Binnendijk, G.P.

Krimpen, M.M., van

Kwakkel, R.P.

Ogun, M.

English

Wageningen Yield 

1 
 
Effect of dietary energy to digestible methionine ratio on performance of organic housed 1 
laying hens 2 
Marinus van Krimpen
a*
; Gisabeth Binnendijk
a
; Modupeore Ogun
b 
; René Kwakkel
b
  3 
a
Wageningen UR Livestock Research 4 
b
Department Animal Nutrition, Wageningen University 5 
*
Corresponding author: Email: marinus.vankrimpen@wur.nl  6 
 7 
Abstract 8 
An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of energy to methionine (MET) ratio on 9 
egg performance in organic housed laying hens (from 22 to 34 wk of age) during summer and 10 
winter. A total of 128 17-wk old Brown Nick hens were allotted to 16 pens. Each pen was 11 
connected to an outdoor run. The experiment comprised 8 dietary treatments according to a 12 
4×2 factorial design. The factors were MET level (2.3, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.5 g/kg) and energy 13 
content (2600 and 2900 kcal). Treatments were applied during both seasons, resulting in 4 14 
replicates per treatment. In the summer period, dietary energy content did not affect energy 15 
intake (313 kcal/d), whereas energy intake in the winter period was increased in hens that 16 
were fed high energy diets (362 vs. 381 kcal/d, p<0.001). During summer, egg mass linearly 17 
increased with increasing dietary MET content. Maximal egg mass was realized by 18 
supplementing diets with 3.5 g/kg digestible (dig.) MET, corresponding to a dig. MET intake 19 
of 400 mg/d. During winter, maximal egg mass was achieved with a dig. MET intake of 350 20 
mg/d, which was already realized with a dig. MET content of 2.7 g/kg. Egg mass (g/d) could 21 
be predicted by the equation: 0.119 × energy intake (kcal/d) + 0.082 × MET intake (mg/d) - 22 
1.65 × daily gain (g/d) - 0.818 × inside temperature (
°
C) (R
2
 = 0.80). Based on these results, it 23 
can be concluded that dietary energy to MET ratio should be adjusted to seasonal conditions. 24 
Key words: laying hens; methionine; organic; performance 25 
 26 
Introduction 27 
It is stated that the main dietary challenge in organic laying hen production is to fulfill the 28 
protein requirement, especially the MET requirement (Elwinger et al 2008). In poultry diets, 29 
the amino acid (AA) MET is the first limiting AA (NRC 1994). Environmental factors, like 30 
ambient temperature, seasonal effects and housing system might affect feed intake of laying 31 
fowl (Chwalibog and Baldwin 1995; Roth and Bohmer 2008). Hens will compensate for these 32 
increased requirements by higher feed intake (Herremans et al 1989; Luiting 1990; Peguri and 33 
Coon 1993). It is assumed, however, that hen's daily requirements for nutrients, other than 34 
energy, are not changed by the level of feed consumption (NRC 1994). If this assumption is 35 
valid, contents of other dietary nutrients, like AA, could be adjusted to the feed intake level of 36 
the hens. Because feed intake level of organic housed laying hens is rather high, this might 37 
provide new challenges for the diet composition of organic housed laying hens. Therefore, an 38 
experiment was conducted to determine the effect of energy to MET ratio on egg performance 39 
and plumage condition in organic housed laying hens, that were fed diets with a low (2600 40 
kcal) or a high (2900 kcal) energy content during summer and winter and four dietary dig. 41 
MET levels. It is hypothesized that organic housed laying hens have higher requirements for 42 
energy, but similar requirements for AA, resulting in an increased dietary energy to AA ratio 43 
for optimal egg performance, compared to conventional housed layers. 44 
 45 
Material and methods 46 
Two separate flocks, each of 128 17-wk old Brown Nick hens with intact beaks, that were 47 
reared under organic conditions, were allotted to 16 pens during a summer and winter trial, 48 
respectively. Each pen was connected to an outdoor run. The experiment comprised eight 49 
2 
 
dietary treatments according to a 4 × 2 factorial design. The factors were dig. MET level (2.3, 50 
2.7, 3.1 and 3.5 g/kg) and AMEN content (2600 and 2900 kcal/kg). The calculated ratios of 51 
dig. MET to dig. LYS, CYS, THR, and TRY were constant in all diets. Ratio of AMEN to 52 
vitamins and minerals was similar for all diets. Treatments were applied during both seasons, 53 
resulting in four replicates per treatment. Feed intake and egg performance per pen were 54 
recorded weekly. In a 4-wk interval, hens were weighed per pen, whereas plumage and skin 55 
condition per individual hen were scored by using the method of Bilcik and Keeling (1999). 56 
Temperature was recorded on a daily base inside the room and in the outdoor area. 57 
 58 
Results and discussion 59 
During summer, average min. and max. temperature amounted in the house 16.5
°
C and 60 
21.3
°
C, and outside the house 10.2
°
C and 19.7
°
C, respectively. During winter, average min. 61 
and max. temperature amounted in the house 8.7
°
C and 14.4
°
C, and outside the house 0.2
°
C 62 
and 5.5
°
C, respectively. In the summer period, dietary energy content did not affect energy 63 
intake (313 kcal/d), whereas energy intake in the winter period was increased in hens that 64 
were fed high energy diets (362 vs. 381 kcal/d, p<0.001) (Table 1). Apparently, hens were not 65 
able to consume enough ‘low energy feed’ during winter to fulfill their energy requirements. 66 
Increasing the dig. MET content resulted in increased MET intake (Table 2), indicating that 67 
no feedback mechanisms on feed intake were activated in the range of tested MET contents. 68 
During summer, egg mass linearly increased with increasing dietary MET content (Table 2). 69 
Maximal egg mass in summer was realized by supplementing diets with 3.5 g/kg dig. MET, 70 
corresponding to a dig. MET intake of 406 mg/d. During winter, maximal egg mass was 71 
achieved with a dig. MET intake of 352 mg/d, which was already realized with a dig. MET 72 
content of 2.7 g/kg. Energy intake was affected by an interaction between dietary energy and 73 
MET content. In low energy diets, energy intake of hens that were fed 3.5 g/kg dig MET was 74 
reduced compared to the 2.3 and 2.7 MET treatments, whereas in the high energy diets, 75 
energy intake was not affected by MET content (Table 3). Egg weight was not affected by 76 
dietary energy content in the 2.7 and 3.5 MET treatments, whereas in the high energy 77 
treatment egg weight was reduced in hens that were fed the 2.3 (57.5 vs. 54.7 g) and 3.1 (59.1 78 
vs. 57.8 g) g/kg dig. MET compared to the low energy treatment. In the 2.7, 3.1 and 3.5 MET 79 
treatments, egg mass was not affected by dietary energy content, whereas in the 2.3 MET 80 
treatment, egg mass was reduced in hens that were fed the high energy diet, compared to the 81 
low energy diet (48.5 vs. 44.4 g/hen/d).  82 
Based on the results of this experiment, egg mass (g/d) could be predicted by the equation [1]: 83 
0.119 × energy intake (kcal/d) + 0.082 × MET intake (mg/d) - 1.650 × daily gain (g/d) - 0.818 84 
× inside temperature (
°
C) (R
2
 = 0.80).  85 
Energy intake (kcal/d) could be predicted by the equation [2]: 0.505 × rate of lay (%) + 4.354 86 
× egg weight (g) + 2.687 × daily gain (g) + 0.056 × Energy to dig. MET ratio + 13.37 × 87 
Feather damage score – 2.116 × inside temperature (°C) (R2 = 0.72). All parameters in both 88 
equations had a significant (p<0.05) contribution to those equations. 89 
 90 
Conclusions 91 
Based on these results, it can be concluded that dietary energy to MET ratio should be 92 
adjusted to seasonal conditions. Digestible MET content in diets of organic laying hens can be 93 
significantly reduced from 3.1 to 2.7 g/kg at low temperatures, without negatively affecting 94 
hen performance. 95 
 96 
97 
3 
 
References 98 
Bilcik B, Keeling LJ. 1999. Changes in feather condition in relation to feather pecking and 99 
aggressive behaviour in laying hens. Br Poult Sci. 40:444-451.  100 
Chwalibog A, Baldwin RL. 1995. Systems to predict the energy and protein-requirements of 101 
laying fowl. Worlds Poult Sci J. 51:187-196.  102 
Elwinger K, Tufvesson M, Lagerkvist G, Tauson R. 2008. Feeding layers of different 103 
genotypes in organic feed environments. Br Poult Sci. 49:654-665.  104 
Herremans, M, Decuypere E, Siau O. 1989. Effects of feather wear and temperature on 105 
prediction of food-intake and residual food-consumption. Br Poult Sci. 30:15-22.  106 
Luiting P. 1990. Genetic variation of energy partitioning in laying hens - causes of variation 107 
in residual feed consumption. Worlds Poult Sci J. 46:133-152.  108 
NRC. 1994. Nutrient requirements of poultry. Washington DC. 109 
Peguri A, Coon C. 1993. Effect of feather coverage and temperature on layer performance. 110 
Poult Sci 72:1318-1329.  111 
Roth FX, Bohmer BM. 2008. Feeding strategies for laying hens in housing systems with 112 
open-air runs according to organic farming principles. Arch Geflugelkd. 72:121-128.  113 
 114 
Table 1. Effect of interaction between season and energy levels on organic laying hen 
performance from 24-34 weeks of age
1 
Treatments FI (g/d) FCR EI (kcal/d) MI (mg/d) Laying (%) EW (g) EM (g/d) 
Summer 
Low Energy 120.4
c 
2.35 313.0
c 
349.9
c 
85.13
b 
58.21 50.13
b 
High Energy 107.7
d 
2.42 312.4
c 
313.9
d 
81.24
c 
56.60 46.49
c 
Winter 
Low Energy 132.4
a 
2.65 344.1
b 
381.4
a 
96.30
a 
58.75 56.44
a 
High Energy 125.1
b 
2.47 363.0
a 
361.6
b 
96.55
a 
57.90 56.21
a 
SE 1.08 0.08 3.0 3.2 1.19  0.31  0.74 
P-value 0.016 0.611 0.001 0.027 0.043 0.097 0.009 
ab 
means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p <0.05)
 
1
FI=Feed intake; FCR=Feed conversion ratio; EI=Energy intake; MI= Methionine intake; EW=Egg 
weight; EM=Egg mass  
 115 
 116 
Table 2. Effect of interaction between season and methionine levels on organic laying hen 
performance from 24-34 weeks of age
1 
 FI (g/d) FCR EI (kcal/d) MI (mg/d) Laying (%) EW (g) EM (g/d) 
Summer        
2.3 MET 107.9
e 
3.06
a 
295.8
e 
247.7
g 
71.84
d 
54.33
c 
39.40
d 
2.7 MET 114.6
d 
2.42
b 
313.9
d 
308.8
f 
84.33
c 
58.34
ab 
49.25
c 
3.1 MET 117.6
d 
2.49
b 
322.6
d 
364.6
d 
85.87
c 
57.90
b 
50.36
c 
3.5 MET 115.9
d 
 
2.27
bc 
318.6
d 
406.4
b 
90.69
b 
59.05
a 
54.22
b 
Winter        
2.3 MET 134.5
a 
2.51
b 
369.2
a 
309.4
f 
92.89
ab 
57.84
b 
53.41
b 
2.7 MET 130.3
b 
2.36
bc 
357.8
b 
352.0
e 
96.16
a 
58.68
ab 
56.58
a 
3.1 MET 126.4
c 
2.16
c 
347.2
c 
391.4
c 
97.62
a 
58.96
a 
57.56
a 
3.5 MET 123.9
c 
2.16
c 
340.0
c 
433.3
a 
99.02
a 
57.82
b 
57.74
a 
SE 1.6 0.11 4.5 4.7 1.8 0.53 1.1 
 P-value <0.001 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 
4 
 
ab 
means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p <0.05)
 
1
FI=Feed intake; FCR=Feed conversion ratio; EI=Energy intake; MI= Methionine intake; EW=Egg 
weight; EM=Egg mass  
 117 
Table 3. Effect of interaction between energy and methionine levels on organic laying hen 
performance from 24-34 weeks of age
1 
 FI (g/d) FCR EI (kcal/d) MI (mg/d) Laying (%) EW (g) EM (g/d) 
Low energy        
2.3 MET 127.60
a 
2.84
 
331.80
abc 
293.8 84.34 57.50
d 
48.50
e 
2.7 MET 127.20
a 
2.45
 
331.70
bc 
343.7 90.89 58.65
abc 
53.40
bcd 
3.1 MET 126.60
a 
2.43
 
329.20
cd 
392.2 91.88 59.07
a 
54.70
abc 
3.5 MET 123.60
b 
2.29
 
321.50
d 
432.8 95.74 58.70
ab 
56.60
a 
High energy        
2.3 MET 114.90
c 
2.74
 
333.20
abc 
263.3 80.39 54.66
e 
44.40
f 
2.7 MET 117.20
c 
2.33
 
339.90
ab 
317.1 89.59 58.37
abc 
52.40
d 
3.1 MET 117.40
c 
2.22
 
340.60
a 
363.8 91.62 57.79
cd 
53.20
cd 
3.5 MET 116.20
c 
2.15
 
337.10
abc 
406.9 93.97 58.17
bcd 
55.40
ab 
SE 1.57 0.12 4.41 4.6 1.72 0.43 1.07 
P-value 0.024 0.988 0.045 0.177 0.570 <0.001 0.041 
ab 
means in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (p <0.05)
 
1
FI=Feed intake; FCR=Feed conversion ratio; EI=Energy intake; MI= Methionine intake; EW=Egg 
weight; EM=Egg mass  
 118 


Effect of dietary energy to digestible methionine ratio on performance of organic housed laying hens

Name not available

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/216199

Effect of dietary energy to digestible methionine ratio on performance of organic housed laying hens

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wageningen Yield

Name not available