Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:08:18.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production and egg quality in layers fed organic diets with mussel meal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2010

L. Jönsson ,
H. Wall  and
R. Tauson
L. Jönsson*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Kungsängen Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-753 23 Uppsala, Sweden
H. Wall
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Kungsängen Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-753 23 Uppsala, Sweden
R. Tauson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Kungsängen Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-753 23 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The first limiting nutrients in typical laying hen diets are the sulphur-containing amino acids and, in particular, methionine. To fulfil the birds’ recommended requirement, conventional diets are supplemented with synthetic methionine. As this is not allowed in organic production it becomes very important to have access to alternative high-quality protein feed ingredients. An experiment was performed to evaluate the possibility to compose a diet with 100% organically approved feed ingredients using mussel meal as a major source of methionine. The experiment included 678 Lohman Selected Leghorn (LSL) and 678 Hyline White, W-98, layers during 20 to 72 weeks of age. There were 12 aviary pens with 113 birds in each. The birds were fed one of the two experimental diets containing either 3.5% or 7% dried mussel meat meal or a commercial organic diet from a Swedish feed manufacturer for comparison. Production and mortality were recorded daily per group, and egg weight was recorded once weekly. At 33, 55 and 70 weeks, 10 eggs from each treatment group were collected and analysed for internal egg quality. Diets had no significant effect on laying percentage, egg mass, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, mortality, bird live weight or proportion misplaced, cracked or dirty eggs. Egg quality, that is, shell deformation, shell breaking strength, albumen height, shell percentage and proportion of blood and meat spots were also unaffected. There was a significant difference in egg yolk pigmentation, that is, the egg yolk was more coloured when feeding 7% mussel meal compared with the other diets. Hyline hens had lower feed intake and laying percentage, and higher egg weight, but lower egg mass production than LSL birds. The age of the birds influenced all egg quality traits except for meat and blood spots. The dry matter of the excreta was significantly lower for both genotypes fed the 7% mussel meal diet. These results indicate that mussels may be a high-quality protein source and may replace fishmeal in organic diets for layers.

Keywords

mussel mealfish mealprotein sourceamino acidsorganic production
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 387 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamsson, P, Tauson, R 1995. Aviary systems and conventional cages for laying hens. Effects on production, egg quality, health and birds location in three hybrids. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 45, 191–203.Google Scholar
Barclay, MC, Irvin, SJ, Williams, KC, Smith, DM 2006. Comparison of diets for the tropical spiny lobster Panulirus ornatus: astaxanthin-supplemented feeds and mussel flesh. Aquaculture Nutrition 12, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, GM, Austreng, E 1989. Blue mussels in feed for rainbow trout. Aquaculture 81, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, SA 1969. Seasonal cycles in the carotenoid content in Mytilus edulis. Marine Biology 4, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, DJA, Haresign, W 1989. Recent developments in poultry nutrition. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
European Community (EC) 2007. Council Regulation No. 834/2007 on organic production and labeling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union 189, 1–23.Google Scholar
Elwinger, K, Tufvesson, M, Lagerkvist, G, Tauson, R 2008. Feeding layers of different genotypes in organic feed environments. British Poultry Science 49, 654–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez-Esquerra, R, Leeson, S 2000. Effects of feeding hens regular or deodorized menhaden oil on production parameters, yolk fatty acid profile and sensory quality of eggs. Poultry Science 79, 1597–1602.Google Scholar
Harms, RH, Russell, GB 1998. The influence of methionine on commercial laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 7, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernroth, B 2002. Uptake and fate of pathogenic microbes in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Jönsson, L, Elwinger, K 2009. Mussel meal as a replacement for fish meal in feeds for organic poultry – a pilot short term study. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica – Section A, Animal Science 59, 22–27.Google Scholar
Jönsson, L, Holm, L 2010. Effects of toxic and non-toxic blue mussel meal on health and product quality of laying hens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 94, 405–412.Google Scholar
Karadas, F, Grammenidis, E, Surai, PF, Acamovic, T, Sparks, NHC 2006. Effects of carotenoids from lucerne, marigold and tomato on egg yolk pigmentation and carotenoid composition. British Poultry Science 47, 561–566.Google Scholar
Lindahl, O, Hart, R, Hernroth, B, Kollberg, S, Loo, LO, Olrog, L, Rehnstam-Holm, AS, Svensson, J, Svensson, S, Syversen, U 2005. Improving marine water quality by mussel farming: a profitable solution for Swedish Society. Ambio 34, 131–138.Google Scholar
Matsuno, T 1989. Animal carotenoids. In Carotenoids: chemistry and biology (ed. NI Krinsky, MM Mathews-Roth and RF Taylor), pp. 59–74. Plenum Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry, 9th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nys, Y 2000. Dietary carotenoids and egg yolk coloration – a review. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 64, 45–54.Google Scholar
Peguri, A, Coon, C 1993. Effect of feather coverage and temperature on layer performance. Poultry Science 72, 1318–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, JR 2004. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. Journal of Poultry Science 41, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (SAS) 2004. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, version 9.1. System for windows, release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schutte, JB, De Jong, J, Bertram, HL 1994. Requirement of the laying hen for sulfur amino acids. Poultry Science 73, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedecor, GW, Cochran, WG 1989. Statistical methods, 8th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, USA.Google Scholar
Sohail, SS, Bryant, MM, Roland, DA 2002. Influence of supplemental lysine, isoleucine, threonine, tryptophan and total sulfur amino acids on egg weight of Hy-line W-36 hens. Poultry Science 81, 1038–1044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiller, H 2001. Nutrition and animal welfare in egg production systems. In Proceedings of the13th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition (ed. G Huyghebaert), pp. 226–232. WPSA working group No. 2 (Nutrition), Blankenberge, Belgium.Google Scholar
Wall, H, Jönsson, L, Johansson, L 2010. Effects on egg quality traits of genotype and diets with mussel meal or wheat-distillers dried grains with solubles. Poultry Science 89, 745–751.Google Scholar
Van Elswyk, ME, Dawson, PL, Sams, AR 1995. Dietary menhaden oil influences sensory characteristics and headspace volatiles of shell eggs. Journal of Food Science 60, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Krimpen, MM, Kwakkel, RP, Reuvekamp, BFJ, Van Der Peet-Schwering, CMC, Den Hartog, LA, Verstegen, MWA 2005. Impact of feeding management on feather pecking in laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61, 663–685.Google Scholar