Alternative forced-molting methods in japanese quails

SILVA, Daiane Batista; MACIEL, Mônica Patrícia; AROUCA, Cláudio Luiz Corrêia; AIURA, Felipe Shindy; SOUZA, Luiz Felipe Martins; MOURA, Vitor Hugo Santana de

doi:10.1590/S1519-99402017000200014

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Produção Animal e Ambiente • Rev. bras. saúde prod. anim. 18 (2) • June 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402017000200014 copy

Alternative forced-molting methods in japanese quails

Métodos alternativos de muda forçada para codornas japonesas

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

SUMMARY

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different forced-molting methods on the performance and quality of laying quail eggs. The experiment was conducted in a conventional shed for quails and lasted 115 days. 480 Japanese quails at an initial age of 52 weeks were used. The following treatments were evaluated: total feed fasting (control treatment); corn and soybean bran diet; high- zinc diet (7,300 ppm); wheat bran diet; and ground corn diet. A fully randomized experimental outline was used with 5 treatments and 4 repetitions. Each lot was formed by 24 quails with a total of 480 birds. Performance (production and egg weights, feed intake, feed conversion ratio per kg egg mass and per dozen eggs, viable eggs and egg viability) and egg quality (eggshell thickness and yield, specific weight and Haugh unit) were evaluated. Treatment differences were compared using the Scott-Knott test (5%). Wheat bran and high- zinc diets yielded poorer averages of egg production and feed conversion ratioper dozen eggs. Studied treatments had no influence on egg quality. Hence, we can conclude that corn- only or corn and soybean bran only feeds can be adopted as forced molting methods in Japanese quails instead of traditional fasting methods.

Keywords:
egg quality; fasting; quail farming; performance

Item	Feed
Item	CSB	Zn	WB	CO	EL
Ingredient
Ground corn	55.80	47.67	–	100.00	50.00
Soybean bran	37.20	38.52	–	–	38.40
Wheat bran	–	–	100.00	–	–
Inert	7.00	–	–	–	–
Calcitic Limestone	–	7.42	–	–	7.42
Dicalcium phosphate	–	1.82	–	–	1.82
Soybean oil	–	2.47	–	–	1.47
DL -Methionine(99%)	–	0.09	–	–	0.09
HCL L-Lysine(78%)	–	0.06	–	–	0.06
Common Salt	–	0.45	–	–	0.45
Min. andVit. Supl.¹ 1 Guaranteed content (per Kg of product): zinc(min.) - 70000mg; iodine(min) -1500 mg; copper(min.)- 8500mg; manganese (min.) -75000mg; iron(min.) -50000mg; cobalt- 200mg;folic acid -100mg; pantothenic acid -15620mg; biotine -100mg; niacin 39800mg;vit.A- 7000000UI; vit.B1 -2000mg;vit.E -50000mg; vit.B12- 3000mg; vit.B2 - 4000mg;vit.B6 - 3000mg; vit.D3-2100000UI; vit.K3 - 2000mg; selenium -200mg; antioxidant-100000 mg;	–	0.50	–	–	0.50
Zinc Oxide	–	1.00	–	–	–
Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100
Calculated nutritional levels
Crude protein(%)	21.51	22.10	15.62^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	7.88^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	22.01
Metab.En. (kcal/kg)	2.725	2.721	1.795^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	3.381^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	2.725
Calcium(%)	0.11	3.50	0.14^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.03^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	3.50
Available phosph.(%)	0.13	0.46	0.33^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.06^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.69
Sodium (%)	0.02	2.00	0.02^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.02^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	2.00
Zinc(mg/kg)	0.002	7.300	134.5^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	21.5^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	–
Digest.methionine(%)	0.30	0.39	0.18^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.15^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.41
Digest.lysine(%)	1.01	1.25	0.47^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.19^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	1.25
Digest. Met +Cis(%)	0.67	0.76	0.43^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.29^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.76
Digest. threonine(%)	0.30	0.73	0.17^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.27^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.84
Digest.triptophane(%)	0.20	0.24	0.19^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.05^* * Source: Rostagno et al. (2011).	0.27

Treatment	Variable
Treatment	PROD (%)	FI (g)	EW (g)	FCDE (g/dz)	FCM (g/g)	VE (%)	VB (%)
FM	70.2^a	24.3	11.4	574^a	3.04	89.41	91.2
CSB	75.6^a	25.1	11.3	508^a	2.90	92.94	91.6
Zn	65.4^b	24.7	11.6	777^b	3.09	90.45	93.0
WB	64.5^b	23.4	11.4	710^b	3.23	90.49	94.1
CO	72.5^a	23. 4	11.4	439^a	3.27	93.41	95.5
CV	5.14	6.55	3.02	15.90	7.33	2.99	3.66
PROB	0.002	0.516	0.874	0.002	0.438	0.220	0.412
Average ±	69.62±	24,19±	11,42±	571,95±	3,05±	91.3 5±	93,07±
SE	1.789	0.792	0.173	45.464	0.112	1.366	1.705

Treatment	Variable
Treatment	ET (mm)	EY (%)	SW(g/cm³)	HU
FM	0.247	7.92	1.073	90.67
CSB	0.242	7.99	1.072	91.26
Zn	0.239	7.89	1.071	90.12
WB	0.242	7.95	1.071	90.64
CO	0.237	7.83	1.071	90.98
CV (%)	2.69	1.56	0.10	0.93
PROB	0.296	0.418	0.065	0.424
Average ±	0.242±	7.92±	1.072±	90.74±
SE	0,003	0.062	0.000	0.420

UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia Avenida Adhemar de Barros nº 500 - Ondina , CEP 41170-110 Salvador-BA Brasil, Tel. 55 71 32836725, Fax. 55 71 32836718 - Salvador - BA - Brazil
E-mail: rbspa@ufba.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Endereço para correspondência: daianebatistas88@yahoo.com.br