- Email: [email protected]
Growth performance of different breed crosses of chicks fed diets with different protein and energy sources
Growth Performance of Different Breed Crosses of Chicks Fed Diets with Different Protein and Energy Sources1,2 J. L. Shelton,* I. Mavromichalis,† R. L. Payne,* L. L. Southern,*,3 and D. H. Baker† *Department of Animal Sciences, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-4210; and †Department of Animal Science and Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801 ABSTRACT Six experiments (EXP) were conducted to evaluate growth performance of different breed crosses of broiler chicks fed diets containing soybean meal, soy protein isolate (SPI), soy protein concentrate (SPC), or rice and casein. Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR; EXP 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) or New Hampshire × Columbian (NH×C; EXP 2 and 4) cross chicks were used. The chicks were fed a corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet before allotment to treatment. The age of the chicks ranged from 5 to 9 d posthatching at the start of the EXP, and the assay periods ranged from 8 to 14 d. Initial weights were 194.9, 96.1, 102.1, 84.7 [84.1 (C×PR) or 85.3 (NH×C)], 101.8, and 145.1 g in EXP 1 to 6, respectively. A completely randomized design was used in all EXP, and treatments were replicated four to six times with four or five chicks each. All diets were formulated to meet the NRC nutrient requirements of chicks. In EXP 1 (C×PR male chicks) and EXP 2 (NH×C female chicks), gain and gain:feed (G:F) were greater (P < 0.01) in chicks fed the C-SBM diet compared with chicks fed diets containing SPI. In EXP 3, C×PR chicks were fed a C-SBM diet, a SPI-dextrose-cornstarch
diet (dextrose:cornstarch, 1:1) formulated by Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSU) or a similar SPI diet (dextrose:cornstarch, 0.53:1) formulated by the University of Illinois (UI). Daily gain, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and G:F were increased (P < 0.01) in chicks fed the C-SBM diet relative to chicks fed the two SPI diets, and there were only minor differences between the two SPI diets. In EXP 4, the C×PR and NH×C male chicks were fed the same diets used in EXP 3. Daily gain and ADFI were greater in the C×PR and NH×C chicks fed the C-SBM diet relative to chicks fed the SPI diets (P < 0.01), but the increased average daily gain (ADG) and ADFI in chicks fed the C-SBM diet were much greater in the C×PR chicks (chick × C-SBM vs. SPI, P < 0.01). Daily gain, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.01) in C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks. In EXP 5, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.04) in chicks fed the C-SBM diet compared with those fed a C-SPC diet. In EXP 6, C×PR chicks fed the CSBM diet grew faster (P < 0.09) than those fed a rice and casein diet. Variable effects of diet on growth of chicks were affected by breed crosses of chicks.
(Key words: chick, protein source, breed cross) 2003 Poultry Science 82:272–278
chicks were fed different types of SPI relative to those fed C-SBM diets. Also, Emmert and Baker (1995) reported that the protein quality of SPI, without Met and Thr supplementation, was inferior to that of soybean meal (SBM). With Met and Thr addition, however, protein quality of SPI (and SPC) was equal to that of SBM. There is some debate as to whether EXP with slowergrowing chicks accurately predict effects observed with faster-growing commercial broilers. Slow-growing chicks, such as New Hampshire × Columbian (NH×C) chicks, are used in research because they are uniform
INTRODUCTION Experiments (EXP) have been performed using soy protein isolate (SPI), soy protein concentrate (SPC), or other refined protein sources in diets for chicks, but very little research has been conducted to determine the effect in chicks fed diets containing these protein sources relative to those fed conventional corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diets. Jenson and Mraz (1988) and Welch et al. (1988) reported decreased growth performance when
2003 Poultry Science Association, Inc. Received for publication June 27, 2002. Accepted for publication September 27, 2002. 1 Approved for publication by the Louisiana Agric. Exp. Sta. as Manuscript No. 02-18-0441. 2 Research supported in part by Cargill Inc., Elk River, MN. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed: lsouthern@ agctr.lsu.edu.
Abbreviation Key: ADFI = average daily feed intake; ADG = average daily gain; C = corn; C×PR = Cornish × Plymouth Rock; EXP = experiment; G:F = gain:feed; LSU = Louisiana State University Agricultural Center; NH×C = New Hampshire × Columbian; SBM = soybean meal; SPC = soy protein concentrate; SPI = soy protein isolate; UI = University of Illinois.
272
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS
and able to grow in chick batteries without developing leg weakness (Han and Baker, 1991). The Cornish and Plymouth Rock are two strains of broilers that have much greater early growth rates. The digestive tracks develop differently in fast- and slow-growing chicks. Dror et al. (1977) reported that the relative weights of the cecum and ileum in 21-d-old chicks were greater in heavy (White Rock) than in light chicks (New Hampshire × White Leghorn). Furthermore, the relative weights of the duodenum and jejunum were greater in the light breed than in the heavy breed. Uni et al. (1995), with 14-d-old chicks, indicated that the length of the small intestine of a light strain (Lohman) was 70% of that of a heavy strain (Arbor Acres). Numerous studies have compared the nutrient requirements of fast-growing versus slow-growing chicks. Robbins and Baker (1980) reported that the TSAA requirement was essentially the same in fast-growing and slow-growing chicks. Han and Baker (1991) also indicated that male chicks of a fast-growing strain were similar in body composition to male chicks of a slowgrowing strain. The fast-growing chicks ate approximately twice as much feed as the slow-growing chicks; however, the lysine requirement was the same when expressed as a percentage of the diet. The objective of these EXP was to determine the effect of purified and semi-purified diets versus a conventional C-SBM diet on growth performance of fast-growing commercial broilers relative to slower-growing broilers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS All methods used in these EXP were approved by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSU) Animal Care and Use Committee. Six EXP were conducted with Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) or NH×C female or male chicks to evaluate differences in growth performance when fed a C-SBM diet or diets using alternate protein sources. The pretest period in all EXP consisted of all chicks being fed a C-SBM diet adequate in all nutrients (NRC, 1994) before the EXP began. They were held overnight without feed and water on the day before allotment to treatment. The chicks were then weighed, wing-banded, and allotted to treatments in completely randomized designs. They were housed in thermostatically controlled starter batteries with raised wire floors and continuous lighting. Feed and water were offered ad libitum throughout the experiments. The amino acid composition of SPI was determined after acid hydrolysis, whereas TSAA were determined following performic acid oxidation followed by acid hydrolysis (AOAC, 1990). Tryptophan was determined following alkaline hydrolysis (AOAC, 1990). The mineral composition (Table 1) of SPI was determined after digestion in nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (AOAC, 1990).4 4
Model Optima 3000, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT. Central Soya Co., Inc., Fort Wayne, IN. Heartland Lysine, Inc., Chicago, IL.
5 6
273
Diets (Table 1) were formulated to meet or exceed the amino acid, mineral, and vitamin requirements of chicks 0 to 21 d posthatching (NRC, 1994). The diets with SPI were formulated using the analyzed values for SPI. The C-SBM diets used in EXP 1, 2, 3, and 4, the SPI diets used in EXP 2, and the rice and casein (RC) diet used in EXP 6 used NRC (1994) nutrient and digestibility values for corn, SBM, SPI, rice, and casein. The C-SBM diet used in EXP 5 was formulated using the analyzed values for corn and SBM. The SPC used in EXP 5 used the amino acid concentrations provided by Central Soya Co.,5 and the corn, SBM, and SPC used in this EXP used true digestibility coefficients from Heartland Lysine, Inc.6 At the end of each EXP, all chicks were weighed individually, and pen feed intake was measured. Growth performance was evaluated by average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain:feed (G:F). Experiment 1 was conducted to evaluate growth performance of chicks fed a C-SBM diet or a dextrose:cornstarch SPI diet. Male C×PR chicks were pretested from 0 to 9 d posthatching. On Day 10, 50 chicks were allotted to two treatments with five replicates of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 195 and 482 g, and the EXP lasted 8 d. The treatments were 1) CSBM diet and 2) LSU-SPI diet, with the carbohydrate provided by dextrose and cornstarch (1:1). Experiment 2 was conducted to compare a C-SBM diet to two different SPI diets. Female NH×C chicks at the University of Illinois (UI) were pretested from 0 to 7 d posthatching. On Day 8, 48 chicks were allotted to three treatments with four replicates of four chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 96 and 373 g, and the EXP lasted 12 d. The treatments were 1) CSBM diet, 2) SPI diet with a 2:1 ratio of cornstarch to dextrose as the carbohydrate source, and 3) SPI diet with dextrose as the carbohydrate source. Experiment 3 was conducted to compare the LSUSPI diet with the UI-SPI diet. Male C×PR chicks were pretested from 0 to 6 d posthatching. On Day 7, 90 chicks were allotted to three treatments with six replicates of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 102 and 335 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 10 d. The treatments were 1) C-SBM diet, 2) UI-SPI diet, and 3) LSU-SPI diet. The carbohydrate sources in the diets were dextrose and cornstarch at 0.53:1 in the UISPI diet or 1:1 in the LSU-SPI diet. Experiment 4 was conducted to compare two different SPI diets with a C-SBM diet and in two different breed crosses of chicks. Male C×PR or male NH×C chicks were used in this EXP. The NH×C chicks were shipped overnight to LSU from UI. All chicks were fed a C-SBM diet for 5 d (C×PR) or 7 d (NH×C) posthatching before the EXP began. Both chick breed crosses were allotted on Day 6 (C×PR) or Day 8 (NH×C) posthatching to treatments with six replications of five chicks per replicate. Average initial BW was 85 g for the NH×C chicks and 84 g for the C×PR chicks; average final BW were 392 g
274
SHELTON ET AL. TABLE 1. Percentage composition of diets Ingredient
1
C-SBM
Corn Soybean meal Dextrose Cornstarch Soy protein isolate Soy protein concentrate Rice Casein Corn oil Soy oil Cellulose Monocalcium phosphate Limestone CaCl2ⴢ2H2O DL-Met Vitamin premix8 Mineral premix9 UI mineral premix10 UI vitamin premix11 Salt Choline chloride L-Thr L-Arg Glycine MgSO4ⴢ2H2O DL-α-tocopheryl acetate FeSO4ⴢ7H2O CuSO4ⴢ5H2O KHCO3 Ethoxyquin NaHCO3 Se premix12
51.62 38.03 — — — — — — 6.00 — — 1.55 1.53 — 0.20 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — —
Calculated composition13 CP, % ME, Mcal/kg Lys, % Sulfur AA, % Thr, % Trp, % Se, mg/kg Ca, % P, % P available, % Mg, % Fe, mg/kg Na, % Cl, % K, % Cu, mg/kg
22.35 3.16 1.26 0.91 0.86 0.28 0.15 1.03 0.70 0.45 0.22 318.14 0.22 0.51 0.91 11.25
1
SPI-LSU2
SPI-UI3
SPI-UI4
RC5
SPC6
C-SBM7
— — 31.60 31.61 23.43 — — — — 4.00 3.00 1.85 1.33 0.45 0.39 0.25 0.25 — — 0.11 0.18 0.11 — 0.40 0.50 — 0.004 0.001 0.51 — — 0.03
— — 23.14 43.27 22.00 — — — — 5.00 — — — — 0.20 — — 5.37 0.20 — 0.20 0.10 — — — 0.002 — — — 0.013 0.50 —
— — 66.41 — 22.00 — — — — 5.00 — — — — 0.20 — — 5.37 0.20 — 0.20 0.10 — — — 0.002 — — — 0.013 0.50 —
— — — 0.50 — — 75.49 14.06 — 4.00 — 2.14 1.29 — 0.26 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 0.09 0.57 — — — — — — 0.50 — 0.03
71.96 — — — — 23.35 — — 0.30 — — 1.51 1.56 — 0.14 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — —
57.30 33.77 — — — — — — 4.64 — — 1.57 1.47 — 0.15 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 0.03 — — — — — — — — — —
19.60 3.27 1.26 0.91 0.84 0.24 0.13 1.00 0.70 0.45 0.46 281.21 0.23 0.36 0.30 20.42
21.41 3.20 1.19 0.86 0.85 0.26 0.15 1.00 0.71 0.45 0.21 274.40 0.23 0.34 0.82 9.12
20.90 3.20 1.25 0.90 0.84 0.24 0.14 1.00 0.72 0.45 0.21 305.25 0.22 0.35 0.92 12.47
20.09 3.46 1.26 0.91 0.84 0.30 0.16 1.00 0.56 0.45 0.10 275.50 0.32 0.33 0.30 8.93
19.01 3.68 1.34 0.77 0.80 0.24 0.13 1.23 0.86 0.45 0.11 113.52 0.41 0.56 0.46 8.71
19.01 3.68 1.34 0.77 0.80 0.24 0.13 1.23 0.86 0.45 0.11 113.52 0.41 0.56 0.46 8.71
The corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet was used in Experiments (EXP) 1, 3, 4, and 6. The soy protein isolate (SPI) diet from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (SPI-LSU) was used in EXP 1, 3, and 4. 3 The SPI diet from the University of Illinois (SPI-UI) was used in EXP 2, 3, and 4. 4 The SPI diet from the University of Illinois (SPI-UI) was used in EXP 2. 5 The rice-casein (RC) diet was used in EXP 6. 6 The soy protein concentrate (SPC) was used in EXP 5. Analysis of amino acid (%): Thr, 2.85; Ser, 3.79; Gly, 2.85; Cys, 0.99; Val, 3.36; Met, 0.95; Ile, 2.96; Leu, 5.39; Tyr, 2.38; Phe, 3.36; His, 1.78; Lys, 4.34; Arg, 5.08; Trp, 0.92. 7 The C-SBM diet was used in EXP 5. Analysis of amino acid in corn (%): Thr, 0.26; Ser, 0.38; Gly, 0.33; Cys, 0.19; Val, 0.33; Met, 0.19; Ile, 0.24; Leu, 0.89; Tyr, 0.21; Phe, 0.35; His, 0.23; Lys, 0.26; Arg, 0.35; Trp, 0.06. Analysis of amino acid in soybean meal %: Thr, 1.97; Ser, 2.44; Gly, 2.14; Cys, 0.84; Val, 2.40; Met, 0.75; Ile, 2.25; Leu, 3.92; Tyr, 1.82; Phe, 2.58; His, 1.37; Lys, 3.28; Arg, 3.85; Trp, 0.62. 8 Provided per kilogram of diet: vitamin A (retinyl palmitate), 2,475 µg; vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), 11.25 µg; vitamin E (DL-αtocopheryl acetate), 50 mg; menadione (menadione sodium bisulfite), 1.5 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; d-biotin, 0.6 mg; folacin (folic acid), 6 mg; niacin, 50 mg; d-pantothenic acid, 18.3 mg; pyridoxine (pyridoxineⴢHCl), 6.4 mg; riboflavin, 15 mg; thiamin (thiaminⴢHCl), 13.4 mg. 9 Provided per kilogram of diet: copper (copper sulfateⴢ5H2O), 4 mg; iodine (potassium iodate), 1.0 mg; Iron (ferrous sulfateⴢ7H2O), 60 mg; manganese (manganese sulfateⴢH2O), 60 mg; selenium (sodium selenite), 0.1 mg; zinc (zinc sulfateⴢ7H2O), 44 mg; calcium (calcium carbonate), 723 mg. 10 University of Illinois (UI) mineral mix provided per kilogram of diet: calcium (calcium carbonate), 3.0 g; calcium (calcium phosphate), 28.0 g; potassium (potassium biphosphate), 9.0 g; NaCl, 8.8 g; magnesium (magnesium sulfate), 3.8 g; zinc (zinc carbonate), 100.0 mg; copper (copper sulfate), 20.0 mg; boron (hydroboric acid), 9.0 mg; molybdenum (sodium molybdenite), 9.0 mg; potassium (potassium iodate), 40.0 mg; cobalt (cobalt sulfate), 1.0 mg; selenium (sodium selenite), 0.215 mg; iron (iron sulfate), 0.415 g; manganese (manganese sulfate), 650 mg. 11 UI vitamin mix provided per kilogram of diet: thiaminⴢHCl, 20 mg; niacin, 50 mg; riboflavin, 10 mg; Ca-pantothenate, 30 mg; B12 premix (Merck titurate 1 g = 1 mg vitamin B12), 0.04 mg; pyridoxineⴢHCl, 6 mg; vitamin D3 (2 × 106 IU/g), 15 µg; vitamin A acetate (500,000 IU/g), 2,860 µg; cornstarch, 15,791 g. 12 Se premix provided 0.1 ppm of Se. 13 Diet formulation and calculated diet composition were based on actual amino acid and mineral analyses of soy protein isolate. Analysis of amino acids (%): Thr, 3.11; Ser, 3.61; Pro, 4.41; Gly, 3.44; Ala, 3.49; Cys, 1.18; Val, 4.18; Met, 1.08; Ile, 4.13; Leu, 6.83; Tyr, 3.23; Phe, 4.58; His, 2.22; Lys, 5.38; Arg, 6.49; Trp, 1.28. LSU mineral analysis of SPI revealed the following (%): Ca, 0.10; P, 0.74; Na, 1.15; K, 0.29; Mg, 592 mg/kg; Cu, 10.20 mg/kg; Fe, 94.77 mg/kg; Mn, 12.17 mg/kg; Zn, 33.57 mg/kg. 2
275
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS TABLE 2. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (EXP 1) or New Hampshire × Columbian (EXP 2) chicks fed a corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) or a soy protein isolate (SPI) diet 1
Diet
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
49.2a 35.5b 1.2
59.7a 46.1b 1.1
824a 768b 10
24.6a 22.5b 22.3b 0.5
38.0 36.1 36.3 0.7
649a 622b 611c 3
EXP 1 (LSU)2 C-SBM SPI-LSU SEM EXP 2 (UI)3 C-SBM SPI-cornstarch-dextrose SPI-dextrose SEM
Means within columns with different superscripts differ (P < 0.03). EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of five replicates of five Cornish × Plymouth Rock male chicks each from 10 to 18 d posthatching; average initial weight was 195 g. Research was conducted at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. 3 Data are means of four replicates of four New Hampshire × Columbian chicks each from 8 to 20 d posthatching; average initial weight was 96 g. Research was conducted at the University of Illinois. a–c 1
for the NH×C chicks and 468 g for the C×PR chicks. The EXP lasted 14 d. The dietary treatments were 1) C-SBM diet, 2) UI-SPI diet, and 3) LSU-SPI diet, with each diet being fed to the NH×C or C×PR chicks, resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. As in EXP 3, the carbohydrate sources in the diets were dextrose and cornstarch at 0.53:1 in the UI-SPI diet or 1:1 in the LSUSPI diet. Experiment 5 was conducted to evaluate growth of C×PR male chicks fed a C-SBM diet or C-SPC. The chicks were pretested from 0 to 6 d posthatching. There were five replications of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 102 and 578 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 13 d. The overall growth and carcass data at 52 d of age were presented previously (Payne, et al., 2001b). Experiment 6 was conducted to compare growth performance of C×PR chicks fed a C-SBM diet or a diet containing rice and casein. There were two treatments with two replicates of five chicks per replicate. The
chicks were fed a C-SBM diet from 0 to 8 d posthatching before allotment to treatments. The average initial and final BW were 145 and 653 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 12 d.
Statistical Analyses Data were analyzed by ANOVA procedures appropriate for completely randomized designs (Steel and Torrie, 1980). In EXP 3, orthogonal contrasts were used to compare the two SPI diets with the C-SBM diet and to compare the two SPI diets to each other. Experiment 4 was analyzed using orthogonal contrasts to evaluate differences between the two chick breed crosses, the CSBM diet versus the SPI diets, the two different SPI diets, and the chick breed crosses by diet type interactions appropriate for a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Pen of chicks was the experimental unit for all data.
TABLE 3. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) or two different soy protein isolate (SPI) diets, EXP 31,2 Diet C-SBM LSU-SPI UI-SPI SEM
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
30.2 20.7 18.8 0.8
37.3 30.1 28.6 0.9
Gain:feed (g/kg) 810 693 664 33
P>F Source of variation C-SBM vs. SPI3 SPI type
0.01 0.10
0.01 NSa
0.01 NSa
Not significant, P > 0.10. EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of six replicates of five male chicks from 7 to 17 d posthatching; average initial weight was 102 g. 3 C-SBM vs. SPI is the differences between the C-SBM diet versus the two SPI diets; SPI type is the differences between the SPI diet from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the SPI diet from the University of Illinois. a 1
276
SHELTON ET AL.
FIGURE 1. Daily gain of Cornish × Plymouth rock [C-PR; Experiment (EXP) 1; 10 to 18 d posthathing; SEM = 1.2] or New Hampshire × Columbian (NH-C; EXP 2; 8 to 20 d posthatching; SEM = 0.5) chicks fed a corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet versus a soy protein isolate (SPI) diet. ADG = average daily gain.
RESULTS In EXP 1, C×PR male chicks fed the C-SBM diet had greater (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and G:F than chicks fed the LSU-SPI diet (Table 2).In EXP 2 conducted at UI, NH×C female chicks fed the C-SBM had greater (P < 0.01) ADG and G:F compared to those fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch or the SPI-dextrose diet (Table 2). The ADFI was not affected in chicks fed the C-SBM diet
relative to those fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch diets. Chicks fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch diet had an increased (P < 0.03) G:F compared with those fed the SPI dextrose diet. Even though the first two EXP were conducted at different universities and with chicks of different sexes, the difference in growth performance of chicks fed the C-SBM and SPI diets was greater in the C×PR than in the NH×C chicks (Figure 1). In EXP 3, the UI-SPI and LSU-SPI diets were compared to the C-SBM diet in C×PR chicks. Chicks fed the CSBM diet had greater (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and G:F than chicks fed either SPI diet (Table 3). There was no difference (P > 0.10) in ADFI or G:F in chicks fed either SPI diets, but ADG tended to increase (P = 0.10) in chicks fed the LSU-SPI diet compared with chicks fed the UISPI diet. In EXP 4, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.01) in C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks (Table 4). Daily gain and ADFI were lower (P < 0.01) in both chick breed crosses fed the SPI diets relative to those fed the C-SBM diet, but the difference was much greater in the C×PR chicks than in the NH×C chicks (chick × C-SBM vs. SPI; P < 0.01). Thus, in comparing the C-SBM with the SPI diets (average), the C×PR chicks gained 49% faster and ate 41% more feed when fed the C-SBM versus those fed the SPI diet, but NH×C chicks gained only 15% faster and ate only 14% more feed when fed the C-SBM versus the SPI diet. There was no difference (P > 0.10) in ADG or ADFI in chicks fed the two SPI diets, but G:F (P < 0.08) tended to be higher in NH×C chicks fed the UISPI diet. In EXP 5, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were lower (P < 0.04) in chicks fed the C-SPC diet than in those fed the CSBM diet (Table 5). In EXP 6, with rice and casein resulted in numerical decreases in ADG (46.8 g vs. 38.0 g), ADFI (60.0 g vs.
TABLE 4. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) or New Hampshire × Columbian (NH×C) chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) diet versus two different soy protein isolate (SPI) diets, EXP 41,2 Daily gain (g) Diet C-SBM LSU-SPI UI-SPI SEM Source of variation3 Chick source C-SBM vs. SPI SPI type Chick × C-SBM vs. SPI
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
NH×C
C×PR
NH×C
CP×R
NH×C
CP×R
24.0 20.2 21.5
36.0 23.9 24.4
35.2 31.4 30.3
47.2 33.4 33.7
683 646 711
763 706 724
0.5
1.0 P>F
0.01 0.01 NSa 0.01
0.01 0.01 NSa 0.01
20
0.01 NSa 0.08 NS
Not significant, P > 0.10. EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of six replicates of five male chicks from 6 to 20 (C×PR) or 8 to 22 (NH×C) d posthatching; average initial weight was 85 (NH×C) or 84 g (C×PR). 3 Chick source is the difference between the breed crosses of chicks (C×PR and NH×C) used; C-SBM vs. SPI is the differences between the C-SBM diet and the two SPI diets; SPI type is the differences between the LSUSPI diet and the UI-SPI diet; chick × C-SBM vs. SPI is the interaction between the two breed crosses of chicks and the C-SBM diets versus two SPI diets. a 1
277
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS TABLE 5. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) or a corn-soy protein concentrate (C-SPC) diet, Experiment 51 Diet C-SBM SPC SEM
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
41.2a 32.0b 1.1
52.1a 48.2b 1.1
791a 666b 21
Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.04). Data are means of five replicates of five male chicks from 7 to 20 d posthatching; average initial weight was 102 g. a,b 1
50.5), and G:F (781 vs. 761) in chicks fed the rice-casein diet.
DISCUSSION The data from EXP 1 to 3 agree with results by Jensen and Mraz (1966) and Emmert and Baker (1995), who reported that chicks gain faster when fed SBM than when fed SPI. Jensen and Mraz (1966) suggested that the greater growth performance in chicks fed SBM as a substitute for SPI was caused by an increase in the rachitogenic effect of SPI in the chicks. Emmert and Baker (1995), however, attributed the advantage of SBM over SPI to higher concentrations of digestible TSAA and Thr in SBM. Welch et al. (1988) also reported that growth performance of broiler chicks was decreased when fed a diet containing refined soy products relative to chicks fed a C-SBM diet. However, Payne et al. (2001a) reported no differences in growth performance when growing-finishing swine were fed a C-SBM diet versus a diet containing corn and SPC. In the present study, the decrease in ADG in the chicks fed SPI diets was primarily caused by a decrease in ADFI. Furthermore, the decrease in ADFI was greater in the C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks, resulting in a greater decrease in ADG. The lower ADFI in chicks fed SPI diets than C-SBM diets could be due to the higher energy content in the SPI diets relative to the C-SBM diets. Because chicks eat to meet their energy needs, chicks fed the SPI diets should (and did) consume less feed than chicks fed SBM. However, this does not explain the decrease in ADFI in chicks fed the C-SPC diet relative to chicks fed the C-SBM diet, because these diets were isocaloric. The higher ME level of the SPI diets versus the C-SBM diets (and resulting lower ADFI) could have resulted in the SPI diets becoming marginal in either TSAA or Thr, but, if this were the case, the LSU-SPI diet (higher in both TSAA and Thr) should have resulted in better ADFI and growth rates than the UI-SPI diet, which it did not (Tables 3 and 4). The decreased feed intake by chicks fed SPI could be explained by the differences in energy content of the diets, but it does not explain why the fast-growing chicks had a larger decrease in ADFI relative to the slow-growing chicks. Also vexing is why G:F of chicks fed the lower ME C-SBM diets was actually superior to that of chicks fed the SPI diets. The development of the digestive system is different between fast- and slow-growing chicks. Uni et al. (1995)
indicated the rate of passage through the small intestine was increased in the slower-growing chick versus the faster-growing chick. Furthermore, they indicate the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum have an increased villus volume and enterocyte density in fast-growing chicks versus slow-growing chicks. It seems possible that the fast-growing chicks in our study might have had a greater absorption rate than the slower-growing chicks because of the slower rate of passage and more organized villi. Thus, the greater difference seen in ADFI between SPI and CSBM diets in the C×PR chicks versus the NH×C chicks might have resulted from increased energy absorption. Overall acceptability may also come into play with the SPI diet relative to the C-SBM diet. The SPI diet had a finer texture and was dustier than the C-SBM diet. If palatability was an issue, however, we would have expected the same relative decrease in feed intake between the two chick breed crosses, which was not observed. Chicks fed purified diets using SPI, dextrose, and cornstarch or semipurified diets using corn and SPC or rice and casein exhibited decreased growth performance (resulting from decreased ADFI) relative to chicks fed conventional C-SBM diets. Furthermore, faster-growing broilers fed SPI diets had a greater decrease in growth performance than slower-growing broilers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Erin Shelton, Neal Matthews, Amy Guzik, LeAnn Johnston, and Laura Camp (LSU, Baton Rouge, LA) for their assistance with data collection.
REFERENCES AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. Dror, Y., I. Nir, and Z. Nitsan. 1977. The relative growth of internal organs in light and heavy breeds. Br. Poult. Sci. 18:493–496. Emmert, J. L., and D. H. Baker. 1995. Protein quality assessment of soy products. Nutr. Res. 15:1647–1656. Han, Y., and D. H. Baker. 1991. Lysine requirement of fast- and slow-growing broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 70:2108–2114. Jensen, L., and F. R. Mraz. 1966. Rachitogenic activity of isolated soy protein for chicks. J. Nutr. 88:249–253. National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
278
SHELTON ET AL.
Payne, R. L., T. D. Bidner, L. L. Southern, and J. P. Geaghan. 2001a. Effect of dietary soy isoflavones on growth, carcass traits, and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1230–1239. Payne, R. L., T. D. Bidner, L. L. Southern, and K. W. McMillin. 2001b. Dietary effects of soy isoflavones on growth and carcass traits of commercial broilers. Poult. Sci. 80:1201–1207. Robbins, K. R., and D. H. Baker. 1980. Effect of sulfur amino acid level and source on the performance of chicks fed high levels of copper. Poult. Sci. 59:1246–1253.
Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Uni, Z., Y. Noy, and D. Sklan. 1995. Posthatch changes in morphology and function of the small intestines in heavy- and light-strain chicks. Poult. Sci. 74:1622–1629. Welch, C. C., C. M. Parsons, and D. H. Baker. 1988. Further investigation of the dietary protein level-monensin interrelationship in broiler chicks: Influence of dietary protein source and type of anticcoccicial drug. Poult. Sci. 67:652–659.
diet (dextrose:cornstarch, 1:1) formulated by Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSU) or a similar SPI diet (dextrose:cornstarch, 0.53:1) formulated by the University of Illinois (UI). Daily gain, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and G:F were increased (P < 0.01) in chicks fed the C-SBM diet relative to chicks fed the two SPI diets, and there were only minor differences between the two SPI diets. In EXP 4, the C×PR and NH×C male chicks were fed the same diets used in EXP 3. Daily gain and ADFI were greater in the C×PR and NH×C chicks fed the C-SBM diet relative to chicks fed the SPI diets (P < 0.01), but the increased average daily gain (ADG) and ADFI in chicks fed the C-SBM diet were much greater in the C×PR chicks (chick × C-SBM vs. SPI, P < 0.01). Daily gain, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.01) in C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks. In EXP 5, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.04) in chicks fed the C-SBM diet compared with those fed a C-SPC diet. In EXP 6, C×PR chicks fed the CSBM diet grew faster (P < 0.09) than those fed a rice and casein diet. Variable effects of diet on growth of chicks were affected by breed crosses of chicks.
(Key words: chick, protein source, breed cross) 2003 Poultry Science 82:272–278
chicks were fed different types of SPI relative to those fed C-SBM diets. Also, Emmert and Baker (1995) reported that the protein quality of SPI, without Met and Thr supplementation, was inferior to that of soybean meal (SBM). With Met and Thr addition, however, protein quality of SPI (and SPC) was equal to that of SBM. There is some debate as to whether EXP with slowergrowing chicks accurately predict effects observed with faster-growing commercial broilers. Slow-growing chicks, such as New Hampshire × Columbian (NH×C) chicks, are used in research because they are uniform
INTRODUCTION Experiments (EXP) have been performed using soy protein isolate (SPI), soy protein concentrate (SPC), or other refined protein sources in diets for chicks, but very little research has been conducted to determine the effect in chicks fed diets containing these protein sources relative to those fed conventional corn-soybean meal (CSBM) diets. Jenson and Mraz (1988) and Welch et al. (1988) reported decreased growth performance when
2003 Poultry Science Association, Inc. Received for publication June 27, 2002. Accepted for publication September 27, 2002. 1 Approved for publication by the Louisiana Agric. Exp. Sta. as Manuscript No. 02-18-0441. 2 Research supported in part by Cargill Inc., Elk River, MN. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed: lsouthern@ agctr.lsu.edu.
Abbreviation Key: ADFI = average daily feed intake; ADG = average daily gain; C = corn; C×PR = Cornish × Plymouth Rock; EXP = experiment; G:F = gain:feed; LSU = Louisiana State University Agricultural Center; NH×C = New Hampshire × Columbian; SBM = soybean meal; SPC = soy protein concentrate; SPI = soy protein isolate; UI = University of Illinois.
272
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS
and able to grow in chick batteries without developing leg weakness (Han and Baker, 1991). The Cornish and Plymouth Rock are two strains of broilers that have much greater early growth rates. The digestive tracks develop differently in fast- and slow-growing chicks. Dror et al. (1977) reported that the relative weights of the cecum and ileum in 21-d-old chicks were greater in heavy (White Rock) than in light chicks (New Hampshire × White Leghorn). Furthermore, the relative weights of the duodenum and jejunum were greater in the light breed than in the heavy breed. Uni et al. (1995), with 14-d-old chicks, indicated that the length of the small intestine of a light strain (Lohman) was 70% of that of a heavy strain (Arbor Acres). Numerous studies have compared the nutrient requirements of fast-growing versus slow-growing chicks. Robbins and Baker (1980) reported that the TSAA requirement was essentially the same in fast-growing and slow-growing chicks. Han and Baker (1991) also indicated that male chicks of a fast-growing strain were similar in body composition to male chicks of a slowgrowing strain. The fast-growing chicks ate approximately twice as much feed as the slow-growing chicks; however, the lysine requirement was the same when expressed as a percentage of the diet. The objective of these EXP was to determine the effect of purified and semi-purified diets versus a conventional C-SBM diet on growth performance of fast-growing commercial broilers relative to slower-growing broilers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS All methods used in these EXP were approved by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSU) Animal Care and Use Committee. Six EXP were conducted with Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) or NH×C female or male chicks to evaluate differences in growth performance when fed a C-SBM diet or diets using alternate protein sources. The pretest period in all EXP consisted of all chicks being fed a C-SBM diet adequate in all nutrients (NRC, 1994) before the EXP began. They were held overnight without feed and water on the day before allotment to treatment. The chicks were then weighed, wing-banded, and allotted to treatments in completely randomized designs. They were housed in thermostatically controlled starter batteries with raised wire floors and continuous lighting. Feed and water were offered ad libitum throughout the experiments. The amino acid composition of SPI was determined after acid hydrolysis, whereas TSAA were determined following performic acid oxidation followed by acid hydrolysis (AOAC, 1990). Tryptophan was determined following alkaline hydrolysis (AOAC, 1990). The mineral composition (Table 1) of SPI was determined after digestion in nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide by inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (AOAC, 1990).4 4
Model Optima 3000, Perkin Elmer, Norwalk, CT. Central Soya Co., Inc., Fort Wayne, IN. Heartland Lysine, Inc., Chicago, IL.
5 6
273
Diets (Table 1) were formulated to meet or exceed the amino acid, mineral, and vitamin requirements of chicks 0 to 21 d posthatching (NRC, 1994). The diets with SPI were formulated using the analyzed values for SPI. The C-SBM diets used in EXP 1, 2, 3, and 4, the SPI diets used in EXP 2, and the rice and casein (RC) diet used in EXP 6 used NRC (1994) nutrient and digestibility values for corn, SBM, SPI, rice, and casein. The C-SBM diet used in EXP 5 was formulated using the analyzed values for corn and SBM. The SPC used in EXP 5 used the amino acid concentrations provided by Central Soya Co.,5 and the corn, SBM, and SPC used in this EXP used true digestibility coefficients from Heartland Lysine, Inc.6 At the end of each EXP, all chicks were weighed individually, and pen feed intake was measured. Growth performance was evaluated by average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain:feed (G:F). Experiment 1 was conducted to evaluate growth performance of chicks fed a C-SBM diet or a dextrose:cornstarch SPI diet. Male C×PR chicks were pretested from 0 to 9 d posthatching. On Day 10, 50 chicks were allotted to two treatments with five replicates of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 195 and 482 g, and the EXP lasted 8 d. The treatments were 1) CSBM diet and 2) LSU-SPI diet, with the carbohydrate provided by dextrose and cornstarch (1:1). Experiment 2 was conducted to compare a C-SBM diet to two different SPI diets. Female NH×C chicks at the University of Illinois (UI) were pretested from 0 to 7 d posthatching. On Day 8, 48 chicks were allotted to three treatments with four replicates of four chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 96 and 373 g, and the EXP lasted 12 d. The treatments were 1) CSBM diet, 2) SPI diet with a 2:1 ratio of cornstarch to dextrose as the carbohydrate source, and 3) SPI diet with dextrose as the carbohydrate source. Experiment 3 was conducted to compare the LSUSPI diet with the UI-SPI diet. Male C×PR chicks were pretested from 0 to 6 d posthatching. On Day 7, 90 chicks were allotted to three treatments with six replicates of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 102 and 335 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 10 d. The treatments were 1) C-SBM diet, 2) UI-SPI diet, and 3) LSU-SPI diet. The carbohydrate sources in the diets were dextrose and cornstarch at 0.53:1 in the UISPI diet or 1:1 in the LSU-SPI diet. Experiment 4 was conducted to compare two different SPI diets with a C-SBM diet and in two different breed crosses of chicks. Male C×PR or male NH×C chicks were used in this EXP. The NH×C chicks were shipped overnight to LSU from UI. All chicks were fed a C-SBM diet for 5 d (C×PR) or 7 d (NH×C) posthatching before the EXP began. Both chick breed crosses were allotted on Day 6 (C×PR) or Day 8 (NH×C) posthatching to treatments with six replications of five chicks per replicate. Average initial BW was 85 g for the NH×C chicks and 84 g for the C×PR chicks; average final BW were 392 g
274
SHELTON ET AL. TABLE 1. Percentage composition of diets Ingredient
1
C-SBM
Corn Soybean meal Dextrose Cornstarch Soy protein isolate Soy protein concentrate Rice Casein Corn oil Soy oil Cellulose Monocalcium phosphate Limestone CaCl2ⴢ2H2O DL-Met Vitamin premix8 Mineral premix9 UI mineral premix10 UI vitamin premix11 Salt Choline chloride L-Thr L-Arg Glycine MgSO4ⴢ2H2O DL-α-tocopheryl acetate FeSO4ⴢ7H2O CuSO4ⴢ5H2O KHCO3 Ethoxyquin NaHCO3 Se premix12
51.62 38.03 — — — — — — 6.00 — — 1.55 1.53 — 0.20 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — —
Calculated composition13 CP, % ME, Mcal/kg Lys, % Sulfur AA, % Thr, % Trp, % Se, mg/kg Ca, % P, % P available, % Mg, % Fe, mg/kg Na, % Cl, % K, % Cu, mg/kg
22.35 3.16 1.26 0.91 0.86 0.28 0.15 1.03 0.70 0.45 0.22 318.14 0.22 0.51 0.91 11.25
1
SPI-LSU2
SPI-UI3
SPI-UI4
RC5
SPC6
C-SBM7
— — 31.60 31.61 23.43 — — — — 4.00 3.00 1.85 1.33 0.45 0.39 0.25 0.25 — — 0.11 0.18 0.11 — 0.40 0.50 — 0.004 0.001 0.51 — — 0.03
— — 23.14 43.27 22.00 — — — — 5.00 — — — — 0.20 — — 5.37 0.20 — 0.20 0.10 — — — 0.002 — — — 0.013 0.50 —
— — 66.41 — 22.00 — — — — 5.00 — — — — 0.20 — — 5.37 0.20 — 0.20 0.10 — — — 0.002 — — — 0.013 0.50 —
— — — 0.50 — — 75.49 14.06 — 4.00 — 2.14 1.29 — 0.26 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 0.09 0.57 — — — — — — 0.50 — 0.03
71.96 — — — — 23.35 — — 0.30 — — 1.51 1.56 — 0.14 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — —
57.30 33.77 — — — — — — 4.64 — — 1.57 1.47 — 0.15 0.25 0.25 — — 0.50 0.07 0.03 — — — — — — — — — —
19.60 3.27 1.26 0.91 0.84 0.24 0.13 1.00 0.70 0.45 0.46 281.21 0.23 0.36 0.30 20.42
21.41 3.20 1.19 0.86 0.85 0.26 0.15 1.00 0.71 0.45 0.21 274.40 0.23 0.34 0.82 9.12
20.90 3.20 1.25 0.90 0.84 0.24 0.14 1.00 0.72 0.45 0.21 305.25 0.22 0.35 0.92 12.47
20.09 3.46 1.26 0.91 0.84 0.30 0.16 1.00 0.56 0.45 0.10 275.50 0.32 0.33 0.30 8.93
19.01 3.68 1.34 0.77 0.80 0.24 0.13 1.23 0.86 0.45 0.11 113.52 0.41 0.56 0.46 8.71
19.01 3.68 1.34 0.77 0.80 0.24 0.13 1.23 0.86 0.45 0.11 113.52 0.41 0.56 0.46 8.71
The corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet was used in Experiments (EXP) 1, 3, 4, and 6. The soy protein isolate (SPI) diet from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (SPI-LSU) was used in EXP 1, 3, and 4. 3 The SPI diet from the University of Illinois (SPI-UI) was used in EXP 2, 3, and 4. 4 The SPI diet from the University of Illinois (SPI-UI) was used in EXP 2. 5 The rice-casein (RC) diet was used in EXP 6. 6 The soy protein concentrate (SPC) was used in EXP 5. Analysis of amino acid (%): Thr, 2.85; Ser, 3.79; Gly, 2.85; Cys, 0.99; Val, 3.36; Met, 0.95; Ile, 2.96; Leu, 5.39; Tyr, 2.38; Phe, 3.36; His, 1.78; Lys, 4.34; Arg, 5.08; Trp, 0.92. 7 The C-SBM diet was used in EXP 5. Analysis of amino acid in corn (%): Thr, 0.26; Ser, 0.38; Gly, 0.33; Cys, 0.19; Val, 0.33; Met, 0.19; Ile, 0.24; Leu, 0.89; Tyr, 0.21; Phe, 0.35; His, 0.23; Lys, 0.26; Arg, 0.35; Trp, 0.06. Analysis of amino acid in soybean meal %: Thr, 1.97; Ser, 2.44; Gly, 2.14; Cys, 0.84; Val, 2.40; Met, 0.75; Ile, 2.25; Leu, 3.92; Tyr, 1.82; Phe, 2.58; His, 1.37; Lys, 3.28; Arg, 3.85; Trp, 0.62. 8 Provided per kilogram of diet: vitamin A (retinyl palmitate), 2,475 µg; vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), 11.25 µg; vitamin E (DL-αtocopheryl acetate), 50 mg; menadione (menadione sodium bisulfite), 1.5 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; d-biotin, 0.6 mg; folacin (folic acid), 6 mg; niacin, 50 mg; d-pantothenic acid, 18.3 mg; pyridoxine (pyridoxineⴢHCl), 6.4 mg; riboflavin, 15 mg; thiamin (thiaminⴢHCl), 13.4 mg. 9 Provided per kilogram of diet: copper (copper sulfateⴢ5H2O), 4 mg; iodine (potassium iodate), 1.0 mg; Iron (ferrous sulfateⴢ7H2O), 60 mg; manganese (manganese sulfateⴢH2O), 60 mg; selenium (sodium selenite), 0.1 mg; zinc (zinc sulfateⴢ7H2O), 44 mg; calcium (calcium carbonate), 723 mg. 10 University of Illinois (UI) mineral mix provided per kilogram of diet: calcium (calcium carbonate), 3.0 g; calcium (calcium phosphate), 28.0 g; potassium (potassium biphosphate), 9.0 g; NaCl, 8.8 g; magnesium (magnesium sulfate), 3.8 g; zinc (zinc carbonate), 100.0 mg; copper (copper sulfate), 20.0 mg; boron (hydroboric acid), 9.0 mg; molybdenum (sodium molybdenite), 9.0 mg; potassium (potassium iodate), 40.0 mg; cobalt (cobalt sulfate), 1.0 mg; selenium (sodium selenite), 0.215 mg; iron (iron sulfate), 0.415 g; manganese (manganese sulfate), 650 mg. 11 UI vitamin mix provided per kilogram of diet: thiaminⴢHCl, 20 mg; niacin, 50 mg; riboflavin, 10 mg; Ca-pantothenate, 30 mg; B12 premix (Merck titurate 1 g = 1 mg vitamin B12), 0.04 mg; pyridoxineⴢHCl, 6 mg; vitamin D3 (2 × 106 IU/g), 15 µg; vitamin A acetate (500,000 IU/g), 2,860 µg; cornstarch, 15,791 g. 12 Se premix provided 0.1 ppm of Se. 13 Diet formulation and calculated diet composition were based on actual amino acid and mineral analyses of soy protein isolate. Analysis of amino acids (%): Thr, 3.11; Ser, 3.61; Pro, 4.41; Gly, 3.44; Ala, 3.49; Cys, 1.18; Val, 4.18; Met, 1.08; Ile, 4.13; Leu, 6.83; Tyr, 3.23; Phe, 4.58; His, 2.22; Lys, 5.38; Arg, 6.49; Trp, 1.28. LSU mineral analysis of SPI revealed the following (%): Ca, 0.10; P, 0.74; Na, 1.15; K, 0.29; Mg, 592 mg/kg; Cu, 10.20 mg/kg; Fe, 94.77 mg/kg; Mn, 12.17 mg/kg; Zn, 33.57 mg/kg. 2
275
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS TABLE 2. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (EXP 1) or New Hampshire × Columbian (EXP 2) chicks fed a corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) or a soy protein isolate (SPI) diet 1
Diet
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
49.2a 35.5b 1.2
59.7a 46.1b 1.1
824a 768b 10
24.6a 22.5b 22.3b 0.5
38.0 36.1 36.3 0.7
649a 622b 611c 3
EXP 1 (LSU)2 C-SBM SPI-LSU SEM EXP 2 (UI)3 C-SBM SPI-cornstarch-dextrose SPI-dextrose SEM
Means within columns with different superscripts differ (P < 0.03). EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of five replicates of five Cornish × Plymouth Rock male chicks each from 10 to 18 d posthatching; average initial weight was 195 g. Research was conducted at Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. 3 Data are means of four replicates of four New Hampshire × Columbian chicks each from 8 to 20 d posthatching; average initial weight was 96 g. Research was conducted at the University of Illinois. a–c 1
for the NH×C chicks and 468 g for the C×PR chicks. The EXP lasted 14 d. The dietary treatments were 1) C-SBM diet, 2) UI-SPI diet, and 3) LSU-SPI diet, with each diet being fed to the NH×C or C×PR chicks, resulting in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. As in EXP 3, the carbohydrate sources in the diets were dextrose and cornstarch at 0.53:1 in the UI-SPI diet or 1:1 in the LSUSPI diet. Experiment 5 was conducted to evaluate growth of C×PR male chicks fed a C-SBM diet or C-SPC. The chicks were pretested from 0 to 6 d posthatching. There were five replications of five chicks per replicate. Average initial and final BW were 102 and 578 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 13 d. The overall growth and carcass data at 52 d of age were presented previously (Payne, et al., 2001b). Experiment 6 was conducted to compare growth performance of C×PR chicks fed a C-SBM diet or a diet containing rice and casein. There were two treatments with two replicates of five chicks per replicate. The
chicks were fed a C-SBM diet from 0 to 8 d posthatching before allotment to treatments. The average initial and final BW were 145 and 653 g, respectively, and the EXP lasted 12 d.
Statistical Analyses Data were analyzed by ANOVA procedures appropriate for completely randomized designs (Steel and Torrie, 1980). In EXP 3, orthogonal contrasts were used to compare the two SPI diets with the C-SBM diet and to compare the two SPI diets to each other. Experiment 4 was analyzed using orthogonal contrasts to evaluate differences between the two chick breed crosses, the CSBM diet versus the SPI diets, the two different SPI diets, and the chick breed crosses by diet type interactions appropriate for a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Pen of chicks was the experimental unit for all data.
TABLE 3. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) or two different soy protein isolate (SPI) diets, EXP 31,2 Diet C-SBM LSU-SPI UI-SPI SEM
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
30.2 20.7 18.8 0.8
37.3 30.1 28.6 0.9
Gain:feed (g/kg) 810 693 664 33
P>F Source of variation C-SBM vs. SPI3 SPI type
0.01 0.10
0.01 NSa
0.01 NSa
Not significant, P > 0.10. EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of six replicates of five male chicks from 7 to 17 d posthatching; average initial weight was 102 g. 3 C-SBM vs. SPI is the differences between the C-SBM diet versus the two SPI diets; SPI type is the differences between the SPI diet from Louisiana State University Agricultural Center and the SPI diet from the University of Illinois. a 1
276
SHELTON ET AL.
FIGURE 1. Daily gain of Cornish × Plymouth rock [C-PR; Experiment (EXP) 1; 10 to 18 d posthathing; SEM = 1.2] or New Hampshire × Columbian (NH-C; EXP 2; 8 to 20 d posthatching; SEM = 0.5) chicks fed a corn-soybean meal (C-SBM) diet versus a soy protein isolate (SPI) diet. ADG = average daily gain.
RESULTS In EXP 1, C×PR male chicks fed the C-SBM diet had greater (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and G:F than chicks fed the LSU-SPI diet (Table 2).In EXP 2 conducted at UI, NH×C female chicks fed the C-SBM had greater (P < 0.01) ADG and G:F compared to those fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch or the SPI-dextrose diet (Table 2). The ADFI was not affected in chicks fed the C-SBM diet
relative to those fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch diets. Chicks fed the SPI-dextrose-cornstarch diet had an increased (P < 0.03) G:F compared with those fed the SPI dextrose diet. Even though the first two EXP were conducted at different universities and with chicks of different sexes, the difference in growth performance of chicks fed the C-SBM and SPI diets was greater in the C×PR than in the NH×C chicks (Figure 1). In EXP 3, the UI-SPI and LSU-SPI diets were compared to the C-SBM diet in C×PR chicks. Chicks fed the CSBM diet had greater (P < 0.01) ADG, ADFI, and G:F than chicks fed either SPI diet (Table 3). There was no difference (P > 0.10) in ADFI or G:F in chicks fed either SPI diets, but ADG tended to increase (P = 0.10) in chicks fed the LSU-SPI diet compared with chicks fed the UISPI diet. In EXP 4, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were greater (P < 0.01) in C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks (Table 4). Daily gain and ADFI were lower (P < 0.01) in both chick breed crosses fed the SPI diets relative to those fed the C-SBM diet, but the difference was much greater in the C×PR chicks than in the NH×C chicks (chick × C-SBM vs. SPI; P < 0.01). Thus, in comparing the C-SBM with the SPI diets (average), the C×PR chicks gained 49% faster and ate 41% more feed when fed the C-SBM versus those fed the SPI diet, but NH×C chicks gained only 15% faster and ate only 14% more feed when fed the C-SBM versus the SPI diet. There was no difference (P > 0.10) in ADG or ADFI in chicks fed the two SPI diets, but G:F (P < 0.08) tended to be higher in NH×C chicks fed the UISPI diet. In EXP 5, ADG, ADFI, and G:F were lower (P < 0.04) in chicks fed the C-SPC diet than in those fed the CSBM diet (Table 5). In EXP 6, with rice and casein resulted in numerical decreases in ADG (46.8 g vs. 38.0 g), ADFI (60.0 g vs.
TABLE 4. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) or New Hampshire × Columbian (NH×C) chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) diet versus two different soy protein isolate (SPI) diets, EXP 41,2 Daily gain (g) Diet C-SBM LSU-SPI UI-SPI SEM Source of variation3 Chick source C-SBM vs. SPI SPI type Chick × C-SBM vs. SPI
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
NH×C
C×PR
NH×C
CP×R
NH×C
CP×R
24.0 20.2 21.5
36.0 23.9 24.4
35.2 31.4 30.3
47.2 33.4 33.7
683 646 711
763 706 724
0.5
1.0 P>F
0.01 0.01 NSa 0.01
0.01 0.01 NSa 0.01
20
0.01 NSa 0.08 NS
Not significant, P > 0.10. EXP = experiment; LSU = Louisiana State University; UI = University of Illinois. 2 Data are means of six replicates of five male chicks from 6 to 20 (C×PR) or 8 to 22 (NH×C) d posthatching; average initial weight was 85 (NH×C) or 84 g (C×PR). 3 Chick source is the difference between the breed crosses of chicks (C×PR and NH×C) used; C-SBM vs. SPI is the differences between the C-SBM diet and the two SPI diets; SPI type is the differences between the LSUSPI diet and the UI-SPI diet; chick × C-SBM vs. SPI is the interaction between the two breed crosses of chicks and the C-SBM diets versus two SPI diets. a 1
277
PERFORMANCE OF CHICKS FED SOYBEAN MEAL OR PURIFIED DIETS TABLE 5. Growth performance of Cornish × Plymouth Rock (C×PR) chicks fed a corn soybean meal (C-SBM) or a corn-soy protein concentrate (C-SPC) diet, Experiment 51 Diet C-SBM SPC SEM
Daily gain (g)
Daily feed intake (g)
Gain:feed (g/kg)
41.2a 32.0b 1.1
52.1a 48.2b 1.1
791a 666b 21
Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.04). Data are means of five replicates of five male chicks from 7 to 20 d posthatching; average initial weight was 102 g. a,b 1
50.5), and G:F (781 vs. 761) in chicks fed the rice-casein diet.
DISCUSSION The data from EXP 1 to 3 agree with results by Jensen and Mraz (1966) and Emmert and Baker (1995), who reported that chicks gain faster when fed SBM than when fed SPI. Jensen and Mraz (1966) suggested that the greater growth performance in chicks fed SBM as a substitute for SPI was caused by an increase in the rachitogenic effect of SPI in the chicks. Emmert and Baker (1995), however, attributed the advantage of SBM over SPI to higher concentrations of digestible TSAA and Thr in SBM. Welch et al. (1988) also reported that growth performance of broiler chicks was decreased when fed a diet containing refined soy products relative to chicks fed a C-SBM diet. However, Payne et al. (2001a) reported no differences in growth performance when growing-finishing swine were fed a C-SBM diet versus a diet containing corn and SPC. In the present study, the decrease in ADG in the chicks fed SPI diets was primarily caused by a decrease in ADFI. Furthermore, the decrease in ADFI was greater in the C×PR chicks than in NH×C chicks, resulting in a greater decrease in ADG. The lower ADFI in chicks fed SPI diets than C-SBM diets could be due to the higher energy content in the SPI diets relative to the C-SBM diets. Because chicks eat to meet their energy needs, chicks fed the SPI diets should (and did) consume less feed than chicks fed SBM. However, this does not explain the decrease in ADFI in chicks fed the C-SPC diet relative to chicks fed the C-SBM diet, because these diets were isocaloric. The higher ME level of the SPI diets versus the C-SBM diets (and resulting lower ADFI) could have resulted in the SPI diets becoming marginal in either TSAA or Thr, but, if this were the case, the LSU-SPI diet (higher in both TSAA and Thr) should have resulted in better ADFI and growth rates than the UI-SPI diet, which it did not (Tables 3 and 4). The decreased feed intake by chicks fed SPI could be explained by the differences in energy content of the diets, but it does not explain why the fast-growing chicks had a larger decrease in ADFI relative to the slow-growing chicks. Also vexing is why G:F of chicks fed the lower ME C-SBM diets was actually superior to that of chicks fed the SPI diets. The development of the digestive system is different between fast- and slow-growing chicks. Uni et al. (1995)
indicated the rate of passage through the small intestine was increased in the slower-growing chick versus the faster-growing chick. Furthermore, they indicate the duodenum, jejunum, and ileum have an increased villus volume and enterocyte density in fast-growing chicks versus slow-growing chicks. It seems possible that the fast-growing chicks in our study might have had a greater absorption rate than the slower-growing chicks because of the slower rate of passage and more organized villi. Thus, the greater difference seen in ADFI between SPI and CSBM diets in the C×PR chicks versus the NH×C chicks might have resulted from increased energy absorption. Overall acceptability may also come into play with the SPI diet relative to the C-SBM diet. The SPI diet had a finer texture and was dustier than the C-SBM diet. If palatability was an issue, however, we would have expected the same relative decrease in feed intake between the two chick breed crosses, which was not observed. Chicks fed purified diets using SPI, dextrose, and cornstarch or semipurified diets using corn and SPC or rice and casein exhibited decreased growth performance (resulting from decreased ADFI) relative to chicks fed conventional C-SBM diets. Furthermore, faster-growing broilers fed SPI diets had a greater decrease in growth performance than slower-growing broilers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Erin Shelton, Neal Matthews, Amy Guzik, LeAnn Johnston, and Laura Camp (LSU, Baton Rouge, LA) for their assistance with data collection.
REFERENCES AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. Dror, Y., I. Nir, and Z. Nitsan. 1977. The relative growth of internal organs in light and heavy breeds. Br. Poult. Sci. 18:493–496. Emmert, J. L., and D. H. Baker. 1995. Protein quality assessment of soy products. Nutr. Res. 15:1647–1656. Han, Y., and D. H. Baker. 1991. Lysine requirement of fast- and slow-growing broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 70:2108–2114. Jensen, L., and F. R. Mraz. 1966. Rachitogenic activity of isolated soy protein for chicks. J. Nutr. 88:249–253. National Research Council. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
278
SHELTON ET AL.
Payne, R. L., T. D. Bidner, L. L. Southern, and J. P. Geaghan. 2001a. Effect of dietary soy isoflavones on growth, carcass traits, and meat quality in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1230–1239. Payne, R. L., T. D. Bidner, L. L. Southern, and K. W. McMillin. 2001b. Dietary effects of soy isoflavones on growth and carcass traits of commercial broilers. Poult. Sci. 80:1201–1207. Robbins, K. R., and D. H. Baker. 1980. Effect of sulfur amino acid level and source on the performance of chicks fed high levels of copper. Poult. Sci. 59:1246–1253.
Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Uni, Z., Y. Noy, and D. Sklan. 1995. Posthatch changes in morphology and function of the small intestines in heavy- and light-strain chicks. Poult. Sci. 74:1622–1629. Welch, C. C., C. M. Parsons, and D. H. Baker. 1988. Further investigation of the dietary protein level-monensin interrelationship in broiler chicks: Influence of dietary protein source and type of anticcoccicial drug. Poult. Sci. 67:652–659.