4.7 Article

Apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in feed ingredients determined with broilers and layers

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Volume 87, Issue 1, Pages 47-53

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2667

Keywords

ileal amino acid digestibility; feed ingredients; broilers; layers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The apparent ileal digestibility of amino acids in eight feed ingredients were determined using broilers and layers. The ingredients included three cereals (wheat, sorghum and maize), one cereal by-product (wheat middlings), three oilseed meals (canola, cottonseed and soybean meals) and one animal protein meal (meat and bone meal). Dietary protein in the assay diets was supplied solely by the test ingredient. All diets contained 20 g kg(-1) acid-insoluble ash as an indigestible marker, and each diet was offered ad libitum in mash form to five replicate pens of 42-day-old broilers and 60-week-old layers. The digestibility coefficients of most amino acids for wheat and sorghum were similar (P > 0.05) in broilers and layers. The digestibility of most amino acids for maize was higher (P < 0.05) in broilers compared to those in layers. The digestibility of individual amino acid for wheat middlings was higher (P < 0.05) in layers than in broilers. In general, the digestibility of amino acids for cottonseed meal, soybean meal, and meat and bone meal were similar (P > 0.05) between broilers and layers. The influence of class of bird on digestibility in canola meal was variable. The digestibility of threonine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid and alanine were higher (P < 0.05), and those of methionine, histidine and lysine were lower (P < 0.05) in broilers compared to layers. These results suggest that the practice of using amino acid digestibility values generated with broilers for layers may not be appropriate for all feed ingredients. (c) 2006 Society of Chemical Industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available