3.8 Article

Effect of dietary protein level, amino acid balance and feeding level on growth, gastrointestinal tract, and mucosal structure of the small intestine in broiler chickens

Journal

ANIMAL RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 501-515

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/animres:2002038

Keywords

broiler; excess protein; feed restriction; enzyme; viscera

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a factorial experiment, two series of feeds containing excess dietary protein, differing in amino acid balance (i.e. balanced (BPS) and unbalanced ( UPS) amino acid mixture), and with a range of protein contents (400, 300 and 200 g CP.kg(-1)) at the same energy content of 13 MJ AME.kg(-1) were offered at two levels of feeding ( ad libitum or 0.75 of ad libitum intake) to 4320 broiler chickens between 10 and 24 days of age. Growth rate was significantly lowered by feed restriction. There was also a significant (P < 0.001) effect of dietary protein on the combined weight of the proventriculus and gizzard but only for the birds on the restricted feeding regime. Relative pancreatic weight increased (P < 0.001) with an increase in dietary protein level for the birds fed restricted amounts of BPS. The crypt depth of chicks on the ad libitum feeding regime was higher (P < 0.01) for the chicks on the BPS than for those on the UPS diet. The protein content of the jejunal mucosa was higher (P < 0.001) for birds fed ad libitum on the UPS diet than on the BPS diet. Daily feed allocation had a significant (P < 0.01) effect on jejunal protein content in birds that received the BPS diet, this being reduced in birds on restricted feeding. Maltase (P < 0.001) and sucrase (P < 0.01) activities were significantly reduced in chicks offered ad libitum access to the UPS diet. At high dietary CP, the specific activity of alkaline phosphatase was lower (P < 0.001) in chicks on the UPS diet than in those fed the BPS diet.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available