Measurement of Bioavailable Energy in Poultry Feedingstuffs: A Review

Sibbald, I. R.

doi:10.4141/cjas82-123

Cited by 113 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite considerable efforts to develop prediction models, Sibbald (1982) reported that not all attempts to relate chemical composition and energy were successful when tested with independent data, which confirms the results obtained in the present study, as a small number of prediction equations was satisfactory to predict the values of ME of SBM for pigs when using joint independent data. -Indicates acceptance of the null hypothesis (H 0 : β 1 = 1) to models ME 4 , ME 8 , ME 9 e ME 10.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Validating prediction equations of metabolizable energy of soybean meal for growing pigs

Pasquetti

Pozza

Oliveira

et al. 2015

SCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate equations to predict the metabolizable energy (ME) of soybean meal (SBM) for swine. Seven SBM were used, which were analyzed for dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), ash, calcium, phosphorus, solubility in potassium hydroxide (KOH) and urease index. To determine the ME of SBM, 32 barrows, with an average initial weight of 29.01 ± 3.64 kg, were used and distributed in a randomized blocks design, with seven treatments and four replicates. To validate the prediction equations, linear regression models were adjusted, using observed values of ME (metabolism trial) as a function of the estimated ME (obtained by applying the chemical composition of the SBM in selected equations found in the literature). The existence of regression was evaluated by the "t" test, partially applied to each parameter (β 0 and β 1 ). The validation of the prediction models of first degree was obtained by accepting the joint null hypothesis β 0 = 0 and β 1 = 1. The equations ME = 5.42 -17.2FDN -19.4MM + 0.709GE and ME= 1099 + 0.740GE -5.5MM -3.7NDF are effective for estimating the ME of SBM for growing pigs. Key words: Chemical composition, linear regression, validation ResumoObjetivou-se com este trabalho avaliar equações para predizer a energia metabolizável (EM) do farelo de soja (FS) para suínos. Foram utilizados sete FS, os quais foram submetidos às análises de matéria seca, proteína bruta, extrato etéreo, fibra em detergente neutro, fibra em detergente ácido, matéria mineral, cálcio, fósforo, solubilidade em hidróxido de potássio (KOH) e índice de urease. Para determinar a EM dos FS foram utilizados 32 suínos, machos castrados, com peso médio inicial de 29,01 ± 3,64 kg. O delineamento experimental foi o de blocos ao acaso com sete tratamentos e uma ração referência, sendo utilizadas quatro repetições. Ajustaram-se os modelos de regressão linear utilizando-se valores de EM observados (ensaio de metabolismo) em função da EM estimada (obtidas pela aplicação da composição química dos FS em equações selecionadas na literatura). A existência da regressão foi avaliada pelo teste t parcial aplicado a cada parâmetro (β0 e β1). A validação da predição dos modelos de 1º grau foi obtida pela aceitação da hipótese de nulidade conjunta β0= 0 e β1= 1. As equações EM= 5,42 -17,2FDN -19,4MM + 0,709EB e EM= 1099 + 0,740EB -5,5MM -3,7FDN são efetivas em estimar a EM do FS para suínos. Palavras-chave: Composição química, regressão linear, validação

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Validating prediction equations of metabolizable energy of soybean meal for growing pigs

Pasquetti

Pozza

Oliveira

et al. 2015

SCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results were different from those of Bonnet et al (1997) and Wallis & Balnave (1984), who, in studies with broilers in heat environments, showed a consistent decrease in protein and amino acid digestibilities in complete diets. Sibbald (1982) observed that the results of many studies associating digestibility with heat stress are not conclusive.…”

Section: Diet Had No Influence On Carcass Yieldmentioning

confidence: 80%

Effects of the reduction of dietary heat increment on the performance, carcass yield, and diet digestibility of broilers submitted to heat stress

Laganá¹,

Ribeiro

Kessler

et al. 2007

Rev. Bras. Cienc. Avic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment aimed at verifying the effect of different diets and thermal environments on the performance, carcass yield, and diet digestibility of 21 to 42-day-old broilers. A total number of 288 21-day-old male Ross broilers were distributed in a 2 x 2 + 2 factorial arrangement, with six replicates, including the following factors: two environments (TNE - thermoneutral: 21-25ºC and 73% RH; CHS - cyclic heat stress: 25-32ºC and 65%RH), and two diets (control: 2.4% soybean oil and 19.5% protein; summer: 4.0% soybean oil and 18.5% protein). In TNE, two additional treatments were included with feed restriction of birds fed both the control and summer diets (pair-feeding), thereby maintaining the same feed intake level for both types of diet. Diet did not influence performance, dry matter and protein digestibilities, or carcass and part yields. TNE birds had better performance (p<0.001) as compared to CHS birds, but FCR was not different. CHS birds had lower breast yield (p<0.0001), and higher thigh yield (p<0.02) than TNE birds. In the pair-feeding treatments, environment did not influence performance, but dry matter digestibility was significantly lower in CHS (p<0.03), whereas protein digestibility was not affected. The difference in feed intake was the main responsible factor for the variation in the performance of heat-stressed birds

show abstract

“…A energia é fundamental para aves e um componente importante em todos os alimentos, portanto, o controle da produtividade, a eficiência e a rentabilidade exige conhecimento mais detalhado das exigências e dos valores energéticos de cada alimento (Sibbald, 1982). Segundo Freitas et al (2006), na formulação de rações, a principal preocupação é fornecer energia em quantidade adequada para as aves.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Coeficientes de metabolizabilidade da energia bruta de diferentes ingredientes para frangos de corte

Nunes¹,

Rostagno²,

Gomes³

et al. 2008

R. Bras. Zootec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -Com o objetivo de determinar os valores de energia metabolizável aparente (EMA), aparente corrigida (EMA n ), verdadeira (EMV) e verdadeira corrigida (EMV n ) de oito ingredientes e seus respectivos coeficientes de metabolizabilidade, foram utilizados 300 frangos de corte machos Ross, com 21 dias de idade, distribuídos em oito tratamentos (alimentos) e uma ração-referência, em três blocos com duas repetições por bloco e cinco aves por unidade experimental. Os alimentos avaliados foram: duas amostras de grão de trigo (TI), duas de farelo de trigo (FT), duas de grão de milho (MI), uma de grão de sorgo (SO) e uma de farelo de glúten de milho 21% (21% FGM), as quais substituíram 30% da ração-referência. Coefficient of metabolizability of gross energy of different ingredients for broiler chickensABSTRACT -With the objective of determine the apparent metabolizable energy (AME), corrected apparent (AME n ), true metabolizable energy (TME) and corrected true (TME n ) values of eight feedstuffs and their respective coefficient of metabolizability, 300 male broiler chickens, Ross, averaging 21 days old, were assigned to eight treatment (feeds) and one reference diet, in three blocks with two replications per block and five birds per experimental unit. The feedstuffs studied were:two sample of wheat grain (WG), two wheat bran (WB), two corn grain (CG), one of sorghum grain (SG) and one of corn gluten feed 21% (21% CGF), which replaced 30% of the reference diet. The birds were ad libitum fed per 12 days, where the last five days were used for the excreta collection. During the five days of collection, 30 birds allotted to six cages were fasted for 72 hours (the initial 24 hours for the emptying of the gastrointestinal tract) and the remaining 48 hours, for excreta collection, which was quantified and extrapolated for five days. The AME and AME n in kcal/kg DM, were in average of 3.391 and 3.275for WG, of 2.076 and 1.996 for WB, of 3.862 and 3.768 for CG, of 3.551 and 3.464 for SG and of 1.992 and 1.901 for 21%CGF. To TME and TME n in kcal/kg DM, were in average of 3.495 and 3.496 for WG, of 2.195 and 2.146 for WB, of 3.981 and 4.040 for CG, of 3.652 and 3.680 for SG and of 2.117 and 1.961 for 21% CGF. The coefficient of metabolizability for gross energy were in average of 68,94%.Key Words: apparent metabolizable energy, coefficient of metabolizability, true metabolizable energy IntroduçãoA avicultura é uma atividade dinâmica que fornece proteínas de origem animal de alta qualidade para consumo humano. Atualmente, o Brasil se mantém em ótima posição no ranking mundial de produção avícola, conquistada com a adoção de tecnologias modernas ao longo das últimas décadas.

show abstract

Measurement of Bioavailable Energy in Poultry Feedingstuffs: A Review

Cited by 113 publications

References 82 publications

Validating prediction equations of metabolizable energy of soybean meal for growing pigs

Validating prediction equations of metabolizable energy of soybean meal for growing pigs

Effects of the reduction of dietary heat increment on the performance, carcass yield, and diet digestibility of broilers submitted to heat stress

Coeficientes de metabolizabilidade da energia bruta de diferentes ingredientes para frangos de corte

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About