Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lemme, A
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lemme, A
Right arrow Articles by Meyer, H
Poultry Science, Vol 85, Issue 4, 652-660
Copyright © 2006 by Poultry Science Association


Articles

Response of male BUT big 6 turkeys to varying amino acid feeding programs

A Lemme, U Frackenpohl, A Petri, and H Meyer

Degussa AG, FA-M-AN, Rodenbacher Chaussee 4, 63457 Hanau, Germany. andreas.lemme@degussa.com

Dietary protein is a major cost contributor in turkey nutrition. Therefore, a feeding trial with male BUT Big 6 turkeys to 154 d of age was conducted to examine how live performance and economics are affected when dietary amino acid levels are altered in different phases. Six dietary treatments were run with treatment 1 as the control in which balanced protein levels were according to recommendations during all 6 phases. Treatments 2 through 6 used combinations of balanced protein (based on lysine) that ranged from 90 to 120% of those used in treatment 1. The combinations for the 6 phases of feeding were 120, 120, 120, 120, 90, and 90% for treatment 2; 120, 120, 120, 100, 90, and 90% for treatment 3; 120, 120, 100, 100, 90, and 90% for treatment 4; 120, 120, 120, 120, 100, and 100% for treatment 5; and 90, 90, 90, 100, 100, and 100 for treatment 6. Final BW was highest in treatment 4 and lowest in treatment 2 (P < 0.05), whereas final BW were intermediate and statistically not different in treatments 1, 3, 5, and 6. Breast meat yield was highest in treatment 5 and lowest in treatments 2 and 3 (P < 0.05). Mortality seemed to be reduced in treatment 6 compared with treatments 2, 3, and 5 (P < 0.10). Performance data in combination with economic simulations suggested that the feeding regimens of treatments 4 or 6 might be alternative strategies to treatment 1 to improve overall profitability.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Poultry Science Association.