Effects of Replacing Corn with Rice or Brown Rice on Laying Performance, Egg Quality, and Apparent Fecal Digestibility of Nutrient in Hy-Line Brown Laying Hens

Abstract

This study aimed of effects of replacing maize with rice or brown rice on laying performance, egg quality, and apparent fecal digestibility of nutrient in Hy-Line Brown laying hens. A total of 200, 25-week old Hy-Line Brown laying hens were randomly assigned to one of 5 treatments, each of which was replicated 4 times. Four experimental diets that were formulated two different grains (brown rice or rice) with two inclusion levels of (15 and 30%) as a replacement of maize. The experimental period was 8 weeks. During the experiment, hens were provided with feed and water ad libitum and were exposed to a 16:8=L:D lighting schedule. There were no differences in feed intake, egg weight, and egg mass during the 8 weeks of the feeding trial among groups. However, hen-day egg production was greater (P<0.05) for Brown rice treatment groups than that for basal and rice treatment groups. In addition, the supplementation of brown rice or rice did not have an effect on eggshell strength, eggshell thickness, and HU during of the feeding trial (Table 4). However, egg yolk color was less (P<0.05) for basal treatment groups than that for among treatment group. ATTD of dry matter (DM) and crude fat were greater (P<0.05) for brown rice 15 treatment than for rice 30 treatment. Crude protein (CP) was greater (P<0.05) for brown rice 15 treatment than for basal treatment. In conclusion, brown rice or rice grains is a good alternative energy feedstuff and can be used in laying hens, totally replacing maize, without any negative effect on the laying performance, egg quality, and nutrient digestibility.

Evaluation of energy and amino acids of brown rice and its effects on laying performance and egg quality of layers

“…In Exp. 1, the GE content was in agreement with the values (3,831 and 3,800 kcal/kg on an as-fed basis) reported by Asyifah et al [4] but was much greater than the value (3,248 kcal/kg on an as-fed basis) reported by Kim et al [12]. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear.…”