- Email: [email protected]
Protein Energy Relationships in the Diet of the Chick1
SEXUAL EFFECTIVENESS ity in the domestic chicken. Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy Degree, Kansas State University Library. McDaniel, G. R., and J. V. Craig, 1959. Behavior traits, semen measurements and fertility of White Leghorn males. Poultry Sci. 38: 1005-1013. Siegel, P. B., 1959. Evidence of a genetic basis for aggressiveness and sex drive in the White Plymouth Rock cock. Poultry Sci. 38: 115118. Siegel, S., 1956. Non Parametric Statistics for the
739
Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., 1958. The effect of experience on the mating behavior of the domestic cock. Ani. Behav. 1: 68-71. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., 1960. A study of sex drive of two strains of cockerels through three generations. Ani. Behav. 8: 43-53. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., and R. Osborne, 1956. A study of differences in the sex drive of cockerels. Ani. Behav. 4: 102-110.
JP. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE Poultry Department, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon; Poultry Science Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Division of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Poultry Division, Animal Research Institute, Ottawa; and Animal Science Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton (Received for publication August 24, 1961) /
T~ A HE REPORT of Scott et al. (1947) -*- has stimulated a great deal of work on the utilization of high energy rations for the production of broilers. Hill and Dansky (1950) indicated a relationship between the level of protein and productive energy in the diet of chicks. These authors observed a reduced growth rate in chicks fed a diet containing less than 20% protein but high in productive energy. Normal growth was obtained when the level of productive energy was reduced. Combs and Romoser (1955) concluded that the growth rate in broilers to 7 weeks of age was not affected until more than 41.5-42.0 Calories of productive energy per pound of feed were supplied for each pound of protein. The influence of different productive energy to protein ratios upon the growth and feed efficiency of chicks has been reported by many workers. Among these, Vondell et al. (1958) concluded that a specific Calorie: protein ratio applies, irrespective of the level of protein in the diet. 1 Co-operative project number 2, Associate Committee on Animal Nutrition, National Research Council of Canada, Prairie Region.
Experiments have been carried out to study the effect of different levels of productive energy fed to chicks receiving varying amounts of protein. Since both broiler and replacement type stock were used, it is of interest to determine whether both types of chick respond in a similar manner when fed the same rations. The results of the investigations to be reported were obtained from a co-operative project conducted by the Poultry Departments at the Universities of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Poultry Division of the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa. Code letters were assigned at random to the laboratories. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four levels of dietary protein, 16, 20, 24 and 28% and three levels of productive energy, 750, 850, and 950 Calories per pound of feed were tested in all possible combinations at each station. Because of the large number of diets involved, only those containing the largest amount of energy for each level of protein are shown in Table 1. The two lower energy levels were obtained by incorporating varying
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
Protein Energy Relationships in the Diet of the Chick 1
740
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The growth rates of the chicks receiving the different diets are listed in Table 2. Treatment averages for all chicks in the test are shown in Figure 1. The growth of the chicks improved as the level of protein in the diet was increased from 16 to 28%. Of greater interest is the relationship between protein level, productive energy and the body weight of the chicks. There was a slight but consistent trend for those chicks fed the 16% protein diet to grow more rapidly when their diet contained the lowest level of energy. The calculated ratios of productive energy per pound of protein at this protein level were 47, S3, and 59 Calories for the diets containing 750, 850 and 950 Calories,
respectively. This depression in growth agrees with that reported by Hill and Dansky (1950) and Vondell et al. (1958). A similar effect was noted by Biely and March (1954) when a 19% protein diet was supplemented by either 5.0% or 7.5% tallow. The chicks fed the 20% protein diet grew at a faster rate than those receiving 16% protein in their diet but the response was not consistent for the 3 levels of productive energy (38, 43 and 48 Calories per pound of protein). The slight depression in growth observed on the high level of productive energy would support the report of Combs and Romoser (1955) that growth rate of broilers is not affected until more than 41.5-42.0 Calories of energy per pound of protein were supplied for each pound of feed. Matterson et al. (1955) also noted a growth depression in chicks fed diets containing 20% protein and high levels of productive energy. Further, these authors reported that as the level of productive energy to protein decreased from 51 to 31, growth rate appeared to increase. The lack of growth response by the chicks to the two high energy: protein ratios (53 and 59 Calories) of the 16% protein diet and the greatest ratio (48 Calories) of the 20% protein diet would suggest an imbalance of productive energy to protein. The growth response of the chicks receiving either the diet containing 24% protein or 28% protein was superior to either of the lower protein diets. The calculated ratios for each pound of protein for the 24% protein diet were 31, 35, and 40 Calories whereas in the 28% protein diet the ratios were 27, 30 and 34 Calories of productive energy, respectively. Growth response at both of these levels of protein improved with increasing levels of productive energy. This increase in growth according to the increasing Calorie:protein ratio would suggest insufficient productive
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
amounts of lower energy feeds at the expense of those containing greater amounts. The productive energy content of the diets were calculated, using Frap's (1946) productive energy values for feedstuffs. The calculated protein levels were adjusted by varying the amounts of the protein supplements. The diets for stations A, B, and C were formulated by one of us (A.R.R.) and diets D and E by the cooperators at these two stations. The term "energy" as used in this report refers to "productive energy." The chicks (mixed sexes) used by each co-operator were from a local source. The breed and type (broiler or replacement strain) are listed in Table 2. All groups were duplicated; the number of chicks per treatment is listed in Table 2. The experimental procedure was as nearly uniform as possible. All chicks were reared in electrically heated starter batteries with raised wire floors. The chicks were weighed at hatching and at the end of each week. Feed consumption was recorded weekly. Water and mash were supplied ad libitum during the trials which were terminated at the end of the fourth week.
41.0
40.0 22.25
Wheat Corn Oats Oat groats Oat hulls Shorts Alfalfa meal Fish meal (74% protein) Fish meal (63% protein) Meat meal (55% protein) Skim milk powder Whey Brewers' yeast Blood meal (82% protein) Soybean oil meal (44% protein) Ground limestone Rock phosphate Iodized salt Fish oil (1000A-150D) Corn oil MnS0 4
—
—
26.3 929
0.9 0.0125
—
0.5
— — —
—
— —
28.1 940
0.0125
—
0.5 0.5
— —
21.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
16.0
2.0
24.0 930
0.025
—
12.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
5.0 1.0 12.0
44.0 22.25
8.0 25.0 25.0
A, B, C
E
23.6 956
0.5 0.0125
—
0.5
—
15.0 1.0
—
2.0 0.5 2.0
—
2.0
6.0
— — —
20.0
— —
50.0
D
24%
24.1 956
0.0125
—
0.5 0.5
—
10.0 1.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
16.0
— —
2.0
10.0 30.0 8.0 20.0
E
20.0 930
0.025
—
7.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
10.0 1.0 8.0
— — —
48.0 22.25
A, B, C
18.3 960
0.0125
— —
0.5
—
5.0 1.5
—
2.0 0.5 1.6
—
4.0
2.4
— —
20.0 3.0
— —
60.0
D
20%
20.0 954
0.0125
—
1.0 0.5 0.5
—
7.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
10.0
— —
2.0
10.0 30.0 17.0 20.0
E
Vitamin supplements added in quantities to meet the requirements as set forth by the National Research Countil (1954).
28.0 930
0.025
—
0.5 0.25
24.5 1.0
18.0 2.0
—
2.0 0.5 1.0
2.0
—
6.6
— — —
20.0
— — — — — —•
1.0 16.0
— — — —
D
A, B, C
Location
— —
28%
Percent protein
Protein, calculated Energy, calculated
om http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015 16.0 930
0.025
—
1.5 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
15.0 1.0 4.0
— — —
52.0 22.25
A, B, C
TABLE 1.—Composition of diets for each protein level at 950 Calories of productive energy per pound of feed
15.8 971
0.0125
— —
0.5
—
5.0 2.0
— 2.0 0.5 0.3
— 0.5
— — 2.2
20.0 3.0
— —
65.0
D
16%
16.0 954
0.0125
—
7.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
— — —
— 2.0
— 4.0
2.0
— — —
41.0 30.0 10.0
E
r1
2
> o
W
w
3 w
>TS S3 O
^4
in
SHI]
742
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE TABLE 2.—Average body weight (in grams) of chicks at 4 weeks of age according to levels of protein and productive energy
Protein %
Location
Energy levels Calories
A
B
C
D
E
pound
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Test 1
750 850 950
272 274 232
235 240 206
216 204 170
325 315 270
184 186 187
129 127 124
210 157 160
176 166 155
295 304 283
20
750 850 950
328 343 342
288 319 300
234 246 229
370 424 418
214 232 244
169 162 158
221 198 193
184 196 216
325 348 344
24
750 850 950
322 364 376
282 314 344
237 270 253
374 435 452
186 230 261
208 174 202
253 236 216
345 -317 339
321 382 382
28
750 850 950
304 349 370
263 316 343
259 274 274
390 461 474
189 236 281
202 228 202
272 252 268
344 394 371
349 380 404
Breed
NH
NH
SCWL
WPR
SCWL
BPR
BPR
WPR
NHxBPR
Type
Br*
Br
Rep
Br
Rep
Rep
Rep
Br
Br
Chicks per treatment
42
42
36
40
40
32
24
40
60
* Br=broiler strain; Rep = replacement stock.
energy for the quantity of protein available to the chicks. Such a conclusion was reported by Leong et al. (1955) and Sunde (1956). An analysis of variance for body weight at 4 weeks of age for each test at each location indicated a significant (P < 0.01) difference between levels of protein and productive energy. The interaction was significant (P < 0.05) except for test 2 at location D. A significant interaction measures quantitatively the lack of uniformity in growth response of the chicks receiving the 3 levels of productive energy for any level of protein. Table 3 lists the efficiency of feed utilization for all tests according to the levels of protein and productive energy in the diets. The efficiency of feed utilization for those chicks fed the diet containing 16% protein was superior for the groups receiving the lower levels of energy, indicating as with growth, an improper balance of energy and protein at the expense of the
former. This lowering of feed efficiency on low protein diets was also observed by Sunde (1954) and Vondell et al. (1958). The relationship between level of protein and productive energy as it affects efficiency of feed utilization is shown graphically in Figure 2. The feed efficiency of those chicks receiving the ration containing 20% protein improved as the levels of productive energy increased. The similarity of response between the chicks receiving the two higher levels of energy substantiates the effectiveness of the Calorie:protein ratio reported by Combs and Romoser (1955). At both the 24% and 28% levels of protein, the chicks utilized their feed more effectively than those chicks on the lower levels of protein. An improvement in feed efficiency as the productive energy increased was observed in both of the above groups. This is in agreement with the finding of Potter et al. (1956) and Matterson et al. (1955). The improvement in feed efficiency due to
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
16
743
PROTEIN ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
•
BROILERS COMBINED
400
REPLACEMENT
<9
C 200
100-
750 8 5 0 9 5 0
7 5 0 8 5 0 950
16
20
750 B50 950
750 850 950
24
28
CALORIES OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY AND PERCENTAGE PROTEIN.
FIG. 1. Average body weight at 4 weeks of age for replacement and broiler stock.
TABLE 3.—Feed conversion to 4 weeks of age according to level of protein and productive energy
Protein
Energy levels Calories per pound
Location A
B
C
D
E
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Test 1
16
750 850 950
2.4 2.5 3.0
2.9 2.6 2.7
4.3 3.4 3.7
2.4 2.4 2.4
3.0 2.8 2.8
4.0 5.2 4.2
2.8 3.8 3.2
3.2 3.4 3.5
2.5 3.4 2.5
20
750 850 950
2.3 2.1 2.1
2.5 2.1 2.2
3.3 3.3 3.0
2.3 2.0 2.0
2.9 2.5 2.4
3.2 3.6 3.7
2.7 3.5 3.2
3.3 2.7 2.8
2.4 2.2 2.2
24
750 850 950
2.4 2.0 2.0
2.5 2.1 1.9
3.0 2.9 2.7
2.3 2.0 1.8
2.9 2.4 2.4
2.4 3.1 2.8
2.5 2.7 3.0
1.8 2.2 1.9
2.4 2.3 2.1
28
750 850 950
2.4 2.1 1.9
2.4 2.1 2.0
3.1 2.7 2.4
2.2 2.1 1.7
3.0 2.4 2.3
2.9 2.6 2.6
3.3 2.4 2.4
2.0 1.5 1.4
2.3 2.2 2.1
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
300
744
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE
REPLACEMENT COMBINED
4.0
BROILERS
D
5
2.0
1.0
750 850 950 750 850 950 750 850 950 750 850 950 16 20 24 28 CALORIES OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY AND PERCENTAGE PROTEIN.
FIG. 2. Feed conversion to 4 weeks of age for replacement and broiler stock.
increased energy was more pronounced in the diet containing 28% protein than in the diet containing 24% protein. Such a response is related to the ratio of productive energy to protein in the diets. Five of the tests were conducted with broiler strains and four with replacement stock (see Table 2). A comparison of these two types of stock affords an opportunity to determine their relative response to various levels of both proteins and productive energy. The appropriate data for growth were grouped and are presented in Figure 1. The replacement stock grew more slowly but their growth pattern was very similar in all cases, being 62% to 69% of that for the broiler strains. Figure 2 presents a summary of the
efficiency of feed utilization for both types of stock, according to the diets fed. As to be expected, the broiler strains were more efficient at all levels of protein and energy. The feed conversion of the replacement stock was 71%-83% of that of the broiler type chick. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A co-operative test has been carried out to study the growth response of broiler and replacement chicks fed different amounts of protein and varying levels of productive energy. Based on these experiments, the following conclusions can be drawn. 1. An excess of productive energy in relation to the amount of protein in the diet depresses the rate of growth and decreases
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
.3.0 z o
PROTEIN ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support by the National Research Council for a portion of these tests is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Biely, J., and B. March, 1954. Fat studies in poultry. 2. Fat supplements in chick and poultry rations. Poultry Sci. 33: 1220-1227. Combs, G. F., and G. L. Romoser, 1955. A new approach to poultry feed formulation. Feed Age, 5: 50-58. Fraps, G. S., 1946. Composition and productive energy of poultry feeds and rations. Texas Agric. Sta. Bull. 678. Hill, F. W., and L. M. Dansky, 1950. Studies on
the protein requirements of chicks and its relation to dietary energy level. Poultry Sci. 29: 763. Leong, K. C , M. L. Sunde, H. R. Bird and C. A. Elvehjem, 1955. Effect of energy: protein ratio on growth rate, efficiency, feathering and fat deposition in chickens. Poultry Sci. 34: 1206. Matterson, L. D., L. M. Potter, L. D. Stinson and E. P. Singsen, 1955. Studies on the effect of varying protein and energy levels in poultry rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poultry Sci. 34: 1210. National Research Council 1954. Nutrient requirements for domestic animals. No. 1. Nutrient requirements for poultry. Potter, L. M., L. D. Matterson, D. Carlson and E. P. Singsen, 1956. Studies on the effect of varying protein levels and calorie-protein ratios in poultry rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poultry Sci. 35: 1165. Scott, H. M., L. D. Matterson and E. P. Singsen, 1947. Nutritional factors influencing growth and efficiency of feed utilization. 1. The effect of the source of carbohydrate. Poultry Sci. 26: 554. Sunde, M. L., 1954. The use of animal fats in poultry feeds. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 3 1 : 49-52. Sunde, M. L., 1956. A relationship between protein level and energy level in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 35: 350-354. Vondell, R. M., and R. C. Ringrose, 1958. The effect of protein and fat levels and calorie to protein ratio upon performance of broilers. Poultry Sci. 37: 147-151.
Disciplinary Interrelationships: Are They Being Given Proper Consideration? R A L P H B. N E S T L E R 1
Cooperative State Experiment Station Service, V. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. (Received for publication August 25, 1961) HISTORIC BACKGROUND ON COOPERATION
T
HE NEED for greater consideration of interrelationships in the experimental design of poultry research was recognized early in the history of the agricultural experiment stations. In 1887, just after the passage of the Hatch Act, at the 'Retired from Federal service October 31, 1961.
first meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Experiment Stations, Atwater stated: In a co-ordination of work a pretty full liberty of choice will have to be left to the workers and no definite line can be laid down as to what they shall do. Freedom of action is one of the prime essentials of all successful research. . . . At the same time, unless I greatly err, there are numerous ways in which the large questions of agricultural ex-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
the efficiency of feed utilization. 2. An excess of protein in relation to productive energy, while not adversely affecting either growth or feed efficiency, does indicate a wastage of protein as an energy source. 3. The growth pattern of replacement and broiler stock is similar. The growth rate of the former is from 62%—69% of the latter. 4. Feed efficiency of replacement stock is 71%—83% of that for broiler strains.
745
739
Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., 1958. The effect of experience on the mating behavior of the domestic cock. Ani. Behav. 1: 68-71. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., 1960. A study of sex drive of two strains of cockerels through three generations. Ani. Behav. 8: 43-53. Wood-Gush, D. G. M., and R. Osborne, 1956. A study of differences in the sex drive of cockerels. Ani. Behav. 4: 102-110.
JP. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE Poultry Department, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon; Poultry Science Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Division of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Poultry Division, Animal Research Institute, Ottawa; and Animal Science Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton (Received for publication August 24, 1961) /
T~ A HE REPORT of Scott et al. (1947) -*- has stimulated a great deal of work on the utilization of high energy rations for the production of broilers. Hill and Dansky (1950) indicated a relationship between the level of protein and productive energy in the diet of chicks. These authors observed a reduced growth rate in chicks fed a diet containing less than 20% protein but high in productive energy. Normal growth was obtained when the level of productive energy was reduced. Combs and Romoser (1955) concluded that the growth rate in broilers to 7 weeks of age was not affected until more than 41.5-42.0 Calories of productive energy per pound of feed were supplied for each pound of protein. The influence of different productive energy to protein ratios upon the growth and feed efficiency of chicks has been reported by many workers. Among these, Vondell et al. (1958) concluded that a specific Calorie: protein ratio applies, irrespective of the level of protein in the diet. 1 Co-operative project number 2, Associate Committee on Animal Nutrition, National Research Council of Canada, Prairie Region.
Experiments have been carried out to study the effect of different levels of productive energy fed to chicks receiving varying amounts of protein. Since both broiler and replacement type stock were used, it is of interest to determine whether both types of chick respond in a similar manner when fed the same rations. The results of the investigations to be reported were obtained from a co-operative project conducted by the Poultry Departments at the Universities of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Poultry Division of the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa. Code letters were assigned at random to the laboratories. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four levels of dietary protein, 16, 20, 24 and 28% and three levels of productive energy, 750, 850, and 950 Calories per pound of feed were tested in all possible combinations at each station. Because of the large number of diets involved, only those containing the largest amount of energy for each level of protein are shown in Table 1. The two lower energy levels were obtained by incorporating varying
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
Protein Energy Relationships in the Diet of the Chick 1
740
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The growth rates of the chicks receiving the different diets are listed in Table 2. Treatment averages for all chicks in the test are shown in Figure 1. The growth of the chicks improved as the level of protein in the diet was increased from 16 to 28%. Of greater interest is the relationship between protein level, productive energy and the body weight of the chicks. There was a slight but consistent trend for those chicks fed the 16% protein diet to grow more rapidly when their diet contained the lowest level of energy. The calculated ratios of productive energy per pound of protein at this protein level were 47, S3, and 59 Calories for the diets containing 750, 850 and 950 Calories,
respectively. This depression in growth agrees with that reported by Hill and Dansky (1950) and Vondell et al. (1958). A similar effect was noted by Biely and March (1954) when a 19% protein diet was supplemented by either 5.0% or 7.5% tallow. The chicks fed the 20% protein diet grew at a faster rate than those receiving 16% protein in their diet but the response was not consistent for the 3 levels of productive energy (38, 43 and 48 Calories per pound of protein). The slight depression in growth observed on the high level of productive energy would support the report of Combs and Romoser (1955) that growth rate of broilers is not affected until more than 41.5-42.0 Calories of energy per pound of protein were supplied for each pound of feed. Matterson et al. (1955) also noted a growth depression in chicks fed diets containing 20% protein and high levels of productive energy. Further, these authors reported that as the level of productive energy to protein decreased from 51 to 31, growth rate appeared to increase. The lack of growth response by the chicks to the two high energy: protein ratios (53 and 59 Calories) of the 16% protein diet and the greatest ratio (48 Calories) of the 20% protein diet would suggest an imbalance of productive energy to protein. The growth response of the chicks receiving either the diet containing 24% protein or 28% protein was superior to either of the lower protein diets. The calculated ratios for each pound of protein for the 24% protein diet were 31, 35, and 40 Calories whereas in the 28% protein diet the ratios were 27, 30 and 34 Calories of productive energy, respectively. Growth response at both of these levels of protein improved with increasing levels of productive energy. This increase in growth according to the increasing Calorie:protein ratio would suggest insufficient productive
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
amounts of lower energy feeds at the expense of those containing greater amounts. The productive energy content of the diets were calculated, using Frap's (1946) productive energy values for feedstuffs. The calculated protein levels were adjusted by varying the amounts of the protein supplements. The diets for stations A, B, and C were formulated by one of us (A.R.R.) and diets D and E by the cooperators at these two stations. The term "energy" as used in this report refers to "productive energy." The chicks (mixed sexes) used by each co-operator were from a local source. The breed and type (broiler or replacement strain) are listed in Table 2. All groups were duplicated; the number of chicks per treatment is listed in Table 2. The experimental procedure was as nearly uniform as possible. All chicks were reared in electrically heated starter batteries with raised wire floors. The chicks were weighed at hatching and at the end of each week. Feed consumption was recorded weekly. Water and mash were supplied ad libitum during the trials which were terminated at the end of the fourth week.
41.0
40.0 22.25
Wheat Corn Oats Oat groats Oat hulls Shorts Alfalfa meal Fish meal (74% protein) Fish meal (63% protein) Meat meal (55% protein) Skim milk powder Whey Brewers' yeast Blood meal (82% protein) Soybean oil meal (44% protein) Ground limestone Rock phosphate Iodized salt Fish oil (1000A-150D) Corn oil MnS0 4
—
—
26.3 929
0.9 0.0125
—
0.5
— — —
—
— —
28.1 940
0.0125
—
0.5 0.5
— —
21.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
16.0
2.0
24.0 930
0.025
—
12.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
5.0 1.0 12.0
44.0 22.25
8.0 25.0 25.0
A, B, C
E
23.6 956
0.5 0.0125
—
0.5
—
15.0 1.0
—
2.0 0.5 2.0
—
2.0
6.0
— — —
20.0
— —
50.0
D
24%
24.1 956
0.0125
—
0.5 0.5
—
10.0 1.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
16.0
— —
2.0
10.0 30.0 8.0 20.0
E
20.0 930
0.025
—
7.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
10.0 1.0 8.0
— — —
48.0 22.25
A, B, C
18.3 960
0.0125
— —
0.5
—
5.0 1.5
—
2.0 0.5 1.6
—
4.0
2.4
— —
20.0 3.0
— —
60.0
D
20%
20.0 954
0.0125
—
1.0 0.5 0.5
—
7.0
— — —
—
2.0
—
10.0
— —
2.0
10.0 30.0 17.0 20.0
E
Vitamin supplements added in quantities to meet the requirements as set forth by the National Research Countil (1954).
28.0 930
0.025
—
0.5 0.25
24.5 1.0
18.0 2.0
—
2.0 0.5 1.0
2.0
—
6.6
— — —
20.0
— — — — — —•
1.0 16.0
— — — —
D
A, B, C
Location
— —
28%
Percent protein
Protein, calculated Energy, calculated
om http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015 16.0 930
0.025
—
1.5 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.25
— — — — — —
15.0 1.0 4.0
— — —
52.0 22.25
A, B, C
TABLE 1.—Composition of diets for each protein level at 950 Calories of productive energy per pound of feed
15.8 971
0.0125
— —
0.5
—
5.0 2.0
— 2.0 0.5 0.3
— 0.5
— — 2.2
20.0 3.0
— —
65.0
D
16%
16.0 954
0.0125
—
7.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
— — —
— 2.0
— 4.0
2.0
— — —
41.0 30.0 10.0
E
r1
2
> o
W
w
3 w
>TS S3 O
^4
in
SHI]
742
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE TABLE 2.—Average body weight (in grams) of chicks at 4 weeks of age according to levels of protein and productive energy
Protein %
Location
Energy levels Calories
A
B
C
D
E
pound
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Test 1
750 850 950
272 274 232
235 240 206
216 204 170
325 315 270
184 186 187
129 127 124
210 157 160
176 166 155
295 304 283
20
750 850 950
328 343 342
288 319 300
234 246 229
370 424 418
214 232 244
169 162 158
221 198 193
184 196 216
325 348 344
24
750 850 950
322 364 376
282 314 344
237 270 253
374 435 452
186 230 261
208 174 202
253 236 216
345 -317 339
321 382 382
28
750 850 950
304 349 370
263 316 343
259 274 274
390 461 474
189 236 281
202 228 202
272 252 268
344 394 371
349 380 404
Breed
NH
NH
SCWL
WPR
SCWL
BPR
BPR
WPR
NHxBPR
Type
Br*
Br
Rep
Br
Rep
Rep
Rep
Br
Br
Chicks per treatment
42
42
36
40
40
32
24
40
60
* Br=broiler strain; Rep = replacement stock.
energy for the quantity of protein available to the chicks. Such a conclusion was reported by Leong et al. (1955) and Sunde (1956). An analysis of variance for body weight at 4 weeks of age for each test at each location indicated a significant (P < 0.01) difference between levels of protein and productive energy. The interaction was significant (P < 0.05) except for test 2 at location D. A significant interaction measures quantitatively the lack of uniformity in growth response of the chicks receiving the 3 levels of productive energy for any level of protein. Table 3 lists the efficiency of feed utilization for all tests according to the levels of protein and productive energy in the diets. The efficiency of feed utilization for those chicks fed the diet containing 16% protein was superior for the groups receiving the lower levels of energy, indicating as with growth, an improper balance of energy and protein at the expense of the
former. This lowering of feed efficiency on low protein diets was also observed by Sunde (1954) and Vondell et al. (1958). The relationship between level of protein and productive energy as it affects efficiency of feed utilization is shown graphically in Figure 2. The feed efficiency of those chicks receiving the ration containing 20% protein improved as the levels of productive energy increased. The similarity of response between the chicks receiving the two higher levels of energy substantiates the effectiveness of the Calorie:protein ratio reported by Combs and Romoser (1955). At both the 24% and 28% levels of protein, the chicks utilized their feed more effectively than those chicks on the lower levels of protein. An improvement in feed efficiency as the productive energy increased was observed in both of the above groups. This is in agreement with the finding of Potter et al. (1956) and Matterson et al. (1955). The improvement in feed efficiency due to
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
16
743
PROTEIN ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
•
BROILERS COMBINED
400
REPLACEMENT
<9
C 200
100-
750 8 5 0 9 5 0
7 5 0 8 5 0 950
16
20
750 B50 950
750 850 950
24
28
CALORIES OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY AND PERCENTAGE PROTEIN.
FIG. 1. Average body weight at 4 weeks of age for replacement and broiler stock.
TABLE 3.—Feed conversion to 4 weeks of age according to level of protein and productive energy
Protein
Energy levels Calories per pound
Location A
B
C
D
E
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1 Test 2
Test 1
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Test 1
16
750 850 950
2.4 2.5 3.0
2.9 2.6 2.7
4.3 3.4 3.7
2.4 2.4 2.4
3.0 2.8 2.8
4.0 5.2 4.2
2.8 3.8 3.2
3.2 3.4 3.5
2.5 3.4 2.5
20
750 850 950
2.3 2.1 2.1
2.5 2.1 2.2
3.3 3.3 3.0
2.3 2.0 2.0
2.9 2.5 2.4
3.2 3.6 3.7
2.7 3.5 3.2
3.3 2.7 2.8
2.4 2.2 2.2
24
750 850 950
2.4 2.0 2.0
2.5 2.1 1.9
3.0 2.9 2.7
2.3 2.0 1.8
2.9 2.4 2.4
2.4 3.1 2.8
2.5 2.7 3.0
1.8 2.2 1.9
2.4 2.3 2.1
28
750 850 950
2.4 2.1 1.9
2.4 2.1 2.0
3.1 2.7 2.4
2.2 2.1 1.7
3.0 2.4 2.3
2.9 2.6 2.6
3.3 2.4 2.4
2.0 1.5 1.4
2.3 2.2 2.1
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
300
744
J. B. O'NEIL, J. BIELY, G. C. HODGSON, J. R. AITKEN AND A. R. ROBBLEE
REPLACEMENT COMBINED
4.0
BROILERS
D
5
2.0
1.0
750 850 950 750 850 950 750 850 950 750 850 950 16 20 24 28 CALORIES OF PRODUCTIVE ENERGY AND PERCENTAGE PROTEIN.
FIG. 2. Feed conversion to 4 weeks of age for replacement and broiler stock.
increased energy was more pronounced in the diet containing 28% protein than in the diet containing 24% protein. Such a response is related to the ratio of productive energy to protein in the diets. Five of the tests were conducted with broiler strains and four with replacement stock (see Table 2). A comparison of these two types of stock affords an opportunity to determine their relative response to various levels of both proteins and productive energy. The appropriate data for growth were grouped and are presented in Figure 1. The replacement stock grew more slowly but their growth pattern was very similar in all cases, being 62% to 69% of that for the broiler strains. Figure 2 presents a summary of the
efficiency of feed utilization for both types of stock, according to the diets fed. As to be expected, the broiler strains were more efficient at all levels of protein and energy. The feed conversion of the replacement stock was 71%-83% of that of the broiler type chick. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A co-operative test has been carried out to study the growth response of broiler and replacement chicks fed different amounts of protein and varying levels of productive energy. Based on these experiments, the following conclusions can be drawn. 1. An excess of productive energy in relation to the amount of protein in the diet depresses the rate of growth and decreases
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
.3.0 z o
PROTEIN ENERGY RELATIONSHIPS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support by the National Research Council for a portion of these tests is gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Biely, J., and B. March, 1954. Fat studies in poultry. 2. Fat supplements in chick and poultry rations. Poultry Sci. 33: 1220-1227. Combs, G. F., and G. L. Romoser, 1955. A new approach to poultry feed formulation. Feed Age, 5: 50-58. Fraps, G. S., 1946. Composition and productive energy of poultry feeds and rations. Texas Agric. Sta. Bull. 678. Hill, F. W., and L. M. Dansky, 1950. Studies on
the protein requirements of chicks and its relation to dietary energy level. Poultry Sci. 29: 763. Leong, K. C , M. L. Sunde, H. R. Bird and C. A. Elvehjem, 1955. Effect of energy: protein ratio on growth rate, efficiency, feathering and fat deposition in chickens. Poultry Sci. 34: 1206. Matterson, L. D., L. M. Potter, L. D. Stinson and E. P. Singsen, 1955. Studies on the effect of varying protein and energy levels in poultry rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poultry Sci. 34: 1210. National Research Council 1954. Nutrient requirements for domestic animals. No. 1. Nutrient requirements for poultry. Potter, L. M., L. D. Matterson, D. Carlson and E. P. Singsen, 1956. Studies on the effect of varying protein levels and calorie-protein ratios in poultry rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poultry Sci. 35: 1165. Scott, H. M., L. D. Matterson and E. P. Singsen, 1947. Nutritional factors influencing growth and efficiency of feed utilization. 1. The effect of the source of carbohydrate. Poultry Sci. 26: 554. Sunde, M. L., 1954. The use of animal fats in poultry feeds. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 3 1 : 49-52. Sunde, M. L., 1956. A relationship between protein level and energy level in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 35: 350-354. Vondell, R. M., and R. C. Ringrose, 1958. The effect of protein and fat levels and calorie to protein ratio upon performance of broilers. Poultry Sci. 37: 147-151.
Disciplinary Interrelationships: Are They Being Given Proper Consideration? R A L P H B. N E S T L E R 1
Cooperative State Experiment Station Service, V. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D.C. (Received for publication August 25, 1961) HISTORIC BACKGROUND ON COOPERATION
T
HE NEED for greater consideration of interrelationships in the experimental design of poultry research was recognized early in the history of the agricultural experiment stations. In 1887, just after the passage of the Hatch Act, at the 'Retired from Federal service October 31, 1961.
first meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Experiment Stations, Atwater stated: In a co-ordination of work a pretty full liberty of choice will have to be left to the workers and no definite line can be laid down as to what they shall do. Freedom of action is one of the prime essentials of all successful research. . . . At the same time, unless I greatly err, there are numerous ways in which the large questions of agricultural ex-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Pennsylvania Library on June 19, 2015
the efficiency of feed utilization. 2. An excess of protein in relation to productive energy, while not adversely affecting either growth or feed efficiency, does indicate a wastage of protein as an energy source. 3. The growth pattern of replacement and broiler stock is similar. The growth rate of the former is from 62%—69% of the latter. 4. Feed efficiency of replacement stock is 71%—83% of that for broiler strains.
745