The response of slow-growing chicks to the supplementations with different methionine levels and/or two types of enzymes

Abstract

In order to study productive performance and meat quality of slow-growing chicks used for rural poultry production in relation to methionine and enzyme supplementations, basal diets were formulated to contain 0.32, 0.29 and 0.27% methionine levels from 1 to 42 d of age, 43 to 84 d of age, and 85 to 98 d of age, respectively. These diets were supplemented with 0, 0.06 and 0.12% of DL-methionine; thus, there were three methionine levels during each period. These levels were fed with or without 750 FTY of phytase-6 or one g/kg of multienzymes; thus there were three methionine levels by three enzyme treatments in factorial design. Methionine levels of 0.44, 0.41 and 0.33% significantly increased productive performance from 1 to 42, 43 to 84 and 85 to 98 d of age, respectively. Phytase supplemented-basal diet and diet supplemented with 0.06% methionine and phytase yield similar productive performance to those of chicks fed diet supplemented with 0.06% and 0.12% methionine, respectively. Phytase improved significantly nutrient digestibilities, percentage dressed carcass and chest parts compared to the control and multienzymes groups. Increasing methionine levels by 0.06 and 0.12% improved significantly percentage dressed carcass, chest and hind parts by 2.2 and 2.7, 1.4% and 2.8 and 3.1 and 2.5%, respectively. However, the methionine level and/or type of enzyme supplementations did not significantly affect metabolic profiles such as plasma total protein, albumen, globulin, total lipids and cholesterol.

Comparison of performance and carcass composition of a novel slow-growing crossbred broiler with fast-growing broiler for chicken meat in Australia

“…Research suggests slow-growing broilers may be better suited to free-range and pasture poultry systems than their fast-growing counterparts ( Rack et al., 2009 ). Some studies found slow-growing broilers to have better meat quality, and lower nutrient requirements and cost of rearing ( Attia et al., 2007 , 2009 , 2011 , 2017 ). To date, Australia has not conducted research into developing any specific slow-growing broiler breed.…”

The Influence of Probiotic and Enzyme Mixture Containing Phytase on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality and Plasma Biochemical Constituents of Broiler Chicks Fed Different Plant Protein Sources

“…There was no significant difference between enzymes supplemented diets or probiotics supplemented ones when comparison was made within or over different tested sources. The increase in dry matter digestibility could enhance ME value of the diet, and increase ME availability for growth (Jeroch et al, 1995;Cowan et al, 1996;Zanella et al1999, Ghazalah et al, 2005and Attia et al 2007. However, Rebolé et al (1999) reported that enzyme addition to broiler diets containing 15% sunflower meal did not significantly improved digestibility of protein/amino acid, fat/fatty acids and ME.…”

“…Protein conversion ratio was calculated by dividing protein intake by body weight gain. Coefficient of apparent digestibility of nutrients of the total gut was calculated according to Attia et al (2007) using three replicates of one male each/ treatment. At 49 wk of age, 3 chicks were taken randomly from each treatment, and slaughtered; the remaining carcass after bleeding, was plucked and eviscerated then weighed (dressed weight) and divided into chest and hind parts and weighed.…”

The Effect of Probiotic and Enzyme Mixture Containing Phytase on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Meat Quality and Biochemical Constituents of Plasma of Broiler Chicks Fed Different Protein Levels

“…The probiotics supplemented group was also efficiently (p≥0.05) better than the enzyme cocktail containing phytase. The improved performance of enzymes supplemented group could be attributed to better digestibility of nutrients, limit antinutritional factors, better gut health and immune response (Jeroch et al, 1995;Zanella et al, 1999;Kocher et al, 2002;Saleh et al, 2003;Yonemochi et al, 2003;Choct, 2006;Selle et al, 2006;Attia et al, 2007;. On the other hand, the effect of probiotics could be explained by the effect of probiotics on gut health and elimination of the harmful substances including the indetectable level of mycotoxicns due to its contents of Bacillus subtillis fermentation extract, Brewers yeast extract, lactic acid, citric acid, calcium propionate, sodium aluminosilicate and DLmethionine.…”

“…Protein conversion ratio was calculated by dividing protein intake by body weight gain for the whole experimental period. Coefficient of apparent digestibility of nutrients of the total gut was calculated according to Attia et al (2007) using three replicates of one male each/ treatment. At 7 wk of age, 3 chicks were taken randomly from each treatment, and slaughtered; the remaining carcass after bleed, plucked and eviscerated was weighed (dressed weight) and divided into front and hind parts and weighed.…”