Page 10 - National Poultry Newspaper

Ingredient
Starter diet (1-14 d) Grower diet (15-35 d)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T1 T2 T3 T4
It’s the exact same thing... only different
Corn 55.91 55.96
55.91 55.96 33.65 33.65 3.04 3.08 3.00 3.00 1.876 1.876 0.840 0.840 0.294 0.294 0.215 0.212
0.350 0.264 0.290 0.290 0.135 0.132 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.050 0.050
2950 2950 21.22 21.17 6.44 6.48 3.54 3.54 0.92 0.92 0.44 0.44 1.24 1.24 0.60 0.53 0.91 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.23 0.23 1.28 1.28
57.90 57.96 28.17 28.16 4.98 5.01 5.00 5.00 1.66 1.66 0.94 0.94 0.250 0.252 0.248 0.247 0.260 0.179
0.186 0.186 0.080 0.080 0.026 0.026 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.050 0.050
3050 3050 18.87 18.82 8.55 8.59 3.46 3.46 0.89 0.89 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.03 0.50 0.42 0.77 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.20 0.20 1.14 1.14
57.90 57.96 28.17 28.16 4.98 5.01 5.00 5.00 1.66 1.66 0.94 0.94 0.250 0.252 0.248 0.247
0.260 0.179 0.186 0.186 0.080 0.080 0.026 0.026 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.050 0.050
3050 3050 18.87 18.82 8.55 8.59 3.46 3.46 0.89 0.89 0.40 0.40 1.03 1.03 0.50 0.42 0.77 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.20 0.20 1.14 1.14
SBM 48% Palm oil Wheat bran DCP
Ca Carbonate
Soda bicarb
Salt
DL-Met
L-Met
L-Lysine HCl
L-Threonine
Valine
Vitamin mix
Mineral mix
Choline Chloride
Calculated nutrient composition
ME (Kcal/Kg) CP (%)
EE (%)
Fiber (%) Calcium (%) Avail. P (%) Dig. Lysine (%) Dig. Met (%) Dig. M+C (%) Dig. Thr (%) Dig. Trp (%)
Dig. Arg (%)
2950 2950 21.22 21.17 6.44 6.48 3.54 3.54 0.92 0.92 0.44 0.44 1.24 1.24 0.60 0.53 0.91 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.23 0.23
1.28 1.28
33.65 33.65 3.04 3.08 3.00 3.00
METHIONINE is an es- sential amino acid as it is not naturally synthesised by the animal, and there- fore must be consumed in the diet.
Over the past five dec- ades, drastic improve- ments have been made in relation to amino acids for optimal lean deposition and feed efficiency, and Met has been found to play a pivotal role in this process.
There are different commercial Met sources available in the animal feed industry, namely DL- methionine, methionine hydroxy analogue and recently L-methionine has been made available, with higher bioavailabil- ity claims compared to DL -Met.
Earlier studies of Baker (1994; 2006) have repeat- edly found 100 percent bioefficacy for both DL- Met and L-Met in broil- ers.
Recent research studies also confirmed the claims of previous reports.
Physiological studies with broilers showed no evidence of a difference in metabolic footprint of L- Met compared to DL-Met.
However, L-Met manu- facturers continue to claim improved relative bioavailability and intro- duced L-Met Pro (L-Met 90 percent) to replace DL-
Met at a 1:1 ratio.
With this background,
two studies were conduct- ed in Malaysia and India respectively with the fol- lowing objectives:
• Evaluate the compara- tive efficacy of DL-Met and L-Met as a source of supplemental methio- nine in diets on growth performance and carcass traits of commercial broil- er chickens.
• Examine the effects of replacing supplemental DL-Met and L-Met at 100, 95 and 90 percent levels on broiler performance. Feeding trials – trial one
This study was done in collaboration with Uni- versity Putra Malaysia.
A total of 560 day-old male Cobb 500 broiler chicks were randomly distributed into four treat- ment groups with seven replicates per treatment and 20 chicks per rep- licate in an open-sided poultry house.
DL-Met and L-Met as supplemental Met source and dietary methionine plus cysteine require- ments of 100 percent and 90 percent (2x2 factorial arrangement) formed the four treatment groups.
Corn-soy-based basal diets were formulated to meet the ideal amino acid recommendations accord- ing to AMINOChick 2.0 (Table 1).
Based on the industry standards, the levels of di- gestible lysine and M+C in starter phase (0-14 d) was maintained at 1.24 and 0.91 percent respec- tively and the same for grower phase (15-35 d) was 1.03 and 0.77 percent respectively.
Performance and car- cass parameters data were analysed using the ran- domised complete design following GLM procedure of SAS (1996), with each pen being the experimen- tal unit.
The means of the treat- ments were analysed in a 2x2 factorial design and compared by Duncan’s multiple range test for any significant difference (P<0.05)
Trial two
This feeding trial was steered at the research fa- cility of Agrivet Consul- tancy Pvt Ltd, India.
Straight run flock of 720 Vencobb 400Y broiler chickens were randomly distributed into six treat- ment groups.
The treatment groups
included DL-Met and L- Met as supplemental Met source, with each source supplemented at 100 per- cent, 95 percent and 90 percent levels.
Distribution of the chicks among the treat- ments and between the pens was done following a completely randomised design.
Each treatment group consisted of 12 replicate pens with 10 chicks per replicate.
The chicks were raised on deep litter composed of sawdust and paddy straw.
Birds were fed with starter (1-21 d) and grower (22-42 d) mash diets.
Ingredient and nutrient composition of the experi- mental diets are presented in Table 2.
All diets were formulat- ed following the ideal pro- tein ratio using standard- ised ileal digestible A A requirement of the birds.
Accordingly, digestible Lys content was main- tained at 1.22 and 1.0 in the starter and grower di- ets, whereas the rest of the A A were fixed using the Evonik SID ratio in cor- responding diets.
Metabolisable energy values were maintained at 3000 and 3150kcal/kg in the starter and grower diets respectively.
Results – trial one
Growth performance and carcass parameters of broiler chickens are pre- sented in Table 3.
Body weight gain and feed conversion ratio were not significantly different between the treatments.
However, there was a strong tendency (P=0.08) towards higher FCR when the M+C levels were 90 percent of the recommen- dation, irrespective of the Met source.
There was no signifi- cant difference among the treatments on carcass weight, dressing percent- age and breast yield (per- centage), irrespective of the source and levels of Met.
The similar perform- ance observed with DL- Met and L-Met could be partially explained by the comparable intestinal up- take or the transport ki- netics for D and L isomers of Met (Zheng et al, 1994).
Similarly, at the tissue level, the capacity of the enzymes oxidase and transaminase to convert
☛ continued P11
1.876 1.876 0.840 0.840 0.294 0.294 0.215 0.212 0.350 0.264
0.290 0.290 0.135 0.132 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.050 0.050
Table 1: Composition of starter and grower diets (percentage) supplemented with varying levels of DL-Met and L-Met (trial one).
Starter diet Grower diet
Ingredient T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Corn
SBM HiPro
Soy Oil
DCP
Ca carbonate
Salt
Soda Bicarb
DL-Met
L-Met
L-Lys HCl
L-Thr
Valine
Vitamin mix
Mineral mix
Choline chloride
Coccidiostat
Toxin binder
Probiotic
Calculated nutrient composition
ME (Kcal/Kg) CP (%)
Dig. Lysine (%) Dig. M+C (%) Dig. Thr (%) Dig. Val (%) Dig. Isoleu (%) Dig. Trp (%) Calcium (%) Avail. P (%)
3000 3000 22.12 22.12 1.22 1.22 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.78 0.97 0.97 0.83 0.83 0.22 0.22 0.90 0.90 0.45 0.45
3000 3000 22.12 22.12 1.22 1.22 0.875 0.875 0.78 0.78 0.97 0.97 0.83 0.83 0.22 0.22 0.90 0.90 0.45 0.45
642 642 642 642 311 311 311 311 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 22.30 22.30 22.30 22.30 8.70 8.70 8.70 8.70 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.12 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 3.00 2.85
3.00 2.85 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
642 642 702 702 702 702 311 311 246 246 246 246 0.5 0.5 13 13 13 13 22.30 22.30 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 8.70 8.70 7.75 7.75 7.75 7.75 2.12 2.12 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.25 2.25 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.70 2.28 2.17
2.70 2.28 2.17 2.44 2.44 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 0.86 0.86 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3000 3000 3150 3150 3150 3150 22.12 22.12 19.11 19.11 19.11 19.11 1.22 1.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.76 0.749 0.749 0.78 0.78 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.97 0.97 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.90 0.90 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
702 702 246 246 13 13 18.15 18.15 7.75 7.75 2.33 2.33 2.01 2.01 2.05
2.05 1.79 1.79 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3150 3150 19.11 19.11 1.00 1.00 0.737 0.737 0.65 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.71 0.71 0.17 0.17 0.76 0.76 0.38 0.38
Table 2: Ingredient and nutrient composition of starter and grower diets (kg/MT; trial two).
Page 10 – National Poultry Newspaper, December 2018/January 2019
www.poultrynews.com.au