J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:13-21
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buchanan, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Moritz, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Buchanan, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Moritz, J. S.

Research Reports

Nutrient Composition and Digestibility of Organic Broiler Diets and Pasture Forages

N. P. Buchanan, J. M. Hott, L. B. Kimbler and J. S. Moritz1

Division of Animal and Nutritional Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown 26506

Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: Joe.Moritz{at}mail.wvu.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Poultry diets are formulated based on requirements of birds reared without access to pasture. Consumer demand for organic and free-range poultry has resulted in an increase in the use of certified organic feed. Organic poultry may have the opportunity to utilize nutrients found in forage. The addition of exogenous enzymes and manipulation of cecal microbial populations may affect the utilization of forage nutrients. The objectives of this study were as follows: 1) to determine AMEn and TMEn of organic grower diets with or without nonstarch polysaccharide enzyme supplementation and compare these values to a conventional grower diet, 2) to determine AMEn, TMEn, and true amino acid digestibility (TAAD) of forage samples with or without nonstarch polysaccharide enzyme supplementation, and 3) to determine if cecum modification affects forage AMEn, TMEn, and TAAD. The experiment was conducted using cecectomized, intact, and intact grass-fed roosters as models. Enzyme supplementation increased AMEn and TMEn values for organic feeds but not forage. Bird type had no effect on AMEn and TMEn for any treatment. The TAAD of forage was not significantly affected by enzyme supplementation. However, trends in bird type effect were observed for several amino acids.

Key Words: broiler • nutrient • forage • nonstarch polysaccharide


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
During the 1940s, the majority of poultry were reared in small-farm flocks utilizing pasture as a primary nutrient source. Good pasture provided the bulk of vitamins and also supplied a preponderance of protein and minerals [1]. Today, researchers and nutritionists formulate diets based on recommendations by the NRC [2] or poultry breeder specifications. However, recommendations are based on poultry reared in experimental settings that do not have access to pasture.

Given the recent consumer demand for organic foods, organic poultry production has become a growing segment of the poultry industry. Organic poultry have access to pasture [3], a nutrient source that has not been fully evaluated for use in poultry. Laying hens and broiler chickens given access to pasture may meet various nutrient needs through foraging.

Buckner et al. [4, 5] found that giving laying hens access to early-growth Kentucky bluegrass resulted in a 20% reduction in feed consumption and increased egg production compared with hens raised in confinement. Additionally, hens reared on alfalfa or Ladino clover need considerably less feed protein than confined hens [1]. High-quality alfalfa hay can supply carotene, vitamin K, and vitamin E [1]. Feed having only 11 to 12% protein has been shown to be adequate for hens on good pasture [6]. Additionally, Moritz et al. [7] reported that organically reared Ross broilers may overcome growth impairments associated with Met deficiency through foraging.

Plant cell walls are typically composed of cellulose, nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP), pectin, and lignin [8]. The NSP portion of the plant is associated with antinutritive factors that may lead to poor nutrient digestibility in the chicken [9, 10]. Researchers have partially combated problems with NSP antinutritive factors by supplementing feedstuffs with exogenous enzymes [11, 12, 13].

The use of high-input fertilizers and synthetic pesticides are banned in organic grain production [14]. Therefore, the energy value of organic grains may vary compared with conventional grains. Worthington [15] reported a trend for a decrease in the amount of protein found in organic crops compared with conventional crops. Crude protein analysis of organic and conventional corn yielded values of 7.65 and 8.91%, respectively [16]. Moreover, variation in performance between organic and conventionally fed broilers has been attributed to possible differences in amino acid digestibility and ME of organic and conventional ingredients [7].

Bird type and diet composition may influence ME and amino acid digestibility values. Sibbald and Slinger [17] and Slinger et al. [18] reported that the use of Leghorns as an assay for ME may result in an overestimation of energy available to broiler-type chickens. In contrast, Potter [19] has reported that varying breeds may be used if digestibility values are corrected to zero N retention to account for variation in protein accretion and protein catabolism. High-fiber diets have resulted in increased N excretion and large variability in TMEn values [20, 21, 22] and may subsequently affect amino acid digestibility [21].

The ceca comprise a major part of the large intestine in poultry and provide a habitat for numerous microorganisms [23]. Changes in diet composition may alter the microbial population of the ceca [24]. Duke et al. [25] theorized that lack of digestibility variation in low- and high-fiber diets is due to the absence of a fiber adaptation period and that providing a high-fiber diet before experimentation may stimulate development of cecal flora more capable of fiber digestion. However, the nutritional advantage of hind-gut fermentation to the bird is unclear. Past research has shown that amino acids are not absorbed in the hindgut of the chicken in nutritionally significant quantities [26]. Johnson [27] and Ragland et al. [28] have stated that cecectomized birds should be used to prevent overestimation of amino acid digestibility in feedstuffs. Parsons [29] and Son et al. [30] reported greater excretion of amino acids in cecectomized birds compared with intact birds due to the lack of microbial fermentation.

The objectives of this study were as follows: 1) to determine AMEn and TMEn of organic broiler grower diets with or without NSP enzyme supplementation compared with a conventional grower diet, 2) to determine AMEn, TMEn, and true amino acid digestibility (TAAD) of forage samples with or without NSP enzyme supplementation, and 3) to determine forage AMEn, TMEn, and TAAD for cecectomized roosters, intact roosters, and intact roosters fed grass.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Ninety-six Single Comb White Leghorn Hy-Line W-36 roosters were obtained from a commercial pullet house at 13 wk of age [31]. Birds were transported to the West Virginia University poultry farm and housed in floor pens in a curtain-sided building. Water was provided ad libitum through nipple drinkers, and a rooster maintenance diet (12% CP, 3,200 kcal/kg of ME) was provided for ad libitum consumption. Temperature was maintained at 70°F to provide maximum bird comfort. A 21-d adaptation period was utilized to ensure that roosters were acclimated to new facilities.

At the conclusion of the adaptation period, roosters were withheld feed for 24 h. Thirty-two roosters were chosen at random, and cecectomy surgeries were performed [32]. These birds were designated as cecectomized roosters (CEC) and fed the maintenance diet following recovery. The remaining 64 intact roosters were divided into 2 groups. One intact group was fed only the maintenance diet (INT). The second intact group was fed the same maintenance diet supplemented with grass clippings mixed at a 7% inclusion level, as determined by past research (INT + GC) [33]. This diet was fed for 4 wk and utilized to potentially establish a microbial population in the ceca similar to a broiler chicken with access to pasture.

Following a 4-wk recovery and diet adaptation period, all roosters were moved to a cross-ventilated negative pressure room and individually housed in 18 in. x 18 in. (45.72 cm x 45.72 cm) raised wire cages containing cup drinkers and external feed troughs. Twenty-eight roosters within each bird type (CEC, INT, and INT + GC) were randomly assigned 1 of 7 dietary treatments. Each treatment was replicated 4 times. Four treatments consisted of diets utilized in a preceding organic broiler performance study (Table 1Go) [34]. These diets were normal energy with no enzyme (NOR-NE), normal energy with enzyme (NOR-E), low energy with no enzyme (LOW-NE), and low energy with enzyme (LOW-E). The low-energy diet was based on a previous study, consisted of a 7% reduction in dietary energy [34], and was utilized to test enzyme efficacy. Diets were certified organic. The NSP enzyme was derived from the fermentation of Aspergillus aculeatus and contained ß-glucanase, pentosanase, and hemicellulase hydrolysis activities and was included in the diet at 0.11% when applicable [35]. A conventional broiler grower diet (CONV) was utilized to compare organic grower diets to conventional grower diets (Table 2Go). The 2 remaining treatments consisted of a freeze-dried composite forage sample (FOR-NE) and a freeze-dried composite forage sample mixed with the same NSP enzyme (FOR-E) [36]. The composite forage samples were harvested from the poultry pasture paddocks at the West Virginia University Organic Farm. A typical poultry pasture paddock at the West Virginia University Organic Farm contains Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue, white clover, and red clover. Four roosters from each bird type were used to estimate endogenous losses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Diet formulations and nutrient parameters for organic diets
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Diet formulations and nutrient parameters of the conventional diet
 
Digestibility assays were performed using the procedure outline by McNab and Blair [37]. A 48-h fasting period was utilized to clear any undigested material from the gastrointestinal tract. At the conclusion of the fasting period, roosters were precision-fed 30 g of feed or 17 g of freeze-dried forage via a tube inserted directly into the crop. Forage sample feeding was reduced to 17 g due to limitations in sample quantity. Water was provided ad libitum through cup drinkers. Excreta were collected for 48 h by placing individual plastic trays under wire cages. Excreta samples were weighed, dried [38], and ground to 1 mm [39]. All dried ground excreta were analyzed for gross energy [40] and N [41]. Additionally, excreta from roosters precision-fed the FOR-NE and FOR-E were analyzed for amino acid content [42]. Values for TMEn and AMEn were calculated on an as-is basis for all roosters, and TAAD was calculated on a DM basis for roosters precision-fed FOR-NE and FOR-E. All roosters were utilized in accordance to protocols established by the West Virginia University Animal Care and Use Committee (04-0201).

Statistical Analysis
The GLM ANOVA procedure of SAS Institute [43] was used to compare AMEn and TMEn for all treatments and TAAD for forage. Fisher’s least significant difference test was used for multiple comparisons between mean values of all treatments for AMEn and TMEn and for mean values of forage treatments for TAAD. A bird type x dietary treatment factorial randomized complete block analysis was utilized to explore main effects and interactions for AMEn and TMEn for all dietary treatments and TAAD for forage. Roosters were blocked by location within the room. Orthogonal contrasts were utilized to assess effects of overall enzyme supplementation, enzyme supplementation in organic diets, and enzyme supplementation in forage for AMEn and TMEn. Additionally, {alpha} was designated as 0.05.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
AMEn and TMEn
Values for AMEn and TMEn are represented in Table 3Go. Variation was observed between AMEn and TMEn values within dietary treatment. Formulated ME is consistent with AMEn values for organic and conventional grower diets (Table 1Go and 2Go). Nitrogen-corrected TME values for feed averaged 574 kcal/kg higher than AMEn values. Similar trends were reported by Francesch et al. [44] and Yaghobfar and Boldaji [45].


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Nitrogen-corrected AME and TMEn of 20-wk-old roosters (as-is basis)
 
Dietary treatment significantly affected both AMEn and TMEn values (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.0001, respectively; Table 3Go). Roosters precision-fed NOR-E, NOR-NE, and CONV did not differ in AMEn or TMEn (P = 0.0001). However, roosters precision-fed LOW-E had similar AMEn and TMEn values compared with roosters precision-fed the NOR-NE, and higher AMEn and TMEn values compared with roosters precision-fed LOW-NE (P = 0.0001). The variation in enzyme effect between normal-energy diets and low-energy diets is supported by Kocher et al. [46] and Scott et al. [47]. Kocher et al. [46] reported no significant enzyme (cellulase, ß-glucanase, xylanase, hemicellulase, pentosanase, and pectinase) effect in AME when broiler chickens were fed a nutritionally adequate lupin-based diet. However, Scott et al. [47] reported a positive NSP enzyme effect only when broiler chicks were restricted to 80 and 60% intake. The authors attributed this finding to an increase in feed efficiency of restricted-fed birds.

Forage AMEn and TMEn values were lower than all other dietary treatments (P < 0.05; Table 3Go). Villamide and San Juan [48] reported similar findings with high-fiber diets. These data suggest that poultry may obtain a small amount of energy from forage. Broiler chickens have been shown to be unable to overcome a 7% reduction in dietary energy through forage alone [34]. However, forage energy content in that paper was overestimated. Metabolizable energy values for alfalfa were used to estimate energy content of the forage. Alfalfa values reported by the NRC (1,200 kcal/kg as-fed) [2] were higher than the AMEn and TMEn values reported for forage samples in Table 3Go (285 and 463 kcal/kg, respectively).

Orthogonal contrasts showed that enzyme supplementation significantly affected AMEn and TMEn values of organic diets (P = 0.0213 and 0.0234, respectively). Roosters precision-fed organic diets supplemented with an exogenous enzyme had higher AMEn and TMEn values than roosters precision-fed organic diets without enzyme. These data are consistent with Brenes et al. [11] and Chidothe et al. [12]. Supplementing forage with enzyme did not significantly affect AMEn or TMEn; however, there was a trend toward a numerical increase in AMEn and TMEn values for roosters precision-fed FOR-E (P = 0.1906 and 0.1903, respectively). Additionally, bird type had no effect on AMEn or TMEn values for all dietary treatments (P = 0.2453 and 0.3609, respectively).

TAAD for Forage
The nutrient composition of the forage treatment is represented in Table 4Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Nutrient composition of forage1
 
Values for TAAD are represented in Table 5Go. The TAAD values for forage samples were similar to TAAD values for alfalfa meal reported by the NRC [2] and Han and Parsons [49]. Roosters precision-fed the FOR-E treatment had numerically higher TAAD than roosters fed the FOR-NE treatment with the exception of Lys, Arg, Met, and Tyr (Table 5Go). However, enzyme supplementation did not significantly affect TAAD for any amino acid.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. True amino acid digestibility of forage for 20-wk-old roosters (DM basis)
 
Bird type resulted in TAAD trends for Asp (P = 0.0893), Ser (P = 0.1025), Glu (P = 0.0714), Ala (P = 0.0919), Leu (P = 0.0864), Phe (P = 0.1013), and Tyr (P = 0.0849; Table 5Go). Cecectomized roosters excreted more of the respective amino acid than INT and INT + GC roosters, resulting in a lower digestibility (Table 5Go). Han and Parsons [49] reported a significant decrease in alfalfa meal digestibility between cecectomized and intact roosters for all aforementioned amino acids, with the exception of Leu. Parsons [50] stated that TAAD values obtained from cecectomized roosters more accurately describe amino acid digestibility of the bird than TAAD values obtained from intact roosters. These data suggest that poultry may utilize a significant amount of amino acids found in forage to meet nutrient needs. Early inclusion of grass into the maintenance diet did not affect amino acid digestibility of forage (P > 0.05).


   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Supplementing organic grower diets with an exogenous NSP enzyme cocktail increased rooster AMEn and TMEn.
  2. Poultry may obtain small amounts of energy from pasture forage (285 to 542 kcal/kg).
  3. Poultry have the ability to utilize amino acids found in forage. True amino acid digestibility values for Met, Lys, and Thr were approximately 88, 79, and 84%, respectively.
  4. Manipulation of the diet to potentially alter cecal microbial population had no significant effect on TMEn, AMEn, or TAAD for roosters fed forage.


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Anonymous. 1956. General problems in poultry production. Page 928–967 in Feeds and Feeding. F. B. Morrison, ed. The Morrison Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY.
  2. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
  3. Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. National Organic Program Standards. 7CFR part 205. Docket number TMD-00-02-FR.
  4. Buckner, G. D., W. M. Insko Jr., and A. Harms. 1943. Spring bluegrass versus mature bluegrass as pasture for laying hens. Poult. Sci. 22:248–251.
  5. Buckner, G. D., W. M. Insko Jr., and A. H. Henry. 1945. Influences of spring bluegrass and mature bluegrass pastures on laying hens and on the eggs produced. Poult. Sci. 24:446–450.[Web of Science]
  6. Duckworth, J. 1954. Economics in pigs and poultry feeding. Pages 31–37 in Proc. 83rd Nutr. Soc. Great Britain, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
  7. Moritz, J. S., A. S. Parsons, N. P. Buchanan, N. J. Baker, J. Jaczynski, O. J. Gekara, and W. B. Bryan. 2005. Synthetic methionine and feed restriction effects on performance and meat quality of organically reared broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:521–535.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Alberts, B., A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter. 2002. Cells in their social context. Pages 1118–1124 in Molecular Biology of the Cell. Garland Sci., New York, NY.
  9. Choct, M., R. J. Hughes, J. Wang, M. R. Bedford, A. J. Morgan, and G. Annison. 1996. Increased small intestinal fermentation is partly responsible for the anti-nutritive activity of non-starch polysaccharides in chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 37:609–621.[Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Leeson, S., and J. D. Summers. 2001. Digestion and nutrient availability. Page 5 in Scott’s Nutrition of the Chicken. Univ. Books, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
  11. Brenes, A., B. A. Slominski, R. R. Marquardt, W. Guenter, and A. Viveros. 2003. Effect of enzyme addition on the digestibilities of cell wall polysaccharides and oligosaccharides from whole, de-hulled, and ethanol-extracted white lupins in chickens. Poult. Sci. 82:1716–1725.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Chidothe, T., R. M. McDevitt, and T. Acamovic. 2002. The effect of enzyme supplementation on the nutritional value of brewers and distillers grains for broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 43:30–31.
  13. Wang, Z. R., S. Y. Qiao, W. Q. Lu, and D. F. Li. 2005. Effects of enzyme supplementation on performance, nutrient digestibility, gastrointestinal morphology, and volatile fatty acid profiles in the hindgut of broilers fed wheat-based diets. Poult. Sci. 84:875–881.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Agricultural Marketing Service. 2003. National Organic Program; Amendments to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Final rule. 7CFR part 205. Fed. Regist. 68:61987–61993.
  15. Worthington, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 7:161–173.[Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Moritz, J. S. 2005. Personal communication.
  17. Sibbald, I. R., and S. J. Slinger. 1963. The effects of breed, sex, and arsenical and nutrient density on the utilization of dietary energy. Poult. Sci. 42:1325–1332.[Web of Science]
  18. Slinger, S. J., I. R. Sibbald, and W. F. Pepper. 1964. The relative abilities of two breeds of chickens and two varieties of turkeys to metabolizable dietary energy and dietary nitrogen. Poult. Sci. 43:329–333.[Web of Science]
  19. Potter, L. M. 1972. The precision of measuring metabolizable energy in poultry feedstuffs. Feedstuffs 44:28.
  20. Beames, R. M., and B. O. Eggum. 1981. The effect of type and level of protein, fibre, and starch on nitrogen excretion patterns in rats. Br. J. Nutr. 46:301–313.[Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Parsons, C. M., L. M. Potter, and R. D. Brown Jr. 1983. Effects of dietary carbohydrate and of intestinal microflora on excretion of endogenous amino acids by poultry. Poult. Sci. 62:483–489.[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Sibbald, I. R. 1979. The effect of duration of the excreta collection period on the true metabolizable energy values of feedingstuffs with slow rate of passage. Poult. Sci. 58:896–899.[Web of Science]
  23. Barnes, E. M., G. C. Mead, D. A. Barnum, and E. G. Harry. 1972. The intestinal flora of the chicken in the period of 2 to 6 weeks of age, with particular reference to the anaerobic bacteria. Br. Poult. Sci. 13:311–326.[Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Farell, D. J., and K. A. Johnson. 1972. Utilization of cellulose by pigs and its effect on cecal function. Anim. Prod. 14:209–217.[Web of Science]
  25. Duke, G. E., E. Eccleston, S. Kirkwood, C. F. Louis, and H. P. Bedbury. 1984. Cellulose digestion by domestic turkeys fed low or high fiber diets. J. Nutr. 114:95–102.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Webb, K. E. 1990. Intestinal absorption of protein hydrolysis products: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3011–3022.[Abstract]
  27. Johnson, R. J. 1992. Principles, problems, and application of amino acid digestibility in poultry. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 48:232–246.[Web of Science]
  28. Ragland, D., C. R. Thomas, R. G. Elkin, D. J. Shafer, and O. Adeola. 1999. The influence of cecectomy on metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility of select feedstuffs for White Pekin ducks. Poult. Sci. 78:707–713.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Parsons, C. M. 1984. Influence of cecectomy and source of dietary fiber or starch on excretion of endogenous amino acids by laying hens. Br. J. Nutr. 51:541–548.[Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Son, J. H., Y. Karasawa, and K. H. Nahm. 2000. Effect of cecectomy on growth, moisture in excreta, gastrointestinal passage time, and uric acid excretion in growing chicks. Br. Poult. Sci. 41:72–74.[Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Wenger’s Feed Mill Inc., Rheems, PA.
  32. University of Illinois cecetomy surgery protocol; a small area along the wing vein was plucked, and alcohol was applied to the site. Sodium pentabarbitol (65 mg/mL) was injected into the wing vein, at a dosage of 20 to 30 mg/kg, using a 3-mL syringe and a 26-gauge needle. After properly anesthetizing the bird, the right leg was suspended over the ribcage, and the feathers along the surgical site were removed. Betadine was evenly applied throughout the surgical site to reduce chances of infection. The analgesic lidocaine was injected in a 1-mL dose into the muscle surrounding the surgical site using a syringe and a 25-gauge, 5/8-in. needle. A 1.5-in. horizontal incision was made along the lower left abdomen using a 10 blade. Tweezers and iris surgical scissors were used to cut and separate muscle layers until the peritoneal cavity was exposed. The intestine and attached ceca were pulled through the incision using Allis tissue forceps. After the ceca were located, the tissue was ligated using hemostats, and 2-0 silk sutures were placed along the intestinal wall and the ceca were removed. The entire abdominal cavity was saturated with penicillin to prevent infection, and the muscle layer and dermal layer were sutured using 3-0 chromic gut suture and a 3/8 reverse cutting needle. Throughout the duration of the procedure, reflexes were monitored by pinching the comb of the bird. Following the conclusion of the surgery, the birds were returned to raised wire cages and provided ad libitum feed and water. Iodine was administered along the surgical site. Oxytetracycline was injected i.m. directly following surgery.
  33. Grass inclusion was based on an extrapolation of data using forage intake values from as-yet unpublished data at West Virginia University. Forage was included in the diet as percentage of total intake.
    Average forage intake (g of DM/bird per d) = 11.94
    Average feed intake (g/bird per d) = 153.62
    Total intake = 11.94 g of DM/bird per day + 153.62 g/bird per day = 165.56 g/bird per day
    % grass = amount of grass (g of DM/bird per d)/total intake (g/ bird per d)
    % grass = 11.94 g of DM/bird per day ÷ 165.56 g/bird per day x 100 = 7.21%
  34. Buchanan, N. P., L. B. Kimbler, A. S. Parsons, G. E. Seidel, W. B. Bryan, E. D. Felton, and J. S. Moritz. 2005. The effects of non-starch polysaccharide enzyme addition and dietary energy restriction on performance and carcass quality of organic broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:1–12.
  35. Ronozyme VP (CT). DSM Nutritional Products, Basel, Switzerland.
  36. Enzyme inclusion was based on data from a study at West Virginia University. The enzyme was force-fed to the bird based on daily forage intake values and the correlation to feed intake.
    Average forage intake (g of DM/bird per d) = 11.00
    Average feed intake (g/bird per d) = 148.56
    Inclusion level of enzyme = 1,000 g/ton = 0.001102 g/g of feed
    0.001102 g of enzyme/g of feed x 148.56 g of feed = 0.16 g of enzyme/bird per day
    Formula
    11.00x = 2.78
    x = 0.25 g of forage included in forage + enzyme.
  37. McNab, J. M., and J. C. Blair. 1988. Modified assay for true and apparent metabolisable energy based on tube feeding. Br. Poult. Sci. 29:697–707.[Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Virtis Freezemobile 12SL, Virtis Co., Gardiner, NY.
  39. Cyclotec 1093 sample mill, Foss Tecator, Eden Prairie, MN.
  40. Isoperibol oxygen bomb calorimeter model 1266, Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL.
  41. Kjeltec Auto 1030 analyzer, Foss Tecator.
  42. Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories, Agricultural Experiment Station, Univ. Missouri-Columbia.
  43. SAS Institute. 2000. The SAS System for Windows 2000. Release 8.1. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
  44. Francesch, M., K. Bernard, and J. M. McNab. 2002. Comparison of two direct bioassays using 3-week-old broilers to measure the metabolizable energy of diets containing cereals high in fiber: Differences between true and apparent metabolizable energy values. Br. Poult. Sci. 43:580–587.[Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Yaghobfar, A., and F. Boldaji. 2002. Influence of level of feed input and procedure on metabolizable energy and endogenous energy loss (EEL) with adult cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 43:696–704.[Web of Science][Medline]
  46. Kocher, A., M. Choct, R. J. Hughes, and J. Broz. 2000. Effect of food enzymes on utilization of lupin carbohydrates by broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 41:75–82.[Web of Science][Medline]
  47. Scott, T. A., M. A. Leslie, and A. Karimi. 2001. Measurements of enzyme response with hulless barley-based diets full-fed to Leghorn and broiler chicks or restricted-fed broiler chicks. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 81:403–410.
  48. Villamide, M. J., and L. D. San Juan. 1998. Effect of chemical composition of sunflower seed meal on its true metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility. Poult. Sci. 77:1884–1892.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Han, Y., and C. M. Parsons. 1990. Determination of available amino acids and energy in alfalfa meal, feather meal, and poultry by-product meal by various methods. Poult. Sci. 69:1544–1552.[Web of Science][Medline]
  50. Parsons, C. M. 1986. Determination of digestible and available amino acids in meat meal using conventional and cecectomized cockerels or chick growth assays. Br. J. Nutr. 56:227–240.[Web of Science][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buchanan, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Moritz, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Buchanan, N. P.
Right arrow Articles by Moritz, J. S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS