Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Abstract

Short-term feed preferences were studied in individually caged chickens fed sequentially in order to understand a previously described imbalance in the intake of diets offered. Sequential feeding (SF) was carried out for four 48 h cycles in male broiler chickens. The diets varied in energy (2800 (E2) and 3200 kcal/kg (E1)) and protein (230 (P1) and 150 g/kg (P2)) contents. SF was compared to standard feeding (C) (3000 kcal/kg ME and CP 5 190 g/kg). In experiment 1, three treatments were used: C, S E (E2 followed by E1) and S E 0 (E1 followed by E2). Four treatments were used in experiment 2: C, S P (P1 followed by P2), S E and S EP (P1E2 followed by P2E1). Total feed intake was measured during the SF period. After this, short-term preferences were evaluated with a choice test on chickens previously fed with the same feeds during the SF period (experienced birds) and in C chickens (naïve birds). In both experiments, total feed intake was similar among treatments and the percentage of each feed consumed was not significantly different from controls (50%). In experiment 1, S E and S E 0 chickens over-consumed E1 and under-consumed E2 diets only during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle. The choice test indicated that experienced chickens preferred E1, while naïve chickens preferred E2. Similarly, in experiment 2, chickens over-consumed E1 and E1P2 during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle, but the intake of diets varying in protein content was not different from controls. During the choice test, as in experiment 1, experienced chickens preferred E1, while naïve chickens preferred E2. There was a slight preference for the protein-poor diet in naïve birds and there was no preference in the diet varying in both protein and energy contents. Experience modified choice between feeds varying in energy content but not in protein. When feeds were known, preference for energy affected the feed intake immediately after switching from one diet to the other, although lower with the diet also varying in protein, it did not influence the total intake of each diet. Interactions between the nutritional properties and sensorial cues of feed could explain these results.

Emotionality Modulates the Effect of Chronic Stress on Feeding Behaviour in Birds

“…As mentioned into brackets, they differed in their energetic content whereas they were iso-proteic (Crude Protein = 190 g/kg) and contained the same amount of lysine (10.7 g/kg) which is known to largely influence feeding behaviour in birds [32], [33]. The composition of the diets was established according to Bouvarel et al [34]; it aimed at providing a highly palatable diet to the birds (the hypercaloric diet) and an energetic contrast between the hyper- and hypocaloric diets. The hypercaloric diet was considered as a comfort food ( i.e.…”

The influence of choice feeding and cereal type (corn or triticale) during the finishing period on performance of mule ducks

“…The value of whole seed has previously been demonstrated in poultry production (Noirot et al, 1998). Three ways to use whole seed are described: 1) sequential feeding in which the whole cereal and the protein-rich complement are given in the same feeder but at different times of the day (Bouvarel et al, 2008;Umar Faruk et al, 2010); 2) loose mixture in which the whole cereal and the protein-rich complement are mixed in the same feeder (yo et al, 1998) and provided at the same time, and 3) choice feeding in which the whole cereal and the protein-rich complement (pelleted or as whole grains) are given in 2 separate feeders at the same time (Pousga et al, 2005;Özek et al, 2012).…”

Influence of feeding sorghum on the growth, gizzard development and carcass traits of growing geese

“…Whole grains can be used in three ways: (i) 'choice feeding', in which the whole cereal and the protein-rich complement (pelleted or as whole grains) are given in two separate feeders (Pousga et al, 2005); (ii) 'sequential' feeding, in which the whole cereal and the protein-rich complement are given in the same feeder but at different times of day (Bouvarel et al, 2008;Umar Faruk et al, 2010); and (iii) as a 'loose mixture', in which the whole cereal and the proteinrich complement are mixed in the same feeder (Yo et al, 1997). The loose mixture is a solution easier to implement (Forbes and Covasa, 1995).…”