Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the effect of feeding frequency on growth performance, carcass traits, and apparent nutrient digestibility in geese from 28 to 70 D of age. In experiment 1, a total of 240 geese were distributed in a completely randomized design into 4 treatments and 6 replicates of 10 birds each. The treatments were free access to the feeder (ad libitum) and access to the feeder 3, 4, and 5 times daily. Geese fed 3 times daily had a lower (P < 0.05) BW, ADG, and ADFI and a higher (P = 0.064) feed conversion ratio (FCR) from 28 to 41 D of age compared with the other groups. Geese fed 4 times daily had a higher (P < 0.05) ADG and ADFI and a lower (P < 0.05) FCR from 42 to 55 D of age compared with ad libitum fed geese. Geese fed 3 times daily had a higher (P < 0.05) ADG from 56 to 69 D of age than geese fed ad libitum and 4 times daily. No differences (P > 0.05) in BW, ADFI, ADG, and FCR were observed between ad libitum and feeding frequency groups from 28 to 69 D of age. Carcass traits and gastrointestinal development were not affected (P > 0.05) by feeding frequency. In experiment 2, the apparent nutrient digestibility in geese from 71 to 77 D of age fed using different feeding frequencies was determined using the total fecal collection method. Feeding frequency did not affect (P > 0.05) the apparent digestibility of DM, CP, crude ash, calcium, phosphorous, or ether extract in geese. Our study demonstrates for the first time that compensatory growth can be gained by enhancing feed intake when a lower feeding frequency is imposed on geese. Both ad libitum feeding and fixed feeding frequency for 3 to 5 times daily are suitable for geese from 28 to 70 D of age to achieve optimum production.
Key words: feeding frequency, growth performance, carcass traits, apparent nutrient digestibility, geese
Introduction
In poultry production, ad libitum feeding is widely used for maximizing bird growth. However, ad libitum feeding may result in consumption that exceeds the requirements for bird maintenance and production as well as the excessive deposition of body fat that reduces meat quality (Butzen et al., 2013) and increases the incidence of sudden death syndrome, ascites, and skeletal problems (Khurshid et al., 2019). One management strategy to reduce fat deposition and prevent metabolic disturbances is feed restriction (Adeyemi et al., 2015; Mohammadalipour et al., 2017). Limited feeding frequency is one of the feed restriction method. In sucking piglets, 6 times daily feedings led to a higher ADG and lower feed conversion ratio (FCR) than those in pigs fed 12 times daily (Liu et al., 2019a). Growing pigs fed twice daily had an accelerated weight gain and exhibited a greater gain/feed than pigs fed 12 times daily (Le Naou et al., 2014). Finished pigs fed twice daily showed a deteriorated ADG and gain/feed compared with feeding 6 times daily in limit-feeding situations (Schneider et al., 2011). In broiler chickens, limited feeding frequency has been used to restrict feed consumption and improve feed efficiency (Farghly and Hassanien, 2012; Farghly and Makled, 2015); intermittent feeding regimes (intermittent daily feeding periods of 4 h of feeding and 4 h of non-feeding) had higher ADG and lower FCR values than restricted feeding regimes and did not produce any adverse effects on performance or physiological parameters (Farghly et al., 2019).
Goose meat is rich in unsaturated fatty acids and essential fatty acids and low in cholesterol, providing a high-quality protein source for humans (Schmid, 2011). As such, there is a growing interest in increasing worldwide goose production. In 2018, more than 630 million geese were used globally for meat production (Hou, 2019). Given the effect of feeding frequency on pig and chicken performance, it was speculated that increasing feeding frequency could improve growth, feed utilization efficiency, and carcass traits in geese. However, minimal literature on the effect of feeding frequency in geese is currently available.
Our previous study indicated that dry pellet is more suitable for geese from 28 to 70 D of age (Liu et al., 2019b). Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of feeding frequency on growth performance, carcass traits, and apparent nutrient digestibility in geese from 28 to 70 D of age.
Materials and methods
Animal and Experimental Design
This study was approved by the Animal Care and Welfare Committee of the Chongqing Academy of Animal Science, China. All geese used in this study were obtained from the Chongqing Academy of Animal Science goose-breeding center.
Experiment 1 studied the effect of feeding frequency on the growth performance, carcass traits, and gastrointestinal development of geese. A total of 240 mixed-sex 28-day-old Sichuan White geese were allocated to 24 plastic wire-floor pens with a 1:1 female/male ratio (each pen housed 5 male and 5 female geese) and fed according to the following frequencies: ad libitum (free access to the feeder; control group), 3 times daily (730, 1,330, and 1,930 h), 4 times daily (730, 1,130, 1,530, and 1,930 h), and 5 times daily (730, 1,030, 1,330, 1,630, and 1,930 h). Each feeding frequency treatment had 6 replicates with 10 birds per pen and were balanced for average initial body weight. Geese in the feeding frequency groups were allowed 30 min feed access at every feeding time. The experiment lasted 42 D, until the geese reached 70 D of age.
Experiment 2 studied the effect of feeding frequency on apparent nutrient digestibility in geese. Once the geese reached 70 D of age, 2 geese with an average body weight of 3.2 kg were selected from each replicate (n = 12 per treatment) and moved to clean, disinfected steel frame metabolic cages (56 cm × 36 cm × 60 cm) equipped with a grid floor and collector tray. Geese were administered 1 of 4 different feeding frequency treatments (ad libitum, 3 times daily, 4 times daily, 5 times daily; feed times and duration were the same as in experiment 1), whereas feed intake and dropping weight per bird were recorded on a daily basis using the total collection method. The experiment lasted 7 D. Three days of adjustment were allowed before the 4-D collection period.
Animal Housing and Diet
Ingredient composition and nutrient content of the basal diet is shown in Table 1. The experimental diet was formulated based on the analyzed value of the ingredients, except for the AME and tryptophan. The basal diet consisted of dry pellets. All geese had full access to drinking water throughout the entire experimental period. Birds were housed under a 16:8 h light: dark cycle, and the daily average temperature ranged between 13°C and 25°C (50∼70%).
Table 1.
Basal diet composition and nutrient levels.
| Ingredient | Content (%) |
|---|---|
| Corn | 65.20 |
| Soybean meal | 20.93 |
| Alfalfa meal | 10.00 |
| L-Lysine HCl | 0.15 |
| DL-Methionine | 0.22 |
| L-Tryptophan | 0.08 |
| L-Arginine HCl | 0.12 |
| Salt | 0.30 |
| Limestone | 1.30 |
| Hydrophosphate | 1.30 |
| Choline chloride | 0.10 |
| Mineral and vitamin premix1 | 0.30 |
| Total | 100.00 |
| Calculated nutrient content | |
| Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg) | 11.50 |
| Tryptophan | 0.25 |
| Determined nutrient content | |
| Crude protein | 15.93 |
| Crude fiber | 4.90 |
| Calcium | 1.05 |
| Total phosphorus | 0.53 |
| Lysine | 0.85 |
| Methionine | 0.45 |
| Threonine | 0.60 |
| Arginine | 1.00 |
Premix provided the following per kg of basal diet: Cu (CuSO4·5H2O) 8 mg; Fe (FeSO4·H2O) 85 mg; Zn (ZnSO4·H2O) 80 mg; Mn (MnSO4·H2O) 85 mg; Se (Na2SeO3) 0.3 mg; I (KI) 0.4 mg; Vitamin A 20,000 IU; Vitamin D3 5,000 IU; Vitamin E 7.4 IU; Vitamin K3 9.6 mg; Vitamin B1 3 mg; Vitamin B2 6 mg; Vitamin B6 2 mg; Vitamin B12 0.02 mg; Pantothenic acid 10 mg; Nicotinic acid 40 mg; Folic acid 1 mg; Biotin 0.04 mg.
Parameters Measured
Live BW and feed intake for all geese were measured every 2 wk and recorded following 12 h of fasting. The ADG, ADFI, and FCR of geese from each treatment group were measured. Feed intake and FCR were all corrected for mortality.
Two geese were selected according to average body weight from corresponding pens, killed by cervical dislocation, then bled, and dissected to determine carcass parameters. Birds were immersed in 60°C water for 2 min, then plucked and eviscerated manually. Breast meat (pectoralis major and pectoralis minor), leg meat (thigh and drumstick), abdominal fat, and skin and subcutaneous fat were removed from the carcasses and weighed. Breast meat, leg meat, abdominal fat, and skin and subcutaneous fat yield were expressed as weight relative to live body weight processing. The gastrointestinal tract and organs were carefully excised. The empty weight and length of the duodenum, jejunum (from the pancreatic loop to Meckel's diverticulum), ileum (from Meckel's diverticulum to the ileocecal junction), and cecum were recorded. Empty weight of the gizzard, proventriculus, and the weights of the heart and liver were also recorded. The relative organ weights were calculated. Heart, liver, gastro (gizzard and proventriculus), and intestine were expressed as weight relative to live body weight.
The collected droppings were weighed, then oven dried at 70°C to a constant weight. The dried fecal samples and feed samples were ground and taken to the laboratory for determination of DM, CP, crude ash (CA), calcium, phosphorous, and ether extract (EE) according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 2000). Apparent nutrient digestibility was calculated as follows:
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA using SPSS software (ver. 19, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) using pen as the experimental unit for analysis. The significance of differences among treatments was tested using Duncan's multiple-range test. Statistical significance was established at P < 0.05.
Results
Growth Performance
Feeding frequency affected the growth performance of geese from 28 to 41 D of age (Table 2). Geese fed 3 times daily had a lower BW (P < 0.001), ADG (P < 0.001), and ADFI (P < 0.001) and a higher FCR (P = 0.064) from 28 to 41 D of age compared with those of the other groups. Geese fed 3 times daily also had lower BW (P = 0.015) than geese fed 4 times daily by the time geese reached 56 D of age. Geese fed 4 times daily had a higher ADG (P = 0.003) and ADFI (P = 0.005) and a lower FCR (P = 0.014) from 42 to 55 D of age compared with those of the ad libitum group. Geese fed 3 times daily had a higher ADG (P = 0.005) from 56 to 69 D of age than those of the ad libitum group and those fed 4 times daily. There was no significant difference in the ADFI (P = 0.067) of geese between the ad libitum and feeding frequency groups from 56 to 69 D of age. Geese fed 3 times daily had a lower FCR (P = 0.003) than geese fed 4 times daily from 56 to 69 D of age. Nonsignificant differences in BW (P = 0.845), ADFI (P = 0.596), ADG (P = 0.850), and FCR (P = 0.956) were observed between the ad libitum and feeding frequency groups from 28 to 69 D of age.
Table 2.
Effect of feeding frequency on growth performance in geese.1
| Parameter | Day | Feeding schedule |
SEM | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ad libitum | 3 times daily | 4 times daily | 5 times daily | ||||
| Initial body weight (g) | 28 | 1,116.67 | 1,117.50 | 1,116.67 | 1,117.50 | 1.53 | 0.996 |
| Final body weight (g) | 42 | 2,189.17a | 1,945.83b | 2,078.33a | 2,096.67a | 22.39 | <0.001 |
| 56 | 2,799.44a,b | 2,696.11b | 2,901.48a | 2,850.09a,b | 25.61 | 0.020 | |
| 70 | 3,151.30 | 3,156.46 | 3,155.83 | 3,214.31 | 27.32 | 0.845 | |
| Average daily gain (g) | 28–41 | 76.61a | 59.23b | 68.69a | 70.00a | 1.60 | <0.001 |
| 42–55 | 43.59b | 52.19a,b | 58.80a | 53.86a | 1.66 | 0.004 | |
| 56–69 | 25.13b | 32.88a | 21.48b | 26.02a,b | 1.25 | 0.005 | |
| 28–69 | 48.44 | 48.57 | 48.55 | 49.94 | 0.66 | 0.850 | |
| Average daily feed intake (g) | 28–41 | 191.73a | 155.36c | 175.42b | 176.55b | 3.22 | <0.001 |
| 42–55 | 186.28b | 196.81a,b | 208.55a | 207.08a | 2.67 | 0.003 | |
| 56–69 | 179.30 | 198.24 | 185.15 | 191.23 | 2.70 | 0.067 | |
| 28–69 | 193.41 | 193.46 | 196.18 | 201.11 | 2.20 | 0.596 | |
| Feed conversion ratio (feed/gain) | 28–41 | 2.50 | 2.63 | 2.56 | 2.53 | 0.02 | 0.064 |
| 42–55 | 4.34a | 3.78a,b | 3.59b | 3.86a,b | 0.09 | 0.019 | |
| 56–69 | 7.19a,b | 6.18b | 8.56a | 7.54a,b | 0.26 | 0.006 | |
| 28–69 | 4.00 | 3.99 | 4.06 | 4.03 | 0.05 | 0.956 | |
a–cIn the same row, values with different superscripted lowercase letters indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Data are the mean of 6 replicates (10 birds per replicate).
Carcass Traits
Feeding frequency did not affect the percentage of dressed animal (P = 0.325), breast meat (P = 0.999), leg meat (P = 0.314), skin and subcutaneous fat (P = 0.191), abdominal fat (P = 0.217), heart (P = 0.126), or liver (P = 0.321) of geese (Table 3). The weights of the gizzard (P = 0.602) and proventriculus (P = 0.543) and weight (P = 0.230, P = 0.484, P = 0.751, P = 0.943, P = 0.569, respectively) and length (P = 0.141, P = 0.564, P = 0.767, P = 0.811, P = 0.696, respectively) of the duodenum, jejunum, ileum, cecum, and intestine were not affected by feeding frequency (Table 4). The percentages of gastro (P = 0.638) and intestine (P = 0.445) were not affected by feeding frequency (Table 4).
Table 3.
| Parameter | Feeding schedule |
SEM | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ad libitum | 3 times daily | 4 times daily | 5 times daily | |||
| Average live weight of slaughtered geese (g) | 3,300.00 | 3,358.33 | 3,291.67 | 3,325.00 | 28.41 | 0.801 |
| Dressed weight (g) | 2,847.83 | 2,879.83 | 2,824.17 | 2,892.67 | 28.10 | 0.778 |
| Dressed3 | 86.30 | 85.75 | 85.77 | 86.99 | 0.27 | 0.325 |
| Breast meat | 8.15 | 8.05 | 8.12 | 8.06 | 0.25 | 0.999 |
| Leg meat | 10.24 | 10.12 | 9.65 | 10.46 | 0.15 | 0.314 |
| Skin and subcutaneous fat | 13.75 | 12.37 | 12.61 | 12.15 | 0.27 | 0.191 |
| Abdominal fat | 1.91 | 1.15 | 1.30 | 1.47 | 0.13 | 0.217 |
| Heart | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.01 | 0.126 |
| Liver | 2.08 | 1.94 | 2.18 | 2.28 | 0.06 | 0.321 |
Data are the mean of 6 replicates (2 birds per replicate).
The percentage yield is calculated using the following equation: Yield = measured parameter/processed live BW × 100.
Dressed is defined as the weight after exsanguination and plucking.
Table 4.
| Parameter | Feeding schedule |
SEM | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ad libitum | 3 times daily | 4 times daily | 5 times daily | |||
| Gizzard weight (g) | 92.58 | 88.92 | 93.83 | 99.75 | 2.76 | 0.602 |
| Proventriculus weight (g) | 11.58 | 12.00 | 10.58 | 11.75 | 0.36 | 0.543 |
| Duodenum weight (g) | 9.07 | 9.68 | 10.83 | 10.01 | 0.31 | 0.230 |
| Jejunum weight (g) | 19.39 | 18.73 | 21.27 | 21.35 | 0.71 | 0.484 |
| Ileum weight (g) | 14.79 | 15.37 | 16.60 | 15.39 | 0.59 | 0.751 |
| Cecum weight (g) | 4.65 | 4.36 | 4.63 | 4.61 | 0.18 | 0.943 |
| Intestine weight (g) | 47.89 | 48.16 | 53.32 | 51.35 | 1.56 | 0.569 |
| Gastro percentage (%) | 3.16 | 3.04 | 3.18 | 3.36 | 0.08 | 0.638 |
| Intestine percentage (%) | 1.45 | 1.43 | 1.63 | 1.55 | 0.05 | 0.445 |
| Duodenum length (cm) | 31.00 | 34.83 | 34.08 | 31.40 | 0.72 | 0.141 |
| Jejunum length (cm) | 68.67 | 70.58 | 64.92 | 68.00 | 1.41 | 0.564 |
| Ileum length (cm) | 63.67 | 64.42 | 60.33 | 62.00 | 1.44 | 0.767 |
| Cecum length (cm) | 41.83 | 41.25 | 38.92 | 40.30 | 1.09 | 0.811 |
| Intestine length (cm) | 205.17 | 211.08 | 198.25 | 201.70 | 3.84 | 0.696 |
Data are the mean of 6 replicates (2 birds per replicate).
The percentage yield is calculated using the following equation: Yield = (gastro or intestine weight)/processing live BW × 100.
Nutrient Digestibility
Feeding frequency did not affect the apparent digestibility of DM (P = 0.299), CP (P = 0.186), EE (P = 0.959), CA (P = 0.591), calcium (P = 0.971), or phosphorous (P = 0.718) in geese from 71 to 77 D of age (Table 5).
Table 5.
Effect of feeding frequency on apparent total tract nutrient digestibility (%) of geese.1
| Parameter | Feeding schedule |
SEM | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ad libitum | 3 times daily | 4 times daily | 5 times daily | |||
| Dry matter | 69.93 | 72.83 | 71.57 | 70.34 | 0.62 | 0.299 |
| Crude protein | 45.77 | 52.91 | 50.16 | 42.91 | 1.73 | 0.186 |
| Crude ash | 19.11 | 24.98 | 21.69 | 19.90 | 1.59 | 0.591 |
| Calcium | 21.14 | 22.14 | 21.23 | 19.66 | 1.45 | 0.971 |
| Phosphorous | 22.38 | 26.41 | 25.19 | 20.22 | 1.79 | 0.718 |
| Ether extract | 88.24 | 87.97 | 87.18 | 88.02 | 0.69 | 0.959 |
Data are mean of 12 replicates (1 bird per replicate).
Discussion
Growth Performance
In the first 2 wk, geese fed 3 times daily had a lower ADFI and ADG compared with those of the other 3 treatment groups, indicating that lower feeding frequency decreased feed intake in this phase. This was similar to findings in chickens (Farghly and Hassanien, 2012). Furthermore, the ADFI and ADG in birds fed 4 and 5 times daily from 42 to 55 D of age were higher than those of birds fed ad libitum. It may be that geese have an adaptation as they become capable of increasing feed intake per time to meet the growth required. The ADFI and ADG in birds fed 3 times daily from 56 to 69 D of age were higher than those of birds fed ad libitum, indicating that a lower feeding frequency resulted in an increased ADFI of geese, and thus, full compensatory growth occurred in birds from 42 to 69 D of age. In birds, a reduction in the amount of available feed causes an adaptative response enabling the consumption of greater amounts of food in a shorter space of time (Peter and Gernat, 2006); this partly explains the increased ADFI in birds fed less often in the present study. In chickens, compensatory growth occurs in the finishing period so that the average weight is reached by feed restricted individuals (Zhan et al., 2007; Svihus et al., 2013; Jayasiri et al., 2019), and feed-restricted broilers gain more body weight than ad-libitum fed broilers during their re-alimentation period (Dozier et al., 2002). In geese, time-restricted feeding in the morning greatly reduces feed intake and weight gain but substantially improves feed efficiency in geese compared with ad libitum feeding (Ho et al., 2014). Our study demonstrates for the first time that compensatory growth can be gained by enhancing feed intake when a lower feeding frequency is imposed on geese. Therefore, both ad libitum and fixed feeding frequency for 3 to 5 times daily are suitable for goose production.
Carcass Traits
In the present experiment, carcass traits and gastrointestinal development of geese at 70 D of age were not affected by feeding frequency. Similar results were also observed in broiler chicks (Farghly and Hassanien, 2012), which showed that feeding frequency had no significant effect on dressed carcass, drumsticks, femurs, breast, heart, gizzard, and giblets percentages, intestine weight or length, cecum weight or length, or proventriculus and spleen percentages. Some researchers have also studied the effect of feeding frequency on birds by intermittent feeding. Farghly and Makled (2015) indicated that intermittent feeding (a different number of cycles daily, each consisting of a feeding period followed by a fasting period) did not affect the carcass characteristics of broilers. Farghly et al. (2019) reported that organ weights were not significantly changed by intermittent feeding (3 cycles daily for 4 h of feeding and 4 h of nonfeeding) except for the heart. However, Aliakbarpour et al. (2013) observed a significant decrease in carcass percentage when raising broiler chickens under intermittent feeding programs (5 times daily). The main reason for this discrepancy might be the differences in feeding frequency between studies.
Nutrient Digestibility
In our study, no difference was observed in the apparent digestibility of DM, CP, EE, CA, calcium, or phosphorous among all treatments, which was similar to findings in pigs by Cao et al. (2019). Liu et al. (2018) reported that feeding frequency did not influence the ileal apparent digestibility coefficients of CA, DM, EE, and CP in pigs. However, it has also been reported that feeding frequency influences nutrient digestibility. Increasing feeding frequency improves nutrient digestibility in pigs by stimulating pancreatic secretions and the flow of digestive enzyme production in the small intestine (de Haer and de Vries, 1993a, b). Decreasing feeding frequency enhances the total tract apparent digestibility coefficients for DM compared with pigs given free access to feed (Chastanet et al., 2007). This discrepancy is presumably because of the differences in type of animal, experimental diet, feeding regime, and rearing environment.
Conclusion
Fed 3 times daily decreased ADFI and ADG in geese between 28 and 41 D of age, whereas compensatory growth occurs in geese by increasing feed intake per time between 42 and 70 D of age. Fixed feeding frequency did not have any adverse effects on growth performance and carcass traits compared with ad libitum fed geese. Under the present experimental conditions, both ad libitum feeding and fixed feeding frequency for 3 to 5 times daily are suitable for geese from 28 to 70 D of age to achieve optimum production.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study was provided by the China Agriculture Research System [CARS-42-22] and the National Key Research and Development Program [2018YFD0501505].
Conflict of Interest Statement: There is no conflict of interest with any individual or organization regarding the materials discussed in the manuscript.
References
- Adeyemi O.A., Njoku C.P., Odunbaku O.M., Sogunle O.M., Egbeyale L.T. Response of broiler chickens to quantitative feed restriction with or without ascorbic acid supplementation. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2015;5:393–401. [Google Scholar]
- Aliakbarpour H.R., Chamani M., Rahimi G., Sadeghi A.A., Qujeq D. Intermittent feeding programme and addition of Bacillus subtilis based probiotics to the diet of growing broiler chickens: influence on growth, hepatic enzymes and serum lipid metabolites profile. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2013;56:410–422. [Google Scholar]
- AOAC. 17th ed. Assoc. Anal. Chem.; Arlington, VA: 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. [Google Scholar]
- Butzen F.M., Ribeiro A.M.L., Vieira M.M., Kessler A.M., Dadalt J.C., Della M.P. Early feed restriction in broilers. I-performance, body fraction weights, and meat quality. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2013;22:251–259. [Google Scholar]
- Cao S.C., Xu M.Z., Zhang L., Yan H.L., Zhang H.F., Liu J.B. Effects of feeding pattern on growth performance, nutrient digestibility and gut microbiota composition of growing pigs. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 2019;55:101–106. [Google Scholar]
- Chastanet F., Pahm A.A., Pedersen C., Stein H.H. Effect of feeding schedule on apparent energy and amino acid digestibility by growing pigs. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2007;132:94–102. [Google Scholar]
- de Haer L.C.M., de Vries A.G. Effects of genotype and sex on the feed intake pattern of group housed growing pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1993;36:223–232. [Google Scholar]
- de Haer L.C.M., de Vries A.G. Feed intake patterns of and feed digestibility in growing pigs housed individually or in groups. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1993;33:277–292. [Google Scholar]
- Dozier W.A., Lien R.J., Hess J.B., Bilgili S.E., Gordon R.W., Laaster C.P., Vieira S.L. Effects of early skip-a-day feed removal on broiler live performance and carcass yield. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2002;11:297–303. [Google Scholar]
- Farghly M.F.A., Hassanien H.H.M. Effect of feed frequencies and durations on performance of broiler chicks. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J. 2012;32:273–288. [Google Scholar]
- Farghly M.F.A., Makled M.N. Application of intermittent feeding and flash lighting regimens in broiler chickens management. Egypt. J. Nutr. Feeds. 2015;18:261–276. [Google Scholar]
- Farghly M.F., Mahrose K.M., Ahmad E.A.M., Rehman Z.U., Yu S. Implementation of different feeding regimes and flashing light in broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 2019;98:2034–2042. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ho S.Y., Wu Y.C., Chen Y.H., Yang S.K. The effects of feeding time and time-restricted feeding on the fattening traits of White Roman geese. Animal. 2014;8:395–400. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113002383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hou S.S. The current situation, prospect and suggestions on Waterfowl industry in 2018. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 2019;55:124–128. [Google Scholar]
- Jayasiri H.P.B.S., Nayananjalie W.A.D., Adikari A.M.J.B. Effect of quantitative early feed restriction on growth performances, meat quality, abdominal fat and serum lipid profile in broiler chicken. Sabaragamuwa Univ. J. 2019;17:6–14. [Google Scholar]
- Khurshid A., Khan A.A., Banday M.T., Ganai A.M., Khan H.M., Choudhary A.R., Adil S., Manzoor A., Afzal I., Untoo M. Effect of feed restriction on performance of broiler chicken. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2019;7:1054–1056. [Google Scholar]
- Le Naou T., Le Floc'h N., Louveau I., van Milqen J., Gondret F. Meal frequency changes the basal and time-course profiles of plasma nutrient concentrations and affects feed efficiency in young growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:2008–2016. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-7505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liu J., Cao S.C., Chen G.X., Xie Y.N., Liu J.B. Effect of meal frequency on nutrients digestibility in growing pigs. Chin. J. Anim. Sci. 2018;54:99–103. [Google Scholar]
- Liu J.B., Cao S.C., Yang Y., Zhang H.F. Effects of meal frequency on growth performance and muscle protein synthesis in suckling piglets. Chin. J. Anim. Nutr. 2019;31:1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Liu Z.L., Huang X.F., Luo Y., Xue J.J., Wang Q.G., Wang Y.M., Wang C. Effect of dry and wet feed on growth performance, carcass traits, and apparent nutrient digestibility in geese. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019;28:1115–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.06.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mohammadalipour R., Rahmani H.R., Jahanian R., Riasi A., Mohammadalipour M., Nili N. Effect of early feed restriction on physiological responses, performance and ascites incidence in broiler chickens raised in normal or cold environment. Animal. 2017;11:219–226. doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peter R.F., Gernat A.G. Factors that affect feed intake of meat birds: a review. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2006;5:905–911. [Google Scholar]
- Schmid A. The role of meat fat in the human diet. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011;51:50–66. doi: 10.1080/10408390903044636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schneider J.D., Tokach M.D., Goodband R.D., Nelssen J.L., Dritz S.S., Derouchey J.M., Sulabo R.C. Effects of restricted feed intake on finishing pigs weighing between 68 and 114 kilograms fed twice or 6 times daily. J. Anim. Sci. 2011;89:3326–3333. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Svihus B., Lund V.B., Borjgen B., Bedford M.R., Bakken M. Effect of intermittent feeding, structural components and phytase on performance and behaviour of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2013;54:222–230. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2013.772952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhan X.A., Wang M., Ren H., Zhao R.Q., Li J.X., Tan Z.L. Effect of early feed restriction on metabolic programming and compensatory growth in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2007;86:654–660. doi: 10.1093/ps/86.4.654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]