4.7 Article

Evaluation of the ileal digestibility and excreta retention of phosphorus for feed phosphates in broiler chickens and in Pekin ducks

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 101, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2022.101837

关键词

broilers; feed phosphate; meat duck; ileal phosphorus digestibility; phosphorus retention; the substitution method

资金

  1. China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA
  2. 111 project of Foreign Experts Affairs of China
  3. Sichuan Agricultural University 211 Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the bioavailability of different samples of dicalcium phosphate and monodicalcium phosphate in broiler chickens and Pekin ducks using the substitution method. The results showed that monodicalcium phosphate had higher bioavailability than dicalcium phosphate in both broiler chickens and Pekin ducks.
The study aimed to determine the ileal phosphorus (P) digestibility (iPD) and the excreta P retention (ePR) of 5 monodicalcium phosphate (MCP) samples and 3 dicalcium phosphate (DCP) samples in broiler chickens and in Pekin ducks using the substitution method. A total of 720, 21-d-old Arbor Acres broiler chickens in experiment 1 and 720, 15-d-old Pekin ducks in experiment 2 were randomly allocated to 9 dietary treatments with 8 replicate cages (10 birds/cage) based on the similar mean body weight, respectively. The collection of excreta (for 72 h after a 3-d acclimation) and ileal digesta (after 6 d of feeding experimental diets) was done. The results showed the average iPD/ePR of MCP and DCP for broilers were 83.11%/74.52% and 75.34%/ 69.46% and for ducks were 79.37%/80.02% and 75.74%/ 76.44%, respectively. The iPD/ePR of MCP in broilers and the ePR of MCP in ducks were markedly higher (P < 0.05) than those of DCP. Our data suggest that using the substitution method to evaluate the bioavailability of feed phosphates has its own advantages; MCP has higher biological availability than DCP for broilers and ducks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据