4.7 Article

Effect of an acidifying diet combined with zeolite and slight protein reduction on air emissions from laying hens of different ages

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 1, 页码 182-190

出版社

POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.1.182

关键词

hen; air emission; diet; ammonia; hydrogen sulfide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effectiveness of a reduced-emission (RE) diet containing 6.9% of a CaSO4-zeolite mixture and slightly reduced CP to 21-, 38-, and 59-wk-old Hy-Line W-36 hens (trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively) on egg production and emissions of NH3, H2S, NO, NO2, CO2, CH4, and non-CH4 total hydrocarbons as compared with feeding a commercial (CM) diet. At each age, 640 hens were allocated, randomly to 8 environmental chambers for a 3-wk period. On an analyzed basis, the CM diet contained 18.0, 17.0, and 16.2% CP and 0.25, 0.18, and 0.20% S in trials 1, 2, and 3, and the RE diet contained 17.0, 15.5, and 15.6% CP and 0.99, 1.20, and 1.10% S in trials 1, 2, and 3. Diets were formulated to contain similar Ca and P contents. Average daily egg weight (56.3 g), average daily egg production (81%), average daily feed intake (92.4 g), and BW change (23.5 g), across ages, were unaffected by diet (P > 0.05) over the study period. Age effects were observed for all performance variables and NH3 emissions (P < 0.05). In trials 1, 2, and 3, daily NH3 emissions from hens fed the RE diets (185.5, 312.2, and 333.5 mg/bird) were less than emissions from hens fed the CM diet (255.1, 560.6, and 616.3 mg/bird; P < 0.01). Daily emissions of H2S across trials from hens fed the RE diet were 4.08 mg/bird compared with 1.32 mg/bird from hens fed the CM diet (P < 0.01). Diet (P < 0.05) and age (P < 0.05) affected emissions Of CO2 and CH4. A diet effect (P < 0.01) on NO emissions was observed. No diet or age effects (P > 0.05) were observed for NO2 or non-CH4 total hydrocarbons. Results demonstrated that diet and layer age influence air emissions from poultry operations.

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