www.poultryresearchcentre.ca
Models in Broiler Nutrition:
a Quest for Optima
New Zealand Poultry Industry Conference
12-13 October, 2010
Palmerston North, NZ
Background
• Many variables in broiler production are nonlinear
– BW vs. Age
– Allometric growth (composition of gain)
– Carcass composition (maintenance costs)
14 2
2
15
12
10 9 8 8 7
15
17
19
20
22
22
22
22
22
1
7
15
16
17
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 14 28 42 56
% o
f ca
rcas
s
Age (d)
Breast
Legs
Fatpad
Other
Heart
GI tract
Change in Composition
Males
Objective
• To develop robust nonlinear prediction equations to describe growth and development in response to
– nutrient intake• ‘Prestarter’ nutrition
• Dietary ME
• Dietary balanced protein
– Genotype• sex
Experimental Design
– 2 x 2 x 3 x 5 factorial arrangement of treatments
– 2 sexes
– 2 prestarter nutrient densities (0 to 11 d)• Recommendation† for maximized growth rate and feed
efficiency
• Recommendation† for reduced feed cost
†Cobb Broiler Nutrition Supplement, 2004, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Siloam Springs, AR, 72761
Experimental Design
– 3 ME levels (11 to 56 d)
• 94%
• 97%
• 100% of recommendation†
– 5 Dietary Balanced Protein (DBP) levels
• 85%
• 92.5%
• 100%
• 107.5%
• 115% of recommendation†
E94
E97
E100
P85
P92.5
P100
P107.5
P115
†Recommendation for maximized growth rate and feed efficiencyCobb Broiler Nutrition Supplement, 2004, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Siloam Springs, AR, 72761
Approach
• Strain: Cobb x Avian 48
• Individual weekly BW data on 1,200 broilers
• Serial dissection of 2,224 broilers
– 8 birds per sex x PS interaction at 11 d
– 2 birds per treatment at 3 and 4 wk of age
– 4 birds per treatment semi-weekly from 4.5 to 8 wk of age
Variables Measured
• BW
• Feed intake
• Processing – weights of
– Eviscerated carcass (feet, head and neck removed)
– Breast (P. major + P. minor)
– Abdominal fatpad (including fat on gizzard)
– Legs (drum + thigh)
– Wings
Nonlinear models
• Feed intake
• BW
• Yield
Feed Intake Model
ME intake = f(BW, ME, Lys, ADG, Sex)
ME intake = 0.14BW0.456(ME/Lys)1.227(1-0.013 x Sex) + 0.67ADG1.44 (1-0.17 x Sex)
150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310
Re
lati
ve c
on
trib
uti
on
to
ME
inta
ke
ME/Lys (kcal/g)
P85
P100
P115
Feed Intake – Sex Effect
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
ME
inta
ke (
kcal
/d)
BW (kg)Females Males Females Pred Males Pred
Feed Intake – ME Effect
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
ME
inta
ke (
kcal
/d)
BW (kg)
E94 E97 E100 E94 Pred E97 Pred E100 Pred
How Does Nutrient Intake Affect
BW Gain?
),,,( ageCPLysMEfBW
Young birds:BW gain is
Protein driven
BW gain switches toME driven
BW gain switches toME driven
ME drivenBW gain -Improvingresponse
at low CP level
ME drivenBW gain -Improvingresponse
at low CP level
ME drivenBW gain -Improvingresponse
at low CP level
How Does Nutrient Intake Affect
Breast Muscle Growth?
),,,( ageCPLysMEfADGBreast
Young birds:Breast growth is
Protein driven
1.63 g
Breast growth becomes more
ME driven:Follows BW
1.77 g
3.48 g
4.53 g
4.65 g
Predicted BW Curves: Sex
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
BW
(kg
)
Age (d)
Female
Male
Source of Variation
Sex P<0.0001
• Males were heavier than females
*Mixed Gompertz model
BW Curves: Prestarter
0
1
2
3
4
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
BW
(kg
)
Age (d)
PSHigh
PSLow
Source of Variation
PS P=0.0002
• Prestarter nutrient levels had a persistent effect on BW
*Mixed Gompertz model
Predicted BW Curves: Energy
0
1
2
3
4
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
BW
(kg
)
Age (d)
E94
E97
E100
Source of Variation
ME x sex P<0.05
• In females, no ME effect on BW• In males, E94 > E97 > E100
*Mixed Gompertz model
Predicted BW Curves: Protein
0
1
2
3
4
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
BW
(kg
)
Age (d)
P85
P92.5
P100
P107.5
P115
Source of Variation
DBP ns*Mixed Gompertz model
Yield Analysis (nonlinear)
• Allometric analysis was conducted using Huxley’s equation
– y was the weight of the carcass part (g)
– x was the weight of the eviscerated carcass (g)
– a and b were coefficients, estimated using the NLIN procedure of SAS
baxy
Huxley, Julian S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. 36 Essex Street W. C., London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
y=0.166x1.081
y=0.135x1.112
Bre
ast
(g)
Source of Variation
Sex P<0.0001
Fatp
ad (
g)
y=0.0026x1.269
y=0.0008x1.488
Source of Variation
Sex P<0.0001
y=0.374x0.979
y=0.321x1.002
Legs
(g)
Source of Variation
Sex P<0.0001
y=0.368x0.848
y=0.292x0.882
Win
gs (
g)
Source of Variation
Sex P<0.0001
y=0.155x1.092
y=0.176x1.075
Bre
ast
(g)
Source of Variation
PS P=0.0378
P115 y=0.171x1.081 a
P107.5 y=0.163x1.087 ab
P100 y=0.171x1.080 b
P92.5 y=0.180x1.070 c
P85 y=0.176x1.071 d
P115P107.5P100P92.5P85
Source of Variation
DBP P<0.0001
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000Bre
ast
We
igh
t (g
, re
lati
ve t
o c
on
tro
l)
BW (g)
P115 P107.5 P100 P92.5 P85
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Bre
ast
(g, r
ela
tive
to
P1
00
mal
es)
BW (g)
P85 P92.5 P100 P107.5 P115P85 P92.5 P100 P107.5 P115
FemalesMales
P85 y=0.007x1.212 a
P92.5 y=0.009x1.133 b
P100 y=0.013x1.075 c
P107.5 y=0.015x1.044 d
P115 y=0.002x1.339 e
P115P107.5P100P92.5P85
Source of Variation
DBP P<0.0001
0
3
6
9
12
15
0
4
8
12
16
20
E94 E97 E100 P85 P100 P115 Female Male
Fat
Pro
tein
Protein (%) Fat (%)
ba
b ab
ab
abb
bc
a
ab
c
Carcass Composition (52 d)
Source: B. L. Schneider, MSc thesis
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
E94 E97 E100 P85 P100 P115 Female Male
Fat
Pro
tein
Protein (%) Fat (%)
aba b ns ns
ns ns ns
P. Major Composition (52 d)
Source: B. L. Schneider, MSc thesis
Conclusions
• Sex, prestarter nutrition, and subsequent dietary ME and DBP levels had significant nonlinear effects on
– Feed intake
– BW
– Yield dynamics
• Practical nonlinear models were robust enough to identify similar trends as ANOVA
• Strain-, environment-, and management-specific data will improve the prediction value of the model in commercial applications
Now go solve your nutritional puzzles!
Who knows what doors predictive modeling will open for you?
Questions
Top Related