4.7 Article

Evaluation of transgenic hybrid corn (VIP3A) in broiler chickens

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 84, 期 3, 页码 503-512

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/ps/84.3.503

关键词

transgenic corn; transgenic maize; VIP3A corn; VIP3A maize; broiler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 49-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared with Syngenta Seeds VIP3A transgenic derived corn grain had any unanticipated adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared with diets prepared with nontransgenic (isoline) control corn grain. Two commercial lots of grain grown in North Carolina during the 1999 (NC 1999) and 2000 (NC 2000) seasons were included for reference purposes. Broiler growth was excellent with males reaching 3,466 g and females reaching 2,882 g at 49 d of age. Final BW of the VlP3A, isoline, and NC 1999 corn groups were within 21.1 g, whereas the NC 2000 group was 42.4 g lower than the lowest of this group. There was no overall corn source effect on adjusted feed conversion ratio (FCR) or mortality to 49 d of age. Carcass analysis demonstrated no differences in percentage yield due to corn source among males and females other than percentage wings in females. Comprehensive clinical chemical analyses of blood taken from representative birds at 49 d of age showed no differences due to corn sources. The transgenic VIP3A hybrid diets numerically supported the most rapid broiler chicken growth, the second lowest mortality rate and best FCR, without practical differences in carcass yield. The few differences found in this study were not unique to a given corn source but instead appeared to be distributed equally across the diet groups evaluated in the study. Although it was not clear whether small differences in performance were attributable to the transgenic corn per se or were due to possible slight differences in overall composition of the formulated diets, it was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects on broiler performance and carcass yield in this study.

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