4.6 Article

Protein quality of linseed for growing broiler chicks

Journal

ANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 84, Issue 3-4, Pages 155-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00128-0

Keywords

linseed; broiler chicks; protein quality; amino acid retention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The protein quality of linseed was assessed and compared to that of soybean meal (SBM) in two experiments using growing broiler chicks. In the first experiment, the protein efficiency ratio (PER) and net protein ratio (NPR) were calculated for diets (90 g crude protein kg(-1)) containing the following sources of protein: SBM and SBM diet modified to contain 10, 30 and 100% of the total protein from linseed, There was a significant (P<0.001) relationship between performance data or PER and NPR values and inclusion rate of linseed in the diet. When fed as the sole source of protein, linseed caused a drastic reduction in weight gain (97.6 versus 6.9 g) and PER (3.38 versus 0.40) and NPR (4.29 versus 1.96) values compared to those for SBM. In the second experiment, apparent and true total tract retentions (ATTR and TTTR) for nitrogen and amino acids were determined for diets (150 g crude protein kg(-1)) containing SBM as reference protein or SBM protein replaced 10 and 30% by linseed protein. The ATTR values were 15.3 and 24.8% lower for nitrogen and 4.6 and 15.5% lower for total amino acids for diets containing Linseed to compared to SBM diet. The response of individual amino acids to inclusion level of linseed was Linear (P<0.001). The TTTR values followed a similar trend than that found for apparent retention. In conclusion, utilization of linseed protein by broiler chicks was worse than that from SBM and it attributable in all probability to the presence in linseed of antinutritional factors, such as mucilage, which can depress the retention of protein in chicks. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available