Effect of feed form, pellet diameter and enzymes supplementation on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of broiler during days 21-37 of age

Abstract

A total of 420 21-day-old broilers were wing banded and randomly distributed among 60 cages of 7 birds per cage during days 21-37 of age. A factorial design (4×3) was used in which there were four feed forms (mash vs. pellet diet with diameter 2-2 mm, 2-3 mm and 3-3.5 mm, respectively) and three enzyme treatments (unsupplemented, phytase, phytase plus multi-enzyme). Each treatment was replicated 5 times with 7 broilers per replicate. Body weight gain of broilers fed 2-3 mm-diet was significantly greater than that of those fed mash diet and 2-2 mm or 3-3.5 mm pellet-diet. Feed conversion ratio was the best in broilers fed 2-3 mm and 3-3.5 mm pellet-diets. However, feed intake was significantly lower in broilers fed pellet-diets than that of those fed the mash diet. The production index and economic efficiency were significantly higher in groups fed 2-3 mm pellet diameter compared to those fed 2-2 mm and 3-3.5 mm pellet diets. Digestibility of crude protein, ether extract, crude fibre and crude ash were significantly and similarly greater in groups fed pellet diets in comparison with those fed mash diet. Enzyme supplementations significantly and similarly increased growth and production index whereas improved feed conversion ratio and economic efficiency than the control group and this concurred with greater digestibility of crude protein, ether extract and crude ash. However, multi-enzymes plus phytase induced greater effect on the production and economic traits than phytase alone showing synergetic effects. Pellet diet at 2-3 mm supplemented with multi-enzyme plus phytase resulted in the highest performance and nutrient digestibility of broilers during day 20-37 d of age.

Productive performance, nutrient digestibility and intestinal morphometry in broiler chickens fed corn or wheat-based diets supplemented with bacterial- or fungal-originated xylanase

“…In general, no noticeable influence was found for supplemented xylanase from either source on growth performance parameters, the results which are in the line with many previous reports (Meng & Slominski 2005;Amerah et al 2008). Supplementation of xylanase in broiler diets was often accompanied by inconsistent responses in birds performance mainly due to variations in structure and composition of cell wall carbohydrates in diet ingredients (Kim et al 2005), architecture of xylanase molecule (Beg et al 2001), form of feed (Attia et al 2012(Attia et al , 2014, and genetic background as well as age of birds (Amerah et al 2011). Our results failed to confirm that the selected bacterial xylanase is superior to the fungal xylanase with regard to the breakdown and solubilisation of insoluble AX fraction.…”

Effects of Different Dietary Levels of Blue Lupine (Lupinus angustifolius) Seed Meal With or Without Probiotics on the Performance, Carcass Criteria, Immune Organs, and Gut Morphology of Broiler Chickens

“…The survival rate was the number of live broilers at 35 d of age divided by the number of 1 day-old broilers. The European production efficiency index (EPEI) was calculated according to (15). After being fasted overnight, four males chickens from each treatment group, i.e., one chicken per replicate, were randomly slaughtered at 21 and 35 d of age according to the Islamic method (34,35).…”

“…The main NSP in lupine seeds is galactan that consists of different amounts of arabinose and galactose monosaccharides. NSPs impair gut ecology and reduce the digestibility of poultry diets (2, 15,16). Reduced feed intake and growth rates are noted in birds that are fed lupine-based diets (2, 7); these adverse effects were noted during the first week and lasted up until the end of the experiments.…”

The Effect of Olive Cake, with or Without Enzymes Supplementation, on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Lymphoid Organs and Lipid Metabolism of Broiler Chickens

“…The positive effect of multi-enzymes has been attributed in literature, to increasing nutrient digestibility, improving nutrient utilization, decreasing nutrient waste and limiting anti-nutritional factors (Attia et al, 2003) and improving gut ecology (Cowieson, 2010;Attia et al, 2014b).…”