Effect of Feed Restriction on Carcass Yield Characteristics and Economic Advantages of Rhode Island Red Pullets

Abstract

Carcass yield characteristics and economic advantage of skip-a-day feed restriction method at different growth stages of Rhode Island Red chicken was evaluated. Two-hundred forty day-old chicks with average body weight of 48.92±1.5 g were randomly distributed into 12 pens each with 20 chicks, representing four feeding regimen of T 1 (Unrestricted, Control), T 2 (Restricted at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days of age), T 3 (Restricted at 35, 42, 49 and 56 days of age) and T 4 (Restricted at 63, 70, 77 and 84 days of age). Feed restriction was based on skipping a-day once in a week and the next day's feed offer was based on the previous day's feed intake. The experiment lasted for 22 weeks, during which feed intake and body weight changes were monitored. At the end of the experimental period, six pullets from each treatment were randomly selected and slaughtered to evaluate carcass yield, abdominal fat and weights and lengths of different parts of gastrointestinal tract. The daily DM, CP and ME intake as well as body weight changes at different ages were non-significant (P>0.05) for birds in different treatment groups. The DM efficiency ratio also did not significantly varied (P>0.05). In contrast, the total DM intake (g) was significantly different (P<0.05) between treatments and birds under T 4 consume less. Dressed weight (g) (1335.45±21, 1273.62±23.8, 1335.78±22.8 and 1279.72±23.4); abdominal fat free carcass (g) (939.08±9.67, 891.37±19.7, 933.32±15 and 899.07±14.5); carcass with abdominal fat (g) (960.6±11.3, 924.58±19, 955.20±13 and 926.10±14.4) and breast meat weights (g) (282.72±13.7, 246.75±19.8, 290.70±13.4 and 272.92±14.2) were significantly (P<0.05) different among the treatment groups. Abdominal fat weight was also highly significant (P<0.01) between the treatments. The weight and percentage of GIT and total giblet and parts of giblets were not (P>0.05) affected except liver weight which was higher (P<0.05) for T 3. Cost of feed consumed per kg live weight gain was lower for the feed restricted birds compared to the control and it was the least for T 4. Besides, the labor cost was lower for the feed restricted groups than the unrestricted group. It is concluded that feed restriction at later days of age (T 4) is economically beneficial compared to the other early age restricted groups based on partial budget analysis. The results of this study suggested that the feed restriction at T 3 might be considered as beneficial in terms of carcass cut characteristics and T 4 on economic return.

Quantitative and qualitative feed restriction for broilers

“…These data corroborate those reported by Hassanien (2011), Tesfaye et al (2011) and Jalal and Zakaria (2012). However, both forms of feed restriction provided a low breast yield compared to broilers fed ad libitum.…”

“…Weights and yields of edible organs are similar among broilers with and without feed restriction, regardless of the restriction methodology applied. The results of this study are in agreement with Hassanien (2011), Tesfaye et al (2011), Jalal and Zakaria (2012 and Van der Klein et al (2017). It appears that the organs of the gastrointestinal tract are spared from the effects of food restriction depending on animal age and duration of the restriction period (Ferraris et al, 2001).…”

Fiber level for laying hens during the growing phase

“…The weight of the liver of laying hens increases in the periods prior to laying (Hazelwood et al, 1986) thus the higher relative liver weight may be associated with the precocity of light laying hens, since the onset of reproductive activity of the females implies an increase in the activity of this organ, due to the reason for effective synthesis of available energy to lipid for yolk formation (Tesfaye et al, 2009). The results obtained in this study agree with those obtained by Figueiredo et al (2002) e Marcato et al (2010), who found that commercial strains of broilers with higher metabolic activity showed greater relative liver weight.…”

Avaliação de diferentes propostas de restrição alimentar diurna para frangos de corte

“…Os resultados de rendimento de carcaça e dos cortes nobres mostraram que os programas de restrição alimentar não afetam os componentes da carcaça de frangos. Os resultados deste trabalho parecem indicar que a restrição alimentar de curta duração melhora o desempenho dos frangos mais pela melhoria da eficiência alimentar e menos pelo ganho compensatório, o que é diferente das restrições alimentares de longo prazo o que por ser mais severas que tendem a estimular o ganho compensatório dos frangos (Teimouri et al, 2005;Zhan et al, 2007;Tesfaye et al, 2011;Jalal & Zakaria, 2012e Bortoluzzi et al, 2013. Ocak & Sivri (2008) relataram que durante o período de realimentação os componentes da carcaça respondem mais rapidamente a realimentação do que o corpo inteiro.…”

“…Resultados semelhantes foram colhidos por Novel et al (2009) e Hassanien (2011), que não observaram diferenças significativas no peso do coração e fígado entre os grupos de frangos submetidos a restrição alimentar comparado aos frangos de alimentação ad libitum de ração. Ao contrário, Tesfaye et al (2011) e Jalal & Zakaria (2012, observaram diferenças no peso do fígado entre aves com restrição alimentar e aves do tratamento ad libitum.…”