Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:46:41.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of various energy and protein levels during sequential feeding on feed preferences in meat-type chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

I. Bouvarel ,
C. Vallée ,
A. M. Chagneau ,
P. Constantin ,
P. Lescoat ,
G. Ferreira  and
C. Leterrier
I. Bouvarel*
Affiliation:
Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C. Vallée
Affiliation:
Institut Polytechnique LaSalle Beauvais rue Pierre Waguet, BP 30313 60026 Beauvais cedex, France UMR 85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
A. M. Chagneau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83 Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
P. Constantin
Affiliation:
UMR 85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
P. Lescoat
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83 Recherches Avicoles, 37380 Nouzilly, France
G. Ferreira
Affiliation:
UMR 85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C. Leterrier
Affiliation:
UMR 85 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
*
E-mail: bouvarel.itavi@tours.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Short-term feed preferences were studied in individually caged chickens fed sequentially in order to understand a previously described imbalance in the intake of diets offered. Sequential feeding (SF) was carried out for four 48 h cycles in male broiler chickens. The diets varied in energy (2800 (E−) and 3200 kcal/kg (E+)) and protein (230 (P+) and 150 g/kg (P−)) contents. SF was compared to standard feeding (C) (3000 kcal/kg ME and CP = 190 g/kg). In experiment 1, three treatments were used: C, SE (E− followed by E+) and SE′ (E+ followed by E−). Four treatments were used in experiment 2: C, SP (P+ followed by P−), SE and SEP (P+E− followed by P−E+). Total feed intake was measured during the SF period. After this, short-term preferences were evaluated with a choice test on chickens previously fed with the same feeds during the SF period (experienced birds) and in C chickens (naïve birds). In both experiments, total feed intake was similar among treatments and the percentage of each feed consumed was not significantly different from controls (50%). In experiment 1, SE and SE′ chickens over-consumed E+ and under-consumed E− diets only during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle. The choice test indicated that experienced chickens preferred E+, while naïve chickens preferred E−. Similarly, in experiment 2, chickens over-consumed E+ and E+P− during the first 15 min of the fourth cycle, but the intake of diets varying in protein content was not different from controls. During the choice test, as in experiment 1, experienced chickens preferred E+, while naïve chickens preferred E−. There was a slight preference for the protein-poor diet in naïve birds and there was no preference in the diet varying in both protein and energy contents. Experience modified choice between feeds varying in energy content but not in protein. When feeds were known, preference for energy affected the feed intake immediately after switching from one diet to the other, although lower with the diet also varying in protein, it did not influence the total intake of each diet. Interactions between the nutritional properties and sensorial cues of feed could explain these results.

Keywords

chickenenergyfeedfeeding behaviourprotein
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 11 , November 2008 , pp. 1674 - 1681
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bizeray, D, Leterrier, C, Constantin, P, Picard, M, Faure, JM 2002. Sequential feeding can increase activity and improve gait score in meat-type chickens. Poultry Science 81, 1798–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouvarel, I, Barrier-Guillot, B, Larroude, P, Boutten, B, Leterrier, C, Merlet, F, Vilarino, M, Roffidal, L, Tesseraud, S, Castaing, J, Picard, M 2004. Sequential feeding programs for broiler chickens: twenty-four- and forty-eight-hour cycles. Poultry Science 83, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouvarel I, Chagneau AM, Vilarino M, Juin H, Lescoat P, Metayer JP, Lessire M, Crepon K, Etave G, Tesseraud S and Leterrier C 2007. Reactions of Ross chickens to sequential feeding. 16th European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition. Strasbourg (FRA), CDRom: data\articles\000133.pdf, pp. 155–158.Google Scholar
Bouvarel, I, Chagneau, AM, Lescoat, P, Tesseraud, S, Leterrier, C 2008. Forty-eight-hour cycle sequential feeding with diets varying in protein and energy contents: adaptation in broilers at different ages. Poultry Science 87, 196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagneau, AM, Bessonneau, D, Bouchot, C, Lescoat, P, Picard, M, Lessire, M 2006. Broiler short-term feed preferences measured with SRABox, a new feed choice procedure. Poultry Science 85, 808–815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denbow, DM 1994. Peripheral regulation of food intake in poultry. Journal of Nutrition 124 (suppl. 8), 1349S–1354S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, JM, Kyriazakis, I 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? The Proceeding of the Nutrition Society 54, 429–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, JM, Shariatmadari, F 1996. Short-term effects of food protein content on subsequent diet selection by chickens and the consequences of alternate feeding of high- and low-protein foods. British Poultry Science 37, 597–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furuse, M 2002. Central regulation of food intake in the neonatal chick. Animal Science Journal 73, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gietzen, DW, Rogers, QR 2006. Nutritional homeostasis and indispensable amino acid sensing: a new solution to an old puzzle. Trends in Neurosciences 29, 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gous, RM, Du Preez, JJ 1975. The sequential feeding of growing chickens. British Journal of Nutrition 34, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, JA 1984. Pecking and feeding in chicks. Learning and Motivation 15, 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenzel, WJ 1989. Neuroanatomical substrates involved in the control of food intake. Poultry Science 68, 926–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leterrier C, Favreau F, Constantin P and Picard M 2005. Effects of various Lysine levels on growth and leg problems in meat-type chickens during sequential feeding. 7th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Lublin (PL), Animal Science Papers and Reports.Google Scholar
Leterrier, C, Perrot, P, Favreau, F, Constantin, P, Bouvarel, I, Lessire, M, Picard, M 2006. Sequential feeding with low- and high-lysine diets increases activity and improves gait score in broiler chickens. XII European Poultry Conference, Verona (IT). World’s Poultry Science Journal 62 (suppl. 581).Google Scholar
Lucas, F, Ackroff, K, Sclafani, A 1998. High-fat diet preference and overeating mediated by postingestive factors in rats. American Journal of Physiology – Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 275, 1511–1522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMinn, JE, Baskin, DG, Schwartz, MW 2000. Neuroendocrin mechanisms regulating food intake and body weight. Obesity Reviews 1, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, B 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picard M, Turro I, Launay F, Mills AD, Meulin JM and Faure JM 1992 Food intake patterns of three week old broilers cags individually or in groups. XIX World’s Poultry Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Picard, M, Melcion, JP, Bouchot, C, Faure, JM 1997. Picorage et préhensibilité des particules alimentaires chez les volailles. INRA Productions Animales 10, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picard, M, Plouzeau, M, Faure, JM 1999. A behavioural approach to feeding broilers. Annales de Zootechnie 48, 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picard, M, Melcion, JP, Bertrand, D, Faure, JM 2002. Visual and tactile cues perceived by chickens. InPoultry feedstuffs: supply, composition and nutritive value (ed. JM McNab and KN Boorman), pp. 279–298. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, MP 2003. Genetic regulation of feed intake and energy balance in poultry. Poultry Science 82, 907–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, MP, Proszkowiec-Weglarz, M 2007. Mechanisms regulating feed intake, energy expenditure, and body weight in poultry. Poultry Science 86, 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, PJ 1995. The development of the brain and behaviour in the chicken. . CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant D, Pérez JM and Tran G 2002. Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d’élevage. Inst. Nat. Rech. Agron., Paris, France.Google Scholar
Sclafani, A 2001. Post-ingestive positive controls of ingestive behavior. Appetite 36, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, PB, Picard, M, Nir, I, Dunnington, EA, Willemsen, MHA, Williams, PEV 1997. Responses of meat-type chickens to choice feeding of diets differing in protein and energy from hatch to market weight. Poultry Science 76, 1183–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed