Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:13:06.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sequential feeding of growing chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. M. Gous  and
J. J. Du Preez
R. M. Gous
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa
J. J. Du Preez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Poultry Science, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3200, South Africa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Male chickens, 1 week old, were fed alternately for 6 or 12 h periods with diets complementary in their amino acid composition. The isonitrogenous, isoenergetic diets were based on fish meal or sunflower meal as the sole source of protein, or fish meal–sunflower meal (40:60, w/w); each diet contained 120 g crude protein/kg. Other groups of chickens were given these diets ad lib.

Net protein utilization (NPU) values obtained after a 1-week experimental period indicated that sequential feeding for both 6 and 12 h resulted in significantly improved responses compared with chickens given the same diets ad lib. These results suggested that the two protein sources, although provided at separate times, could complement each other.

2. In certain treatments there was a 6 or 12 h fasting period between feeding periods to reduce the effect of nutrients from the previous period.

3. For alternate feeding and fasting periods of 6 h with the combined diet, food intake and gain in body-weight were both significantly reduced compared with the corresponding values for the combined diet fed ad lib. The NPU value was virtually the same for both treatments. For 12 h periods of alternate feeding and fasting the gain in body-weight was only just significantly lower than that for the control group (combined diet fed ad lib.), but the NPU value was highly significantly better than that for the control group.

4. For the treatments which included 6 and 12 h fasting periods between the two singleprotein diets, the food intake and gain in body-weight were significantly lower compared with the treatment groups given alternate feeding and fasting periods of either 6 or 12 h with the combined diet. The NPU values for the two groups given 12 h alternate feeding and fasting periods differed significantly, whereas the NPU values for the two groups given 6 h feeding and fasting periods were the same.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , July 1975 , pp. 113 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Bender, A. E. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, A. E. & Doell, B. H. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calet, C. (1967). In Protein Utilization by Poultry [Morton, R. A. and Amorosa, E. C., editors]Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
De Muelenaere, H. J. H., Martin, R. S. & Murdoch, M. G. (1965).J. Nutr. 85, 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, H. (1967). In Newer Methods of Nutritional Biochemistry, vol. 3 [Albanese, A. A., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geiger, E. (1947). J. Nutr. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. & Harris, R. S. (1949). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 8, 382 Abstr.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961) J. Nutr. 75, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1964 a). Nature, Lond. 204, 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1964 b). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, A. J. (1974). An evaluation of sunflower oilcake meal and fishmeal as protein sources for chickens. MSc Thesis, University of Natal, South Africa.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, A. J. & Geiger, E. (1947). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 66, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibbald, I. R., Bowland, J. P., Berg, R. T. & Robblee, A. R. (1957). J. Nutr. 62, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, J. D., Slinger, S. J., Sibbald, I. R. & Pepper, W. F. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessels, J. P. H. (1967). S. Afr. J. agric. Sci. 10, 113.Google Scholar
Yang, S. P., Clark, H. E. & Vail, G. E. (1961). J. Nutr. 75, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, S. P., Steinhauer, J. E. & Masterson, J. E. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, S. P., Tilton, K. S. & Ryland, L. L. (1968). J. Nutr. 94, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar