THE INFLUENCE OF ADDED FAT AND PROTEIN IN BROILER RATIONS ON GROWTH RATE, DRESSING PERCENTAGES, AND OTHER CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS flask for tho Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Eskel Oren Essen-y I961 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IFFLUEITCE CF ADDED FA“? AN) ?ROTEIN Ila? QROILEB HATICLS Oi! GEO‘TTI-i RATE, DRESSING P‘iliCEleAGES, Alf) OTFEH CARCASS CHARACTEMISTICS presented by E SILEL CHEN ESSA}: has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D degree mm Science Major professor Datej’cl' '2 7. /9‘/ 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University "v. n,. . ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF ADDED FAT AKD PROTEIN IR BROILEB RATIORS OR GROWTH R TE, .RESSING PERCENTAGES, AND OTHER CABCASS CHARACTERISTICS by Eskel Oren Essary Twelve White Cornish Cross chicks of each sex were randomly sorted into five lots in each of 6 experiments. These chicks were used to study the influence of different levels of fat with different levels of protein in the diet on areas of fat deposition and many factors associated with the production and utilization of fryers. Experiments u, 5 and 6 were designed to replicate Experiments 1, 2 and 3, respectively. However, a different strain of White Cornish Cross chicks were used for each group of three experiments. The level of stabilized fat in the diets in Experiments 1 and 4 was increased by two per cent for each succeeding lot from 0 per cent for Lot 1 to eight per cent for Lot 5. Protein was approximately 20.2 per cent for all lots. In Experiments 2 and 5 the level of fat was the same as used in Experiments 1 and h. Protein levels were 20.77, 21.35, 21.93, 22.91, and 23.09 per cent for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. In Experiments 3 and 6 fat was increased by one per cent for each succeeding lot from 0 per cent for Lot 1 to four per cent for Lot 5. Protein was added at levels of 20.77, 21.80, 22.83, 23.86, and 24.89 per cent, respectively. Results show that the different levels of fat and protein did not influence growth rate or l0 week weights between lots Eskel Oren Essary except in Experiments 1 and 3. Growth rate was higher for males than for females indicating a difference in the nutritional requirements for males and females. Feed efficiency was improved with supplemental fat added to the diet. Bations which resulted in lowest feed conversions did not necessarily produce the most economical fryers. There was no significant difference in warm eviscerated yield or percentage moisture pick-up from chilling between lots. Specific gravity of the eviscerated carcasses was lower for birds which received higher levels of fat in the diet. With the abdominal fat removed from the carcasses no difference in cooking yields was found between lots in any experiment. A higher percentage of fat was found in the abdominal area of females than in the males. There was no significant difference in the percentage heart between lots. Birds fed high levels of fat and protein showed a significantly higher percentage liver, deposited more fat on the gizzards and showed a higher percentage skin. Birds fed high levels of fat and protein together or high levels of protein in combination with low levels of fat in the diet had significantly smaller gizzards. Fat composition was higher in the breast, thigh, drum- stick, wing, and skin of birds fed high levels of fat than in those fed low levels. An inverse relationship existed between the percentage fat and moisture in these tissues. Percentage protein was fairly constant for the same tissue Eskel Oren Essary between lots but tissues from males contained about two per cent more protein than did that from the females. Fat composition was lower in the skin of birds which received either high levels of fat with the same level of protein or high levels of protein with low levels of fat. Birds fed high levels of fat and protein together in the diet showed a higher percentage fat in the skin. Birds on high levels of fat deposited more fat in the abdominal and gizzard areas, and muscle tissues than in the skin. Those on low levels of fat with high levels of protein deposited a lower percentage of fat in the different tissues and in the abdominal and gizzard areas. Strain and sex differences were noted in the amount and areas of fat deposited. THE IEELUEMCE as admin rim App anTgIN IE EHOILEn NATIONS ON GRQJTH hATE, CD Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies or Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of UQCTDR OF PHI LJSQPHY Department of Poultry Science 1961 EV" ' r . , . . . J" 9" I 1 1 - - I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Lawrence E. Dawson for his helpful suggestions in conducting these experiments and preparing this manu- script. My thanks are extended to Dr. Howard C. Zindel for his assistance during my study at Michigan State University. Appreciation is also extended for the valuable assistance of Drs. E. L. Wisman and Clayton E. Holmes in the formulation of these rations, to V. W. Holt for her assistance in helping with the chemical analyses of the tissues, to Dr. C. Y. Kramer for his assistance in the statistical analysis of the data, and to the members of the Poultry staff at Virginia Polytechnic Institute for their help throughout these studies. My thanks are also extended to Dr. James E. Bywaters who helped by getting facilities for conducting the 'research, to Dr. C. E. Howes and the Administration at Virginia Polytechnic Institute for making my leave of absence possible. My thanks to my wife, Norene, and daughter, Sharon, for their understanding which enabled me to spend a considerable amount of time required to conduct these experiments and write this manuscript. -iii- .1 D II. TABLE corrgwr C) r1 J I. ACKKOJLEDGMEETS . . . . . . . . . - - II. TabLfi 3F CONTSNTS . . . . . . . . . . III. LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . IIJ. L131]: 0;? TABL-efls O O O O O O O O O O O O V o IIITILJL} UCTlx—JI‘J o o o o e o o o o o o o 0 VI 0 LI {I‘LJIIII‘I‘I‘ UIIL'; lii'VIETHT o o o o o o o o o 0 VII. EXPERIAJHTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . 8.. g. VIII. RESULTS Source of chicks and general procedure . . . . . . . . . . Feed rations . . . . . . . . Processing of fryers . . . . Chemical analyses . . . . . . Cooking tests . . . . . . . . Other determination of carcasses O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Cost of production . . . . . Experiment I . . . . . . . . Experiment 2 . . . . . . . . Experiment 3 . . . . . . . . Cost of production, Experiments 1, 2, and 3 . . . Experiment 4 . . . . . . . . ii iii vi vii 36 36 38 #6 #8 #9 5O 50 51 51 70 108 Ill IX. j. -iv- Experiment 5 . . . . . . . . Experiment 6 . . . . . . . . . Chemical analysis, Experiment h . . . . . . . . . Chemical analysis, Experiment 5 . . . . . . . . . Chemical analysis, Experiment 6 . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growtn rate and 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . . . . Feed efficiency . . . . . . Warn eviscerated yields . Specific gravity of dressed carcasses . . . . . . . . . Moisture pick-up from chilling operation . . . . . . . . . . Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat . . . . . . . Percentage heart of 10 week 01(1 frbrers O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Percentage chilled gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . Percentage liver of 10 week Old- fryers o o o o o o o o O 0 Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . Page 130 148 166 179 192 204 205 209 212 213 215 216 219 220 222 223 22h Page 1. Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . 227 m. Percentage cooking yield . . . . . 228 n. Cost of production . . . . . . . . 229 0. Chemical analyses of carcasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 1. Experiment A . . . . . . . 230 2. Experiment 5 . . . . . . . 232 234 Laminar.................. 236 O‘\ 3. Experiment XI 0 ILJIPEIIIJI:C IS 0 o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o 0 22+3 Figure III. Experiment efficiency Experiment efficiency Experiment efficiency Experiment efficiency Experiment efficiency Experiment efficiency "Vi“ LIST OF FIGURES Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . Growth rate and feed 10 weeks of age . . . 52 71 89 112 131 149 -vii— IV. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Composition of experimental rations for Experiments 1 and A . . . . . . . . . 39 2. Composition of experimental rations for Experiments 2 and 5 . . . . . . . . . AD 3. Composition of experimental rations for Experiments 3 and 6 . . . . . . . . . 41 4. Calculated analyses of rations for Experiments 1 and A . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5. Calculated analyses of rations for Experiments 2 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . A} 6. Calculated analyses of rations for ~‘ . 1 / ith'S I‘lments 3 anQ O o o o o o o o o o o o 14.1} 7. Experiment 1, Ten week live weights . . . 53 7a. Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8. Experiment 1, Feed efficiency to 10 WEEKS Of age a o o o c o o o o o o o g 55 9. Experiment 1, Warn eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . 56 9a. Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 10. Experiment 1, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . 57 10a. Experiment 1 Anal sis of variance - , Y , specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O Q 57 Table ll lla. 12. 12a. 13. 13a. lb. lLa. 15. 15a. 16. 16a. 17. 17a. ~viii— Experiment 1, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 1, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 1, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . 1, Analysis of variance, gizzard with attached fat old fryers . . . . . . . Experiment percentage of 10 week Experiment 1, Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 1, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers Experiment 1, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 6O 61 61 63 63 64 6h 65 65 66 66 Table 18. 18a. 19. 19a. 20. 20a. 21. 22. 22a. 23. 23a. 21;. Zita . 25. “iX- 7" L. oeriment 1, Percentage skin of illed eviscerated carcass weights ‘ Xi n a c . Experiment 1, Analysis of variance percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1, Percentage cooking yield Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield . . . . . t1) xperiment 2, Ten week live weights Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . . ... . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 Experiment 2, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . Page 68 68 69 69 72 72 73 7A 7A 77 77 78 Table 25a. 26. 26a. 27. 27a. 28. 28a. 29. 29a. 30. 30a. 31. 31a. 32. 32a. -X— Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . Experiment 2, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 2, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . Experiment 2, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 2, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Experiment 2, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . . . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 2, Percentage cooking yield . Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield . . . . . . O Page 78 79 79 81 81 82 82 83 83 85 85 Table 33. 33a. 3h. 35. 35a. 36. 36a. 37. 37a. 38. 38a. 39. 39a. LO. -Xj_._ Experiment 3, Ten week live weights . Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . Experiment 3, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . Exp riment 3, Warm eviscerated yield ,e of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . BY ‘pv ,eriment 3, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 3, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Experiment 3, Percentage moisture pick—up during chilling operation . . Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . . . . . Experiment 3, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . Experiment 3, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment 3, AnalySis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . Experiment 3, Percentage gizzard with O O I attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . Page 90 9O 92 93 93 9A 9A 95 95 97 97 98 98 99 Table AOa. A1. Ala. A3. A3a. AA. A5. A7. -xii— Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fry ers . Experiment 3, Percentage chilled gizzard withaut attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers Experiment 3, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . O O O O O Experinent 3, Analysis of variance, percenta age liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . Experiment 3, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . im-3nt 3, Analysis of variance, en ntag e intestine of 10 week old ryers . . . . x;3ri:rent 3, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights Experiment 3, Percentage cooking Yield 0 I O O O I O O O Q 0 O O O 0 Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield . . . . . Combined stctistical analysis for cook inp yields of Experiments 1, 2 and 3 3 Production cost of live broilers and dressed carcasses, based on the cost 0 of feed ingredients, feed efficiency, and dressing percentage 99 100 100 102 102 103 103 10A 105 105 107 109 ~xiii- Table P" A8. Experiment A, Ten week live weights . . . . 113 A8a. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 A9. Experiment A, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11A 50. Experiment A, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . 116 50a. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 116 51. Experiment A, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 51a. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 52. Experiment A, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . 119 52a. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during Chilling operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 53. Experiment A, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 53a. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 120 5A. Experiment A, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5Aa. Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . 121 55. Experiment A, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 122 Table 55a. 56a. 57. 57a. 58. 58a. 59. 59a. -xiv- Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Experiment A, Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . Experiment A, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . Experiment A, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Experiment A, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . . . Experiment A, Percentage cooking yield . A, Analysis of variance, Experiment cooking yield . . . . . . . . percentage Experiment 5, Ten week live weights . . Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 5, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment 5, Warn eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . Page 122 12A 12A 125 125 126 126 127 127 129 129 132 132' 133 135 Table Page 63a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week Old fryers o o o O o o c o o o o o o o o o o 135 6A. Experiment 5, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attaChed fat 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 136 6Aa. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 65. Experiment 5, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling Operation . . . . . 137 65a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 66. Experiment 5, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 66a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 138 67. EJperiment 5, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A0 67a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . 1A0 68. Experiment 5, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 1A1 68a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . 141 69. Experiment 5, Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . , 142 60a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 1A2 —xvi— Table Page 70. Experiment 5, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1AA 70a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . 1AA 71. Experiment 5, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A5 71a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A5 72. Experiment , Percentage skin of Chilled eviscerated carcass weights . . . . 1A6 72a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass 1.".7815hts o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 146 73. Experiment 5 Percentage cooking ield . . . l x 5 U V y 73a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield . . . . . . . . . . 1A7 7A. Experiment 6, Ten week live weights . . . . 150 7Aa. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 75. Experiment 6, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 76. Experiment 6, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . 153 76a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . 153 77. Experiment 6, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attac‘i’led fat 0 O O O C O O O O C O O O O O 0 151+ 77a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15A -xvii- Table . Page 78. Experiment 6, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation . . . . . 155 78a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 79. Experiment 6, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week Old- fryers O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C C C O O 157 79a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 157 80. Experiment 6, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 80a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers . . . 158 81. Experiment 6, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 159 81a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . 159 82. Experiment 6, Percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 82a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled gizzard without attached fat of 10 week old fryers . . . . . 160 83. Experiment 6, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 xperiment 6, Analysis of variance, ercentage liver of 10 week old fryers . . . 162 00 w in *0 [13 periment 6, Percentage intestine of ~ Ex 10 week old fryers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 8Aa. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . . 163 Table 85. 85a. 86. 86a. 87. 87a. 87b. 87c. 88. 6. SO‘ao 8‘71) 0 89. 89a. 89b. -xviii— EXéeriment o, Percenta ge skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weL hts Experiment 6, percentage skin of carcass weights . . . . . Analysis of variance, chilled eviscerated O 0 Experiment 6, Percentage cooking yield . . . Experiment 6, Percentage cooking yield . . . . . Experiment A, Percentage moisture, and protein of breast . . . . . . Experiment percentage moisture of breast . . a, fat of breast . . . . A, protein of breast . . . Experiment A, Percentage moisture, and protein of thigh . . . . Experiment percentage . Experiment percentage Experiment percentage moisture of thigh . Experiment percentage A, fat of thigh . . . Experiment percentage protein of thigh . . . Experiment A, Percentage moisture, and protein of drumstick . . O O O moisture of drumstick . fat of drumstick . . A. percentage protein of drumstick Analysis of variance, A, Analysis of variance, Analysis of variance, Analysis of variance, A, Analysis of variance, Analysis of variance, A, Analysis of variance, A, Analysis of variance, A, Analysis of variance, Analysis of variance, fat, fat, Page 16A 16A 165 167 168 168 169 170 170 170 172 173 173 173 Table 90. 90a. 90b. 90c. 91. 91a. 91b. 91c. 92. 92a. 92b. 93. 933. 93c. ~xix— Experiment A, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of wing . . . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of wing . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of wing . . . . . . xperiment A, Analysis of variance, ercentage protein of wing . . *CS [-51 xperiment A, Percentage moisture, at, and protein of skin . . rum 0 C O ['1 *xperiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of skin . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of skin . . . . . . Experiment A, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of skin . . . . Experiment 5, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of breast . Experiment 5, Analysis of Variance, percentage moisture of breast Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of breast . . Experiment Analysis of variance - 3 ./ 3 percentage protein of breast . . . Experiment 5, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of thigh . 3 [13 A ( ercentage moisture of thigh . Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of thigh . xperiment 5, Analysis of variance, Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of thigh . . . . . Page 17A 175 175 175 177 178 178 178 180 181 181 181 182 183 183 183 Table 9A. 9Aa. & 9Ab. 9Ac. 95- 95a. ’7 O\ (3‘ 0 96C. 97. 97a. 97b. 97c. EXperiment 5, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of drumstick . . Experiment 5, percentage moisture of drumstick . Ex xperiment 5, Analysis of variance, ne rcentage fat of drumstick . . . *O {‘1 ercentage protein of drumstick . Experiment 5, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of wing . . . . . Exneriment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of wing . . . Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of wing . . . . . . riment 5, Analysis entage protein of wing . . . . CG) Experiment 5, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of skin . . . . . E.:pe riment 5, I": ercentage moisture of skin . . . Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of skin . . . . . . percentage protein of skin . . . . Experiment 6, Percentage moisture, fat, and protein of breast . . . . Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of breast . . Experiment 6 percentage f 3.! n of breast . . . . . Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of brags . , . Analysis of variance, xperiment 5, Analysis of variance, of variance, Analysis of variance, Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, {inalysis of variance, Page 191 193 19A 19A Table 100. 100a. lOOb. 100C. lOl. 101a. lOlb. lOlc. Experiment fat, and Experiment percentage Experiment percentage ' XYDCI‘l HIGH v ercentage *0 L4 xperime’ nt at H) [:3 7‘1‘ 5 ‘. :periment ercentere ”OE 13:1 is 0631” A ime nt rce ntai e 'U (D Experiment Experime nt frat, (Zn-1 Experiment percentage Experiment percentage n1 m>< *3 "(J (KL) (T) im nt nt :e ’{i‘j Experiment fat, an;i Experiment percentage Experiment percentage Ex eriment percentuse ~xxi- 6, Percentage moisture, protein of thigh . . . . 6, Analysis of variance, moisture of thigh . . . 6, Analysis of variance, fat of thigh . . . . . 6, Analysis of variance, protein of thigh . . . 6, Percentage moisture, , and protein of drumstick . . 6, Analysis moisture of of variance, drums tick . , Analysis of variance, at of drumstick . . . rsox 6, Analysis of variance, pr rotein of drurstick . 6, Percentage moisture, rotein of wing . . . . . 6, Lnalysis of variance, moi isture of wing . . . 6, AnalySi of Variance, f; t of wing . . . . . . 6, Analysis of variance, protein of wing . . . . 6, Percentage moisture, protein of skin . . . . . 6, Analysis of variance, moisture of skin . . . 6, Analysis of variance, fat of Skin 0 O O O O O 6, Analysis of variance, protein of skin . . . . 196 197 198 198 198 200 202 203 203 203 V. INTRJUUCTION In l9h7, Scott, Matterson, and Singsen demonstrated that high levels of energy are desirable in broiler rations. Since their discovery an extensive amount of research has been conducted with poultry to determine the influence of high energy feeds on growth rate, feed efficiency, and the relationship between added fats in feeds and other feed nutrients. However, little research has been conducted to study the effect of using different levels of added fat with varying levels of protein on cost of broiler production, based on feed cost and feed efficiency, dressing percentage, areas of fat deposition in the broiler, water pick-up during chilling, cooking yields, chemical analysis of the carcass, and other factors which are important in evaluating a broiler ration. These factors seen especially important since the cost of broiler production is of great concern to the poultry industry. Broiler production has increased at an enormous rate and has been associated with a decrease in selling price. In many areas of the United States the different segments of broiler production have been integrated and an increased -2- interest in the over-all cost of production has resulted. In both an integrated and a nonintegrated poultry industry, the cost of the finished product offered to the consumer can be altered by one or more steps within the entire Operation. Cost of production is a major factor in determining whether a company makes or loses money in its‘ Operation and what percentage of the consumer's dollar will be spent for poultry products instead of for competitive meat products. It is important to determine whether a ration containing all of the known essential nutrients at their proper levels and relationship to each other will produce a broiler more economically, without sacrifice to quality, than will another less expensive but nutritionally adequate ration. Such a determination would help to establish at what age the bird should be marketed to give the greatest return to the grower. However, the cost of feed is only one of several factors which needs to be considered in evaluating a broiler ration. The influence of added fat in broiler rations on carcass composition is also important since consumers are concerned about the presence of fat in their diets. If the addition of fat results in a large amount of fat being deposited in the edible parts of the carcass, then these broilers might be discriminated against by the housewives thereby resulting in lower broiler consumption. It is essential to the processor to know whether the dressed yield of broilers is altered by fat deposition since yield is one of the many factors which determines the selling price of the dressed bird as well as the margin of profit. It is also important to know whether the fat is deposited mainly in the muscle tissues, in the abdominal cavity, or attached to the intestional tract. If a large percentage of the deposited fat is attached to the intestines and gizzard the dressing percentage would be reduced. This loss in yield would be reflected in the selling price of the dressed broilers or in the profit received by the processor. He should know if fat deposition influences the percentage of water pick-up during the chilling operation since this not only helps to determine the packed-out yield of the processed birds but also the percentage weight loss of the carcasses from the time they are packaged until they reach the consumer. If added fat in the broiler ration results in greater fat deposition in the muscle tissues as well as the abdominal cavity, such birds would be expected to have a greater shrink from cooking. To food manufacturers using poultry meat it is important to know what cooking yields to expect from a product since this factor, in addition to others helps to determine the selling price, consumer acceptance, and quality standardization of the prepared food product. It is essential to determine the possible alteration in the percentage protein, fat, and moisture of broilers fed rations containing different levels of added fat since consumers are becoming more conscious of the nutritive value of food items. Published data do not furnish adequate information on the influence of diet on the carcass composition and characteristics. This study was therefore undertaken in 1956 to study the influence of different levels of added fat with different levels of protein on the many factors mentioned. VI. .LITEHATURE REVIEW Fats and oils began to be used extensively in livestock and poultry feeds when detergents replaced soaps as a cleaning agent. Kraybill (1953) reported that there were approximately one billion pounds of surplus fat on the market at the end of 1953. ,The low price and enormous supply of fats provided the incentive for using fat as a source of energy in poultry feeds. Fat was found to be a valuable source of energy, Bird (1954). In addition to the increase in energy, fats improve the texture and color of feed ingredients, and control the dustiness of finely ground feeds. Lewis, Bray, and Sanford (1955) reported that on the basis of palatability preference, as evaluated by feed consumption, chicks preferred diets supplemented with 2 per cent lard and corn oil over basal diets. Reiser and Couch (1949), using chicks which had the residual yolks removed, fed chicks on a practical and a purified fat-free diet plus 4 per cent Wesson Oil. The group on a purified fat-free ration gained at a slower rate than those on the purified diet plus 4 per cent oil. Arscott and Sather (1958) reported that the addition of 3 and 6 per cent fat to a corn . rr‘ In -6- type ration resulted in a significant improvement in broiler growth. However, growth was adversely affected with an addition of 9 per cent fat to the same type ration. Bird (195A), Aitken, Lindblad, and Hunsaker‘ (195A), Yacowitz and Chamberlin (1954), Runnels (1955), Rosenberg gt 31. (1955), Curtin and Raper (1956), and ‘Beilharz and McDonald (1959) showed that the addition of fat to broiler rations improved feed efficiency but failed to produce a significant increase in growth. Similar results were reported by Yacowitz, Carter, Wyne, and McCartney (1956) ho conducted feeding trials using turkey broilers. Beilharz and McDonald (1959) reported that stabilization of the fat had no effect on body weight or feed efficiency. Fox and Bohren (l95u) reported inter- and intra-strain differences in poultry in their ability to utilize feed efficiently. Slinger, McConachie, and Pepper (1955) indicated that the difference in weights of 10 week old birds was due to the highly significant effects of strain, sex, and diet. Interactions between strain X.diet and sex X diet were not statistically significant indicating that two among the 10 strains tested showed no weight response to added fat. Males showed a greater reSponse to fat in the diet than females in all but two of the 10 strains studied. Bigbee (1956) reported that fat increased growth rate as well as feed efficiency in cool weather, but only increased feed efficiency in summer. Dunkelgod, Gleaves, Tonkinson, and Thayer (1959) conducting tests with Broad Breasted Bronze poults, noted that poults developed deficiency symptoms which resembled those of biotin, pyridoxine, and thiamine when fed a high-energy diet under summer environmental conditions. Mortality was high and survivors had lesions in the mouth, a high percentage of deformed beaks, and a high incidence of perosis. The same diet was fed in the winter with no adverse effects. Bigbee (1956) pointed out that feed conversion was improved by each 5 per cent increase in added fat to the diet. However, there was a reduction in growth rate when the level of added fat and protein were out of proportion to each other. Biely and March (195A), Aitken §£H_l. (l95h), Leong g3 El. (1955), Donaldson 33 gl. (1955), Sunde (1956), Potter, Matterson, Carlson, and Singsen (1956), Biely and March (1957), and Vondell and Ringrose (1958) reported that there was a relationship between calorie and protein, and the growth rate and feed conversion Of chicks. Combs and Romoser (1955) suggested that broiler starting diets should contain about 42 calories per one per cent protein in each pound Of feed. Richardson, watts, and Epps (1956) reported that in broiler rations containing a protein level Of 21.5 tO 23.5 per cent, the Optimum calorie-proteinlratio lies between 41 and 43 to 1. They further Observed that a fat X fiber interaction existed and that the addition Of vegetable fat to the diet counteracted all or part Of the performance depressing effect Of the fibrous feedstuffs. In 1958 these authors, using gain in weight and feed conversion as a criterion Of performance, found that different fibers gave different growth responses. The addition Of fat in broiler rations improved feed conversion in all instances but the magnitude Of improvement was influenced by the source Of fiber. Reiser and Pearson (1949) reported that chick starter diets,high in refined cottonseed Oil but low in riboflavin caused chicks to stop growing much sooner than those on similar diets which contained nO added fat. When 4 grams Of riboflavin per gram Of feed 1 Calorie-protein ratio hereafter referred tO as 0-? ratio. t1 wemaadded to the diet, the growth response was essentially the same irreSpective Of whether the diet contained fat. Lard and hydrogenated vegetable fat did not retard the rate Of growth. It was suggested that the difference in growth response from cottonseed Oil, lard, and hydrogenated vegetable fat was due to the unsaturated acids in cottonseed Oil which interfered with the intestinal synthesis Of riboflavin. Thayer and Davis (1953), Rice gt Q1. (1954), and Peterson, Grau, and Peek (1954) showed that high energy diets can show up deficiencies Of marginal nutrients by. the reduced volume Of feed intake which reduces the amount Of each nutrient consumed unless the nutrients are suitably more concentrated in the diet. Donaldson ,ggigl. (1956), using 4-week assay experiments, showed that 30 per cent animal grease or corn Oil in broiler diets gave satisfactory results when adequately supplemented with protein (amino acids), minerals, and vitamins. Kummerow, Weaver, and Honstead (1949) showed that the choline requirement Of the chick was increased by the addition Of high levels Of fat in the ration. Donaldson, Combs, and Romoser (1954) reported that the -10- amount Of feed required per pound Of gain in broilers was consistently reduced by approximately 0.1 to 0.2 pounds when 2.5 to 15.0 per cent fat was added to rations containing 785 milligrams Of choline per pound Of feed. 0n the other hand, levels of added fat above 5 per cent did not improve the feed efficiency when the ration contained 685 milligrams Of choline per pound. Siedler and Schweigert (1953) studied the influence Of different levels Of fat with and without choline and 'antibiotic plus B12 supplements on rate Of gain. They reported an increase in growth rate from these supplements during the early phases Of the experiments, -but this response was not Observed in the female broilers at 9 weeks Of age. Carver, Rice, Gray, and Mons (1955) reported that neither hydrogenated tallow nor fatty acids from hydrogenated tallow are efficiently utilized as fat supplements in broiler feed. Hydrogenated fat and fatty acids did not improve 4-week feed conversions while tallow improved feed conversions and was absorbed to the extent Of 82 to 100 per cent. Biely and March (1957) concluded that not only is fat utilization affected by the protein content in the -11- diet, but that the degree to which utilization is affected depends upon the nature Of the fat. Whitson, Carrick, Roberts, and Hauge (1943) demonstrated that chicks receiving a low fat diet (2.7 to 2.9 per cent) utilized a significantly smaller percentage Of the fat than chicks receiving medium amounts (8.6 to 9.0 per cent), or high levels (20.2 tO 20.7 per cent) Of fat in the diets. The fat in the low fat diet was typical Of that present in poultry diets while the Oil added to the medium and high fat diets was an unsaturated fat, typical Of many vegetable 0113. It was noted that more fat was excreted in the feces Of chicks receiving diets high in fat than by chicks receiving diets low in fat. Duckworth, Naftalin, and Dalgarno (1950) studied the digestibility coefficient Of added mutton fat at levels up to 12 per cent and found that growing chicks digested 88 per cent when 6 per cent fat was added to the diet but only 70 per cent when 12 per cent fat was added. They further noted that linseed Oil was more digestible than mutton fat at levels Of 6, 9, and 12 per cent. Siedler, Scheid, and Schweigert (1955) tested the effect Of white grease, yellow grease, brown grease, prime tallow, No. 2 tallow, and fatty acids -12- prepared from choice white grease on the performance Of chicks. It was Observed that the addition Of 3 or 6 per cent stabilized feed-grade animal fats or 3 per cent stabilized free fatty acids to a high energy diet resulted in nO significant difference in rates Of gain even though the amount Of fat ingested and the amount excreted showed excellent digestibility Of the added fat. Sunde (1956) attempted tO determine the digestibility Of white grease, Oleic acid, and hydrogenated fat. It was noted that the addition Of white grease in feeds increased the amount Of fat in dry feces by 2 to 5 times over the control diet, depending upon the level fed. Five per cent Oleic acid increased the fat in the feces about the same amount as did 5 per cent white grease. The amount of fat in the feces resulting from the feeding Of the hydrogenated fat, however, increased about 8 to 9 times over that of the basal diet. It was found that the feces from the group fed the hydrogenated fat contained 82 per cent free fatty acids which suggested that the glycerol portion Of the molecule was removed and the free fatty acids were not absorbed. ‘3 -13- March and Biely (1957) noted that the coefficients Of digestibility of fat were not as high as those reported in the literature because of the fatty acids excreted in the form Of soaps. They concluded that fecal soaps must be considered in any estimation Of digestibility Of fat by the chicken. Fedde, Waibel, and Burger (1959) demonstrated that the digestion coefficients Of fats are different for different fats and can be altered by the presence Of calcium and other factors in the diet. Wilder, Cullen, and Rasmussen (1959) stated that the values for metabolizable energy Of fats may be explained on a basis of the level Of impurities in the sample. High values Obtained for certain samples suggested that metabolizable energy values are inadequate to judge full contribution Of these fats in nutrition. Chicks require factors present in unsaturated fat for maximum growth as reported by Carver and Johnson (1953). These growth factors were found in crude corn Oil, refined corn Oil, soybean Oil, wheat germ Oil, and Oleic acid concentrates. In addition to the work cited showing that fat in diets influenced growth rate, feed efficiency, and other factors associated with growth, many authors have -14- reported that high energy rations and rations containing certain other ingredients altered different carcass characteristics associated with the quality and composition Of broilers. Hammond and Harshaw (1941) and Culton and Bird (1941) found that fortified cod liver Oils were potent sources Of a pigmentation-suppressing factor. The latter authors also showed that certain samples Of meat scraps, fish meal, and soybean Oil meal also depressed pigmentation. Bird (1943) reported finding a pigmentation-suppressing factor in two or three samples Of meat and bone meal but not in dried skimmed milk. Carver (1959) demonstrated that certain samples Of yellow grease, NO. 1 tallow, hydrolyzed animal and vegetable fat, and methyl esters Of vegetable fat reduced pigmentation in broilers. Inasmuch as it was shown that this factor varied with the levels Of fat supplements fed, it was concluded that some samples Of yellow grease, hydrolyzed animal and vegetable fat did not depress pigmentation. The sample Of methyl esters depressed growth, feed conversion, and pigmentation while certain samples Of yellow grease, No. 1 tallow, and hydrolyzed fat which contained a pigmentation- .-lo n... ’Y‘H fin ~.J (h *1 'r1 U‘J w ’ " 1“ (I) o -15... inhibiting compound had no adverse effects on growth and feed conversion. Aitken, Lindblad, and Hunsaker (1954) fed a ration in which 10 per cent tallow was incorporated in a 25 per cent protein diet and reported that the male broilers after being dressed at 10 weeks Of age were superior to broilers fed on rations not containing tallow. However, Yacowitz, Carter, Wyne, and McCartney (1956) noted that the feeding Of 0, 3, and 6 per cent fat each with 20, 23, and 26 per cent protein in turkey finishing rations did not have any measurable effect on market quality Of turkey broilers as judged by handling the live birds at 16 weeks Of age. I Harshaw (1936, 1939), Fraps (1943), and Newell, Fry, and Thayer (1956) demonstrated that a relationship exists between the energy level Of the ration and the fat composition Of the carcass. Duckworth g§,gl. (1950) showed that as the level Of linseed Oil in the diet was increased, fat deposition progressively increased in White Leghorn male chicks. McNally (1954) Observed that the fat content Of the edible meat Of 12 week Old cockerels was directly proportional to the fat content (l to 19 per cent) Of the diet. This condition was also found with linseed Oil, corn Oil, and tallow which -~ -16- showed varying degrees Of saturation. Breed differences were Observed in the fat storage in the carcass on diets Of the same percentage fat. Renard (1949) noted a variation among different breeds and crosses in the percentage loss during dressing and evisceration Of 10 week Old cockerels. However, Morrison, Sauter, McLaren, and Stadelman (1954), using 8 breeds Of broilers found nO consistent differences between breeds with respect to eviscerated yields or yield Of edible meat. Orr (1955) reported that there were no significant differences due tO strain, sex, and diet as determined by the chilled dressed weights as a percentage Of the live weight. However, on the basis Of ready-tO-cOOk weight, as a percentage Of live weight, the effect Of strain and sex was significant. Sullivan, Cherms, and Sunde (1958) Observed differences in the dressing percentage Of four different classes Of poultry. The heavier classes Of birds had the higher dressing percentages. Essary, Mountney, and Goff (1951) noted differences in eviscerated yields between meat type standardbred and crossbred broilers. Stotts and Darrow (1953) and Hathaway, Champagne, Watts, and Upp (1953) found that the introduction Of Cornish breeding in pure form or -r v..v fin J AV -17- in crosses resulted in greater edible meat yield Of the carcasses. Jaap, Renard, and Buckingham (1950), reporting on the results Obtained from dressing 44 different strains Of l2-week fryers, concluded that rapid growth (size) appeared to be the major factor reSponsible for increasing both the percentage dressed and percentage eviscerated yields at this age. A linear relation was found between live weight and percentage yield. Similar results were reported by McNally and Spicknall (1949). Siegel and Essary (1959) found a highly positive genetic and phenotypic correlation between live and eviscerated weights in broilers. Henderson (1946) reported that a significant correlation exists between meat type scores for both live and dressed birds and percentage Of edible meat. Dawson, Davidson, Frang, and Walters (1957), using a Cornish-game miniature broiler at 6 weeks Of age, Observed a positive correlation between the apparent (visual) meat type and yield Of edible cooked meat. Based on pound-sized, raw weight Of broilers Of meat-types rated 1 to 5 (l superior), it was reported that for every pound Of raw meat within the range Of the weight and meat type studied, there was -18- approximately 50 per cent edible meat, 22 per cent bone, 23 per cent loss due to cooking, and 5 per cent loss due to separating for boning. May and Brunson (1955) starved male and female broilers for 24 hours and reported that significantly lower eviscerated yields resulted in these broilers than from similar broilers starved for 0, 3, 6, or 12 hours. Brunson (1957) reported that fasting periods Of 12 and 24 hours reSulted in significantly lower eviscerated yields in broilers, and that the moisture content Of the carcasses varied directly with the eviscerated yields, indicating that the differences in the eviscerated yields were due to differences in the moisture content Of the carcasses. Essary, Kramer, and Coles (1958) reported that not only was eviscerated yield decreased by the length Of time fowl was held without feed but that shrink from starvation reduced the weight Of the edible portion Of the carcass. Essary (1958) showed that processing techniques can alter the degree Of accuracy in Obtaining processing data. Harms, Hockreich, and Meyer (1957) demonstrated that the percentage Of eviscerated yield increased in broiler-fryers as the energy level Of the diet was -19- increased. Stadelman, McCartan, Baum, and McLaren (1951) found that subcutaneous implantations Of diethylstilbestrol in broilers improved general carcass appearance and increased fat deposition and dressing loss. McNally and Spicknall (1950) reported a linear relationship between the Specific gravity and the fat content Of broiler legs. They concluded that specific gravity may be used as a fairly accurate rapid method for the determination Of the fat content Of whole carcasses and parts Of the carcass. Newell g3 g1. (1956) showed that specific gravity was significantly different between broilers fed different levels Of fat. However, Thayer and Thompson (1950), using estrogen-fed »poultry, found that specific gravity Of muscle tissue samples was not an accurate measure Of intra-muscular fat. Bigbee (1956) was unable to show significant improvement in carcass fat deposition as measured by specific gravity. It was noted, however, that broilers deposited slightly more carcass fat when fed rations containing 10 to 15 per cent added fat. Koonz and Robinson (1946) demonstrated that the amount and distribution Of connective tissue and Of fat within the different sizes and arrangements of muscle A‘ -20- bundles in poultry differed between various muscles. Goertz, Vail, Harrison, and Sanford (1955) concluded from Observing histological sections Of turkey tissues that turkeys fed a high-density low fiber feed contained larger amounts Of intra-muscular fat than those fed high fiber lOW—density feed. Lewis, Harrison, and Folse (1958) reported that the distribution as well as the quantity Of fat in muscle tissue may be determined by employing a photomicrographic method which they developed. It was reported by Asmundson, Jukes, Fyler, and Maxwell (1938) that the feeding of fats and/or 0115 had an effect on the stability Of the deposited fats. Kummerow, Hite, and Kloxin (1948), and Chu and Kummerow (1950) Observed that linolenic acid was deposited in the skin, gizzard, and liver Of turkeys which had received supplements Of linseed Oil and that the resistance Of poultry fat tO rancidification was ' dependent on the amount Of linolenic acid deposited in the skin tissue and the amount and nature Of natural antioxidants. Barnes, Lundberg, Hanson, and Burr (1943) showed that alpha tocopherol helped to stabilize animal fats against oxidation. aa~ -21- Kummerow g3 g1. (1947) noted that the degree Of stability Of deposited fat, as determined by comparing the acid, peroxide, and aldehyde values Of the fat extracted from the skin, and by employing organoleptic tests, could be modified by the addition Of certain supplements such as extracts of alfalfa leaf meal, carotene, cholesterol, ethanolamine, or choline. Work by Kummerow, Vail, Conrad, and Avery (1948) showed that a correlation probably exists between the organoleptic characteristics Of the carcass and the peroxide and aldehyde values Of the extracted skin fat. When the peroxide and aldehyde values were less than 10 and 25, respectively, the cooked carcass was acceptable tO the taste panel. Criddle and Morgan (1947) indicated that rather large additions Of tocOpherOl tO turkey diets are needed to influence markedly the amount Of tOCOpherol deposited in the bird. Mecchi, Klose, and Lineweaver (1952) Observed that the fatty acid composition was similar from chickens and turkeys receiving the same diet but the fat differed in the tocopherol content and stability. The difference in stability appeared to be related tO the tocopherol content. Klose gt 3;. (1952) reported that the tendency Of fat tO “a -. -7; -22.. deteriorate in frozen storage turkeys may be predicted in part from either the induction period or the fatty acid composition Of the carcass fat. They further reported that the fatty acid composition of the dietary fat was reflected in the fatty acid composition Of the carcass fat. Siedler, Moline, Schweigert, and Riemenschneider (1957) reported that the A 0 M stabilities Of the depot fat from broilers fed rations containing either nO added fat, 6 per cent unstabilized fat, 6 per cent stabilized fat with an antioxidant, or 6 per cent stabilized fat with 0.02 per cent DPPD} showed little or no increase in stability when stabilized or unstabilized animal fat was in the diets at the levels tested. Voth, Miller, and Lewis (1958) found that the intravenous injection Of tocopherol at the amounts used did not significantly increase the amount Of tocopherol in the depot fat. Subsequent resistance Of the fat tO oxidative rancidity was not increased by this injection. Klose g3 g1. (1952) fed turkeys for 17 weeks on a practical simplified low-fat basal diet and on a basal diet supplemented with 2 per cent beef fat, corn Oil, linseed Oil, sardine Oil, and soybean Oil. 1 Antioxidant, Diphenyl-p-phenylinediamine -23- Analysis Of the feed fat and carcass fat for their fatty acid contents demonstrated significant correlation between diet fat and carcass depot fat for linoleic and linolenic acid contents. There were no significant differences, however, in fatty acid composition between three widely separated fat depots in the carcass. Cruickshank (1934) checked the iodine values Of the mixed fatty acids Of different fat depots in fowl and indicated that the superficial and internal fat reserves are more uniform in composition in fowl than in pigs and cattle. It was demonstrated that the ingestion Of high percentages Of saturated fatty acids in the form Of palm kernel Oil and mutton fat definitely decreased the degree Of Saturation Of the mixed fatty acids of the depot fat, while the ingestion Of unsaturated acids in hempseed resulted in a marked and rapid increase in unsaturation. Hood, Wheeler, and McGlamery (1950) reported that birds receiving diethylstilbestrol deposited significantly higher percentages Of fat which exhibited less change in Kreis and peroxide number during the two incubation periods than did the fat Of the control birds. Kreis and peroxide values indicated that birds receiving diets containing 5 per cent crude peanut Oil H' (‘l V. fl"r v.1” ...4 5-4 (nu -24- as a natural source Of tocopherol from 8 to 12 weeks of age deposited fat that was slightly less susceptible tO oxidative changes than the fat Of birds on diets containing 5 per cent peanut Oil from which the tocopherols had been extracted by the use Of ferric chloride. Maw, Holcomb, Rodger, and Franklin (1936) and Harshaw (1938) found that the breast meat contained less fat than the dark or drumstick and thigh meat. Thayer and Thompson (1950) reported that the moisture content Of the breast muscle was about the same for both control and estrogen—fed birds. There was no evidence to indicate that the estrogen-fed birds had more intra—muscular fat than the control birds. Fat levels in the muscles were not consistent with visual grades for the broilers. Dansky and Hill (1952) indicated that birds fed a high energy ration deposited more fat on the carcass than did birds on a ration Of moderate amount Of energy content.) Females had a higher fat content than males on each Of the rations. The fat content Of the bone, leg muscle, gizzard, and skin varied directly with the fat content of the total carcass. -25- Waibel (1955) ‘ed battery-reared chicks on 13, lo, 20, 25, and 31 per cent protein with 10 per cent stabilized bleachable fancy tallow and observed that the lots receiving the higher levels of protein contained higher percentages of protein based on moisture-free carcass. Fat content of the carcasses were correSpondingly reduced as the protein content increased. Richardson, Brunson, and Jatts (1957) reported that carcass fat content, on a dry matter basis, was increased as the calorie-protein ratio was inCreased from 34 to 1. With calorie-protein ratio held constant, an increase in protein level of the feed caused a decrease in fat content of the carcass. With protein level held constant, there seemed to be an increase in fat deposition as calorie-protein ratio increased. Rice gt 31. (1954) found no gross indications that carcass quality or composition were altered although 5 per cent or more hydrolyzed cottonseed foots were used in the ration. Rand, hummerow, and Scott (1957) showed that increased protein consumption reduced the percentage of fat in the carcass and was the main factor controlling the latter. fly J- AV -26- Spring and Wilkinson (1957) conducted a study in which protein levels of 22, 25, and 28 per cent were each paired with 1200, 1350, and 1500 calories of metabolizable energy per pound of feed. The body composition of broilers were analyzed at 2, h, 6, and 8 weeks of age after grinding the entire body immediately after the birds were killed. At 2 weeks of age, increasing dietary protein from 22 to 28 per cent, increased body protein from 18.3 to 18.8 per cent, water 71.5 to 73.6 per cent, and decreased body fat from 6.7 to 5.0 per cent._ Increasing dietary energy from 1200 to 1500 calories per pound, decreased body protein from 18.8 to 18.1 per cent, water from 73.7 to 71.2 per cent, and increased body fat from h.h to 7.8 per cent. At 8 weeks of age, increasing dietary energy caused an increase in body fat from 6.0 to 9.1 per cent but decreased body protein from 22.1 to 21.2 per cent and water from 69.6 to 67.8 per cent. Increasing dietary protein level decreased body fat from 8.6 to 5.9 per cent and inCreased body protein from 21.3 to 21.8 per cent and water from 68.0 to 69.6 per cent. McNally (1955) reported that the moiSture and protein content of poultry meat on a fat-free basis are fairly constant. The fat as a component of the -27- tissue reduced the moisture and protein contents in proportion to their quantity in the fat-free material. Donaldson, Combs, and Romoser (1956) determined that as the ratio of energy to protein in the broiler ration was widened the energy intake and carcass fat deposition were increased and the water content of the carcass was decreased. Leong §t_§l. (1955), Donaldson, Combs, Romoser, and Supplee (1955), Donaldson, Combs, and Romoser (1956), Baldini and Rosenberg (1957), and Rand, Scott, and Kummerow (1957) reported that as the ratio of energy to protein in the ration was widened, the energy intake and carcass fat deposition were increased and the water content of the carcass was decreased. Lewis EE.§l° (1955), and Lewis, Sanford, Bricson, and Clegg (1956) showed that the muscles from birds fed low—fat purified-type diets deposited more ether-extractibles in their light and dark muscles than those fed diets of higher fat content which contained natural ingredients. Carcasses of birds in which more external fat was evident, were found to contain the least muscular ether-extract. Thomas, Glazener, and Blow (1958) reported on the differences observed in percentage ether-extract between -28- sex of New Hampshire broilers to 10 weeks of age and between birds of the same sex and strains with relatively good and poor feed conversion. In both males and females the relatively efficient group contained a lower percentage ether-extract than did the relatively inefficient group. The males of both groups, however, had a lower percentage ether-extract «than did the two groups of females. Brunson (1958) analyzed broilers fed thiouracil and therprotein with and without diethylstilbestrol injections. It was found that the fat content, expressed as percentages of the dry weights of the scarcasses, ranged from 11 tO-h8 per cent. Lowe and Vernon (1927) reported that excessively fat birds have a very high cooking loss. It was demonstrated by Maw, Holcomb, Rodger, and Franklin (1936) that lower grade poultry, determined by the lack of body fat and finish, showed greater cooking losses than higher grade poultry. Alexander and Schopmeyer (1949) found that cooked yield of stewing hens was increased by cooling the birds in the broth in which they were cooked. Maw, Nikolaiczuk, and Johnston (1950) cooked broilers which had been fed high and low efficiency broiler rations. One-half of each broiler -29- was cooked at high temperature (fast cooking) and the other one-half at low temperature (slow cooking). They concluded that contrary to general opinion, the high energy ration-fed stock yielded higher weight returns in cooked form with both the fast-cooking and slow-cooking methods. Hood, Wheeler, and McGlamery (1950) reported that dripping losses during cooking were in direct relationship to the percentage of body fat and that evaporation losses were in inverse relationship to the percentage of body fat. Klose, Pool, and De Fremery (1959) showed that cooking shrink increased with the increase in water uptake during chilling, but yield of cooked carcass calculated as percentage of freshly eviscerated, unchilled weight was essentially the same for all types of chilling and resulting water uptakes. Arscott and Sather (1958) showed that broilers fed an all-corn ration with 3 per cent fat had significantly less eviscerated losses that were reflected in greater oven-ready and cooked weights. Orr (1955) reported that differences exist in yields of edible cooked meat among different strains of birds. Fromm and Margolf (1956), using New -30- Hampshire broiler-fryers which had been treated with diethylstilbestrol, demonstrated that the treated birds showed higher eviscerated yields and cooking losses than the untreated ones. Harms, Hochreich, and Meyer (1957) reported that as the energy level of broiler rations was increased a significant increase was obtained in the eviscerated yield but a greater percentage loss resulted from the drippings of the cooked birds. Brunson (1958) concluded that there was a tendency for the cooking loss to increase as the carcass fat content increased but the differences were not significant. The length of cooking time was found to have a much greater effect on cooking loss than the fat content of the carcasses. Dawson, Walters, and Davidson (1958) conducted tests in which 5 replications of both males and females from A strains of birds were evaluated for percentage cooked meat, bone, and cooking losses at 6 and 16 weeks of age. They found that birds which had more fat and a better finish lost this extra fat during cooking either through volatile loss or excessive drip. The method of cooking was shown to influence cooked yields, Essary (1957). It was found that approximately 7 per cent greater cooked yield could be -31- obtained with quartered broilers cooked in an electronic oven than in an electrically heated type oven. Apgar, Cox, Downey, and Fenton (1959) cooked pork patties, roasts, and chops both electronically and conventionally. No significant difference was noted in cooking method as measured by total cooking loss of either patties or roasts. Cooking electronically, however, resulted in significantly less loss in chOps. Blaker, Newcomer, and Stafford (1959) cooked hams and beef roasts, wrapped in aluminum foil and unwrapped, in an electrically heated oven. The unwrapped meat was cooked in a 350 °F oven while the meat wrapped in foil was cooked in a 500 °F oven. They concluded that no distinct advantage was derived in cooking ham or beef wrapped in foil. Distinct disadvantages were noted, however, in terms of increased weight loss due to cooking, greater fuel consumption, and a steamed flavor of the meat. Aluminum foil acted as a thermal insulator equivalent to lowering the oven temperature approximately 75 °F. Winter and Clements (1957) cooked cut-up poultry parts in pieces of heavy aluminum foil in an autoclave at 15 pounds pressure (250 °F) for 20 minutes in the case of broilers. They found that the cooking loss of ready—to—cook poultry by this method -32- varied from about 2k per cent for chicken broilers and young turkeys to hh.5 per cent for ducks. Several research workers have reported that added fat in the diet had an influence on the organoleptic values of the carcass. Aitken 33 a1. (1954) concluded from a consumer preference test involving comparisons by #5 individuals, that no difference in flavor existed between birds on 10 per cent tallow with 25 per cent protein and those without fat in the diet. There was a preference, however, on the basis of moistness of the cooked flesh, for the birds which had received tallow.' Morrison, Sauter, McLaren, and Stadelman (195L) reported that there were no significant differences among 8 breeds or crosses of broilers as measured by tenderness and flavor score as determined by a sensory panel, or tenderness as measured by a tenderometer. Admundson 33 gl. (1938) showed that 2 or 5 per cent levels of fish oils fed for six weeks prior to slaughter produced off-flavors in the cooked meat. Klose, Mecchi, Hanson, and Lineweaver (1951) reported that fishy flavors and odors in roasted turkey meat can also be present in the absence of fish products by including a highly unsaturated vegetable oil (5 per cent linseed oil) in the diet. -33- Carlson 23 al. (1957) tried to establish the amount of certain commonly used fats and fish oils that could be safely used without adverse effects on the flavor of broilers. It was found that the mean scores for chicken flavor of those fed the various levels of tallow, menhaden oil, or menhaden oil plus antioxidant were not significantly different from those of the corresponding control samples. However, there was a tendency for chickens fed the diets containing tallow to be scored higher for chicken flavor than those fed diets containing menhaden oil plus the antioxidant, and for the latter, particularly the dark meat, to be scored higher than chickens fed menhaden oil alone. In general, scores for chickens fed tallow at all levels tested indicated that these chickens had more full natural chicken flavor than the controls. Those fed 0.5 per cent menhaden fish oil, with or without DPPD, in addition to the 0.5 per cent in the basal diet were not significantly different from the control birds. Where 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 per cent tallow was added to the diet, chickens had very slight or no observed off flavor. One or 2.0 per cent menhaden oil, with or without DPPD, resulted in fishy off flavors. -34- Lewis 23.§l- (1955) conducted a series of tests in which corn, corn oil, anise flavoring concentrate, barley, oats, soybean oil meal, peanut meal, and dried chicken feces were incorporated into a low-fat purified broiler diet. An all-vegetable type protein diet and a purified diet were fed as positive and negative controls, respectively. It was concluded that the flavor of broilers was significantly influenced by different feed ingredients in a purified diet. , Goertz, Vail, Harrison, and Sanford (1955) .reported that turkeys fed a high—density low fiber feed scored slightly higher in aroma and flavor than those fed a high fiber low-density feed. Leong, Sunde, Bird, and fleckel (1958) compared the organoleptic values of one group of broilers fed 25 per cent stabilized choice white grease with another group which had 'received no grease supplementation. They concluded that the only significant difference was between the skin samples. Brunson (1958) fed thiouracil and therprotein with and without diethylstilbestrol injections for varying lengths of time to produce broilers with varying degrees of fat content. After the carcasses were cooked those containing higher fat content were scored slightly higher for tenderness, -35- juiciness, and flavor than those containing the lower fat content. Darrow and Essary (1955) reported that the organoleptic values of fryers fei tallow at the 5 per cent level and hydrolyzed cottonseed and soybean fats at levels of 5 and 10 per cent were acceptable after six and nine months storage. Peroxide values did not indicate the presence of rancidity during this storage period. Arscott and Sather (1958) fed broilers on -rations supplemented with 0, 3, 6, or 9 per cent prime tallow and found no consistent differences could be detected in.f1avor or juiciness between the broilers from the different feed groups when tested fresh or after 6 and 12 months frozen storage. While no difference in tenderness was noted between groups on fresh'and 6 months storage tests, slight differences were indicated at 12 months that were not supported by shear force values. VII. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE a. Source of chicks and general procedure Twelve White Cornish Cross1 chicks of each sex were fed from day old to ten weeks of age in six eXperiments containing five lots and 12 chicks in each lot. Experiments 4, 5, and 6 were replicates of Experiments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Chicks used in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 were obtained from a commercial hatchery who received the eggs from the same supply flocks. White Cornish crossbred chicks used in Experiments 4, 5, and 6 were obtained from the same hatchery as before but the supply flock was different from the one used in the first three eXperiments. The sexed chicks were wing-banded at one day of age and placed at random by sex into five lots. Only one experiment was conducted at a time in order to use the same batteries and location for each experiment. The chicks were raised in electrically heated batteries, housed in a temperature and humidity controlled broiler house. During the first five weeks the chicks were reared in two starter-type batteries. They were transferred to two developer-type batteries located in the same White Cornish male X White Rock female. -37- broiler house and reared there from five to ten weeks of age. Each starter-type battery was equipped with three pens 35" x 23" x 10", arranged with one pen above the other. Lots 1, 2, and 3 were located in one battery, and Lots 4 and 5 in the top two pens of the other battery. This arrangement was used in each eXperiment since location within these batteries was found to be not significant in previous feeding tests. The developer—type batteries had pens that were 30" x 28" x 15" each, arranged so that four pens were on each of three levels. Six birds were placed in a pen so that each lot occupied four pens on the same level. Lots 1, 2, and 3 were placed in the three levels from tOp to bottom, respectively, in one battery. Lots h and 5 occupied the two top layers in the other battery. Feed and water were supplied ad libitum in metal troughs attached to the outside of each pen. Birds and feed were weighed at the start of the test and at two-week intervals to 10 weeks of age in order to determine growth rate and feed efficiency. All weights except feed weights and those in analytical procedures were obtained to the nearest gram. Gortality occurred in five of the six experiments. Two birds died, each occurred in Lot 3 of Experiment 4, -38- Lot 4 of Experiment 5, and Lot 1 of Experiment 6. One mortality each occurred in Lot 5 of Experiment 1, Lots 1, 4, and 5 of Experiment 3, Lots 1, 2, A, and 5 of Experiment A, Lots 1, 2, and 5 of Experiment 5, and Lots 2 and 3 of Experiment 6. Feed consumption was adjusted for mortality by deducting the average consumption per bird for each day times the number of days prior to mortality. The weight of the bird was also subtracted from the total pen weight. Feed consumption therefor was calculated from the pounds of feed consumed and weight of live birds at the end of each weighing period. Management was as near the same for all experiments as possible. b. Feed rations The composition of the diets tested are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. All rations were considered adequate for all known nutrients and in their proper amounts and relationship. Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the calculated analyses of rations used in Experiments 1 and A, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6, respectively. Fat was calculated to have 2900 calories per pound. Percentage of added fat and protein were varied in 1.. ‘ I -40- .QCmSHop mxohpsg empmazp59 Rmm pmcflmpsoo .d .UQSOQ mod ocflaozomhpmphoaso mammw N pom Nam CHEmpflb memhwflaafie m.H pocflmpcoo .m .Ussom mod meflpoano ocflaoso msmhw om dam -:Homfls mamnm o-mpMCmmpopcmm Esfloamo msmhm : -cH>mHmoth mamtm m pcsflmpcoo .m .Emhm pea mm cwsmpfl> 20H 0mm qu d CHEmuw> DH 000: Umchpcoo .H mmo.o mmo.o mmo.o mmo.o mmo.o eeoeeeee: Ho.o Ho.o Ho.o ao.o ao.o apneeexoepea Ho.o ao.o Ho.o ao.o Ho.o ewes eeaeemmea mo.o mo.o mo.o no.0 mo.o eea .eeaeoaepez - a a m.o _ m.o m.o m.o m.o mane.eaeoeeeeee mam sweepe> «.0 m.o m.o N.o m.o mane anaepa>neease H.o a.o a.o a.o H.o Heme ma . a eaeeeee N.o N.o m.o m.o N.o emm .eeeeoaee eeeaoeo aha no.0 no.0 mo.o mo.o mo.o mom .epemaem amazememe a.o a.o a.o a.o 4.0 name emNaUOH m.o m.o w.o m.o m.o opmgdmond zoom UopmcflLOSHMma m.H m.H m.a m.H m.H . asepmeeHH eczema m.H m.a m.H m.H m.H awe: emato o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m eeeeeta eeaee eea .Heee emaeeaa o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m cflmpopm meoho Rmm .mommom pmoz o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m Heme swam smemnsoz O.m O.N o.m o.m o.m Hmms nonnaw qmoo o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m maeeaeeee teeae same: o.m o.e o.a o.m o.o pee assess eeeeaeeeem 0.0m o.mm o.em o.em o.NN eeepoea meets ems .Heee awe eeeeaom nam.om sam.ma mam.sa mam.am mam.mm ctoo soflams eczema .ea .ea .ea .ea .ea m a m m H ”weed m pcm N mpcmsflhodxm mom macepmh ampsoeflhmoxo mo soflpflmomsoo .N magma _42_ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 e .eeeemae eee eeeeoeepez 0a.0 00.0 ma.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 e .eeeeoeepee a 00.0H 00.0H 00.0H 00.0a 00.0w .0a\.me .000 eeeepae 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0H\.me .eaem eeaoa 0H 00.00 a0.m0 00.00 00.00 00.00 .0a\.me .eaeeez 0.0 00.HH 00.0w 00.00 00.0H 0H.0a .0a\.0e .0000 00000000200 m.a 00.0 00.0 0a.0 0a.0 Ha.m .0H\.me .eeeeaeoeam 000 000 000 000 00m 000 .0a\.me .eeaaoeo 00 000 000 000 000 000 .0a\00H .00 shamans 0000 00a0 0000 000a 000a. 000a .0H\0H .a eeeeeae mm 00 00 00 00 00 .QH\.ms .mmmemmcm: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 .0300000000 efieeaaeea 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 e .meeeeaeoea Hence 00.a 0m.a 0m.a 0m.a 0m.a 0m.a e .eeaeaeo 00.0a 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 e .000 H0000 0 0 a 0 0 m .000 0000a H.00 ¢.m¢ m.©¢ H.md m.md oapmm duo aaoa me0 000 0H0 , 000 .0a\.aee .ameeee eeeeeeeoea 0H.00 0a.00 H0.00 00.00 00.00 a .0wepon0 00:00 pnmEomflovmm .0 .m .z 0 a m 0 a -meoa 4 020 H mpsmswtmdxm mom compmh mo mmmxamsm popmH50Hmo .0 magma -43- pcmsmhfldwmm .o .m .z 00.m0 0 om.o mm.o m0.0H m0.o Nm.mN ©H.NH 0H.m 000 cam dmNa 00.0 HB.O Nm.H Hm.© ©.N: 0mm m©.HN 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 0H.0H 00.0 000 000 e000 0m.o 00.0 Nm.H 00.: m.Nq Nam mm.HN N 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 000 000 0000 mm.o. N0.o Hm.H mo.m o m.N¢ 0mm 00.0N H R .msflpmxo 020 ocHQOHmeE 0 .0000000002 .00\.00 .000 eHE0ee> .0H\.00 .0000 00000 . .na\.0e .000002 .QH\.mE .0000 oasmzpopmmm .0a\.0e .eee0aeoeae .00\.00 .0000000 .00\00H .00 0000pa> .0H\DH .0 000000> .QH\.wE .mmocmwcmz R .mstQSQmond 0H90H00>< R .mohogdmocd Hmpoe 0 .5000000 0 .000 00000 a .000 00000 00900 0:0 .QH\.H00 .0mhoco 0>Hp0300md 0 .cflopomd 00500 0 0mm N mucosfltmdxm pom scenes we mmmzamcm pendazoamo .0 names -44_ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 e .0000000 000 0000000002 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 .0000000002 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .00\.00 .000 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00\.ms .0000 00000 00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .00\.00 .000002 0.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 .00\.00 .0000 00000000000 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00\.00 .0000000000 000 Now How QNm 0mm mom .QH\.ms .oCHHoso 00 000 000 000 000 000 .00\000 .00 0000000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 .00\00 .0 000000> mN no 00 mo 00 mo .QH\.ME .mmmsmwzmz 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 mm.o R .msposdmOSQ 0H90H00>¢ 00.0 m0.o m0.o N0.o H0.o 00.0 & .msmozdmogd H0009 QO.H 0m.H mm.H mm.H Nm.H Hm.H m .ssHono 00.0 00.0 Nm.0 ©©.m mo.m R .000 H0009 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 0-0 000 0mm 0mm 000 000 .00\.000 .000000 0>00000000 ow.0N m.MN mm.NN Om.HN 00.0N & .sHepopd 00500 psmsthsvmm .0 .m .2 m 0 m N H amped o 020 m muc08000dxm tom c00000 mo 0000Hmc0 0000H50H00 .0 0Hnme -p5_ the five lots of each experiment to give different calorie—protein ratios needed to study the effect of these ratios on fat deposition and certain carcass characteristics. Lot 1 in every experiment was used as the control. In Experiments 1 and A, protein was calculated to be approximately 20.2 per cent for each lot but the percentage of added fat (bleached tallowl) to which Tenox R2 had been added at the recommended level was increased by 2.0 per cent for each succeeding lot from 0 per cent for Lot 1 to 8 per cent for Lot 5. Fat was substituted for corn in the rations. The calorie- protein ratios were calculated to be h3.5, 05.1, 06.8, 48.4, and 50.1 to l for Lots 1 to 5, reSpectively. The rations for Experiments 2 and 5 contained added fat at 0 per cent level for Lot 1 with an increase of 2 per cent for each succeeding lot up to 8 per cent for Lot 5 as was done in Experiments 1 and 4. However, the percentage of protein was l. Bleached tallow furnished courtesy of Swift and Co., Chicago, Ill. 2. Tenox R furnished courtesy of Eastman Chemical Co., KingSport, Tenn. -u6- increased for each lot as the level of fat was increased. The per cent protein was calculated to be 20.77 for Lot 1, 21.35 for Lot 2, 21.93 for Lot 3, 22.51 for Lot A, and 23.09 for Lot 5. The calorie- protein ratio for each lot was calculated to be approximately h2.6 to 1. In Experiments 3 and 6 the added fat was increased by 1.0 per cent for each succeeding lot from 0 per cent for Lot 1 to h.0 per cent for Lot 5. Protein was increased for each lot with 20.77, 21.80, 22.83, 23.86, and 2u.89 per cent for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. The calorie-protein ratios were calculated to be 42.8, 40.8, 38.9, 37.3, and 35.7 to l for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. c. Processing of fryers All fryers were processed at 10 weeks of age. ‘Each bird was weighed in the processing laboratory immediately before dressing in order to minimize the error in 3 eviscerated yield which could be altered by the shrink of the birds while off feed, Essary (1958). The average length of time each lot of birds was off feed before processing was approximately one hour. The birds were killed by an external throat cut, bled for two minutes, sub-scalded at 138 °F for 40 seconds, and -47- picked on a drum-type picker. All birds were warm eviscerated by the same person immediately after picking. In order to determine eviscerated yield and areas of fat deposition, the warm eviscerated weights of giblets (heart, liver, and gizzard with attached fat) and intestinal tract were obtained. All weights were obtained by the same two persons. Specific gravity of the warm eviscerated carcasses including the cleaned gizzard with attached fat was obtained. The birds were Split down the back to avoid air pockets within the body cavity during the weighing process in water. The giblets from each bird were placed in numbered giblet bags containing holes and chilled in ice slush with the carcasses for approximately four hours. After chilling, the birds and giblets were allowed to drain for 10 minutes before being reweighed to obtain the percentage moisture pick-up resulting from chilling. Chilled abdominal fat and fat attached to the gizzard were removed and weighed to determine the percentage of fat deposited in these two areas, based on live bird weight. -48- d. Chemical analyses In Experiments 4, 5, and 6, two males and two females were selected at random from a weight range around the mean of each lot so that any differences obtained in chemical analysis would not be due to different size birds. Chemical analyses were determined on the raw meat of the breast, wing (except third joint), thigh, and drumstick from one half of each fryer and the skin from the other half of each carcass. The whole eviscerated birds were held overnight in stainless steel trays of crushed ice in a walk—in type cooler at 38 °F 1 2 °F before the same persons cut—up the carcasses each time. The carcasses were drained thoroughly before they were cut—up. The meat and skin with attached fat from each of the pieces were removed, placed in labeled glass jars equipped with screw-type lids, and held frozen at -20 °F until analyzed approximately three months later. Tissues were defrosted at room temperature and ground three times in a Kitchen-Aid meat grinder. The fluid which escaped from the tissue during defrosting was added back to the tissue while being ground. The ground tissue was mixed thoroughly before samples for -49.. analysis were taken. The entire tissue was used for moisture and fat determinations, and 0.3 gram sample used for protein analysis using A. 0. A. 0. methods (1955). e. Cooking tests Birds not used for chemical analyses were wrapped butcher-style in freezer-locker wax—tite paper, labeled, and frozen at —20 °F. After three months storage four birds of each sex of each lot and experiment were selected at random from a weight range about the mean of each lot, defrosted overnight at room temperature, weighed without giblets, and placed breast-up on racks in Open pans in an electrically heated, commercial size oven preheated to 325 °F. The birds were brushed lightly once with melted butter. Meat-type thermometers were inserted in the muscle along the thigh bone and in the thickest part of the major breast muscle of a representative sample of birds for each group being cooked. The birds were cooked to an internal temperature of 190 °F. The juices were drained from the body cavity and weighed after cooling for 10 minutes. The juices were not weighed to determine -50- the percentage of volatile and non-volatile material cooked from the carcasses. f. Other determination of carcasses After two months storage four birds of each sex were selected, defrosted at room temperature, and skinned to determine percentage skin weight of the eviscerated carcass. g. Cost of production (feed ingredients only) Feed costs for the first three experiments were calculated on ingredient costs at Roanoke, Virginia, April 8, 1958. The cost of producing a pound of live broiler to 10 weeks of age and on warm eviscerated weight of 10 week old fryers were determined by using the cost of the feed (not including mixing costs), feed efficiency, and eviscerated yield of each lot of each experiment. The chilled abdominal fat and fat attached to gizzard were used to determine the potential loss to a processor if part or all of the fat from these areas was lost during the processing Operation. The data were treated by the analysis of variance, Snedecor (19u6), and by the multiple range and multiple F tests, Duncan (1955). -51- VIII. RESULTS a. Experiment 1 Each ration fed in Experiment 1 contained approximately 20.2 per cent protein while fat was increased by 2 per cent for each succeeding lot from 0 per cent for Lot 1 to 8 per cent for Lot 5. Productive energy in calories per pound of feed was 880, 912, 9L6, 978, and 1011 for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. The growth rates of fryers to 10 weeks of age in the 5 lots are shown in Figure l and the average weights are given in Table 7. It will be noted from Figure 1 that the growth rate for the females in each lot was similar up to 10 weeks of age. The growth rates for the males were similar during this period, except those in Lot 1 increased at a slower rate after 8 weeks. The males and females grew at different rates during most of the period. At 10 weeks of age the average weight was 3.26 pounds for Lot 1, 3.57 for Lot 2, 3.61 for Lot 3, and 3.62 for Lots 4 and 5. There was a significant difference at the l per cent level of probability between lots and sex, and at the 5 per cent level for lots X sex. There was no significant difference between the average weights of Lots 2, 3 “52* 0. «Ex .0 3.33 o. 2 3:22....“ to a .2... .8: £35-.. £3.83 .~. I ‘.O m o o 2...; ._ 0.50.... a v fill — _ L! 0 null lasau wWfiwXfi. 1- . 0.62 WxfiW . . x -013 in. d I? +0:— . o In +04 I IN ‘04 U o 1. +0J 0.. 3.003 % o c . _ _ A L m.. A Low L“ r xucubcm peed ~ . gpunl)d -53- Table 7. Experiment 1, Ten week live weights. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Pounds Male 3.48 4.02 4.14 4.08 4.02 3.95 Female 3.03 3.11 3.08 3.16 3.21 3.12 Grand mean 3.26 3.57 3.61 3.62 3.62 Table 7a. Experiment 1, live weights. . . 2 analySis of variance, 10 week Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 500,677,70** Lots 4 114,867.43** Sex 1 3,849,956.7u** Lots x sex 4 49,168.20* Error 100 16,917.71 ** P <..01 * P.< .05 Lot 11 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 3.26 different. 3.57 3.61 3.62 3.62 Lomsnot underlined by the same line are Significantly Analyses of variance of Experiments 1 to 6 for live weights were analyzed using weights in grams. -54- 4, and 5. However, Lot 1 weighed significantly less than all other lots, Table 7a. Feed efficiency1 to 10 weeks of age, as shown in Figure l and Table 8, was the highest for Lot 1 (2.98 pounds) and lowest for Lots 4 and 5 (2.49 Pounds). Lots 2 and 3 had feed efficiencies of 2.55 and 2.64 pounds, respectively. Warm eviscerated yields for fryers 10 weeks of age are given in Table 9. In general, slightly greater eviscerated yields resulted in those lots receiving higher levels of fat in the diet. However, this difference was not significant, Table 9a. The average specific gravity of the warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzard and attached fat, as shown in Table 10, was less for lots which received higher levels of fat in the diet.' Lot 1 had an average Specific gravity of 1.054 which showed that less fat was deposited in the carcasses of Lot 1 than in Lots 2, 3, h, and 5 which had an average specific gravity of 1.0h3, 1.049, 1.047, and 1.050, respectively. There was a significant difference in specific gravity at the 5 per cent level of probability between lots, and at the 1 per 1. Feed efficiency is interpreted to mean pounds of feed for each pound of gain. -55.. Table 8. Experiment 1, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age. LOt 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds of feed per pound of live weight 2.98 2.55 2.64 2.49 2.h9 Table 9. Experiment 1, Warn eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 71.54 71.32 72.52 71.58 73.33 72.06 Female 71.00 72.18 71.62 71.88 71.30 71.60 Grand mean 71.27 71.75 72.07 71.73 72.32 Table 9a. Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 5.2147 Lots 4 3.4259 Sex 1 5.8559 Lots x sex , 4 9-8433 Error 100 2.7726 -57.. Table 10. Experiment 1, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Specific gravity Male 1.059 1.049 1.050 1.050, 1.051 1.052 Female ‘ 1.049 1.046 1.047 1.044 1.048 1.047 Grand mean 1.051], 1.048 v1.0];9 1.0.4.7 10050 Table 10a. Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warn eviscerated carcasses With gizzards and attached fat. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.000627** Lots 4 0.000156* SeX‘ ' 1 0.000653** Lots x sex 4 0.001092** Error 100 0.000052 P < .01 2;: P < .05 Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 5 Lot 1 1.047 1.048 1.049 1.050 1.054 ~58- cent level between sex and lots X sex. Specific gravity of fryers in Lot 1 was significantly higher (1 per cent level) from the other 4 lots, Table 10a. There was no significant difference in moisture pick—up from the chilling operation between lots, Tables 11 and 11a. However, there was a sex difference at the 5 per cent level of probability. Females picked up a higher percentage of moisture than did the males. The chilled abdominal fat and gizzard fat, expressed as a percentage of live weight, increased as the level of added fat in the diet increased with the percentage protein constant in all diets, Table 12. Fryers in Lot 1 had 1.10 per cent abdominal and gizzard fat which was the lowest of the 5 lots. Lots 4 and 5 had the two highest amounts of fat, 2.23 and 1.86 per Cent, respectively. There was a highly significant difference in fat percentages between lots and sex, Table 12a. The average percentage heart weights, based on 10 week live weights, are shown in Table 13. There were no significant differences between lots or sex, but a significant difference occurred in lots X sex, Table 13a. The heart weights, as a percentage of live weights, increased as the level of fat in the diet increased. -59- Table 11. Experiment 1, Percentage moisture pick-up durin: chilling operation. average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male 4.84 Female 6.15 Grand mean 5.50 Per cent 4.75 4.79 5.25 4-73 4.87 5.13 5.55 5.53 5.89 5.65 4.94 5-17 5.39 5.31 Table lla. Experiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during Chilling operation. ‘ Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.8131 Lots 4 1.0154 Sex 1 16.6220* Lots x sex 4 1.1585 Error 100 2.4131 *P<.05 Table 12. Experiment 1, Percentage chilled abdoninal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.731 1.23 1.43 1.80 1.69 1.38 Female 1.46 1.63 1.54 2.66 2.03 1.86 Grand mean 1.10 1.43 1.51. 2.2 1.86 Table 12a. EXperiment 1, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.796553** Lots 4 4.143930** Sex 1 6.341282** Lots x sex 4 0.502992 Error 100 0.804498 ** P > v _ .N 353:6 .034 spunod -72- Table 20. Experiment 2, Ten week live weights. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Pounds Male 4.02 3.84 3.93 3.74 3.85 3.88 Female 2.99 3.07 3.09 3.13 3.03 3.06 Grand mean 3.51 3.46 3.51 3.44 3.44 Table 20a. Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 440,894.44** Lots 4 2,056.00 38X 1 3,870,563.00** Lots x sex 4 22,315.75 Error 100 19,677.21 ** P < .01 -73- Table 21. Experiment 2, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds‘of feed per pound of live weight 2.62 2.40 2.39 2.42 2.33 -74- Table 22. Experiment 2, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 72.20 71.64 71.73 71.13 71.33‘ 71.61 Female 71.17 71.16 71.16 71.33 71.44 71.25 Grand mean 71.69 71.40 71.45 71.23 71.39 Table 22a. Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.7714 Lots 4 0.3283 Sex 1 4.3045 Lots x sex 4 2.5813 Error 100 2.0122 -75- Table 23 shows the average specific gravity for fryers in the different lots. Lot 1 had an average specific gravity of 1.063 which indicates that the carcasses contained less fat than Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 which had specific gravities of 1.060, 1.061, 1.056, and 1.058, respectively. However, these differences were not significant, as shown in Table 23a. There were differences between lots in the percentage of moisture pick-up during the chilling operation, Table 24. These small differences were not significant between lots but were highly significant between the males and females, Table 24a. When the percentages of chilled abdominal and gizzard fats removed from the carcasses are compared, Table 25, lots which received higher levels of fat and protein in the diet deposited more fat in these areas of the birds. There was a highly significant difference between lots, Table 25a. Lot 4 showed the greatest and Lot 1 the lowest percentage fat in these areas. The percentage hearts of the live weights ranged from 0.40 per cent in Lot 1 to 0.46 per cent in Lot 3, as shown in Table 26. There was a significant difference between lots, Table 26a. Percentage Table 23. Experiment 2, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcass with gizzard and attached fat. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Specific gravity 1.063 1.063 1.063 1.059 1.059 1.061 In} a l e Female 1.063 1.056 1.059 1.053 1.057 1.058 'Grand mean 1.063 1.060 1.061 1.056 1.058 ' Table 23a. Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcass with gizzard and attached fat. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.000108 Lots 4 0.000128 Sex 1 0.000285 Lots x sex 4 0.000044 Error 100 0.102051 g -77- Table 24. Experiment 2, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 4.11 4.26 4.22 4.38 4.13 4.22 Female 5.19 4.72 4.72 5.03 4.30 4.79 Grand mean 4.65 4.49 4.47 4.71 4.22 Table 24a. Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.6313 Lots 4 0.9940 Sex 1 9.0262** Lots x sex 4 _ 0.6199 Error 100 1.4725 =:==:= P < .01 -82— Table 28. Experiment 2, Percentage chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Average 11 birds of each sex in each lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per.cent' Male 1.79 1.76 1.51 1.70 1.64 1.68 Female 1.92 1.90 1.77 1.09 1.04 1.78 Grand mean 1.85 1.83 1.64 1.69 1.64 Table 28a. Experiment 2, Analysis of variance, percentage Chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.308780** Lots 4 0.238506** Sex 1 0.296816* Lots x sex 4 0.382044** Error 100 0.063239 ** P <:.01 -95- Table 37. Experiment 3, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 4.54 3.82 5.27 5.57 4.61 4.76 Female 5.72 5.78 5.02 5.79 5.59 5.58 Grand mean 5.13 4.80 5.15 5.68 5.10 Table 37a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Source of variation I d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4,3949* Lots 4 2.0235 Sex 1 16.5649** Lots x sex 4 3.7238 1.7441 Error 90 P < .01 P < .05 -96- moisture during the chilling operation than did the male fryers. The percentages of abdominal and gizzard fat as shown in Table 38 are not consistent between the different lots. Lots 1 and 4 which received lower and higher levels of protein, respectively, had the two highest percentages of fat. There was a significant difference at the 1 per cent level of probability in the amount of abdominal and gizzard fat between sex, Table 38a. The percentage heart was comparable between lots, Table 39. However, there was a highly significant difference in heart percentages between sex, and a significant interaction of lots x sex, Table 39a. In the percentage gizzard with attached fat, Table 40, there was no significant difference between lots but there was a highly significant difference between sex. Gizzards were heavier (percentage basis) in the female birds, Table 40a. After the fat had been removed from the cleaned gizzards there was no significant difference in weights (percentage basis) between lots or sex, Tables 41 and 41a. -97- Table 38. Experiment 3, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fa t of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.17 1.13 0.48 1.45 0. 88 1.02 _ Female 1.78 1.25 1.75 1.84 l. 69 1.66 Grand mean 1.48 1.19 1.11 1.65 1.29 Table 38a. *‘oer1Ment 3, Analysis of vca riance, percentace chilled abdominal and gizzard fa'.t of 10 week old frvers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.9845(8** Lots 4 0.954134 Sex 1 10.278436** Lots x sex 4 0.941400 Error 90 0.496910 ** P < .01 -98- Table 39. Experiment 3. Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.45 Female 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.41 0.45 0.41 Grand mean 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.44 Table 39a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. _ mean square Between treatments 9 0.00888387* Lots 4 0.00221198 Sex 1 0.02894724** Lots x sex 4 0.01053992* Error 90 0.00366130 *“ P < .01 Table 40. Experiment 3, Percentage gizzard, with attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent kale 1.94 1.79 1.84 1.86 1.82 1.85 Female 2.26 2.14 2.19 2.12 1.91 2.12 Grand mean 2.10 1.97 2.02 1.99 1.87 Table 40a. Experiment 3 percentage g of 10 week 0 , Analysis of variance, izzard, with attached fat, 1d fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.295178 Lots 4 0.141480 Sex 1 1.858315** Lots x sex 4 0.058091 Error 90 0.151909 -1CO- Table 41. Sxperjment 3 , Bercentage chilled gizzard, without at ached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.68 1.63 1.78 1.49 1.59 1.63 Female 1.89 1.79 1.73 1.68 1.60 1.74 Grand mean 1.78 1.71 1.75 1.58 1.60 Table 41a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, without attached percentage chilled gizzard, fat, of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Kean square Between treatments 9 0.134604 Lots 4 0.167142 Sex 1 0.268635 Lots x sex 4 0.063560 flrror 90 0.084605 -101- The liver weights, expressed as a percentage of live weights, were comparable between lots and sex, Tables 42 and 42a. When the productive energy was 889 calories in each pound of feed for each lot, no differences in liver weights were found between lots. In Tables 43 and 43a the percentage intestines of the 10 week old live weights were comparable between lots. The percentage skins of the chilled eviscerated 'carcasses are presented in Table 44. There was about 1.5 per cent difference in skin weights between the males and females. Statistical analyses were not determined because of uneven numbers in the different lots. There was no difference in the cooking yield between lots, Table 45. However, the females gave about 3 per cent higher cooking yield which was significant at the l per cent level of probability, Table 45a. Since the rations within each of the three different experiments contained a certain relationship between the level of added fat and percentage protein, the average cooking yield for the lots within each experiment were combined for analysis. As shown in |1|||l|||| -102- Table 42. Experiment 3, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.83 1.83 1.71 1.75 1.76 1.78 Female 1.72 1.82 1.85 1.83 1.95 1.83 Grand mean 1.78 1.82 1.78 1.79 1.85 Table 42a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.049256 Lots 4 0.022740 Sex 1 0.081054 Lots x sex 4 0.067822 Error 90 0.057869 -103- Table 43. Experiment 3, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 6.59 6.82 7.43 6.65 6.82 6.86 Female 6.88 6.84 7.06 7.25 7.16 7.04 ‘ Grand mean 6.74 6.83 7.25 6.95 6.99 Table 43a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Aean square Between treatments 9 0.7206 Lots 4 0.7448 Sex 1 0.8118 Lots x sex 4 0.6736 Error 90 0.5225 -104- Table 44. Experiment 3, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights. Average 4 birds of each sex in Lots 2, 3, and 4. Average 2 birds of each sex in Lots 1 and 5. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 13.41 13.51 13.95 14.75 13.85 13.89 Female 15.27 15.16 1 .56 15.78 13.85 15.12 5 Grand mean 14.34 14.34 14.76 15.27 13.85 -105- Table 45. Experiment 3, Percentage cooking yield. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 80.48 79.77 81.42 79.06 81.48 80.44 Female 85.50 80.37 80.63 86.28 85.57 83.67 Grand mean 82.99 80.07 81.03 82.67 83.53 Table 45a. Experiment 3, Analysis of variance, Percentage cooking yield. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 28.6194 Lots 4 16.7934 39X 1 104.4259** Lots x sex 4 21.4938 Error 30 13.0876 ** P < .01 -106— Table 46, there was a highly significant difference in cooking yields between birds in Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Birds highest level percentage of cooking yield. highest level the different in Experiment 1 which received the of added fat in relation to the protein in the diet had the lowest Birds in EXperiment 3, which had the of protein with a low amount of fat in rations, had the highest cooking yield. -107- Table 46. Combined statistical analysis for cooking yields of Experiments 1, 2, and 3. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between experiments 2 127.8902** Lots 4 20.3386 Sex 1 0.1209 Experiments x lots 8 8.2632 Experiments x sex 2 104.2738** Lots x sex 4 49.3340** Experiments x lots x sex 8 6.4361 Error 90 11.9285 *3: P< .01 Experiments 1 2 3 78.48 80.39 82.06 -108— d. Cost of production, Experiments 1, 2, and 3 It is well known that the cost of feed is influenced by the kind and amount of each ingredient used. There were differences in the cost of the rations fed and in the feed efficiencies of the different rations used in these experinents. It seemed advisable, therefore, to determine the cost of producing, say, for example, 10,000 pounds of live broilers and the cost per pound of warm eviscerated carcasses based on ingredient cost, feed efficiency, and dressing percentage obtained in the different lots. The ingredient costs were based on prices quoted by the Cooperative Mills, Roanoke, Virginia, April 8, 1958. The results obtained are presented in Table 47. It will be noted that neither feed efficiency nor cost of feed ingredients can be used as a correct measure for the most economical production of broilers or of dressed birds. For example, the best feed efficiency from these 15 lots in the 3 experiments was obtained from Lot 5, Experiment 2. Yet, it was the most expensive feed based on ingredient cost only. Lot 1, Experiment 1, had the least expensive feed of all lots but feed efficiency was much higher than for several -109- Production cost of live broilers and dressed Table 47. carcasses, based on the cost of feed ingredients, feed efficiency, and dressing percentage Feed Feed Cost/ Productiona Dressingb Cost/lb ofC Efficiency 100 lbs Cost of Percentage Eviscerated 10,000 lbs Carcass Pounds Dollars Dollars Per Cent Dollars Experiment 1 Lots 1 2.98 4.35 1296.30 71.27 0.182 2 2.55 4.47 1139.85 71.75 0.159 3 2.64 4.58 1209.12 72.07 0.168 4 2.49 4.69 1167.81 71.73 0.163 5 2.49 4.80 1195.20 72.32 0.165 Experiment 2 Lots 1 2.62 4.53 1186.86 71.69 0.166 2 2.40 4.66 1118.40 71.40 0.157 3 2.39 4.78 1142.42 71.45 0.160 4 2.42 4.91 1188.22 71.23 0.167 5 2.33 5.03 1171.91 71.39 0.164 Experiment 3 Lots 1 2.84 4.53 1494.90 71.32 0.210 2 2.06 4.61 1710.31 71.87 0.238 3 2.75 4.69 1758.75 70.68 0.249 4 2.74 4.71 1779.21 71.69 0.248 5 2.64 4.85 1770.25 71.91 0.246 Feed efficiency x 10,000 lbs x cost/1b of feed = a. cost 10,000 lbs of live broilers. b. Dressing percentage is determined by dividing the live fryer weight by the warm eviscerated carcass weight including the giblets. c Eviscerated yield x 10,000 lbs = Cost/lb of dressed Cost 10,000 lbs live broilers carcass. -110- other lots. When the costs of producing 10,000 pounds of live broilers are compared for these two lots, using feed ingredient costs and feed conversion as a means of establishing the cost, Lot 1 of Experiment 1 was $124.00 higher than for Lot 5, Experiment 2. Lot 2, Experiment 2, had neither the best feed conversion nor the least expensive ration but produced the least expensive live broilers. Lot 2 also produced the least expensive dressed carcass. Lot 5, EXperiment 2, and Lot 1, Experiment 1, which had the best feed conversion and lowest feed ingredient cost, respectively, cost more per pound of eviscerated carcass than Lot 2, Experiment 2. If 10,000 pounds of dressed broilers were produced from feed used in Lot 1, Experiment 1, Lot 2, Experiment 2, and Lot 5, Experiment 2, the costs would be 89,100.00, 97,850.00, and 88,200.00, respectively. These differences in production cost would be significant. It is recognized that in some cases there were no statistically significant differences in eviscerated yields of the birds between many of these lots, yet, it is well known that when a large number of birds are processed, the small differences which exist would be economically important. -111- e. Experiment 4 In Experiment 4, which is a replicate of Experiment 1, the percentage protein was held at approximately 20.2 per cent in each lot while the percentage added fat was increased by 2 per cent in each succeeding lot from 0 per cent in Lot 1 to 8 per cent in Lot 5. Productive energy in calories per pound of feed was 880, 912, 946, 978, and 1011 for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. The growth rates for the males and females of the different lots are shown in Figure 4. Average 10 week weights are presented in Table 48. Figure 4 shows that the growth rates for the males were comparable between lots to 10 weeks of age except for Lot 2 which increased at a slower rate starting at 9 weeks of age. The growth rates for the males and females were different starting about the second week of growth. Apparently the nutritional requirements or ability to use the different rations are different for the males and females. There was a significant difference in 10 week weights between sex at the l per cent level of probability, Table 48a. Feed efficiencies for the different lOtS are shown in Figure 4 and Table 49. It will be noted from do< do 338$ 0. 0+ zucfluc-u 666.1 .95 £61 £3on l.¢ EwEtwdxm .v 330C ~112- axes-S o_ m w 9 4V N q 8 A - _ o v I”. lilo-650m .. 0.0: \\\ M\“ 1 x -m .3 \“xflxxx . < .410.- \\\“\\\ 10.. on” .0..- \\\\\‘\“W\ 3.03.) . . -m .3 \\\“.Vw o. a m m e N O 0. +01. \\\\\\\\ — q — 0 - \\\ \\ \ 1 \\c “\\\ uuuuuu at. +01. \\‘ . \ l-|. v +0.- \\... 1m. - \\\. 1mm”. . \ .Il' \. x .. \\\\\\ .III _ SJ \\\ . L \ s? .. “\\\ \ \ ¥.\ . 1 \\\x\\\ \M\ ., 19m \\\\\ .\\.-v. 1 . 1 d 1 O n lemme . S v 110. xucwigu teen 1 m In.m. 10.? 0.? Table 48. Experiment 4, -113- Ten week live weights. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Pounds Male 3.76 9 3.92 3.72 3.79 3.74 Female 3.05 3.11 3.16 2.92 3.24 3.10 Grand mean 3.41 30 3.54 3.32 3.52 Table 48a. Experiment 4, live weights. Analysis of variance, 10 week Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 325,228.90** Lots 4 33,155.30 Sex 1 2,687,960.30** Lots x sex 4 26,619.85 Error 90 13,574.64 P < .01 ~114- Table 49. Experiment 4, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds of feed per pound of live weight 2.67 2.66 2.59 2.77 2.44 -115- Figure 4 that the rations had a different relationship to each other in feed efficiency at different intervals during the 10 week growth period. That is, one of the lots gave the best feed efficiency at one age and some other lot at another age. Feed in Lot 1 which had no added fat gave a feed efficiency of 2.67 pounds to 10 weeks of age. Feed in Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 gave feed efficiencies of 2.66, 2.59, 2.77, and 2.44 pounds of feed per pound of gain, respectively. Except for Lot 4, the lots which had higher levels of fat in the diet showed a better feed efficiency than the control lot, Lot 1. However, growth rate, Table 48a, was not increased significantly with higher levels of added fat. ‘Nara eviscerated yields were comparable between lots as shown in Table 50. There was no significant difference between lots but there was between sex, Table 50a. The warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzard and attached fat were used to measure specific gravity. The results are shown in Table 51. Specific gravity values indicate that a greater amount of fat was deposited in the birds which received higher levels of added fat in the diet. This difference, however, was not significant between lots or sex, Table 51a. -116- Table 50. Experiment 4, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 71.95 72.33 71.30 71.84 71.62 71.81 Female 70.40 70.37 71.13 70.89 71.72 70.90 Grand mean 71.18 71.35 71.22 71.37 71.67 Table 50a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4.3410 Lots 4 0.7539 Sex 1 20.5662* Lots x sex 4 3.8719 Error 90 3.6981 * P < .05 Table 51. -1l7- Experiment 4, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male Female Grand mean Specific gravity 1.054 1.053 1.052 1.052 1.048 1.052 1.051 1.047 1.044 1.046 1.042 1.046 1.053 1.050 1.048 1.049 1.045 Table 51a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.000177 Lots 4 0.000171 Sex 1 0.000835 Lots x sex 4 0.000018 Error 90 0.000380 ~118- After the eviscerated carcasses had been chilled in ice slush,the percentage moisture pick—up was determined and is presented in Table 52. The females showed about 1 per cent greater moisture pick—up than the males which was highly significant, Table 52a. Differences between lots were not significant. The percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat, Table 53, increased as the level of fat in the diet increased. These differences in fat deposition were highly significant between lots and sex. Lot 5 was significantly different from Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Table 53a. The percentage heart, Table 54, was not significantly different between lots, Table 54a. The percentage gizzard with attached fat varied between sex and lots, Table 55. Lots on higher levels of fat in the diet showed a greater percentage gizzard with attached fat. The different per cents were 2.25, 2.14, 2.37, 2.42, and 2.48 for Lots 1 to 5, respectively. There was a significant difference between lots and a highly significant difference between sex, Table 55a. When the average percentages of gizzards without attached fat are compared, the differences were not -ll9- Table 52. Experiment 4, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 5.51 5.86 5.35 5.07 5.47 5.45 Female 6.79 6.87 6.70 6.77 5.94 6.61 Grand mean 6.15 6.37 6.03 5.92 5.71 Table 52a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4.7499 Lots 4 1.2208 Sex 1 33.6748** Lots x sex 4 1.0478 Error 90 2.2720 w P < .01 -120- Table 53. Experiment 4, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.99 0.70 0.94 1.35 1.47 1.09 Female 1.22 1.01 1.54 1.67 2.59 1.01 Grand mean 1.11 0.86 1.24 1.51 2.03 Table 53a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. - Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2,8036** Lots 4 3.9930** SEX l 6.6100a‘0‘5 Lots x sex 4 0.6626 Error1 .90 0.4722 ** P <1.01 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 0.86 1.11 1.24 1.51 2.03 ~121- Table 54. Experiment 4, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. . Per cent Male 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.54 0.53 0.51 Female 0.46 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.52 0.51 Grand mean 0.47 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.52 Table 54a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.006257 Lots 4 0.011953 Sex 1 0.000006 Lots x sex 4 0.002124 Error 90 0.006293 -122- Table 55. Experiment 4, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 avg. Per cent hale 2.10 1.99 2.10 2.20 2.27 2.13 Female 2.41 2.28 2.65 2.63 2.68 2.53 Grand mean 2.25 2.14 2.37 2.42 2.48 Table 55a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.6356** Lots 4 0.3716* Sex 1 4.0160** Lots x sex 4 0.0545 Error 90 0,1303 * P'< .01 . P < .05 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 2.25 2.37 2.42 2.48 2.14 -123- significant between lots and sex, Tables 56 and 56a. The differences observed in Table 55a were due to the difference in the amount of fat attached to the gizzards. Percentage livers were determined and are shown in Table 57. There was a significant difference between sex but not between lots, Table 57a. When the percentages of intestines are compared, Table 58, there were highly significant differences between lots and sex, Table 58a. Lots with higher levels of fat in the feed gave a higher percentage of intestines. The percentage of intestines were significantly different between lots; yet, the warm eviscerated yields shown in Table 50a were not significantly different between lots, which is unexplainable. The percentage of skin,based on chilled eviscerated carcass weights, increased as the level of fat in the diet increased, Table 59. However, these differences in skin percentages between lots were not significant, Table 59a. There was a lots x sex interaction which was significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. -124- Table 56. Experiment 4, Percentage chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.99 1.91 1.87 1.93 1.96 1.93 Female 2.18 2.16 2.28 2.26 2.01 2.18 Grand mean 2.08 2.03 2.08 2.10 1.99 Table 56a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, Percentage chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0,2253** Lots 1+ 0.0401 Sex 1 1.5104 Lots x sex 4 0.0892 Error 90 0.0851 2.9.. P < .01 -125- Table 57. Experiment 4, Percentage liver of 10 week ‘ old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.76 1.73 1.70 1.62 1.78 1.72 Female 1.81 1.86 1.93 1.74 1.80 1.83 Grand mean 1.78 1.80 1.81 1.68 1.79 Table 573. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Aean square Between treatments 9 0.0735 Lots 4 0.0566 Sex 0.3014** Lots x sex 4 0.0335 Error 90 0.0414 ** P <..01 ~126- Table 58. Experiment 4, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 5.65 5.35 6.59 5.67 6.53 5.96 Female 7.18 6.45 7.16 6.35 6.99 6.83 Grand mean 6.42 5.90 6.88 6.01 6.76 Table 58a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4.2018** Lots 4 3.7945** Sex - 1 18.748 ** Lots x sex 4 0.9723 Error 90 0.5808 *2: P < .01 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 1 Lot 5 Lot 3 5.90 6.01 6.42 6.76 6.88 -]_27- Table 59. Experiment 4, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass of 10 week old fryers. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 11.16 12.45 12.10 13.27 12.08 12.21 Female 12.77 11.99 12.27 12.16 14.08 12.65 Grand mean 11.97 12.22 12.19 12.72 13.08 Table 59a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation . d.f. _ Mean square Between treatments 9 2.5165 Lots 4 . » 1.6432 Sex 1 1.9494 Lots x sex 4 ‘ 3.5316* Error 30 1.2739 >2= P< .05 -128- With-the abdominal fat removed for determining other measurements, the carcasses were cooked to determine the cooking yield. It was found that no significant difference existed between lots, Table 60a. It may be noted, however, in Table 60 that Lot 1 which contained no added fat in the diet gave slightly higher yields than any of the other lots indicating less fat deposition in the carcasses of birds in Lot 1. Perhaps significant differences would have been obtained with larger numbers of birds. -129- Table 60. Experiment 4, Percentage cooking yield. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 84.78 84.79 81.14 83.36 84.39 83.69 Female 84.17 81.09 83.13 81.04 83.33 82.55 Grand mean 84.48 82.94 82.14 82.20 83.86 Table 60a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, Percentage cooking yield. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 8.9227 Lots 4 8.2254 Sex ' 1 12.8482 Lots x sex 4 8.6386 Error 30 5.4099 -130- f. Experiment 5 This experiment is a replicate of Experiment 2. The level of fat and percentage of protein in the 5 lots were increased at the same rate in each succeeding lot from Lot 1 to Lot 5. The same rate of increase in the diet of these two ingredients resulted in a C-P ratio of approximately 43 to l in all lots. The growth rates are shown in Figure 5, and 10 week weights in Table 61. It will be noted in Figure 5 that the growth rates were comparable for each sex. However, males in Lot 5 grew at a faster rate than the males in the other lots, particularly after 8 weeks of age. The males and females showed different growth rates starting at about the second week. The males grew at a faster rate than the females. There was a highly significant difference in 10 week live weights between sex but not between lots, Table 61a. Feed efficiencies, as presented in Figure 5 and Table 62, show that lots which received higher levels of fat gave better feed conversions. Lot 1 had a feed conversion of 2.78 pounds of feed per pound of gain. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 had feed conversions of 2.80, 2.62, 2.75, and 2.47 pOunds, respectively, a difference Of 0.33 pound between Lots 2 and 5. -131- O- llllu-OEP- 0-62 .76 +0..- QuV +0..- . I” #OJ cum «on.- o u _ +04 89.. .o 9.32, o. 2 6:225 and as use $3.20-...“ 22:35 .m, .55 3.00; 0 V — u L b xuco-uz-m 10v.”- 0.0 In.” 04 -132- Table 61. Experiment 5, Ten week live weights. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. 3.. <: co Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds Male 4.20 4.27 4.22 4.2 4.59 4.30 Female 3.70 3.61 3.62 3.62 3.45 3.60 Granl mean 3.9 3.94 3.92 3.92 4.02 Table 61a. EXperiment 5, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights. “—- “—5-.- Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 361,495.00** Lots 4 4 16,292.75 Sex 1 2,990,479.00 Lots x sex 4 49,452.25 Error 90 59,332.79 ~133- Table 62. Experiment 5, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds of feed per pound of live weight 2.78 2.80 2.62 2.75 2.47 -134- The warm eviscerated yields were comparable between lots, Table 63. There was no significant difference in yields between lots or sex, Table 63a. This would be expected since all lots received feed which had the same C-P ratio and all lots were comparable in weight at 10 weeks of age. Specific gravities which are a measure of fat deposition in the carcass are shown in Table 64. Even though there was a lower specific gravity in most lots which received higher levels of fat and protein in the diet, these differences were not significant between lots, Table 64a. There was a highly significant difference between sex and this would be expected since females ordinarily deposit more fat in the carcass than do males. In percentage of moisture pick-up, Table 65, there was some variation between lots and sex. There was a highly significant difference between sex, Table 65a, but not between lots. The percentages of abdominal and gizzard fat obtained from the fryers are shown in Table 66. Females showed greater fat deposits in the abdominal region than did the males. Differences existed in the percentage of fat between birds of the different lots. Table 63. Experiment 5. 10 week old fryers. —135- Eviscerated warm yield of each sex in each lot. Average 10 birds of Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male Female Grand mean 71.96 72.37 72.17 Per cent 72.09 72.96 72.01 73.10 72.05 73.03 71.41 72.59 72.00 73.28 72.34 72.23 72.46 72.76 Table 63a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, Eviscerated warm yield of 10 week old fryers Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 3.3997 Lots 4 4.3183 Sex 1 0.3553 Lots x sex 4 3.2422 Error 90 2.2961 Table 64. -136- Experiment 5, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male Female Grand mean Specific gravity 1.055 1.049 1.054 1.049 1.046 1.051 1.044 1.046 1.040 1.041 1.044 1.043 1.050 1.048 1.047 1.045 1.045 Table 64a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.000258** Lots 4 0.000070 Sex 1 0.001521** Lots x sex 4 0.000131 Error 90 0.000062 ** P < .01 -137- Table 65. Experiment 5, Percentage moisture pick-up during chilling Operation. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 4.31 5.02 4.45 5.14 4.82 4.75 Female 5.46 6.14 4.88 5.55 5.56 5.52 Grand mean 4.89 5.58 4.67 5.35 5.19 Table 65a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 3.1195 Lots 4 2.6626 Sex 1 14.8379** Lots x sex 4 0.6469 Error 90 1.5137 w; P 4 .01 -138- Table 66. Experiment 5, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.92 1.24 0.88 1.30 1.55 1.18 Female 2.50 1.60 2.45 2.91 1.92 2.28 Grand mean 1.71 1.42 1.67 2.11 1.73 Table 66a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4,8814** Lots 4 1.2162 39X 1 30.0169** Lots x sex 4 2.2627 Error 90 0,9981 ’52: P < .01 -l39- However, these differences were not significant. There was a highly significant difference between sex, Table 66a. Tables 67 and 67a show that no significant difference existed in percentage of heart weights between the different lots. The average percentage gizzard with attached fat was higher for females than males, Table 68. With the exception of Lot 4, lots on higher levels of added fat and protein in the diet showed a lower percentage of gizzard with attached fat. There was a highly significant difference between sex and a significant difference between lots for this measurement. Lot 5 showed significantly less gizzard with attached fat than did Lots 1 to 4, Table 68a. When Tables 69 and 69a are observed it will be noted that the average percentage gizzards with the fat removed are less in lots which had higher levels of fat and protein in the diet. There were highly significant differences between sex and lots, and a significant lots x sex interaction. Lots 1 and 2 had a significantly higher percentage gizzard than Lots 3, 4, and 5 WhiCh were not different from each other. It appears that higher levels of fat and protein in the diet result in smaller gizzards. -140- Table 67. Experiment 5, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot A Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.40 0.b0 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 Female 0.hl 0.u0 0.43 0.42 0.h5 0.L2 Grand mean 0.h0 0.40 0.A3 0.h3 0.hh Table 67a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.002707 Lots 4 0.005283 Sex 1 0.000255 Lots x sex 4 0.0007h4 Error 90 0.00hh8h -l4l- Table 68. Experiment 5, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.85 1.76 1.72 1.75 1.45 1.71 Female 2.54 2.17 2.14 2.55 2.08 2.30 Grand mean 2.20 1.96 1.93 2.15 1.76 Table 68a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f° Mean square Between treatments 9 l.3033** Lots 4 0.6204* Sex 1 8.6493** Lots x sex 4 0.1496 Error 90 0.1775 *’ P < .01 r P < .05 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 1 1.76 1.93 1.96 2.15 2.20 -152- Table 69. Experiment 5, Percentage chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.72 1.59 1.54 1.46 1.23 1.51 Female 1.83 1.86 1.50 1.58 1.75 1.70 Grand mean 1.78 1.73 1.52 >l.52 1.49 Table 69a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, ‘ percentage chilled gizzard, without attacned fat, of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.3646** Lots 4 0.3530** Sex 1 0.9604** Lots x sex 4 0.2272* Error 90 0.0732 ** P < .01 * P <;.05 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 1 1.49 1.52 1.52 1.73 1.78 -l43- The percentage liver of 10 week old fryers and statistical analysis of these data are shown in Tables 70 and 70a. There was no significant difference between lots or sex. The percentages of intestines, as presented in Table 71, are comparable between the different lots. No significant difference occurred between lots but a difference at the 1 per cent level of probability existed between sex, Table 71a. Skin percentages of the chilled carcass weights were similar between the different lots, Table 72. There were no significant differences between lots or sex, Table 72a. Four birds of each sex in each lot were cooked by baking. There were no significant differences in the cooking yield between sex or lots, Tables 73 and 73a. ~144- Table 70. Experiment 5, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.72 1.82 1.65 1.72 1.69 1.72 Female 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.77 1.91 1.78 Grand mean 1.74 1.78 1.70 1.74 1.80 Table 70a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation, d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.0496 Lots 4 0.0324 Sex 1 0.0876 Lots x sex 4 0.0574 Error 90 0.0350 -145- Table 71. Experiment 5, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 6.46 6.48 5.96 6.39 6.40 6.34 Female 6.68 6.72 6.80 6.78 6.81 6.76 Grand mean 6.57 6.60 6.38 6.59 6.61 Table 71a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.7081 Lots 4 0.1887 Sex 1 4.3639** Lots x sex 4 0.3134 Error I 90 0.4538 M P < .01 -146- Table 72. Experiment 5, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass of 10 week old fryers. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent gale 12.92 12.24 12.77 12.46 12.44 12.57 Female 13.20 13.69 14.03 13.92 12.05 13.38 Grand mean 13.06 12.97 13.40 13.19 12.25 Table 72a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. , Mean square Between treatments 9 2.0241 Lots 4 1.5224 Sex . 1 6.6097 Lots x sex 4 1.3795 -147- Table 73. Experiment 5, Percentage cooking yield. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 81.47 82.15 82.62 85.34 84.89 83.29 Female 83.91 80.28 80.21 81.84 80.64 81.38 Grand mean 82.69 81.22 81.42 83.59 82.77 Table 73a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 11.4465 Lots 4 7.5194 Sex 1 27.7888 Lots x sex 4 ' 11.2880 Error ~ 30 9.0029 -l48- g. Experiment 6 Rations in this experinent were the same as Experiment 3 in which the percentage protein was increased in each succeeding lot from 20.77 in Lot 1 to 24.89 in Lot 5. The percentage of added fat in the diet was increased by l per cent in each succeeding lot from 0 per cent in Lot 1 to 4 per cent in Lot 5. The C-P ratio was decreased in each succeeding lot. The ratios were 42.8, 40.8, 38.9, 37.3, and 35.7 to l in Lots 1 to 5, respectively. Productive energy in calories per pound of feed was 889 for each lot. The growth rate and 10 week live weights are presented in Figure 6 and Table 74, respectively. The growth rates for the males and females were different after the second week. The growth rates for the different lots were similar for each sex. There was no significant difference in 10 week live weights between lots, Table 74a, even though the average live weight increased in each lot from Lots 1 to 5. This indicates that higher levels of protein increased live weights in spite of the fact that the productive energy was constant in all lots. There was a highly significant difference between sex. .~o< *0 9.003 o 3.003 D JI‘ _ a 05.25 .86 .2 V _ 0 atom £390 :6 225396 .0 959$ -149- 1 III! 0.080... II: at: x-n.o4 .-v.oa .-n.o4 .-~.94 o- _.o4 Spunod 083:6 .83 . n.” #1 .44 . .Q —150- Table 74. Experiment 6, Ten week live weights. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Pounds Male 3.99 4.18 4.13 4.12 4.30 4.14 Female 3.26 3.29 3.37 3.46 3.56 3.39 Grand mean 3.63 3.74 3.75 3.79 3.93 Table 74a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, 10 week live weights. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 380,081.22** Lots 4 43,706.25 Sex 1 3,222,025.00** Lots x sex 4 5,970.25 Error 90 22,486.96 :;:;;< P < .01 -151- Feed efficiency for the different lots is shown in Figure 6 and Table 75. With the exception of Lot 3, less feed was required per pound of gain in lots which received higher levels of protein. Warm eviscerated yields were comparable for the different lots, Table 76. Females which were smaller than the males, as would be expected, gave slightly higher yields which is uneXplainable. There was no significant difference between lots or sex, Table 76a. Specific gravities of the carcasses with gizzards and attached fat are shown in Table 77. Females had a lower specific gravity which means that more fat was deposited in the females than in the males. This difference in specific gravity between sex was significant at the l per cent level of probability, Table 77a. Specific gravities between lots were comparable. Percentage moisture pick-up during the chilling Operation will be noted in Table 78. The females showed an average gain in weight of 5.76 per cent for all lots, while the average gain for the males was 5.03 per cent. There was a significant difference between sex at the 5 per cent level of probability, Table 78a. -152- Table 75. Experiment 6, Feed efficiency to 10 weeks of age. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Pounds of feed per pound of live weight 2.67 2.59 2.68 2.49 2.55 -153- Table 76. Experiment 6, Warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 71.31 72.38 71.79 71.49 71.95 71.78 Female 71.77 71.49 72.99 72.09 72.22 72.11 Grand mean 71.54 71.94 72.39 71.79 72.09 Table 76a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, warm eviscerated yield of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation Between treatments Lots Sex Lots x sex Error d.f. Mean square 9 2.5019 4 2.0394 1 2.7390 4 2.9052 90 2.1946 -154- Table 77. Experiment 6, Specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Specific gravity Male 1.056 1.053 1.056 1.055 1.057 1.055 Female 1.050 1.053 1.048 1.050 1.048 1.050 Grand mean 1.053 1.053 1.052 1.053 1.053 Table 77a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, specific gravity of warm eviscerated carcasses with gizzards and attached fat. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.000120** Lots 4 0.000006 Sex 1 0.000784** Lots x sex 4 0.000067 Error 90 0.000044 ** P <1.01 -]_55- Table 78. Experiment 6, Percentage moisture pick—up during chilling operation. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 4.75 4.91 4.95 5.28 5.25 5.03 Female 6.15 5.71 6.15 5.41 5.36 5.76 Grand mean 5.45 5.31 5.55 5.35 5.31 Table 78a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture pick-up during chilling operation. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.3474 Lots 4 0.2250 Sex 1 13.2423* Lots x sex 4 1.7461 Error 90 1.9819 * P (7.05 . a ' o . -156- Abdominal and gizzard fat, expressed as a percentage of live weight, are shown in Table 79. The females showed a greater fat deposition in these areas than did the males which was highly significant, Table 79a. Fat deposition between lots was comparable. Percentage heart was similar between lots and sex, Tables 80 and 80a. The average percentage gizzard with attached fat, Table 81, decreased in lots as the percentage of protein in the diet was increased. There was a highly significant difference between lots and sex. Lot 1 was significantly different from Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, but these lots were comparable to each other, Table 81a. With the attached fat removed from the gizzards, the average percentage gizzard for each lot was determined and is shown in Table 82. The same trend of reduction in weight of the gizzards existed as was found with the gizzards with attached fat, Table 81. A highly significant difference still existed between lots and sex after the fat was renoved, Table 82a. Lot 1 was significantly different from Lots 3, 4, and 5 but not from Lot 2. Apparently higher levels of protein in the diet resulted in smaller gizzards. -l57- Table 79. Experiment 6, Percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 0.93 1.10 0.82 0.98 0.86 0.94 Female 1.78 1.16 1.66 1.92 1.62 1.63 Grand mean 1.36 1.13, 1.24 1.45 1.24 Table 79a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage chilled abdominal and gizzard fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 ' 1.725857** Lots 4 0.294652 Sex 5 1 11.890773** Lots x sex 4 0.615833 Error 90 0°437O89 ** P <1.01 Table 80. -158- Experiment 6, Percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male Female Grand mean Per cent 0.40 0.38 ‘0.44 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.39 Table 80a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage heart of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.002878 Lots 4 0.003807 Sex 1 0.002153 Lots x sex 4 0.002130 Error 90 0.002288 ~159- Table 81. Experiment 6, Percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Male Female Grand mean Per cent 1.91 1.70 1.55 1.60 1.52 1.66 2.39 1.95 2.12 2.23 1.99 2.14 2.15 'l.82 1.84 1.92 1.76 Table 81a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage gizzard with attached fat of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.8903** Lots 4 0.4722** Sex 1 5.6930** [Lots x sex 4 0.1077 Error 90 0.0771 31:2}: P < .01 Lot 5 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 1 1.76 1.82 1.84 1.92 2.15 Table 82. without attacnea fat, Experiment 6, Percentage chilled gizzard, of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent I\"‘i]_\o, 107]. 105C) 1.42 loaf; 101414 1053 Female 1.89 1.75 1.31 1.57 1.56 1.71 Grand mean 1.8 1.67 1.62 1.52 1.50 Table 82a. Experiment 6 Analysis of variance, 2 .percentage chilled gizzard, without attached fat, of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatnents 9 0.2539** Lots 4 0.2903** Sex 1 0.8649** Lots x sex 4 0.0647 Error 90 0.0641 ** P<< .01 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 1 1.50 1.52 1.62 1.67 1.80 -161— Percentage livers of 10 week live weights varied between lots and sex, Table 83. The differences observed, however, were not significant, Table 83a. The intestinal weights expreSsed as a percentage of 10 week live weights are presented in Table 84. Birds which received higher levels of protein showed either heavier or lighter intestinal weights than did the control lot, Lot 1, which received the lowest level of protein of any of the lots. These differences were highly significant between lots and significant at the 5 per cent level of probability between sex, Table 84a. Females showed a higher percentage of skin than did the males, Table 85, which was highly significant, Table 85a. Average percentage skin was similar for the different lots. Four birds of each sex in each lot were cooked by baking. The cooking yields were comparable between lots and sex, Tables 86 and 86a. Perhaps differences in yield would have been obtained if the abdominal fat had been left attached to the carcasses. -162- Table 83. Experiment 6, Percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 1.75 1.82 1.73 1.64 1.77 1.74 Female 1.89 1.84 1.77 1.72 1.84 1.81 Grand mean 1.82 1.83 1.75 1.68 1.80 Table 83a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage liver of 10 week old fryers. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.0531 Lots 4 0.0779 Sex 1 0.1211 Lots x sex 4 0.0112 Error 90 0.0328 ~"—‘ - 4' wwfl -'___. I r-_\ Table 84. Experiment 6, Percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Average 10 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent 4.5le 6.57 60/73 600]. 6058 éo‘g‘g r/ 01.1.7 Female 6.79 6.64 6.36 6.92 7.34 6.31 Grand mean 6.68 6.49 6.19 6.75 7.11 Table 84a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage intestine of 10 week old fryers. Source of variatio Between treatments 11 d.f. Mean square 1.3700* 2.3360** Lots Sex 2.829 * Lots x sex 4 0.0392 Error 0.5772 ** P < .01 * P <,.05 Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 4 Lot 5 6.19 6.49 6.6? 6.75 7.11 -l64- Table 85. Experiment 6, Percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 'Avg. Per cent Male 11.97 11.66 10.65 11.70 10.56 11.31 Female 13.66 12.10 12.98 13.42 ~12.35 12.96 Grand mean 12.82 12.03 11.82 12.56 11.46 Table 85a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage skin of chilled eviscerated carcass weights. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4.4287 Lots 4 2.4290 Sex 1 29 o 5062*»: Lots x sex 4 0°6590 Error 30 2.0881 ** P 41.01 -155- Table 86. Experiment 6, Percentage cooking yield. Average 4 birds of each sex in each lot. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Avg. Per cent Male 81.44 81.55 82.25 81.18 81.29 81.54 Female 81.18 80.55 83.04 82.20 81.45 81.68 Grand mean 81.31 81.05 82.65 81.69 81.37 Table 86a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage cooking yield. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1-9748 Lots 4 3.0782 Sex 1 0.2044 Lots x sex 4 1.3140 Error 30 8.9908 ~166- h. Chemical analyses, Experiment 4 The percentage of moisture, fat, and protein of the breast, calculated on a moist basis, are shown in Table 87. Percentages of moisture and fat varied between the different lots and sex. Protein varied also, but statistically, the differences in levels of protein were not significant. Lots which contained higher levels of fat in the breast meat showed correspondingly lower levels of moisture so that an inverse relationship existed between these values. Tables 87a, 87b, and 87c show the analysis of variance for the percentage of moisture, fat, and protein, respectively, of the breast. There was a significant difference between lots and a highly significant difference between sex for percentage moisture and fat. There was no statistical difference in percentage moisture between Lots 1, 2, and 4, but these lots were different than Lot 5. In percentage fat, Lots 3 and 5 were significantly higher than Lot 1. There was no difference between Lots 2, 3, and 4. The results of the chemical analyses for the thigh meat are presented in Tables 88, 88a, 88b, and 880. There were variations between lots and sex for the levels of fat and protein as shown in Table 88. Lots -167- 00.0H mw.mfi mm.m om.m an.fis pm.mm some ocoho No.ma ¢©.ma o¢.wa 4m.m JB.HH am.m ma.am mm.m© wm.mw m am.ma N©.ma mm.ma q©.p ©m.m ©m.m ©H.mm ao.mm mm.a> : ©®.ma mm.ma pa.©a oa.m 0m.m 08.8 mm.an do.ao mm.ae m mo.mH ©©.ma 00.0H mm.© wq.w om.¢ m©.mm mm.mm om.¢m N mm.om ¢@.ma Nm.am am.m m©.m oo.m ©©.mm mm.mm um.mw H pcoo pom .w>< mHoEmm mama .w>a oHoEom mama .w>a onEom on: mpoq aflopopm pom opopmfloz .pmmopn mo .poa some CH xom coop mo mopfln m omopm>t :aooopg one .pwm nonoomHoE omopceoaom .d peosfipooxm .wm magma ~168- Table 87a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 7 9 5.8210** Lots 4 4.1588* Sex 1 13.1869** Lots x sex 4 5.6417* Error 10 1.1021 ** P.4..01 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 1 Lot 4 Lot 2 * P.( .05 71.14 71.84 72.96 73.16 74.62 Table 87b. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 8.8446** Lots 4 8.0908* Sex 1 30.0861** Lots x sex 4 4.2880 Error 10 1.7229 ** P.fi .01 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 5 :15 P < .05 503I+ 6022 6061+ 8009 8081+ Table 870. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.3559 Lots 4 1.8497 Sex V 1 3.0109 Lots x sex ' 4 0.4731 Error 10 0.6216 _l()9- 8.3 3.3 8.9 15.: omimo 8m48 some ocepo m8.mH m©.ma 8w.ma ma.ma om.8H mH.mH 88.80 H8.8© m.8© m 8m.wa om.ma mm.©H 8N.NH $4.4H 00.0H m4.08 H©.~© mm.m8 a H©.ma mm.mH m©.ma ma.ma m8.da HH.NH mm.m© mm.mo mw.o8 m m:.oa m©.ma $0.8H 8q.® aq.oa me.m mm.m8 H8.m8 mo.m8 N +3.3 3.: $65 3.3 88.: mm§ 8.8 81448 no.8 H pcoo pom .m>< panama onE .w>< oHoEom ofiwfi .m>< onEom mama mpoq afloooum pom ohsomfloz .poa comm cw wow some mo woken m mwmpo>w .swflco mo Campopm oco -pmm .ohsomfios ommpcoopom -d pcoeflpooxm .mm mapoe -170- Table 88a. Experiment h, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 11,7073* Lots 4 20.6038** Sex 1 17.5032* Lots x sex h 1.3620 Error 10 3.4289 ** P.< .01 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot A Lot 1 Lot 2 p 4 .05 67.02 69.82 70.42 72.05 72.88 Table 88b. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of thigh. Source of variation d.f. ' Mean square Between treatments 9 16.9962* Lots 4 28.0593* Sex 1 37.15% Lots x sex 4 0.893h Error 10 p 4.7523 * P < .05 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot A .Lot 3 Lot 5 9.h6 10.58 12.26 12.h5 16.28 Table 88c. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.6138 Lots 4 0.5913 Sex . 1 2.7012 Lots x sex 4 0.1146 Error 10 0.7273 -l71- which contained higher levels of fat showed lower levels of moisture. Lot 5 was significantly lower in moisture content than Lots 1, 2, and A. There was a significant difference between sex and lots for percentage fat. No statistical difference at either the l or 5 per cent level of probability existed in percentage protein between lots or sex. Fat was about 4 to 6 per cent higher in the thigh than the breast tissue. The percentage of moisture, fat, and protein of the drumsticks were comparable for all lots, Tables 89, 89a, 89b, and 890. There was a highly significant difference between sex for percentage moisture and fat. Apparently fat deposition in the drumstick was not influenced by the level of fat in the diet as were the breasts and thighs. The percentage of fat and moisture of the wings varied by approximately 4 per cent between lots, Table 90. Females had the higher fat levels with the lower percentage of moisture; Protein was higher in the male than in the female birds. The percentage moisture decreased from Lot 1 to 5 while the percentage of fat increased in these lots. Higher fat levels in the five rations, with the same level mo.ma es.ma me.m me.e mo.me 80.0e :mme ucmpc om.na em.ma am.ma m©.m Hm.o mm.m mm.mm 0H.es mm.bb m em.ma mm.ma HH.©H 0:.e mm.m mo.¢ m:.ms N@.¢w Hm.@m d Om.ma 0H.ma mq.ma mm.m em.m H¢.m mm.mm Hm.mm mm.mb m L2 ©N.mH @©.ma mm.ma m©.¢ ©m.m ao.q on.mm mm.mm 0H.pm m mm mm.ma Hm.ma :4.m mq.¢ Op.a mm.¢ 00.05 ©$.mn ma.om H pcoo pom .m>4 onEom mama .m>¢ onEmm mama .m>¢ onEmm mama mpoq campopm pmm manpmfios .poa comm CH Now sumo mo mphfin N mmwpm>m .xoflpmszsp mo cfimuohm dam .pmw .oQSpmfioE mmmpzoopom .d pcoeflhoqu .am oabme -173- Table 89a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.2174 Lots ' 4 0.4068 Sex 1 5.1816** Lots x sex 4 1.0370 Error . 10 0.4468 """ P‘< .01 Table 89b. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of drumsticl. Source of variation d.f. Kean square Between treatments 9 1.7416* Lots 4 1.2043 Sex 1 7.4542** Lots x sex 4 0.8509 Error 10 0.5406 “4* P < .01 * P,< .05 Table 890. xperiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage E p otein of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.4632 Lots 4 0.7898 Sex 1 0.9032 Lots x sex 4 0.0266 Error 10 0.2854 A1,. —17u- 00.0H mH.5H m8.HH mm.QH om.o5 md.a5 some ecmpw mm.0a ¢H.0H n.0H m5.ma em.ea 00.NH H©.m0 50.50 mm.©0 m 04.5H em.5a mm.8H sH.HH mm.HH 08.0H 8m.o8 N5.©0 mo.H8 e H0.0H ma.0a mo.8a mm.aa m©.HH 58.0H ¢O.H8 H5.Q8 0m.H8 m so.ea ee.s4 as.ea mm.a sm.HH ae.e ea.aa sm.ea sm.me N mm.8H m8.0H mm.5a HN.© Hm.© HN.® mc.m8 mm.m5 m0.H5 H memo tom .m>¢ mameom mamfl .w>< onEom mam: .m>< onEom mama wpoq campopm pmm endpmHoE .pOH homo CH won some mo mpsflp m ommhm>< .mcfls Mo cHopopm new .pmm .opSpmHoE mmmpcoopod .e psoeflpoaxm .00 magma . ‘ i u o . l a ‘ . . ' ' ' I h . ‘ I o n I ‘ ' o 5 . ' l , . . . O ' ‘ . ' . ' ' O . . . ~175- Table 90a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 4.5938 Lots 4 6.7548* Sex 1 6.6010 Lots x sex 4 1.9312 Error 10 1.5848 * P <,.05 Lot 5 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 1 68.91 70.38 71.03 71.96 72.08 Table 90b. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 7.9285* LOtS ' 1+ 1 12.9320::<>',: Sex 1 12.1368* Lots x sex . 4 1.8730 Error ' 10 1.8144 ** P 4,.01 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3 Lot 5 * P.< .05 9.21 9.57 11.14 11.35 13.74 Table 90c. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage - protein of wing. Source of variation d.f. ‘ Mean square Between treatments ‘ 9 0.6207 Lots 4 0.9500 Sex 1 1.0580 Lots x sex 4 0.1822 Error 10 0.8694 ~176- of protein in all lots, increased the amount of fat deposited in the wing. The percentage protein was comparable between lots, Table 900. There was a significant difference in the moisture content between lots, Table 90a. Lots 1 and 2 had a significantly lower percentage moisture than Lot 5, but Lot 5 was significantly higher in fat deposited in the wing than Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Table 90b. The skin from one-half fryer from four carcasses in each lot was analyzed and the results are presented in Table 91. Variations existed in the percentages of moisture, fat, and protein between lots. However, there were no significant differences between lots for percentage moisture or fat, Tables 91a and 91b. A significant difference in the percentage protein occurred between sex, Table 91c. ~177- sm.aa Hm.ma mm.om so.em ao.oe mm.ae came pcwgo NN.HH 0m.oa so.ma se.mm Hm.am 0N.om mm.m0 om.me me.oo m mm.ma em.aa om.ma Hm.sm mo.mm mm.wm 00.00 mm.om ms.m0 a H5.HH mm.aa 8o.mH ma.8m NH.8N 80.5w mm.8m mm.8m 0a.8m m Ho.ma mm.mH ae.ma 0H.em mm.mm mm.am mo.ao mm.am Hm.m0 m mm.ma oa.oa mm.mH cm.mm oo.em Ho.sm 04.40 HH.H0 mc.ao H @260 pom .w>m deEom mam: .m>m mHmEom was: .w>< oHsEom mam: muoq szSOhm pee mtsemaaa .pOH some CH Kmm norm mo mULHL N mmmpm>m .QHXm mo cflopopm pcm “pwm .mQSpmfioE mumpzoopwm .d pzoefipomxm .Ha oapme -178- Table 91a. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 10.2283 Lots‘ 4 5.3094 Sex ' 1 10.4976 Lots x sex 4 15.0799 Error 10 8.3177 Table 91b. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of sxin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 14.2660 Lots ' 4 9.5832 Sex 1 36.4770 Lots x sex 4 13.3961 Error 10 13.5362 Table 91c. Experiment 4, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.2862 Lots 4 1.7856 Sex 1 10.7458* Lots x sex 4 0.5702 Error 10 2.1448 * P <..05 -179- i. Chemical analyses, Experiment 5 Chemical and statistical analyses of the breast are given in Tables 92, 92a, 92b, and 92c. The percentage moisture and fat were inversely related. With the exception of Lot 4, birds in lots which received higher levels of added fat and protein in the diet resulted in a higher average fat and lower moisture content of the breast meat. The percentage protein was not significantly different between lots but was between sex. There was a significant difference in percentage moisture between lots and a highly significant difference between sex. Lot 4 was significantly higher in moisture content than Lots 3 and 5. However, Lots 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different from each other. Percentages of moisture, fat, and protein for the thigh tissues are given in Table 93. The percentage of moisture and fat in the thigh did not show any trend between lots which was expected from the levels of fat and protein in the rations. For example, the ration used in Lot 4 contained a higher level of fat and protein than Lot 1; yet, the moisture and fat contents of the thigh tissue were lower. The average percentage ~180- Om.mH mm.om 39 N: i wcmnw 50.0w 40.0m 08.0m 08.0 m0.0H mm.0 Hm.©0 mm.50 ©5.H8 m 04.0m mm.©H mo.Hm 5N.m am.0 mm.¢ em.m5 m5.m5 e5.m5 a ee.mH HH.5H 58.8H Om.8 m8.NH am.0 mm.80 5N.50 0m.m5 m 8m.©H mo.mH H8.om mm.8 m©.5 wq.0 m5.H5 o0.H5 mm.H5 m m0.mH mm.mH oa.om m©.0 0H.OH m5.m O8.H8 ©H.©0 om.e8 H pcoo 9mm .m>< mHmEom mHmE .m>< mHmEom ona .w>m mHmEmm mHmZ mpOH aHoBOhm pee mnspmwoz . I .NQ mHQmB Table 92a. -181-1 moisture of breast. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 11.3237** Lots 4 8.5259* Sex 1 46.9405“ Lots x sex 4 5-2173 Error 10 2.0236 ** P14 .01 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 * P <_.05 69.80 69.81 71.69 71.72 73.24 Table 92b. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 16,3829* Lots 4 10.9220 Sex 1 80.8422** Lots x sex 4 5,7290 Error 10 n.1143 "’ 2:: P 4 O O l * P < .05 Table 92c. protein of breast. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.3117 Lots 4 1.1592 Sex 1 5.3251* Lots x sex 4 0.4607 Error 10 0.9786 ‘== P < .05 ~182- m0.mH md.5H ©5.mH em.oH 5N.50 mH.H8 came pcmho mN.0H am.mH N0.0H m0.mH am.8H N8.mH mo.80 m0.m0 me.m0 m ON.8H mm.0H Nm.5H mm.© OH.HH mm.m 00.H5 00.H5 Nm.N5 a NH.0H 0O.mH 5H.5H mm.qH 8q.8H Om.NH 50.80 mm.00 o¢.©0 m 98.0H mo.0H mm.5H 00.HH 05.mH mm.m 0m.08 H0.m0 HH.N8 N 5m.0H e0.eH 0H.mH Hm.MH 0N.8H. 0m.5 om.m0 00.e0 mH.m8 H pcwo Lem .w>¢ onEmm onE .w>m mHmsoh mHma .m>e mHsEom onE mpoH cproLm pmm mpzpmHoZ .poH poem CH wow some mo mULHp N mwmpm>< .annp mo cHopopd use .pmm .oLSQmHoE mwmpcmohmm .m pcoEHammxm .m© meme -133- Table 93a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 18.gggg* Lots 4 15.4292 58X 1 76.6362** Lots x sex 4 6.9216 Error 10 4.4546 ** P.4 .01 * P <..05 Table 93b. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 32.6064** Lots 4 22.4406 Sex 1 148.4580** Lots x sex 4 13.8094 Error 10 6.5862 ** P <..01 Table 93c. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage . protein of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 3.0048** Lots 4 0.7995 Sex 1 16.5984** Lots x sex 4 1,0693 Error 10 _ 0,4713 ** P-< .01 -184- of fat was higher for females than for males. There was a highly significant difference for moisture, fat, and protein in favor of the females, Tables 93a, 93b, and 930. Results of the chemical analyses of the drumstick, Table 94, snow that female fryers had higher levels of fat than did the males. The percentage fat between lots did not show a consistent pattern, however. Percentage protein was about equal between lots. However, the males had a significantly higher protein content than the females. There was no significant difference in moisture between lots or sex, Tables 94a, 94b, and 94c; however, there was a significant difference in fat content between lots and lots X sex interaction, and a highly significant difference between sex. The fat content of Lots 3 and 5 were significantly higher than for Lots 2 and 4. Except for Lot 4, wings showed a general increase in fat content as the levels of fat and protein in the diet increased, ’able 95. The average per cent fat for Lots 1 to 5, respectively, were 10.82, 10.59, 12.91, 8.93, and 13.62. The moisture content was inversely related to the fat content. There was a significant difference in percentage moisture and protein between 00.mH so.oH mm.o mm.m m5.m5 mm.e5 came pumps MN.mH mo.mH me.mH Nm.5 Nm.8 H5.5 mN.m5 0m.m8 mm.N m No.0H 0e.mH mm.mH N8.: , ON.m m0.e mH.m8 dm.m5 Ho.m5 a Hm.mH 8m.8H mN.©H 8H.8 mm.m do.m mo.m5 00.H5 oe.q5 m “w 0N.mH 85.5H mm.mH om.m Ho.m mm.m. 0m.e8 no.45 08.a8 N a in“: SE. 8.2 a: 3;. a: dz: meme 1a.? H ammo pom .m>< mHmEmm mHmE .w>< mHmEmm mHmE .m>< mHmEmm mHmE mpoH chpopm 9mm myopmHo: .QOH some CH won some mo mopHp N omsao>< .onmede mo chpogd use .omm .mhdpmHoE ommpsoopom .m pcosHaoaxw .ed odea -l86- Table 94a. EXperiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. keen square Between treatments 9 4,7513* Lots 4 3.6452 Sex 1 3.0968 Lots x sex 4 3,7712 Error 10 1.2366 := P4 .05 Table 94b. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 6.0756** Lots 4 5.5684* Sex 1 12.0435** Lots x sex 4 5.0910* Error 10 1.0603 ** P‘< .01 Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 5 * P < .05 4.91 5.19 5.71 7.18 7.52 Table 94c. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.9447 Lots 4 0.6077 Sex 1 4.7824* Lots x sex 4 0.3224 Error 10 0.5653 * P <..05 ~187- Hm.0H mH.mH 0H.MH mm.© om.m0 NH.H5 cmoe pampu 04.0H O5.mH 0N.5H N0.mH mo.¢H HN.MH m©.m0 mm.©0 Nm.m0 m HH.mH Nd.5H om.mH mm.m m5.0H MN.5 N5.H8 mm.o5 Ho.m5 a m8.0H mm.mH 5o.mH H©.NH 00.0H Hm.m am.m0 00.00 om.08 m Hm.5H 50.8H e©.8H mm.OH 5H.HH oo.OH mo.05 mN.©0 mm.o5 N mm.8H 0¢.0H m0.mH Nm.oH oo.¢H m0.5 Om.05 mo.m0 4m.N5 H ammo med .w>< onEmm mHmE .m>< onEmm mHm: .w>< mHmEmm on2 prH chpOhm 9mm whopmHoz .poH some 2H won some mo mpqu N mmmpm>< .wCHB mo CHopopm pew “umm .mpdpwHoe owmpcoopod .m pcmEHpooxm .m8 mem9 ~188- Table 95a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 7.7569* Lots 4 6.2882 Sex 1 24.5976* Lots x sex 4 5.0156 Error 10 2.4803 * P.< .05 Table 95b. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 l6.5996** Lots 4 14.0637** SEX l 65.1.9663ng Lots x sex 4 6.9864 Error 10 2.1276 ** P <~.CU. Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 5 8.98 10.58 10.82 12.90 13.62 Table 95c. protein of __ Experiment 5, Analysis wing. of variance, percentage Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.3299 Lots 4 . 1.5282 Sex 1 13 . 5631* Lots x sex 4 0.3235 Error 10 1.3329 ’1‘ P4 .05 -189- sex and a highly significant difference in the percentage fat between lots and sex, Tables 95a, 95b, and 95c. There was no significant difference in fat between Lots 1, 2, and 3, but Lot 5 was different than Lots 1, 2, and 4. Chemical analyses of skin tissue, Table 96, show that the skin was influenced by the levels of fat and protein in the diet. Jith the exception of Lot 4, birds which received higher levels of fat and protein in the diet deposited higher levels of fat in the skin. There was a striking difference in the levels of moisture, fat, and protein between sex. There was a highly significant difference in the percentage moisture and fat between lots and sex, Tables 96a and 96b. In moisture content, Lot 4 was significantly higher than Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5. Lots 3 and 5 were significantly higher in fat than Lot 4. There was a significant difference in percentage protein between lots and a significant difference at the 1 per cent level of probability between sex, Table 96c. -190... 00.0 No.04 04.0m 0m.mw 55.00 40.00 came 02040 00.5 mm.m 05.04 44.04 40.44 04.44 44.04 40.m4 40.4w 4 54.44 04.44 4m.m4 40.44 45.54 40.54 44.00 50.5m 05.40 4 45.04 No.0 04.N4 m0.mm H5.m4 00.0m 44.Nm 04.54 N4.5m m m5.44 04.04 00.m4 5N.0m mm.0m 45.mm 00.00 00.00 44.00 m 40.44 40.0, 0m.44 00.0m 44.44 00.0N 00.00 55.04 00.m0 4 9200 Med .m>4 mHmEme 04w: .m>4 mHmEme 0402 .m>4 mHmEma 0402 0004 .CHmpopd 00m 04540402 .QOH some :4 X00 home mo 00440 N mwmhm>< .cflxm Mo CHapopd 0:0 .psm .oLSpmHos om00Cmopod..m unmEHpmdxm .00 0Hpme Table 96a. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 93.6247** Lots 4 85.5548** Sex 1 #27.3501** Lots x sex 4 18.2632 Error 10 12.9196 ** P < .01 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 50.54 52.14 56.28 56.56 62.42 Table 96b. EXperiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 155.6574** Lots 4 120.49ll** Sex 1 807.3393** Lots x sex 4 27.9033 Error 10 16'5934 ** P4< .01 Lot 4 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 5 23.87 30.26 30.85 35.62 38.10 Table 96c. Experiment 5, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 9.9156** Lots 4 4.0015* Sex 1 52.9751** Lots x sex 4 1.7418 Error 10 0.7476 ** P <,.01 Lot 5 Lot 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 * P < .05 9.87 10.74 11.63 11.72 12.41 -192- '. Chemical anal ses Experiment 6 J a . Table 97 shows the chemical analyses of the breast meat. Even though there was an inverse relationship between the percentages of fat and moisture, these averages did not set any definite pattern as would be expected from the levels of fat and protein in the diet. The per cent fat was 6.47 for Lot 1, 7.49 for Lot 2, 6.43 for Lot 3, 5.52 for Lot 4, and 6.06 for Lot 5. Protein contents were comparable between lots. There were significant differences between sex for percentage moisture, fat, and protein, Tables 97a, 97b, and 97c. Percentage of moisture and fat were comparable between lots for the thigh meat, Table 98. However, there was a significant difference in moisture and fat levels between sex. There was no significant difference in percentage protein between lots or sex, Tables 98a, 98b, and 98c. The percentage moisture, fat, and protein for the drumsticks were comparable for all lots, Tables 99, 99a, 99b, and 99c. There was a difference in the percentage fat between sex which was significantly higher for the females. Chemical analyses for percentage of moisture, fat, and protein of the wings were comparable between lots -l93- 00.0H 00.0N 00.0 08.0 00.05 05.m8 c008 0:040 40.04 54.04 54.04 00.0 . 40.0 54.4 40.45 05.45 50.45 4 04.04 44.04 44.04 44.4 40.0 00.4 50.45 04.45 45.45 4 04.04 44.04 50.04 44.0 04.0 45.4 44.45 44.45 04.45 4 00.04 44.04 44.04 04.5 45.04 44.4 44.45 40.00 40.45 4 Nm.0N 00.0H 05.0N 54.0 Nm.5 NH.0 0N.N5 00.H5 m5.N5 H 0:00 400 .m>< eHmemb 0H0£ .w>< mHmsmm m 05 .w>< mHmemm 0HmE 0poq :40pohm pmm 04540402 .pOH some 04 N00 0000 mo 00440 N mmmpm>< .4 a 4 a A} a 4 0 .000040 mo cflmpoac 0:0 000 mpdpmwoe 0000C00400 0 pumeflpmoxm 50 0Hnme -194- Table 97a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 6.1582$* Lots 4 2-5839 Sex 1 36.5581** Lots x sex 4 2.1577 Error 10 6 0.7754 ** P (1.01 Table 97b. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 8,8282** Lots 4 2.0828 Sex 1 57.5283** Lots x sex 4 3.3988 Error 10 1.0965 ** P <1.01 Table 970. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of breast. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 1.1241 Lots 4 0.2158 Sex 1 1.7820 Lots x sex 4 0.7790 Error 10 0.5694 00.0H HH.8H H4.MH 40.0 H4.00 0H.m5 c008 0s040 _5N.0H 00.0H 00.0H mN.HH 50.NH 04.0H 4N.H5 55.05 H5.H5 m 8.04 N0.0H m0.5H 5m.0H m0.mH 08.5 00.45 00.00 55.5 4 04.0H 50.0H Nm.0H 45.0H 00.HH Nm.0 40.H8 N0.H5 0N.N5 m . mu, H8.0H 00.0H 00.54 00.44 44.0H 0N8 00.05 4N.00 50.5 N l _ 04.0H 80.0H 00.0H 00.0H 45.mH 04.8 54.H5 00.00 mm.m5 H 4400 40m .w>< 0H080m 0H0: .m>0 0H080m 0H0: .w>< 0Hme0m 0H0: muoq :40po4m 004 04:004o2 .pOH 0000 24 400 0000 mo 00440 N 00040>0 .00404 mo c40po40 0:0 .000 .04500408 0004:00400 .0 0008440040 .00 0H009 -l96- Table 98a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of thigh. Source of variation d.f., Mean square Between treatments 9 . 2.0909 Lots 4 2.006h Sex 1 67.7h85** Lots x sex h 7.6193 Error 10 3.808u ** P‘< .01 Table 98b. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.1111 Lots 4 1.5292 Sex 1 118.h87l** Lots x sex h 10.4832 Error 10 5.6720 P_< .01 Table 98c. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of thigh. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 6.1128* Lots 4 0.1150 Sex 1 7.3812 Lots x sex A q 0.3528 Error 10 1.6030 * P < .05 -197... 05.04 40.04 05.0 00.4 00.45 05.05 2008 00000 50.04 00.04 00.04 00.4 05.4 40.4 00.05 45.05 00.05 0 40.04 00.04 40.04 00.0 00.0 00.0 44.05 50.45 40.05 4 05.04 00.04 00.04 00.0 04.0 00.4 04.05 04.05 00.05 m 44.04 00.04 04.04 04.0 00.0 05.0 00.45 00.05 40.05 m 00.04 40.04 40.04 05.4 00.0 54.0 00.45 00.05 00.05 4 p200 p00 .w>< 040E0m 0402 .0>0 040500 040: .0>< 040800 0405 0904 C40pOh0 400 00500403 .004 0000 :4 X00 0000 mo 00040 N 000p0>< .00490E540 mo 0400000 0:0 “00m .00500405 000020000; .0 0:0E4L0gxm .00 04009 -198- Table 99a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 2.0909 Lots 4 0.4054 Sex 1 7.2240 Lots x sex 4 2.4933 Error 10 1.6227 Table 99b. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Hean square Between treatments ' 9 - 2.1113 Lots 4 1.0290, Sex 1 7.9506* Lots x sex 4 1.7338 Error 10 0.8913 * P’41.05 Table 99c. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of drumstick. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 0.6792 Lots 4 1.0858 Sex 1 0.1022 Lots x sex 4 0.4168 drror 10 0.6408 -l99- as shown in Table 100. The females had higher levels of fat; whereas, the males had the higher levels of protein. There were highly significant differences between sex for moisture, fat, and protein, Tables lOOa, lOOb, and lOOc. In the percentage moisture, fat, and protein of the skin, Table 101, very little difference occurred between lots. However, analyses of variance for these percentages, Tables lOla, lOlb, and 1010, show that there were significant differences for moisture, fat, and protein between sex. The males had the higher levels of moisture and protein with the lower percentage of fat. -200- ©m.oa NH.mH mm.ma mm.m mm.o© mH.®© some ocmpo Hm.na mm.oa dw.ma mm.oa ©>.HH ©m.@ OH.©o mo.ow mH.m© m no.0H 40.0H 0m.ma no.0a mm.ma m>.m 00.00 05.00 m¢.mo s m©.ma mm.ha mo.ma mm.oa NN.HH Hm.m bm.om H¢.om HH.HN m m©.ma H©.@H mo.wa NH.HH mm.qa :q.m H¢.b© mo.b© mn.m© m mm.bfi m®.ma mm.ma 00.0H ms.ma mm.w H©.om oq.w© H:.mm H pcmo pom .w>¢ mHmEmm was: .w>< mamsmm mama .m>< mHmSmm mama mpoq Campopm pom whopmfloz .poa homo CH Xmm comm mo hogan N mmmpm>< .mcfls mo cflmpopg dam .umm .opzpmflos mmmpsmopmm no pomeflpmoxm .oofi mapme Table 100a. Experiment -201- 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 6.1089 Lots 4 0.9389 Sex 1 35-831 ** Lots x sex 4 3.8484 Error 10 2.1999 ** P <..01 Table 100b. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage fat of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 11.5L88 Lots h 0.6960 Sex 1 79.3215** Lots x sex h 5.h58h Error 10 2.7695 ** P‘< .01 Table 100c. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage protein of wing. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 2 9 h , 1.2708 Lots 4 0.h950 Sex 7.8626** Lots x sex 0.h238 Error 10 0.2A60 ** P< .01 coda no. ma 34m 33mm Omom 149$ :35 ocmao mo.mH mméa mmIoA soém mmém mmdm 3.3 8.3 Hmob m on.HH H@.oa mm.ma m©.mm 00.Hm 00.Hm $5.0m mm.©m om.m© a H0.HH mm.oa oo.mH b©.mm mm.mm H©.mw mm.o© mm.mm mo.mb m m. afima 8.3 3.2 8.6m 05mm No.8 $33 13.3 316. m “2 . dm.ma no.0H Om.ma om.mm H@.mm bm.mm oo.mm Hm.sm mm.m© a pcmo pom .w>< mamsmm mama .m>< mHmEmm mama .m>¢ mHoEmm mama mpoq sampopm pom madamfloz .poa comm CH Xmm zoom mo hogan m mmohm>¢ .cflxm mo campopo cum .pwm .wpzpmfios mmmpcmohmm .0 ucosflhmaxm .HQH mabme -203- Table 101a. Experiment 6, Analysis of variance, percentage moisture of skin. Source of variation d.f. Mean square Between treatments 9 30.5062* Lots , 4 3.2281 Sex 1 l94.5632** Lots x sex 4 16.2201 Error 10 8.6515 >§<>§< P < .01 * P