1

A Simple Method to Adjust a Pullet's

Current Body Weight to its
Objective Body Weight

Yoshlnorl FUKUMA, TOshlakl SUZUKI and Teru ISHIBASHI1)

Research Center, Tsukuba Research Branch, Nihon Nosan

Kogyo, Takura, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 300-33
1) Faculty of Agriculture, Niigata University, 8050 Ikarashi-
ninomachi, Niigata-shi, Niigata 950-21

In order to develop a simple and reliable method to adjust a pullet's current body

weight to its objective body weight which is a weight either recommended by a breeder's

manual or determined by a farmer's experience, three experiments were carried out using

Single Comb White Leghorn pullets that were 8 to 17 or 18 weeks of age. The experi-

ments involved different environmental conditions for the pullets, ad libitum feeding and

restricted feeding. In the case of restricted feeding, the amount of feed supplied to the

pullets was determined by both the energy in the feed and the calculated energy required
by the pullet for either maintenance or weight gain for the next week. The energy

requirement was calculated using either a linear or multiple regression equation involv-

ing the pullet's body weight and energy intake for the preceeding two weeks together

with the pullet's objective body weight for the following week. Regression equations

were calculated using six data sets of the average body weight and energy intake of

pullets in three replicates. In the first experiment, a linear or multiple regression

equation was investigated. Pullets were raised in an open house without photo-control,

resulting in a natural cycle of daylength. In the linear regression equation for this case,

the energy for body weight gain was set at 3kcal/g. In the second experiment, pullets

were raised under the same environmental conditions as in the first experiment. How-

ever, in the linear regression equation, the energy required for body weight gain was set

at either 1, 2, or 3kcal/g. In the third experiment, pullets were raised in a windowless

house that was kept at 28 to 32•Ž. In this case, the energy required for body weight gain

was set at either 2.5 or 3kcal/g. Our results show that it is possible to control the body

weight of pullets within 30g of its objective body weight using a linear regression

equation in which energy required for body weight gain was set at 3kcal/g.

(Jpn. Poult. Sci., 31: 1-8, 1994)

Key words: pullets, body weight control, objective body weight

Introduction

It is critical to control the growth rate of pullets to economize feed during a pullet's
growth period and to promote performance during its laying period (MATSUSHIMA
et al.,
1972; ROBINSON and SHERIDAN,1982;HURWITZand PLAVNIK,1989). In commercial farms,
the body weight of pullets is usually controlled to be an objective body weight which
is either recommended by a breeder's manual or determined by a farmer's experience
by either skip a day feeding or a constant "restricted" feeding. But in such methods
it is difficult to adjust the body weight of a pullet to an objective body weight, because
there is no method to calculate the proper feed intake. This is a pressing problem to
Received May 12, 1993
2 Jpn. Poult. Sci., 31(1), 1994

be resolved in commercial farms.

In this study, in order to adjust the body weight of a pullet to an objective body
weight, a method using a simple and reliable regression equation to calculate the
pullet's proper feed intake was developed. To do this, three experiments were carried
out under different environmental conditions.

Materials and Methods

Single Comb White Leghorn female chicks were purchased from a commercial

hatchery and were kept in wire cages and fed a stock diet for 8 weeks ad libitum.

In experiment 1, pullets were allotted into 3 groups of 3 replicates of 2 cages (8

chicks per cage) in February. The first group was fed ad libitum, and the second and

third groups were supplied the amount of feed calculated using a linear or multiple

regression equation (KUSABA, 1984).

All chicks from 8 to 10 weeks of age were fed a commercial feed that contained

2,800kcalME/kg and 17% of crude protein, and from 11 to 18 weeks of age, the feed

contained 2,750kcalME/kg and 14% of crude protein. All pullets were housed in an

open house without photo control where natural daylength was from 11 to 13.5 hours

a day.

In experiment 2, the pullets were allotted into 4 groups of 3 replicates of 2 cages (8

chicks per cage) in August. The first group was fed ad libitum, and the second to

fourth groups were fed the amount of feed calculated using a linear regression

equation. As in the other experiments, all chicks from 8 to 10 weeks of age were fed

a commercial feed that contained 2,800kcalME/kg and 17% of crude protein, but in

this experiment, for pullets from 11 to 18 weeks of age, the feed contained 2,700kcal

ME/kg and 15% of crude protein. The pullets were housed in an open house without

photo-control where natural daylength was from 14 to 13.5hours a day.

In experiment 3, the pullets were allotted into 3 groups of 3 replicates of 2 cages (8

chicks per cage) in April. The first group was fed ad libitum, and the second and third

groups were fed the amount of feed calculated using a linear regression equation. As

described, all chicks from 8 to 10 weeks of age were fed a commercial feed that

contained 2,800kcalME/kg and 17% of crude protein, but in this experiment, for

pullets from 11 to 18 weeks of age, the feed contained 2,750kcalME/kg and 14% of

crude protein. The pullets were housed in a windowless house that was at a high

temperature (28 to 32•Ž) and where daylength using a candle was a constant 10hours

a day.

It is necessary to determine a pullet's energy requirements in order to adjust its

body weight to its objective body weight. Thus, a regression equation was developed ,
and required weekly updating corresponding to the pullet's changing energy require-

ments.

¥ Multiple regression equation Y1=aX1+bX2+C

where Y1; weekly energy intake (kcal/chick/week)

X1; average metabolic body weight(kg0.75/chick)•~7

=((initial+final body weight of week)/2)0.75•~7

 FUKUMA et al.: Control Body Weight of Pullets 3

X2; weekly body weight gain (g/chick)

a and b; regression coefficients
C; regression constant
¥ Linear regression equation Y2=a'X1+C'
where Y2; equal to Y1-b'X2
Y1; same as Y1 in the above multiple regression equation
X2; same as X2 in the above multiple regression equation
b'; energy required for weight gain and set at 1 to 3kcal/g
X1; same as X1 in the above multiple regression equation
a'; regression coefficient
C'; regression constant
The energy requirement for maintaining a specified body weight was considered
to be proportional to metabolic body size (SCOTTet al., 1982). Regression equations
were calculated weekly using six data sets of the average body weight and energy
intake of pullets in three replicates for the preceeding two weeks. The b' value was set
at 3kcal/g in experiment 1, and at either 1, 2 or 3kcal/g in experiment 2, and at either
2.5 or 3kcal/g in experiment 3. The amount of energy to be supplied was calculated
by using the pullet's current body weight, its objective body weight for the next week
and its objective weekly body weight gain for the next week. The amount of feed was
then calculated by dividing the weekly energy intake by dietary energy levels.

Results

The average body weights of the pullets in experiment 1 are shown in Fig. 1.

When the pullets were fed ad libitum, their body weight was higher than their objective

body weight throughout the experimental period. In the second group, where the

pullets were fed the amount calculated using a multiple regression equation, from 11

weeks its body weight was higher than its objective body weight, the difference

reaching 93g at 13 weeks of age. After that, the restricted feeding of this group was

stopped. In the third group, where the amount of feed was calculated by a linear

regression equation, the difference between the pullet's body weight and its objective

body weight was small, reaching a maximum of 30g at 10 and 16 weeks of age. In this

group, we noted that the average temperature in the house increased from 7.8•Ž at the

beginning of the experiment to 17.4•Ž at the end.

The average body weights of the pullets in experiment 2 are shown in Fig. 2.

When the pullets were fed ad libitum, their body weight was higher than their objective

body weight throughout the experimental period. In the groups where the amount of

feed was restricted, the difference between the pullet's body weight and its objective

body weight remained small reaching a maximum of 93, 37 and 32g at 16 weeks of age

when the energy required for body weight gain was fixed at 1, 2 or 3kcal/g, respective-

ly. However, compared with the other two "restricted" groups, the group where the

required energy for body weight gain was fixed at 1kcal/g showed a greater difference,

namely, 97g compared 37 and 32g. We noted in this experiment that the average

temperature in the house decreased from 30.3•Ž at the beginning of the experiment to
4 Jpn. Poult. Sci., 31 (1), 1994

Fig. 1. Comparison of actual and objective body weights of

pullets fed at different consumption rates determined

by regression equations (Exp. 1). Ad libitum feeding

(•£). Feed amount determined by linear regression

(•œ)). Feed amount determined by multiple regression

(•¡). Objective body weight recommended by the

breeder (--). The values are Mean•}SEM of the body

weights.

22.7•Ž at the end.

The average body weights of the pullets in experiment 3 are shown in Fig. 3. As

in experiment 1 and 2, when the pullets were fed ad libitum, their body weight was

higher than the objective body weight throughout the experimental period. The

difference between the pullet's body weight and its objective body weight remained

small reaching a maximum of 19 and 18g up to 17 weeks of age in the second and third

groups, respectively, when the energy required for body weight gain was set at 2.5 and

3kcal/g, respectively. We noted in this experiment that the average temperature in

the house increased from 28.6•Ž at the beginning of the experiment to 32.3•Ž at the end.

The feed consumption of the pullets for all three experiments fed ad libitum and

the feed consumption determined using a linear regression equation where the energy

required for body weight gain was set at 3kcal/g are shown in Table 1. The ratios of

the "restricted" amount of feed to the "ad libitum" amount of feed were not constant

with respect to the pullet's age.

Discussion

Though there are several methods (BALNAVE, 1973) to restrict a pullet's body
 FUKUMA et al.: Control Body Weight of Pullets 5

Fig. 2. Comparison of actual and objective body weights of

pullets fed at different consumption rates determined

by regression equation (Exp. 2). Ad libitum feeding

(•£). Feed amount determined by linear regression in

which energy required for body weight gain was set

at 1 (•Ÿ), 2 (•¡) or 3kcal/g (•œ). Objective body weight

recommended by the breeder (--). The values are

Mean•}SEM of the body weight.

weight, controlling feed intake has normally been used in commercial farms. Usually,

animals tend to consume feed to meet their energy requirements, where energy

consumed during a growth period is used for both maintenance and growth of body

weight. Though the energy requirement for maintenance of body weight is affected

by the environmental temperature as experienced by the animals (BALNAVE et al., 1978),

the effect was minimal in our proposed method that uses regression equations.

Because such regression equations were developed to be adjusted on a weekly basis,

environmental temperature change is considered to be negligible. In our study, even

though the experiments were conducted at different environmental temperatures,

ranging from 7.5 to 32.3•Ž, the difference between a pullet's actual body weight and its

objective body weight was less than 30g.

In a group where the feed intake was calculated by multiple regression, a pullet's

body weight was larger than its objective body weight. In this equation, bX2 is the

energy required for body weight gain and b is the energy required for 1g gain in body

weight gain. However, in practice, b was often negative. One reason for the large

deviation in b was the small change in energy required for body weight gain.

HILL and ANDERSON (1958) reported that the energy required for body weight gain

in chicks was 2.06 to 3.31kcal/g, with the average being 2.49•}0.42kcal/g. From the
6 Jpn. Poult. Sc., 31(1), 1994

Fig. 3. Comparison of actual and objective body weights of

pullets fed at different consumption rates determined

by regression equations (Exp. 3). Ad libitum feeding

(•£). Feed amount determined by linear regression in

which energy required for body weight gain was set

at 2.5 (•¡) and 3kcal/g (•œ). Objective body weight

recommended by the reeder (--). The values are

Mean•}SEM of the body weight.

data reported by SUMMERS and LESSON (1985), the amount of body fat in grams was

multiplied by 9kcal/g and that of protein by 5.65kcal/g. Thus, the energy required

for body weight gain was estimated to be 1.94kcal/g at 8 weeks of age and 2.71kcal/g

at 18 weeks. In experiment 1, the body weight gain from 8 to 9 weeks of age was 77

g. Provided that the energy required for body weight gain was 3kcal/g, the total

energy required for this weekly body weight gain was estimated to be 231kcal(i. e., 3

kcal/g•~77g). On the other hand, the energy consumed was calculated to be 1,301

kcal/week by multiplying the daily feed consumption of 66.4g by the dietary ME

content of 2,800kcal/kg. Therefore, the energy for maintenance was calculated to be

1,070kcal by subtracting the total energy required for body weight gain (i. e., 231 kcal)

from the total energy consumed (i. e., 1,301 kcal). The ratio of the energy required for

maintenance to the total energy consumed was 82.2% and 4.6 times higher than that for

energy for body weight gain to total energy consumed, namely, 17.8%. Provided that

the energy required for body weight gain was 2kcal/g, these ratios were 88.2 and

11.8%, respectively. The energy requirement for body weight gain was far lower than

that for maintenance. The value of the energy required for body weight gain varied

widely when it was calculated using a multiple regression equation. Thus, for better

agreement between a pullet's actual body weight and its objective body weight, energy
 FUKUMA et al.: Control Body Weight of Pullets 7

Table 1. The feed consumption of the pullets for all three experiment fed ad libitum and
the feed consumption determined using a linear regression equation

1 The energy required for body weight gain was fixed at 3kcal/kg.

required for body weight gain was fixed at 2•`3kcal/g and was not calculated using a

multiple regression equation.

In all of our experiments, body weights of pullets of 8 to 10 weeks of age at the

beginning of experiments were higher than the pullet's objective body weight. In this

period, the data of pullets fed ad libitum was used to determine the regression

equations. These higher body weights might be caused by the difference in the

energy efficiency between ad libitum and restricted feeding.

When comparing experiment 1 with experiment 3 in which a pullet's objective

body weight was same, the ratios of the "restricted" amount of feed to "ad libitum"

amount of feed were not same. This suggests that it is difficult to adjust a pullet's

current body weight to its objective body weight by a constant ratios of feed restricted.

In the case of commercial pullets, its shank length reaches 90% of its maximum at

about 10 weeks of age. Because of the importance of developing this bone and viscera

for egg production (HORIKAWA et al., 1989), it is desirable to start restricting feed after

the 10th week. By using this proposed method that involves a linear regression

equation, it is simple to adjust a pullet's body weight to its objective weight.

References

BALNAVE, D. (1973) A review of restricted feeding during growth of laying-type pullets. World's
Poultry Science Journal, 29: 354-362.
BALNAVE, D., D. J. FARRELL and R. B. CUMMING (1978) The minimum metabolizable energy require-
ment of laying hens. World's Poultry Science Journal, 34: 149-154.
HILL, F. W. and D.L. ANDERSON (1958) Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy
determinations with growing chicks. Journal of Nutrition, 64: 587-603.
HoRIKAWA H., A. FUKASAWA, T. HORI and S. HIRANO (1989) The relationship between shank length
and performance in laying hens. Japanese Poultry Science, 26: 186.
HURWITZ, S. and I. PLAVNIK (1989) Severe feed restriction in pullets during the early growing period:
 8 Jpn. Poult. Sci., 31 (1), 1994

: performance and relationships among age, body weight, and egg weight at the onset of
production. Poultry Science, 68: 914-924.
KUSABA, I. (1984) New statistical method exercise, pp. 104-124. Niikagiren Press Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
MATUSHIMA, M., M. KANBAYASHI, T. UEMUKAI, M. MATUZAKI, H. FUJITA and T. NIINA (1972) Studies on
the feeding program for growing egg-type pullet. 1. Effect of grower diet intake on the
economic trait. Japanese Poultry Science, 9: 165-172.
ROBINSON D. and AK. SHERIDAN (1982) Effect of restricted feeding in the growing and laying periods
on the performance of white leghorn by australorp crossbred and white leghorn strain cross
chickens. British Poultry Science, 23: 199-214.
SCOTT M. L., M. C. NESHEIM and R. J. YOUNG (1982) Nutrition of the chicken, 3rd. ed., pp. 48-50. W. F.
Humphrey Press Inc., Geneva, New York.
SUMMERS J. D. and S. LEESON (1985) Poultry nutrition handbook, pp. 215-216. University of Guelph,
Ontario, Canada.

育成鶏体重 を 目標体重 に調整 す る簡便 な方法 の検討

福 間 義 教･鈴 木 敏 明･石 橋 晃1)

日本 農 産 工 業 株 式 会 社 中央 研 究 所 筑 波 試 験 場,つ くば 市 田 倉5246, 300-33

1)新潟 大 学 農 学 部
,新 潟 市 五 十 嵐2の 町8050, 950-21

産 卵 鶏 育 成 期 に お いて,週 毎 に設 定 した 目標 体 重 に体 そ れ ぞ れ 固 定 した 一 次 回 帰 式 につ いて 検 討 した｡試 験3

重 を コ ン トロ ー ルす る簡 便 で 確 実 な方 法 を検 討 した｡ は,高 温 条 件 を 作 出 した ウ イ ン ドウ レス鶏 舎 で,増 体 に

8週 齢 以 降18週 齢 まで 毎 週,維 持 と増 体 に必 要 な エ ネ 要 す る エ ネル ギ ーを2.5, 3kcal/gに そ れ ぞ れ固 定 した
ル ギ ー要 求 量 の 回 帰 式 を求 め て,目 標 体 重 に す るた め に 一 次 回 帰 式 につ いて 検 討 した
｡増 体 に必 要 な エ ネ ル ギ ー
必 要 な適 正 給 与 量 を計 算 した｡計 算 の た め の デ ー タは, を,3kcal/gに 固 定 し た一 次 回 帰 式 を 用 い る こ と に よ

直 前 の3群 の 週 毎2週 間 分,6セ ッ トの デ ー タを 用 い た｡ り,目 標 体 重 の ±30g以 内 に体 重 を コ ン トロー ル す る こ

試 験 は3回 実 施 した｡試 験1は,自 然 環 境 下 の 開放 鶏舎 とが 可 能 で あ っ た｡
で,重 回 帰 式 と増 体 に要 す る エ ネ ル ギ ー を3kcal/gに 固 (家 禽 会 誌,31:1-8, 1994)
定 した一 次 回 帰 式 につ い て検 討 した｡試 験2も,同 様な キ ー ワー ド:育 成 鶏,体 重 コ ン トロ ー ル,目 標 体 重

環 境 下 で,増 体 に要 す るエ ネ ル ギ ー を1, 2, 3kcal/gに