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


     

Poult Sci 2008. 87:101-103. doi:10.3382/ps.2007-00127
© 2008 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Web of Science
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 Latshaw, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Freeland, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Latshaw, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Freeland, K.

METABOLISM AND NUTRITION: Research Notes

Metabolizable Energy Values Determined with Intact and Cecectomized Roosters

J. D. Latshaw1 and K. Freeland

Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210

1 Corresponding author: latshaw.1{at}osu.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Mature White Leghorn roosters that were intact or cecectomized were used to determine the ME of a diet. Seven intact and 7 cecectomized roosters were fasted for 3 d, with total excreta collection on d 2 and 3. Approximately 1 wk after completion of the trial, the same roosters were force-fed 28 g of a diet that was 85% corn and 15% soybean meal after a 1-d fast. Excreta were collected from d 2 and 3 and dried. There was no difference in the energy and nitrogen excreted by intact and cecectomized roosters when they were fasted for 3 d. The energy and nitrogen excreted by cecectomized roosters were greater than by intact roosters when they were fed the test diet. As a result, the AME, TME, AMEn, and TMEn were all larger from intact roosters than from cecectomized roosters. Our results suggest that intact roosters should be used to determine the energy content of ingredients that will be fed to commercial flocks.

Key Words: apparent metabolizable energy • true metabolizable energy • rooster


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The first procedure that was widely used for measuring ME for poultry was published by Hill and Anderson (1958). Chicks that were 10 d old were fed a standard semipurified diet or the semipurified diet that included a test ingredient, usually at 40% of the diet. Each diet contained 0.2% chromic oxide as an indigestible marker. The trial lasted 14 d, with collection of excreta the last 3 d. A correction for nitrogen retention decreased the ME of the test ingredient by 8.22 kcal/g of nitrogen retained. The value of 8.22 is the energy value of uric acid per gram of nitrogen (Coulson and Hughes, 1930). The ME values that were determined with this procedure were more repeatable than those determined as productive energy.

A different procedure for measuring ME was developed by Sibbald (1976, 1979). Mature White Leghorn roosters were fasted for 24 h. One group of roosters was fasted for an additional 48 h, and excreta were collected during this time and contained the metabolic and endogenous losses. Another group was force-fed approximately 30 g of the test ingredient, and then excreta were collected for 48 h. To adjust for the metabolic and endogenous losses in the excreta of the fed roosters, energy losses from the fasted roosters were used as a correction factor. The resulting ME values, TMEn, were higher than those from the AMEn. This procedure made it possible to determine energy in a feed ingredient in a week or less and required fewer animals and laboratory work.

Several modifications to the second procedure have been reported. One was to train adult roosters to eat their daily feed in about an hour instead of force feeding (Farrell, 1978). The excreta collection was for 24 h. Another modification was to remove the ceca from roosters before using them for force-feeding ingredients (Parsons, 1984). Although the modification was initially used for studying amino acid digestibility, the excreta from the same assay can be used for determination of ME and amino acid digestibility. Another modification was to decrease body catabolism during the extended fast by providing an energy source, such as glucose, for the fasted roosters (McNab and Blair, 1988). The result was a ME value that was between AME and TME and was changed by the amount of glucose provided.

The objectives of our research were to determine how removal of the ceca and adjusting for nitrogen balance would affect the value assigned to the ME of a feed.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Adult White Leghorn roosters that were approximately 80 wk of age were used for this research. Seven cecectomized and 7 intact roosters of the same strain were used. They were housed in cages, 1 per cage, that permitted collection of excreta on plastic. All of the roosters were fasted for 24 h, and the excreta were then collected for 48 h. After 1 wk of ad libitum feeding, the same roosters were fasted for 24 h and then force-fed 28 g of a mixture of 85% corn and 15% soybean meal. Excreta collection was for 48 h. Each rooster was its own control when comparing results from fasted and fed excreta. All procedures used in this research were approved by the institutional animal care committee.

Excreta samples were dried in a room heated to 27°C, where the air was circulated by fans. Dried samples were ground with a mortar and pestle. The energy content of feed and excreta samples was determined with an adiabatic calorimeter (Parr Instrument Company, Moline, IL). Nitrogen content of feed and excreta samples was determined with a nitrogen analyzer (Perkin Elmer, Wellesley, MA).

The energy content of the samples was calculated as follows:


Formula


Formula


Formula


Formula

where A = total feed energy; B = total excreta energy of fed roosters; C = total excreta energy of fasted roosters; and D = 8.22 x nitrogen balance (g).

Results were statistically compared using Student’s t-test. Probabilities of the comparisons between roosters are provided.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cecectomy had no effect on the excreta collected from roosters that were fasted (Table 1Go). Total energy and nitrogen were the same from roosters that were cecectomized or intact.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Analysis of excreta from roosters fasted for 48 h
 
The corn and soybean meal diet that was fed contained 13.72% protein and 4.19 kcal of GE/g by analysis. Cecectomy affected the digestibility of the corn and soybean meal diet that was fed (Table 2Go). Excreta, total energy, and nitrogen losses were larger from the cecectomized roosters than from the intact roosters. As a result, the nitrogen balance was more negative for the cecectomized rooster.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Analysis of excreta from fed roosters
 
Regardless of how the ME was expressed, intact roosters were able to obtain more energy from the diet than the cecectomized roosters (Table 3Go). The AME was lowest, followed by AMEn. For cecectomized roosters, TME was 0.777 kcal/g more than AME. Intact roosters had a TME that was 0.720 kcal/g more than the AME. Correcting AME to AMEn for the cecectomized roosters added 0.340 kcal/g, whereas correcting TME to TMEn increased energy by 0.341 kcal/g. For the intact roosters, correcting AME to nitrogen balance added 0.279 kcal/g, and correcting TME to TMEn increased energy by 0.278 kcal/g.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Metabolizable energy of the feed expressed in several ways
 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
A number of factors may be considered when choosing the best way to measure the energy that poultry can derive from feed ingredients. Among these are the accuracy with which the assay reflects the energy available to the birds that will be fed the ingredients, the time required to determine the energy content, and, in some cases, animal welfare concerns.

Results from this research show that intact roosters may be preferable to cecectomized roosters for determining ME. The undigested residue from the test diet was larger from the cecetomized roosters than from the intact roosters (Table 2Go). This caused total energy and nitrogen losses to be larger from these roosters, which in turn caused lower values for all of the ME calculated in Table 3Go. Similar results were reported previously when ingredient digestibility by intact and cecectomized roosters was compared (Parsons et al., 2000). Birds in commercial flocks are not cecectomized, so using cecectomized roosters for energy assays may understate the energy available to poultry in commercial flocks. If ME were determined by ileal digestibility (Payne et al., 1968; Ravindran et al., 1999), the energy content would also be understated because the residue from the small intestine was not digested by microorganisms in the hindgut.

Providing only a limited amount of feed for the assay may overstate the effect of cecectomy. In our experiment, only 28 g of feed was provided in 48 h. Assuming the roosters weighed 2.25 kg and that they needed 100 kcal of ME/kg/d (MacLeod and Jewitt, 1988), they would have needed more than 125 g of feed in 48 h to maintain energy balance. Whether the microorganisms in the ceca would be able to digest the residue from that amount of feed as completely as from the 28 g that was fed cannot be answered from our results.

Received for publication March 21, 2007. Accepted for publication September 13, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Coulson, E. J., and J. S. Hughes. 1930. Collection and analysis of chicken urine. Poult. Sci. 10:53–58.

Farrell, D. J. 1978. Rapid determination of metabolisable energy of foods using cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 19:303–308.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

Hill, F. W., and D. L. Anderson. 1958. Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. J. Nutr. 64:587–603.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

MacLeod, M. G., and T. R. Jewitt. 1988. Maintenance energy requirements of laying hens: A comparison of measurements made by two methods based on indirect calorimetry. Br. Poult. Sci. 29:63–71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

McNab, J. M., and J. C. Blair. 1988. Modified assay for true and apparent metabolisable energy based on tube feeding. Br. Poult. Sci. 29:697–707.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Parsons, C. M. 1984. Influence of caecetomy and source of dietary fibre or starch on excetion of endogenous amino acids by laying hens. Br. J. Nutr. 51:541–548.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Parsons, C. M., Y. Zhang, and M. Araba. 2000. Nutritional evaluation of soybean meals varying in oligosaccharide content. Poult. Sci. 79:1127–1131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Payne, W. L., G. F. Combs, R. R. Kiefer, and D. G. Snyder. 1968. Investigation of protein quality—Ileal recovery of amino acids. Fed. Proc. 27:1199–1203.[Web of Science][Medline]

Ravindran, V., L. I. Hew, G. Ravindran, and W. L. Bryden. 1999. A comparison of ileal digesta and excreta analysis for the determination of amino acid digestibility in food ingredients for poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:266–274.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Sibbald, I. R. 1976. A bioassay for true metabolizable energy in feedingstuffs. Poult. Sci. 55:303–308.[Web of Science][Medline]

Sibbald, I. R. 1979. Effects of level of feed input, dilution of test material and duration of excreta collection on true metabolizable energy values. Poult. Sci. 58:1325–1329.[Web of Science]





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Web of Science
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 Latshaw, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Freeland, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Latshaw, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Freeland, K.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS