- Email: [email protected]
Effect of Restricted Feeding from 6 to 20 Weeks of Age on Reproductive Performance of Turkeys1
METABOLISM AND NUTRITION Effect of Restricted Feeding from 6 to 20 Weeks of Age on Reproductive Performance of Turkeys1 W. J. OWINGS and J. L. SELL Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011 (Received for publication September 26, 1978)
1980 Poultry Science 59:77-81 INTRODUCTION
and restricted their feed intake to that of control hens fed a high-energy feed. Rate of egg production and feed-per-egg ratio were improved significantly as a consequence of restriction. Conversely, Jones et al. (1976), Andrews and Morrow (1978), and Cherms et al, (1978a) reported significantly lower egg production from hens restricted by a skip-a-day feed program, mechanical restriction, or a low-protein feed during a portion of the growing phase. Meyer et al. (1977) also reported significantly reduced egg production but it was during the latter phases of the laying cycle with hens that had received 10 or 12% protein diets from 12 through 32 weeks of age. Other researchers have reported no significant effects on egg production or other reproductive parameters when turkey hens were restricted in nutrient intake at sometime during the growing phase (Borron et al., 1974; Cherms et al, 1976; Krueger et al, 1977a; Voitle and Harms, 1978; Potter et al, 1978). Feed restriction results with male breeder turkeys have shown more consistent improvements in reproductive performance than with hens. Several researchers have reported that restricting the feed intake of toms results in decreased body weight and lower semen volume during the first several weeks of semen collection, but that the volume increased with subsequent collections (Voitle et al, 1972; Woodard etal, 1976; Props *?r«/., 1977). Potter et al. (1978) reported significantly
Economic considerations continue to stimulate interest in restricted feeding of growing turkey breeding hens and toms. Restricted feeding has been shown to improve the reproductive performance of broiler breeder chickens. Currently, turkey breeder candidates usually are reared to 18 or 20 weeks of age on a feeding program used for commercial turkey production. Results of experiments with restricted feeding of potential turkey breeders have been quite varied. Many different restriction methods have been tested without consistent results. The methods include: 1) low protein, 2) high fiber, 3) mechanical restriction to a certain level of feed intake, 4) skip-a-day feeding, or 5) combinations of several of these methods. Balloun (1974) combined a skip-a-day and mechanical feed restriction program, feeding either 350 g or 360 g of feed during the 20- to 31- or 18- to 30-week period. In one experiment, the restricted hens laid at a significantly higher rate than the controls. In a second experiment, no difference was observed. Fertility and hatchability were not affected in either experiment. McCartney et al. (1977) fed hens a low-energy ration from 10 to 28 weeks of age
'journal Paper No. J-9295 of the Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, IA. Project No. 2241.
77
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
ABSTRACT A study was undertaken to determine the influence of nutrient restriction between 6 weeks and 20 weeks of age on the reproductive performance of commercial turkey breeders. Females were restricted in feed intake to 70% or 60% of full-fed control hens. Males were restricted to approximately 50% of normal feed intake for the same period. The body weight of restrictedfed females was significantly less than that of control hens at 20, 32, and 52 weeks of age. The restricted hens consumed approximately 10% less feed during the 6- to 52-week period than the control hens. There were no carry-over effects of feed restriction on rate of egg production, feed per egg, hatchability, fertility or egg weight. Also, restriction of feed for males had no subsequent effects on fertility of eggs.
OWINGS AND SELL
78
TABLE 1. Composition of grower, holding, and breeder diets Breeder Ingredient
Grower
Holding
13
16
64.4
48.5 25.0 6.0 7.5
63.7 10.0 4.0 8.5
2.0 7.5 2.0 1.8 .8 .5 .5
19
Tom
('Hi)
Total Calculated analysis Protein % Calcium % Phosphorus (total) % ME kcal/kg
61.3 10.0
52.3 10.0
67.3 10.0
2.5 4.0
12.5 2.0 4.0 4.0
10.0 1.5 4.0 5.0
2.0 .5 .5 .5
1.8 4.5 .5 .5
1.2 4.0 .5 .5
20.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.2 4.0 .5 .5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19.0 .9 .8 3030
13.5 .8 .7 2750
13.0 2.3 .7 2820
16.0 2.3 .7 2820
19.0 2.3 .7 2820
15.0 .8 .6 2990
28.0 2.0
1.0 .2 .5 .5
Provided per kilogram of diet: a) grower diet, vitamin A 6600 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; riboflavin 5 mg; choline 250 mg; calcium pantothenate 5 mg; niacin 40 mg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 136 mg; Zn 75 mg; Fe 55 mg; Cu 9 mg. b) Holding diet, vitamin A 6700 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; vitamin E 10 mg; vitamin K 2 mg; riboflavin 5 mg; choline 250 mg; calcium pantothenate 5 mg; niacin 38 mg; folacin 275 meg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 88 mg; Zn 19 mg; Fe 14 mg; Cu 2.2 mg; and methionine 100 mg. c) Breeder diets, vitamin A 11,000 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; vitamin E 40 IU; menadione sodium bisulfite 4.4 mg; riboflavin 10 mg; choline 370 mg; calcium pantothenate 20 mg; niacin 50 mg; folacin 1.1 mg; biotin 40 meg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 88 mg; Zn 19 mg; Fe 14 mg; Cu 2.2 mg; methionine 500 mg; and ethoxyquin 125 mg.
poorer fertility from toms fed 6 hr per day from 28 to 38 weeks of age on a skip-a-day program. Krueger et al. (1977b) reported, however, that reduced semen volume was observed only during the first few weeks of collection with toms fed a predetermined amount of feed from 18 through 66 weeks of age, but no differences were seen in semen volume over the entire breeding season. Krueger et al. (1978) also reported that restricting toms to 200 g feed per head daily from 22 through 34 weeks of age resulted in significantly poorer fertility but no adverse effects were observed with toms fed 250 g of feed or more per day. It was the purpose of this research to determine the influence of nutrient restriction of potential turkey breeders between 6 weeks and 20 weeks of age on reproductive performance, and if feed restriction during the growing period would affect the protein needs of the breeder hen during the reproduction period.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE July-hatched, large white turkey parent stock was obtained from a commercial, Iowa turkey hatchery. The poults were fed a commercial turkey starter and were grown under commercial conditions the first 6 weeks. They were then transferred to the Poultry Research Center and placed in pens (2.4 X 3.9 m), 14 hens per pen. One group of 4 pens was designated as a control and was fed ad libitum a normal startergrower-finisher feed to 18 weeks of age. From 18 to 32 weeks of age the control hens were fed a low-protein, low-energy holding diet (Table 1). Sixteen pens of hens were placed on a restricted feeding program from 6 to 20 weeks of age. One group of 4 pens was restricted in feed intake to 70% of that of the control hens for the previous week. Feed was provided on a skip-a-day basis. The remaining 12 pens were restricted to 60% of the control hen intake and
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
Ground corn Ground oats Wheat middlings Soybean meal (48.5%) Meat and bone meal (50%) Fish meal (60%) Alfalfa meal (17%) Stabilized fat Dicalcium phosphate Limestone Salt Micro-ingredients1
79
REPRODUCTION AND FEED RESTRICTION
light. At 18 weeks of age, the toms were sorted into 2 pens according to body weight. Again at 28 weeks of age the toms were sorted by body weight, this time into 4 pens. At 39 weeks of age, the toms in the second heaviest pens, by weight, were restricted to 386 g of feed per torn daily. The feed intake of the toms in the other 3 pens, at this time, was approximately 450 g per head per day. All birds were weighed every 2 weeks until 32 weeks of age; thereafter, they were weighed every 4 weeks. Complete records were kept on all eggs laid, feed consumed, eggs incubated, and the percentage fertility and hatchability of eggs. Eggs were collected daily and held in a refrigerated storeroom. The eggs were not set on a rigid weekly schedule, but all eggs for a given period were set at one time. A 2-day egg collection during the 36th and 48th week was used to determine egg weight. Statistical significance of all data was determined by analysis of variance according to Snedecor and Cochran (1967). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Body weights at 20, 32, and 52 weeks, along with the feed consumption during the 6 to 20, 20 to 32, and 32 to 52 week periods, are shown in Table 2. At 20 weeks, the body weight of the restricted hens was significantly less than that of the controls. The 70% restricted and 60% restricted hens were 69% and 57% as heavy as the control hens, respectively. The 32-week body weights of hens restricted to 70% and 60% feed intakes were significantly less than that of controls but the relative differences were not as large as at 20 weeks of age. At the end of the reproduction period, the
TABLE 2. Body weight and feed consumption Growing period treatment '• Limit-fed 60% Full-fed Average wt 20 wk (kg) Average wt 32 wk (kg) Average wt 52 wk (kg) Feed consumed (kg) 6-20 wk 20-32 wk 32-52 wk
Limit-fed 70%
A
B
C
D
Average
7.0 8.5 7.8
4.8 7.2 7.5
4.0 6.9 7.2
4.0 7.0 7.1
3.9 7.0 7.4
4.0 6.7 7.2
4.0 6.9 7.2
19.3 17.6 31.0
13.9 17.1 32.6
11.6 16.9 32.0
12.0 16.9 32.2
11.8 17.3 32.3
11.3 16.3 33.8
11.7 16.8 32.6
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
were also fed on a skip-a-day basis. Enough feeder space was supplied so that all birds could eat at one time. No feed or grain was fed on the off day. It did become necessary to limit access to water because of a problem with wet litter. When the hens had feed (approximately 6 to 8 hr), they also had access to water. On off-feed days, they had access to water for approximately 3 hr. Water was not limited for the controls. From 20 weeks to 32 weeks of age, all restricted hens were fed a 19% protein finisher feed ad libitum. All turkeys received a series of vaccinations during the growing period (i.e., Newcastle, fowl pox, fowl cholera, erysipelas and avian encephalitis). Artificial lighting was maintained at 8 hr per day until 31 weeks of age, at which time it was increased to 12 hr and gradually increased to 14 hr. At 32 weeks of age, the control hens, 70% restricted hens and one group of 60% restricted hens (A) were fed ad libitum a 16% protein breeder diet (Table 1). Other groups of 60% restricted hens were fed ad libitum a 13% (C) or a 19% (D) protein diet, or were fed a 16% protein diet limited to the intake of the control hens (B). There were 4 pens per treatment group. The hens were inseminated with .05cc of undiluted, pooled semen at 4-day intervals for the first 12 days and approximately every 10 days thereafter. For the 6- through 20-week period, toms were restricted to a feed intake of approximately 50% of what would be considered normal weekly feed intake. All toms were restricted in feed intake. A control pen was not maintained. They were then fed a 19% protein finisher ad libitum from 20 to 28 weeks. At 28 weeks of age, they were fed a 15% protein torn breeder diet ad libitum and were given 12 hr of
OWINGS AND SELL
80
TABLE 3. Reproductive
Lay period, protein, % Production rate (%) g Feed/egg Fertility, % Hatchability, %
Growing period treatment Limit-fed, 60% B A D C
Full-fed
Limit-fed, 70%
16
16
16
16
13
32.9 685 79.6 76.7
30.0 790 84.8 81.1
31.2 735 83.0 82.6
26.6 840 86.1 80.2
32.7 713 83.4 78.3
86.1 92.8
85.5 92.2
83.3 87.8
83.1 91.7
86.0 91.2
body weight difference was still significantly different (P<.05), with the hens previously restricted to 70% and 60% weighing 96% and 92% as heavy as the control hens. Feed intake by the restricted-fed hens from 6 to 20 weeks of age reflected the degree of feed restriction. In the period 20 to 32 weeks the feed consumption also was significantly different (P<.05), with the restricted hens actually consuming less feed than the control hens. This might be interpreted as a lack of compensatory response in feed consumption by the hens previously restricted; however, the restricted hens were fed a 19% protein grower during this period while the control hens were fed a lowenergy, low-protein holding diet. Feed consumption during the laying period was very similar for the restricted hens as compared to the control hens with the restricted hens consuming about 5% more feed than the control hens. Overall feed consumption (6 to 52 weeks) by the restricted hens was approximately 10% less than that of the control hens. Data on egg production, feed consumed per egg, fertility, hatchability, and egg weight are presented in Table 3. None of the reproductive parameters measured were affected significantly by dietary treatments during the growing or laying periods. Treatment B (hens restricted to the same feed intake as the control hens) was discontinued several weeks after the reproduction portion of the experiment was started because of poor egg production. In experiments reported by Andrews and Morrow (1978) it was noted that hens receiving a restricted feed ration during the laying period had the poorest rate of lay. Cherms et al. (1978b) reported that turkey hens restricted in protein consumption
Average
19 37.6 32.6 667 739 83.8 84.1 77.8 79.7 82.5 90.4
83.7 90.3
to 22 g per day had significantly lower egg production than hens receiving 35 g of protein per day. Although there were no significant differences in fertility or hatchability in our study, the restricted hens had a consistently higher percentage fertility and hatchability than the controls. Conversely, egg size Was consistently smaller for the restricted hens, when compared to the control hens, particularly for the group restricted to 60%. However, differences among treatments were not statistically significant. At 48 weeks of age, the hens previously restricted to 60% still produced eggs 3% smaller than those of the controls, but had improved from the 10% difference noted at 36 weeks of age. The toms consumed an average of 15.4 kg of feed per head during the 6- to 20-week period, with an average body weight of 5.6 kg at 20 weeks. At 32 weeks, the toms weighed 12.6 kg and 16.6 kg at 52 weeks of age. Semen was collected from the toms when they were 33 weeks of age. Semen volume per torn was small, and only toms in the three heaviest pens (body weight) produced semen. The toms averaged about 13.8 kg at this time. With each successive collection, the semen volume improved and within 4 weeks was normal. The pen of lightest toms did not produce semen until they were approaching 40 weeks of age. At that time, they weighed about 14 kg. All pens continued to produce normal semen volume through the experiment including the pen that was restricted to a daily feed ration of 386 g per head after 39 weeks of age. The results of this study indicate that dietary restriction of 70% or 60% of full-fed hens on a skip-a-day basis during the 6- to 20-week
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
Egg weight, g 36 wk 48 wk
performance
REPRODUCTION AND FEED RESTRICTION growing period significantly reduced b o d y weight of hens at 2 0 , 32, and 52 weeks of age when c o m p a r e d with full-fed c o n t r o l hens b u t had n o significant effect on any of the r e p r o ductive parameters measured. Restriction of feed for males t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50% of fullfeed during t h e 6- to 20-week period had n o subsequent effect on fertility of eggs. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES Andrews, L. D., and H. D. Morrow, 1978. Restricted feeding regimes and subsequent reproductive performance in cage and floor housed turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 5 7 : 1 7 - 2 1 . Balloun, S. L., 1974. Effect on reproductive performance of turkey breeders of nutrient restriction during the development period. Poultry Sci. 53: 625-632. Borron, D. C , M. G. McCartney, and H. L. Fuller, 1974. The effects of restricted energy feeding during the growing period on the reproductive performance of turkey breeder females. Poultry Sci. 53:1485-1493. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, and J . J . Macllraith, 1978a. The influence of low protein during the early growth on subsequent body weight and reproduction in turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1127. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, and J . J . Macllraith, 1978b. A comparison of 22 and 35 grams of daily protein intake and the effects of reproduction of turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1126. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, J. J. Macllraith, and H. R. Halloran, 1976. Reproduction in turkey hens as influenced by prebreeder and breeder protein intake and the environment. Poultry Sci. 55; 1678-1690.
Jones, J. E., B. L. Hughes, and B. D. Barnett, 1976. Effect of feed regimes on body weight of turkey hens at 32 weeks of age and subsequent reproduction performance. Poultry Sci. 55:1356— 1360. Krueger, K. K., T. M. Ferguson, J. A. Owen, and C. E. Krueger, 1977a. Restricted feeding of turkey breeder candidates. Poultry Sci. 56:1729. Krueger, K. K., J. A. Owen, C. E. Krueger, and T. M. Ferguson, 1977b. Effect of feed or light restriction during the growing and breeding cycles on the reproductive performance of broad breasted white turkey males. Poultry Sci. 56:1566—1574. Krueger, K. K., P. S. Kaylor, and D. R. Mclntyre, 1978. Compensatory growth in the turkey breeder male and its effect on reproductive performance. Poultry Sci. 57:1149-1150. McCartney, M. G., D. C. Borron, and H. B. Brown, 1977. Reproductive performance of turkey females as affected by grower and pre-breeder diets. Poultry Sci. 56:985-991. Meyer, G. B., C. F. Props, T. Leighton, Jr., and H. P. Van Krey, 1977. The influence of nutrient restriction during the prebreeder period on subsequent reproductive performance of breeder turkeys. 1. Growth, feed consumption and egg production. Poultry Sci. 56:1738-1739. Potter, L. M., J. R. Shelton, and G. B. Meyer, 1978. Effects of controlled feeding of turkey during the pre-breeder period on subsequent performance. Poultry Sci. 57:478-484. Props, C. F., G. B. Meyer, A. T. Leighton, Jr., and H. P. Van Krey, 1977. The influence of nutrient restriction during the prebreeder period on subsequent reproductive performance of breeder turkeys. 2. Reproduction. Poultry Sci. 56:1748— 1750. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran, 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Voitle, R. A., and R. H. Harms, 1978. Performance of broad breasted white turkey hens grown on restricted feeding programs. Poultry Sci. 57: 752-756. Voitle, R. A., J. H. Walter, H. R. Wilson, and R. H. Harms, 1972. The effect of low protein growing diet on the reproductive performance of turkey breeder toms. Poultry Sci. 51:1548-1552. Woodard, A. E., H. Abplanalp, and F. X. Ogasawara, 1976. Effect of feed restriction on growth and semen production in the turkey male. Poultry Sci. 55:2107-2108.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
T h o m p s o n Hatchery Inc., Ellsworth, IA supp o r t e d this s t u d y in part by a grant-in-aid and by supplying t h e breeder stock used in t h e s t u d y . T h e a u t h o r s wish t o express their appreciation t o Ray T h o m p s o n of T h o m p s o n Hatchery for his interest and s u p p o r t of this w o r k . T h e valuable advice given b y Ray T h o m p s o n and Larry Hatcher also was greatly appreciated.
81
1980 Poultry Science 59:77-81 INTRODUCTION
and restricted their feed intake to that of control hens fed a high-energy feed. Rate of egg production and feed-per-egg ratio were improved significantly as a consequence of restriction. Conversely, Jones et al. (1976), Andrews and Morrow (1978), and Cherms et al, (1978a) reported significantly lower egg production from hens restricted by a skip-a-day feed program, mechanical restriction, or a low-protein feed during a portion of the growing phase. Meyer et al. (1977) also reported significantly reduced egg production but it was during the latter phases of the laying cycle with hens that had received 10 or 12% protein diets from 12 through 32 weeks of age. Other researchers have reported no significant effects on egg production or other reproductive parameters when turkey hens were restricted in nutrient intake at sometime during the growing phase (Borron et al., 1974; Cherms et al, 1976; Krueger et al, 1977a; Voitle and Harms, 1978; Potter et al, 1978). Feed restriction results with male breeder turkeys have shown more consistent improvements in reproductive performance than with hens. Several researchers have reported that restricting the feed intake of toms results in decreased body weight and lower semen volume during the first several weeks of semen collection, but that the volume increased with subsequent collections (Voitle et al, 1972; Woodard etal, 1976; Props *?r«/., 1977). Potter et al. (1978) reported significantly
Economic considerations continue to stimulate interest in restricted feeding of growing turkey breeding hens and toms. Restricted feeding has been shown to improve the reproductive performance of broiler breeder chickens. Currently, turkey breeder candidates usually are reared to 18 or 20 weeks of age on a feeding program used for commercial turkey production. Results of experiments with restricted feeding of potential turkey breeders have been quite varied. Many different restriction methods have been tested without consistent results. The methods include: 1) low protein, 2) high fiber, 3) mechanical restriction to a certain level of feed intake, 4) skip-a-day feeding, or 5) combinations of several of these methods. Balloun (1974) combined a skip-a-day and mechanical feed restriction program, feeding either 350 g or 360 g of feed during the 20- to 31- or 18- to 30-week period. In one experiment, the restricted hens laid at a significantly higher rate than the controls. In a second experiment, no difference was observed. Fertility and hatchability were not affected in either experiment. McCartney et al. (1977) fed hens a low-energy ration from 10 to 28 weeks of age
'journal Paper No. J-9295 of the Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, IA. Project No. 2241.
77
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
ABSTRACT A study was undertaken to determine the influence of nutrient restriction between 6 weeks and 20 weeks of age on the reproductive performance of commercial turkey breeders. Females were restricted in feed intake to 70% or 60% of full-fed control hens. Males were restricted to approximately 50% of normal feed intake for the same period. The body weight of restrictedfed females was significantly less than that of control hens at 20, 32, and 52 weeks of age. The restricted hens consumed approximately 10% less feed during the 6- to 52-week period than the control hens. There were no carry-over effects of feed restriction on rate of egg production, feed per egg, hatchability, fertility or egg weight. Also, restriction of feed for males had no subsequent effects on fertility of eggs.
OWINGS AND SELL
78
TABLE 1. Composition of grower, holding, and breeder diets Breeder Ingredient
Grower
Holding
13
16
64.4
48.5 25.0 6.0 7.5
63.7 10.0 4.0 8.5
2.0 7.5 2.0 1.8 .8 .5 .5
19
Tom
('Hi)
Total Calculated analysis Protein % Calcium % Phosphorus (total) % ME kcal/kg
61.3 10.0
52.3 10.0
67.3 10.0
2.5 4.0
12.5 2.0 4.0 4.0
10.0 1.5 4.0 5.0
2.0 .5 .5 .5
1.8 4.5 .5 .5
1.2 4.0 .5 .5
20.5 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.2 4.0 .5 .5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
19.0 .9 .8 3030
13.5 .8 .7 2750
13.0 2.3 .7 2820
16.0 2.3 .7 2820
19.0 2.3 .7 2820
15.0 .8 .6 2990
28.0 2.0
1.0 .2 .5 .5
Provided per kilogram of diet: a) grower diet, vitamin A 6600 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; riboflavin 5 mg; choline 250 mg; calcium pantothenate 5 mg; niacin 40 mg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 136 mg; Zn 75 mg; Fe 55 mg; Cu 9 mg. b) Holding diet, vitamin A 6700 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; vitamin E 10 mg; vitamin K 2 mg; riboflavin 5 mg; choline 250 mg; calcium pantothenate 5 mg; niacin 38 mg; folacin 275 meg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 88 mg; Zn 19 mg; Fe 14 mg; Cu 2.2 mg; and methionine 100 mg. c) Breeder diets, vitamin A 11,000 IU; vitamin D3 2200 ICU; vitamin E 40 IU; menadione sodium bisulfite 4.4 mg; riboflavin 10 mg; choline 370 mg; calcium pantothenate 20 mg; niacin 50 mg; folacin 1.1 mg; biotin 40 meg; cyanocobalamin 10 meg; Mn 88 mg; Zn 19 mg; Fe 14 mg; Cu 2.2 mg; methionine 500 mg; and ethoxyquin 125 mg.
poorer fertility from toms fed 6 hr per day from 28 to 38 weeks of age on a skip-a-day program. Krueger et al. (1977b) reported, however, that reduced semen volume was observed only during the first few weeks of collection with toms fed a predetermined amount of feed from 18 through 66 weeks of age, but no differences were seen in semen volume over the entire breeding season. Krueger et al. (1978) also reported that restricting toms to 200 g feed per head daily from 22 through 34 weeks of age resulted in significantly poorer fertility but no adverse effects were observed with toms fed 250 g of feed or more per day. It was the purpose of this research to determine the influence of nutrient restriction of potential turkey breeders between 6 weeks and 20 weeks of age on reproductive performance, and if feed restriction during the growing period would affect the protein needs of the breeder hen during the reproduction period.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE July-hatched, large white turkey parent stock was obtained from a commercial, Iowa turkey hatchery. The poults were fed a commercial turkey starter and were grown under commercial conditions the first 6 weeks. They were then transferred to the Poultry Research Center and placed in pens (2.4 X 3.9 m), 14 hens per pen. One group of 4 pens was designated as a control and was fed ad libitum a normal startergrower-finisher feed to 18 weeks of age. From 18 to 32 weeks of age the control hens were fed a low-protein, low-energy holding diet (Table 1). Sixteen pens of hens were placed on a restricted feeding program from 6 to 20 weeks of age. One group of 4 pens was restricted in feed intake to 70% of that of the control hens for the previous week. Feed was provided on a skip-a-day basis. The remaining 12 pens were restricted to 60% of the control hen intake and
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
Ground corn Ground oats Wheat middlings Soybean meal (48.5%) Meat and bone meal (50%) Fish meal (60%) Alfalfa meal (17%) Stabilized fat Dicalcium phosphate Limestone Salt Micro-ingredients1
79
REPRODUCTION AND FEED RESTRICTION
light. At 18 weeks of age, the toms were sorted into 2 pens according to body weight. Again at 28 weeks of age the toms were sorted by body weight, this time into 4 pens. At 39 weeks of age, the toms in the second heaviest pens, by weight, were restricted to 386 g of feed per torn daily. The feed intake of the toms in the other 3 pens, at this time, was approximately 450 g per head per day. All birds were weighed every 2 weeks until 32 weeks of age; thereafter, they were weighed every 4 weeks. Complete records were kept on all eggs laid, feed consumed, eggs incubated, and the percentage fertility and hatchability of eggs. Eggs were collected daily and held in a refrigerated storeroom. The eggs were not set on a rigid weekly schedule, but all eggs for a given period were set at one time. A 2-day egg collection during the 36th and 48th week was used to determine egg weight. Statistical significance of all data was determined by analysis of variance according to Snedecor and Cochran (1967). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Body weights at 20, 32, and 52 weeks, along with the feed consumption during the 6 to 20, 20 to 32, and 32 to 52 week periods, are shown in Table 2. At 20 weeks, the body weight of the restricted hens was significantly less than that of the controls. The 70% restricted and 60% restricted hens were 69% and 57% as heavy as the control hens, respectively. The 32-week body weights of hens restricted to 70% and 60% feed intakes were significantly less than that of controls but the relative differences were not as large as at 20 weeks of age. At the end of the reproduction period, the
TABLE 2. Body weight and feed consumption Growing period treatment '• Limit-fed 60% Full-fed Average wt 20 wk (kg) Average wt 32 wk (kg) Average wt 52 wk (kg) Feed consumed (kg) 6-20 wk 20-32 wk 32-52 wk
Limit-fed 70%
A
B
C
D
Average
7.0 8.5 7.8
4.8 7.2 7.5
4.0 6.9 7.2
4.0 7.0 7.1
3.9 7.0 7.4
4.0 6.7 7.2
4.0 6.9 7.2
19.3 17.6 31.0
13.9 17.1 32.6
11.6 16.9 32.0
12.0 16.9 32.2
11.8 17.3 32.3
11.3 16.3 33.8
11.7 16.8 32.6
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
were also fed on a skip-a-day basis. Enough feeder space was supplied so that all birds could eat at one time. No feed or grain was fed on the off day. It did become necessary to limit access to water because of a problem with wet litter. When the hens had feed (approximately 6 to 8 hr), they also had access to water. On off-feed days, they had access to water for approximately 3 hr. Water was not limited for the controls. From 20 weeks to 32 weeks of age, all restricted hens were fed a 19% protein finisher feed ad libitum. All turkeys received a series of vaccinations during the growing period (i.e., Newcastle, fowl pox, fowl cholera, erysipelas and avian encephalitis). Artificial lighting was maintained at 8 hr per day until 31 weeks of age, at which time it was increased to 12 hr and gradually increased to 14 hr. At 32 weeks of age, the control hens, 70% restricted hens and one group of 60% restricted hens (A) were fed ad libitum a 16% protein breeder diet (Table 1). Other groups of 60% restricted hens were fed ad libitum a 13% (C) or a 19% (D) protein diet, or were fed a 16% protein diet limited to the intake of the control hens (B). There were 4 pens per treatment group. The hens were inseminated with .05cc of undiluted, pooled semen at 4-day intervals for the first 12 days and approximately every 10 days thereafter. For the 6- through 20-week period, toms were restricted to a feed intake of approximately 50% of what would be considered normal weekly feed intake. All toms were restricted in feed intake. A control pen was not maintained. They were then fed a 19% protein finisher ad libitum from 20 to 28 weeks. At 28 weeks of age, they were fed a 15% protein torn breeder diet ad libitum and were given 12 hr of
OWINGS AND SELL
80
TABLE 3. Reproductive
Lay period, protein, % Production rate (%) g Feed/egg Fertility, % Hatchability, %
Growing period treatment Limit-fed, 60% B A D C
Full-fed
Limit-fed, 70%
16
16
16
16
13
32.9 685 79.6 76.7
30.0 790 84.8 81.1
31.2 735 83.0 82.6
26.6 840 86.1 80.2
32.7 713 83.4 78.3
86.1 92.8
85.5 92.2
83.3 87.8
83.1 91.7
86.0 91.2
body weight difference was still significantly different (P<.05), with the hens previously restricted to 70% and 60% weighing 96% and 92% as heavy as the control hens. Feed intake by the restricted-fed hens from 6 to 20 weeks of age reflected the degree of feed restriction. In the period 20 to 32 weeks the feed consumption also was significantly different (P<.05), with the restricted hens actually consuming less feed than the control hens. This might be interpreted as a lack of compensatory response in feed consumption by the hens previously restricted; however, the restricted hens were fed a 19% protein grower during this period while the control hens were fed a lowenergy, low-protein holding diet. Feed consumption during the laying period was very similar for the restricted hens as compared to the control hens with the restricted hens consuming about 5% more feed than the control hens. Overall feed consumption (6 to 52 weeks) by the restricted hens was approximately 10% less than that of the control hens. Data on egg production, feed consumed per egg, fertility, hatchability, and egg weight are presented in Table 3. None of the reproductive parameters measured were affected significantly by dietary treatments during the growing or laying periods. Treatment B (hens restricted to the same feed intake as the control hens) was discontinued several weeks after the reproduction portion of the experiment was started because of poor egg production. In experiments reported by Andrews and Morrow (1978) it was noted that hens receiving a restricted feed ration during the laying period had the poorest rate of lay. Cherms et al. (1978b) reported that turkey hens restricted in protein consumption
Average
19 37.6 32.6 667 739 83.8 84.1 77.8 79.7 82.5 90.4
83.7 90.3
to 22 g per day had significantly lower egg production than hens receiving 35 g of protein per day. Although there were no significant differences in fertility or hatchability in our study, the restricted hens had a consistently higher percentage fertility and hatchability than the controls. Conversely, egg size Was consistently smaller for the restricted hens, when compared to the control hens, particularly for the group restricted to 60%. However, differences among treatments were not statistically significant. At 48 weeks of age, the hens previously restricted to 60% still produced eggs 3% smaller than those of the controls, but had improved from the 10% difference noted at 36 weeks of age. The toms consumed an average of 15.4 kg of feed per head during the 6- to 20-week period, with an average body weight of 5.6 kg at 20 weeks. At 32 weeks, the toms weighed 12.6 kg and 16.6 kg at 52 weeks of age. Semen was collected from the toms when they were 33 weeks of age. Semen volume per torn was small, and only toms in the three heaviest pens (body weight) produced semen. The toms averaged about 13.8 kg at this time. With each successive collection, the semen volume improved and within 4 weeks was normal. The pen of lightest toms did not produce semen until they were approaching 40 weeks of age. At that time, they weighed about 14 kg. All pens continued to produce normal semen volume through the experiment including the pen that was restricted to a daily feed ration of 386 g per head after 39 weeks of age. The results of this study indicate that dietary restriction of 70% or 60% of full-fed hens on a skip-a-day basis during the 6- to 20-week
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
Egg weight, g 36 wk 48 wk
performance
REPRODUCTION AND FEED RESTRICTION growing period significantly reduced b o d y weight of hens at 2 0 , 32, and 52 weeks of age when c o m p a r e d with full-fed c o n t r o l hens b u t had n o significant effect on any of the r e p r o ductive parameters measured. Restriction of feed for males t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50% of fullfeed during t h e 6- to 20-week period had n o subsequent effect on fertility of eggs. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES Andrews, L. D., and H. D. Morrow, 1978. Restricted feeding regimes and subsequent reproductive performance in cage and floor housed turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 5 7 : 1 7 - 2 1 . Balloun, S. L., 1974. Effect on reproductive performance of turkey breeders of nutrient restriction during the development period. Poultry Sci. 53: 625-632. Borron, D. C , M. G. McCartney, and H. L. Fuller, 1974. The effects of restricted energy feeding during the growing period on the reproductive performance of turkey breeder females. Poultry Sci. 53:1485-1493. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, and J . J . Macllraith, 1978a. The influence of low protein during the early growth on subsequent body weight and reproduction in turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1127. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, and J . J . Macllraith, 1978b. A comparison of 22 and 35 grams of daily protein intake and the effects of reproduction of turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 57:1126. Cherms, F. L., M. G. Stoller, J. J. Macllraith, and H. R. Halloran, 1976. Reproduction in turkey hens as influenced by prebreeder and breeder protein intake and the environment. Poultry Sci. 55; 1678-1690.
Jones, J. E., B. L. Hughes, and B. D. Barnett, 1976. Effect of feed regimes on body weight of turkey hens at 32 weeks of age and subsequent reproduction performance. Poultry Sci. 55:1356— 1360. Krueger, K. K., T. M. Ferguson, J. A. Owen, and C. E. Krueger, 1977a. Restricted feeding of turkey breeder candidates. Poultry Sci. 56:1729. Krueger, K. K., J. A. Owen, C. E. Krueger, and T. M. Ferguson, 1977b. Effect of feed or light restriction during the growing and breeding cycles on the reproductive performance of broad breasted white turkey males. Poultry Sci. 56:1566—1574. Krueger, K. K., P. S. Kaylor, and D. R. Mclntyre, 1978. Compensatory growth in the turkey breeder male and its effect on reproductive performance. Poultry Sci. 57:1149-1150. McCartney, M. G., D. C. Borron, and H. B. Brown, 1977. Reproductive performance of turkey females as affected by grower and pre-breeder diets. Poultry Sci. 56:985-991. Meyer, G. B., C. F. Props, T. Leighton, Jr., and H. P. Van Krey, 1977. The influence of nutrient restriction during the prebreeder period on subsequent reproductive performance of breeder turkeys. 1. Growth, feed consumption and egg production. Poultry Sci. 56:1738-1739. Potter, L. M., J. R. Shelton, and G. B. Meyer, 1978. Effects of controlled feeding of turkey during the pre-breeder period on subsequent performance. Poultry Sci. 57:478-484. Props, C. F., G. B. Meyer, A. T. Leighton, Jr., and H. P. Van Krey, 1977. The influence of nutrient restriction during the prebreeder period on subsequent reproductive performance of breeder turkeys. 2. Reproduction. Poultry Sci. 56:1748— 1750. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran, 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Voitle, R. A., and R. H. Harms, 1978. Performance of broad breasted white turkey hens grown on restricted feeding programs. Poultry Sci. 57: 752-756. Voitle, R. A., J. H. Walter, H. R. Wilson, and R. H. Harms, 1972. The effect of low protein growing diet on the reproductive performance of turkey breeder toms. Poultry Sci. 51:1548-1552. Woodard, A. E., H. Abplanalp, and F. X. Ogasawara, 1976. Effect of feed restriction on growth and semen production in the turkey male. Poultry Sci. 55:2107-2108.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on June 8, 2015
T h o m p s o n Hatchery Inc., Ellsworth, IA supp o r t e d this s t u d y in part by a grant-in-aid and by supplying t h e breeder stock used in t h e s t u d y . T h e a u t h o r s wish t o express their appreciation t o Ray T h o m p s o n of T h o m p s o n Hatchery for his interest and s u p p o r t of this w o r k . T h e valuable advice given b y Ray T h o m p s o n and Larry Hatcher also was greatly appreciated.
81