Loading…

Comparison of the effects of several feed restriction periods to control ascites on performance, carcass characteristics and hematological indices of broiler chickens

This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of some feed restriction regimes on the performance, carcass characteristics and hematological values of broiler chickens. A number of 480 one-day-old Cobb broilers were distributed into 24 floor pens and reared for 42 days. A basal diet was formu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2010-09, Vol.12 (3), p.170-177
Main Authors: Boostani, A(Fars Education Center), Ashayerizadeh, A(Ramin Agricultural and Natural Resources University Department of Animal Science), Mahmoodian, Fard HR(Fars Education Center), Kamalzadeh, A(Institute of Scientific)
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of some feed restriction regimes on the performance, carcass characteristics and hematological values of broiler chickens. A number of 480 one-day-old Cobb broilers were distributed into 24 floor pens and reared for 42 days. A basal diet was formulated according to the NRC (1994) recommendations for starter (1-11 d), grower (12-28 d) and finisher (29-42 d) periods. The restricted birds were fed 8 h per day from 7 to 21 (R7-21d), 14 to 28 d (R14-28d) or from 21 to 35d (R21-35d), while the control birds were fed ad libitum. Birds and feed were weekly weighed, and dead birds were submitted to necropsy to determine the cause of death. At the end of experiment, blood samples were taken from 3 birds per pen, birds were weighed, and organ weights were recorded. All birds in the feed restriction treatments had lower body weight gain and feed intake than those fed ad libitum. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was better in birds under R7-21d as compared to the control group (p
ISSN:1516-635X
1806-9061
1516-635X
1806-9061
DOI:10.1590/s1516-635x2010000300006