4.4 Article

The Net Energy Values of Corn, Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles and Wheat Bran for Laying Hens Using Indirect Calorimetry Method

期刊

出版社

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN ASSOC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOC
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13243

关键词

Corn; Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles; Indirect Calorimetry; Laying Hens; Net Energy; Wheat Bran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was conducted to estimate the NE values of corn, dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) and wheat bran (WB) for laying hens based on an indirect calorimetry method and nitrogen balance measurements. A total of 576 twenty-eight-wk-old Dwarf Pink-shell laying hens were randomly assigned to four groups fed a basal diet (BD) or a combination of BD with 50% corn or 20% DDGS or 20% WB, with four replicates each. After a 7-d adaptation period, each replicate with 36 hens were kept in one of the two respiration chambers to measure the heat production (HP) for 6 days during the feeding period and subsequent 3-d fasting. The equilibrium fasting BP (FHP) provided an estimate of NE requirements for maintenance (NEm). The NE values of test feedstuffs was estimated using the difference method. Results showed that the heat increment that contributed 35.34 to 37.85% of ME intake was not influenced by experimental diets (p>0.05) when expressed as Mcal/kg of DM feed intake. Lighting increased the HP in hens in an fed-state. The FHP decreased over time (p<0.05) with the lowest value determined on the third day of starvation. No significant difference between treatments was found on FHP of d 3 (p>0.05). The estimated AME, AMEn, and NE values were 3.46, 3.44 and 2.25 Mcal/kg DM for corn, 3.11, 2.79, and 1.80 Mcal/kg DM for DDGS, 2.14, 2.10, and 1.14 Mcal/kg DM for WB, respectively. The net availability of AME of corn tended to be numerically higher than DDGS and WB (p = 0.096). In conclusion, compared with corn, the energy values of DDGS and WB were overestimated when expressed on an AME basis.

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

4.4
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