See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264943155

Nutrient requirements of poultry publication: History and need for

an update

Article in The Journal of Applied Poultry Research · September 2014

DOI: 10.3382/japr.2014-00980

CITATIONS READS
93 27,643

2 authors:

Todd J Applegate Clara Roselina Angel

University of Georgia University of Maryland, College Park
199 PUBLICATIONS 6,633 CITATIONS 134 PUBLICATIONS 4,430 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Clara Roselina Angel on 07 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

©2014 Poultry Science Association, Inc.

Nutrient requirements of poultry publication:

History and need for an update
Todd J. Applegate*1 and Roselina Angel†

*Department of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907;

and †Department of Animal and Avian Sciences,
University of Maryland, College Park 20742-0001

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014

Primary Audience: Poultry Nutritionists, Feed Industry, Government Agencies,
Regulatory Committee

SUMMARY
The NRC Nutrient Requirements of Poultry has been a benchmark publication for the re-
search, judicial, and regulatory communities domestically and abroad since the first published
edition in 1944. The poultry scientific community has looked to this publication for benchmark
diet formulation. With extraordinary changes in growth and productive potential of modern
poultry strains, as well as changes to body composition and egg output, it follows that nutrient
needs have changed beyond what the bird can compensate for with increasing intake per unit
of BW. Research publications used for amino acid and phosphorus recommendations in the last
NRC are now, at best, from 1991 and at worst from 1947. To our collective credit, the poultry
science community has published substantial amounts of data in those areas to warrant an
update to the ninth revised edition of the NRC Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Historically,
our perception and definition of a nutrient requirement has changed from first being a require-
ment, as a percent of a diet, to preventing a nutrient deficiency, to now being a requirement to
optimize growth or egg production response per unit of nutrient intake. As economics becomes
an increasingly more important driver for the implications of research, the scientific community
has begun to embrace the concept of return on investment of nutrient used for compositional
growth or egg production. As these concepts take shape, the current edition’s format will have
to undergo a substantial creative revision; possibly even embracing the concept of modeling of
nutrient responses. Funding for such a revision will require a large financial investment from
the NRC, the feed industry, commodity associations, as well as time investment by the scien-
tific community.

Key words: poultry, nutrient requirement, National Research Council

2014 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 23:567–575
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2014-00980

HISTORY OF THE NRC AND in 1863), which combined with the National
NUTRIENT REQUIREMENT Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medi-
PUBLICATIONS cine in 2013. There are 6 divisions of the NAS,
one of which is the Division of Earth and Life
The NRC is the operational arm of the Na- Sciences, which is home to 12 boards. The pri-
tional Academy of Sciences (NAS; established mary board the poultry community would be

1
Corresponding author: applegt@purdue.edu
568
Table 1. History of revisions to NRC Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, Beef, Dairy, and Swine publications (by
year)
Poultry Beef
1944 1945
1946 1950
1950 1963
1954 1976
1960 1984
1966 1996
1971 2000
1977 2014 (estimated)
1984
1994
familiar with is the Board on Agriculture and
Natural Resources. Among this board’s function
is to appoint ad hoc committees to develop NRC
reports. Notably, the NRC releases approxi-
mately one report each working day on issues
in science, technology, medicine, social science,
and education.
The NAS established the NRC in 1916 af-
ter a request by President Woodrow Wilson to
recruit specialists from the larger scientific and
technological communities to participate in and
support the work of the NAS. During World War
II, the Committee on Animal Nutrition through
the NRC was tasked with improving animal nu-
trition to ensure an adequate food supply for the
population during emergency war times. The
inception of the Nutrient Requirements of Poul-
try report from the NRC began with the first 18-
page edition being published in 1944 [1]. Inter-
estingly, the concept of a requirement was not
in place at that time; rather values were listed
as nutrient allowances without inclusion of mar-
gins of safety. As noted in Table 1, the publica-
tion was consistently revised at least every 6 or 7
yr until the 1984, eighth revised edition [2], with
the ninth coming 10 yr later [3]. The frequency
of updates early in the history of the publication
was notable, as new nutrients were being dis-
covered and the relevance of those nutrients for
poultry nutrition were established. Inasmuch,
the NRC has considered 4 species of upmost
importance to consistently update the nutrient
requirement publications, namely beef, dairy,
poultry, and swine. As updates to the NRC pub-
lications were fairly routine over its last 50-yr
history, the regulatory and judicial communities
JAPR: Review
Dairy Swine
1945 1944
1950 1950
1956 1953
1958 1959
1966 1964
1971 1968
1978 1979
1988 1988
2001 1998
2015 or 2016 (estimated) 2012
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014
in the United States and abroad have used these
publications as benchmarks for their guidance.
The NRC publications have therefore be-
come very valuable references for regulatory
agencies (domestically and internationally), as
they are comprehensive evaluations of credible
and generally accepted science (for the most part
based on published peer-reviewed information)
that was current at the time of publication. For
example, the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) makes its scientific determinations to
support regulatory processes based on standards
that are scientifically sound and consistent;
otherwise, the determinations could be viewed
as arbitrary and capricious. Traditionally, the
FDA uses NRC publications as a standard when
making determinations with regard to nutrient
recommendations in the evaluation of utility
or functionality of substances added to animal
feed, as well as during assessment of the safety
and toxicity of those substances. The informa-
tion available in NRC publications regarding
toxicity of nutrients or other additives, includ-
ing tissue levels, maximum tolerable levels, and
so on, is regularly used to determine the safety
of substances used in animal feed during pre- or
postmarket valuations of product safety or the
truthfulness of labeling.
The US FDA continues to use informa-
tion in NRC publications as the gold standard
when making regulatory determinations. Rec-
ognizing the value and merit of NRC publica-
tions, the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine
still partially funds relevant NRC publications.
However, the FDA also recognizes that some of
the information in old NRC publications can be
Applegate and Angel: REVISION FOR NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS
somewhat dated; and thus the FDA makes rea-
sonable adjustments and minor deviations from
information gathered in NRC publications based
on current science and facts when making its de-
terminations.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN
THE UNITED STATES SINCE
PUBLICATION OF THE NINTH
REVISED VERSION IN 1994?
The NRC is a nongovernmental institution,
yet it does receive a small amount of federal
money to support its functions. Because of this,
it is subject to particular federal policies, includ-
ing the Freedom of Information Act [4] and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act [5]. When it
comes to convening ad hoc committees to write
the reports, federal policies do not play a large
role in the functionality of the committee’s work
other than directing the flow of information
from the public to the committee and verifying
that the committee members do not have a con-
flict of interest in the report itself. In establish-
ing the financial support for each publication,
the NRC is reliant on numerous external funding
sources. The NRC reinvests some of the income
from sales of prior reports into development and
production costs. Today, this investment only
covers 25 to 30% of the costs of any species nu-
trient requirement publication. To give a sense
of cost, it is estimated that the cost of the next
publication (dairy) will be $400,000 in 2014
or 2015. Therefore, financial contributions for
these publications must come from other sec-
tors. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine
has been a consistent donor toward these efforts
in recent years. Additionally, the majority of the
funds must come from entities that do not bear
any direct financial benefit from any specific as-
pect of the publication. Thus, the large propor-
tion of funding for a revision must come from
not-for-profit or public entities (e.g., commod-
ity check-off, donations to or from an animal or
feed industry foundation, and so on). However,
49% of the funding for such an effort can come
from directly from the poultry and allied indus-
tries.
For many years, consistency of the publica-
tions and cohesiveness across publications was
overseen by the Committee on Animal Nutrition
569
through the NRC. As mentioned earlier, the pri-
mary focus of the initial Committee on Animal
Nutrition work was to ensure an adequate food
supply, which was accomplished in part through
publishing the nutrient requirement publications
for livestock and poultry. Currently, this respon-
sibility rests with the Animal Nutrition Pro-
gram of the Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources (BANR). Today, the major focus of
BANR work is centered in 4 areas: (1) environ-
mental quality, refining animal feeding to reduce
environmental effects; (2) animal production,
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014
improving animal productivity and efficiency;
(3) food safety, enhancing the quality and safety
of food products derived from animal sources;
and (4) animal and human health, ensuring the
health and well-being of animals and humans.
To help support the Animal Nutrition Pro-
gram of BANR, the National Animal Nutrition
Program (NANP [6]) was initiated in 2010 and
is supported as a National Research Support
Project with hatch funds administered by the
USDA before the formula distribution to state
experiment stations. The NANP is focused on
addressing challenges facing researchers in ani-
mal agriculture and filling voids in the animal
nutrition research and academic communities.
An integrated and systematic approach is used
to share, collect, assemble, synthesize, and dis-
seminate science-based information, education-
al tools, and enabling technologies regarding ag-
ricultural animal nutrition, with an emphasis on
beef, dairy, swine, and poultry. The purpose of
NANP is to identify the current state of coordi-
nation and networking within animal nutrition;
explore animal nutrition over time, across geo-
graphic locations, by topic, and by networks of
collaborators in animal nutrition research; define
high-priority animal nutrition issues; and foster
new and existing collaborations to facilitate so-
lutions to these issues. The committee interacts
with the NRC on critical national priorities in
animal nutrition and provides a forum to address
research support needs. The NANP consists of
a coordinating committee which oversees 2 ad-
ditional committees: (1) a modeling committee
that focuses on improving the use of predictive
technologies and tools, enables the use of com-
mon software platforms, and works with re-
searchers to develop and share models and mod-
eling information; and (2) a feed composition
570 JAPR: Review

Table 2. Published literature used for the basis of NRC [3] recommendations for dietary amino acid concentrations
and phosphorus (range of years for the basis of NRC [3] recommendations)

Nutrient Broilers Turkeys Laying hens

Amino acid 1947–1991 1949–1986 1962–1989

Phosphorus 1952–1983 1954–1986 1983–1987

committee that assembles data and researches
resources on feed composition, fosters com-
munication among those collecting feed com-
position information, and improves efficiency
and consistency in data collection and mainte-
ibility coefficients in growing birds. Whereas
our collective poultry scientific community has
addressed several of these particular issues, we
have chosen to highlight progress on amino acid
and phosphorus responses in the scientific litera-

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014

nance. Examples of current accomplishments ture in the following subsections.
include development of a modeling template to
use across NRC publication updates; corrections Amino Acid Requirements
and software updates to dairy models; and de-
velopment of feed ingredient database structure A few recent publications have challenged the
for online public access [6]. NRC recommendations for amino acids as being
inadequate for current poultry strains. Dozier
WHAT NEW SCIENTIFIC et al. [11] summarized the amino acid require-
INFORMATION HAS BEEN ments of broilers in weekly durations based on
studies conducted since publication of the NRC
DISCOVERED SINCE 1994?
guidelines [3] until 2007 and suggested much
The NRC [3] amino acid and phosphorus greater amino acid needs for optimal growth and
recommendations for poultry were based on the muscle deposition. In turkeys, however, feeding
latest peer-reviewed literature to that time, but, of 110% of the NRC recommendations [3] did
as exemplified within Table 2, the literature used not improve turkey tom performance or yields
is now (in 2014) 23 yr old for amino acid rec- [12]. A different turkey study, by Noll et al. (as
ommendations and 31 yr old for phosphorus for cited by Lunden [13]), suggested that when a CP
broilers. However, the present commercial bird minimum is included in the formulation, BW
is very different from commercial birds avail- was not significantly affected by 100 versus
able before 1991, due in part to genetic selec- 110% of NRC CP requirements (18.7 vs. 19.3
tion as well as management practice- and feed- kg, respectively [3]). However, FCR was 0.03
related changes [7–9]. For example, the national lower, and breast yield (percent of carcass) was
average BW for turkey toms at 18 wk of age was 1.5 percentage units greater in birds fed 110% of
only 10.9 kg in 1986 [10] versus over 18.2 kg NRC requirements [3].
today. A quick search of literature (Agricola, key
words: nutrient, requirement, and broiler) notes Table 3. Published literature since referenced citations
that substantial peer-reviewed literature exists in NRC [3]
on several key nutrient areas, namely that of Publication Number of
amino acids and mineral nutrition (Table 3). Nutrient date1 published papers2
Additional changes have shaped the poultry
Lys 1981 to 2013 >40
industry since the 1994 publication [3], includ-
TSAA 1985 to 2013 20
ing bird genotype; feed ingredient composition, Val 1990 to 2013 7
as genotypic and phenotypic selection has oc- Arg 1990 to 2013 12
curred (e.g., corn with lower protein and propor- Ile 1990 to 2013 8
tional increases in starch content); increased use Ca 1982 to 2013 9
P 1983 to 2013 14
of co-products (e.g., distillers dried grains with 1
varying amounts of solubles); enzyme supple- Starting date was after the date of the last cited reference
for NRC [3].
mentation; as well as realization and quantifi- 2
Agricola search (key words: nutrient, requirement, and
cation of different nutrient and energy digest- broilers).
Applegate and Angel: REVISION FOR NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS
In the case of laying hens, CP and amino acid
formulations are largely over-formulated versus
NRC requirements [3], with the hope of getting
a return in either egg size or egg number. Re-
search by Applegate et al. [14], however, sug-
gests that 15.3 g of CP/hen per day (858 mg of
Lys, 450 mg of Met, 585 mg of Thr, and 638 mg
of Ile per hen per day) is sufficient to maximize
egg weight and production from 25 to 45 wk of
age versus birds fed corn-soybean meal diets
containing 16.15 g of CP/hen per day (874 mg
of Lys, 409 mg of Met, 627 mg of Thr, and 684
mg of Ile per hen per day). Notably, 15.3 g of
CP/hen per day supplied 2% greater CP (24, 50,
and 24% more Lys, Met, and Thr, respectively)
versus the NRC recommendations [3].
Phosphorus Requirements
As detailed by Applegate and Angel [15],
substantial research has been conducted in broil-
ers and laying hens to further define phosphorus
needs since the 1980s-based publications that
were the foundation for the recommendations
in the NRC [3] publication. However, over-
feeding of dietary P is common commercially,
with excesses of 20 to 100% over published re-
quirements commonly observed. In the United
States, part of this overfeeding is due to a lack of
a centralized, up-to-date source of information
on poultry P requirements (e.g., a current NRC
publication), lack of information on digestible P
in ingredients, and no information on ingredi-
ent concentrations with variability and number
of analysis represented associated with it. Ad-
ditionally, when the NRC requirements [3] were
put forth, phytase was just entering the commer-
cial market. Further, phosphorus nomenclature
between the eighth [2] and ninth [3] NRC pub-
lications induced confusion by many, in that the
1984 publication [2] used an available P (aP)
nomenclature, yet the 1994 publication [3] used
a nonphytate P (nPP) nomenclature without
substantial change in the values resulting in feed
ingredients having similar aP and nPP concen-
trations between these revisions. These termi-
nologies are not synonymous, as aP refers to the
P that is absorbed from the diet into the animal
(i.e., feed P minus P within the distal ileum; a
biologically available term) versus nPP, which
is chemically determined (total P minus phytate
571
P). Unfortunately, the aP used by the NRC [2]
publication is based in large part on calculations
developed in the 1950s that took P from a total
to an aP nomenclature. Part of the shift in think-
ing between 1984 and 1994 was to clarify ter-
minologies and gain clarity in the literature with
regard to experimental design. Since that time,
substantial discussion has taken place among the
poultry and swine scientific communities on de-
velopment of consensus protocols for ingredient
aP. In particular, Nutrition Working Group of the
European branch of the World’s Poultry Science
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014
Association published [16] consensus protocols
for aP determinations, including procedures for
the determination of nutrient hydrolysis per unit
of enzyme inclusion. For a historical perspec-
tive on biological determination of phosphorus
availability, please refer to the review by Shas-
tak and Rodehutscord [17].
HOW CHANGES TO
COMPOSITIONAL GROWTH
AFFECT NUTRIENT NEEDS
It is well accepted that of the major poultry
species, some of the most pronounced gains
in selection for growth and improved yields
have been in the broiler. The question debated
by many when it comes to discussion of a re-
vision to the NRC requirements [3] is whether
increases in feed (and thus nutrient) intake are
commensurate with growth needs. However, of-
ten missing from this discussion are changes to
composition of growth (or egg production) per
unit of feed intake. Havenstein et al. [7, 8] noted
substantial growth improvement in comparing
a random bred bird from 1957 versus an Ar-
bor Acres bird from 1991 and a Ross 308 from
2001. These dramatic improvements in gain are
exemplified in Table 4. When these strains were
fed diets representative of 1957 and 2001, it be-
came clear that broilers cannot fully compensate
for a poor quality feed by simply eating more
[8]. Similar improvements in growth were noted
in summarizing commercial production in Bra-
zil from 1990 to 2009 by Patricio et al. [18], in
that adjusted FCR to 2.0 kg was 1.96 and 1.57,
respectively. These changes in growth largely
speak to a differential need for ME per unit of
feed intake (i.e., caloric efficiency) possibly re-
lated to different maintenance requirements with
572 JAPR: Review

Table 4. Growth of broiler strains from 1957 to 2001 (as adapted from Havenstein et al. [7, 8])

BW FCR to 42 d FCR to
Broiler strain (g/d to 42 d of age) of age 700 g

1957 Athens-Canadian Random-bred 11.8 2.45 2.59 (56 d)

1991 Arbor Acres 49.8 2.00 1.58 (21 d)
2001 Ross 308 62.6 1.58 1.31 (21 d)

improvements in growth that have occurred over and a fast-growing broiler strain (Table 7). They
time. concluded that the fast-growing strain was less
Additionally, if one looks at composition of mineralized and had more porous cortical bone
growth over time, the proportional growth of than that of the slow-growing strain. Whereas

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014

muscle and intestine far surpass that of other
organs, such as the heart and skeleton. For
example, Schmidt et al. [19] compared tis-
sue growth differences between a heritage line
(random bred since 1940) from the University
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and Ross 708
(late 2000s). Notably, the growth of the breast
muscle was 3.8-fold greater, the small intestine
was 1.14-fold longer, and growth of the heart
was only 0.7 in the Ross 708 versus that in the
heritage line (Table 5). This begs the question as
to how nutrient needs, amino acids in particular,
have shifted as composition of the carcass has
changed. To that end, if one uses predictions for
growth versus nutrient needs, comparisons can
be made utilizing the NRC guidelines [3] and
publications such as the Brazilian broiler nutri-
ent requirement tables [20]. Notably, the Brazil-
ian model predicts a 20% greater digestible Lys
need by the broiler to 17 d or a common 2.1 kg of
BW as compared with the NRC guidelines [3].
Much of this additional Lys need is directly at-
tributable to compositional differences per unit
of BW rather than only differences in intake or
rate of BW growth to a common BW (Table 6).
Similarly, Williams et al. [9] reported differ-
ences in tibia characteristics between a slow-
the reduced calcium and phosphorus content in
the tibia may counteract differences in the rela-
tive requirements per unit of intake; it empha-
sizes the need for improved precision in mineral
nutrition in the modern broiler.
WHAT IS A NUTRIENT
REQUIREMENT?
Though this may seem like a simple ques-
tion, it is not easily answered and our defini-
tions have substantially changed since the first
NRC poultry publication in 1944 [1]. Leeson
and Summers [21] defined a nutrient require-
ment as “the minimum amount of the nutrient
required to produce the best weight gain, feed
efficiency, etc. and the lack of any signs of nu-
tritional deficiency,” which are often referred
to as the “minimum nutrient needs.” Admit-
tedly, they offer substantial examples wherein
various factors would influence these needs, and
thus have led to the imposition of “margins of
safety” to which the NRC requirements [1] used
the term “allowances” rather than requirements,
as additional allowances are “needed to provide
for the contingencies which are inherent in the
manufacture, transportation and use of poultry

Table 5. Broiler body, tissue and organ growth differences between a heritage line (University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign) from 1940 versus Ross 708 broiler from 2007 (adapted from Schmidt et al. [19])

Breast Heart Small intestine

Strain BW gain (g/d) g/d AG1 mg/d mg/g of BW cm/d cm/bird2

1940 heritage 30.8 1.6 1.09 240 7 1.8 123

2007 Ross 708 53.1 6.1 1.25 316 5 2.5 141
2007 vs. 1940 1.8 3.8 1.3 0.7 1.4 1.1
1
Allometric growth (AG) coefficient after 14 d of age.
2
Length to a similar BW.
Applegate and Angel: REVISION FOR NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS 573

Table 6. Predicted growth and digestible Lys requirement per NRC [3] versus Rostagno et al. [20] at 17 d of age
and a common 2 kg of BW

Age BW Digestible
Reference (d) (kg) FCR Lys (%)

NRC 17 0.68 1.43 0.98

Rostagno et al. 17 0.70 1.38 1.23
NRC 42 2.09 1.82 0.87
Rostagno et al. 32 2.07 1.55 1.10

feeds.” In today’s ingredient pricing environ- to or below their requirement (e.g., phosphorus),
ment, we likely can no longer afford this vague the variability in response of the population in-
notion for unspecified margins of safety without creases. Similarly, birds within the flock respond

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014

a quantifiable performance or yield response to
nutrient input variation. Thus, Ahmad and Ro-
land [22] and Gous [23] have suggested that we
rather should be discussing nutrient “responses”
rather than requirements per se; encompassing
considerations of marginal cost of ingredient or
nutrient input versus marginal returns of prod-
uct. This concept becomes rather complicated
in our traditional view of nutrient requirement
tables, as prior nutrient intake influences current
and future performance responses. Furthermore,
as the broiler market now has a different ending
BW, optimization of these birds’ different end-
ing BW and composition will take different nu-
trient response curves. Thus, modeling of nutri-
ent responses based on the desired end product
offers a more dynamic applicability than static
requirements in tabular form.
Part of this complexity is also due to (1) in-
dividual responses within a particular environ-
ment, (2) variation in nutrient delivery to the
bird versus what was formulated, (3) variation
in ingredient nutrient composition, and (4) feed
management systems that include free choice
or restricted intakes. The response from insuf-
ficiency to sufficiency becomes curvilinear, be-
cause we determine the response for a popula-
tion, and not the individual. Work by Schinckel
et al. [24] suggests that as birds are fed closer
differently to a challenge, thus increasing this
variation. This is of particular economic consid-
eration, as substantial yearly improvements in
performance (meat yield, egg production) con-
tinue beyond what we traditionally think of as
the breakpoint. To further complicate issues, the
literature is pervasive with different presentation
and terminology related to requirements, includ-
ing that of a breakpoint determined through bro-
ken-line analyses (optimum nutrient return per
unit of nutrient input for a measured characteris-
tic), a quadratic asymptote (maximum or mini-
mum), or a percentage (e.g., 90 or 95%) of the
asymptote. Either way, these measures average
the response of the population, whereas, more
times than not, the variance around that mean
gets lost in interpretation. Regardless, the NRC
committees are tasked with utilizing the best in-
formation available.
This leads us to ask, “Why and in what cir-
cumstances would the variance matter?” Case in
point would be related to that of skeletal and leg
abnormalities and industry formulation targets
for macrominerals and vitamin D3. Historically,
the industry has supplemented vitamin D3 at con-
centrations well above what is typically reported
as the requirement. For example, Edwards et al.
[25] reported the vitamin D3 requirement of
broilers for growth to be 275 IU/kg, for bone ash

Table 7. Broiler tibia growth and mineral characteristics between a slow and fast broiler strain (as adapted from
Williams et al. [9])

Tibia width Tibia length Tibia ash Tibia

Broiler (mm/kg of BW (mm/kg of BW
strain at 42 d) at 42 d) (%, 4 d) (%, 42 d) (% Ca) (% P)

Slow 5.3 94.1 41 58 26.9 11.4

Fast 2.6 39.3 29 46 18.5 8.4
574
to be 503 IU/kg, for plasma Ca to be 552 IU/kg,
and for rickets prevention to be 904 IU/kg; yet
broiler and turkey diets routinely contain 2,000
to over 5,000 IU/kg. This over-supplementation
is a partial reflection of a report by Yang et al.
[26]. In that report, they evaluated 26 vitamin D3
supplements using a biological response in tur-
key poults of changes in femur ash content; the
supplements elicited a range of bio-potencies of
40 to 134%. Thus, they recommended an over-
supplementation of vitamin D3 by 3 to 4 times
the requirement as an insurance factor. More re-
cent evaluations of sources of vitamin D3 across
the industry resulted in a reduced variation in a
broiler bio-assay (86 to 118% [27]). This, cou-
pled with much improved methods of chemical
analyses, has greatly improved our confidence
in the concentration and bio-potency of the vita-
min received by our birds, but has not changed
industry supplementation concentrations for vi-
tamin D3 41 yr after that initial report on variable
bio-potency of commercial D3 sources. Only
under regulatory constraints have industry use
concentrations changed (e.g., Europe). Industry
has hesitated to reduce D3 concentrations as leg
problems continue to be a concern. In recent
years, the US broiler industry has increased the
proportion of birds produced toward the heavy
roasters market, and the weight of broilers has
increased to maximize processing plant mar-
gins. With these increases in BW at processing,
the reported incidence of late mortalities, most
associated with gait and or leg abnormalities,
has increased by 1 to 1.5%, resulting in substan-
tial economic losses.
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. Much has changed with animal nutrition
since the inception of NRC nutrient re-
quirement publications.
2. Nevertheless, their tradition of scien-
tific rigor and independence has allowed
them to become benchmarks for the sci-
entific, judicial, and regulatory commu-
nities domestically and abroad.
3. Substantial time has passed and scientif-
ic progress has been made since the ninth
revised edition of the NRC Nutrient Re-
quirements for Poultry in 1994. Of the
4 primary livestock species, the poultry
JAPR: Review
publication is the oldest revised edition,
with beef being currently updated and
dairy undergoing committee formation
and financial organization (last revision
in 2001), and swine having been recently
updated in 2012.
4. Several challenges need to be faced if
an update is to be made to the poultry
NRC requirements beyond the need for
substantial commitments of financial re-
sources from all sources and volunteer
time from scientists.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014
5. The first challenge is to find a consensus
among industry and scientists that a new
NRC guideline for poultry is needed.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. NRC. 1944. Recommended Nutrient Allowances for
Poultry. 1st ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
2. NRC. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 8th
rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
3. NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th
rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
4. United States Government. 2011. 5 USC § 552: Pub-
lic information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and
proceedings. Accessed Jun. 11, 2014. http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/pdf/USCODE-2010-title5-
partI-chap5-subchapII-sec552.pdf.
5. United States Government. 2009. 5 USC App. II §
1–15: Federal advisory committee act. Accessed Jun. 11,
2014. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/
html/USCODE-2010-title5-app-federalad.htm.
6. USDA-National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
2014. Ongoing details regarding the activities and accom-
plishments of the National Animal Nutrition Program. Ac-
cessed June 4, 2014. http://nanp-nrsp-9.org.
7. Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, S. E. Scheidler, and
B. T. Larson. 1994. Growth, livability, and feed conversion
of 1991 vs 1957 broilers when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991
broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 73:1785–1794.
8. Havenstein, G. B., P. R. Ferket, and M. A. Qureshi.
2003. Carcass composition and yield of 1957 versus 2001
broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets.
Poult. Sci. 82:1509–1518.
9. Williams, B., S. Solomon, D. Waddington, B. Thorp,
and C. Farquharson. 2000. Skeletal development in the
meat-type chicken. Br. Poult. Sci. 41:141–149.
10. Ferket, P.R. 2003. Growth of toms improves substan-
tially. Pages 38–48 in WATT Poultry USA, July 2003. Rock-
ford, IL.
11. Dozier, W. A., III, M. T. Kidd, and A. Corzo. 2008.
Amino acid responses of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
17:157–167.
12. Applegate, T., W. J. Powers, R. Angel, and D.
Hoehler. 2008. Effect of amino acid formulation and acid
supplementation on performance and nitrogen excretion in
turkey toms. Poult. Sci. 87:514–520.
13. Lunden, T. 2009. Protein improves turkey gain.
Feedstuffs 81:10–12.
 Applegate and Angel: REVISION FOR NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS
14. Applegate, T. J., E. Onyango, R. Angel, and W. J.
Powers. 2009. Effect of amino acid formulation and dietary
probiotic supplementation on egg production and egg char-
acteristics in laying hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18:552–561.
15. Applegate, T. J., and R. Angel. 2008. Phosphorus re-
quirements for poultry. AS-583-W Purdue Univ. Coop. Ext.,
West Lafayette, IN. Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.
extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/AS/AS-583-W.pdf.
16. Working Group No 2: Nutrition of the European Fed-
eration Branch of WPSA. 2013. Determination of phospho-
rus availability in poultry. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 69:687–
698.
17. Shastak, Y., and M. Rodehutscord. 2013. Determina-
tion and estimation of phosphorus availability in growing
poultry and their historical development. World’s Poult. Sci.
J. 69:569–586.
18. Patricio, I. S., A. A. Mendes, A. A. Ramos, and D.
F. Pereira. 2012. Overview on the performance of Brazilian
broilers (1990 to 2009). Brazil. Jpn. Poult. Sci. 14:233–304.
19. Schmidt, C. J., M. E. Persia, E. Feierstein, B. King-
ham, and W. W. Saylor. 2009. Comparison of a modern
broiler line and a heritage line unselected since the 1950s.
Poult. Sci. 88:2610–2619.
20. Rostagno, H. S., L. F. T. Albino, J. L. Donzele, P. C.
Gomes, R. F. de Oliveira, D. C. Lopes, A. S. Ferreira, S. L. T.
Barreto, and R. F. Euclides. 2011. Brazilian Tables for Poul-
try and Swine: Composition of Feedstuffs and Nutritional
Requirements. 3rd ed. H.S. Rostagno, ed. Federal Univ.
Viҫosa, Viҫosa, Brazil.
21. Leeson, S., and J. D. Summers. 2001. Nutrition of the
Chicken. 4th ed. University Books, Guelph, Ontario, Cana-
da.
View publication stats
575
22. Ahmad, H. A., and D. A. Roland Sr. 2003. Effect of
method of feeding and feed formulation on performance and
profitability of laying hens: An econometric approach. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 12:291–298.
23. Gous, R. M. 2014. Modeling as a research tool in
poultry science. Poult. Sci. 93:1–7.
24. Schinckel, A. P., O. Adeola, and M. E. Einstein. 2005.
Evaluation of alternative nonlinear mixed effects model of
duck growth. Poult. Sci. 84:256–264.
25. Edwards, H. M., Jr., M. A. Elliot, S. Soonchareryny-
ing, and W. M. Britton. 1994. Quantitative requirement for
cholecalciferol in the absence of ultraviolet light. Poult. Sci.
73:288–294.
26. Yang, H. S., P. E. Waibel, and J. Brenes. 1973. Evalu-
ation of vitamin D3 supplements by biological assay using
the turkey. J. Nutr. 103:1187–1194.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Maryland on August 19, 2014
27. Kasim, A. B., and H. M. Edwards Jr. 2000. Evalu-
ation of cholecalciferol sources using broiler chick assays.
Poult. Sci. 79:1617–1622.
Acknowledgments
This paper is a summation of concepts from a 2013 Poul-
try Science Association (PSA) symposium, entitled “Nutri-
ent Requirement Evaluation and Publication for Poultry: US
and Global Perspectives.” Presentations from that sympo-
sium are archived and accessible through the following PSA
website: http://www.poultryscience.org/psa13/recordings-
NREaPfPUaG.asp. This paper was previously presented at
the 2014 Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference in Timonium,
Maryland.