Measurement of ileal endogenous energy losses and true ileal digestible energy of cereal grains for broiler chickens

Barley, an Undervalued Cereal for Poultry Diets: Limitations and Opportunities

Simple Summary

With the ever-increasing demand for poultry products, the continuous supply of conventional cereal grains such as maize has become a challenge. Barley has been recognised as a potential alternative feed ingredient that can replace common cereal grains in poultry diets. However, due to several limitations such as the presence of various anti-nutritive factors and the variability in nutrient composition and quality, the use of barley in poultry diets remains comparatively low. The previous findings on the optimum use of barley in poultry diets are also inconsistent primarily due to differences in research methodologies. The importance of using accurate nutrient profiles for specific barley cultivars to formulate barley-based diets is emphasised in this review. Moreover, the need to adapt feed processing conditions suitable to different barley cultivars to increase the inclusion of barley in poultry diets is highlighted in this review.

Abstract

The supply of conventional cereal grains, especially of maize, will be a significant constraint to the future growth of the poultry industry. Various alternative feed ingredients are being tested to replace maize in poultry diets. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is one such feed ingredient, the use of which remains limited in poultry diets due to its low metabolisable energy, presence of anti-nutritive, soluble non-starch polysaccharides and consequent inter-cultivar variability. Differences in research methodologies used in published studies have also contributed to the inconsistent findings, preventing a good understanding of the nutritional value of barley for poultry. The importance of using accurate nutrient profiles, specifically metabolisable energy and digestible amino acids, for specific barley cultivars to formulate barley-based diets is emphasised. Nutritionists should also pay close attention to feed processing conditions tailored to the specific barley cultivars to increase the barley inclusion in poultry diets.

Application of Apparent Metabolizable Energy versus Nitrogen-Corrected Apparent Metabolizable Energy in Poultry Feed Formulations: A Continuing Conundrum

Simple Summary

Despite some limitations, the metabolizable energy system has been extensively used for describing the available energy in ingredients and for formulating complete poultry feeds. Three methods, namely direct, difference (substitution), and regression, or modifications thereof, have been employed to measure the apparent metabolizable energy (AME) of feeds and ingredients for poultry. The AME of feed ingredients are often corrected for zero nitrogen (N) retention to estimate the N-corrected AME (AMEn). Although the need for N-retention corrections has been intensely debated and challenged ever since the advent of the AME system, no definitive conclusion has been reached and the majority of poultry diets today are formulated to meet the requirements for AMEn rather than AME. There is limited information on the effect of zero N-retention correction on the energy value of major protein sources. The aim of this investigation was to understand the consequences of correction to zero N retention to the energy values of samples of several protein sources differing in protein quality. Based on the data presented herein, correcting AME values to zero N retention for modern fast-growing broilers penalizes the energy value of all major protein sources and is of higher magnitude for ingredients with higher protein quality.

Abstract

In the present investigation, N retention, AME, and AMEn data from six energy evaluation assays, involving four protein sources (soybean meal, full-fat soybean, rapeseed meal and maize distiller’s dried grains with solubles [DDGS]), are reported. The correction for zero N retention, reduced the AME value of soybean meal samples from different origins from 9.9 to 17.8% with increasing N retention. The magnitude of AME penalization in full-fat soybean samples, imposed by zero N correction, increased from 1.90 to 9.64% with increasing N retention. The Δ AME (AME minus AMEn) in rapeseed meal samples increased from 0.70 to 1.09 MJ/kg as N-retention increased. In maize DDGS samples, the correction for zero N retention increased the magnitude of AME penalization from 5.44 to 8.21% with increasing N retention. For all protein sources, positive correlations (p < 0.001; r = 0.831 to 0.991) were observed between the N retention and Δ AME. The present data confirms that correcting AME values to zero N retention for modern broilers penalizes the energy value of protein sources and is of higher magnitude for ingredients with higher protein quality. Feed formulation based on uncorrected AME values could benefit least cost broiler feed formulations and merits further investigation.