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


     

J APPL POULT RES 2008. 17:440-445. doi:10.3382/japr.2008-00005
© 2008 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 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacob, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jacob, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W.

Research Reports

Inclusion of High Methionine Corn in Pullet Diets

J. P. Jacob*,1, N. Levendoski{dagger} and W. Goldstein{ddagger}

* University of Minnesota, Department of Animal Science, 1364 Eckles Ave., St. Paul 55108{dagger} CROPP Cooperative, One Organic Way, LaFarge, WI 54639{ddagger} Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, W2493 County Rd ES, PO Box 990, East Troy, WI 53120

1 Corresponding author: jacquie.jacob{at}uky.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Synthetic methionine (SM) is routinely added to conventional pullet diets to allow for the formulation of balanced diets. Synthetic methionine, however, is not allowed in organic poultry diets. When SM is not used, diets must be formulated to higher CP levels to achieve the required level of methionine. This study compared inclusion of a commonly used organic corn in pullet starter, grower, and developer diets with a new non-genetically modified high methionine (HM) corn. There were no significant differences in BW gain. The average BW for the pullets on the control and HM corn diets was 1,349 and 1,386 g, respectively. Feed was controlled for most of the study; there were no significant differences in feed consumption or feed efficiency. The results of this study, therefore, indicate that this new HM corn variety is a suitable substitute for organically grown conventional corn varieties in organic pullet diets. The inclusion of HM corn eliminates the need for SM in pullet starter, grower, and developer diets fed to floor-reared Bovan Brown pullets.

Key Words: organic • pullet • methionine • corn


   DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Organic egg production is becoming increasingly more popular. European regulations currently do not allow for the inclusion of synthetic Met (SM) in organic poultry diets. Similarly, after October 2010, USDA rules will no longer allow the supplementation of SM in organic poultry diets.

Methionine is a major limiting amino acid in poultry diets. Synthetic Met is routinely added to conventional poultry diets and allows for the formulation of balanced diets. When SM is not used, diets must be formulated to higher CP levels to achieve the required level of Met. As of December 31, 2007 EU regulations allowed for a maximum nonorganic feed allowance of 10%. It will be reduced to 5% on January 1, 2010, and eliminated by December 31, 2011 [1]. Many poultry producers are using nonorganic feed-stuffs to meet the requirement for Met. One example is potato protein, a by-product of potato starch production. The product is not currently available organically.

Research is currently under way to develop a non-genetically modified corn variety with higher Met levels than conventional varieties [2]. Breeding was done under sustainable agricultural practices and involved selecting for responses to slowly available forms of nitrogen and to weed pressure. One such variety is 3 floury-2 MF hybrid, and is referred to as high Met (HM) corn.

The HM corn used in the study is a recently developed strain of corn and was in limited supply. The purpose of this study was to do a preliminary evaluation of HM corn as an ingredient in organic pullet diets that are not supplemented with SM.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Seventy-five 1-d-old Bovan Brown [3] pullets were obtained from a local hatchery. They were divided into 6 floor pens of 12 to 13 pullets each using a completely randomized design. There were 3 replications per dietary treatment.

The floor pens were 5 x 8 ft or 40 ft2 (1.52 x 2.44 m; 3.72 m2), giving the pullets 3.1 to 3.2 ft2/ chick (0.29 to 0.31 m2/chick). Each pen was provided with a hanging tube feeder and the height adjusted during the growing period. For the first week the chicks were provided with 1-gal manual drinkers and thereafter automatic bell drinkers, 1 per pen.

There were 2 dietary treatments with all feeds formulated by Land O’Lakes Inc. [4]. The treatments were based on the typical organic feeds sold and were mixed by Heartland County Co-op (Westby, WI). The control diet contained conventional organic corn supplied by the feed mill and was formulated allowing for the use of supplemental D,L-Met. For the second diet, the organic corn was replaced with HM corn [2] on a weight basis, and there was no SM supplementation. Table 1Go gives a comparison of the nutrient content of the 2 corn varieties used. A starter feed was given 1 to 25 d, grower 26 to 77 d, and developer 78 to 112 d. The composition of the control diets are given in Table 2Go.


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

  		Table 1. Comparison of the nutritional content of convention organic corn and high Met corn
 

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

  		Table 2. Composition of the control diets—for the high methionine (HM) corn diet, HM corn replaced organic corn plus D, L-methionine on a weight basis
 
For the first 3 wk the chicks received feed ad libitum to assure that all of the chicks got off to a good start. Starting on d 26, feed consumption was controlled and the chicks were given a daily feed allotment based on target consumption quantities given in the management guide [5]. Water was provided ad libitum. The breeder-recommended lighting program was followed (see Table 3Go). The trial ran during the summer months when outdoor temperatures reached 98°F [6], so maintaining the recommended 70°F [5] for a portion of the study was difficult (see Table 3Go).


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

  		Table 3. Brooding temperatures and lighting program followed
 
The chicks were individually weighed before placement and then weekly starting with the second week. Mortality was recorded twice daily. Pen feed consumption was recorded weekly.

Data were analyzed by using Statistix 8.0 software [7]. The individual BW were analyzed as a randomized complete block design. Body weight gain and feed consumption were calculated weekly with the pen means being the experimental unit. The BW gain, feed consumption, feed conversion, and overall livability data were analyzed using a randomized complete block design. Differences between means were determined using Tukey’s test.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
As shown in Table 1Go, on average, the HM corn contained 78% higher levels of Met than conventional corn. Much of this increase was achieved by a general increase in protein content. The 12.45% average CP for the HM corn represents a 53% increase compared with conventional corn. The Met content of the conventional corn was 2.21% of the CP content. In comparison, in the HM corn the Met content was 2.57% of the CP content. Although the Cys content, on average, was higher in the HM corn, it represented a lower portion of the total CP (1.69 and 2.09%, respectively).

Mortality in the study was very low and occurred only in the first 2 wk (5 chicks on the control diet and 1 on the diet with HM corn). The overall livability was higher for the pullets on the HM corn diet (97.4%) than those on the control diet (86.8%). The difference was significant at P > 0.05. The cause of the lower mortality for those pullets on the HM corn is unclear. Necropsies were not performed to determine the cause of death.

Average feed consumption is shown in Table 4Go. Feed was provided ad libitum for the first 21 d. Although chicks on the HM corn diet consumed, on average, more than those on the control diet (1,153.9 versus 894.9 g), the difference was not significant. Feed consumption was controlled for the remainder of the trial, and as would be expected, there were no significant differences in feed consumption for the 3 types of diet (starter, grower, and developer).


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

  		Table 4. Average consumption of the starter, grower, and developer feeds
 
The pullets on the HM corn diet had higher BW throughout the 16 wk growing period, although the differences were only significant (P < 0.05) at wk 11, 12, and 15. Figure 1Go shows the average BW of the pullets through 16 wk of age that were fed the 2 experimental diets and compares them with the weekly target weights [5]. The average BW for the 2 groups of pullets was slightly higher than the target weight. The target weight for 16 wk of age was 1,300 g. The average weight for the pullets on the control and HM corn diets was 1,349 and 1,386 g, respectively.


Figure 1
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Average BW of the pullets on the 2 experimental diets compared with the target weight (source: Centurion Poultry Inc. [5]).

 
Figure 2Go shows the average weekly FCR (g of feed per g of BW gain) for the pullets on the 2 experimental diets compared with the target rate [5]. The FCR is cumulative to 4 wk of age and then weekly after that. There were no significant differences in the FCR for the pullets on the 2 diets. Overall FCR was 4.18 for the pullets on the control diet and 4.29 for those on the HM corn diet. Both of these values are higher than the 4.08 target FCR [5] and may be a result of the high temperatures recorded during the last few weeks of the study. The variation in environmental temperatures may also account for the variability in feed conversion in the final few weeks of the study.


Figure 2
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Average weekly feed conversion of the pullets on the 2 experimental diets compared with the target rate (source: Centurion Poultry Inc. [5]).

 
The results of this study indicate that the HM corn variety used is a suitable substitute for conventional corn in organic pullet diets. The inclusion of HM corn eliminates the need for SM in organic pullet starter, grower, and developer diets.

It is well known that the quality of the soil affects the crops grown on it [8]. Worthington [9] compared organic and conventionally grown cereals and reported less protein in organic cereal grains and speculated that this is a result of lower amounts of nitrogen in organically managed soils. The report of Bourn and Prescott [10] disagrees with the conclusions of Worthington [9]. They concluded that, with the possible exception of nitrate content, there is no strong evidence that organic and conventional foods differ in concentrations of various nutrients. The contradictory reports in the literature indicate that there is a need for well-controlled studies that are capable of making a valid comparison of organic and conventional production. In the interim, it is important that any breeding program for feedstuffs to be included in organic poultry diets be grown under organic conditions, as was done in the development of the HM corn used in this study.


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

  1. The new non-genetically modified variety of HM corn is a suitable substitute for conventional organic corn in diets for Bovan Brown pullets.
  2. When HM corn is included in pullet starter, grower, and developer diets, SM supplementation is not required to achieve adequate growth and feed conversions.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This research was partially funded by a grant from USDA/ CSREES. The authors would like to thank Heartland Country Co-op of Westby, Wisconsin, and Land O’Lakes Inc. for their work in putting the experimental feed together.


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

  1. EUR-Lex. 1991. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Lex-UriServ/site/en/consleg/1991/R/01991R2092-20070101-en.pdf Accessed July 2008.
  2. Michael Fields Agricultural Institute. W2493 County Rd ES, PO Box 990, East Troy, WI 53120.
  3. Bovan Browns are owned by Hendrix Genetics Company, Villa ‘dé Korver’, Spoortstraat 69, PO Box 111, 5830 AC Boxmeer, The Netherlands; and distributed in the US by Centurion Poultry Inc., PO Box 591/ 1095 Washington Rd., Lexington, GA 30648.
  4. Land O’Lakes Purina Feed LLC. 1080 County Rd F West; Shoreview, MN 55126–2910.
  5. Centurion Poultry. 2002. Bovan Brown Management Guide, North American Edition. Centurion Poultry Inc., Lexington, GA.
  6. Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro Area Climate Page. http://climate.umn.edu/doc/twin_cities/twin_cities.htm Accessed May 2008.
  7. Statistix. 2003. Version 8.0. Analytical Software. Tallahassee, FL.
  8. Beeson, K. C., and G. Matrone. 1976. The soil factor in animal and human nutrition. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 2:11–28.
  9. Worthington, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables and grains. J. Altern. Complement Med. 7:161–173.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Bourn, D., and J. Prescott. 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 42:1–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Poult. Res.Home page
A. C. Fanatico, C. M. Owens, and J. L. Emmert
Organic poultry production in the United States: Broilers
J. Appl. Poult. Res., January 1, 2009; 18(2): 355 - 366.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jacob, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jacob, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS