Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:46:13.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental temperature and choice feeding of the broiler

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. J. Cowan  and
W. Michie
P. J. Cowan
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
W. Michie
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Broilers were kept under environmental temperature regimens of 16, 21, 26 or 31° and given, 22–57 d of age, either a complete diet or free-choice of whole wheat and a higher-protein food containing either 252 or 516 g crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25)/kg.

2. Broilers maintained at 16 and 21° consumed food at a significantly higher rate than those kept at 26° and the latter had a significantly higher food intake rate than broilers kept at 31°, for each feeding treatment. Compared with 21° the 57 d body-weight of broilers kept at 26° and 31° was significantly reduced.

3. When kept under the 16, 21, 26 and 31° regimens, the amount of whole wheat in the food consumed by the broilers choice-fed with wheat and the 252 g crude protein/kg food was 56, 55, 48 and 46% respectively. The corresponding values for the broilers on the second choice-feeding treatment were 80, 76, 79 and 72%.

4. Except for a single instance the choice-fed broilers grew at a significantly slower rate than broilers given the complete diet.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 311 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Adams, R. L., Andrews, F. N., Gardiner, E. E. & Carrick, C. W. (1962). Poult. Sci. 41, 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. L., Andrews, F. N., Rogler, J. C. & Carrick, C. W. (1962 a). J. Nutr. 77, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. L., Andrews, F. N., Rogler, J. C. & Carrick, C. W. (1962 b). Poult. Sci. 41, 1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. L. & Rogler, J. C. (1968). Poult. Sci. 47, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, W. & Blair, R. (1974). Poultry Nutrition London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Cowan, P. J. & Michie, W. (1978 a). Br. Poult. Sci. 19, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P. J. & Michie, W. (1978 b). Br. Poult. Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Cowan, P. J., Michie, W. & Roele, D. J. (1978). Br. Poult. Sci. 19, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, J. W., Reece, F. N., Kubena, L. F., May, J. D. & Vardaman, T. H. (1973). Poult. Sci. 52, 1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, J. W., Reece, F. N., Lott, B. D., Kubena, L. F. & May, J. D. (1972). Poult. Sci. 51, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, J. W., Reece, F. N., McNally, E. H. & Tarver, W. J. (1969). Poult. Sci. 48, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groote, G. (1974). In Energy requirements of poultry, p. 113 [Morris, T. R. & Freeman, B. M., editors]. Edinburgh: British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Donhoffer, Sz. & Vonotsky, J. (1947). Am. J. Physiol. 150, 329.Google Scholar
Huston, T. M. (1965). Poult. Sci. 44, 1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubena, L. F., Deaton, J. W., Reece, F. N., May, J. D. & Vardaman, T. H. (1972). Poult. Sci. 51, 1391.Google Scholar
Leshner, A. I., Collier, G. H. & Squibb, R. L. (1971). Physiol. Behav. 6, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, J. L. & Winn, P. N. (1964). Poult. Sci. 43, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musten, B., Peace, D. & Anderson, G. H. (1974). J. Nutr. 104, 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, R. P., Potter, L. M. & Irish, W. W. (1961). Poult. Sci. 40, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, R. P., Whitaker, J. H., Matterson, L. D. & Luginbahl, R. E. (1965). Poult. Sci. 44, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vohra, P., Wilson, W. O. & Siopes, T. D. (1975). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 34, 13.Google Scholar
Winn, P. N. & Godfrey, E. F. (1967). Int. J. Biometeor. 11, 39.Google Scholar