Strategies to improve poultry feed formulation for maximum performance and profitability
Alhotan, Rashed Abdullah
MetadataShow full item record
A comprehensive research project was carried out in an attempt to improve poultry feed formulation using different strategies. In study 1, a simulation analysis in Excel was conducted to evaluate the batch segregation as a means to reduce nutrient variability for linear and non-linear feed formulations. batch segregation reduced variability about 50% compared to the traditional method of no segregation. Non-linear formulation increased feed costs to guarantee the minimum specification of nutrients at any confidence level. Employing the batch segregation when using non-linear formulation resulted in reducing feed costs. In study 2, A meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the optimal balance between dlys & true protein (TP) levels in broiler feeds to account for the needs of the NEAAs during formulation. The dlys requirements increased linearly as a function of TP. For maximum BWG, the dLys requirement was estimated to be 4.92% ± 0.51 of TP. In study 3, a 35-d broiler trial was conducted to test whether or not feeds formulated based on digestible AA values from chick or rooster assays could make differences in performance and profitability. Formulation based on chick assay resulted in improved FCR compared to rooster assay. Profitability varied depending on feed cost, chicken value and size. In study 4, a simulation analysis was conducted in Excel to test the effectiveness of broken- line linear (BLL) and broken-line quadratic (BLQ) models in estimating the maximum safe level (MSL) of feedstuffs in lieu of the traditional multiple range procedure. The broken-line methodology provided good estimates of the MSL (small SE and high R2 values) and offered useful information for feeding trial planning. In study 5, 2 broiler trials were conducted to evaluate the nutritive value of pennycress meal (PM) as a protein source for broilers and to illustrate how the MSL can be different depending on the statistical analysis. The MSL was estimated in trial 1 to be 10% (orthogonal contrast), 9.12 ± 0.50 (BLL) and 7.0 ± 1.27 (BLQ). In trial 2, the estimated MSL was 12% (contrast and LSD), 15% (Scheffe's), 10.84 ± 0.57 (BLL) and 8.61 ± 1.29 by (BLQ).