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


     

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:289-295
© 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 Jalal, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pierson, E. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jalal, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pierson, E. M

Research Reports

Strain Response of Laying Hens to Varying Dietary Energy Levels With and Without Avizyme Supplementation

M. A. Jalal*, S. E. Scheideler{dagger} and E. M Pierson{ddagger}

* University of Jordan, Dahiyet El-Amir Rashed, Amman 11831, Jordan; {dagger} Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583; and {ddagger} Danisco Animal Nutrition, St. Louis, MO 63147

Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: mjalal01{at}yahoo.com


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The response of 4 strains of laying hens fed diets varying in ME with and without Avizyme 1500 (AVI) supplementation was evaluated in a factorial arrangement study. The strains of laying hens (Hy-Line W-36, Hy-Line Brown, Babcock B300, and Shaver White) were fed 3 diets: moderate ME (2,900 kcal/kg), low ME (2,810 kcal/kg), and low ME with AVI for 28 wk commencing at 22 wk of age. No significant effects of diet, strain, or their interaction on feed intake and BW change were observed. Lack of an effect on feed intake was surprising given the different levels of ME. It is hypothesized that the reduced dietary ME was not low enough to elicit a response. Of course, dietary level of ME did change caloric intake among hens, with hens fed moderate ME consuming more calories than those fed low ME with or without AVI. There was an interesting dietary ME x strain interaction effect on egg production (EP). Babcock B300 hens fed moderate ME and low ME with AVI had greater EP compared with the B300 hens fed low ME, whereas the Shaver White hens had a greater EP when fed a low-ME diet compared with feeding a moderate-ME diet or low-ME diet with AVI. Egg weight and egg mass were significantly affected by strain but not by diet ME. Hy-Line Brown and Babcock B300 hens laid eggs with greater weight and mass in contrast to Hy-Line W-36 or Shaver White. Hy-Line Brown eggs were the largest, whereas Shaver White had greatest egg-specific gravity. Strain significantly affected proportions of albumen vs. yolk in the egg. Across all strains, Hy-Line Brown had more albumen percentage, whereas Hy-Line W-36 had higher wet yolk and yolk solids percentages. The low-ME level fed to laying hens may have been too high to evoke an enzyme response to improve energy utilization by birds. This is important, because to obtain an economic benefit, producers would need to know the proper ME level to feed with the supplemental enzymes.

Key Words: laying hen • strain • energy • enzyme • production parameter


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The use of enzymes in the animal feed industry has greatly expanded in the last decade, especially in the United States and Canada, where large quantities of cereals such as corn, wheat, and barley are used in poultry diets. These enzymes hydrolyze and neutralize the negative effects produced by viscous compounds in these cereals, such as nonstarch water-soluble polysaccharides. They have been reported to improve feed utilization, growth rates, and to reduce environmental pollution due to decreased output of manure [1, 2, 3].

Several studies have shown beneficial effects of supplemental enzymes on feed intake (FI), egg production (EP), egg weight, egg mass (EM), and egg-specific gravity (ESG) when added to laying hen diets [4, 5, 6]. Recent studies have suggested that the addition of Avizyme 1500 (AVI), an enzyme product containing a mixture of xylanase, protease, and amylase, improved nutrient utilization, bird performance, and reduced feed costs in broilers and layers [7, 8, 9, 10]. Most recent research with laying hens [9, 10] has shown improved FI, egg production, and egg mass, especially among varying laying hen strains. Therefore, the objective of this research trial was to test the strain response of corn-soy diets varying in ME with and without AVI supplementation.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Experimental Design
Three diets were fed to 4 commercial strains of laying hens in a 3 x 4 factorial arrangement. The treatments consisted of a combination of 3 diets: moderate ME (2,900 kcal/kg), low ME (2,810 kcal/kg), and low ME with enzyme and 4 strains of Leghorn hens (Hy-Line W-36 [11], Hy-Line Brown [11], Babcock B300 [12], and Shaver White [13]). Each treatment was randomly allotted to 8 replicate cages for a total of 96 cages (7 hens/cage) with a space allocation of 442 cm2/hen. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design with 12 cages representing a block for a total of 8 blocks with 1 block per row of cages. Hens were fed the diets for a period of 28 wk starting at 22 wk of age and ending at 50 wk of age. The trial was conducted in an environmentally controlled room with temperature maintained at 26°C. All birds used in this trial were handled in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Diets
The experimental diets were formulated in accordance to recommendations of the manual of the breeder for each strain and to meet NRC [14] nutrient requirements for laying hens. The diets were standard corn-soybean meal diets formulated to be isonitrogenous and to contain 3.80% Ca and 0.48% nonphytate P (Table 1Go). The ME values for ingredients used in diet formulation are those reported in feed ingredient tables in the NRC [14]. Tallow was supplemented as an additional source of energy and to adjust the ME content of the diet. The low-ME diet was formulated to have an energy content (kcal/kg) that was 3% below NRC [14] recommendations. The lower level (2,810 kcal/kg) is a typical lower-range ME level for this age of hen, whose predicted intake may be only 95 to 100 g/d.


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

  		Table 1. Diet and calculated nutrient composition
 
Avizyme 1500 [15] was supplemented to the low-ME diet as a dietary treatment. This enzyme is a multimicrobial enzyme produced by Trichoderma and Bacillus containing a minimum of 1,000 units of xylanase/g, 4,000 units of protease/g, and 2,000 units of {alpha}-amylase/g (activity determined by manufacturer). The enzyme was added at 0.075% to the low-ME diet to increase energy available for the laying hens from the basal ingredients.

Production Parameters Measured
Feed intake, estimated ME intake (MEI), and EP were recorded on a daily basis. Hens were given ad libitum access to feed. Egg production was calculated on a hen-per-day basis. The MEI (kcal/hen per d) was calculated by multiplying calculated ME content of the diet by daily FI.

Egg weight was measured on a weekly basis on 1 d of EP. Hens were weighed individually at the start of the trial and on a monthly basis thereafter until the end of the trial. Egg mass was calculated by multiplying egg weight by EP. Egg quality measurements included egg-specific gravity, albumen, wet yolk, yolk solids, and wet shell and dry shell percentages.

Hen mortality was recorded daily during the experiment. Production parameters such as FI and EP were corrected for hen mortalities.

Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis of this trial is described in detail in the "References and Notes" section of this manuscript [16].


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
FI and MEI
Feed intake was not significantly affected by either main effects (diet and strain) or interactions (Table 2Go). There was no effect of low ME with and without AVI on FI. This is highly unusual, because it is not consistent with the theory that laying hens tend to increases FI when fed low-caloric density diets [18, 19], even though the hens were consuming an average of almost 10 to 15 g/hen per day above what is recommended by breeder manuals [11, 12, 13] for their age. It is very rare to see White Leghorn hens consuming more than 100 g/hen per day during first cycle at this young age. However, similar findings have been cited [10] with White Leghorn strains (Hy-Line W-36 and Babcock B300) fed dietary ME (2,890 and 2,805 kcal/kg) with and without AVI. Research by Sohail et al. [9] with moderate and low-ME diets supplemented with AVI reported that hens were able to adjust their FI to low-ME diets and consumed 2 g more feed than hens fed the higher-energy diet. It is important to note that kilocalorie differences between moderate and low ME used herein and by Sohail et al. [9] were 90 and 86 kcal, respectively; therefore, similar findings could be expected. However, it is possible that reduction of energy as fat from 3.25% in moderate ME to as low as 1.42% in low ME [9] could possibly have resulted in lower FI in contrast to higher fat levels of 5.20 and 3.00% for moderate and low ME, respectively, in our diets. Research has shown that diets having 3 to 5% fat tend to increase FI [20, 21].


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

  		Table 2. Layer production data (thermoneutral conditions)—feed intake, ME intake, egg production, egg weight, and egg mass
 
As would be expected, diet had a significant effect (P < 0.0001 on MEI (Table 2Go), because energy intake was reduced across all strains when fed the low-ME diet. Supplementation of low ME with AVI had no effect on MEI. It is again surprising that hens did not adjust to lower ME by increasing their FI and, subsequently, MEI. Most breeder manuals [11, 12, 13] recommend from 280 to 300 kcal/hen per day of intake at this age. Evidently, hens on all 3 ME diet were overconsuming kilocalories during this trial, with an average intake of 308 kcal/hen per day. It thus appears that the low-ME diet was too high for hens to adjust FI, elicit a response to AVI supplementation, or both, even though it was 3% below NRC recommendations [14].

The low-energy diet was selected based on the specified down approach considered when incorporating enzymes into corn-soybean meal poultry diets, whereas the moderate ME diet was formulated as a normal ME diet. Theoretically, this approach should result in performance similar to typical feed formulations [22]. Our moderate diet was typical of what is normally fed under commercial conditions (2,900 kcal/kg) in the Midwest breaker industry, in which egg size is the priority. The reduced ME (specified down) was slightly lower compared with what is normally being fed by the Midwest commercial egg industry. It is hypothesized that a much lower level of ME is needed to warrant a response to using AVI to liberate ME, trigger an adjustment in feed and MEI, or both. Latshaw et al. [18] demonstrated that commercial strains of Leghorn responded well to drastic changes in dietary energy level when fed diets ranging from 2,710 to 2,940 kcal/kg.

Environment would not have been an influencing factor during the study, because temperature was controlled throughout the duration of the trial. Furthermore, dietary treatments were allotted in blocks to minimize variation among experimental units and to take into account block error.

EP
A diet x strain interaction effect was significant (P < 0.03) for hen-day EP (Table 2Go). The B300 hens had the highest EP with moderate ME and low ME with AVI, whereas Shaver White had the lowest. The opposite trend was observed with Shaver White hens fed the low-ME diet without AVI having the greatest EP and B300 the lowest. The Hy-Line W-36 and Hy-Line Brown had lower EP percentages on the low-ME diets supplemented with AVI. Scheideler et al. [10] reported a significant (P < 0.05) 3-way interaction of strain x dietary ME x enzyme on EP. They found that Babcock B300 improved EP when AVI was supplemented to a normal ME diet, whereas Hy-Line W-36 improved EP when AVI was supplemented to a low-ME diet. By contrast, in our study, Babcock B300 improved EP in response to enzyme added to a low-ME or specified down diet, whereas Hy-Line W-36 showed no improvement in EP when supplemented with enzyme.

Egg Weight and EM
Strain significantly (P < 0.0001) affected EW during this experiment. The B300 hens laid the heaviest eggs (60.48 g) compared with 60.14, 59.11, and 56.98 g by Hy-Line Brown, Shaver White, and Hy-Line W-36, respectively (Table 2Go). Dietary ME had no effect on EW, nor did enzyme supplementation to the low-ME diet. Other researchers [5, 9, 10] found no effect of enzyme supplementation, dietary ME, or both, on EW. Egg mass followed a similar trend to EW, because strain effects were significant (P < 0.002) for this parameter. The B300 hens exhibited the greatest EM values, whereas Hy-Line W-36 had the lowest EM value, with a difference of 2.98 g (Table 2Go). Strain differences for EM have been previously reported by Jaroni et al. [6]. There was no dietary ME effect with or without enzyme supplementation on egg weight or mass in this trial.

Hen Weight and BW Change
Hen weight was significantly affected by laying strains (P < 0.0001). The Hy-Line Brown hens were the heaviest among the 4 strains (Table 3Go). This would be expected looking at the strain target weights published by each breeder [11, 12, 13]. These findings are in agreement with other research at Nebraska by Jaroni et al. [6]. No significant effects of BW gain were reported in this trial due to strain or dietary ME with and without enzyme supplementation (Table 3Go).


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

  		Table 3. Layer production data—hen weight, BW change, and egg-specific gravity
 
ESG
Our results show a significant strain effect (P < 0.0001) on ESG, with Shaver White hens having greater ESG compared with other strains (Table 3Go). These results are congruent with others [6, 10] who also reported a significant strain effect on ESG. There was no effect of enzyme supplementation to low-ME diet on ESG.

Egg Composition Parameters
Albumen percentage differed significantly (P < 0.0001) among the various strains, with Hy-Line Brown hens having greater egg albumen in contrast to other strains (Table 4Go). Yolk and yolk solids percentages were also affected by strain (P < 0.0001). The Hy-Line W-36 hens had the greatest yolk and yolk solids percentages among the 4 strains (Table 4Go). This increase in yolk solids could result in more solid products in the egg-breaking industry and greater profits. There were no significant dietary ME effects on albumen, yolk, and yolk solids percentages. No significant effects of dietary ME, with and without AVI, strain, or both, were found on wet and dry shell (Table 4Go). The strain effects on egg components reported herein are in agreement with Scheideler et al. [10] and Marion and Edwards [23], who reported significant differences in the proportions of albumen, yolk, and shell among White Leghorn hens.


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

  		Table 4. Layer production data—albumen, wet yolk, dry yolk, wet shell, and dry shell percentages (egg composition parameters)
 

   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
  1. There were no significant effects of dietary treatments with and without AVI on FI or EP except for a positive interaction effect on EP within the Babcock B300 strain.
  2. Strain had the most significant effect on production parameters, with strain differences reported for MEI, egg weight, EM, BW, ESG, albumen, yolk, and yolk components. Avizyme 1500 and dietary ME had no effect on egg solids.
  3. Modern strains of laying hens did not adjust their FI when fed lower-ME diets with and without enzyme supplement, perhaps due to the lower ME level not being low enough.


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

  1. Cheeson, A. 1993. Feed enzymes. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 45:65–69.
  2. Marquardt, R. R. 1997. Enzyme enhancement of the nutritional value of cereals: Role of viscous, water-soluble, nonstarch polysaccharides in chick performance. Pages 5–17 in Enzymes in Poultry and Swine Nutrition. R. R. Marquardt and Z. Han, ed. Int. Dev. Res. Cent., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  3. Zhang, Z., R. R. Marquardt, W. Guenter, and Z. Han. 1997. Effects of different enzyme preparations supplemented in rye-based diet on the performance of young broilers and the viscosity of digesta and cloacal excreta. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 34:3–6.
  4. Francesch, M., A. M. Perez-Vendrell, E. Estevez-Gracia, and J. Brufau. 1995. Enzyme supplementation of a barley and sunflower-based diet on lying hen performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 4:32–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Pan, C. F., F. A. Igbasan, W. Guenter, and R. R. Marquardt. 1998. The effects of enzyme and inorganic phosphorus supplements in wheat- and rye-based diets on laying hen performance, energy, and phosphorus availability. Poult. Sci. 77:83–89.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Jaroni, D., S. E. Scheideler, M. Beck, and C. Wyatt. 1999. The effect of dietary wheat middlings and enzyme supplementation. 1. Late egg production efficiency, egg yields, and egg composition in two strains of Leghorn hens. Poult. Sci. 78:841–847.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Zanella, I., N. K. Sakomura, F. G. Silversides, A. Fiqueirdo, and M. Pack. 1999. Effect of enzyme supplementation of broiler diets based on corn and soybeans. Poult. Sci. 78:561–568.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Douglas, M. W., C. M. Parsons, and M. R. Bedford. 2000. Effect of various soybean meal sources and Avizyme on chick growth performance and ileal digestible energy. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9:74–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Sohail, S. S., M. M. Bryant, D. A. Roland Sr., J. H. A. Apajalahti, and E. M. Pierson. 2003. Influence of Avizyme 1500 on performance of commercial Leghorns. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12:284–290.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Scheideler, S. E., M. M. Beck, A. Abudabos, and C. L. Wyatt. 2005. Multiple-enzyme (Avizyme) supplementation of corn-soy based layer diets. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:77–86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hy-Line International, West Des Moines, IA.
  12. ISA Babcock, Ithaca, NY.
  13. Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada.
  14. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
  15. Danisco Animal Nutrition, Marlborough, Wiltshire, UK.
  16. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of SAS (PROC MIXED [17]) for a randomized complete block design with a 3 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments. The data were tested for main effects of dietary treatments and laying hen strains and for interaction effecta of dietary ME x laying strain. The following GLM was used: Yijk = µ + Rl + {alpha}i + ßj + {alpha}ßij + {varepsilon}ijkl, where Yijk = measured response; µ = overall mean; Rl = block; {alpha}i = dietary ME effect; ßj = laying strain effect, {alpha}ßij = interaction between dietary ME and laying strain; and {varepsilon}ijkl = residual error. Level of significance was P < 0.05.
  17. SAS Institute. 2003. SAS User’s Guide. Version 9.1 ed. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
  18. Latshaw, J. D., G. B. Havenstein, and V. D. Toelle. 1990. Energy levels in the laying diet and its effects on the performance of three commercial Leghorn strains. Poult. Sci. 69:1998–2007.[ISI]
  19. Fisher, C., and B. J. Wilson. 1974. Response to dietary energy concentration by growing chickens. Page 151 in Energy Requirements of Poutlry. T. R. Morris and B.M Freeman, ed. Br. Poult. Sci., Edinburgh, UK.
  20. Rising, R., P. M. Morrison, J. Alak, and B. L. Reid. 1989. Indirect calorimetry evaluation of dietary protein and animal fat effects on energy utilization of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 68:258–264.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Valencia, M. E., P. M. Maiorino, and B. L. Reid. 1980. Energy utilization by laying hens. II. Energetic efficiency and added tallow at 18.3 and 35°C. Poult. Sci. 59:2071–2076.[ISI]
  22. Pack, M., and M. Bedford. 1997. Feed enzymes for corn and soybean broiler diets. World Poult. 13:87–93.
  23. Marion, J. E., and H. M. Edwards Jr. 1964. The response of laying hens to dietary oils and purified fatty acids. Poult. Sci. 43:911–918.[ISI]




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 Jalal, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pierson, E. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jalal, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Pierson, E. M

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS