THE RESPONSE OF MUSCOVY DUCKS TO VARYING LEVELS OF DIETARY ENERGY AND YEAST CULTURE | ||||
| Journal of Animal and Poultry Production | ||||
| Article 7, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 2002, Page 855-867 PDF (4.2 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/jappmu.2002.253336 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| M. S. M. Samy,; S. A. Yassein; G. M. EI-Mallah | ||||
| Department of Animal and Poultry Nutrition and Production, National research Center, Dokki, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| This work was designed to study the response of Muscovy ducks to different levels of dietary energy and yeast culture (YC) on performance, carcass yield, carcass composition and economical efficiency. One hundred and fifty one-day old Muscovy ducklings were wing banded and were divided into five treatment groups in three replicates of 10 each fed on (2930 & 2730 Kcal ME/Kg) and (3030 & 2475 K cal ME/Kg) energy diets during starting and growing periods, respectively. YC was added with either high or low energy level. The calorie: protein ratio was kept constant within each energy level, and each experimental diet was fed to one of the five treatment groups from one day to 12 weeks old. Live body weight (LBW) and weight gain (WG) of ducks were improved significantly by feeding high energy diets during starter and grower periods and declined by feeding low energy grower (LEG) diet. However, feed intake (FI) increased by feeding LEG-diet, while feed conversion (FC) was better by feeding high . energy grower (HEG) diet. Dressed weight, edible parts and abdominal fat pad percentages of birds increased when offered HEG-diet, while YC added levels showed better values of most growth performance traits by feeding LEG-diet than when HEG-diet was fed and had no adverse effect on carcass yield. However, carcass moisture and protein percent decreased while carcass fat content increased by feeding high energy diets. Economical efficiency (EE) was better for ducks fed HES-LEG-diets which recommended to be used than the other dietary groups. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 91 PDF Download: 253 |
||||
