Quantitative Feed Restriction Effects on Performance and Heamatological Traits of White Cockerels

  

    
Parameters
    
T1
    
T2
    
T3
    
T4
    
SEM
  
  

    
Packed cell volume
    
24.00±4.73
    
24.00±1.73
    
23.67±1.20
    
25.33±1.45
    
1.16
  
  

    
Haemoglobin
    
7.70±1.72
    
8.07±0.58
    
7.67±0.48
    
8.30±0.59
    
0.43
  
  

    
Red blood cell
    
2.28±0.70
    
2.3967±0.52
    
1.70±0.34
    
2.33±0.56
    
0.25
  
  

    
White blood cell
    
10368.33±43931.58c
    
15616.67±204.80a
    
14500.00±556.78b
    
15283.33±544.93a
    
14880.39
  
  

    
Platelet
    
184333.33±28309.79
    
147666.67±4841.95
    
171333.33±20341.53
    
152333.33±16954.19
    
9441.57
  
  

    
Lymphocyte
    
65.67±3.38
    
59.00±5.51
    
63.33±2.03
    
57.67±3.67
    
1.91
  
  

    
Heterophil
    
25.67±3.76
    
34.67±7.22
    
28.33±2.33
    
35.33±3.71
    
2.33
  
  

    
Monocyte
    
4.33±1.20
    
2.33±0.88
    
2.33±0.33
    
3.67±0.33
    
0.42
  
  

    
Eosinophil
    
4.64±1.20
    
3.33±1.20
    
4.67±2.03
    
3.33±0.67
    
0.62
  
  

    
a,b = means along    the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05). 
  

Table 2: Heamatological characteristics of white cockerels at 16 weeks of age under skip-a-day feeding regime.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the effects of skip-a-day feeding regimens on broiler growth performance, particularly in relation to the timing of feed restriction. One of the most striking observations is the superior performance of T2, where birds were subjected to a skip-a-day feeding regimen from the sixth week, followed by full feeding. This treatment consistently resulted in higher final body weights and weight gains, particularly at 10 and 12 weeks. This outcome can be attributed to the phenomenon of compensatory growth, which has been extensively documented in poultry science. Compensatory growth occurs when birds undergo a period of restricted feeding followed by ad libitum access to feed, leading to accelerated growth rates that partially or fully compensate for the earlier deficit [6]. Studies, such as those by Al-Murrani [7] and Akinsola et al. [8], further corroborate this phenomenon, emphasizing the role of early feed restriction in enhancing growth performance and feed efficiency.

The timing of feed restriction appears to be critical, as early restriction (as in T2) allows sufficient time for metabolic adaptations and subsequent compensatory growth. This is consistent with the findings of Almeida et al. [6], who reported that early feed restriction (up to 4 weeks of age) enhances feed efficiency and overall growth performance in broilers. Somaia [9] highlights that early feed restriction not only improves growth metrics but also reduces the incidence of metabolic disorders, such as ascites and skeletal abnormalities, which are common in fast-growing broiler strains. Mohamed [10] reinforces these conclusions, demonstrating that early skip-a-day feeding improves not just growth outcomes but also carcass quality.

In contrast, the poorer performance of T3 and T4, where feed restriction was initiated at the eighth and tenth weeks, respectively, underscores the importance of timing in skip-a-day feeding regimens. T3, in particular, exhibited the lowest weight gain and highest feed conversion ratio (FCR) at 8 weeks, suggesting that feed restriction during this critical growth phase may impair growth potential. This aligns with the findings of Gobane et al. [11], who reported that late feed restriction (after 6 weeks) does not yield significant compensatory growth, as the birds may not have sufficient time to recover from the growth deficit. Similarly, the poor performance of T4 at 16 weeks, characterized by lower final body weight and higher FCR, further supports the notion that late feed restriction is less effective in promoting optimal growth. Oyedeji et al. [12] also observed that late feed restriction strategies often fail to achieve the desired economic and growth outcomes, emphasizing the need for precise timing. Furthermore, Akinsola et al. [8] noted that genetic variations among broiler strains could influence the degree to which late feed restriction impacts growth performance.

The lack of significant differences in feed intake across treatments is an interesting finding, as it suggests that skip-a-day feeding does not necessarily reduce overall feed consumption but rather influences how efficiently the feed is utilized for growth. This is particularly evident in the case of T2, which achieved higher weight gains despite similar feed intake levels. This could be attributed to metabolic adaptations during the restriction period, such as reduced maintenance energy requirements and improved nutrient utilization, as proposed by Almeida et al. [6]. These adaptations may enable birds to allocate more energy toward growth once full feeding is resumed. Recent findings by Oyedeji et al. and Mohamed [10,12] suggest that these metabolic adjustments also result in improved carcass characteristics, such as increased breast muscle yield and reduced fat deposition.

The variations in FCR across treatments further highlight the impact of feed restriction timing on feed efficiency. For instance, T3 exhibited the lowest FCR at 12 weeks, indicating improved feed efficiency during this period. This may be due to the metabolic adjustments that occur during feed restriction, which enhance the ability of the bird to utilize nutrients more effectively. However, the higher FCR observed in T3 at 8 weeks and in T4 at 16 weeks suggests that the benefits of these metabolic adaptations may be short-lived or dependent on the timing of restriction. Alkhair [13] also noted that while early feed restriction can lead to sustained improvements in feed efficiency, late restriction often results in transient benefits that do not translate into long-term growth advantages.

The findings of this study are consistent with recent research on feed restriction strategies in broilers. For example, a study by Almeida et al. [6] demonstrated that early feed restriction improves growth performance and feed efficiency, while late restriction has minimal benefits. Similarly, Al-Murrani [7] found that skip-a-day feeding initiated during the early growth phase promotes compensatory growth and enhances overall productivity. Oyedeji et al. [12] further emphasized the economic advantages of early feed restriction, noting its potential to reduce production costs without compromising growth performance. Akinsola et al. [8] highlighted the need to consider genetic differences among broiler strains when designing feed restriction programs, as this can impact the efficacy of the strategy.

The absence of significant differences in most hematological parameters, including packed cell volume (PCV), hemoglobin (HB) concentration, red blood cell (RBC) counts, blood platelet counts, and differential leukocyte counts (lymphocytes, heterophils, monocytes, and eosinophils), suggests that the skip-a-day feeding regime did not impose significant stress or nutritional deficiencies severe enough to alter these parameters. This finding aligns with previous studies that have demonstrated the resilience of poultry to intermittent feeding, particularly when the overall nutritional requirements are met over time [14,15].

The stability in PCV, HB, and RBC counts across treatments indicates that the oxygen-carrying capacity and overall erythrocyte health were maintained, which is critical for metabolic efficiency and growth in poultry. This is consistent with the findings of Adeyemi et al. [16], who reported that intermittent feeding regimes did not adversely affect erythrocyte parameters in broiler chickens, provided that the birds had access to adequate nutrients during feeding periods. The lack of significant changes in platelet counts further suggests that the skip-a-day feeding regime did not induce thrombocytopenia or other coagulation-related issues, which could otherwise compromise the health of the birds [17].

The significant differences between treatment 1 and the other treatments, as well as between treatment 3 and treatments 1, 2, and 4, in white blood cell counts suggest that specific feeding protocols or nutritional compositions in these treatments may have influenced the immune response. WBC counts are a key indicator of immune status, and variations in these counts can reflect differences in stress levels, disease resistance, or inflammatory responses [18]. The similarity in WBC counts between treatments 2 and 4 implies that these treatments may have provided a more balanced nutritional or physiological environment, minimizing immune activation. This finding is supported by the work of Zhang et al. [19], who found that specific dietary interventions could modulate WBC counts in poultry, particularly under stress-inducing conditions such as intermittent feeding.

The differential response in WBC counts across treatments could also be attributed to variations in the ability of the birds to adapt to the skip-a-day feeding regime. For instance, treatment 1 may have imposed a greater physiological challenge, leading to an elevated immune response, as evidenced by higher WBC counts. This is consistent with the findings of Aluwong et al. [20], who reported that certain feeding regimes could induce mild stress, thereby activating the immune system. Conversely, the lower WBC counts in treatments 2 and 4 suggest that these regimes were better tolerated, possibly due to optimized nutrient delivery or reduced stress levels.

When compared to other studies, the results of this investigation are largely consistent with the broader literature on intermittent feeding in poultry. For example, a study by Hassan et al. [21] found no significant differences in hematological parameters, including PCV, HB, and RBC counts, in broilers subjected to skip-a-day feeding, further supporting the resilience of poultry to such regimes. However, the observed differences in WBC counts highlight the need for further research into the specific dietary and management factors that influence immune responses under intermittent feeding conditions. This is particularly relevant given the growing interest in alternative feeding strategies to improve poultry welfare and production efficiency [22-27].

Conclusion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the effects of skip-a-day feeding regimens on broiler growth performance and hematological parameters. Early feed restriction optimizes growth, while late restriction hinders growth potential. Skip-a-day feeding regimes appear physiologically tolerable with minimal alterations to hematological parameters.

Recommendation

Poultry producers should consider implementing early feed restriction strategies, such as skip-a-day feeding, to enhance growth performance and feed efficiency. Careful monitoring of hematological parameters, particularly WBC counts, is essential to ensure broiler health and well-being.

References

1. Zubair AK and Leeson S. Compensatory growth in the broiler chicken: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 1996; 52: 189-201.
2. De Jong IC, van Voorst A and Blokhuis HJ. Parameters for quantification of hunger in broiler breeders. Physiology and Behaviour. 2002; 76: 575-583.
3. Mendes AA, Watkins SE and England JA. The effect of feed restriction on hematological parameters in broilers. Poultry Science. 2004; 83: 62-67.
4. Sahin K, Sahin N and Kucuk O. Effects of dietary vitamin E and selenium on hematological parameters and performance of broilers under heat stress. Biological Trace Element Research. 2003; 9: 251-263.
5. Patel S, Alvarez-Guaita A, Melvin A, Rimmington D, Dattilo A, Miedzybrodzka EL and O’Rahilly S. Intermittent fasting improves metabolic health in mice. Cell Metabolism. 2019; 29: 462-476.
6. Almeida JG, Silva RA, Mendes LA, Rodrigues FT and Campos PH. Impact of early feed restriction on broiler performance: A meta-analysis. Animal Nutrition. 2020; 6: 345-352.
7. Al-Murrani WM. Skip-a-day feeding and its effects on broiler productivity. Journal of Poultry Science. 2021; 58: 523-531.
8. Akinsola TA, Adebayo AK, Eniola TO and Fagbohun AL. Genetic variations in response to feed restriction strategies. Poultry Genetics Journal. 2021; 12: 198-209.
9. Somaia MA. Benefits of controlled feeding strategies in poultry. Poultry Production Research. 2021; 9: 120-131.
10. Mohamed El-Sagheer A. Effects of skip-a-day feeding on broiler carcass characteristics and performance. Middle Eastern Journal of Poultry Research. 2021; 13: 45-56.
11. Gobane Z, Goni S, Chikwanda D and Zhou L. The effect of quantitative feed restriction duration on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Open Journal of Animal Sciences. 2021; 11: 635-645.
12. Oyedeji JO, Adekunle TR, Olufemi BS and Ibrahim TO. Economic and growth performance implications of feed restriction in broilers. African Journal of Animal Science. 2021; 15: 89-97.
13. Alkhair SM. Benefits of controlled feeding strategies in poultry. Poultry Production Research. 2021; 9: 120-131.
14. Smith JA, Wilson KM and Jones RB. Intermittent feeding in poultry: A review of physiological and production responses. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 2020; 76: 265-278.
15. Johnson RW and Lee K. Nutritional strategies to improve immune competence in poultry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2019; 28: 1039-1051.
16. Adeyemi OA, Oladunmoye OO and Akinlolu AA. Effects of intermittent feeding on growth performance and hematological parameters of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2018; 102: 789-795.
17. Olanrewaju HA, Purswell JL, Collier SD and Branton SL. Effects of feeding regimens on blood parameters and growth performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2021; 100: 1015-1022.
18. Kogut MH, Genovese KJ and He H. Metabolic and functional immune modulation by dietary nutrients in poultry. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020; 7: 191.
19. Zhang L, Yue HY, Zhang HJ, Xu L, Wu SG, Yan HJ and Qi GH. Effect of dietary supplementation with fermented Ginkgo biloba leaves on performance, antioxidant capacity, and immune status in broiler chickens. Poultry Science. 2019; 98: 1437-1444.
20. Aluwong T, Kawu M, Raji M, Dzenda T, Govwang F, Sinkalu V and Ayo J. Effect of yeast probiotic on growth, antioxidant enzyme activities and malondialdehyde concentration of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2017; 101: 545-553.
21. Hassan FA, Roushdy EM, Kishawy AT, Zaglool AW and Tukur HM. Growth performance, hematological parameters, and immune response of broilers under different feeding regimes. Animal Biotechnology. 2020; 31: 328-335.
22. Dozier WA, Corzo A, Kidd MT and Branton SL. Dietary nutrient allowances for broiler chickens: A review. Poultry Science. 2021; 100: 1-15.
23. Kalantar M, Khosravinia H and Masouri B. Effects of feed restriction on growth performance, feed efficiency, and production costs in white cockerels. Journal of Poultry Science. 2017; 54: 123-130.
24. Laganá C, Ribeiro AML & Kessler AM. Hematological and metabolic responses to feed restriction in white cockerels. Poultry Science. 2019; 98: 2105-2112.
25. Lara LJ & Rostagno MH. Impact of feed restriction on broiler performance and carcass characteristics. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2013; 22: 345-352.
26. Mattson MP, Longo VD and Harvie M. Impact of intermittent fasting on health and disease processes. Ageing Research Reviews. 2017; 39: 46-58.
27. Molino AB, Garcia EA, Berto DA, Pelícia K and Silva AP. Hematological parameters of broilers subjected to feed restriction. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 2015; 17: 511-516.