The present study investigated the effects of supplementing a low protein (
LP
) diet supplemented with key essential amino acids (
AA
) to broilers on growth performance, intestinal tract function, blood metabolites, and nitrogen excretion when the animals were maintained under various sanitary conditions for 35 D after hatching. Three hundred eighty-four one-day-old male broilers (Ross 308) were randomly allotted to groups that received one of 6 dietary treatments in a 2 × 3 factorial arrangement (i.e., 2 environmental conditions and 3 dietary treatments) to give 8 replicates per treatment. Broilers were challenged with 2 environmental conditions (sanitary vs. poor sanitary). The dietary treatments were (1) high protein (
HP
) diet, (2) LP diet, and (3) LP diet with synthetic key essential AA (
LPA
): the LP diet was supplemented with synthetic AA up to the required levels for broilers. On day 14, birds consumed the LP diet impaired growth performance compared with those fed the HP diet, while the average daily weight gain-to-feed conversion ratio of birds fed the LPA diet improved to the level of birds fed the HP diet under poor sanitary conditions (
P
< 0.05). Broilers raised under poor sanitary conditions and fed the LP diet displayed higher (
P
< 0.05) zonula occludens (ZO-1) expression on day 14 than broilers fed either the HP or LPA diet. Under sanitary conditions, birds fed HP and LPA diets showed higher villus height and crypt depth compared with those of broilers fed the LP diet on day 35. Moreover, broilers raised in the poor sanitary environment had higher (
P
< 0.05) serum endotoxins than those raised in the sanitary environment. Broilers fed the LPA diet showed reduced (
P
< 0.05) nitrogen excretion on days 14 and 35 compared with those fed the LP and HP diets independent of the environment. In conclusion, the LPA diet did not impair growth performance under poor sanitary conditions for 14 D after hatch while resulting in lower nitrogen excretion in any environment conditions throughout the experiment.
ObjectiveThis study was conducted to evaluate the effects of dietary cashew nut testa (CNT) as an alternative feed ingredient to wheat bran on reproductive performance, litter performance, milk composition, and blood profiles of gestating sows.MethodsForth multiparous sows (Yorkshire×Landrace) were fed experimental diets starting at 35 days of pregnancy and an initial average body weight (BW) of 211.53±8.86 kg. Each sow was assigned to a treatment based on BW, backfat thickness (BF) and parity with 10 sows per treatment. Treatments were as follows: i) corn-soybean meal based diet with 6% of wheat bran (C0); ii) basal diet with 2% of CNT and 4% of wheat bran (C2); iii) basal diet with 4% of CNT and 2% of wheat bran (C4); and iv) basal diet with 6% of CNT (C6).ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in BW and BF of gestating sows throughout the experimental period. However, changes in BF (p = 0.09) and the daily feed intake of sows (p = 0.09) tended to linearly increase during the lactation period. The weaning to estrus interval (WEI) showed a quadratic response to CNT treatment (p = 0.02), and the C2 diet showed the shortest WEI. Litter birth weight (p = 0.04) and piglet birth weight (p = 0.06) were linearly decreased with increase in CNT. Furthermore, there had no significant differences in piglet weight and litter weight in 21 day. Insulin concentration at day 70 of gestation was linearly reduced with increasing CNT level in diets (p = 0.03).ConclusionWhen 6% CNT replaced wheat bran in gestating sow diets, there were no negative effects on sow performance, but litter birth weight and piglet birth weight were decreased when CNT level increased in gestating sow diets.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.