Metabolic and Anatomic Adaptations in Chickens “Trained” to Eat Their Daily Food in Two Hours

Lepkovsky, Samuel; Chari-Bitron, A.; Lemmon, Richard M.; Ostwald, Rosemarie; Dimick, M. K.

doi:10.3382/ps.0390385

Cited by 45 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meal-feeding was also associated with increased length and reduced weight per length-unit (g/cm) of the small intestine. A thinner intestine conforms to the suggestion of Lepkovsky et al (1960) who proposed that meal-feeding increases the flexibility of the intestinal wall, thereby enabling excessive amounts of chyme to be accommodated and increasing the rate of absorption.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Adaptation of light‐bodied chicks to meal feeding: Gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic enzymes

Barash

Nitsan

Nir

1993

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Two-week old male chicks of a light-bodied strain were either fed ad libitum or given one (1M) or two (2M) 2-h meals per day. A fourth group was pair-fed (P1M) the amount of food which had been consumed by the 1M group on the preceding day. 2. Compared with ad libitum-fed counterparts, a marked increase in the relative weight of the storage organs (crop and gizzard) was observed in the meal-fed birds. The relative weight of the intestine was not affected by meal feeding but the ileal wall became thinner. 3. After food deprivation for 14 or 22 h, respectively, for the ad libitum and the meal-fed chicks, the weights of contents in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) segments did not differ between treatments except for those of the gizzard and caecum. Food restoration resulted in an increase in the contents of the GIT of meal-fed chicks. The increments in the crop and gizzard contents were related to the severity of food restriction. The contents of the intestinal segments were quite similar in all treatments. 4. The activities of the digestive enzymes in the pancreas, expressed as units/g pancreas or units/kg body weight, were not significantly affected by feeding regime. In the small intestine of the meal-fed birds, marked increases in specific (units/g content) and relative (units/kg body weight) activities were observed of amylase and chymotrypsin when compared with their ad libitum-fed counterparts. The effect of meal feeding on trypsin activities was less pronounced.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Adaptation of light‐bodied chicks to meal feeding: Gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic enzymes

Barash

Nitsan

Nir

1993

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lee et al (1971) have pointed out that imposing feed restriction on growing pullets by limiting the time of access to food is an unsatisfactory restriction technique since the birds will quickly learn to eat normal quantities of food in a short time period. The results of Lepkovsky et al (1960) indicated that young cockerels could be trained to eat their daily requirements in 2 hr. However, 1 4-6 week training period was necessary.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Timing and Duration of Restricted Feeding on Compensatory Growth in Broilers

Washburn

Bondari

1978

Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of timing (from 3-8 weeks of age) and duration (3-5 weeks) of restricted feeding on compensatory growth of broilers were studied using alternating periods of 24 hr feeding and 24 hr non-feeding. Feed consumption, gain, and feed conversion were determined weekly on an individual basis from 3-8 weeks of age. The method of restricting feed access restricted consumption to approximately 85% of non-restricted controls when imposed for one, two, or three weeks duration, but restriction for four or five weeks was less effective in restricting consumption. Body weight gains during the period of restriction were generally decreased in proportion to that of feed consumption so that feed conversion ratios were similar to controls.The effects of restricted feeding on consumption, gain, and conversion for the 3-8 week period were in general not different for the various timing of restriction subgroups. Very little evidence of compensatory growth for the period following the removal of feed restriction was observed. The eight-week body weights of males were significantly reduced from that of control levels with as little as one week of restriction. The body weights of females were not as severely affected during the period of restriction or at eight weeks. Although feed consumption for the 3-8 week period was reduced as much as 10%, the feed conversion ratio was higher for all restricted groups than for controls. These results indicate that if feed consumption of broilers is significantly depressed for as little as one week at any time over the 3-8 week age period, weight gain will be significantly depressed with a significant decrease in efficiency of feed utilization and lower final body weights.

show abstract

“…According to Williams et al (1997) and Ferket (2000), the coarse nature of whole wheat probably enhances the development of the gizzard, allowing improved grinding, gut motility and nutrient utilisation. Moreover, it has been shown that chickens trained to eat rapidly had larger amounts of feed in the crops than untrained chicks, which probably reflects the higher capacity of the crop in trained chickens (Lepkovsky et al, 1960). In the present experiment, the content of supplementary feed was significantly higher in crops from wheat-fed hens, but because of different retention times in the crops for wheat and layer feed (Heuser, 1945) the contents of these feed items do not reflect the differences in feed intake as indicated by Table 4 and Figure 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole wheat versus mixed layer diet as supplementary feed to layers foraging a sequence of different forage crops

Horsted

Hermansen

2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many cases health and welfare problems are observed in organic egg production systems, as are high environmental risks related to nutrient leaching. These disadvantages might be reduced if the layers are allowed to utilise their ability to forage to a higher degree thereby reducing the import of nutrients into the system and stimulating the hens to perform a natural behaviour. However, very little is known about the ability of modern high-producing layers to take advantage of foraging to cover their nutritional needs, and the aim of the present work was to clarify this subject. Six flocks, each of 26 hens and one cock, were moved regularly in a rotation between different forage crops for a period of 130 days. Half of the flocks were fed typical layer feed for organic layers and half were fed whole wheat. The forage crops consisted of grass/clover, pea/vetch/oats, lupin and quinoa. At the beginning of the experiment, wheat-fed hens had a lower intake of supplementary feed (wheat) and a lower laying rate, egg weight and body weight. However, after a period of 6 to 7 weeks, the intake of wheat increased to approximately 100 g per hen per day and the laying rate increased to the same level as for the hens fed layer feed. For both groups of hens egg weight and body weight increased during the remaining part of the experiment. Crop analysis revealed different food preferences for hens fed layer feed and wheat-fed hens. Wheat-fed hens ate less of the cultivated seeds, whereas the amounts of plant material, oyster shells, insoluble grit stone and soil were larger in the crops from wheat-fed hens. Floor eggs were significantly more frequent in the hens fed layer feed, whereas wheat-fed hens only rarely laid floor eggs. Irrespective of treatment, hens were found to have excellent health and welfare. We conclude that nutrient-restricted, high-producing organic layers are capable of finding and utilising considerable amounts of different feed items from a cultivated foraging area without negative effects on their health and welfare.

show abstract

Metabolic and Anatomic Adaptations in Chickens “Trained” to Eat Their Daily Food in Two Hours

Abstract: EXPERIMENTALMale chicks weighing 600 to 800 grams were trained to eat their daily food intake in two hours. They were trained for periods 385 at NERL on June 9, 2015

Cited by 45 publications

References 6 publications

Adaptation of light‐bodied chicks to meal feeding: Gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic enzymes

Adaptation of light‐bodied chicks to meal feeding: Gastrointestinal tract and pancreatic enzymes

Effects of Timing and Duration of Restricted Feeding on Compensatory Growth in Broilers

Whole wheat versus mixed layer diet as supplementary feed to layers foraging a sequence of different forage crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About