- Email: [email protected]
Effects of Caloric Restriction During the Growing Period on the Performance of Egg-Type Replacement Stock
Effects of Caloric Restriction During the Growing Period on the Performance of Egg-Type Replacement Stock JAMES W. DEATON AND J. H. QUISENBERRY Department
of Poultry Science, Agricultural
and Mechanical
College of Texas, College Station,
Texas
(Received for publication August 29, 1962)
C
Sherwood (1960) reported t h a t a 1957 test with an egg producing strain of fall hatched chickens resulted in a slight increase in egg production when feed was controlled. A 1958 test involved the use of high and medium energy feeds full-fed as well as controlled feeding. Using medium or high energy rations had no effect on final egg production while limiting either light or feed resulted in significant increases in egg production. Novikoff and Biely (1945) reported t h a t restricted
Bruins (1958) and Schneider et al. (1955) reported t h a t laying house mortality was lowered when caloric restriction was practiced. Ringrose (1959) pointed out t h a t egg producers who restrict the nutrient intake of replacement pullets by feeding a bulky, fibrous ration can increase feed costs. The point which is not generally realized is the extent to which the price of bulky feed must be lowered to avoid increasing the feed cost of growing a pullet. Gowe et al. (1960) using several strains of Leghorns and restricting the feed to 7 0 % of the amount of feed the equivalent full-fed group ate the previous week during the rearing period, found that the restricted feeding program (1) increased
608
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
mash feeding resulted in slower growth, more labor, and lower egg production. Quisenberry (1958), Singsen et al. (1954), Sunde et al. (1954), and Davis and Watts (1955) found no effect of caloric restriction during the growing period upon egg production, whereas Kent (1955), and Bruins (1958) found restriction resulted in an increase in egg production. Singsen et al. (1958), Quisenberry (1958), and Sherwood and Milby (1954) found that caloric restriction during the growing period did not affect egg weight; whereas Reid et al. (1958), Kent (1955), and Couch et al. (1957) noted an increase in egg size. These differences could conceivably be the result of strain differences, since Quisenberry (1958) worked with egg production stocks and Couch et al. (1957) worked with meat type birds.
O N S I D E R A B L E controversy exists concerning the effects of caloric restriction during the growing period on the laying house performance of egg-type replacement stock. There are two major methods of caloric restriction: 1) limited feeding, and 2) use of high fiber feeds. McCay (1947) rereported that restriction of caloric intake increased the life span of experimental animals. Hill and Dansky (1954) and Mellen et al. (1954) found t h a t birds fed on low calorie diets made more efficient use of the calories they consumed. Carrick and Roberts (1947a, b), Bruins (1958), Roberts and Carrick (1934), Couch et al. (1957), and Reid et al. (1958) found the use of oats and other high fiber feeds resulted in a retarded growth rate, later sexual maturity, and increased feed per unit of gain. Milby and Sherwood (1953) in comparing a restricted with a full feeding program found the amount of feed required to raise the bird to point of lay was virtually the same for both feeding systems.
RESTRICTED FEEDING
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE One thousand day old pullets, hatched October 7, 1958, were wing banded, randomly divided into five groups, and placed in adjacent pens. Cane bagasse was used for litter and the chicks were brooded under gas brooders. At the end of eight weeks the pullets were sub-divided into ten groups of 100 birds each representing five replicated dietary treatments. For the first eight weeks the chicks were given one square foot of floor space per bird. Floor space was increased to two square feet for the remainder of the growing period. The birds were given natural light only, except for all-night lights for the first few days of the starting period. The customarily recommended feeder and water spaces were provided. The disease immunization program used was as follows: (1) Newcastle—intra-ocular at one day of age, water method at four weeks, and intra-ocular at time of transfer to the laying houses; (2) bronchitis—
water method at eight weeks and four days of age; (3) fowl pox—wing-web method at five weeks and again when put in the laying houses. Feed consumption, mortality, and periodic body weights were recorded during the growing period. An average feed cost per bird was calculated on the ingredient cost plus fifty cents per hundredweight for mixing and handling charges. A standard low fiber chick starter ration was fed the first eight weeks. From the end of eight weeks to twenty-one weeks of age, the five dietary treatments consisted of a 12%, 15%, and 18% protein level with approximately 15% fiber, a low fiber basal, and the basal restricted to ten pounds of feed per 100 birds per day. Rice hulls were used as a source of fiber and replaced milo and soybean oil meal. At twenty-one weeks of age, and throughout the remainder of the test, all groups received a standard laying ration. The compositions of these rations are given in Table 1. Sixty-four birds from each of the five dietary treatments were randomly selected at twenty-one weeks and housed in individual cages. The groups of sixty-four birds were further sub-divided into three sixteen-bird groups and two eight-bird groups and randomized throughout the house. There were four replications of each treatment. At twenty-three weeks and five days, a group of 72 birds from each dietary treatment was selected at random and moved to a pre-fabricated stair-step individual cage house. The 72 bird groups were further sub-divided into eight, nine-bird groups and randomized throughout the house. Records of feed consumption, mortality, periodic body weights, egg size, and egg production were kept during the twelve, 28-day laying periods. All birds
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
rearing mortality, (2) delayed sexual maturity, (3) decreased housing body weight, (4) increased the rate of egg production after the birds overcame the initial slow start, (5) decreased laying house mortality, (6) decreased the number of small eggs produced early and increased the size of eggs slightly at maturity, (7) slightly decreased the mature body size, and (8) substantially increased the economic returns. It is obvious from these experiments that the results are not consistent from the various laboratories which may have been due in part to geographic differences as well as seasonal and strain variations. It is hoped that this study will lend additional information which will be useful in selecting the best type of feeding program for egg-type replacement stocks.
609
610
J.
W.
D E A T O N AND J. H .
QTJISENBERRY
groups a t the .01 level of probability. When the total pounds of feed consumed from 0-21 weeks were analyzed statistically, the 1 8 % protein—15% fiber, basal, and basal-restricted groups differed significantly from the other four treatments (P.05). At the .01 level of probability, only the basal and basal-restricted groups differed significantly from the other four treatments. When the average feed consumed per RESULTS AND DISCUSSION bird was figured in calories, there seemed Performance data for the birds during to be a definite indication t h a t t h e birds the rearing period are given in Table 2. As were eating to satisfy their energy requirewas to be expected, there were no signifi- ments. cant differences in body weight at eight Most of the mortality during the growweeks of age, b u t at 21 weeks the basal- ing period in the basal-restricted group restricted group weighed significantly less was due to starvation, or to other comthan the other four groups (P.01). I n order plications after the birds had starved to a to determine interval effects on body weakened condition. weights, fifty birds from each replicate I n the course of the experiment, it was were weighed individually a t 12 and 16 noted t h a t the litter of the basal-restricted weeks of age. At 12 weeks there were no group was wetter than t h a t of the full-fed significant differences in body weights, groups. When the water consumption was but a t 16 weeks, the basal-restricted group measured for a 48-hour period beginning differed significantly from the other four at 143 days of age, the basal-restricted
t h a t died during the experiment were posted and cause of death diagnosed b y the staff of the Texas A. and M . Veterinary Microbiology Department. The data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance and chi-square methods, Snedecor (1957). Mean separations, where a statistical significance existed, were accomplished by using Duncan's multiple range test (1955).
of rations for caloric restriction experiments
Starter diet 0-8 weeks Ingredients
Ground Milo Soybean Oil Meal (44% Protein) Ground Corn Poultry By-Product Meal (56% Protein) Distillers Dried Solubles (20% Protein) Dehy. Alfalfa Meal Vitamin Mix* Salt Def. Rock Phos. Oyster Shell Flour Rice Hulls Manganese Sulfate Sulfaquinoxaline (25%) Total % Protein % Fiber Calories (PE/Ib.) Calories/Protein Ratio
chick starter (farm basal)
Growing diet 9-21 weeks Chick grower farm basal
12% protein 1 5 % fiber
Laying diet
15% protein 1 5 % fiber
18% protein 1 5 % fiber
Cage layer (farm basal)
%
%
%
%
%
%
39.00
48.75
27.00
18.00
9.00
49.25
25.00 20.00
15.75 20.00
7.50 20.00
16.50 20.00
25.50 20.00
11.25 20.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
2.00 3.S0 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 227 gin/ton 1.20 pound/ton
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 3.00 2.50 0.25 2.50 4.25 0.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
100.00 21.01 4.18 895 43:1
100.00 17.20 4.15 927 54:1
100.00 12.08 14.27 633 52:1
100.00 15.05 14.62 595 40:1
100.00 18.02 14.95 557 31:1
100.00 17.18 3.27 918 53:1
.
* Supplied the following per pound of feed: Riboflavin, 2.0 mg.; Calcium Pantothenate, 5.0 mg.; Niacin, 12.5 mg.; Vitamin B12, 6.0 meg.; Penicillin, 5.0 mg.; Bacitracin, 5.0 mg.; Choline Chloride, 227.0 mg.; Vitamin A, 2,270 I.U.; Vitamin Ds, 681 I.C.U.; Methionine, 114.0 mg.; 3-Nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic Acid, 22.5 mg.; Dry Fish Soluble* 4.54 gms.; Delactosed Whey Product, 2.27 gms.; Antibiotic Fermentation Residue, 1.135 gms.; Soybean Oil Meal, 1.6898 gms.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
TABLE 1.-
RESTRICTED FEEDING
611
TABLE 2.—Effects of caloric restriction of egg-type pullets on performance during the growing periodHoused in floor-type brooding and rearing pens. {Birds hatched October 7, 1958) (200 birds per group) Basal restricted 10#/100 birds/day
Basal
Average Body Weight (Gms.) 8 Weeks 21 Weeks
Average Feed Consumed (Cal.) 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks Average Feed Cost (Cents)* 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks Percent Mortality 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks
3.48 9.10 12.58
3.55 13.87 17.43
3,114 8,438 11,552
3,181 12,865 16,046
558 1,432
568 1,402
3.48 18.87 22.35 3,114 11,935 15,049
18% protein 15% fiber
587 1,442
3.46 18.79 22.25 3,094 11,175 14,269
3.48 20.72 24.20 3,114 11,536 14,650
13.60 49.23 62.83
13.32 32.31 45.63
13.26 53.65 66.91
13.23 55.34 68.57
13.32 63.05 76.37
0.74 1.00 1.74
0.50 7.00 7.50
1.00 1.00 2.00
1.74 0.00 1.74
0.50 0.00 0.50
* These costs are included because they give a comparison of the effects of two methods of caloric restriction on pullet rearing costs. By using the diets given in Table 1, the feed consumption as given above and local ingredient prices these costs can be adapted to any locality. t Approximate values for protein and fiber. For analyzed values, see Table 1.
group consumed 35.2% more water than the basal group (Table 3). Since the basal-restricted group weighed significantly less at 21 weeks and the birds were in a starved condition, one half of the basal-restricted group was immediately put on full feed at 21 weeks and the other half was gradually brought to full feeding by feeding 13, 16, 19 and 22 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day for the next four weeks, respectively. The purpose of this was to see what effect further restriction might have on the TABLE 3.—Effect
various production characteristics. Performance data for the birds during the laying period are given in Table 4. Restricting the basal diet to ten pounds per 100 birds per day during the growing period significantly increased the days to 50% production (P.01). The average body weight for the basalrestricted groups for the twelve laying periods was significantly lower than the four full-fed treatments at the .05 level of probability. Both basal-restricted groups in House 1 had significantly lower body
of feed restriction upon water consumption of egg-type pullets (48 hour period)
Dietary treatment Basal, Full-Fed Basal, 10#/100 Birds/Day
No. birds
Age of birds (days)
100 100
143 143
Water consumed (lbs.) 70 108
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
Average Feed Consumed (lbs.) 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks
587 1,107
585 1,461
12% proteinf 15% protein 15% fiber 15% fiber
612
J . W . DEATON AND J . H . QuiSENBERRY T A B L E 4.—The ejfect of caloric restriction during the growing period on the performance replacement stock. March 3, 1959—February 2, 1960
Treatment
Initital No. of birds
Ave. body wt. at 21 wks. of age (gms.)
Ave. body wt. a t 69 wks. of age (gms.)
House
House
House
Average Days egg size at 50% to produc50% tion produc(gms.) tion
1
2
1
2
1
2
Basal
63
72
1,490
1,490
1,817
1,807
169.6
Basal* Restricted
32
36
1,116
1,089
1,720
1,751
Restricted
32
36
1,116
1,140
1,686
12% Protein 1 5 % Fiber
63
71
1,498
1,498
1 5 % Protein 1 5 % Fiber
64
71
1,450
1 8 % Protein 15% Fiber
64
71
1,486
Percent hen-day production House
of egg-type
Feed/ doz. 2 oz. eggs
Average egg size (gms.) Ho rse
Percent mortality
House
House
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
49.42
73.9
74.5
59.08
58.86
3.77
3.84
3.2
5.6
178.2
49.00
74.3
74.0
58.99
58.95
3.86
3.84
3.1
2.8
1,705
180.6
49.86
71.1
75.2
57.81
59.12
3.93
3.66
3.1
0.0
1,930
1,790
168.2
49.16
71.9
74.9
59.43
58.18
3.86
3.81
4.8
2.8
1,427
1,866
1,823
169.8
49.01
72.8
74.4
58.35
58.31
3.83
3.83
4.7
4.2
1,479
1,840
1,760
170.2
48.71
75.6
73.9
58.11
58.12
3.81
3.84
4.7
2.8
Basalt
weights than the four full-fed treatments at the .01 level of probability. I n House 2, at the .01 level of probability, the basalrestricted group t h a t was gradually brought to full feeding differed from the four full-fed treatments, b u t the basalrestricted full-fed group differed only from the basal group for the twelve laying period average. There were no significant treatment differences in average egg size at 5 0 % production, average egg size for the twelve laying periods, mortality during the twelve laying periods, feed per pound of egg, and percent hen-day production. SUMMARY
A total of 680 fall hatched inbred cross egg production type pullets were used to determine the effects of caloric restriction during the growing period upon subsequent performance in the laying house. From the d a t a collected the following conclusions may be drawn:
per 100 birds per day from eight to twenty-one weeks of age significantly reduced body weight. There was no significant difference in body weight between the full-fed basal and the full-fed high fiber diets at twenty-one weeks of age. 2. The birds on the high fiber diets ate significantly more feed than the basal or basal-resticted groups. 3. There seemed to be a definite indication t h a t the birds on the high fiber diets were eating to satisfy their energy requirements when the average feed consumed was calculated in average calories consumed. 4. Mortality was higher for the basal restricted group than for the full-fed basal or full-fed high fiber groups. 5. When the average feed cost was calculated on the ingredient cost, plus fifty cents per hundredweight, the high fiber diets were the most expensive. 6. The basal-restricted birds consumed 3 5 % more water in a measured period of 48 hours t h a n the basal full-fed groups.
Rearing Period (1,000 Birds)
Laying Period {680 Birds)
1. Basal restriction of a high energy diet containing 1 7 % protein to 10 pounds
1. Restriction to 10 pounds of basal feed per 100 birds per day significantly
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
* Basal-restricted to 10 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day during the growing period, full-fed during the laying period. t Basal-restricted to 10 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day during the growing period, restricted during the first laying period. (1st wk. 13#- 2nd wk. 16#; 3rd wk. 19#; 4th wk. 22#; full-fed thereafter)
RESTRICTED FEEDING
REFERENCES Bruins, H. W., 1958. Energy restriction for replacement pullets. Feedstuffs, 30: 32-35. Carrick, C. W., and R. E. Roberts, 1947a. Studies on feed efficiency. The relative efficiency of corn and wheat products in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 26: 111-117. Carrick, C. W., and R. E. Roberts, 1947b. The relative efficiency of corn and oats in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 26: 535. Couch, J. R., R. E. Isaacks, B. L. Reid, W. P. Crawford and J. H. Quisenberry, 1957. Feeding and management of replacement broiler stock. Feed Age, 7: (10), 34-39. Davis, W. M., and A. B. Watts, 1955. The effect of ration treatments during the various stages of the chicken's life upon the subsequent performance of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 34: 1231-1232. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. Gowe, R. S., K. G. Hollands and P. Hull, 1960. Economic and genetic implications of restricted feeding during the rearing period for egg production stock. Poultry Sci. 39: 1254. Hill, F. W., and L. M. Dansky, 1954. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 1. The effect of dietary energy level on growth and feed consumption. Poultry Sci. 33: 112-119. Kent, O. B., 1955. Restricted feeding as a way to increase profits. Proc. Assoc. Southern Agri. Workers, p. 162. McCay, C. M., 1947. Effect of restricted feeding
upon ageing and chronic diseases in rats, dogs, mice, and humans. Am. J. Public Health, 37: 521-528. Mellen, W. J., F. W. Hill, and H. H. Dukes, 1954. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 2. The effect of dietary energy level on the basal metabolism of growing chickens. Poultry Sci. 33: 791-798. Milby, T. T., and D. H. Sherwood, 1953. The effect of restricted feeding on growth and subsequent production of pullets. Poultry Sci. 32: 916. Novikoff, M., and J. Biely, 1945. Observations on two methods of feeding chickens from one day old to twelve months of age. Poultry Sci. 24: 245-251. Quisenberry, J. H., 1958. Relation of caloric restriction during the growing period to laying house performance of egg production type pullets. Feedstuffs, 30: (51), 30-32. Reid, B. L., R. E. Isaacks, J. R. Couch and L. E. Deacon, 1958. The effect of dietary intake on growth, sexual development, egg size, and egg production of broiler strain replacement pullets. Abs. of Texas Nutrition Conf. p. 91. Ringrose, R. C , 1959. Watch pullet feeding costs. Feedstuffs, 31: (21), 28. Roberts, R. E., and C. W. Carrick, 1934. Ground oats as a substitute for wheat bran and wheat middlings in rations for chicks. Poultry Sci. 13: 135-140. Schneider, A. J., B. B. Bohren and V. L. Anderson, 1955. The effect of restricted feeding on several genetically controlled characters in the fowl. Poultry Sci. 34: 691-702. Sherwood, D. H., 1960. Methods of delaying pullet maturity. Poultry Sci. 39: 1293-1294. Sherwood, D. H., and T. T. Milby, 1954. Restricted versus full feeding for growing pullets. Poultry Sci. 33: 1080. Singsen, E. P., L. D. Matterson, A. Kozeff and L. D. Stinson, 1954. The effects of feeding high and low efficiency rations to growing pullets on their subsequent laying performance. Poultry Sci. 33: 1081. Singsen, E. P., L. D. Matterson, J. Tlustohowicz and L. M. Potter, 1958. The effect of controlled feeding, energy intake, and type of diet on the performance of heavy-type laying hens. Progress report 26, Agri. Expt. Sta., Univ. of Connecticut. Snedecor, G. W., 1957. Statstical Methods. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Sunde, M. L., W. M. Cravens, H. R. Bird and J. G. Halpin, 1954. The effect of complete and incomplete growing diets on subsequent performance of the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 33: 779-784.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
delayed sexual maturity and increased the days to 50% production. Full feeding of high fiber diets did not significantly delay sexual maturity. 2. There were no significant effects of feeding high fiber diets or basal-restriction during the growing period on average egg size at 50% production, average egg size for the twelve laying periods, mortality during the twelve laying periods, feed per dozen two-ounce eggs, and percent henday production. 3. The average body weight for the basal-restricted groups was significantly lower at the beginning of the first laying period than the basal or high fiber groups; and, in general, the basal-restricted birds never attained the body size of these groups during the twelve laying periods.
613
of Poultry Science, Agricultural
and Mechanical
College of Texas, College Station,
Texas
(Received for publication August 29, 1962)
C
Sherwood (1960) reported t h a t a 1957 test with an egg producing strain of fall hatched chickens resulted in a slight increase in egg production when feed was controlled. A 1958 test involved the use of high and medium energy feeds full-fed as well as controlled feeding. Using medium or high energy rations had no effect on final egg production while limiting either light or feed resulted in significant increases in egg production. Novikoff and Biely (1945) reported t h a t restricted
Bruins (1958) and Schneider et al. (1955) reported t h a t laying house mortality was lowered when caloric restriction was practiced. Ringrose (1959) pointed out t h a t egg producers who restrict the nutrient intake of replacement pullets by feeding a bulky, fibrous ration can increase feed costs. The point which is not generally realized is the extent to which the price of bulky feed must be lowered to avoid increasing the feed cost of growing a pullet. Gowe et al. (1960) using several strains of Leghorns and restricting the feed to 7 0 % of the amount of feed the equivalent full-fed group ate the previous week during the rearing period, found that the restricted feeding program (1) increased
608
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
mash feeding resulted in slower growth, more labor, and lower egg production. Quisenberry (1958), Singsen et al. (1954), Sunde et al. (1954), and Davis and Watts (1955) found no effect of caloric restriction during the growing period upon egg production, whereas Kent (1955), and Bruins (1958) found restriction resulted in an increase in egg production. Singsen et al. (1958), Quisenberry (1958), and Sherwood and Milby (1954) found that caloric restriction during the growing period did not affect egg weight; whereas Reid et al. (1958), Kent (1955), and Couch et al. (1957) noted an increase in egg size. These differences could conceivably be the result of strain differences, since Quisenberry (1958) worked with egg production stocks and Couch et al. (1957) worked with meat type birds.
O N S I D E R A B L E controversy exists concerning the effects of caloric restriction during the growing period on the laying house performance of egg-type replacement stock. There are two major methods of caloric restriction: 1) limited feeding, and 2) use of high fiber feeds. McCay (1947) rereported that restriction of caloric intake increased the life span of experimental animals. Hill and Dansky (1954) and Mellen et al. (1954) found t h a t birds fed on low calorie diets made more efficient use of the calories they consumed. Carrick and Roberts (1947a, b), Bruins (1958), Roberts and Carrick (1934), Couch et al. (1957), and Reid et al. (1958) found the use of oats and other high fiber feeds resulted in a retarded growth rate, later sexual maturity, and increased feed per unit of gain. Milby and Sherwood (1953) in comparing a restricted with a full feeding program found the amount of feed required to raise the bird to point of lay was virtually the same for both feeding systems.
RESTRICTED FEEDING
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE One thousand day old pullets, hatched October 7, 1958, were wing banded, randomly divided into five groups, and placed in adjacent pens. Cane bagasse was used for litter and the chicks were brooded under gas brooders. At the end of eight weeks the pullets were sub-divided into ten groups of 100 birds each representing five replicated dietary treatments. For the first eight weeks the chicks were given one square foot of floor space per bird. Floor space was increased to two square feet for the remainder of the growing period. The birds were given natural light only, except for all-night lights for the first few days of the starting period. The customarily recommended feeder and water spaces were provided. The disease immunization program used was as follows: (1) Newcastle—intra-ocular at one day of age, water method at four weeks, and intra-ocular at time of transfer to the laying houses; (2) bronchitis—
water method at eight weeks and four days of age; (3) fowl pox—wing-web method at five weeks and again when put in the laying houses. Feed consumption, mortality, and periodic body weights were recorded during the growing period. An average feed cost per bird was calculated on the ingredient cost plus fifty cents per hundredweight for mixing and handling charges. A standard low fiber chick starter ration was fed the first eight weeks. From the end of eight weeks to twenty-one weeks of age, the five dietary treatments consisted of a 12%, 15%, and 18% protein level with approximately 15% fiber, a low fiber basal, and the basal restricted to ten pounds of feed per 100 birds per day. Rice hulls were used as a source of fiber and replaced milo and soybean oil meal. At twenty-one weeks of age, and throughout the remainder of the test, all groups received a standard laying ration. The compositions of these rations are given in Table 1. Sixty-four birds from each of the five dietary treatments were randomly selected at twenty-one weeks and housed in individual cages. The groups of sixty-four birds were further sub-divided into three sixteen-bird groups and two eight-bird groups and randomized throughout the house. There were four replications of each treatment. At twenty-three weeks and five days, a group of 72 birds from each dietary treatment was selected at random and moved to a pre-fabricated stair-step individual cage house. The 72 bird groups were further sub-divided into eight, nine-bird groups and randomized throughout the house. Records of feed consumption, mortality, periodic body weights, egg size, and egg production were kept during the twelve, 28-day laying periods. All birds
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
rearing mortality, (2) delayed sexual maturity, (3) decreased housing body weight, (4) increased the rate of egg production after the birds overcame the initial slow start, (5) decreased laying house mortality, (6) decreased the number of small eggs produced early and increased the size of eggs slightly at maturity, (7) slightly decreased the mature body size, and (8) substantially increased the economic returns. It is obvious from these experiments that the results are not consistent from the various laboratories which may have been due in part to geographic differences as well as seasonal and strain variations. It is hoped that this study will lend additional information which will be useful in selecting the best type of feeding program for egg-type replacement stocks.
609
610
J.
W.
D E A T O N AND J. H .
QTJISENBERRY
groups a t the .01 level of probability. When the total pounds of feed consumed from 0-21 weeks were analyzed statistically, the 1 8 % protein—15% fiber, basal, and basal-restricted groups differed significantly from the other four treatments (P.05). At the .01 level of probability, only the basal and basal-restricted groups differed significantly from the other four treatments. When the average feed consumed per RESULTS AND DISCUSSION bird was figured in calories, there seemed Performance data for the birds during to be a definite indication t h a t t h e birds the rearing period are given in Table 2. As were eating to satisfy their energy requirewas to be expected, there were no signifi- ments. cant differences in body weight at eight Most of the mortality during the growweeks of age, b u t at 21 weeks the basal- ing period in the basal-restricted group restricted group weighed significantly less was due to starvation, or to other comthan the other four groups (P.01). I n order plications after the birds had starved to a to determine interval effects on body weakened condition. weights, fifty birds from each replicate I n the course of the experiment, it was were weighed individually a t 12 and 16 noted t h a t the litter of the basal-restricted weeks of age. At 12 weeks there were no group was wetter than t h a t of the full-fed significant differences in body weights, groups. When the water consumption was but a t 16 weeks, the basal-restricted group measured for a 48-hour period beginning differed significantly from the other four at 143 days of age, the basal-restricted
t h a t died during the experiment were posted and cause of death diagnosed b y the staff of the Texas A. and M . Veterinary Microbiology Department. The data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance and chi-square methods, Snedecor (1957). Mean separations, where a statistical significance existed, were accomplished by using Duncan's multiple range test (1955).
of rations for caloric restriction experiments
Starter diet 0-8 weeks Ingredients
Ground Milo Soybean Oil Meal (44% Protein) Ground Corn Poultry By-Product Meal (56% Protein) Distillers Dried Solubles (20% Protein) Dehy. Alfalfa Meal Vitamin Mix* Salt Def. Rock Phos. Oyster Shell Flour Rice Hulls Manganese Sulfate Sulfaquinoxaline (25%) Total % Protein % Fiber Calories (PE/Ib.) Calories/Protein Ratio
chick starter (farm basal)
Growing diet 9-21 weeks Chick grower farm basal
12% protein 1 5 % fiber
Laying diet
15% protein 1 5 % fiber
18% protein 1 5 % fiber
Cage layer (farm basal)
%
%
%
%
%
%
39.00
48.75
27.00
18.00
9.00
49.25
25.00 20.00
15.75 20.00
7.50 20.00
16.50 20.00
25.50 20.00
11.25 20.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
2.00 3.S0 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 227 gin/ton 1.20 pound/ton
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 0.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 5.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 1.50 30.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
2.00 3.00 2.50 0.25 2.50 4.25 0.00 227 g m / t o n 0.00
100.00 21.01 4.18 895 43:1
100.00 17.20 4.15 927 54:1
100.00 12.08 14.27 633 52:1
100.00 15.05 14.62 595 40:1
100.00 18.02 14.95 557 31:1
100.00 17.18 3.27 918 53:1
.
* Supplied the following per pound of feed: Riboflavin, 2.0 mg.; Calcium Pantothenate, 5.0 mg.; Niacin, 12.5 mg.; Vitamin B12, 6.0 meg.; Penicillin, 5.0 mg.; Bacitracin, 5.0 mg.; Choline Chloride, 227.0 mg.; Vitamin A, 2,270 I.U.; Vitamin Ds, 681 I.C.U.; Methionine, 114.0 mg.; 3-Nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic Acid, 22.5 mg.; Dry Fish Soluble* 4.54 gms.; Delactosed Whey Product, 2.27 gms.; Antibiotic Fermentation Residue, 1.135 gms.; Soybean Oil Meal, 1.6898 gms.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
TABLE 1.-
RESTRICTED FEEDING
611
TABLE 2.—Effects of caloric restriction of egg-type pullets on performance during the growing periodHoused in floor-type brooding and rearing pens. {Birds hatched October 7, 1958) (200 birds per group) Basal restricted 10#/100 birds/day
Basal
Average Body Weight (Gms.) 8 Weeks 21 Weeks
Average Feed Consumed (Cal.) 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks Average Feed Cost (Cents)* 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks Percent Mortality 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks
3.48 9.10 12.58
3.55 13.87 17.43
3,114 8,438 11,552
3,181 12,865 16,046
558 1,432
568 1,402
3.48 18.87 22.35 3,114 11,935 15,049
18% protein 15% fiber
587 1,442
3.46 18.79 22.25 3,094 11,175 14,269
3.48 20.72 24.20 3,114 11,536 14,650
13.60 49.23 62.83
13.32 32.31 45.63
13.26 53.65 66.91
13.23 55.34 68.57
13.32 63.05 76.37
0.74 1.00 1.74
0.50 7.00 7.50
1.00 1.00 2.00
1.74 0.00 1.74
0.50 0.00 0.50
* These costs are included because they give a comparison of the effects of two methods of caloric restriction on pullet rearing costs. By using the diets given in Table 1, the feed consumption as given above and local ingredient prices these costs can be adapted to any locality. t Approximate values for protein and fiber. For analyzed values, see Table 1.
group consumed 35.2% more water than the basal group (Table 3). Since the basal-restricted group weighed significantly less at 21 weeks and the birds were in a starved condition, one half of the basal-restricted group was immediately put on full feed at 21 weeks and the other half was gradually brought to full feeding by feeding 13, 16, 19 and 22 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day for the next four weeks, respectively. The purpose of this was to see what effect further restriction might have on the TABLE 3.—Effect
various production characteristics. Performance data for the birds during the laying period are given in Table 4. Restricting the basal diet to ten pounds per 100 birds per day during the growing period significantly increased the days to 50% production (P.01). The average body weight for the basalrestricted groups for the twelve laying periods was significantly lower than the four full-fed treatments at the .05 level of probability. Both basal-restricted groups in House 1 had significantly lower body
of feed restriction upon water consumption of egg-type pullets (48 hour period)
Dietary treatment Basal, Full-Fed Basal, 10#/100 Birds/Day
No. birds
Age of birds (days)
100 100
143 143
Water consumed (lbs.) 70 108
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
Average Feed Consumed (lbs.) 0- 8 Weeks 8-21 Weeks 0-21 Weeks
587 1,107
585 1,461
12% proteinf 15% protein 15% fiber 15% fiber
612
J . W . DEATON AND J . H . QuiSENBERRY T A B L E 4.—The ejfect of caloric restriction during the growing period on the performance replacement stock. March 3, 1959—February 2, 1960
Treatment
Initital No. of birds
Ave. body wt. at 21 wks. of age (gms.)
Ave. body wt. a t 69 wks. of age (gms.)
House
House
House
Average Days egg size at 50% to produc50% tion produc(gms.) tion
1
2
1
2
1
2
Basal
63
72
1,490
1,490
1,817
1,807
169.6
Basal* Restricted
32
36
1,116
1,089
1,720
1,751
Restricted
32
36
1,116
1,140
1,686
12% Protein 1 5 % Fiber
63
71
1,498
1,498
1 5 % Protein 1 5 % Fiber
64
71
1,450
1 8 % Protein 15% Fiber
64
71
1,486
Percent hen-day production House
of egg-type
Feed/ doz. 2 oz. eggs
Average egg size (gms.) Ho rse
Percent mortality
House
House
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
49.42
73.9
74.5
59.08
58.86
3.77
3.84
3.2
5.6
178.2
49.00
74.3
74.0
58.99
58.95
3.86
3.84
3.1
2.8
1,705
180.6
49.86
71.1
75.2
57.81
59.12
3.93
3.66
3.1
0.0
1,930
1,790
168.2
49.16
71.9
74.9
59.43
58.18
3.86
3.81
4.8
2.8
1,427
1,866
1,823
169.8
49.01
72.8
74.4
58.35
58.31
3.83
3.83
4.7
4.2
1,479
1,840
1,760
170.2
48.71
75.6
73.9
58.11
58.12
3.81
3.84
4.7
2.8
Basalt
weights than the four full-fed treatments at the .01 level of probability. I n House 2, at the .01 level of probability, the basalrestricted group t h a t was gradually brought to full feeding differed from the four full-fed treatments, b u t the basalrestricted full-fed group differed only from the basal group for the twelve laying period average. There were no significant treatment differences in average egg size at 5 0 % production, average egg size for the twelve laying periods, mortality during the twelve laying periods, feed per pound of egg, and percent hen-day production. SUMMARY
A total of 680 fall hatched inbred cross egg production type pullets were used to determine the effects of caloric restriction during the growing period upon subsequent performance in the laying house. From the d a t a collected the following conclusions may be drawn:
per 100 birds per day from eight to twenty-one weeks of age significantly reduced body weight. There was no significant difference in body weight between the full-fed basal and the full-fed high fiber diets at twenty-one weeks of age. 2. The birds on the high fiber diets ate significantly more feed than the basal or basal-resticted groups. 3. There seemed to be a definite indication t h a t the birds on the high fiber diets were eating to satisfy their energy requirements when the average feed consumed was calculated in average calories consumed. 4. Mortality was higher for the basal restricted group than for the full-fed basal or full-fed high fiber groups. 5. When the average feed cost was calculated on the ingredient cost, plus fifty cents per hundredweight, the high fiber diets were the most expensive. 6. The basal-restricted birds consumed 3 5 % more water in a measured period of 48 hours t h a n the basal full-fed groups.
Rearing Period (1,000 Birds)
Laying Period {680 Birds)
1. Basal restriction of a high energy diet containing 1 7 % protein to 10 pounds
1. Restriction to 10 pounds of basal feed per 100 birds per day significantly
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
* Basal-restricted to 10 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day during the growing period, full-fed during the laying period. t Basal-restricted to 10 pounds of feed per 100 birds per day during the growing period, restricted during the first laying period. (1st wk. 13#- 2nd wk. 16#; 3rd wk. 19#; 4th wk. 22#; full-fed thereafter)
RESTRICTED FEEDING
REFERENCES Bruins, H. W., 1958. Energy restriction for replacement pullets. Feedstuffs, 30: 32-35. Carrick, C. W., and R. E. Roberts, 1947a. Studies on feed efficiency. The relative efficiency of corn and wheat products in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 26: 111-117. Carrick, C. W., and R. E. Roberts, 1947b. The relative efficiency of corn and oats in chick rations. Poultry Sci. 26: 535. Couch, J. R., R. E. Isaacks, B. L. Reid, W. P. Crawford and J. H. Quisenberry, 1957. Feeding and management of replacement broiler stock. Feed Age, 7: (10), 34-39. Davis, W. M., and A. B. Watts, 1955. The effect of ration treatments during the various stages of the chicken's life upon the subsequent performance of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 34: 1231-1232. Duncan, D. B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. Gowe, R. S., K. G. Hollands and P. Hull, 1960. Economic and genetic implications of restricted feeding during the rearing period for egg production stock. Poultry Sci. 39: 1254. Hill, F. W., and L. M. Dansky, 1954. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 1. The effect of dietary energy level on growth and feed consumption. Poultry Sci. 33: 112-119. Kent, O. B., 1955. Restricted feeding as a way to increase profits. Proc. Assoc. Southern Agri. Workers, p. 162. McCay, C. M., 1947. Effect of restricted feeding
upon ageing and chronic diseases in rats, dogs, mice, and humans. Am. J. Public Health, 37: 521-528. Mellen, W. J., F. W. Hill, and H. H. Dukes, 1954. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 2. The effect of dietary energy level on the basal metabolism of growing chickens. Poultry Sci. 33: 791-798. Milby, T. T., and D. H. Sherwood, 1953. The effect of restricted feeding on growth and subsequent production of pullets. Poultry Sci. 32: 916. Novikoff, M., and J. Biely, 1945. Observations on two methods of feeding chickens from one day old to twelve months of age. Poultry Sci. 24: 245-251. Quisenberry, J. H., 1958. Relation of caloric restriction during the growing period to laying house performance of egg production type pullets. Feedstuffs, 30: (51), 30-32. Reid, B. L., R. E. Isaacks, J. R. Couch and L. E. Deacon, 1958. The effect of dietary intake on growth, sexual development, egg size, and egg production of broiler strain replacement pullets. Abs. of Texas Nutrition Conf. p. 91. Ringrose, R. C , 1959. Watch pullet feeding costs. Feedstuffs, 31: (21), 28. Roberts, R. E., and C. W. Carrick, 1934. Ground oats as a substitute for wheat bran and wheat middlings in rations for chicks. Poultry Sci. 13: 135-140. Schneider, A. J., B. B. Bohren and V. L. Anderson, 1955. The effect of restricted feeding on several genetically controlled characters in the fowl. Poultry Sci. 34: 691-702. Sherwood, D. H., 1960. Methods of delaying pullet maturity. Poultry Sci. 39: 1293-1294. Sherwood, D. H., and T. T. Milby, 1954. Restricted versus full feeding for growing pullets. Poultry Sci. 33: 1080. Singsen, E. P., L. D. Matterson, A. Kozeff and L. D. Stinson, 1954. The effects of feeding high and low efficiency rations to growing pullets on their subsequent laying performance. Poultry Sci. 33: 1081. Singsen, E. P., L. D. Matterson, J. Tlustohowicz and L. M. Potter, 1958. The effect of controlled feeding, energy intake, and type of diet on the performance of heavy-type laying hens. Progress report 26, Agri. Expt. Sta., Univ. of Connecticut. Snedecor, G. W., 1957. Statstical Methods. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Sunde, M. L., W. M. Cravens, H. R. Bird and J. G. Halpin, 1954. The effect of complete and incomplete growing diets on subsequent performance of the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 33: 779-784.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Birmingham on June 14, 2015
delayed sexual maturity and increased the days to 50% production. Full feeding of high fiber diets did not significantly delay sexual maturity. 2. There were no significant effects of feeding high fiber diets or basal-restriction during the growing period on average egg size at 50% production, average egg size for the twelve laying periods, mortality during the twelve laying periods, feed per dozen two-ounce eggs, and percent henday production. 3. The average body weight for the basal-restricted groups was significantly lower at the beginning of the first laying period than the basal or high fiber groups; and, in general, the basal-restricted birds never attained the body size of these groups during the twelve laying periods.
613