{"title":"Lohmann Select Leghorn-lite 和 Shaver Heritage White Leghorn 母鸡在饲喂含有未磨碎和磨碎燕麦壳的日粮时的反应比较","authors":"A. Mills, Anderson N. Maina, E. Kiarie","doi":"10.1139/cjas-2024-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A standard commercial mash (control), or a mixture of control and fine (FOH) or coarse (COH) oat hulls at a ratio of 80:20 wt/wt were fed to 57-wk old Lohmann Select Leghorn- Lites (LSL) and 44-wk old Shavers Heritage White Leghorns (SHW) for 28 days. There was no (P>0.05) strain and diet interaction or diet effects on egg production indices (EP) and feed intake (FI). However, LSL hens had similar (P>0.05) FI but higher (P>0.05) EP than SHW. There was no strain and diet interaction observed on apparent retention of gross energy (ARGE) and gizzard weight (P>0.05). However, the control hens had higher ARGE, and lighter gizzards compared to oat hull-fed hens (P<0.01). In addition, COH hens had higher ARGE and heavier gizzards compared to FOH hens. The SHW hens exhibited greater jejunal crypt depth (P=0.011) compared to LSL hens. An interaction (P=0.041) between strain and diets on ceca digesta short chain fatty acids (SFCA) was such that oat hulls reduced SCFA in LSL but not in SHW hens. In conclusion, despite differences in age, relative to predecessors the modern hen is adaptable to ingestion of structural material rich insoluble fibre without negative impact on egg production and feed intake","PeriodicalId":9512,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative responses of Lohmann Select Leghorn-lite and Shaver Heritage White Leghorn hens when fed diets containing unground and ground oat hulls\",\"authors\":\"A. Mills, Anderson N. Maina, E. Kiarie\",\"doi\":\"10.1139/cjas-2024-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A standard commercial mash (control), or a mixture of control and fine (FOH) or coarse (COH) oat hulls at a ratio of 80:20 wt/wt were fed to 57-wk old Lohmann Select Leghorn- Lites (LSL) and 44-wk old Shavers Heritage White Leghorns (SHW) for 28 days. There was no (P>0.05) strain and diet interaction or diet effects on egg production indices (EP) and feed intake (FI). However, LSL hens had similar (P>0.05) FI but higher (P>0.05) EP than SHW. There was no strain and diet interaction observed on apparent retention of gross energy (ARGE) and gizzard weight (P>0.05). However, the control hens had higher ARGE, and lighter gizzards compared to oat hull-fed hens (P<0.01). In addition, COH hens had higher ARGE and heavier gizzards compared to FOH hens. The SHW hens exhibited greater jejunal crypt depth (P=0.011) compared to LSL hens. An interaction (P=0.041) between strain and diets on ceca digesta short chain fatty acids (SFCA) was such that oat hulls reduced SCFA in LSL but not in SHW hens. In conclusion, despite differences in age, relative to predecessors the modern hen is adaptable to ingestion of structural material rich insoluble fibre without negative impact on egg production and feed intake\",\"PeriodicalId\":9512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Animal Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Animal Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Animal Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative responses of Lohmann Select Leghorn-lite and Shaver Heritage White Leghorn hens when fed diets containing unground and ground oat hulls
A standard commercial mash (control), or a mixture of control and fine (FOH) or coarse (COH) oat hulls at a ratio of 80:20 wt/wt were fed to 57-wk old Lohmann Select Leghorn- Lites (LSL) and 44-wk old Shavers Heritage White Leghorns (SHW) for 28 days. There was no (P>0.05) strain and diet interaction or diet effects on egg production indices (EP) and feed intake (FI). However, LSL hens had similar (P>0.05) FI but higher (P>0.05) EP than SHW. There was no strain and diet interaction observed on apparent retention of gross energy (ARGE) and gizzard weight (P>0.05). However, the control hens had higher ARGE, and lighter gizzards compared to oat hull-fed hens (P<0.01). In addition, COH hens had higher ARGE and heavier gizzards compared to FOH hens. The SHW hens exhibited greater jejunal crypt depth (P=0.011) compared to LSL hens. An interaction (P=0.041) between strain and diets on ceca digesta short chain fatty acids (SFCA) was such that oat hulls reduced SCFA in LSL but not in SHW hens. In conclusion, despite differences in age, relative to predecessors the modern hen is adaptable to ingestion of structural material rich insoluble fibre without negative impact on egg production and feed intake
期刊介绍:
Published since 1957, this quarterly journal contains new research on all aspects of animal agriculture and animal products, including breeding and genetics; cellular and molecular biology; growth and development; meat science; modelling animal systems; physiology and endocrinology; ruminant nutrition; non-ruminant nutrition; and welfare, behaviour, and management. It also publishes reviews, letters to the editor, abstracts of technical papers presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, and occasionally conference proceedings.