4.0 Article

Performance of broiler chickens fed South African sorghum-based diets with xylanase

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 679-687

出版社

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.4314/sajas.v47i5.11

关键词

Digestibility; tannin; poultry; visceral organs; xylanase

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRFGUN), South Africa [97095]
  2. AB Vista Marlborough, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were conducted to determine the influence of sorghum variety and xylanase on performance of broiler chickens. In Experiment 1A, a total of 240 day-old Ross broiler chickens were assigned to a 2 (sex) x 3 (sorghum variety) x 2 (with or without xylanase) factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design with 20 chickens per treatment. Gross performance measurements were assessed at 7, 14, and 21 days of age. Carcass yield and visceral organ weights were measured at day 21. In Experiment 1B, a total of 108 female Ross 308 broiler chickens were randomly assigned to a 3 (sorghum variety) x 2 (with or without xylanase) factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design with 6 treatments replicated 6 times. On day 25, all birds were euthanazed by intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbitone and digesta contents from the distal ileum were collected to determine the nutrient digestibility. Broiler chickens offered sorghum variety Pan8816 supplemented with xylanase had higher feed intake, weight gain, and similar feed conversion ratio at 1 -7 days of age. Breast meat of broiler chickens was not affected by variety or xylanase. The small intestine was heavier in the Pan8625 and Pan8816 groups with xylanase than in the similar Pan8906 group. Enzyme inclusion increased the crude protein digestibility. When xylanase was included in all sorghum varieties, numerically, starch digestibility tended to improve. Sorghum variety affected the growth performance of broiler chickens. Furthermore, nutrient digestibility was affected by the differences in variety.

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

4.0
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