4.4 Article

Analysis of variability in nutrient digestibilities in broiler chickens

Journal

BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 70-76

Publisher

CARFAX PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/00071660020035082

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

1. Forty commercial broiler chickens from two different breeding origins were used for individual measurements of growth performance from d 7 to d 21. From d 21 to d 24 a balance experiment was carried out for the measurement of metabolisable energy (ME), digestibilities of lipids, starch and amino acids, viscosity of excreta water-extract, and amount of water loss. After this, the weight and length of the different parts of the gastrointestinal tract were measured for each bird. During the experiment, the birds were fed with an experimental diet containing 5 g/kg of guar gum in order to increase the variability of responses. 2. There were no significant (P<0.05) differences between the two breeds in 21 d live weight, food:gain ratio, ME value or the digestibilities of lipids, starch and total amino acids. Significant (P<0.05) differences between the two breeds were observed for caecal size, excreta guar gum degradation measured using viscosity measurements, and vent score. 3. Pooling all the individual data, individual ME values were correlated (r(2)=0.33) with individual food:gain ratios, which shows that a great part of ME variation was associated with individual variation. 4. Several significant (P<0.05) correlations were observed between individual digestibilities and individual anatomical characteristics of the gastrointestinal tract. The most significant were concerned with the duodenum weight:length ratio correlated with ME (r=0.474) and the caeca weight:body weight ratio correlated with guar gum degradation (r=0.495). Covariance analyses were carried out when correlations were significant and did not show significant interactions with the breeding origin of chickens.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available