans to maintain adequate temperature and good ventilation.

Table 1. Composition of the experimental diets.

Finisher Grower Starter Ingredients, %

71.45 66.20 60.47 Corn

18.13 21.04 25.74 Soybean meal

6.30 9.29 10.41 Concentrates

0.75 0.45 0.38 Bone meal

0.25 0.25 0.00 Limestone

0.12 0.00 0.00 Salt

3.00 3.00 3.00 Oil

Calculated analysis*:

2985 2960 2908 ME, Kcal/Kg

17.86 19.79 21.84 Crude protein, %

5.93 5.78 5.24 Crude fat, %

0.87 0.94 1.02 Calcium, %

0.43 0.47 0.49 Phosphorus, %

5.53 5.64 5.72 Crude fiber, %

*Calculated on dry matter basis and according to NRC (1994).

Chicks received starter diet till two weeks of age, grower diet from three to four weeks of

age and finisher diet from five to six weeks of age. The composition and proximate analysis of the

experimental diets are shown in Table 1.The parameters studied in this experiment were as follows:

BW, FC, FCR, carcass yield and carcass parts, different body organs, deposition of fat in edible


The 4th


904

parts, bone measurements, leg disorders, mortality, some blood parameters, and economic

efficiency.

Body weight and feed consumption: Birds of each treatment were weighed individually every

week. Also, FC of each replicate was determined weekly.

Feed conversion ratio: Mean FCR was calculated weekly by dividing total feed consumed in a pen

by the total BWG of the birds in that pen.

Carcass criteria and blood parameters: At 42-day old, 12 birds per group were selected as a

representative sample (three per replicate, around the average body weight of the replicate),

slaughtered and blood samples were taken to measure blood parameters. HC, Hb and RBCs were

estimated using blood analysis device (Cell DYN 1100).

The internal organs were removed from the body and absolute weight of heart, liver, empty

gizzard, proventriculus, spleen, kidneys and lungs were weighed. The empty gastrointestinal tract

including the pancreas was recorded. The head was removed at the occipital bone, feet and shanks

were removed at hock joints, wings were removed at shoulder joints, neck was removed close to the

shoulder and then weight individually. Breast, femurs and drumsticks were also weighed as separate

carcass parts. The back was separated from breast along the vertebral column. The breast weight

included the bones of sternum and ribs. Shank and sternum bones length were measured to the

nearest 0.1 cm. After chilling at 9 °C, the abdominal fat, neck fat, gizzard fat and subcutaneous fat

were removed and weighed.

Mortality rate (MR): Dead birds were recorded daily, and then MR was calculated.

Fat deposition: Fat content in breast, femurs, and drumsticks was estimated in representative

samples according to the procedure of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC,

1987) .

Economic efficiency: Feed cost per bird was calculated by multiplying mean FC per bird by the

cost of 1 kg of diet. Bird price was calculated by multiplying mean bird weight by price of 1 kg of

live weight. Net revenue was calculated by subtracting feed cost from bird price. Economic

efficiency was estimated by dividing net revenue by feed cost.

Statistical analysis: Data collected were subjected to ANOVA applying the General Linear Models

Procedure of SAS software (SAS institute, version 6.12, 1996). Duncan’s Multiple range test

(1955) was used to detect the significant differences between means of the different groups.


The 4th


905

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Body weight (BW): Effect of feed restriction on BW is presented in Table (2). For the first four

weeks of age, birds of groups 3 and 4 had significant lower BW (P<0.05) than birds of groups 1 and

2. However, at 5 and 6 wks of age all restricted fed groups (2, 3 and 4) had similar BW, but

significantly less than group 1. The reduction in BW was 10.87, 19.33, 21.22 and 14.21% at 1, 2, 3

and 4 weeks of age, respectively, for birds in group 3 when compared to group 1. Also, reduction in

BW was 9.98, 14.06, 17.14 and 13.08% at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks of age, respectively for birds in

group 4 as compared to their controls. At age 5 and 6 weeks, the control birds had the heaviest BW

of all restricted birds (P<0.05). At marketing age (6 weeks), the reduction in BW was 3.6, 8.55 and

10% for groups 2, 3 and 4, respectively, compared to the control group.

The reduction in restricted fed birds BW may be due mainly to the decrease of FC or may be

due to the decrease in utilization of nutrients result from consumption of a relatively high quantity

of feed during a short period of time after a feed withdrawal period as reported for protein

utilization in force fed chicks (Nir et al., 1979) or may be due to the releasing of essential nutrients

during the off-feed period through catabolism of body reserves. Urdaneta and Lesson (2002)

reported that growth rate of broilers is related to feed intake. These findings also strengthen what

previously stated by O'sullivan et al., (1992) that improvement in BW of birds is highly correlated

to FC. Also, they are in agreement with previous reports of Sorensen and Kestin (1999), Acar et al.,

(1995), Fontana et al., (1992) and Fattori et al., (1991).

Table 2. Effect of feed restriction on live body weight (g).

Group4 Group3 Group2 Group1 Age

(in weeks)

43.8±0.4 43.3±0.4 43.7±0.5 43.0±0.5 At hatch

117.0±2.6b 116.1±3.4

b 127.3±4.0

a 128.7 ± 4.

a 1

243.8±5.2b 233.0±6.2

b 272.6±10.0

a 278.1±8.4

a 2

416.6±8.0b 402.6±9.5

b 481.3±15.4

a 488.0±12.62

a 3

790.9±11.9b 783.1±2

b 855.3±23.7

a 894.4±20.2

a 4

1202.3±17.3b 1206.0±23.5

b 1258.0±33.5

b 1339.7±34.0

a 5

1501.3±19.4b 1521.4±27.5

b 1563.8±35.4

b 1651.4±37.5

a 6

a,b and c means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05). .

2. Body weight gain (BWG): Effect of feed restriction on body weight gain (BWG) is presented in

Table (3). From 1 to 5 weeks of age, chicks of group 1 gained the highest weight of all restricted

treatments. Chicks of groups 1 and 2 gained significantly more weight (P<0.05) than those of

groups 3 and 4 from 1 to 3 weeks of age, because they were consuming feed ad libitum. At 4 weeks

of age, birds of group 1 gained significantly more weight than those of groups 2 and 4, while no

differences between group 1 and 3, because chicks of group 3 were allowed to feed ad libitum from


The 4th


906

3 to 6 weeks of age. Thereafter, there were no significant differences among all treatments at ages 5

and 65 weeks, which indicate some growth compensation for restricted birds.

Daily BWG decreased at 6 weeks of age in all groups as compared with 5 weeks of age. This

decrease in BWG may be due to the extreme high temperature occurred at week 6 of age, (Table 2).

The overall mean indicates that the control birds showed a significantly higher daily weight gain

than the other restricted fed groups.

3. Feed consumption (FC): FC as affected by feed restriction is presented in Table (4). Broilers in

groups 3 and 4 consumed significantly less (P<0.05) feed than the control birds at 1, 2 and 3 weeks

of age. There were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 in FC till week 3 of age.

Thereafter, FC for birds in group 2 decreased significantly (P<0.05) compared to the control birds

till week 5 of age. Birds in groups 3 and 4 consumed numerically less feed than the control at weeks

4 and 5, but the differences were not significant.

Means FC decreased at 6 weeks of age as compared to 5 weeks of age. This decrease may

be due to the extreme high temperature occurred at 6 weeks of age. The overall means of FC

decreased significantly (P<0.05) by about 8.25, 7.67, and 11.04 % for groups 2, 3, and 4,

respectively, as compared with the control. Some workers found similar results such as Owings and

Sell (1980), Acar et al., (1995), Mario et al., (1990), and Fontana et al., (1992).

Table 3. Effect of feed restriction on daily weight gain (g/bird/d).

Group4 Group3 Group2 Group1 Age (in weeks)

10.5±0.4b 10.4±0.5

b 11.9±0.6

a 12.2±0.6

a 1

18.1±0.5b 16.7±0.6

b 20.8±1.0

a 21.3±0.7

a 2

24.7±0.5b 24.2±0.7

b 29.8±1.0

a 30.4±0.7

a 3

53.5±1.0b 54.4±1.2

ab 53.4±1.5

b 57.6±1.6

a 4

58.3±2.0 60.4±1.5 57.5±2.3 63.6±3.2 5

42.7±1.7 45.1±2.0 43.7±1.5 44.5±1.6 6

34.7±0.5b 35.2±0.7

b 36.2±0.9

b 38.3±0.9

a Overall mean

a,b and c means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

Table 4. Effect of feed restriction on feed consumption (g/bird/day).


12.7±0.7bc

12.1±0.5c 14.9±0.5

ab 16.4±1.7

a 1

24.6±1.3b 23.3±0.8

b 30.6±4.0

a 30.8±0.7

a 2

39.0±1.1b 36.8±0.8

b 48.3±1.3

a 48.8±1.8

a 3

95.3±1.9ab

95.5±2.4ab

92.0±1.6b 100.5±2.1

a 4

115.7±4.1ab

125.3±4.3a 109.3±3.5

b 128.8±1.8

a 5

99.4±2.9 108.5±4.0 103.8±1.0 109.6±4.2 6

64.5±0.4b 66.9±1.4

b 66.5±1.0

b 72.5±0.4

a Overall mean


4. Feed conversion ratio (FCR): The effect of feed restriction on FCR is presented in Table (5). No

significant differences were found between restricted fed broilers and those fed ad libitum at all

ages except at 6 weeks of age. At 6 weeks, groups 2 and 4 had significantly better (P<0.05) FCR


The 4th


907

than their control. Group 2 had better FCR than the control birds, but the difference was not

significant. Similar results were found by Sorensen and Kestin (1999), Plavnik and Hurwitz (1985)

and Plavnik et al., (1986).

Table 5. Effect of feed restriction on feed conversion ratio (kg feed/ kg gain).


1.24 ± 0.01 1.25 ± 0.09 1.32 ± 0.01 1.26 ± 0.06 1

1.38 ± 0.00 1.39 ± 0.03 1.43 ± 0.02 1.45 ± 0.00 2

1.54 ± 0.01 1.55 ± 0.05 1.61 ± 0.00 1.61 ± 0.01 3

1.79 ± 0.08 1.80 ± 0.04 1.72 ± 0.00 1.81 ± 0.05 4

1.98 ± 0.03 2.11 ± 0.06 1.90 ± 0.01 2.13 ± 0.21 5

2.36 ± 0.04b 2.41 ± 0.04

ab 2.35 ± 0.02

b 2.53 ± 0.04

a 6

1.87±0.03 1.91±0.05 1.84±0.01 2.01±0.23 Overall mean a,b and c means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

The improvement in FCR noted with the use of early feed restriction may be due to reduced

maintenance requirements and perhaps related to a decrease in basal metabolic rate (Zubair and

Leeson, 1994) associated with a smaller BW during early growth or probably derived from

reduction in energy waste. Plavnik and Hurwitz (1985) reported that the specific energy needs for

maintenance may be decreased during feed restriction.

5. Carcass yield and carcass parts: Effects of feed restriction on carcass yield and carcass parts are

shown in Table (6). Broilers fed ad libitum had a significant (P<0.05) heavier carcass weight than

those of restricted fed birds. This is expected since ad libitum birds had the heaviest BW. Similarly,

Urdaneta and Leeson (2002) found that birds fed ad libitum had the heaviest (P<0.05) carcass

weights as compared to feed restricted birds. Although there were no significant differences in neck,

drumsticks, femurs, breast and wings weights, the ad libitum birds had significantly heavier

(P<0.05) back weights than the birds of groups 2 and 4.

Restricted fed birds had significantly greater (P<0.05) blood shed than ad libitum

birds. This may be due to increased blood pressure in restricted fed birds in relation to the increased

secretion of adrenalin, nor-adrenalin and cortisone hormones when glucose level decreased as a

result of fasting. Bartov et al., (1988) reported that plasma corticosterone levels were 13.9 to 34.2%

higher in fasted birds than un-fasted birds. Also they observed that plasma glucose levels increased

after refeeding.

6. Body organs: Effect of feed restriction on body organs weights is presented in Table (7). It was

found that broilers fed ad libitum and those restricted from 0 to 3 weeks (group3) had significantly

(P<0.05) less liver weights than birds restricted from 3 to 6 and 0 to 6 weeks (groups 2 and 4).

Restricted fed birds from 4 to 6 and from 0 to 6 weeks had significantly greater (P<0.05) giblets

weights than birds fed ad libitum. Heart weight was significantly greater (P<0.05) in birds fed ad


The 4th


908

libitum than birds restricted fed from 4 to 6 weeks. However, there were no significant differences

between control and all treatment groups in proventriculus, spleen, lungs, intestines, gizzard, and

kidneys weights. These results in disagreement with those of Susbilla et al., (1994) and Moalai et

al., (2002).

Table 6. Effect of feed restriction on carcass yield and carcass parts weights

as percentage of live body weight.

Carcass parts Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4

Live BW (g) 1681.25±2a 1551.42±2

b 1547.67±3

b 1506.83±2

b

Carcass weight (g) 1218.70±2a

1101.99±2b 1098.63±3

b 1062.23±2

b

Feet & shank 4.64±0.1 4.50±0.2 4.75±0.3 4.72±0.1

Head 2.51±0.1ab

2.44±0.1b

2.65±0.0a

2.61±0.0ab

Neck 8.25±0.3 8.85±0.3 8.59±0.3 8.48±0.2

Drumsticks 12.73±0.4 13.36±0.2 13.63±0.4 13.43±0.4

Femurs 15.42±0.5 14.89±0.4 14.92±0.3 15.29±0.6

Breast 24.08±0.7 23.74±0.6 23.42±0.5 24.05±0.5

Wings 11.40±0.2 11.30±0.3 11.74±0.2 11.33±0.3

Back 20.82±0.6a

19.49±0.7b 20.06±0.5

ab 19.18±0.5

b

Abdominal fat 2.29±0.3 2.00±0.2 1.80±0.2 2.08±0.1

Total fat 9.36±0.6 10.27±0.8 8.40±0.5 9.86±0.6

Skin 10.68±0.3 10.24±0.4 9.26±0.5 9.85±0.4

Blood 3.28±0.1b 3.85±0.2

a 4.21±0.1

a 3.77±0.1

a


Table 7. Effect of feed restriction on body organs weights as percentage of carcass weight.

Group4 Group3 Group2 Group1 Carcass parts

1506.83±23b

1547.67±28b 1551.42±23

b 1681.25±19

a Live BW (g)

1062.23±20b 1098.63±31

b 1101.99±19

b 1218.70±17

a Carcass weight (g)

70.49±0.70 70.90±1.19 71.04±67 72.51±0.80 Carcass percentage

0.57±0.02ab

0.57±0.02ab

0.52±0.03b

0.59±0.02a

Heart

2.97±0.12a 2.65±0.07

b 3.00±0.14

a 2.67±0.09

b Liver

0.51±0.02 0.55±0.03 0.50±0.03 0.49±0.02 Proventriculus

0.16±0.02 0.23±0.04 0.18±0.03 0.23±0.02 Spleen

0.54±0.02 0.52±0.03 0.48±0.02 0.53±0.02 Lungs

2.26±0.14 2.18±0.12 2.42±0.18 2.02±0.14 Gizzard

8.25±0.31a 7.64±0.23

ab 8.37±0.22

a 7.29±0.20

b Giblets

4.40±0.31 4.02±0.14 4.41±0.24 4.47±0.21 Intestine

0.76±0.05 0.71±0.02 0.71±0.02 0.73±0.04 Kidneys a,b and c means in the same row with different superscripts differ at (P<0.05).

7. Fat deposition: Effect of feed restriction on fat deposition in carcass is presented in Table (8). It

was found that birds of group 1 had significantly higher fat deposition in drumsticks, femurs, and

breast meat than birds of all restricted treatments. Group 2 had the lowest fat deposition in the three

studied parts of carcass. Group 3 had significantly lower fat deposition in drumsticks meat than

group 4.

It is clear that feed restriction significantly decreased fat deposition in carcass. Bockholt et al.,

(1994) reported that broiler chickens fed ad libitum likely consume at two or three times energy

greater than their maintenance needs, and so fat deposition is increased. Cohn (1963) stated that

when feed intake is in excess of the need for growth and maintenance, it is stored as fat. The


The 4th


909

reduction in carcass fat in restricted fed birds may also be due to increased lipogenesis during

fasting period to cover their energy requirements.

8. Bone measurements: There were no significant differences (P<0.05) between broilers fed ad

libitum and restricted birds in keel and shank length (Table 8).

9. Mortality rate (MR): No deaths occurred among the different groups at all ages. Therefore, it

seems that feed restriction had no effect on MR in spite of its effect on BW.

10. Leg disorders: It was found that feed restriction reduced leg problems and abnormalities. About

6.67% of group 1 and about 1.67% of group 2 had leg disorders. These birds had no ability to walk.

This finding may be due to the positive correlation between tibial dyschondroplasia and BW

(Sorensen and Kestin, 1999). It has been mentioned that birds fed ad libitum gained more BW than

restricted birds, (Table 3), and the achieved fast growth rate may be associated with leg weakness.

These results are in agreement with previous studies reported by Sorensen and Kestin (1999), and

Classen and Riddell (1990).

11. Blood parameters: Effect of feed restriction on some blood parameters is presented in Table

(8). It was found that feed restriction induced some changes in the hematology of the birds. RBCs

increased significantly (P<0.05) in restricted fed birds than in those birds fed ad libitum. The

increase of RBCs was 22.87, 13.90, and 13 % for birds of groups 2, 3, and 4, respectively, as

compared to their controls. RBCs in birds of group 2 were significantly higher than all other

treatments. Hb concentration was decreased significantly (P<0.05) in ad libitum birds as compared

to restricted fed birds, with the highest concentration for groups 2 and 3. Also, HC followed the

same trend of Hb.

Table 8. Effect of feed restriction on carcass fat deposition, bone measurements

and blood parameters.

Parameter Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4

Fat deposition

Drumstick, % 15.38±0.60a

6.47±0.52d

8.59±0.25c

10.14±0.54b

Femur, % 26.63±1.93a

12.98±1.07c

13.60±0.47bc

16.79±0.72b

Breast, % 7.06±0.42a

3.96±0.26c

5.82±0.08b

5.60±0.15b

Bone measurements

Shank Length (cm) 5.59±0.07 5.58±0.11 5.64±0.10 5.51±0.08

Keal bone length (cm) 6.20±0.31

5.66±0.13 5.77±0.12 5.87±0.09

Blood parameters

Red blood cells (106/mm

3) 2.23±0.05

c 2.74±0.06

a 2.54±0.06

b 2.52±0.03

b

Heamatocrit (%) 24.00±0.37c

32.42±0.62a

31.92±0.63a

27.16±1.03b

Hemoglobin (g/100ml) 11.15±0.25c

15.00±0.16a

14.59±0.19a

12.74±0.05b

a,b and c means in the same row with different superscripts differ at (P<0.05).

These results are in agreement with those of Jones (1995) who found that RBCs increased (14

%) significantly (P<0.05) by imposition of the feed restriction. Also, Hb concentration was


The 4th


910

increased (P<0.05) significantly in feed restricted broilers and there was a tendency for HC to

increase in response to feed restriction.

The increase in RBCs, HC, and Hb in feed restricted birds may be due to dehydration during

feed restriction period, which increase plasma concentration. It is well known that increasing feed

intake leads to increase of water consumption. Thus, the restricted broilers may consume less water

during restriction period, which results in dehydration.

12. Economic efficiency (EE): Economic efficiency during feed restriction periods is presented in

Table (9). It was found that the mean feed cost per bird of group 1 was higher than that of all other

treatments, because the mean FC per bird was the highest in group 1. Also, the bird price of group

1 was the highest because it had the heaviest body weights. Net revenue was calculated by

subtracting feed cost from bird price, and it was found that birds of group 1 had the highest net

revenue value as compared with the restricted treatments.

The net revenue per bird values were 5.28, 5.08, 4.86, and 4.86 L.E for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4,

respectively. Although, group1 had the highest net revenue value, it had the lowest economic

efficiency. Economic efficiency was 1.77, 1.85, 1.77, and 1.83 for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4,

respectively. It can be observed from (Table 11), that groups 1 and 3 had the lowest economic

efficiency, however, group 2 had the highest value. Therefore, restricting feed from 3-6 weeks of

age was more economically efficient than restricting feed from 0-3 or 0-6.

Table 9. Economic efficiency at using feed restriction.

Item

Group1

Group2

Group3

Group4

Bird weight (kg) 1.651 1.563 1.521 1.501

Feed consumption (kg) 3.044 2.792 2.803 2.706

Feed Cost (L.E) 2.98 2.74 2.75 2.65

Bird price (L.E) 8.26 7.82 7.61 7.51

Net revenue per bird 5.28 5.08 4.86 4.86

Economic efficiency 1.77 1.85 1.77 1.83

Relative economic efficiency 100 % 104.52% 100 % 103.39 %

Price of 1 kg of diet = 0.98 L.E Cost of 1 kg of live body weight. = 5.00 L.E L.E = Egyptian pound.

GENERAL CONCLUSION From the results obtained in this experiment, it may be concluded

that although ad libitum feeding program resulted in higher BW, it was economically less efficient

than feed restriction programs. The most suitable feeding program was by using ad libitum feeding

from 0-3 followed by skip-a-day from 4-6 weeks of age. This program is also suggested because it

resulted in a less fat product which matches with the consumer desire and health.

REFERENCES

Acar, N., F. G. Sizemore, G. R. Leach, R. F. Wideman, JR., R. L. Owen, and G. F. Barbato, 1995. Growth of

broiler chickens in response to feed restriction regimens to reduce ascites. Poult. Sci., 74:833-843.

AOAC (1987). Official Methods of Analysis (13th

Ed.) Association of Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.


The 4th


911

Bartov, S., Bornsten, Y. Lev, M. Pines and J. Rosenberg, 1988. Feed restriction in broiler breeder pullets: skip-a-day

versus skip-two-days. Poult. Sci., 67:809-813.

Boekholt, H. A., Ph. Van Der Grinten, V. V. A. M. Schreus, M. J. N. Los, and C. P. Leffering, 1994. Effect of

dietary energy restriction on retention of protein, fat and energy in broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci.,

35:603-614.

Classen, H. L., and C. Riddell, 1990. Early growth rate and lighting effects on broiler skeletal disease. Poult. Sci., 69

(suppl. 1): 35. (abstr.).

Cohn, C., 1963. Feeding frequency and body composition. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110:395-409. Cited from Yu et al.,

1990.

Crouch, A. N., J. L. Grimes, V. L. Christensen, and K. K. Krueger, 2002. Effect of physical feed restriction during

rearing on large white turkey breeder hens: 1. Growth performance. Poult. Sci., 81:9-15.

Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple tests. Biometrics 11:42.

Fattori, T. R., H. R. Wilson, R. H. Harms, and R. D. Miles, 1991. Response of broiler breeder females to feed

restriction below recommended levels. 1. Growth and reproductive performance. Poult. Sci., 70:26-36.

Fontana, E. A., W. D. Weaver, JR., B. A. Watkins, and D. M. Denbow, 1992. Effect of early feed restriction on

growth, feed conversion, and mortality in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 71:1296-1305.

Jones, G. P. D., 1995. Manipulation of organ growth by early life food restriction: its influence on the development of

ascites in broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci., 36:135-142.

Mario, C., Cabel, and W. W. Park, 1990. Effect of different nutrient-restriction programs early in life on broiler

performance and abdominal fat content. Poult. Sci., 69:652-660.

Moalai, M., H. N. Moghaddam, and H. Kermanshahi, 2002. Effect of amino acid supplementation on broiler chicken

performance after severe early feed restriction.

Nir, I., I. Ptichi, and Z. Nitsan, 1979. Body composition, food utilization, intestinal adaptation and lipogenesis in meal

fed chicks. Poult. Sci., Ltd, PP. 391-403.

NRC (1994). National Research Council, Nutrient requirement of poultry. 19th

ed. National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

O'sullivan, N. P. E. A. Dunnington, and P. B. Siegel, 1992. Correlated responses in lines of chickens divergently

selected for fifty-six-day body weight. 1. Growth, feed intake and feed utilization. Poult. Sci., 71:590-597.

Owings, W. J., and J. L. Sell, 1980. Effect of restricted feeding from 6 to 20 weeks of age on reproductive

performance on turkeys. Poult. Sci., 59:77-81.

Plavnik, I., and S. Hurwitz, 1985. The performance of broiler chicks during and following a severe feeding restriction

at an early age. Poult. Sci., 64:348-355.

Plavnik, I., and S. Hurwitz, 1989. Effect of dietary protein, energy, and feed pelleting on the response of chicks to

early feed restriction. Poult. Sci., 68:1118-1125.

Plavnik, I., J. P. McMurtry, and R. W. Rosebrough, 1986. Effect of early feed restriction in broilers. 1. Growth

performance and carcass composition. Growth 50:68-76. Cited from Fontana et al., (1992).

SAS (1996). SAS User’s Guide, statistics (6.2th

ed.) Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Sorensen, G. P., and S. C. Kestin, 1999. Meal feeding is more effective than early feed restriction at reducing the

prevalence of leg weakness in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 78:949-955.

Summers, J. D., D. Spratt, and J. L. Atkinson, 1990. Restricted feeding and compensatory growth for broilers. Poult.

Sci., 69:1855-1861.

Susbilla, J. P., T. L. Frankel, G. Parkinson, and C. B. Gow, 1994. Weight of internal organs and carcass yield of

early food restricted broilers. Br. Poult. Sci., 35:677-685.

Urdaneta, M., and S. Leeson, 2002. Quantitative and qualitative feed restriction on growth characteristics of male

broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 81:679-688.

Zubair, A. K., and S. Leeson, 1994. Effect of early feed restriction and realimentation on heat production and changes

in sizes of digestive organs of male broilers. Poult. Sci., 73:529-538.

اإلنتاجي لكتاكيت اللحم منع التغذية لمدة يوم عند مراحل مختلفة علي األداء نظام ثيرتأ

محمد عبد الحميد محمد –محمد الصغير محمد –محمد نبيل مقلد

جامعة أسيوط -كلية الزراعة -قسم اإلنتاج الحيواني والدواجن

ا رم اب مدلفتتث تتل اتتا ابدل تت ابغتت ا لتت رغتتكد كاستتث دتتلم ك اب تت كدكتت م تتل ستتربر ايكرتتك ا كتتك 081استتدم اب ج تث األ بت دت :كداك م إب أكر ث جا ع كابدتاب ابقس م .أسار ع 6األ اء اي داجى بكداك م ابلل ل ك لدى ك

ك تتم بلتت اب تترع ب تت دغ تتث ابكدا ف هتتا تت اب ج تتث ابما تتث دتت 24ف هتتا دغ تتث ابكداك تتم إبتت لتت اب تترع تتل تتك تت لدتتى تتك


The 4th


912

اب ج تث ابمابمتث دت دصت ابمرث أسار ع األ ب ل ابدجكرث ر ها د دص ابكداك م ال كل أستر لدتى ها تث ابدجكرتث ابكداك م ال كل أستر مترل ابتمرث أستار ع األ بتى تل ابدجكرتث ر ت ها دت دغ تر ابكداك تم بلت اب ترع لدتى ها تث ابدجكرتث

. اب ج ث ابكار ث د دص ابكداك م ال كل أسر ل ك لدى ها ث ابدجكرث :أ كل دلم ص اب دا ج اب دلصل ل ها كابداب

.ك تا تل كتل اب جتا ع اب لت ذ ابغت اءل ج تث اب غت ا لدتى اب ترع ل جست أكرتكال ب( ل ابدس ق)أسار ع 6 ك اب تتا اب تتث بلكداك تتم اب غتت ا لدتتى اب تترع أكرتتك تتا تتل د ستت اب تتا اب تتث بكداك تتم كتتل اب جتتا ع د ستت كتتال كتت ب ت فدتكام ل دل اب جا ع ابد د دل غت ا ها اب ك اب غ ا لدى اب رع ك ث أكرك ا ل ابغ اء اسدهلكم ق .األمكىل ج تث اب غت ا لدتى اب ترع كتال ب . ث ف كفاء ابدل ل ابغت ا رت ل اب جتا ع اب مدلفتثك ا ب د ج أي امدرفام . مدلفث

غت ا لدتى رتابكغ تل ت جت أي امدرفتام تث رت ل ابكداك تم اب . لت ذ ابغت اءك ا ل كل اب جا ع اب ل ر لث أكراألج لتث إي أ تتر كتال بلكداك تتم , ابصتت ك, ابت ر , ابفمت , ابكقرتتث, رثفتت كتل تل ل ابوتت ابوصت لتت ذ ابغت اءاب ترع اب جتا ع اب

فت اب جتا ع ثأقتل ت 3, 0بكداك تم اب جتا ع كتال ل ابكرت .اب غ ا بل اب رع ل اهك أكرك ل اب ج تث ابما تث ابكار تثبتت د جتت أي امدرفتتام هتت ا .4 تتث كقتت كداك تتم اب ج تتا فتت أ لتتى تتا 0ك تتا كتتال ل ابولتتل فتت اب ج تتث كقتت . 2, 4

. ث ر ل اب جا ع ف كل ل ل اب ابغ ث اب لال ابك ث األ اء ابوا صث ابكلى .ل ذ ابغ اء واك ث ركل اب جا ع اب 0 ث ج أل دكس ل اب هل ف بل ابفم اب ر ابص ك أ لى ا ف كداك م اب ج

بتت جتت أي دتتلم ك .امدرفتتام تتث رتت ل اب جتتا ع اب مدلفتتث فتت تت ل كتتل تتل ا تتث ابوتتص ا تتث ابوصتترثبتت د جتت أي ك تتا بكل دل ابغ اء قلل ل اكل األكجل ق أ ى دل ابغ اء إبى ا ,بدل ابغ اء لى ل اب ف ق ف اب جا ع اب مدلفث

. اد كك م ابه جل ر ل راب ث ف ككام اب ابل كاء دكك ابه ل كاسث ابج ى ايقدصا ث ج أل ابدغ ث لدى اب رع ل ك ت لدتى األستر ابمابتث مت دل ت ابغت اء تل األستر ابكارتع

اء تتل لدتى األستر ابستا كتتال أكفتل تل اب ال تتث ايقدصتا ث تل دل تت ابغت اء تل األستتر ابمابتث لدتى ابستتا أ دل ت ابغتابدغ تث لدتى رصتفث ا تث ستدملص أل .أستار ع 6أستار ع أ تل ابدغ تث لدتى اب ترع تل تك ت لدتى تك 6 ك لدى

ابدغ ث لدتى اب ترع تل تك رك ا ج ب ب ودكح .دل ابغ اء ركا ج لاقل اقدصا ثكفاء د ى د ل ل ابجس اب رع اكمتتك كفتتاء اقدصتتا ث إبتتى جا تتل أ تترأل تتث دل تت ابغتت اء تتل األستتر ابكارتتع لدتتى األستتر ابستتا تت لدتتى األستتر ابمابتتث متت

. صالرا را مفاد اب هل ف ابلل ا دفق ع صلث كغرث اب سدهل

EFFECT OF SKIP-A DAY FEEDING REGIME AT DIFFERENT PERIODS ON BROILER CHICKEN PERFORMANCE

Documents

Transcript of EFFECT OF SKIP-A DAY FEEDING REGIME AT DIFFERENT PERIODS ON BROILER CHICKEN PERFORMANCE