The Influence of Dietary and Environmental Factors upon Feed Consumption and Production Responses in Laying Chickens1

46

J. H. SOARES, JR. AND R. R. KIFER Smith, P., Jr., M. E. Ambrose and G. M. Knob], Jr., 1965, Possible interference of fats, carbohydrates, and salts in amino acid determinations in fish meals, fish protein concentrates, and mixed animal feeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 13(3): 266-268. Smith, R. E., and H. M. Scott, 1965. Use of free amino acid concentrations in blood plasma in evaluating the amino acid patterns of blood plasma of chicks fed unheated and heated fish meal proteins. J. Nutrition, 86: 37-44.

The Influence of Dietary and Environmental Factors upon Feed Consumption and Production Responses in Laying Chickens1 EARL W. GLEAVES AND SATYAVAN DEWAN Department of Poultry Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68503 (Received for publication Tune 20, 1970) INTRODUCTION

D

IETARY protein, energy, weight and volume all have been found to exert a significant linear effect upon feed consumption of laying chickens (Gleaves et al, 1968). However, the existence of several significant interaction effects demonstrated that the dietary factors were not independent of one another. The purpose of the experiments reported herein was three-fold. The first was to reexamine the effects of dietary protein, energy, weight and volume upon feed consumption and production characteristics of laying hens, under different environmental conditions and with a less complex factorial arrangement of treatments. The large factorial (34) used by Gleaves et al. (1968) was broken into small factorials (32) to permit a closer examination of the main effects of the four dietary factors without the interference of so many interactions. 1 Published with the approval of the Director as Paper No. 2915, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station.

Even though the interactions might be present, they should not confound the main effects as much in smaller factorials because fewer factors would be examined at one time. The effects of dietary energy level upon feed intake have been well documented (Scott et al., 1947; Hill et al., 1956; Berg and Bearse, 1956; Bolton, 1958; Peterson et al, 1960; Thayer et al, 1965; Caligado and Quisenberry, 1967; Gleaves et al, 1968; and others). However, little attention has been given to factors that might override the influence of a narrow range of energy levels. Therefore, the second purpose was to determine whether or not such factors as dietary weight and volume, and environmental temperatures could be arranged to exert a greater influence upon feed consumption than small ranges in dietary energy. To accomplish the purpose, the range or increment of dietary energy was reduced from 80 (Gleaves et al, 1968) to 50 kcal. M. E. in this experiment. For the same reason, ranges in dietary weight were in-

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

Ousterhout, L. E., C. R. Grau and B. D. Lundholm, 19S9. Biological availability of amino acids in fish meals and other protein sources. J. Nutrition, 69: 6S-73. Payne, W. L., G. F. Combs and R. R. Kifer, 1968. Investigation of protein quality-ileal recovery of amino acids. Fed. Proc. 27: 1199-1203. Payne, W. L., 1968. An investigation of intestinal amino acids as a method to determine protein quality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, pp. 54-70.

FEED CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RESPONSES

47

creased from 20 (Gleaves et al., 1968) to 30 grams. The third purpose was to determine whether or not environmental temperature would confound the effects of the four dietary variables.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

and 250 ml.; protein, 13, 16, and 19 gm.; energy, 250, 275 and 300 kcal. M. E. Only two factors were varied in a given experiment, while the remaining factors were held constant. The constants used for those factors that were not variables were: protein, 16 gm.; energy, 275 kcal. M. E.; volume, METHODS 150 ml. and weight, 112 gm. Weight and Three experiments were conducted over volume of the basal were adjusted by the a period of three years and in two different addition or removal of silica sand and seasons of the year. The first experiment, solka-floc. The composition of the protein with pullets that were 26 weeks of age, ran basal is presented in Table 1. Compositions through the warm summer months from of the final rations are shown in Tables 2 April 6, 196S to February 8, 1966. The and 3. mean temperature during this time was Ten pullets were randomly assigned to 13.33°C. (56°F.). The second experiment each treatment of the nine treatment factowith pullets that were 21 weeks of age and rials, for a total of 90 birds in each factothe third experiment with 22 week old rial. Eggs were collected twice each day birds ran through the cold winter months and a daily record of mortality and egg from September 20, 1966 to May 30, 1967 production was maintained. At the end of and from September 25, 1967 to June 30, each experiment, mortality data were con1968, respectively. Mean temperatures verted to average livability for more accuduring these periods were 5.55°C. (42°F.) rate statistical analyses. Feed weights were and 7.22°C. (4S°F.), respectively. In all taken at 4 week intervals and body weights experiments, Hy-Line 934 F pullets were were taken at 12 week intervals. At the end housed in a windowless, waterpit house in of the first experiment three hens from each individual 20.32 X 40.64 X 45.72 cm. (8 treatment were randomly selected and sacX 16 X 18 inch) wire cages. The cages rificed. The gizzard, large intestine and were equipped with individual feeders, feed small intestine were removed and weighed. storage containers, and dew drop waterers. Analyses of variance for livability (numA basal ration was formulated according ber of hens that lived), gizzard weight, to the procedure reported by Gleaves et al. large intestine weight, small intestine (1968) to supply all the daily require- weight and combined feed intake weights ments, except for the variables, in each 112 with no missing data were done by the progm. of feed. A completely randomized ex- cedure described by Snedecor (1956, p. perimental design with a 3 2 factorial arrangement of treatments was used in all exTABLE 1.—Composition of protein basal periments. Ingredients Percentage Experiment one was composed of three factorials, weight X protein, weight X vol- Ground yellow corn 39.4 3.9 ume and weight X energy. The second ex- Alfalfa meal (17% protein) Soybean meal (50% protein) 15.8 periment had two factorials, protein X en- Fish meal (60% protein) 13.1 6.6 ergy and protein X volume. The third ex- Meat and bone meal (50% protein) Blood meal (80% protein) 10.5 periment was volume X energy. Experi- Corn fermentation solubles 5.3 5.3 mental levels of the variables were: weight, Dried whey DL-methionine 0.1 112, 127 and 142 gm.; volume, 150, 200

48

E. W. GLEAVES AND S. DEWAN TABLE 2.—Composition of the rations used in the weightyvolume, •weighty, protein and weighty, energy factorials for experiment 1 Ingredients Ration

Animal fat

Sand

WeightX volume 112-150 112-200 112-250 127-150 127-200 127-250 142-150 142-200 142-250

42.23 42.23 42.23 37.15 37.15 37.15 33.30 33.30 33.30

14.18 14.18 14.18 12.54 12.54 12.54 11.18 11.18 11.18

30.73 19.23 7.72 40.85 30.74 20.60 48.81 39.76 30.68

WeightX protein 112-13 112-16 112-19 127-13 127-16 127-19 142-13 142-16 142-19

34.22 42.23 49.88 30.42 37.24 44.35 26.99 33.30 39.65

16.78 14.18 11.46 14.91 12.50 10.21 13.23 11.18 9.12

WeightX energy 112-250 112-275 112-300 127-250 127-275 127-300 142-250 142-275 142-300

42.23 42.23 42.23 37.15 37.15 37.15 33.30 33.30 33.30

11.61 14.18 16.74 10.22 12.53 14.78 9.15 11.17 13.19

Dical. phos.

Salt

Vit. cone.1

Percentage 5.06 2.35 16.56 2.35 28.07 2.35 2.60 2.08 12.71 2.08 22.85 2.08 0.56 1.86 9.61 1.86 18.69 1.86

4.10 4.10 4.10 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.23 3.23 3.23

0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.71

22.65 19.23 VS.'ti 33.05 30.71 27.65 42.61 39.75 37.05

18.27 16.56 14.59 14.45 12.68 11.19 11.00 9.63 8.28

2.32 2.38 2.06 2.08 2.11 1.83 1.86 1.89

4.41 4.10 3.71 3.92 3.60 3.30 3.28 3.22 2.95

0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.71

21.48 19.23 16.99 32.86 30.54 38.80 41.52 39.75 37.98

16.88 16.56 16.24 12.91 12.92 12.41 9.88 9.63 9.38

2.35 2.35 2.35 2.08 2.08 2.08 1.86 1.86 1.86

4.10 4.10 4.10 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.23 3.23 3.23

0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.71 0.71

Solkafloc

Ca. carb.

i.JO

1 Vitamin concentrate provides the following levels of micronutrients per kilogram of diet: Vitamin A, 5,550 U.S.P. units; Vitamin D s , 1,800 I.C. units; Vitamin E, 11 I.U.; Riboflavin, 4.41 mg.; Vitamin B i 2 , 8.8 meg.; Pantothenic acid, 8.6 mg. and Choline Chloride, 500 mg.

333-343). The combined or composite feed consumption analyses were run after three factorials for each effect were completed. The first experiment provided three measurements of the effect of weight with single estimates of volume, protein and energy. At the end of this experiment a composite analysis of the effect of weight was run. The second experiment provided two additional estimates of the effects of protein and single estimates of energy and volume. This provided the data for the composite analysis of protein. The third experiment provided the third single estimates of volume and energy and consequently the

data for composite analysis of volume and energy. Because of relatively high mortality among the hens within individual factorials, it was considered necessary to adjust for missing data (Snedecor, 1956, p. 388391) for feed intake, egg production and body weight change. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Feed Consumption Measurements. Three measurements (factorials) of the effect of dietary weight upon feed consumption of laying hens from the first experiment are presented in Table 4. Dietary levels of the

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

Protein basal

49

FEED CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RESPONSES TABLE 3.—Composition of the rations used in the proteinX.energy and proteinXvolume factorials for experiment 2 and the energy~Xvolume factorial for experiment 3 Ingredients Ration

Animal fat

Sand

ProteinX energy 13-250 13-275 13-300 16-250 16-275 16-300 19-250 19-275 19-300

34.33 34.33 34.33 42.20 42.20 42.20 50.07 50.07 50.07

14.28 16.74 19.31 11.60 14.16 16.74 9.01 11.57 14.00

34.52 32.33 28.62 32.86 30.47 26.75 27.75 25.48 23.33

ProteinX volume 13-150 ' 13-200 13-250 16-150 16-200 16-250 19-150 19-200 19-250

34.33 34.33 34.33 42.20 42.20 42.20 50.07 50.07 50.07

16.74 16.74 16.74 14.16 14.16 14.16 11.57 11.57 11.57

32.33 20.88 9.47 30.47 19.10 7.72 25.50 14.18 2.72

7.44 18.89 30.30 5.58 16.95 28.33 3.84 15.16 26.62

Energy X volume 250-150 250-200 250-250 275-150 275-200 275-250 300-150 300-200 300-250

42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12 42.12

11.58 11.58 11.58 14.14 14.14 14.14 16.70 16.70 16.70

32.76 21.55 9.87 30.41 19.30 7.83 26.71 17.07 5.41

5.75 16.96 26.64 5.54 16.65 28.12 6.68 16.32 27.98

Solkafloc.

Ca. carb.

Dical. phos.

Salt

Vit. cone.1

Min. prem. 2

4.43 4.43 4.43 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.72 3.72 3.72

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

3.43 3.43 3.43 2.29 2.29 2.29 4.00 4.00 4.00

4.43 4.43 4.43 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.72 3.72 3.72

0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33

4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07

0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Percentage 7.71 3.43 7.44 3.43 8.58 3.43 5.73 2.29 5.58 2.29 6.72 2.29 4.15 4.00 3.86 4.00 3.58 4.00

1 Vitamin concentrate provides the following levels of micronutrients per kilogram of diet: Vitamin A, 5,550 U.S.P. units; Vitamin D 3 , 1,800 I.C. units; Vitamin E, 11 I.U.; Riboflavin, 4.41 mg.; Vitamin B, 2 , 8.8 meg.; Pantothenic acid, 8.6 mg. and Choline Chloride, 500 mg. 2 Mineral premix provides the following levels of micronutrients in p.p.m.: Manganese, 50.0; Iron, 50.0; Copper, 5.0; Cobalt, 0.5; Iodine, 1.5; Zinc, 50.0 and Calcium, 45.5.

variables plus the consumption levels that were actually observed are presented. Actual consumption was close to calculated consumption (dietary levels) in these factorials. In each instance, dietary weight exerted a highly significant influence upon feed consumption. As dietary weight was increased there was a subsequent increase in feed intake. As was expected, since all three factorials were run at the same time under the same environmental conditions, all three measurements yielded similar data. There were no significant interaction effects

of dietary weight with volume, protein or energy in this experiment. However, the effects of weight X volume and weight X energy did approach significance at the 5 % level of probability. A composite analysis of the weight means (Table 5) also showed the effect of weight to be highly significant. The effect of an increase of one gram in dietary weight resulted in an increase of 0.7 gram of feed intake. This estimate is in fairly close agreement with an estimate of 0.804 gram reported by Gleaves et al. (1968). A single estimate of the effects of dietary

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

Protein basal

50

E. W. GLEAVES AND S. DEWAN

TABLE 4.—Average daily feed consumption observed through the weightXvolume, weighty.protein and weightXenergy factorials in

Dietary level Volume (ml.) 150 200 250

Dietary wt. level (gm.) Average intake 142 112 127 gm./hen/day

Average intake

TABLE 5.—Composite means from experiment 1 for the effect of dietary weight upon feed consumption Dietary weight level (gm.) Factorial 112

140 122 112

135 143 124

134 129 111

115

125

134

126

159 204 218

Av. weight effect**

116

13 16 19

114 112 123

111 124 120

132 149 135

TABLE 6.—Average daily feed consumption observed through the proteinXeneryg and proteinXvolume factorials in experiment 2

Dietary level

Av. wt. I n t a k e

Average Average intake intake

gm./hen/day 140 140 134

147 142 134

149 139 129

138

141

139

20

24

155 118 110

138 129 120

145 130 113

128

130

129

Av. prot. I n t a k e (gm.)

Weight** Energy 145 140 132

323 344 354

Weight** Volume

Volume (ml.) Weight*

Energy (kcal. M.E.

Av. wt. Intake**

12 16 19

Dietary prot. level (gm.)

124

Av. wt. Intake**

250 275 300

119 128 126

137

duction (Table 12) in these factorials as in earlier experiments. The hens were able to consume enough feed, even at the low (13 gm.) dietary protein level, to overcome low levels of protein in the diet. The protein X energy interaction was not even significant. However, the protein X volume interaction effect was significant at the 5% level of probability. This interaction was very difficult to interpret. The effects of protein upon feed intake were completely different at each level of volume. There was no consistent pattern. The composite means of all three estimates of the effects of protein are presented in Table 7. The effect of dietary protein

250 275 300

Weight*

Protein (gm.)

124

** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

Energy (kcal. M.E.) Av. wt. Intake**

142

WeightX volume WeightXprotein WeightXenergy

Weight** Volume

126 122 97

127

gm,, feed intake 115 125 134 116 118 139 118 128 138

122 116 117

135 129 121

140 141 134

118

128

138

132 129 124

Energy 263 315 370

150 200 250 Av. wt. I n t a k e

* Significant at the 5 % level of probability. ** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

146 126 115

Av. prot. I n t a k e (gm.) ** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

196 225 255

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

volume, protein and energy also are presented in Table 4. As dietary volume was increased there was a highly significant decrease in feed intake by weight. As dietary protein was increased there was a significant increase in feed intake by weight. As dietary energy was increased there was a significant decrease in feed intake by weight. Feed intake data from experiment 2 are presented in Table 6. These data provide two additional estimates of the effects of dietary protein and one additional estimate each for volume and energy. These factorials were conducted during cold weather and show a higher feed intake and consequently higher than calculated variable intake than the same estimates from experiment 1 which was conducted during warm weather. In contrast to experiment 1 and the earlier report by Gleaves et al. (1968), there was no significant effect of dietary protein upon feed consumption. This may be explained by the fact that dietary protein did not exert as strong an effect upon egg pro-

51

FEED CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RESPONSES TABLE 7.—Composite means from experiments 1 and 2 for the effect of dietary protein upon feed consumption Dietary protein level (gm.) Factorial** 13 119 138 128

Av. protein effect

128

19

gm. feed intake 128 126 141 139 130 129 133

131

** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

upon feed intake was not significant. However, replication or factorial differences were significant at the 1% level of probability. Many variables between experiments might have been responsible for these differences, but the most obvious reason was season of the year and the differences in environmental temperature. Feed consumption was highest in the last two factorials, which were conducted during the winter months. The single estimates from experiment 2 of the effects of dietary energy and volume (Table 6) show essentially the same effects as those found from experiment 1. As dietary energy and volume were increased there was a concurrent significant decrease in feed intake by weight. Feed intake data from experiment 3 (Table 8) provide the third estimate for each of the effects of dietary energy and volume upon feed consumption. Again the TABLE 8.—A verage daily feed consumption observed through the volume'Xenergy factorial in experiment 3 Dietary energy level

(kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300

Dietary vol. level (ml.) . Average f energy intake* lntaKe 150 200 250 intake gm./hen/day kcal. M . E . 180 135 113 142 317 163 130 110 133 327 141 139 115 131 351

Av. wt. i n t a k e "

161

134

112

Av. vol. intake (ml.)

216

241

251

135

* Significant at the 5 % level of probability. ** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

TABLE 9.—Composite means from experiments 1, 2, and 3 for the effect of dietary volume upon feed consumption Dietary volume level (ml.) Factorial* 150

200

250

VolumeXweight VolumeXprotein VolumeX energy

gm. feed intake 134 129 111 146 126 115 161 134 112

Av. volume effect**

147

130

113

* Significant at the 5% level of probability. ** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

Protein X weight ProteinX energy ProteinXvolume

16

main effects of both were the same found from experiments 1 and 2. The volume X energy interaction effect was significant. At the highest dietary level of volume, energy did not exert as great an influence upon feed consumption as at lower levels of volume. Composite means from all three experiments for the effect of dietary volume upon feed intake are presented in Table 9. The overall effect of dietary volume was highly significant and the trends were identical in all three experiments. For each increase of one ml. in dietary volume, there was a decrease in feed intake of 0.34 gm. This estimate was much larger than the estimate of 0.05 gm. reported by Gleaves et al. (1968). In view of the relatively small numerical values involved in these estimates, the significant interaction effects which show the effects of volume are not totally independent, the lower energy levels, and the significant effect of factorial (replicate) in the composite analysis, it was not unexpected that the two estimates were quite different. Feed consumption was generally higher in the two experiments that were conducted during the winter months. This could account for the significant factorial effect. The overall data for the effect of dietary energy upon feed consumption are presented in Table 10. Trends were identical

52

E. W. GLEAVES AND S. DEWAN TABLE 10.—Composite means from experiments 1, 2 and 3 for the effect of dietary energy upon feed consumption Dietary energy level (kcal. M. E.) Factorial 250 EnergyXweight EnergyXprotein EnergyXvolume

132 145 142

Av. energy effect

140

275

300

gm. feed intake 129 124 140 132 133 131 134

129

exist from the volume X weight or energy X weight factorials and the composite effect was nonsignificant. There was no significant effect of dietary protein, volume or energy upon gizzard weight. There was no significant effect of dietary weight, protein or energy upon small intestine weight. The effect of volume was highly significant, but again difficult to interpret because small intestine weight was higher on the intermediate dietary volume level than on the high and low levels. The average small intestine weights for the 150, 200 and 250 ml. diets were 27.7, 36.2 and 28.9 gm., respectively. The results of the large intestine measurements were just as negative as the gizzard and small intestine measurements. The effect of dietary weight upon large intestine weight was significant in only the weight X volume factorial. The average large intestine weights were 1.3, 1.8 and 1.5 gm. for the hens fed the 112, 127 and 142 gm. diets, respectively. Large intestine weight was highest on the intermediate level of dietary weight, but the composite effect of dietary weight was nonsignificant. Production Responses. Dietary protein and energy were the only two factors that exerted any significant influence upon l i a bility. Perfect livability was 3080 hen days in the first three factorials, 2520 days in the next two and 2770 in the last one. The effect of protein upon livability in

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

in all three factorials. An increase of one kcal. M. E. resulted in an insignificant decrease of 0.22 gm. in feed consumption. This was only about one half as large as the earlier estimate by Gleaves et al. (1968). Dietary energy levels were low enough that feed intake was not seriously affected. Even those hens receiving the highest experimental energy level were able to consume all the feed and consequently nutrients they needed. The original objective to slow down or reduce the effect of energy in this series of experiments was achieved. The effects of energy were reduced enough that even the expected protein X energy interaction was not significant. As in the other factorials, feed consumption was greater in those experiments conducted during winter months. However, the factorial effect was not significant in the composite energy analysis. Intestinal Measurements. By the end of the first experiment, it was obvious that dietary weight was influencing feed consumption. With the idea that distention of the digestive tract (Janowitz and Grossman, 1949) was the functional physiological mechanism in this effect, weight measurements of the gizzard, small intestine and large intestine were taken. The idea was to determine whether or not there was any permanent change in the digestive tract as a result of feeding the relatively high dietary weights used in this experiment. The effect of dietary weight upon gizzard weight was significant in only one of the three factorials. In the protein X weight factorial, average gizzard weights were 21.9 and 23.8 gm. among hens fed the low and high dietary weights, respectively. While those fed the intermediate weight diets had average gizzard weights of 20.5 gm. which was significantly less than the other two weights. This could have been due to chance, because the same pattern did not

FEED CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION TABLE 11.—Livability of hens fed rations in the weighty.protein, weightXvolume, weightXenergy, proteinXenergy, proteinXvolume and wlumeXenergy factorials Dietary wt. level (gm.) Dietary level 112 Protein (gm.)

Overall wt. effect

142

hen days alive 2640 3080 2440

2100 2920 2780

2860 3000 2910

2720

2600

2920

Volume (ml.) 150 200 250 Overall wt. effect

Overall wt. effect

Protein* 2530 3000 2710 2750 Volume

2860 2470 2720

3080 2770 2770

2880 2860 2580

2940 2700 2690

2680

2880

2770

2780

2970 3000 2440

3000 3080 2910

3080 2860 2910

3020 2980 2750

2800

3000

2950

2920

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300

Overall effects

Energy*

Dietary prot. level (gm.) 13

16

19

2430 2320 2210

2300 2520 2520

2520 2520 2190

2320

2450

2130 1960 1950

2490 2340 2080

2340 2510 2520

2010

2310

2460

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300 Overall prot. effect

Energy

Overall prot. effect*

2420 2450 2310 2390 Volume

Volume (ml.) 150 200 250

Overall effects

2320 2270 2190

150

200

250

III

Dietary vol. level (ml.)

2520 2520 2520

2520 2520 2520

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300 Overall vol. effect

Overall effect

as in the other two factorials. Livability was generally better among hens fed the two higher levels of dietary protein. The effect of dietary energy upon livability was significant only in the energy X weight factorial. Livability decreased as dietary energy was increased. This trend was present in the protein X energy and volume X energy factorials but not at a significant level. The difference in feed intake TABLE 12.—Egg production of hens fed rations in the weighty.protein, weightyvolume, weightXenergy, proteinXenergy, proteinXvolume and volumeX energy factorials Dietary wt. level (gm.) Dietary level 112 Protein (gm.) 13 16 19 Overall wt. effect

2380

2520

2470

* Significant a t the 5 % level of probability.

142

150 200 250 Overall wt. effect

109 163 163

111 191 163

170

145

155

Overall wt. effect

184 203 115

171 166 148

156 190 145

167

162

164

156

171 186 136 164 Energy

192 177 174

175 181 170

163 195 183

176 184 176

181

175

180

179

Dietary prot. level (gm.) 13

16

19

149 155 159

172 170 159

143 155 148

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300 Overall prot. effect

150 200 250 Overall prot. effect*

Overall effects Energy

154

153 160 156 156 Volume**

Volume (ml.)

the protein X weight factorial (Table 11) and the protein X volume factorial was significant. In the first case, livability was best at the intermediate dietary protein level and poorest at the lowest dietary level. In the protein X volume factorial, livability improved with each increase in dietary protein. The effect of protein was not significant in the protein X energy factorial, but the trend was generally the same

123 176 171

Volume**

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300

Overall effects

total eggs per hen 150 175 186

Volume (ml.)

Energy 2430 2510 2480

127

180 121 80

156 133 130

173 155 135

169 136 115

127

140

154

140

Dietary vol. level (ml.) 150

200

250

162 175 156

163 131 146

123 122 147

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300

Overall effect Energy

Overall vol. effect** * Significant at the 5 % level of probability. ** Significant at the 1% level of probability.

148 142 149

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

13 16 19

127

53

RESPONSES

54

E. W. GLEAVES AND S. DEWAN

TABLE 13.—Body weight loss or gain of hens fed rations in the weightXprotein, weightXvolume, weighty.energy, proteinXenergy, proteinXvolume, and volumeXenergy factorials Dietary wt. level (gm.)

Overall effects

Dietary level 112

Overall wt. effect

142

gm. per hen

Protein (gm.) 13 16 19

127

Protein*

446 227 553

-34 528 292

312 146 408

409

262

289

241 300 418 320 Volume**

Volume (ml.) 150 200 250 Overall wt. effect

443 416 117

622 175 159

408 408 188

325

319

335

491 333 155 327

Energy (kcal. M . E . ) 250 275 300 Overall wt. effect

Energy 352 247 399

368 191 277

158 123 425

292 187 367

332

279

235

282

Dietary prot. level (gm.) 13

16

19

67 182 -65

304 246 237

220 261 186

61

262

222

Energy

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300 Overall prot. effect**

197 230 119 182 Volume**

Volume (ml.) 150 200 250 Overall prot. effect*

Overall effects

256 87 -188

235 155 6

349 109 77

280 117 -35

52

132

178

121

Dietary vol. level (ml.) • 150

200

250

280 411 290

164 65 338

-28 72 102

139 183 243

327

189

49

188

Energy*

Energy (kcal. M.E.) 250 275 300 Overall vol. effect**

Overall effect

' Significant at the 5% level of probability. '* Significant at the 1% level of probability.

Egg production data for all three experiments are presented in Table 12. Neither dietary energy nor weight exerted any significant influence upon egg production. The effect of protein upon egg production was significant in the protein X weight and protein X volume factorials. In both instances, egg production was increased as dietary protein was increased. This same trend was present in the protein X energy factorial but the effect was not significant. The effect of dietary volume upon egg production was highly significant in all three experiments. As dietary volume was increased there was a concurrent reduction in egg production. Body weight loss or gain data are presented in Table 13. Dietary weight did not influence body weight change. Dietary protein significantly influenced body weight change in all three factorials where it was studied. As dietary protein was increased there was an increase in body weight gain. Body weight gain was significantly (0.01%) affected in all three experiments by dietary volume. As dietary volume was increased, body weight gain decreased. The effect of dietary energy upon body weight change was significant only in the energy X volume factorial. Body weight gain increased as dietary energy was increased. This general trend was evident in the energy X weight factorial but in the protein X energy factorial the heaviest body weight occurred at the intermediate energy level. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Three experiments were designed to examine the effects of dietary protein, energy, volume, weight and environmental temperature upon feed consumption and certain production characteristics with small factorials repeated three times over a three year period. Dietary weight and volume did exert a significant influence upon feed

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

between winter and summer conditions could account for the effect not being significant in the last two experiments. Feed intake was higher in these experiments and the restriction in nutrient intake at the high energy levels was not great enough to cause harm to the hens as it did during the first experiment which was conducted during the summer months.

FEED CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION RESPONSES

these experiments, but it was obvious that feed consumption was higher during the winter months. There is little doubt that consistent estimates of the effects of these and other factors that influence feed consumption can come only when temperature is controlled within rather close limits. REFERENCES Berg, L. R., and G. E. Bearse, 1956. The effect of water-soluble vitamins and energy level of the diet on the performance of laying pullets. Poultry Sci. 35: 945-951. Bolton, W., 1958. The efficiency of food utilization for egg production by pullets. J. Agric. Sci. 50: 97-101. Caligado, E. C , and J. H. Quisenberry, 1967. The effect of energy phase feeding, cage size and bird density on performance of commercial layers. Poultry Sci. 46: 1246. Gleaves, E. W., L. V. Tonkinson, J. D. Wolf, C. K. Harmon, R. H. Thayer and R. D. Morrison, 1968. The action and interaction of physiological food intake regulators in the laying hen. 1. Effects of dietary factors upon feed consumption and production responses. Poultry Sci. 47: 38-67. Hill, R. W., D. M. Anderson and L. M. Dansky, 1956. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. 3. The effect of dietary energy level on the rate and gross efficiency of egg production. Poultry Sci. 35: 54-59. Janowitz, H. D., and M. I. Grossman, 1949. Some factors affecting the food intake of normal dogs and dogs with esophagastomy and gastric fistula. Am. J. Physiol. 159: 143-148. Peterson, C. F., E. A. Sauter, D. H. Conrad and C. E. Lampman, 1960. Effect of energy level and laying house temperature on the performance of White Leghorn pullets. Poultry Sci. 39: 10101018. Scott, H. M., L. D. Matterson and E. P. Singsen, 1947. Nutritional factors influencing growth and efficiency of utilization. 1. The effect of the source of carbohydrate. Poultry Sci. 26: 554. Snedecor, G. W., 1956. Statistical Methods, Sth edition. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Thayer, R. H., L. V. Tonkinson, E. W. Gleaves and M. H. Henley, 1965. Relationship of nutritional density to nutrient intake in growing turkeys. Poultry Sci. 44: 689-697.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at H.E.C. Bibliotheque Myriam & J. Robert Ouimet on June 14, 2015

consumption of laying hens. Dietary protein and energy did not exert a significant influence but the effects of energy were obvious and typical. As dietary energy was increased, feed intake decreased. The effect was not significant because of the small range of levels used. There was no consistent effect of dietary weight, volume, energy or protein upon the weight of gizzards, small intestines or large intestines. However, these factors were measured only in the first experiment. Dietary protein and energy significantly influenced livability. Livability was generally best among hens that were fed the two higher levels of dietary protein (16 and 19 gm.). Livability was significantly influenced by dietary energy only in the summer experiment, as dietary energy was increased, livability decreased. Protein and volume significantly affected egg production. As dietary protein was increased, egg production increased and as dietary volume was increased egg production decreased. Body weight loss or gain was significantly affected by dietary protein, energy and volume. As dietary protein was increased there was an increase in body weight gain. As dietary volume was increased, body weight gain decreased. The effect of energy was significant only in the energy X volume factorial. In this case body weight gain increased as dietary energy was increased. The overall effects of dietary energy were reduced in these experiments by working with a smaller range of dietary energy levels. Under these conditions, the effects of both dietary weight and volume were more obvious. They can be manipulated to mask the effects of energy. There was no way to validly check the significance of temperature effects upon

55