4.2 Article

Modified-dietary fiber from cassava pulp reduces abdominal fat and meat cholesterol contents without affecting growth performance of broiler chickens

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED POULTRY RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 229-239

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.japr.2019.10.009

关键词

abdominal fat; dietary fiber from cassava pulp; digestibility; gizzard; meat quality

资金

  1. Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. (RGJ-PHD) Program, Thailand [PHD/0054/2556]
  2. National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), Thailand [SUT3-303-60-36-09]
  3. Siam Hubert Curien grant [42879QC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the effects of modified-dietary fiber from cassava pulp (M-DFCP), mostly classified as insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), as a feed supplement on productive performance, nutrient digestibility, weight of digestive organs, abdominal fat storage, and cholesterol in meat and blood of broiler chickens. A total of 336 one-day-old male broiler chickens (Ross 308) were allocated to 4 groups in 7 replicate pens with 12 chicks each, based on a completely randomized design. Four dietary treatments composed of control and 3 M-DFCP inclusion levels: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%. The results showed that M-DFCP showed no negative effects on growth performance in broiler chickens. The inclusion of M-DFCP in diets at 1.0 to 1.5% had positive effects on increased gizzard weight, reduced gizzard pH, and reduced abdominal fat. The M-DFCP at 1.0% can also increase nutrient digestibility (dry matter, organic matter, and ether extract). In addition, the supplementation of M-DFCP at 1.0 to 1.5% in diets represented lower cholesterol in serum, breast and thigh meats, and liver of broiler chickens. In conclusion, these results indicate that M-DFCP can be used as an IDF source in broiler diets. The inclusion of 1.0% M-DFCP in broiler diet has positive effects on enhancing gizzard function, improving nutrient digestibility, and reducing abdominal fat and cholesterol in chicken meat, blood, and liver.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据