Energy: Methionine Ratio and Formulating Feed for Commercial Layers1

01999 Applied Poultry Science. Inc

ENERGY:METHIONINE RATIO AND FORMULATING FEEDFOR COMMERCIAL LAYERS'

~

Primary Audience: Egg Producers, Feed Manufacturers, Researchers

Although the ca1orie:protein ratio was DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMfound to be important and is considered in the The availability of stabilized fats and greases for use in poultry feeds has spurred the use of higher energy in finished feed. This change led to studies that showed as the energy content of the feed increased, the percent protein also needed to increase [l,2, 3, 41. The calorie:proteh concept is readily accepted as a useful tool in the formulation of broiler feed. The National Research Council [4suggested nutrient requirements for hens are based on the feed containing 2900 kcal MEflcg of the diet. Many nutritionists formulate broiler feeds based on the nutrients required for 3200 kcal ME/kg of diet. 1 2

formulation of broiler feed, it has not been given much consideration in the formulation of feed for laying hens. Miller etul. [6]reported that very good egg production was obtained even when the ratio of calories of productive energy to percent of protein of the diets in the diet ranged from 31to 86. They concluded that a wide calorie:protein ratio of the diet could be tolerated by the laying pullet without affecting egg production. Gous et ul. [A concluded that the amino acid requirement for laying hens should not be stated as percentage of the diet nor as ratios to dietary energy. However, Slagter and Waldroup [a] found that hens fed a diet containing an energy:amino acid ratio formulated

Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. R06528 To whom correspondence should be addressed

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

R. H. HARMS2, I(.L.HINTON, and G. B. RUSSELL Department of Dairy and Poulhy Sciences, Universityof Florida, Gainesville,FL 32611-0930 Phone: (352) 392-1932 FAX: (352) 392-3047

Research Report 273

HARMS et al.

MATERIALS AND METHODS EXPERIMENT 1 Hy-Line W-36[ll]P'ullets hatched on March 28 were used in thiij experiment. They were grown in a floor pen in a dark-out house with pine shavings used iis litter, and were provided artificial light for 12 hr/day. A total of 640 hens were placed in individual cages at 18 wk of age. They were maintained in a windowless house and given 16 hr of artificial (O Oto 2o:OO hr). The hens were placed light M on experimental diets at housing; however, performance data were not recorded until the hens were 21 wk of age. The experiment was terminated when the hens were 36 wk of age. Four experimental diets were fed (Table 1). The experimen1:al design included four levels of energy:Met ratio (EM) which consisted of EM ratios of 1:1.03,1:1.09, 1:1.15,

ENERGYMETHIONINE RATIO OF THE DIET (kta1:mg Met)

INGREDIENT

1:1.03

I

1:l.W

1:1.15

1:1.49

Yellow Corn

66.92s

70.253

65.265

66.713

Soybean meal (48.5%)

20.281

19.W

20.433

23.776

7.327

7.350

7.315

7.029

Limestone Dicalcium phosphateA

1551

1510

1.571

1.479

Vitamin mixB

0.220

0.220

0.220

0.220

Mineral mix'

0.220

0.220

0.220

0.220

Salt

0.407

0.407

0.407

0.407

DL-Methionine

0.063

0.059

0.064

0.150

Tryptophan

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.006

O.OO0

O.OO0

4502

O.OO0

Corn oil

3.000

O.OO0

Sand

O.OO0

O.Oo0

I

CALCULATED ANALYSIS (%)" Methionine

AContains 18.5% P and 21% Ca. BSuppliesper kg of diet: biotin, 0.2 mg; cholecalciferol,2,200 IU; choline, 500 mg; ethoxy uin 65 mg; folic acid, 1 m . niacin, 60 m ntothenic acid, 15 mg; fidoxine, 5 mg; riboflavin, 5 mg; thiamine, mi5 vitamin 4 8,00018; vitamin B12,tOTmg; vitamin E, 20 IV; vitamin K, 2 mg.

3

'Supplied per kg of diet: copper, 10 mg; ethoxyquin, 6.5 mg; iodine, 2 mg; iron, 60 mg; manginese, 90 mg; selenium, 0.2 mg; zinc, 80 mg. D13ased on analysis of corn and soybean meal.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

to support their suggested performance did as well as those hens fed an excess of the amino acids. Harms et al. [9] found that feed intake increased as the methionine (Met) level in the diet increased. They suggested that the hen increases energy intake to support the increased amount of egg content Limited by the hen's Met intake. This hypothesis is supported by the finding of Harms and Russell [lo] that hens producing different egg output consumed the same amount of energy per g of egg content. Since the three groups did not differ in the amount of Met perg of egg content, their daily energy and Met requirements could be satisfied with one feed. Therefore, the present experiments were conducted to determine whether the hens' need for energy and Met could be satisfied by one feed with a constant energy:Met ratio.

ENERGYMET RATIO FOR LAYERS

274

weight] x EP). Dailyintake of Met and energy were calculated for each replicate. The energy and Met per g of EC were calculated by dividing the daily energy and Met intake by EC. The hens were weighed at the beginning and end of the experiment with weight change calculated. The data were subjected to analysis of variance using the General Linear Models (GLM) procedure of S M [12] and significant differences among diets were determined by Duncan’s multiple range test [13]. EXPERIMENT 2 The Hy-Line pullets used in this experiment were hatched on July 11.The procedure and analyses were the same as Experiment 1, except six diets were fed with EM ratios of l:l.O, l:l.l, 1:1.2, 1:1.3, 1:1.4, and 1:l.S (Table 2). These EM ratios were obtained by varying the level of methionine and energy in the diet. Data were collected for 21 to 36 wk of age.

ENERGY:METHIONINE RATIO OF THE DIET (kca1:mg Met)

INGREDIENT 11.0

1:l.l

1:1.2

k1.3

19.4

1:15

Yellow corn

63.057

63.290

63.484

63.717

63.950

64.183

soybean meal (48.5%)

25.399

25381

25.367

25.350

25.333

25.316

Limestone

7.001

7.003

7.004

7.006

7.008

7.009

Dicalcium phosphate*

2.032

2.029

2.027

2.m

2.021

2.018

Vitamin premixB

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.27s

Mineral premix‘

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.275

0.275

Salt

0.438

0.438

0.437

0.437

0.437

0.437

DL-Methionine

0.013

0.040

0.067

0.094

0.119

0.145

Corn oil

1510

1.270

1.063

0.823

0582

0.342

Protein

17.0

17.02

17.05

17.07

17.09

17.12

Methionine

0.289

0.316

0.343

0.422

0.940

0.940

0.940

0.370 0.940

0.396

Lysine

0.940

0.940

Tryptophan

0.191

0.191

0.191

0.191

0.191

0.192

Energy (kcamg)

2884

2867

2853

2838

2823

2807

BSuppliesper kg of diet: biotin, 0.2 mg; cholecalciferol, 2,200 IU; choline, 500 mg; etho uin, 65 mg; folic acid, 1 m thothenic acid, 15 mg; pyridoxine, 5 mg; riboflavin, 5 mg; t h i a m i a mg; vitamin A, 8,000 niaan 60 m vitamin BIZ, vitamin E, 20 IU; wtamin K, 2 mg.

tEg;

fi

‘Supplied per kg of diet: copper, 10 mg;ethoxyquin, 65 mg; iodine, 2 mg;iron, 60 mg; manganese, 90 mg; selenium, 0.2 mg; zinc, 80 mg. DBased on analysis of corn and soybean meal.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

and 1:1.49. The diet containing a 11.49 EM ratio was considered as the control. The EM ratio is the ratio of the kcal to mg Met in a g of feed. Energy:Met ratios were obtained by varying the levels of Met and supplemental DL-Met. The analyzed amino acid values for the corn and soybean meal were used for formulating the diets. Each of the four diets was fed to 32 replicates of five individually caged hens. Feed and water were offered ad libitum. Egg production (EP) was recorded on an individual hen basis; however, analyses were performed on a replicate basis. The last egg from each hen each week determined average egg weights. Feed consumption (FC) was obtained by replicate at bi-weekly intervals, at which time new feed replaced the remaining feed. One egg from each hen each week was broken out during Week 7 through 16; shell and shell membranes were washed, dried, and weighed. These data were used to calculate egg content mass (EC = [egg weight - shell

Research Report 275

HARMS et ai.

this period (Table 4). During Weeks 27 to 36 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION there were significant differences among the three treatments for FC (Table 3), partially because of the difference in the energy content of the diet. Also, the output of EC differed among the three groups (Table 3). This factor resulted in a reduction of the energy consumed per g of EC (Table 4) as EC increased. Weight gain during Weeks 21 to 36 was not affected by the EM ratio of the diet (Table 4). The Met intakebedday and the mg intake/g EC significantly increased as the EM ratio increased (Table 5). The hens with the highest daily Met intake (also having the highest EM ratio) produced the largest amount of EC (Table 3). An intake greater than 234 mg Met/day (Table 5) for Weeks 21 to 26 was required for E€! EXPERIMENT 2 Hens receiving the diets with ratios of k1.0 and 1:l.l EM from Weeks 21 to 26 had signiticantly lower EP than did hens on the other treatments except for the hens that received the diet with a 11.3 EM ratio (Table 6). We have no explanation for the lower EP for this group of hens. Egg weights during Weeks 21 to 26 were significantly hghter for hens fed the diet with a 1:l.O EM ratio than for hens receiving four

ENERGY:METHIOMNE RATIOS OPTHE DIET (kca1:mg Met)

AGE

1:1.03

11.09

11.15

1:1.49

66.08

21-26 wk

62Sb

61.4b

62.9b

27-36 Wk

88.1b

91.0"

92.1'

92.9'

21-36 Wk

7.1C

79.0b

79.Pb

815'

21-26 wk

49.3a

49.6

50.2a

51.4'

27-36 Wk

54.3b

S4.F

SOab

56.p

21-36 Wk

52.1b

52.3b

52.gb

54.2'

21-36 wk

42.5'

45.2b

45.6b

47.78

21-26 wk

72AC

7S.gb

79.3'

78.4a

27-36 wk

83.1C

%.2b

99.1'

97.1ab

21-36 wk

310'

I

3378

1

332'

332'

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

EXPERIMENT 1 EP from hens that received the diet with an EM ratio of 1:1.49 between 21 and 26 wk of age was significantly higher than the EP from the other three groups of hens (Table 3). During Weeks 27 to 36 and Weeks 21 to 36, EP was sigtllficantly lower for the hens that received the diet with a EM ratio of 1:1.03 than for the hens receiving the other three diets. Egg weights during Weeks 21 to 26 among the four groups of hens (Table 3) were not signiticant. During Weeks 27 to 36, the EW from hens receiving the diet with an EM ratio of 11.49 was significantlylugher than for hens receiving the diets with ratios of k1.03 and 1:l.W. Egg weights from hens receiving the diets with the lowest three EM ratios did not differ significantly. The EC was the greatest for hens fed the diet with the highest EM ratio and lowest for hens fed the lowest EM ratio, with the other two dietary treatments being intermediate. Feed consumption (FC) was significantly different among treatments (Table 3) for 21 to 26 and 27 to 36 wk.This difference in FC came from the energy content of the feed since there were no differences in energy intake during

JAPR ENERGYMET RATIO FOR LAYERS

276

TABLE 4. Energy intake and energy per g egg content of hens fed dietswith different energy:methionineratios

ENERGYMETHIONINE RATIOS OF THE DIET (kcakmg Met)

AGE

1:1.03

19.09

1:1.15

1:1.49

21-26 wk

2078

20Sa

204’

208a

27-36 wk

24iP

276’

269b

2nab

21-36 Wk

237a

242’

23y

241*

6.2tZa

6.11a

5.nb

ENERGYMETHIONINE RATIOS OFTHE DIET (kca1:mg Met)

AGE

1:1.03

1:l.W

I

21-26 Wk

213*

27-35 W k

275‘

mb

21-36 wk

244’

262b

27-36 Wk

5.9Ob

1

223’

6.4?

ratios, with the exception of the group that received the feed with a 1:1.3EM ratio. Essentially the same trend for EW was observed during Weeks 27 to 36 with significantly lighter eggs from hens receiving the diet with a 1:l.O EM ratio than eggs from hens receiving the four highest EM ratios. During Weeks 21 to 26 there was no significant difference in EC among the four groups that received the diets with the highest EM ratio (Table 6). However, EC was significantly lower for the groups that received the diets with EM ratios of 1:l.O and 11.1, except for the group receiving the diet with a 1:1.3EM ratio. During Weeks 27 to 36 there was no significant difference for EC among the six groups (Table 6). The hens receiving the diets with EM ratios of 1:l.O and 1:l.l produced approximately 1 g less EC than hens receiving the diets with a 1:1.2 EM ratio or higher for the period of 21 to 26 wk. During Weeks 21 to 26, hens receiving the diet with a 1:l.O or 1:l.l EM ratio had lower FC than hens receiving the other four diets (Table 6). This condition resulted in a higher

k1.15 234b

I

6.63bc

1:1.49

310b

311’ 4078

2nb

359a

6.80b

853a

daily energy intake for the four groups receiving the diets with the higher EM ratios. During Weeks 27 to 36 there was no significant differencein FC among the six groups of hens (Table 6). However, the hens receiving the diet with a 1:1.2EM ratio had significantly higher energy intake (Table 7). Weight gain did not differ among treatments (Table 6). Hens receiving the diet with a 1:1.2 EM ratio consumed significantly more energy per g of EC than did the other five groups of hens (Table 7). Hens receiving the diet with a 1:1.5 EM ratio consumed the least amount of energy per g of EC. There was no significant difference in the energy intake per g of EC for the hens receiving the diets with the four middle EM ratios. The Met intake increased as the EM ratio increased (Table 8). This was a result of the increased Met content of the diet. The Met consumed per g of EC also increased as the EM ratio increased (Table 8).This was a result of the hens’ consuming the amount of energy required for the number of eggs produced.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

27-36 Wk

Research Report 277

HARMS et al. TABLE 6. Performance of hens fed diets with different energy:methionine ratios (Experiment 2)

I

AGE

I I

ENERGY:METHIONINERATIO OFTHE DIET (kcalmg Met) 1:l.O

1:l.l

I

k1.2

1:1.3

1:1.4

I

1:lJ

21-26 Wk

2076

205

219a

210a

216ab

21Sab

27-36 Wk

283b

274b

302a

280b

mb

273a

21-36 Wk

258b

251b

274a

UP

258b

254b

.I

EMRGY/EGG CONTENT (kcaVg) 27-36 Wk ~~~~

I

5.Sb

I

I

5.69 ~

~

6.11a ~

~

I

5.7lbC

I

~

ns within a row with a common superscript do not differ significantly(P > .OS).

Egg production during Weeks 21 to 26 was significantly higher when the hens were fed the diet with an EM ratio of 1:1.49 in Experiment 1 (Table 3) or 1:1.2 or higher in Experiment 2 (Table 6). The only exception was the low production on the diet with a k1.3 EM ratio. We have no explanation for the low production of the treatment. However, during Weeks 27 to 36,equal EP in Experiment 2 was obtainedwith hens fed all EM ratios (Table 6). In Experiment 1, EP was reduced only when the EM ratio was 1:1.09 or less. An aver-

5.62'

I

5SC

1

age of approximately 210 kcal energbedday was consumed during Weeks 21 to 26. In Experiments 1 and 2, daily energy consumption averaged 270 and 282 kcal during Weeks 27 to 36, respectively. Egg weights increased as the EM ratio increased in Experiment 1 (Table 3), and maximum EW was produced when the EM ratio was increased to 1:1.49. However, Experiment 2 EW did not significantly increase when the EM increased above 1:l.l (Table 6).

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

TABLE 7. Energy intake and energy per g egg content of hensfed diets with different energy:methionine ratios

,(Experiment 2)

JAPR 278

ENERGYMET RATIO FOR LAYERS

TABLE 8. Methionine consumed and methionine intake per g egg content of hens fed diets with different

and maximum EW was obtained when the EM ratio was 1:1.2. Maximum EP was obtained at a lower EM ratio than maximum EW, indicating that the hen consumes energy to support the number of eggs that she is laying. A higher intake of Met is necessary for maximum EW. This indicates that the EM ratio is important in layer diets. This conclusion agrees with the conclusion of Slagter and Waldroup [SI, but does not agree with the conclusions by Miller et al. [6] and Gous et d. [7]. The ideal EM ratio will vary with temperature as suggested by Slagter and Waldroup [8]. This situation is a result of an increased energy requirement to produce a g of EC as the temperature gets cooler. The ideal EM ratio will also vary with strain of hen. Recently, Harms and Russell [14] found that the Hy-Line W-36 hen produced a g of EC on approximately 5% less energy than Hy-Line W-77 [ll], Bovan [ l q , or DeKalb Delta [16]. It appears that adequate information is not available to model the hen. In order to formulate the feed for the best performance,it will be necessary to determine the hen’s energy and amino acids requirements to produce a g of EC (egg mass). The energy can readily be determined by dividing total energy intake by total EC. It will be more difficult to determine the daily output of EC. However, if the values are available, the proper EM ratio can be determined for maximum EP and probably at the least cost.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

Weight gain was not affected by the EM content of the diet (Tables 3 and 6). Therefore, it appears that the hen consumes enough energy to support EP and weight gain but will reduce EW when the feed is marginally deficient in Met. The averageenergy intake from Weeks 21 to 26 was approximately210kcaVday (Tables 4 and 7), and there was very little difference among treatments. The energy intake in both experiments increased from approximately 205 kcallday during Weeks 21 to 26 to approximately 270 kcallday during Weeks 27 to 36 (Table 4) in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2 the increase was from approximately 210 to 280 kcallday (Table 6). The increase in energy intake was to meet the need for increased EF! The hens in Experiment 2 produced heavier EW than did hens in Experiment 1, resulting in a need for more energy in Experiment 2. The hens consumed 5.98 and 5.73 kcal of energy for each g of EC in Experiments 1and 2, respectively. The higher intake per g of EC in Experiment 1is attributed to the lower EP in that experiment. This finding agrees with Harms et al. [9] who found that the energy intake per g of EC decreased as the output of EC increased. Maximum EW was not reached in Experiment 1when hens consumed 310 mg Met/day during Weeks 27 to 36 (Table 5). However, in Experiment 2, EW declined only when the EM ratio declined to 1:l.O (Table 6)

Research Report 279

HARMS et al.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Combs, G.F. and G.L Romoser, 1955. A New A proach to Poultry Feed Formulation. Misc. Pub. 226,

&@and Agri. Exp. Sta., College Park, MD.

2. Matterson, LD., LM. Potter, LD. Stinson, and EP. Singsen, 1955. Studies on the effect of varying protein and energy levels in poult rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poultry Sa.M&O. 3. Leong, K.C., M.L Sunde, H.R Bird, and CA. Elvehjlm, 1955.Effect of eneryprotein ratio on growth rate, efficiency,feathering,and at deposition in chickens. Poultry Sci. 341206. 4.Donaldson, W.E, G.P. Combs,G.L Romoser,and W.C. Suppke, 1955. Body composition, energy intake, feed efficiency, growth rate, and feather condition of growingchickens as influenced by ca1orie:protein ratio of the ration. Poultry Sci. M1190. 5. National Research council, 1994. Nutrient Reuirements of Poult 9th Rev. Edition. Natl. Acad. ;tress,Washington, D?: 6.Miller, EC.,M.L Sunde, and C.A. Elvehjim, 1957. Minimum protein requirementsof layingpulletsat different energy levels. Poultry !%.36:681490. 7. G o q RM., M. Griessie, and T.R Morris, 1987. Effect of dietary energy concentrationson the of layinghens to amino acids. Br. Poultry !%. 8. Slagler, PJ. and P.W.Waldroup, 1984.Calculation and evaluation of enewamino acid ratios for the egg production-typehen. Poultry Sci. 631810-1822.

9. Harms, RH., G.B. Russell, H. Harlow, and F.J. Ivey, 1998. Performanceof laying hens fed three levels of methionine in diets containin two levels of protein and energy. J. Appl. Poultry Res. $45-52.

10. Harms, RH. and G.B. Russell,1996.Ability of commercial laying hens producing different egg outputs to meet their methionine and energy requirementswhen fed the same diet. Poultry Sci. 75519-521. 11. Hy-Line International, West Des Moines, IA 50265.

12.SAS Institute, 1986.SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 13.Duncan, D.B., 1955.Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1k1-42. 14. Harms, RH.and G.B.Russrll, 1998. A comparison of the energyused by fourstrains of commerciallaying hens to roduce one gram of egg content.J. Appl. Poultry Res. 88266.

15. Centurion Poultry, Inc., 1471 Lane Creek Road, Bogart, GA 30622. 16. DeKalb Poultry Research, 3100 Sycamore Rd., DeKalb, IL 60115.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Florida Poultry Federation and Novus International for partial financial support of this study.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Purdue University Libraries ADMN on March 13, 2015

1. The Hy-Line W-36 hen increased its energy intake as the daily output of egg content increased. Thus, it increased its Met intake to meet the energy requirement. 2. The energy intake per g of EC was reduced as EC increased and changed as temperature changed. 3. The requirement for Met is approximately 6 mg/g of EC. Therefore, a hen producing 40 or 50 g of EC has a daily Met requirement of 240 and 300 mg,respectively. 4. It is important that the feed be formulated to meet the hen’s need for Met when it has consumed enough energy to support EF’! 5. The hen will perform very well over a wide range of EM ratios; however, the feed should be formulated to the EM ratio that meets the hen’s need for the most efficient production of eggs.