Go to Top Go to Bottom
Anim Biosci > Volume 38(3); 2025 > Article
Li, Kai, Shen, Su, Fan, Wang, and Lu: Effects of dietary metabolizable energy and crude protein levels on laying performance, egg quality and fecal microbiota of Taihe Silky Fowl during the peak laying period

Abstract

Objective

The experiment aimed to study the effect of dietary metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP) on laying performance, egg quality, serum routine biochemical and lipid metabolism indicators, the apparent digestibility of nutrients, and fecal microbiota of Taihe Silky Fowl (TSF) during the peak laying period.

Methods

A total of 540 26-week-old TSF female fowls were randomly allocated to 9 groups with 5 replicates per group and 12 fowls per replicate. The fowls were fed with a 3×3 factorial arrangement of treatments diets (ME:10.88,11.30, or 11.72 MJ/kg; CP: 15, 16, or 17%).

Results

With the increasing CP level, the egg weight (p = 0.023), egg production (p = 0.047), and egg mass (p = 0.022) enhanced, while the feed conversion rate (FCR) (p = 0.023) decreased. As the ME levels grew, the average daily feed intake (p<0.001) and FCR (p = 0.045) decreased. With enhanced ME, the triglycerides (p = 0.037), total cholesterol (p = 0.041), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.028) increased, whereas the low-density serum lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.039) decreased. The apparent digestibility of CP increased as the ME level increased (p = 0.029) and as the CP level decreased (p = 0.027). At the same time, the apparent digestibility of gross energy increased as the ME level increased (p = 0.018). Different levels of ME or CP changed the composition of fecal microbiota, 17% CP increased the abundance of Bifidobacterium.

Conclusion

It is suggested that 10.88 MJ/kg dietary ME and 17% CP level are suitable for the nutritional requirements of TSF during the peak laying period.

INTRODUCTION

Taihe Silky Fowl (TSF, Gallus gallus domesticus Brisson), native to Taihe County, Ji’an City, China, is an international standard breed with a history of more than 2,000 years [1]. As depicted in Figure 1, it has a delicate and exquisite body, with ten characteristics of “mulberry comb, tassel head, green ear, beard, silky feather, feathered leg, five toes, black skin, black flesh, black bone”, making it become a precious poultry breed in China [2].
TSF is a dual-purpose chicken for meat and egg production (EP). As for EP, female fowl exhibit a low laying rate and strong nesting nature, with an annual 80 to 100 eggs [3]. The reasons for this low EP may be that the breed has not undergone long-term genetic selection, and no clear nutritional requirements have been determined for the laying period, especially during the peak laying period. Hence, studies are necessary on the suitable nutritional requirements and practical levels of nutrients in diets for TSF, especially metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP). Dietary ME and CP, the main contributors to feed cost, are two major nutritional variables for evaluating the feed nutritive value. In the face of rising feed prices, many farmers are increasingly concerned about the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and economic returns. Meanwhile, ME and CP levels are important factors affecting laying performance: reasonable levels can improve EP and reduce FCR. Gunawardana et al [4] found that a 14.89% to 17.38% increase in the CP level, an EP increase of 6.5%, and an increase of 2.38 g average egg weight (EW) in molted Hy-Line W-36 hens. Li et al [5] reported that with the gradual increase in the ME level (2,400, 2,550, 2,700, and 2,850 kcal/kg), the FCR decreased significantly in Lohmann Brown laying hens from 26 weeks to 38 weeks.
Many studies have evaluated the effect of dietary ME and CP on commercial layers, while little information is available on TSF, especially during the peak laying period. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effect of dietary ME and CP on TSF laying performance, egg quality, serum routine biochemical and lipid metabolism indicators, apparent digestibility of nutrients, and fecal microbiota of TSF at 27 to 37 weeks of age. The results are expected to provide an important nutritional reference for the efficient rearing of this precious dual-purpose fowl breed rearing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animal care

The experiment was conducted following the Chinese guidelines for animal welfare and approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of the College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University (ZJU20170466).

Animals, diets and experimental design

In this experiment, the TSF were reared at the premises of Xichangfengxiang Poultry Industry Co., Ltd. (Ji’an, China). A total of 540 26-week-old female TSF, were randomly allocated to 9 groups with 5 replicates per group and 12 birds per replicate (one replicate in three cages, 4 birds per cage [45×45×50 cm]) in A-type conventional cages arranged in a brick and tile house with windows. During the pre-feeding period (one week, 11.30 MJ/kg ME and 16% CP, mash feed), treatments were assigned based on the mean EP. Subsequently, the layers were arranged in a 3×3 factorial arrangement of treatments, which included 3 ME levels (10.88,11.30, or 11.72 MJ/kg [also 2600, 2700, or 2800 kcal/kg ME]) and 3 CP levels (15, 16, or 17% CP) at 27-week-old. The settings of ME and CP levels were referenced to the recommended levels in “Technical Regulations for the Production of Commercially-Available Taihe Silky Fowl Breeders” (DB36/T 667-2018, Fan et al [6]) and Commercial Breeder Chicken Feed of Ji’an Aonong Development Co., Ltd. (Ji’an, China). The experimental period lasted for 11 weeks. The composition and nutrient levels of diets were shown in Table 1. Cages were located in a ventilated area with a temperature between 18°C to 27°C, relative humidity between 60% to 70%, and 16 h/d of illumination (10 to 20 lx). Diets in mash form and water were offered ad libitum throughout the entire experimental period.

Laying performance

During the experimental period, feed intake was calculated weekly, and EP, EW, broken EP, and mortality (low and not insignificant values were not displayed) were recorded daily. The feed consumption was adjusted based on mortality each day. Based on these data, the average daily feed intake (ADFI), egg mass (EM, EM = EP×EW), and FCR (FCR = ADFI/EM) were calculated.

Egg quality

At the end of the experiment, due to the decrease in EP of laying hens, 6 eggs could not be collected from some replicates. Therefore, we adopted a method of collecting 30 eggs per group as the detection standard (n = 30) to assess the egg quality parameters. Albumen height, Haugh unit, yolk color, and eggshell strength were measured using an egg quality multitester (DET-6000; Nabel, Kyoto, Japan). Specifically, eggshell thickness was measured at three sites (air cell, equator, and sharp end) using a spiral micrometer (JDB03; SanLiang, Dongguan, China) and the mean value was calculated. The weight of the eggshell after separation from the egg was measured using an analytical balance (XPE204; Mettler Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA).

Blood and fecal samples

Three days before the end of the experiment, 2 healthy fowls were randomly selected from each replicate and housed individually in a single cage at 10 birds per treatment. Feces were collected twice a day at 8:00 am and 4:00 pm for 3 days. The fowls were fasted for 12 hours before feces collection and provided ad libitum access to water. The fecal sample collection and determination method of the apparent digestibility of nutrients were performed according to Zhang [7]. To give a brief description, the feed intake and fresh feces weight were recorded after removing the white uric acid of the hens. In the metabolic test, the feathers and other debris were removed from the excreta, samples were homogenized by treatment, added with H2SO4 (10%) to 3% weight of feces for nitrogen fixation, and frozen for storage. Specifically, gross energy measurement was conducted using a Parr adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Parr 6400, Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL, USA). On the last day, fresh rectal swab feces were collected in sterile lyophilized tubes for microbial 16s rRNA gene analysis. Subsequently, blood samples were collected by wing venipuncture, centrifuged at 3,500×g for 10 min at 4°C, and stored at −20°C for later analysis. The serum routine biochemical indicators included alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total protein (TP), albumin (ALB), globulin (GLOB), albumin/globulin (A/G) and the serum lipid metabolism indicators included triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TCHO), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), uric acid were determined by an automatic biochemical analyzer (UniCel DxC 600 Synchron; Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA).

DNA extraction and microbial 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis

A genomic DNA extraction kit was utilized to extract the microbial DNA from feces (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China) according to the manufacturer’s protocal. The DNA was quantified using the NanoDrop2000 system (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA), and its quality was assessed by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis. The V4 hypervariable regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene were amplified using the specific primers 515F (5′-GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGG-3′) and 806R (5′-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′). Subsequently, those genes were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and and the raw sequencing data were processed using Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology 2 (QIIME2) software. Alpha diversity (Shannon index) was calculated by Mothur (v1.30.2; http://mothur.org/wiki/calculators/). Clusters were based on similarity in abundance between bacterial genera or samples and the heatmap was visualized using the package pheatmap (1.0.8) in R software (version 3.3.1). Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) coupled with linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe, http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/galaxy/root?tool_id=lefse_upload) was used to identify differentially abundant taxa at the genus level among various groups.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 27.0 Software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). In this study, dietary ME and CP levels were analyzed using a general linear model to evaluate main effect and interaction effect, particularly, Kruskal-Wallis H test to analyze the fecal microbiota. p<0.05 was regarded as statistically significant, and 0.05<p<0.10 considered to indicate a trend. Data were presented as mean & standard error of mean.

RESULTS

Laying performance

As shown in Table 2, compared with the 15% CP diet, the EW, EP and EM increased (p<0.05) in the 17% CP diet and the FCR decreased (p<0.05) in the 16% and 17% CP diets. Specifically, the EP was 3.78% higher in the layers of fed diet containing 17% CP compared with the 15% CP diet. Compared with the 16% CP diet, the EW and EM were increased (p<0.05) in the 17% CP diet. In terms of ME, with its level increasing, the ADFI and FCR decreased (p<0.05).

Egg quality

As can be seen in Table 3, dietary ME or CP levels had no main or interaction effects on albumen height, Haugh unit, yolk color, eggshell weight, eggshell thickness, or eggshell strength (p>0.05).

Serum routine biochemical and lipid metabolism indicators

As can be seen in Table 4, dietary ME or CP levels had no main effects on the serum concentrations of ALT, AST, ALB, and A/G (p>0.05), while TP and GLOB exhibited an increased trend with the increase in CP level (0.05<p<0.10). Table 5 reflects the serum lipid metabolism. Compared with the 10.88 MJ/kg ME diet, the concentration of TG, TCHO and HDL-C were increased (p<0.05), and the LDL-C was decreased (p<0.05) in 11.72 MJ/kg ME diet.

Apparent digestibility of nutrients

As demonstrated in Table 6, compared with the 15% CP diet, the apparent digestibility of CP was decreased in the 17% CP diet (p<0.05). Compared with the 10.88MJ/kg ME diet, the apparent digestibility of CP and gross energy were increased in the 11.72 MJ/kg ME diet (p< 0.05). The apparent digestibility of CP (p = 0.029) increased as the ME level increased and as the CP level decreased (p = 0.027).

Fecal microbiota

In Figure 2A, all rarefaction curves are flattened, which indicates that the sequencing depth was sufficient for analyzing the true state of the bacterial community. In terms of alpha diversity, measured by the Shannon index, there were no significant differences between the 9 treatments (Figure 2B). At the phylum level, Firmicutes, Actinobacteriota, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria dominated the fecal microbiota of TSF (Figures 2C, 3A, 3B), among which Firmicutes accounted for more than 80%. As shown in Figure 3A, with the CP level increasing, the abundance of Proteobacteria enhanced (p<0.05). We further displayed the top 15 (Figure 2D) or 10 (Figures 3C, 3E) heatmaps of community composition at the genus level and found that the top 10 dominant fecal microbiota genus of TSF were Lactobacillus, Aerococcus, Enterococcus, Kurthia, Aeriscardovia, Macrococcus, Bacteroides, Staphylococcus, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, and Veillonella. As shown in Figure 2E, Enterococcus and Bifidobacterium showed significant differences between the treatment groups. From the CP perspective, Aerococcus, Enterococcus, Bifidobacterium and Gallibacterium showed significant differences (Figure 3D). From the ME perspective, the genus was Aeriscardovia, and Enhydrobacter (Figure 3F). We extended the LDA score (LDA>3.0) histogram to uncover the key microbiota in each group based on the statistical significance, and we found that g__Acidothermus, g__Steroidobacter, g__Anaerolinea, g__norank_f__Saprospiraceae, g__unclassified_f__Neisseriaceae, g__Kineococcus, g__norank_f__WD2101_soil_group, g__Bifidobacterium and g__Enterococcus contributed the most to the between group differences (Figure 2F). From the CP perspective (Figure 3G), g__norank_f__vadinBE97, g__Victivallis, g__Fusicatenibacter, and g__Achromobacter were more abundant in the 15% CP group, g__Enterococcus, g__Gallibacterium and g__Bifidobacterium were more abundant in the 17% CP group, while no difference was found in the ME levels.

DISCUSSION

Dietary ME and CP are two vital variables that affect the laying performance of hens and make up about 85% of the total diet cost [8]. To achieve the best growth performance, produce high-quality products and avoid feed waste, precision animal nutrition can provide animals with feed that precisely matches their nutritional requirements [9]. Animals instinctively feed for energy intake, and with the energy level increasing, the amount of feed intake gradually decreases [10,11]. Previous studies found that the ME and CP levels had an interaction effect on EW: the EW increased with the rising ME and CP level [12,13]. However, our study showed that there was no significant interaction effect of ME and CP levels on EW, but EW increased with CP in a concentration-dependent manner, consistent with a previous study [14]. Gunawardana et al [15] found that the increased CP level enhanced EP in Hy-Line W36 hens during 98 weeks to 110 weeks. Our results showed that the increased CP level improved EP was similar to the above findings. The reason might be that hens had a high need for nutrients during the peak laying period, especially protein, increasing the dietary CP level helped them to ingest sufficient CP for EP. A previous study indicated that CP levels (15%, 16.5%, and 18%) affected the EM of White Leghorn layers; as the CP level increased, the EM increased significantly in 21 to 32 weeks and had an increasing trend in 33 to 52 weeks [16]. Other studies reported that the ME or CP level can reduce the FCR [13,17]. These findings are consistent with our results. It can be seen that different scholars came to varying conclusions, possibly because of be differences in breed, breeding conditions, diet sources, and different levels of ME or CP. Especially in terms of breed, TSF is a local breed in China, with a low EP and a shorter peak laying period compared to commercial laying hens. Thus, increasing the CP level to an appropriate level is beneficial for improving EP during the peak laying period.
It has been reported that dietary ME or CP levels can affect egg quality to some extent. In the assessment of the egg’s internal characteristics, albumen height and Haugh unit are important indicators to measure egg albumen quality and freshness [18]. Previous research has shown that the dietary ME or CP level affected the albumen height and Haugh unit in Beijing You Chicken at 30 weeks [19]. In contrast, Ding et al [20] found that albumen height and Haugh unit was not affected by dietary ME or CP level for Feng-da-1 layers. With the dietary ME level increasing from 2,550 kcal/kg to 2,650 kcal/kg, the yolk color tended to increase [21]. In terms of CP, Wu et al [8] reported that the yolk color linearly decreased as the CP levels increased from 14.9% to 16.1% of Hy-Line W36 hens during 40 weeks to 52 weeks. Kang et al [22] demonstrated that eggshell thickness and eggshell strength were not affected by differences in ME levels. There were no significant main or interaction effects between ME and CP levels in influencing egg quality [13], which was consistent with our study. There might be several reasons for the above difference. First, the breeds, ages and diets were different. Secondly, there was a relatively large individual variation in the eggs of TSF because they were not systematically selected and bred. Going forward, the detection of more egg quality samples should make the sample statistics more robust.
Physiological, nutritional, and pathological changes in animals could be reflected in certain serum indicators. For example, serum TG and T-CHO concentrations could reflect the absorption and metabolism of lipids. In contrast to LDL-C, HDL-C promotes the uptake of cholesterols from peripheral tissues and transport to the liver for catabolism [23]. We found that with the ME level increasing, the concentrations of TG, T-CHO and HDL rose significantly, while the LDL-C decreased significantly in serum. A previous study found that fat birds had higher HDL-C, and lower LDL-C levels than lean birds [24], suggesting that high-energy diets may cause obesity tendency. The apparent digestibility can reflect the digestion and absorption of diet nutrients to some extent, likewise, the level of nutrient utilization in hens also directly affects their laying performance. Previous studies on the effect of ME and CP levels on the apparent digestibility of nutrients often focused on pigs, ruminants and broilers, while few studies have been conducted on laying hens. Cui [25] found that as the CP level decreased, the digestibility of CP of broiler tended to increase, which is in agreement with our study. In addition, with the ME level increasing, the apparent digestibility of gross energy linearly also increased [22], consistent with our results. The reason might be that we added soybean oil to the high-energy feed (11.72 MJ/kg), which extended the digestive transit time for the feed, such that it could be more fully exposed to digestive enzymes, ultimately improving nutrient utilization [26].
In recent years, the intestinal microbiota has been shown to play an important role in the immune regulation, nutrient digestion, growth performance, and physical health of poultry [27]. Intestinal microbiota is influenced by genotype, sex, age, diet, feeding environment and so on. A previous study had found that the intestinal microbiota of broilers is influenced by dietary factors during feeding and that the composition of the diet has a greater impact on the intrinsic intestinal microbiota than environmental factors [28]. Chen [29] discovered that different ME level changed the composition of gut microbiota in Jingfen No.2 layer breeders during the late laying period: low ME diets increased the abundance of Parasutterella and Sutterella in the cecum, while it reduced the abundance of Romboutsia. There is a lack of research on the intestinal microbiota of TSF, which necessitates exploring the changes in diet ingredients and how to change the intestinal microbiota, especially ME and CP levels. Owing to the convenience and non-invasiveness of fecal sampling, feces is commonly analyzed as representative of the intestinal microbiota [30]. The normal intestinal microbiota of laying hens is dominated by Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, and Actinobacteria at the phylum level [31], in agreement with our results. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, are the two dominant phyla in poultry, which have a strong correlation with the host’s health status. As temporally the most unstable of intestinal microbiota, there are many opportunistic pathogens in Proteobacteria, including Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Helicobacter [32], which have been associated with obesity and disease [33]. A previous study found that the abundance of Proteobacteria was significantly increased with the dietary CP levels, compared with the 15% CP level, the abundance of Proteobacteria at 16% CP level increased by 107% [34]. At the genus level, Xiao et al [35] found that Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Bacteroides, and Corynebacterium were the major microbial genus inhabiting 5 different intestinal locations in 42-day-old Ross 308 broiler chicks; specifically, Lactobacillus, Enterococcus were dominant in the rectum, similar to our results. To find the key microbial with significant differences, we analyzed the differences between groups and the LEfSe to clarify this issue. Victivallis is abundant in the digestive tract of roughage-tolerant animals such as cattle and sheep, capable of degrading fibers, and positively correlated with volatile fatty acid production [36,37]. Aside from Victivallis in the 15% CP group, we found a significantly higher abundance of Enterococcus and Bifidobacterium in the 17% CP group. Enterococcus is a lactic acid bacteria comprising both pathogenic and commensal microbiota ubiquitous in the environment, even as natural colonizers of the gastrointestinal tract of humans and most animals [38,39]. Bifidobacterium is an important probiotic in the intestine of humans and animals, playing an essential role in maintaining the balance of gut microbiota, inhibiting the invasion and colonization of pathogenic bacteria, and regulating the body’s immune system [40,41]. A previous study found that dietary supplementation of 0.1% Bifidobacterium animals improved laying performance and egg quality in Lohmann White hens [42]. Gallibacterium is a potential opportunistic pathogenic bacterium, and its subspecies Gallibacterium anatis could cause a decrease in EP and increase the risk of peritonitis in laying hens [43]. From this, we can infer that, based on the shorter peak laying period of TSF, although a high dietary CP diet can increase EP, excessive protein fermentation in the hindgut can cause an increase in pathogenic bacteria, which may harm the health of hens. Therefore, it is necessary to timely reduce the CP level in the diet after the peak laying period of TSF.

CONCLUSION

Dietary ME and CP levels significantly affect the laying performance of TSF during the peak laying period. With the CP levels increasing, the EP, EW, and EM increased, while FCR decreased. As the ME levels increased, the ADFI and FCR decreased. Different levels of ME and CP changed the composition of fecal microbiota, 17% CP increased the abundance of Bifidobacterium. The present study suggested that 10.88 MJ/kg dietary ME and 17% CP level can be helpful for increasing the laying performance and benefit for gut microbiota of TSF during the peak laying period.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: Wang Y.

Data curation: Li W.

Formal analysis: Shen Y.

Methodology: Su W.

Software: Kai L.

Validation: Fan Y.

Investigation: Lu Z.

Writing - original draft: Li W.

Writing - review & editing: Li W, Kai L, Shen Y, Su W, Fan Y, Wang Y, Lu Z.

FUNDING

This research was supported by the fund from the Key Research and Development Program of Ji’an city (Taihe Silky Fowl) and Jiangxi province (20223BBF61006).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Not applicable.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

ETHICS APPROVAL

The experiment was conducted following the Chinese guidelines for animal welfare and approved by the Animal Welfare Committee of the College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University (ZJU20170466).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Not applicable.

Figure 1
The “ten perfect” appearance characteristics of TSF. TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl.
ab-24-0446f1.jpg
Figure 2
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on fecal microbiota during the peak laying period of TSF. (A) Alpha index rarefraction curves graph. (B) Comparison of Shannon index between groups boxplot. (C) Relative abundance barplot at phylum level. (D) The community heatmap of top 15 at the genus level. (E) Top 5 significant different genus in dietary ME and CP levels. (F) The LEfSe analysis, with a LDA score above 3.0. ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; LEfSe, linear discriminant analysis effect size; LDA, linear discriminant analysis.
ab-24-0446f2.jpg
Figure 3
The main effect of dietary ME or CP levels on fecal microbiota during the peak laying period of TSF. (A) Relative abundance barplot at phylum level of three CP level. (B) Relative abundance barplot at phylum level of three ME level. (C) The community heatmap of top 10 at the genus level of three CP level. (D) Top 5 significant different genus of three CP level. (E) The community heatmap of top 10 at the genus level of three ME level. (F) Top 5 significant different genus of three ME level. (G) The LEfSe analysis, with a LDA score above 3.5. ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; LEfSe, linear discriminant analysis effect size; LDA, linear discriminant analysis.
ab-24-0446f3.jpg
Table 1
Composition and nutrient levels of the experimental diets (air-dried basis)
CP (%) CP:15 CP:16 CP:17
ME (MJ/kg) 10.88 11.30 11.72 10.88 11.30 11.72 10.88 11.30 11.72
ME (kcal/kg) 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,600 2,700 2,800

Ingredients (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
 Corn 31.56 35.16 32.76 28.26 31.86 29.46 24.96 28.56 26.06
 Soybean meal 43% 21.30 20.60 21.00 22.20 21.50 21.90 23.10 22.40 22.90
 Extruded soybean 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.40 5.40 5.40
 Rice bran 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
 Broken rice 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
 Limestone meal 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20
 CaHPO4 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
 NaCl 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
 Multi-vitamin1) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
 Mineral premix2) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
 Choline chloride 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
 Zeolite powder 2.90 0 0 2.90 0 0 2.90 0 0
 Soybean oil 0 0 2.00 0 0 2.00 0 0 2.00
 DL-Methionine 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
 Compound enzyme3) 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
Nutrient level
 ME (MJ/kg) (calculated) 10.89 11.31 11.72 10.88 11.30 11.72 10.88 11.29 11.71
 ME (kcal/kg) (calculated) 2,602.33 2,701.57 2,801.25 2,600.94 2,700.18 2,799.85 2,599.54 2,698.78 2,797.59
 CP (%) (calculated) 15.02 15.01 14.99 15.99 15.98 15.96 16.96 16.95 16.96
 CP (%) (analyzed) 14.99 15.00 14.97 15.97 15.96 15.95 16.94 16.95 16.94
 Ca (%) (analyzed) 3.48 3.50 3.49 3.51 3.52 3.46 3.53 3.49 3.50
 Total phosphorus (%) (analyzed) 0.42 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.43
 Lysine (%) (analyzed) 0.82 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.95 0.93
 Methionine (%) (analyzed) 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.39 0.36
 Methionine+cystine (%) (analyzed) 0.64 0.66 0.63 0.65 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.66

CP, crude protein; ME, metabolizable energy.

1) Multi-vitamin provided the following per kg of diet: vitamin A, 12,000 IU; vitamin E, 49.5 mg; vitamin B1, 3 mg; vitamin B2, 10.5 mg; vitamin B6, 6 mg; vitamin B12, 0.03 mg; vitamin D3, 3750 IU; vitamin K3, 6 mg; Folic acid, 3 mg; nicotinic acid, 60 mg; pantothenic acid, 18 mg; biotin, 0.3 mg.

2) Mineral premix provided the following per kg of diet: Mn, 60 mg; Zn, 120 mg; Cu, 10 mg; Fe, 80 mg; I, 1.1 mg; Se, 0.4 mg; Co, 0.2 mg.

3) Compound enzyme: Xylanase≥22,000 U/g; β-glucan≥3,000 U/g; β-mannanase≥350 U/g; cellulase≥300 U/g; amylase≥3,200 U/g; protease≥2,500 U/g.

Table 2
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on laying performance during the peak laying period of TSF
CP (%) ME (MJ/kg) ADFI (g/d) EW (g) EP (%) EM (g/d) FCR (g/g)
15 10.88 60.32a 36.37d 54.91c 19.98bc 3.02a
11.30 59.53ab 36.20d 54.84c 19.84c 3.00a
11.72 57.57bc 36.67c 55.27bc 20.26abc 2.84abc
16 10.88 59.61a 36.33d 55.79abc 20.15bc 2.96ab
11.30 58.30abc 36.25d 55.60abc 20.09bc 2.90ab
11.72 57.03c 36.33d 55.67abc 20.12bc 2.83abc
17 10.88 59.81a 36.94c 57.52ab 21.24ab 2.82abc
11.30 58.28abc 37.80a 56.01abc 21.17abc 2.75bc
11.72 56.98c 37.38b 57.74a 21.56a 2.64c
SEM 0.22 0.03 0.23 0.13 0.02
Main effect
 CP 15 59.14 36.41b 55.01b 20.03b 2.96a
16 58.31 36.30b 55.69ab 20.12b 2.89b
17 58.36 37.37a 57.09a 21.32a 2.74b
p-value 0.224 0.023 0.047 0.022 0.023
ME 10.88 59.91a 36.54 56.07 20.46 2.93a
11.30 58.70b 36.75 55.78 20.37 2.89ab
11.72 57.20c 36.79 56.23 20.65 2.77b
p-value <0.001 0.074 0.367 0.654 0.045
Interaction effect
 CP×ME p-value 0.475 0.078 0.710 0.681 0.769

Data are represented as mean & SEM (n = 5).

ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; ADFI, average daily feed intake; EW, egg weight; EP, egg production; EM, egg mass; FCR, feed conversion ratio; SEM, standard error of the mean.

EM = EP×EW, FCR = ADFI/EM.

a–d Within a column, means with different superscripts are significantly different p<0.05.

Table 3
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on egg quality during the peak laying period of TSF
CP (%) ME (MJ/kg) Albumen height (mm) Haugh unit Yolk color Eggshell weight (g) Eggshell thickness (mm) Eggshell strength (kgf/m2)
15 10.88 4.28 71.93 3.90 4.36 0.31 4.01
11.30 4.10 72.97 4.10 4.36 0.31 4.11
11.72 4.48 74.03 4.10 4.63 0.32 4.10
16 10.88 4.19 73.45 4.00 4.57 0.31 3.92
11.30 4.11 71.09 3.80 4.52 0.32 3.97
11.72 4.52 74.13 3.90 4.55 0.31 3.94
17 10.88 4.15 70.76 4.13 4.49 0.31 4.16
11.30 4.20 72.00 4.00 4.71 0.31 4.16
11.72 4.36 72.44 3.90 4.71 0.32 4.05
SEM 0.07 0.67 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.06
Main effect
 CP 15 4.28 73.02 4.03 4.41 0.31 4.07
16 4.25 72.78 3.90 4.54 0.31 3.94
17 4.23 71.61 4.00 4.61 0.31 4.12
p-value 0.962 0.725 0.800 0.105 0.613 0.453
 ME 10.88 4.19 71.95 4.00 4.47 0.31 4.02
11.30 4.13 72.10 3.97 4.52 0.31 4.08
11.72 4.45 73.53 3.98 4.64 0.31 4.03
p-value 0.216 0.625 0.976 0.234 0.124 0.930
Interaction effect
 CP×ME p-value 0.978 0.910 0.909 0.402 0.058 0.988

Data are represented as mean & SEM (n = 30).

ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; SEM, standard error of the mean.

Table 4
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on serum routine biochemical indicators during the peak laying period of TSF
CP (%) ME (MJ/kg) ALT (U/L) AST (U/L) TP (g/L) ALB (g/L) GLOB (g/L) A/G
15 10.88 3.52 201.25 49.49 16.15 33.34 0.49
11.30 3.49 203.57 50.55 16.23 34.33 0.48
11.72 3.54 201.00 50.92 16.44 34.46 0.48
16 10.88 3.60 205.29 52.09 16.45 35.64 0.47
11.30 3.74 203.80 52.01 16.38 35.64 0.47
11.72 3.64 191.14 53.00 16.91 36.09 0.48
17 10.88 3.44 191.63 53.19 16.57 36.61 0.47
11.30 3.55 202.80 52.40 16.67 35.73 0.48
11.72 3.47 195.33 54.95 16.80 38.15 0.45
SEM 0.05 2.64 0.65 0.14 0.63 0.01
Main effect
 CP 15 3.52 202.00 50.31 16.27 34.04 0.48
16 3.66 199.68 52.37 16.58 35.79 0.48
17 3.48 195.74 53.58 16.69 36.89 0.47
p-value 0.288 0.736 0.090 0.500 0.097 0.492
 ME 10.88 3.52 198.68 51.52 16.38 35.13 0.48
11.30 3.59 203.41 51.62 16.41 35.21 0.48
11.72 3.55 196.09 52.95 16.72 36.89 0.47
p-value 0.805 0.545 0.634 0.608 0.759 0.955
Interaction effect
 CP×ME p-value 0.974 0.790 0.880 0.993 0.871 0.857

Data are represented as mean & SEM (n = 10).

ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; TP, total protein; ALB, albumin; GLOB, globulin; A/G, albumin/globulin; SEM, standard error of the mean.

Table 5
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on serum lipid metabolism indices during the peak laying period of TSF
CP (%) ME (MJ/kg) TG (mmol/L) TCHO (mmol/L) LDL-C (mmol/L) HDL-C (mmol/L) UA (μmol/L)
15 10.88 3.98ab 2.77ab 1.37a 1.14b 222.00
11.30 4.27ab 2.95ab 1.16ab 1.33ab 227.88
11.72 4.47ab 3.29ab 1.02ab 1.43ab 235.40
16 10.88 4.08ab 2.70b 1.32a 1.15ab 247.43
11.30 4.31ab 3.08ab 1.19ab 1.29ab 248.57
11.72 4.52a 3.30ab 1.04ab 1.46a 252.38
17 10.88 3.96b 2.75ab 1.31ab 1.19ab 261.14
11.30 4.31ab 2.90ab 1.12ab 1.31ab 267.71
11.72 4.50ab 3.36a 0.94b 1.47a 263.00
SEM 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 6.06
Main effect
 CP 15 4.27 2.99 1.19 1.30 227.70
16 4.29 3.04 1.18 1.32 249.59
17 4.25 3.00 1.13 1.33 264.05
p-value 0.678 0.578 0.850 0.760 0.083
 ME 10.88 4.01b 2.74b 1.33a 1.16b 243.52
11.30 4.30ab 2.97ab 1.15ab 1.31ab 247.14
11.72 4.49a 3.31a 1.01b 1.46a 250.61
p-value 0.037 0.041 0.039 0.028 0.906
Interaction effect
 CP×ME p-value 0.688 0.451 0.755 0.882 0.998

Data are represented as mean & SEM (n = 10).

ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; TG, triglycerides; TCHO, total cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; UA, uric acid; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a,b Within a column, means with different superscripts are significantly different p<0.05.

Table 6
Effect of dietary ME and CP levels on the apparent digestibility of nutrients during the peak laying period of TSF
CP (%) ME (MJ/kg) Dry matter (%) Crude protein (%) Gross energy (%)
15 10.88 76.52 72.86abc 77.86c
11.30 77.11 73.35ab 78.34c
11.72 76.64 73.72a 80.83ab
16 10.88 76.42 72.22bc 78.25c
11.30 75.50 73.31ab 79.06bc
11.72 76.48 73.39ab 79.40bc
17 10.88 75.95 72.00c 77.25c
11.30 75.67 72.57abc 78.00c
11.72 76.83 72.32bc 81.93a
SEM 0.15 0.14 0.33
Main effect
 CP 15 76.76 73.31a 79.01
16 76.13 72.97ab 78.90
17 76.15 72.30b 79.06
p-value 0.119 0.027 0.654
 ME 10.88 76.30 72.36b 77.78b
11.30 76.09 73.08ab 78.47b
11.72 76.65 73.14a 80.72a
p-value 0.249 0.029 0.018
Interaction Effect
 CP×ME p-value 0.202 0.738 0.166

Data are represented as mean & SEM (n = 10).

ME, metabolizable energy; CP, crude protein; TSF, Taihe Silky Fowl; SEM, standard error of the mean.

a–c Within a column, means with different superscripts are significantly different p<0.05.

REFERENCES

1. Wei Q, Cui H, Hu Y, et al. Comparative characterization of Taihe silky chicken and Cobb chicken using LC/MS-based lipidomics and GC/MS-based volatilomics. LWT-Food Sci Technol 2022;163:113554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113554
crossref
2. Tu YG, Sun YZ, Tian YG, Xie MY, Chen J. Physicochemical characterisation and antioxidant activity of melanin from the muscles of taihe black-bone silky fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus Brisson). Food Chem 2009;114:1345–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.11.015
crossref
3. Zhang CH, Mi S, Jia W. Taihe silky fowl. Science Press; 2019.

4. Gunawardana P, Roland DA, Bryant MM. Effect of energy and protein on performance, egg components, egg solids, egg quality, and profits in molted Hy-Line W-36 Hens. J Appl Poult Res 2008;17:432–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2007-00085
crossref
5. Li F, Zhang LM, Wu XH, et al. Effects of metabolizable energy and balanced protein on egg production, quality, and components of lohmann brown laying hens. J Appl Poult Res 2013;22:36–46. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00568
crossref
6. Fan YQ, Luo SH, Wang JH, et al. Technical regulations for the production of commercially-available taihe silky fowl breeders. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China (DB36/T 667-2018). 2018.

7. Zhang HS. Effects of low protein diet on late production performance and nutritional regulation of laying hens. Zhejiang University; 2022.

8. Wu G, Gunawardana P, Bryant MM, Roland DA. Effect of dietary energy and protein on performance, egg composition, egg solids, egg quality and profits of Hy-Line W-36 Hens during phase 2. Int J Poult Sci 2007;44:739–44. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.739.744
crossref
9. Zhang Y, Lu R, Qin C, Nie G. Precision nutritional regulation and aquaculture. Aquac Rep 2020;18:100496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100496
crossref
10. Frikha M, Safaa HM, Jiménez-Moreno E, Lázaro R, Mateos GG. Influence of energy concentration and feed form of the diet on growth performance and digestive traits of brown egg-laying pullets from 1 to 120 days of age. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009;153:292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.06.012
crossref
11. Granghelli CA, Burbarelli MFC, Lelis KD, et al. Effects of dietary metabolizable energy levels and beak trimming on the performance, egg quality, and economic viability of layers. Poult Sci 2019;98:5831–9. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez145
crossref pmid
12. Hassan RM, Choe SH, Jeong YD, Hwangbo J, Ryu KS. Effect of dietary energy and protein on the performance, egg quality, bone mineral density, blood properties and yolk fatty acid composition of organic laying hens. Ital J Anim Sci 2013;12:e10. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2013.e10
crossref
13. Kim CH, Kang HK. Effects of energy and protein levels on laying performance, egg quality, blood parameters, blood biochemistry, and apparent total tract digestibility on laying hens in an aviary system. Animals 2022;12:3513. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243513
crossref pmid pmc
14. Yu DJ, Na JC, Choi HC, et al. Effects of varying levels of dietary metabolizable energy and crude protein on performance and egg quality of organic laying hens. Korean Soc Poult Sci 2009;35:367–73. https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2009.35.4.367
crossref
15. Gunawardana P, Wu G, Yuan K, Bryant MM, Roland DA. Effect of dietary protein and peptide in corn-soy diets on hen performance, egg solids, egg composition and egg quality of Hy-Line W-36 hens during second cycle phase three. Int J Poult Sci 2009;8:317–22. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2009.317.322
crossref
16. Rama Rao SV, Ravindran V, Raju MV, Srilatha T, Panda AK. Effect of different concentrations of metabolisable energy and protein on performance of White Leghorn layers in a tropical climate. Br Poult Sci 2014;55:532–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.935997
crossref pmid
17. Liu Z, Wu G, Bryant MM, Roland DA. Influence of added synthetic lysine in low-protein diets with the methionine plus cysteine to lysine ratio maintained at 0.75. J Appl Poult Res 2005;14:174–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/14.1.174
crossref
18. Roberts RJ. Factors affecting egg internal quality and egg shell quality in laying hens. J Poult Sci 2004;41:161–77. https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.41.161
crossref
19. Geng AL, Zhang QQ, Chang C, et al. Dietary metabolizable energy and crude protein levels affect the performance, egg quality and biochemical parameters of a dual-purpose chicken. Anim Biotechnol 2022;34:2714–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2022.2114001
crossref pmid
20. Ding Y, Bu X, Zhang N, Li L, Zou X. Effects of metabolizable energy and crude protein levels on laying performance, egg quality and serum biochemical indices of Fengda-1 layers. Anim Nutr 2016;2:93–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2016.03.006
crossref pmid pmc
21. Mikulski D, Jankowski J, Mikulska M, Demey V. Effects of dietary probiotic (Pediococcus acidilactici) supplementation on productive performance, egg quality, and body composition in laying hens fed diets varying in energy density. Poult Sci 2020;99:2275–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.046
crossref pmid pmc
22. Kang HK, Park SB, Jeon JJ, et al. Effect of increasing levels of apparent metabolizable energy on laying hens in barn system. Anim Biosci 2018;31:1766–72. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0846
crossref pmid pmc
23. Miller GJ, Miller NE. Plasma-high-density-lipoprotein concentration and development of ischaemic heart-disease. Lancet 1975;305:16–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(75)92376-4
crossref
24. Dong JQ, Zhang H, Jiang XF, et al. Comparison of serum biochemical parameters between two broiler chicken lines divergently selected for abdominal fat content. J Anim Sci 2015;93:3278–86. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-8871
crossref pmid
25. Cui YM. Effects of low protein diets on production performance, immune function and metabolism of nutriments in broilers. Inner Mongolia Agricultural University; 2010.

26. Mateos GG, Sell JL, Eastwood JA. Rate of food passage (transit time) as influenced by level of supplemental fat. Poult Sci 1982;61:94–100. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0610094
crossref pmid
27. Oakley BB, Lillehoj HS, Kogut MH, et al. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014;360:100–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12608
crossref pmid
28. Ludvigsen J, Svihus B, Rudi K. Rearing room affects the non-dominant chicken cecum microbiota, while diet affects the dominant microbiota. Front Vet Sci 2016;3:16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00016
crossref pmid pmc
29. Chen D. Effects of low protein diets with different energy levels on production performance and cecal microflora diversity of laying breeders in late laying period. Yunnan Agricultural University; 2023.

30. Zhou Q, Lan F, Li X, et al. The spatial and temporal characterization of gut microbiota in broilers. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:712226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.712226
crossref pmid pmc
31. Khan S, Moore RJ, Stanley D, Chousalkar KK. The gut microbiota of laying hens and its manipulation with prebiotics and probiotics to enhance gut health and food safety. Appl Environ Microbiol 2020;86:e00600–20. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00600-20
crossref pmid pmc
32. Rizzatti G, Lopetuso LR, Gibiino G, Binda C, Gasbarrini A. Proteobacteria: a common factor in human diseases. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:9351507. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9351507
crossref pmid pmc
33. Zhu L, Baker SS, Gill C, et al. Characterization of gut microbiomes in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients: a connection between endogenous alcohol and NASH. Hepatology 2013;57:601–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.26093
crossref pmid
34. Chang C, Zhang QQ, Wang HH, et al. Dietary metabolizable energy and crude protein levels affect pectoral muscle composition and gut microbiota in native growing chickens. Poult Sci 2023;102:102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102353
crossref pmid pmc
35. Xiao Y, Xiang Y, Zhou W, Chen J, Li K, Yang H. Microbial community mapping in intestinal tract of broiler chicken. Poult Sci 2017;96:1387–93. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew372
crossref pmid
36. Ahmad AA, Yang C, Zhang J, et al. Effects of dietary energy levels on rumen fermentation, microbial diversity, and feed efficiency of yaks (Bos grunniens). Front Microbiol 2020;11:625. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00625
crossref pmid pmc
37. Khatoon M, Patel SH, Pandit RJ, et al. Rumen and fecal microbial profiles in cattle fed high lignin diets using metagenome analysis. Anaerobe 2022;73:102508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2021.102508
crossref pmid
38. Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012;10:266–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2761
crossref pmid pmc
39. Hanchi H, Mottawea W, Sebei K, Hammami R. The genus Enterococcus: between probiotic potential and safety concerns-an update. Front Microbiol 2018;9:1791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01791
crossref pmid pmc
40. Fukuda S, Toh H, Hase K, et al. Bifidobacteria can protect from enteropathogenic infection through production of acetate. Nature 2011;469:543–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09646
crossref pmid
41. Gavzy SJ, Kensiski A, Lee ZL, Mongodin EF, Ma B, Bromberg JS. Bifidobacterium mechanisms of immune modulation and tolerance. Gut Microbes 2023;15:2291164. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2291164
crossref pmid pmc
42. Balcón-Pacheco CD, Coronel-Gómez FD, Ozuna C, Jiménez-Fernández M, Angel-Sahagún CA, Franco-Robles E. Effect of the probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis as a substitute to growth-promoting antibiotics on performance and egg quality in laying hens. Iran J Appl Anim Sci 2023;13:357–65.

43. El-Adawy H, Bocklisch H, Neubauer H, Hafez HM, Hotzel H. Identification, differentiation and antibiotic susceptibility of Gallibacterium isolates from diseased poultry. Ir Vet J 2018;71:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-018-0116-2
crossref pmid pmc


Editorial Office
Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies(AAAP)
Room 708 Sammo Sporex, 23, Sillim-ro 59-gil, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08776, Korea   
TEL : +82-2-888-6558    FAX : +82-2-888-6559   
E-mail : editor@animbiosci.org               

Copyright © 2025 by Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next