PROJECT RESULTS

Hulless Barley and Canadian Prairie Spring Wheat in Laying Hen Diets

Applicant: 

Dr. Wilhelm Guenter
Department of Animal Science
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3T 2N2  Canada

Table of Contents:

• Background and Objectives
• Procedure and Project Activities
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions

ARDI Project:

#00-461

Project Status:

Completed July, 2003

Background and Objectives:

In the past five years, hulless barley has become available as an alternative feed source for use in livestock and poultry diets.  While hulless barley is gaining acceptance as a quality feedstuff for use in swine diets, there is less acceptance for poultry diets, especially in laying hen diets.  The purpose of this study was to compare Canadian Prairie Spring (CPS) wheat and hulless barley as replacement cereals for Hard Red Spring (HRS) wheat in diets of laying hens.

Specific objectives were:

1. To analyze the three cereals for chemical composition of protein and amino acids.

2. To formulate three diets with each cereal: a positive control based on industry standards; a negative control marginal in metabolizable energy (less 100 kcal/kg) and methionine (less 0.06%) and the negative control supplemented with appropriate enzyme cocktails.

3. Feed the diets short term (3-28 d periods) to Bovan 1011 hens in the last 3 months of their production and long term (10-28 d periods) to Hyline W36 and W98 pullets.

4. Compare performance data between cereals and diet formulations.

Procedure and Project Activities:

The three cereals grown in one location on a farm in Saskatchewan were analyzed for protein and amino acids.  These data and previously determined energy data were used to formulate the diets for each cereal: positive control; negative control; negative control plus an appropriate enzyme mixture.  The enzyme cocktail for the wheat diets was high in xylanase activity (600 units/kg) whereas for the barley diet glucanase (600 units/kg) was the main enzyme.  Both cocktails also contained phytase activity (450 units/kg) to increase availability of phytase phosphorous and several side activities such as amylase, protease, invertase and cellulase. 

Two experiments were conducted.  Experiment 1 utilized 1800 Bovan 1011 hens in their final stage of production (3 -28 d periods) whereas Experiment 2 utilized two strains (576 birds each) of Hyline (W36, W98) pullets (10 -28 d periods).  Each experiment had eight replications per dietary treatment.

The data collected in each experiment were: daily egg production, feed intake per period, body weight at start and finish, egg weight for 3 consecutive days mid period, specific gravity of all eggs weighed in periods 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10, mortality was recorded as it occurred.

Results and Discussion:

The average protein and amino acid profile of the three cereals is shown in Table 1.  HRS wheat had a higher protein content than CPS wheat and hulless barley.  Using these data to formulate the diets resulted in variation of ingredient content among diets to simulate commercial formulations.  Overall Bovan 1011 hens responded similar to all three cereal diets, except that feed intake (g/h/d) was greater (P<0.05) for the CPS and hulless barley diets resulting in heavier eggs (Table 2).  The effect of enzymes on uplifting the nutrient content of the negative control diets was marginal for hen-day production but not effective for feed efficiency and body weight maintenance.

Table 1.  Crude protein and selected amino acid content of the cereal grains

Table 2.  Performance summary of Bovan 1011 laying hens fed hulless barley and CPS wheat as alternatives for HRS wheat (Expt 1)

In Experiment 2, the W98 pullets were superior in egg production, feed consumption and uncollectible egg numbers but lower in egg weight, shell quality and body weight when compared to the W36 pullets (Table 3).  Similar to Experiment 1, CPS wheat and hulless barley diets resulted in higher feed intake, heavier eggs and lower numbers of uncollectible eggs, but poorer feed efficiency and body weights (Table 4).  In general, the addition of enzymes to the negative control diets was inadequate to overcome some of the production depression resulting from the lower energy and methionine diet, however shell quality as a measure of uncollectible eggs and specific gravity was improved most likely due to the action of the phytase enzyme increasing the availability of phosphorous (Table 5).  When comparing the response of the two Hyline strains to the three cereals, it was shown that hen-day production from W98 was not affected by the change in cereals whereas the W36 performed best with HRS wheat diets.  For all other parameters, the strains responded in a similar manner.  It was also noted that the response to enzyme supplementation although marginal, was greatest for the hulless barley diet.

 Table 3.  Performance summary of Hyline W36 and W98 laying hens irrespective of dietary treatments fed (Expt 2)

Table 4.  Performance summary of laying hens fed hulless barley and CPS wheat as alternatives for Hard Red Spring wheat irrespective of strain (Expt 2, 10-28 d periods)

Table 5.  Performance summary of laying hens fed three dietary formulations irrespective of cereal or strain (Expt 2)

Conclusions:

Acknowledgements:

This project was made possible by funding from the Governments of Manitoba and Canada through the Canada-Manitoba Agri-Food Research Development Initiative (ARDI).  Matching funds were received from Manitoba Egg Producers, Canadian International Grains Institute and an in kind contribution from Canadian Bio Systems Inc.  We would like to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the technical and farm staff for helping with animal care, data collection and data analysis.

ARDI Home - Contact ARDI