Studies in Evaluating Energy Content of Feeds for the Chick

Pötter, Luciana; Matterson, L. D.; Arnold, Andrew; Pudelkiewicz, W. J.; Singsen, E. P.

doi:10.3382/ps.0391166

Cited by 34 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ME value was higher in the LL treatment than in the HL treatment. This finding is in agreement with that of Potter et al (1960), who stated that the energy metabolisability of diets was increased by restricting food intake. The presence of gut microflora increased the dietary ME value, previously reported (Furuse and Yokota, I984a,b;1985).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Influence of energy intake on growth and utilisation of dietary protein and energy in germ‐free and conventional chicks

Furuse

Yokota

Tasaki

1985

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of metabolisable energy (ME) intake on the growth and utilisation of dietary protein and energy in germ-free (GF) and conventional (CV) chicks was investigated in two experiments. In experiment 1 a high energy diet (HED, 14.8 kJ ME/g) and a marginally-adequate energy diet (AED, 11.7 kJ ME/g) were fed to the GF and CV chicks at 240 g/2 birds/10 d. In experiment 2 a diet with 13.7 kJ ME/g was fed at 118 g (low level, LL) or 128 g (high level, HL)/bird/10 d. Body weight gain, protein retention and protein retention rate were similar in GF and CV chicks on both AED and HED in the first experiment, but in the second were higher in GF than in CV chicks. The increased ME intake of the CV chicks in experiment 2 may be too small to compensate for the increased requirement. ME intake was significantly higher in the CV chicks than in the GF chicks, whereas energy retention was similar in both groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Influence of energy intake on growth and utilisation of dietary protein and energy in germ‐free and conventional chicks

Furuse

Yokota

Tasaki

1985

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Morris et al 1932;Panda and Combs 1950;Scott et al 1954;Mraz et al 1956; Richardson et al 1958). A small negative AME value was obtained for cellulose by Potter et al (1960), Anderson and Hill (1955) obtained a value of zero, and small positive values were obtained by Anderson et al (1958) and Sibbald et al (1960bSibbald et al ( , 1961b. Kaolin appeared to have a positive AME value independant of the level of dietary inclusion (Sibbald et al 1961b).…”

Section: Assay Environmentmentioning

confidence: 88%

Measurement of Bioavailable Energy in Poultry Feedingstuffs: A Review

Sibbald¹

1982

Can. J. Anim. Sci.

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of knowing the bioavailable energy (BE) content of poultry feedingstuffs is discussed in terms of economics, feed intake and the environment. The partition of ingested dietary energy is described and the effects of nutrient intake and of the microflora of the alimentary canal are outlined. Indirect biological, physical and chemical assays for BE are described and appraised. Procedures common to several direct bioassays for BE are discussed and points to consider in choosing between total excreta collection and the use of an indicator are presented. Assays for digestible energy, apparent metabolizable energy, true metabolizable energy and net energy are described. Variables affecting estimates of BE such as bird type, assay environment, assay diet and intake, assay design, the nitrogen correction, and metabolic plus endogenous losses are considered and a bioassay is recommended. The review concludes with brief speculation about future developments in the field of feedingstuff evaluation. Key words: Review, Energy, Assays, Methodology, Bioavailable

show abstract

“…Hill and Anderson (1958) for example, reduced food consumption of chicks to as little as 0-30 of ad libitum and found no effect on AME values, whereas Potter et al (1960) reported that a similarly severe restriction resulted in a slight improvement of AME n , perhaps attributable to the increased digestibility often associated with lower intakes. Although Sibbald (1975;1982) has quoted these previous results and drawn attention to the discrepancies between them and the hypothesis of Guillaume and Summers (1970) which he apparently confirmed by his own investigations (TME bioassay: Sibbald, 1975;1976) he has failed to explain these important contradictions.…”

Section: From: H Hartelmentioning

confidence: 91%

Reply to Sibbald and Wolynetz

Hartel

1987

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies in Evaluating Energy Content of Feeds for the Chick

Cited by 34 publications

References 7 publications

Influence of energy intake on growth and utilisation of dietary protein and energy in germ‐free and conventional chicks

Influence of energy intake on growth and utilisation of dietary protein and energy in germ‐free and conventional chicks

Measurement of Bioavailable Energy in Poultry Feedingstuffs: A Review

Reply to Sibbald and Wolynetz

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About