#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

The intake pattern and feed preference of layer hens selected for high or low feed conversion ratio


Autoři: Cameron E. F. Clark aff001;  Yeasmin Akter aff002;  Alena Hungerford aff001;  Peter Thomson aff001;  Mohammed R. Islam aff001;  Peter J. Groves aff002;  Cormac J. O’Shea aff003
Působiště autorů: School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, Australia aff001;  Poultry Research Foundation, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Camden, NSW, Australia aff002;  School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Loughborough, England, United Kingdom aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222304

Souhrn

Feed accounts for the greatest proportion of egg production costs and there is substantial variation in feed to egg conversion ratio (FCR) efficiency between individual hens. Despite this understanding, there is a paucity of information regarding layer hen feeding behaviour, diet selection and its impact on feed efficiency. It was hypothesised that variation in feed to egg conversion efficiency between hens may be influenced by feeding behaviour. For this experiment, two 35-bird groups of ISA Brown layers were selected from 450 individually caged hens at 25–30 weeks of age for either low FCR < 1.8 ± 0.02 (high feed efficiency (HFE) or high FCR > 2.1 ± 0.02 (low feed efficiency (LFE)). For each of these 70 hens, intake of an ad-libitum mash diet at 2-minute time intervals, 24 h a day, for 7 days was determined alongside behavioural assessment and estimation of the selection of components of the mash. The group selected for HFE had a lower feed intake, similar egg mass and associated lower FCR when compared with the LFE group. Whilst feed intake patterns were similar between HFE and LFE hens, there was a distinct intake pattern for all layer hens with intake rate increasing from 0300 to 1700 h with a sharp decline to 2200 h. High feed efficiency hens selected a diet with 25% more ash and 4% less gross energy than LFE hens. The LFE hens also spent more time eating with more walking events, but less time spent resting, drinking, preening and cage pecking events as compared with HFE hens. In summary, there was no contrasting diurnal pattern of feed consumption behaviour between the groups ranked on feed efficiency, however high feed efficiency hens consumed less feed and selected a diet with greater ash content and lower gross energy as compared with LFE hens. Our work is now focused on individual hen diet selection from mash diets with an aim of formulating precision, targeted diets for greater feed efficiency.

Klíčová slova:

Biology and life sciences – Organisms – Eukaryota – Animals – Vertebrates – Amniotes – Birds – Nutrition – Diet – Nutrients – Physiology – Reproductive physiology – Oviposition – Psychology – Behavior – Animal behavior – Zoology – Agriculture – Crop science – Crops – Soybean – Medicine and health sciences – Social sciences – Physical sciences – Chemistry – Chemical compounds – Phosphates – Research and analysis methods – Chemical characterization – Calorimetry


Zdroje

1. Gabarrou JF, Geraert PA, Francois N, Guillaumin S, Picard M, Bordas A. Energy balance of laying hens selected on residual food consumption. British Poultry Science. 1998; 39: 79–89. doi: 10.1080/00071669889439 9568303

2. Willems O, Miller S, Wood B. Aspects of selection for feed efficiency in meat producing poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2013; 69(1):77–88.

3. Fairfull RW, Chambers JR. Breeding for feed efficiency. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 1984; 64:513–27.

4. Akter Y, Greenhalgh S, Islam MR, Hutchison C, O ‘Shea CJ. Hens ranked as highly feed efficient have an improved albumen quality profile and increased polyunsaturated fatty acids in the yolk. Journal of Animal Science. 2018; 96:3482–90. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky188 29762670

5. Byerly TC, Kessler JW, Gous RM, Thomas OP. Feed requirements for egg production. Poultry Science. 1980; 59:2500–7.

6. MacLeod MG, Jewitt TR, White J, Verbrugge M, Mitchell MA. The contribution of locomotor activity to energy expenditure in the domestic fowl. In: A. Ekern and F. Sundstol (ed.) Proc. 9th Symposium. Energy on Metabolism. European Association for Animal Production. Lillehammer, Norway. 1982; 29:297–3.

7. Morrison WD, Leeson S. Relationship of feed efficiency to carcass composition and metabolic rate in laying birds. Poultry Science. 1978; 57: 735–39.

8. MacLeod MG, Jewitt TR. The energy cost of some behaviour patterns in laying domestic fowl: simultaneous calorimetric, Doppler-radar and visual observations. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 1985; 44:34A.

9. Choi JH, Namkung H, Paik IK. Feed consumption pattern of laying hens in relation to time of oviposition. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 2004; 17(3): 371–73.

10. Leeson S, Summers JD. Feeding programs for laying hens, In: Leeson S. & Summers J. D. Eds. Commercial Poultry Nutrition. Nottingham University Press. 2009; p. 164–25.

11. Waldroup PW, Hellwg HM. The potential value of morning and afternoon feeds for laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2000; 9:98–100.

12. Molnár A, Hamelin C, Delezie E, Nys Y. Sequential and choice feeding in laying hens: adapting nutrient supply to requirements during the egg formation cycle. World's Poultry Science Journal 2018; 74: 199–210. doi: 10.1017/S0043933918000247

13. Hurnik JF, Webster AB, Siegel PB. Dictionary of farm animal behaviour. Print Publication Services, University of Guelph, Guelph. 1985; p. 176.

14. AOAC. Official method of analysis. 15th ed. Arlington (VA): Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990.

15. Luiting P, Schrama JW, Van der Hel W, Urff EM. Metabolic differences between white leghorns selected for high and low residual feed consumption. Br. Poult. Sci. 1991; 32:763–782. doi: 10.1080/00071669108417402 1933447

16. Classen HL, Scott TA. Self-selection of calcium during the rearing and early laying periods of white leghorn pullets. Poultry Science. 1982: 61: 2065–74. doi: 10.3382/ps.0612065 7177997

17. Mongin P, Sauveur B. Voluntary food and calcium intake by the laying hen. British Poultry Science. 1974; 15: 349–59. doi: 10.1080/00071667408416118 4416883

18. Hamid R, Hutagalung RI, Vorna PN. Dietary self-selection by laying hens offered choices of feed. Pertanika. 1989; 12: 27–32.

19. Chah CC. A study of the hen's nutrient intake as it relates to egg formation. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph. 1971.

20. Forbes JM. Voluntary Food Intake and Diet Selection in Farm Animals. 2007. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK, ISBN 978 1 84593 279 4.

21. Duncan IJH, Hughes BO. Feeding activity and egg formation in hens lit continuously. Br. Poultry Science. 1975; 16:145–55.

22. Savory CJ. Effects of egg production on the pattern of food intake of broiler hens kept in continuous light. Poultry Science. 1977; 18: 331–37.

23. Kadono H, Besch EL, Usami E. Body temperature, oviposition and food intake in the hen during continuous light. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1981; 51:1145–49. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1981.51.5.1145 7298454

24. Khalil AM, Matsui K, Takeda K. Responses to abrupt changes in feeding and illumination in laying hens. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2010; 34(5):433–39. doi: 10.3906/vet-0901-25

25. Van Rooijen J. Feeding behaviour as an indirect measure of food intake in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1991; 30:105–15.

26. Braastad BO, Katle J. Behavioural differences between laying hen populations selected for high and low efficiency of food utilization. British Poultry Science. 1989; 30:533–44. doi: 10.1080/00071668908417177 2819497

27. Luiting P, Urff EM. Residual feed consumption in laying hens. 2. Genetic variation and correlations. Poultry Science. 1991; 70:1663–72. doi: 10.3382/ps.0701663 1924085

28. Pehle K, Cheng HW. Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens. Poultry Science. 2009; 88: 1559–64 doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00045 19590069

29. Broom DM. The stress concept and ways of assessing the effects of stress in farm animals. Applied Animal Ethology. 1983; 1:79.

30. Cronin GM, Wiepkema PR, van Ree JM. Endorphins implicated in stereotypies of tethered sows. Experientia. 1986; 42: 198–99. doi: 10.1007/bf01952467 3948975

31. Henson SM, Weldon LM, Hayward JL Greene DJ, Megna LC, Serem MC. Coping behaviour as an adaptation to stress: post-disturbance preening in colonial seabirds. Journal of Biological Dynamics. 2012; 6(1):17–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2011.605913.

32. Marks HL, Pesti GM. The roles of protein level and diet form in water consumption and abdominal fat pad deposition of broilers. Poultry Science. 1984; 63:1617–1625. doi: 10.3382/ps.0631617 6483725

33. McKinley MJ, Johnson AK. The physiological regulation of thirst and fluid Intake. News in Physiological Sciences. 2004; 19: 1–6. 14739394


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 9
Nejčtenější tento týden
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
Kurzy Podcasty Doporučená témata Časopisy
Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu, se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#