A comparative study of metabolisable energy in ducklings and domestic chicks

Mohamed, Karima; Leclercq, B.; Anwar, A.; El-Alaily, H.; Soliman, Hatem

doi:10.1016/0377-8401(84)90063-4

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present observations, which suggest similar energy values for both avian species, agrees with most of the data reported by Siregar and Farrell (1980) and by Mohamed et al (1984).…”

Section: Comparison Of Digestible Energy Values Among Cockerels Ducksupporting

confidence: 95%

“…This was observed especially for minor components of the polysaccharides, suggesting that a part of the difference between the data for the cockerels and the ducks was due to a greater excretion of nondietary components by the ducks. That observation agrees with a previous report by Mohamed et al (1984), showing that ducks excrete more endogenous energy than chickens. The nondietary losses probably were the reason why the recovery values exceeded 100% for some minor sugars (Table 4).…”

Section: Excreta Recovery Of Nonstarch Polysaccharides From Cockerelssupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Nehring and Knabe (1961) and Schubert et al (1982) reported digestibility values for crude fiber ranging from 0 to 36% in ducks. Siregar and Farrell (1980) and Mohamed et al (1984) did not find great differences between the energy values in the diets for chickens and ducks, suggesting that the digestibility values for cell-wall fractions probably are similar for chickens and ducks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Digestibility of Cell-Wall Polysaccharides from Wheat (Bran or Whole Grain), Soybean Meal, and White Lupin Meal in Cockerels, Muscovy Ducks, and Rats

Carré¹,

Derouet²,

Leclercq³

1990

Poultry Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digestibility of nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP) were measured in cockerels. Muscovy ducks, and rats by using four diets where the only sources of NSP were wheat bran (Diet B), whole wheat grain (Diet W), soybean meal (Diet S), or white lupin meal (Diet L). The four diets contained similar amounts of crude protein (24.4%), lipids (5.2%), and NSP (6.9%). The proportions of water-soluble NSP in total NSP were 11.1% (Diet B), 19.7% (Diet W), 8% (Diet S), and 11.5% (Diet L). The NSP contents of feed and excreta were determined by measuring their individual sugars, using gas-liquid chromatography of alditol acetate derivatives. The digestibility values of NSP ranged from 21.9% (Diet W) to 13% (Diet L) for cockerels, from 18.7% (Diet W) to 7.9% (Diet L) for ducks, and from 85.7% (Diet L) to 44.1% (Diet B) for rats. These results suggest that cockerels and ducks were only able to digest the water-soluble fraction of the nonstarch polysaccharides. The pectic polymers, which were major components in water-insoluble NSP of Diets S and L, were digested to a high extent by the rats. The digestible-energy (DE) values, calculated for the birds from the apparent metabolizable-energy values corrected for nitrogen retention (AMEn), were very similar when cockerels and ducks were compared; the differences between bird species did not exceed .23 MJ per kg of dry matter. In all cases, the DE values were higher for rats than for birds. These results suggested that the main factor responsible for the differences in DE values between rats and birds was the ability to digest NSP, which was higher for the rats than for the birds.

show abstract

“…The present observations, which suggest similar energy values for both avian species, agrees with most of the data reported by Siregar and Farrell (1980) and by Mohamed et al (1984).…”

Section: Comparison Of Digestible Energy Values Among Cockerels Ducksupporting

confidence: 95%

Section: Excreta Recovery Of Nonstarch Polysaccharides From Cockerelssupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Digestibility of Cell-Wall Polysaccharides from Wheat (Bran or Whole Grain), Soybean Meal, and White Lupin Meal in Cockerels, Muscovy Ducks, and Rats

Carré¹,

Derouet²,

Leclercq³

1990

Poultry Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to relatively limited information on energy utilization in feed ingredients by ducks (Elkin, 1987), the chick ME values were usually used when a duck diet was formulated. However, there was a significant difference in nutrient requirements and energy utilization between ducks and chickens (Muztar et al, 1977;Ostrowski-Meissner, 1983;Mohamed et al, 1984), so it is questionable to use the nutrient bioavailability data from chicks to formulate diets for ducks. At present, there are few reports on the bioassay method of duck feeds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feed input and excreta collection time in metabolisable energy assays for ducks

Zhang¹,

Hou²,

Wang³

et al. 2007

CZECH J ANIM SCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Three experiments were conducted to determine the optimal feed input and excreta collection time by a bioassay of dietary true metabolisable energy (TME) for ducks. In experiment 1 and experiment 2, the time for the unabsorbed feed passage through the alimentary canal was determined by measuring the DM and energy of excreta and feed residues in the alimentary canal at different periods. In experiment 3, the feed input of force-feeding was studied and a total of 70 mature Pekin drakes were allotted to 7 groups, each group containing 10 birds. After fasting for 36 h, one group served as a negative control to measure metabolic faecal energy plus endogenous urinary energy and the drakes of the other 6 groups were force-fed pelleted feed 30 g, 50 g, 70 g, 90 g, 110 g, and 150 g per bird, respectively. Energy excretion of the periods of 16-28 h after force-feeding was significantly higher than that of the periods after 32 h, and the total energy excretion of the periods after 32 h (P < 0.05). When the feed input increased from 30 g to 70 g, the value of TME was constant (P > 0.05). Metabolisable energy decreased significantly with an increase in feed input when the feed input was higher than 70 g (P < 0.05). It was concluded that the optimal time of feed withdrawal before tube-feeding and during excreta collection would be 32-36 h. The optimal feed input was 50 g to 70 g per drake.Keywords: metabolisable energy; bioassay method; force-feeding Metabolisable energy is most frequently used to evaluate the available energy of chick feed. Due to relatively limited information on energy utilization in feed ingredients by ducks (Elkin, 1987), the chick ME values were usually used when a duck diet was formulated. However, there was a significant difference in nutrient requirements and energy utilization between ducks and chickens (Muztar et al., 1977;Ostrowski-Meissner, 1983;Mohamed et al., 1984), so it is questionable to use the nutrient bioavailability data from chicks to formulate diets for ducks. At present, there are few reports on the bioassay method of duck feeds. Feed input and excreta collection time are two key factors influencing the accuracy of bioassay for true metabolisable energy of poultry feeds (Sibbald, 1975(Sibbald, , 1976Yaghobfar and Boldaji, 2002). Feeding and excreta collection techniques for ducks were developed by Adeola et al. (1997) and modified by Hong et al. (2002) based on ducks' specific physiology. However, in their study ducks suffered force-feeding twice to get a higher feed intake, which may cause more stress to ducks. Moreover, the collection of highly liquid excreta was also difficult even according to their methods, so the collection time should be reduced as much as possible.The objective of the present study was to determine optimal feed input and excreta collection time in a bioassay for true metabolisable energy (TME) of duck feeds.

show abstract

“…Samples of feeds and digesta coming from the experiment 3 described in a previous study (M OHAMED et al, 1984) were analysed for protein and amino acids. Only basal diet, soyabean diet and cottonseed diet were kept for the present study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of the digestibility of soyabean and cottonseed meal amino acids in domestic chicks and muscovy ducklings

Mohamed¹,

Larbier²,

Leclercq³

1986

Ann. Zootech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryTrue digestibilities of amino acids derived from soyabean and cottonseed meal were measured in domestic chicks and muscovy ducklings. Endogenous amino acid losses were determined in animals fed on a protein-free diet. Similar endogenous losses were found in both species. Slight, but significantly different protein digestibilities, were observed with a basal diet. The digestibility of lysine and arginine derived from soyabean meal was slightly greater in ducklings. The digestibility of cottonseed meal leucine was slightly higher in chicks than in ducklings. These results suggest that, for practical purposes, digestibility values from the chicken are adequate for the formulation of duckling diets.

show abstract

A comparative study of metabolisable energy in ducklings and domestic chicks

Cited by 22 publications

References 11 publications

The Digestibility of Cell-Wall Polysaccharides from Wheat (Bran or Whole Grain), Soybean Meal, and White Lupin Meal in Cockerels, Muscovy Ducks, and Rats

The Digestibility of Cell-Wall Polysaccharides from Wheat (Bran or Whole Grain), Soybean Meal, and White Lupin Meal in Cockerels, Muscovy Ducks, and Rats

Feed input and excreta collection time in metabolisable energy assays for ducks

A comparative study of the digestibility of soyabean and cottonseed meal amino acids in domestic chicks and muscovy ducklings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About