Digestibility studies in broiler chickens: Influence of genotype, age, sex and method of determination

Doeschate, R.A.H.M. ten; Scheele, C.W.; Schreurs, V.V.A.M.; Klis, J.D. van der

doi:10.1080/00071669308417569

Cited by 113 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere, it has been found that birds selected for high body weight showed higher intestinal and pancreatic trypsin and amylase levels expressed relative to the intestinal contents (Nitsan et al 1991;Dunnington and Siegel 1995). Tolkamp et al (2010) recently provided further evidence in support of the view that enzymatic production can also be altered via selection for growth rate and feed efficiency (Pym 1985;Doeschate et al 1993) but not by selection for leanness (Leclercq and Saadoun 1982). Investigations by Péron et al (2007) showed evidence for variation in proventriculus pepsin activity between lines subjected to different selection pressures, which leads to differences in protein digestive efficiency.…”

Section: Feed Intake Digestion and Absorptionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…However, when placed under selective pressures aiming to improve specific traits, digestive efficiency can actually be improved in broilers. For instance, birds selected for improved feed conversion have been shown to have higher digestive efficiency when compared to birds selected for high growth rate, when fed on the same feed (Doeschate et al 1993;Carré et al 2008), whereas no evidence was found within the scope of this review for differences in digestive energy efficiency between divergent lines selected specifically to be lean and fat (Leclercq and Saadoun 1982;Leenstra and Pit 1987;Jorgensen et al 1990). Furthermore, it is possible to select directly for high protein, lipid and starch digestive efficiency (Mignon-Grasteau et al 2004;Lopez and Leeson 2008).…”

Section: Feed Intake Digestion and Absorptionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Breeding for efficiency in the broiler chicken: A review

Tallentire

Leinonen

Kyriazakis

2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

163

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial selection of broiler chickens for commercial objectives has been employed at an unprecedented magnitude over the recent decades. Consequently, the number of days, total feed and in turn energy, required to raise a broiler to slaughter weight, have decreased dramatically. Feed provision is the poultry industry's biggest environmental hotspot; hence, understanding the interactions between the birds' genetic change and their energy use efficiency forms the necessary starting point for quantifying and predicting and thereby mitigating the future environmental impact of the poultry sector. This review assesses the consequences of artificial selection on the following traits: digestive efficiency, body composition and utilisation of metabolisable energy for growth and metabolic activity. The main findings were (1) the digestive system has been subjected to much physical change due to selection in the recent decades, but this has not led to any apparent change in digestion efficiency. (2) Both the energy intake per day and the metabolic heat production rate have increased in the recent decades whilst (3) the efficiency of utilising energy for growth has also increased; this is due to an increased growth rate, so that broilers reach slaughter weight more quickly and therefore need to allocate less energy overall to metabolic processes, with the exception of growth. (4) There may have been a reduction in the tendency to waste feed through spillage and carry out energetically expensive behaviors. There is a discrepancy in the literature with regards to the influence of selection on body composition and its contribution to feed efficiency. In this review, two scenarios are demonstrated, whereby body composition either has or has not altered via artificial selection. Understanding the effects of artificial selection on the traits that relate to the feed efficiency of the broilers will contribute towards the reduction of the environmental impacts that arise from such systems.

show abstract

Section: Feed Intake Digestion and Absorptionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Feed Intake Digestion and Absorptionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Breeding for efficiency in the broiler chicken: A review

Tallentire

Leinonen

Kyriazakis

2016

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

163

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparent retention of 17 amino acids was calculated using the method suggested by Ten Doeschate et al (1993) from the formulae:…”

Section: Analytical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals

Newkirk

Classen²,

Scott³

et al. 2003

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2003. The availability and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83: 131-139. A study was conducted to determine the level and digestibilities of amino acids and the level of glucosinolates in toasted and non-toasted canola meal samples produced in commercial crushing plants in western Canada. A total of 26 non-toasted and 31 toasted canola meals samples were analyzed for apparent ileal amino acid digestibilities using broiler chickens between 21 and 28 d of age. Commercially toasted canola meal contained 5.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 5.3-5.9) of Lys with a digestibility ranging from 65.5 to 85.7% (mean = 78.0%). Non-toasted canola meal contained 6.0 g 16 g -1 N (range 5.7-6.3) Lys with digestibility values ranging from 87 to 92% (mean = 89.7%). Toasted canola meal had an average total digestible amino acid content (not including Tyr and Trp) of 69.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 56.6-75.6) while non-toasted canola meal had 77.6 g 16 g -1 N (range 73.1-82.0). The levels of aliphatic glucosinolates in the toasted (6.16 µmol g -1 meal, range 1.2-12.5) and non-toasted meals (10.5 µmol g -1 meal, range 7.8-15.1) were low and likely of no nutritional consequence. In conclusion, non-toasted canola meal contains higher levels of digestible amino acids than conventional toasted canola meal and therefore consideration should be given to modifying commercial systems to produce a non-toasted meal.

show abstract

“…However, birds selected for reduced (i.e. improved) FCR also showed a higher digestive efficiency than randomly bred controls; this was consistent for most nutrients considered and energy, although the improvement was relatively small (,3% above that of randomly bred controls and was not consistent across ages; ten Doeschate et al, 1993). Pym (1985) suggested that this improvement in digestive efficiency was associated with an increase in food retention time, thus opening up the possibility that selection for improved FCR may be accompanied by correlated responses in digestive efficiency.…”

Section: Poultrymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In contrast, there are documented differences in, for example, metabolisability of dietary energy or enzymatic activity in the small intestine between broiler genotypes that have been selected for different traits, such as growth, food intake or food conversion ratio (FCR; Pym, 1985;Leenstra and Pit, 1987;Jorgensen et al, 1990;ten Doeschate et al, 1993;Dunnington and Siegel, 1995). Some of these differences could be accounted for by the difference in the degree of maturity at a given weight between birds of different growth rates (Emmans and Kyriazakis, 2000).…”

Section: Poultrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities to improve nutrient efficiency in pigs and poultry through breeding

Kyriazakis

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficiency of food and nutrient (including energy) use are considered the key factors in the economic and environmental performance of livestock systems. The aim of this paper is to consider the basis of genetic variation in the components that constitute dietary nutrient efficiency; and to conclude whether there would be benefit, in any relevant terms, in including these components in breeding programmes that aim to improve nutrient efficiency within pig and poultry systems of production. The components considered are (i) external, pre-ingestion losses, such as food spillage and its relation to feeding behaviour traits, (ii) digestive efficiency, (iii) maintenance requirements, (iv) net efficiency of energy and nutrient utilisation and (v) partitioning of scarce resources within productive and between productive and fitness functions. It is concluded that opportunities to exploit genetic variation exist mainly in the potential to improve the digestive efficiency of pigs and to reduce the maintenance requirements for resources mainly in hens, but also potentially in pigs. Current evidence suggests that there are very weak genetic and phenotypic correlations between components of feeding behaviour and productive traits, and little genetic variation in the net efficiency of nutrient utilisation among poultry and pig genotypes. The implication of the latter is that there would be little exploitable genetic variation in the partitioning of scarce nutrients between productive functions. Currently, there is a lack of understanding of the genetic basis of the partitioning of scarce nutrients between productive and fitness functions, and how this may impact upon the efficiency of nutrient use in pig and poultry systems. This is an area of research to which further effort might usefully be devoted.

show abstract

Digestibility studies in broiler chickens: Influence of genotype, age, sex and method of determination

Cited by 113 publications

References 14 publications

Breeding for efficiency in the broiler chicken: A review

Breeding for efficiency in the broiler chicken: A review

The digestibility and content of amino acids in toasted and non-toasted canola meals

Opportunities to improve nutrient efficiency in pigs and poultry through breeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About