IIIIII.L:1:II III II.IIIIIIII 1I1I. IIIIIIII IIIIIIII 11 I I I 11 ..I 11111111 ILIM'M :I. .1.IIII“' 1 III. '1. .1. 11 11111111111 I 11 I I .II III... 11111111.”. I'1I11I'IIIII111I1I1 11 1111111 1111 111111111111 11.11,. II1'II 3111111111111 I I 11111 I III I IIII 1 1 I I1 I IIIIIII II ”‘11 111111“1.111.111.3111 .11{.1.111111111 .III. 1111.. 1M 11111 I1111I111II/111I1I11L 111 M11 11111 1111111111111 1.11 “1.111e11111" , I 1.171 I 111 I11111I111I11I1I- T-- ; *1 I1 IIIIIIIIII 111 111 111 11 1111 ' IIIII 11 11111111 11 I 111111 1 11111III11'111 111111 1 13.1 1'" - v . ' - ~J 1i HI11111111 111111111111 1 '1' H .- . 1' _ ',rI'd....-':.1?“: I in. I111I11 11111I 111111 "I' . ‘~ ' ’1' '3 ‘ 1 .‘...-I:' II'I11III “H1 11 111111 III1IIII‘111IIIIIIIII1 III 1 1111 I11I1'111I II111II ‘~— A“- .- -~: 1'.II1 111111 1 II'I1II II 1111' 111 11111.11 11 11 1111111 1IIIII 1 '1 1111111 11'III1IIIcIIIIII1II III'I IIIIII'IIII I1 III-1 .I .. 1: 'Q'EI 1:: 11111.1 "I' ‘ 113,... 111111 1111 ”1”?- ' III I . .1111 2:1; 1 I. II .‘ I I‘1I1I 1.,“I:' 1111'. .I '. I.. I‘ In '..:" IIIijII' III1II.1III~' H11'11'1 . .11 1‘ 11:1”: 1111111”' 11111:)!11‘ I11! .I I 111111113111 11 III I 1 1IIIII -I,I . III. . I..III11I 111 I11 111: 1II1I1IIIIII I 1'.’ I.II"II' ,‘1_I'- I111 I IIII ”11111111111111 1 IIIII 111111 111111.11 "11111111111 FIII IIIIII I1III1111111 1" 11. I111I II111 LIBRARY Michigan Sta” U l} ’ t-rsity I”: k. This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF CARBOHYDRATE IN DRINKING WATER ON THE DIETARY ENERGY CONSUMED AND PERFORMANCE OF BROILER-TYPE CHICKS presented by Rungthip Burapharat has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Poultry Science Ldegree in Dmfi December 28LA;977 0-7639 9) THE EFFECT OF CARBOHYDRATE IN DRINKING WATER ON THE DIETARY ENERGY CONSUMED AND \9 I PERFORMANCE OF BROILER-TYPE CHICKS By RUNGTHIP BURAPHARAT A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF'SCIENCE Department of Poultry Science 1978 ABSTRACT .THE EFFECT OF CARBOHYDRATE IN DRINKING WATER ON THE DIETARY ENERGY CONSUMED AND PERFORMANCE OF BROILER-TYPE CHICKS By Rungthip Burapharat Two experiments were conducted to investigate the response of broiler-type chicks to sugar added in drinking water when the caloric density of their diets increased or decreased. The first experiment was performed with three selected dietary energy levels: 2700, 3000 and 3300 kcal/kg, in com- bination with either none or each of three levels of glucose in drinking water: 2, 4 and 8%. The concentration of protein in all diets was kept constant at 24.1%. The results showed that feed consumed by chicks decreased as the level of either glucose in drinking water or dietary energy increased. The energy obtained from glucose solution depressed the dietary energy consumed (decrease in feed consumption) and resulted in an equal amount of total energy consumed whether chicks were given the tap water or the glucose solutions at 2, 4 or 8%. The weight gain tended to be low when chicks were given glucose in their drinking water. Chicks receiving the 8% glucose solution had significantly less gain than the con- trol chicks. However, the feed efficiency by chicks was improved as the level of glucose in drinking water increased. Rungthip Burapharat Chicks fed a high-energy diet consumed more dietary energy and had heavier weight gains than chicks fed a low— energy diet. Feed efficiency was improved progressively as the level of dietary energy increased. Dietary energy and glucose solution did not affect the liver and pancrea- tic weights of chicks. The second experiment was performed with two selected dietary energy levels: 2700 and 3300 kcal/kg, in combination with either noneor each of five different kinds of carbo- hydrates in drinking water: glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and lactose (all at level of 4%). The composition of the two diets were the same as in the first experiment. The results showed that the 4% galactose in drinking water induced toxicity in chicks and depressed feed consumption, dietary energy consumption and body weight gains. Chicks given the 4% lactose in their water showed the symptoms of diarrhea but their feed consumption and weight gains were not depressed. The 4% lactose treatment induced the highest consumption of feed and water. The total energy consumption was higher in chicks given the 4% sucrose or lactose than in those receiving the tap water. Chicks given the 4% sucrose solution had the highest weight gains. The 4% of either glucose or fructose did not induce any significant effect on any of the following: feed and water consumed, dietary energy consumed, total energy consumed and weight gains of chicks, when compared to the chicks receiving the tap water. Rungthip Burapharat Feed efficiency was not significantly different whether chicks were given the tap water or any kind of carbohydrate solutions. However, chicks given the 4% sucrose solution tended to have the best feed efficiency. Chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg consumed less diet and water than those chicks fed the diet contain- ing 2700 kcal/kg. The total energy consumed by chicks fed these two diets was not the same. Chicks fed the diet containing 3300 kcal/kg consumed more total energy and had heavier gains and better feed efficiency than those fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg.v Dietary energy and the 4% of various carbohydrate solutions did not affect the liver and pancreatic weights expressed as percent of body weights, and the percent of lipids in livers of chicks. To my parents ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is deeply grateful to Dr. D. Polin and Dr. T. H. Coleman for their expert advice and counsel throughout her graduate study, and for their attentive reading of this manuscript. Great appreciation is due Dr. E. R. Miller who also served on the thesis committee. The author is indebted to Dr. J. L. Gill for the statistical work, Dr. W. W. Wells for his discussion on the galactose toxicity. Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. H. C. Zindel, Chairman, Dr. R. K. Ringer, Dr. C. Flegal and other faculty members of the Department of Poultry Science for their interest and assistance. Special thanks are due Mr. S. Hulkonen for his several services.to prepare her experiments and Mr. R. Colombo and Mr. K. M. Chee for their help in handling the chicks. The author is also grateful to Mr. W. Gunn and Mrs. L. Johnson for their counseling in her English language and to Miss L. Farabaugh, Miss A. Assavanig and Miss W. Mokkhavesa for their dedication in typing some of this manuscript. Sincere appreciation is expressed to her brother, Kriengsak, her cousin, Mr. S. Katchamat, and her American host family, Mr. and Mrs. Gunn for their assistance and encouragement during her preparing of this manuscript. iii Above all, the author wishes to acknowledge her gratitude and indebtedness to her parents for their sacri- fice and encouragement throughout her educational career. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES................................. ...... .. INTRODUCTION.......... ..... ............. .............. . LITERATURE REVIEW.......................... ............ The sense of taste in the fowl...................... The classification and taste preference in the fowl. The preference of sugar solutions for the fowl...... The discrimination between carbohydrates by the fowl The influence of calories in a sugar solution on feed consumption by the fowl... ....... . ......... Absorption of sugar in the fowl .......... ..... ...... The effect of different carbohydrates on chick growth................. ........... . ...... . ...... Galactose toxicity............................. ..... Fructose tolerance.................................. Lactose tolerance................................... Effect of dietary sugars on hepatic lipogenesis in the fowl........................................ MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ........... ......... Experiment 1: The effect of glucose in drinking water on the feed energy consumed and performance of broiler-type chicks... Experiment 2: The effect of various carbohydrates in drinking water on the feed energy consumed and performance of broiler-' type chicks.......................... Analysis procedures........ ....... ......... ......... Statistical analysis................................ RESULTSOOOOOOO ..... 0.00.0.0...0.000.000.0000... ..... 0.. Experiment IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Feed and water consumed.......................... Dietary energy consumed.... ..... ............ ..... "Water-energy" consumed.......................... Total energy consumed............................ Dietary energy consumed and "water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed.............................-........ V 18 22 25 26 27 »27 27 31 33 34 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Body weight gain and feed efficiency... Liver weight and pancreatic weight..... Mortality............. ..... ............ Experiment 2................ Feed and water consumed.. Dietary energy consumed.. "Water-energy" consumed.. Total energy consumed.... Dietary energy consumed and "water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumEdoooooo0.0000004000000000...ono Body weight gain and feed efficiency... ..... ... Liver weight and lipids in liver...... ......... Pancreatic weight. 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Mortality. O O O O 000000000000 O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O 0 DISCUSSION. ..... 00...... ..... 0.. O. O ........ O ....... CONCLUSIONOOOOOOOUOOOO0.00.0.0... BIBLIOGRAPHY........IOOOOOOOOOO APPENDIX.... ......... . ............................... vi 51 53 56 57 63 7O 74 79 10 11 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Design of Experiment 1........................ Composition of 3 rations.. ..... . .......... .... Nutrient composition of 3 rations... ..... ..... Design of Experiment 2........................ Feed consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1........................... Water consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1........................... Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1....... Dietary energy consumed by chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment l................. "Water-energy" consumed by chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 1................. Total energy consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment l..................... Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment l.00..00..0.00. Body weight gain of chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment l........................... Feed efficiency by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1..................... ...... Liver weight in Experiment 1......... ......... vii 19 20 21 23 28 30 31 32 34 35 37 37 38 40 41 Table 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Liver weight expressed as percent of body weight in Experiment l............. ......... Pancreatic weight in Experiment 1...... ......... Pancreatic weight expressed as percent of body weight in Experiment 1................ ...... Feed consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2.0.0.0..........OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO Water consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2........OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... .0. Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2.... ...... ...... Dietary energy consumed by chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2.................. ..... "Water-energy" consumed by chicks during 19—day trial in Experiment 2....................... Total energy consumed by chicks during l9-day trial in Experiment 2......... ...... ........ Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during l9-day trial in Experiment 2............... "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 2............. ..... Body weight gain of chicks during l9-day trial in Experiment 2 ....... .... ...... .... ....... Feed efficiency of chicks during l9-day trial in Experiment 2.. ...... ... ..... . ......... .. Liver weight in Experiment 2. ...... . ........... Percent lipids in the liver in Experiment 2.... Liver weight expressed as percent of body weight in Experiment 2............ ...... ... Pancreatic weight in Experiment 2 .............. Pancreatic weight expressed as percent of body weight in Experiment 2................ ..... Chick mortality in Experiment 2 ................ viii Page 41 42 42 44 44 46 46 so 51 52 53 54 56 58 58 59 59 61 61 Table A-1 Feed consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 1.0.0.0000.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Feed consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1 Feed consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1.............. Water consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 10.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOIOOOOOI’O Water consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1 Water consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1.............. Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 1................. Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment l....................... Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment l...O.............OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO Dietary energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 1...................... Dietary energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1................................ Dietary energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1.... "Water-energy" consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 1......OOCCOCCCCOCCOOI. "Water-energy" consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment l...0.0.0.0.........OOOOIOOOOOOOO "Water-energy" consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1.... Total energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 1...................... ix Page 79 8O 80 81 82 82 83 84 84 85 86 86 87 88 88 89 Table A-l7 Total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment l.........OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOO0.0. Total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1... Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent total energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in Experiment 1. Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1.... "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment l................. "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in Experiment 1.. "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1..... Body weight gain of chicks during each period in Experiment 1....... Body weight gain of chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Body weight gain of chicks fed different levels 0 dietary energy in Experiment l................ Feed efficiency by chicks during each period in Experiment 1................................. Feed efficiency by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Feed efficiency by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1... Liver weight and percent liver weight in Experime 10ooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooono... X 90 91 92 93 94 94 95 . 96 f 96 . 97 . 98 , 98 nt . 99 Table A-32 Page Pancreatic weight and percent pancreatic weight in Experiment IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. 100 Feed consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 2.....00...........OOOOOOOOOOO... 101 Feed consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2... 102 Feed consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2.............. 102 Water consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 2.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 103 Water consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2.... 104 Water consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2............... 104 Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 2.................. 105 Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2........................ 106 Ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2................................. 106 Dietary energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 107 Dietary energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in . Experiment 2.......................... ....... 108 Dietary energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2..... 108 Metabolizable energy of various sugars used in Experiment 200............OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO... 109 "Water-energy" consumed by chicks during each _. periOd in Experiment ZOOOOOOCOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO 110 "Water-energy" consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2.......................... ...... . 111 xi Table A-48 Page "Water-energy" consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2.... 111 Total energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 2...................... 112 Total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2............OOOOIOIIOOOOO...0.0. 113 Total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2.... 113 Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks during each period in Experiment 2...................... 114 Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in Experiment 2. 115 Dietary energy consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2.... 115 "water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy by chicks during each period in Experiment 2................................ 116 "Water-energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2....................... 117 "Water-energy" consumed eXpressed as percent of total energy consumed by chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2..... 117 Body weight gain of chicks during each period in Experiment 2.0.0.0'00000......ICOOCIOOOCOOOIOO 118 Body weight gain of chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2. 119 Body weight gain of chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2............ 119 Feed efficiency by chicks during each period in Experiment 2...............OCOOOOOOOOOOOI.... 120 Feed efficiency by chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 2. 121 xii Table A-63 Page Feed efficiency by chicks fed different levels. of dietary energy in Experiment 2..........121 Liver weight, percent liver weight and lipids.. in liver in Experiment 2...................122 Pancreatic weight and percent pancreatic weight in Experiment 2.00............OOOOOOOOOOOO.123 Chick mortality during each period in Experiment 2...............................124 xiii INTRODUCTION Most of the research reported in poultry nutrition would suggest that poultry eat to satisfy an inner craving for energy. The craving for energy influences feed consumption. Therefore, energy content in the diet affects feed consump- tion. As the energy concentration of the diet increases, the feed consumption decreases and vice versa. That is true if all energy is obtained from the diet. However, if you put some energy in drinking water of chick- ens, does the energy content in drinking water affect the amount of feed and water consumed? Are chickens able to adjust their feed and water consumptions to maintain a relatively constant energy consumed? Does the energy content in drinking water improve the body weight gain and feed efficiency? ' In this study, sugar was selected to be a source of energy in drinking water. . The objectives of this study were: 1. To determine the effect of adding 2, 4 and 8% of glucose in drinking water (when the dietary energy levels were 2,700, 3,000 and 3,300 kcal/kg), on feed and water consump- tions, dietary energy consumed, total energy consumed, body weight gain, feed efficiency, and liver and pancreatic weights of chicks. 2. To compare the effect of adding 4% of various carbohydrates (glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and .lactose) in drinking water (when the dietary energy levels were 2,700 and 3,300 kcal/kg), on feed and water consump- tions, dietary energy consumed, total energy consumed, body weight gain, feed efficiency, chick mortality, liver and pancreatic weights, and lipid content in livers of chicks. LITERATURE REVIEW Sugar was selected to be a source of energy in drinking water, since the fowl rejected water mixed with either oil or protein (Kare and Maller, 1967). The degree of acceptance of sugar (glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose, and lactose) in drinking water by chicks has been reported by many resear— chers (Englemann, 1937; Jacobs and Scott, 1957; Kare st 31., 1957; Kare and Medway, 1959). The details are given in a subsequent section of this review. The sense of taste in the fowl The sense of taste in the fowl has been studied because it might have some influence on the fowl's response to a sweet solution. Most of the research on taste has used the preference test to measure the sensitivity of birds to taste stimuli. Flavor is a much more effective stimulus to chicks in water than in feed (Kare gt al., 1957). Usually, the chemical to be tested is placed in an aqueous solution and the fowl is given a choice between the mixture and pure water. Kare and his co—workers have demonstrated behaviourally that the fowl has a sense of taste (Kare gt a1., 1957; Kare and Medway, 1959; Kare and Pick, 1960; Fuerst and Kare, 1962; Kare and Ficken, 1963; Kare and Maller, 1967). The sensory receptors of taste are called taste buds. They are the clusters of cells lying in the cavities in the tongue's epithelium. Avian taste buds were found by Botezart (1904), Bath (1906), and Lindenmaier and Kare (1959). 4 The classification and tastegpreference in the fowl Englemann (1934) studied chickens' choices between solu- tions that were acidic, salty, sweet and bitter. He found that there was a strong preference for the sugar solution. Man's taste preference for sour, salty, sweet and bitter is different from fowl's (Kare 33 a1., 1957). For example, colocycynth pulp is bitter but acceptable to the fowl. Quinine and cocillana, also in man's bitter category, were rejected by the fowl. Honey and strawberry flaVors, which are sweet and pleasant to man were almost totally rejected by the fowl, while they only moderately rejected saccharine and showed a variable degree of preference for sucrose. The one salt (sodium chloride) and the sour flavors that were tested were rejected. The chicks accepted sodium chloride solution only up to about 0.9% (Pick and Kare, 1962). However, mag- nesium chloride was acceptable (Englemann, 1937). In the acid category, 0.05% HCl was preferred by Bobwhites to distilled water (Brindley and Prior, 1968). The preference of sugar solution for the fowl The reaction of the chicken to sugar has been reported' by many researchers. Trials indicated that glucose and sucrose solutions were generally slightly preferred to water. Englemann (1937) observed that sugar solutions (sucrose, fructose and maltose) were clearly preferred over water, and saccharine was least preferred, Jacobs and Scott (1957) reported that chicks preferred 12% sucrose solution, but re- jected saccharine. Kare 35 El. (1957) also observed that 5 chicks moderately preferred the 10% sucrose solution. How- ever, Kare and Medway (1959) suggested that the slightly greater consumption of the sucrose solution might not indicate a true preference for sucrose, because uncontrolled variables might be involved (such as the pH of unbuffered water). Thus, the fowl was not reacting to sucrose alone. Duncan (1960) observed that birds had a slight preference for sucrose at concentrations of about 15%. Japanese quail significantly preferred a 0.30 M sucrose solution over distilled water (Harriman and Milner, 1969). Fructose, galactose and lactose, in 5% solutions were accepted by chicks equally with distilled water (Kare and Medway, 1959). In contrast to the report of Kare and Medway (1959), Gentle (1972) reported that glucose was rejected at 5% and above. With glucose there were two tendencies; five of the birds showed a definite preference for 1%, and the other five were indifferent to all concentrations up to all 30%. Gentle (1972) also reported a preference by Brown Leghorn chickens for the 5% sucrose solution, as well as a rejection of the 30% sucrose solution. The discrimination between carbohydrates by the fowl Aside from taste, there are several other factors which might influence the fowl's response to sugar solution. Kare and Medway (1959) studied the fowl's reaction to different carbohydrates in solution. Some of the sugars tested were glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and lactose. Chicks were offered a choice ofa sugar solution or distilled water. 6 Results indicated that the fowl can discriminate among carbo- hydrates. The reason for this discrimination was unknown. The pattern of discrimination indicated that sweetness in sugar, as the human recognizes it, was not attractive to the fowl. The fowl divided its drinking from two waterers almost evenly, regardless of whether both contained water or one contained sucrose solution. This pattern of indifference was observed for glucose, the substantially less sweet lactose, and the slightly sweeter fructose as described by Cameron (1947) and Schutz and Pilgrim (1957). Kare and Medway (1959) also reported that the level of sugar had little, if any, influence on the actual intake or selection. Despite the varying of solutions with 2.5% up to 20% glucose or sucrose, chicks accepted them equally with water. This reinforced the fact that the fowl was indif; ferent to glucose and sucrose. When the concentration reached 25%, moderate rejection of the sucrose solution was encountered. The physical or chemical quality of the individual sugars (i.e., viscosity, concentration, osmotic pressure, melting point, refractive index, density, etc.) could not be used to predict reliably how a chick on an adequate diet would respond to the various sugar solutions (Kare and Medway, 1959). With 5% solutions of lactose, galactose and fructose, there was no apparent discrimination between these sugar solutions and water. The influence of calories in a sugar solution on feed consumption by the fowl Chicks tended to discriminate between natural and synthe- tic sweeteners. Some researchers have reported that the fowl rejected synthetic sugar such as saccharine while a sucrose solution was preferred (Englemann, 1937; Jacobs and Scott, 1957). Jacobs and Scott (1957) prepared experiments to de- termine whether a solution's caloric value might influence the fowl's reaction to sugar. They reported that the fowl's preference for sucrose was apparently not related to its caloric value, because after being injected with a highly concentrated dextrose solution, most of the chicks failed to reject the sucrose solution. However, Rare and Ficken (1963) indicated that fowl will respond to the calories in a sugar solution by regulating their food and fluid intake. That is, when food was limited to 75% of that consumed by the controls, the intake and selection of sucrose solution increased. Kare and Maller (1967) observed the response of fowl (6-7 weeks old) to a sucrose solution when the caloric density of the diet was increased or decreased. The chicks were fed one of three rations: basal diet, a calorically diluted diet (contained 25% cellulose) and a calorically enriched diet (contained 25% corn oil). The two choices of fluids available were water and a 10% sucrose solution. This 10% solution was selected by the authors because it was found to produce near maximal preference and intake 8 by chicks (Rare and Ficken, 1963). The results showed that chickens receiving a basal diet or those fed a calorically enriched diet neither selected nor rejected sucrose. How- ever, with the calorically diluted diet the sucrose solution was selected over water (64%). The caloric intake of the fowl with the enriched diet was significantly greater (P<.01) than that of the control birds. There was a small numerical increase in grams of food consumed with the diluted diet by the birds receiving only water. However, this increase was not significant. The calories supplied by the drinking water did not affect weight gain. Absorption of sugar in the fowl Emslie and Henry (1933) studied the absorption of glu- cose, galactose and lactose in young chicks. The sugars were administered in 56% aqueous solutions. The absorption periods were 1.5, 3.0, 4.5 and 6 hours. The three sugars were absorbed at the following rates: glucose >galactose> lactose. There was a progressive decrease in the rate of absorption of each sugar with time. Golden and Long (1942) studied the rate of intestinal absorption of glucose in the chick. A rate of 400 mgm per hour per 100 grams of body weight was found. This rate remained constant over a 4- hour absorption period, while liver glycogen and muscle gly- cogen rose. This indicated that either the chick had a great ability to oxidize glucose or it was able to convert a large amount of glucose into fat. Bogner (1957) reported that the relative absorption rates of sugar fed to chicks (2 weeks of age) were as fol- lows: galactose >g1ucose >xylose >fructose. Chicks three days old and chicks two weeks old absorbed glucose at simir lar rates. Bogner (1961) and Bogner and Haines (1961) agreed that the absorption of glucose was not fully deve- loped until the chick was two or three days of age. .Brown (1971) studied the absorption of sucrose by chicks. He reported that the absorptive activity for sucrose in- creased in the intestines of chick embryos, reaching a maximum at 19 days. This decreased at 20 days and then after hatching rose in certain parts of the intestine, i.e. the ileum and jejunum. Absorption decreased in the duodenum. Rutter 33 21- (1953) fed chicks a diet of 30% lactose. Small amounts of lactose were found in blood carbohydrates, but there was no evidence of galactose. This suggested that chicks were not able to hydrolyze lactose to galactose and glucose. Lactase, which is present in mammals, is absent in chickens. This might explain why lactose was not hydro- lyzed and was poorly absorbed in the intestinal tract. The effect of different carbohydrates on chick growth Monson 33 _l. (1950) studied the effect of different carbohydrates (dextrin, sucrose, lactose and cerelose) on chick growth. Chicks (1 day of age) were fed a semi-purified ration containing 60% carbohydrates for four weeks. At the end of that period it was found that those chicks fed dex- trin weighed 276 g, those fed cerelose 259 g, those fed sucrose 206 g, and those fed lactose 149 g. The 10 feathering and general appearance of the birds receiving dextrin, cerelose, or sucrose were excellent. However, with- in a week the chicks on the lactose diets developed severe diarrhea, which lasted throughout the test period. These birds showed no decrease in feed consumption, and they con- sumed about twice the amount of water consumed by the other birds, indicating the extent of diarrhea. I To get a clearer understanding of the intestinal ef- fects, Monson gt gt.(1950) determined the time necessary for food to pass through the chick's digestive tract. The following showed the excretion time of chickens (2 weeks of age) fed various carbohydrates: dextrin (140 minutes), sucrose (115 minutes), and lactose (77 minutes). Based on these results, the authors suggested that dextrin allows more time for synthesis to take place, since chicks fed this. ration retained the food longer. This extra time may allow additional synthesis of some unknown chick growth factors.. Paul and Hans (1963) fed chicks the following diets, containing 58% carbohydrates: starch, sucrose, fructose, glucose or invert sugar (a mixture of equal parts of fruc- tose and glucose). The results showed that the birds grew best with sucrose or starch. Their growths were poor on fructose and intermediate on glucose and invert sugar. The authors observed that the fructose diet, in comparison with both the starch and glucose diets, decreased passage time of food through the intestinal tract. They also observed that sucrose was well hydrolyzed by the chicken, even in early 11 life, and it promoted growth comparable to that obtained with glucose or starch. Chalupa and Fisher (1963) found that on a low-protein diet (13%) a mixture of glucose (38% of diet), starch (28%) and dextrin (5%) promoted better growth than any single car- bohydrate (71% of diet). When using a single carbohydrate, they obtained better results with sucrose alone than with starch, glucose or dextrose, alone. Galactose toxicity The toxic effect of high galactose diets fed to chicks has been described by Dam (1944). Young chicks fed a 54.6% galactose diet developed violent convulsions and died after several days. There was a high concentration of galactose in the blood during the convulsions, but blood glucose was normal. Hepatic glycogen was almost zero, but muscle glyco- gen was about normal. Rutter gt gt. (1953) found that chicks tolerated galac- tose up to 10% but greater amounts resulted in epileptiform convulsions and sometimes death, with a high level of galactose in the blood. These investigators injected uri- dine diphosphate glucose (UDPG), a coenzyme in the transfor- mation of galactose to glucose; toxicity symptoms were not eliminated. Apparently, galactose poisoning was not merely the result of the absence of a single enzyme or co-factor in the galactose to glucose transformation. However, Hansen t al.(1956) reported that the avian liver content of UDPG was reduced in galactose poisoning. 12 Sondergaard gt gt.(1957) observed that chicks reared on a 50% galactose diet showed signs of ataxia, tremors, con- vulsions and loss of weight, and blood uric acid was found to be markedly elevated. Kidneys from galactose-poisoned chicks showed degeneration of cells in the glomeruli and tubuli. Substitution of cornstarch for galactose after 7 days of galactose feeding resulted in resumption of growth, normal behavior and normal blood uric acid in spite of the fact that the histological picture of kidneys was not normal 7 days after the diet was changed. (Rigdon gt gt.(1963) studied the changes in chicks fed galactose in concentrations greater than 10% and found histologic lesions in the brain, as well as some neuron degeneration. They suggested that an excessive amount of galactose in young chicks in some manner injured neurons, probably by acting through some local enzymatic system. Kozak and Wells (1969) investigated the biochemistry of galactose toxicity in the chick brain. Galactose neuroto- xicity was induced by feeding chicks a diet containing 40% (w/w) galactose for 48 hours and was accompanied by depress- ed levels of brain ATP, phosphocreatine and glycolytic intermediate. At the same time, increase in AMP, ADP and inorganic phosphate were found suggesting that ATP and phosphocreatine metabolize more rapidly in the galactose- poisoned chicks. The authors suggested that the lower level of brain phospholipids might be linked to the seizure and quivering syndrome of galactose toxicity. The 13 indication here was that one of the main reasons for galac— tose toxicity was that this sugar interfered with the normal glycolytic and other energy-yielding processes of the cell. Malone gt _l, (1971) reported that severe hyperosmolar dehydration in their chicks (1 day of age) given galactose in drinking water (10% w/v) might be responsible for the entire galactose toxicity syndrome. They found that the serum osmolalities of chicks after being given galactose for 2 days were greater than those of control chicks. Removal of galactose resulted in the return of serum osmolality to normal values in 24 hours. Knull gt_gt. (1972) also studied hyperosmolality, and they proposmithat it was not the major factor responsible for the galactose toxicity syndrome in the chicks. They suggest- ed that galactose affected brain energy metabolism by inter- fering with the supply of glucose to the brain. In their experiment, the plasma osmolality of the severely disabled chicks was greater than that of the control chicks. The injection of glucose slightly elevated the osmolality but it temporarily reversed the neurotoxicity. During the recovery phase, the brain concentrations of ATP, phosphocreatine, and glucose return to normal values. Knull and Wells (1973) also reported that the galactose- toxicity was not due to hyperosmolality. They induced hyperosmolality in chicks by giving them galactose (40% w/w in diet), xylose (5% w/w in drinking water) or saline (0.16 M in drinking water), and compared the resultant osmolality 14 value to that of the control group (335, 347, 352 vs. 309 milliosmoles/kg, respectively). The osmolality of the plasma from chicks fed galactose was the lowest of the three experimental groups, yet it was the only group in which neurotoxicity was observed. The chicks with galactose toxicity recovered from both physical and biochemical symp- toms temporarily when they were injected with glucose. Within 20 minutes after the glucose injection, the levels of ATP, AMP, plasma glucose and brain glucose returned to the normal range. Therefore, these authors concluded that the dietary galactose induced neurotoxicity in chicks primary by inhibition of glucose transport across the blood-brain barrier. Fructose tolerance A diet containing high levels of fructose was tolerated well by the domestic fowl. Pearce (1970) fed pullets (aged 7-8 weeks) a 70% fructose diet. Birds accepted this diet equally as the control diet, and their weight gains were the same. Lactose tolerance Several investigations of lactose utilization in the fowl have been reported. Shaw (1913) observed that chickens fed milk alone died three days after hatching. An autopsy showed an intense inflammation of the gastrointestinal mem- branes. Hamilton and Card (1924) reported a similar irritation when mature chickens were fed lactose mixed 15 with moist mash. Diarrhea resulted when a chicken consumed more than two grams of lactose per day. Beach and Davis (1925), Kline gt_gt, (1932) and Ashcraft (1933) have demonstrated that lactose lowered the pH of intestinal con- tents. Rutter gt gt. (1953) reported that chicks given a diet containing 20% lactose did not have impaired growth rate. In addition, there was no obvious change in physiological well-being. Above this level, however, feeding lactose caused growth impairment, diarrhea, and a "crooked toe" de- formity, in proportion to the level fed. A quantitative examination of blood sugars revealed the presence of small amounts of lactose, but not galactose, in the blood. These observations indicated that the young chick was unable to hydrolyze lactose. Effect of dietary sugars on hepatic lipogenesis in the fowl Hepatic lipogenesis responded to dietary variations. Yeh and Leveille (1969) reported that hepatic lipogenesis in growing chicks was reduced at the expense of carbohydrate when the protein content of their diet was increased. (Masoro gt gt. (1950) studied the glucose conversion to fatty acids in liver slices of rat. They concluded that the diet- ary carbohydrate was essential for maintenance of the capacity of hepatic tissue to convert glucose to fatty acids. Leveille gt gt. (1968) also reported that at least 90% of the total lipid synthesized from glucose or acetate in the fowl was of hepatic origin. 16 The rate of lipogenesis in chick embryos was very low (Schoenheimer and Rittenberg,1936: Kilsheimer gt gt., 1960). Goodridge (1969) studied change in the rate of hepatic lipo- genesis occurring in the embryos and chicks from 16 days of incubation to 30 days after hatching. Results indicated that the development of lipogenesis occurred rapidly after newly hatched chicks were fed, involving a marked increase in the rate of fatty acid synthesis. The author suggested that the increase in lipogenesis was associated with an increase in the catabolism of glucose. The increase in the metabolism of glucose that occurred after hatching was probably due to the change from a high-fat, non-carbohydrate diet (yolk) to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. Heald (1962; 1963) and Hawkins and Heald (1966) during investigations of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism of domestic fowls, noted that the metabolism of fructose and glucose by avian liver slices was quantitatively different. Fructose stimulated the rate of respiration of liver slices more than did glucose, and also more lipid accumulated in slices incubated in the presence of fructose than in the presence of glucose. These results indicated a greater rate of lipogenesis from fructose than from glucose (Hawkins and Heald, 1966). Hepatic cholesterol concentrations in chic- kens were greater after feeding sucrose than after feeding glucose or starch. This suggested that the increased cholesterol synthesis was due to the fructose moiety of sucrose (Kritchevsky et al., 1959: Grant and Fahrenbach, 17 1959). Pearce (1970) studied the effect of dietary fructose and glucose on hepatic lipogenesis in the fowl. Immature pullets (aged 7-8 weeks) were fasted for 48 hours and refed diets containing either 70% fructose or glucose, or a cereal-based control diet for 4 days. The results showed no significant difference in the body weights among birds fed the three diets. The liver weights (expressed as percentage of body weight) of birds fed the three different diets were as follows: 3.56 (fructose), 3.12 (glucose) and 2.73 (control). These three values were significantly different. The liver lipid content was greatest in birds fed the fructose diet (97.7 mg/g fresh liver), intermediate in birds fed the glucose diet (55.3) and lowest in the con- trol group (47.2). The authors suggested that the increased rate of lipogenesis with fructose, as compared with glucose, might thus reflect the relative ease with which the chicken could convert fructose to acetyl 00A. The metabolism of fructose via fructose-l-phosphate would account for these differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experiment 1. The effect of glucose in drinking water on the feed energy consumed and performance of broiler-type chicks. Broiler-type chicks (heavy cross-breed male chicks) one day-old, were purchased from Fairview Farms, Remington, Indiana. Clintose (a commercial name for glucose mono- hydrate obtained from Clintose Feed Manufacturers, Clintose, Iowa) was used as a glucose source and contained 9.1% moisture. This experiment was performed with three selected energy levels of diets, 2700, 3000, and 3300 kcal/kg, in combination with either none or each of three levels of glucose concentrations in drinking water, 2, 4 and 8%. The concentration of protein in all diets was kept at a constant 24.1%. There were 12 combinations and 2 replica- tions for each treatment. The design of the experiment is shown in Table 1. Chicks, 2 days of age, were wingbanded and individually weighed before starting the experiment. Eight chicks were randomly distributed into each of 24 cages. The chicks were raised at the Michigan State University Poultry Science Research and Teaching Center. All chicks were placed in electrically heated batteries equipped with raised wire floors. There was only one experiment in the room and the light was provided for 24 hours. The length of the experiment was 19 days with 5 periods. Each period was 4 days, with the exception of the last 18 19 Table 1. Design of Experiment 1. Metabo- lizable Level of glucose in drinking water (%) energy in diet no glucose , (tap water) 2% 4A 8% no. no. no. no. (kcal/ birds 0. birds no. birds no birds no. kg) per groups per groups per groups per groups group group group group 2700 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 3000 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 3300 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 period which was only 3 days. period. Data were recorded for each The chicks were fed gg libitum one of three rations shown in Table 2. shown in Table 3. Glucose solutions concentrations of 2. 4 and 8%. too small to supply enough water for each period, known amount of drinking water were added daily. The nutrient composition of rations is Drinking water was continuously available were mixed from Clintose and tap water in The water containers were so the Eva- porations of each kind of drinking water were determined from four water containers which contained the four different kinds of drinking water (0, 2, 4, and 8% glucose), and they were placed on the floor near the batteries. tainers were cleaned at the end of each period. All water con-' Feed 20 Table 2. Composition of 3 rations Ingredient Energy level in rations (kcal/kg) 2700 3000 3300 ppt ppt ppt Wheat midd, lings 181 --- --- Corn 412.5 546.9 491.8 Soybean meal (48% protein) 320.5 339 335 Corn gluten meal --- 19 33 Menhaden fish meal, 60% protein 25 25 25 Alfalfa meal 27 25 16 Corn oil 4.5 6.4 50 Tallow --- 4.6 14 Dicalcium phosphate 14.5 15.6 16.7 Limestone 5.6 9.4 9.4 Iodized salt 2.5 2.5 2.5 Methionine hydroxyanalog, 88% Methionine 0.98 0.6 0.6 Vitamin mix 38 3a 38 Mineral mix 3b 3b 3b 1000.08 1000 1000 Supplied the following per kg of diet: Vitamin A, 11000 IU; Vitamin D3, 1100 IU; Vitamin E, 11 IU: Vitamin K, 2.2 mg; Thiamine, 2.2 mg; Riboflavin, 4.4 mg; Pantothenic acid, 14.3 mg; Niacin, 33 mg; Pyridoxine, 1320 mg; Folacin, 1.32 mg; Supplied the following per 4.4 mg; Biotin, 0.13 mg; Choline, Vitamin B12, 0.011 mg. kg of diet; Manganese, 40 mg; Zinc, 20 mg; Copper, 9.9 mg; Iron, 20 mg; Magnesium, 490 mg; Selenium, 0.15 mg. 21 * Table 3. Nutrient composition of 3 rations Item Energy level in rations (kcal/kg) 2700 3000 3300 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) calculation 2703 3005 3304 Crude protein, % 24.1 24.1 24.1 Lysine, % 1.37 1.4 1.5 Methionine, % 0.47 0.47 0.47 Cystine, % 0.4 0.4 0.4 Calcium, % 1.0 1.0 1.0 Phosphorus, available, % 0.5 0.5 0.5 Linoleic acid, % 1.5 1.6 3.6 *calculated and drinking water in the containers were collected back for measuring the feed consumption and the amount of water lost in each period. The water consumption was the difference between the water lost and water evaporated. Chicks were weighed by group at the end of each of the first four periods. All chicks were weighed individually on day 19. Average daily gain in gm, average daily feed con- sumption in gm, average daily water consumption in m1, and feed to gain ratio were calculated and recorded. Average daily energy consumed in feed and water were calculated 22 in kcal and expressed as percentage of the total daily energy consumption. The ratio of amounts of feed to water in gm/ml, and the mortality of each period were recorded. Overall re- sults of the experiment for days 0 to 19 were also calcu- lated. At the end of the experiment all chicks were killed with chloroform. The pancreases and livers were removed and weighed individually. The values were calculated as percen- tage of body weight. Experiment 2. The effect of various carbohydrates in drink— ing water on the feed energy consumed and performance of broiler-type chicks. Broiler-type chicks (heavy cross-breed chicks), one day- old, were purchased from Fairview Farms, Remington, Indiana. Sucrose (crystals) and D-glucose (anhydrous) were obtained from'Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis, Missouri. Lactose (N.R.C. grade), D-galactose (anhydrous) and D-fruc- tose (N.R.C. grade) were purchased from Pfanstiehl Labora- tories, Inc., Waukegan, Illinois. This experiment was performed with two selected energy levels of diets, 2700 and 3300 kcal/kg, in combination with either none or each of five different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water, 4% glucose, 4% galactose, 4% fructose, 4% sucrose or 4% lactose. There were 12 combinations and 2 replications for each combination. The design of the experiment is shown in Table 4. The 4% of carbohydrates solution was selected because of the results from Experiment 1. Glucose at 4% in the drinking water was the second 23 N m N m N m N m N m N m comm N m N m N m N m N m N w ooNN asouw asouw aaouw aaouw macaw asouw maaouw you mnaouw Hon mnaouw Hon masouw non mnsouw you maaouw you .on mvuwn .oz mmuan .o: mmuan .0: mph“: .oa woman .0: mwuan .0: .on .o: .o: .0: .oc wx\amoxv uoww aw omouoma nq mmouosm Ne omouosuu Ne mmouomamw No omoosaw Ne Hausa emu hwumao oHnmNfiH noun? wcaxcwuw ca mmumuv%£onumo Ionmuoz .N ucmfiwumaxm mo cwwmoa .q maamH 24 minimum level which started to affect the energy consumed from feed by the broiler-type chicks (see Table 8). Diets at 2700 and 3300 kcal/kg were selected because they illus- trated more clearly the different effect on feed energy consumed than did the diets at 3000 to 3300 kcal/kg, or the diets at 2700 to 3000 kcal/kg. Chicks, 2 days of age, were wingbanded, individually weighed and randomly assigned to cages with 8 birds in each grOup. This experiment was conducted in the experimental room of the Poultry Science building. Chicks were placed in electrically heated batteries equipped with raised wire floors. There were other experiments in the room and the light was provided for 14 hours. The length of the experi- ment and experimental period was the same as in Experiment 1. Data were also recorded for each period. Feed was provided gg libitum. The composition of the two rations (2700 and 3300 kcal/kg) is shown in Table 2. Drinking water was continuously available. Each kind of carbohydrate: glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and lactose was mixed with tap water at a concentration of 4%. The known amounts of drinking water were added daily to supply enough water for each period. Evaporations of each kind of drinking water were determined from six containers which held the six different kinds of drinking water (at 4% of glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose, lactose and tap water), and they were placed on the shelf in the experimental room. Feed and water consumptions were 25 measured in the same way as in Experiment 1. The collected data were the same as in Experiment 1, At the end of the experiment, all chicks were killed with chloroform. Their pancreases and livers were removed and individually weighed. The livers were stored by group in one plastic bag and kept frozen until analyzed for lipids. Analysis procedures The liver samples in each group were crushed and mixed together. The lipid analysis was done by group. Each group had four replications. The lipids in livers were extrac— ted by using the method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues (Folch gt _t., 1957). Accurately , 5.0 gm of a lipid sample were weighed out and placed in a Virtis homogenizer vessel. Approximately 20 ml of 2:1 chloroform-methanol solution (v/v) was added. Then the samples were homogenized for 5 min. The homoge- nates were filtered through glass wool into a 50 ml centri- fuge tube. The filter was rinsed with 2:1 chloroform- methanol until the filtrate was clear. The filtrate was separated into two equal portions in two 50 ml centrifuge tubes. Ten ml of aqueous CaClZ 0.02% were added to each centrifuge tube, the contents stirred vigorously, and the tubes centrifuged at 2800 RPM for 5 minutes. As a result of the centrifugation, the solutions in the tubes were. separated into two layers. The lipid solution (the bottom layer) from both centrifuge tubes was removed with a syringe and a blunt ended 6" stainless steel needle, and placed 26 in a dried, weighed beaker. The beaker was placed in a hood and the chloroform evaporated under an air stream. When the sample was completely dry, the beaker was weighed. The percentage of liver lipids was determined by this formula: 100 gm = sample lipid weight 1 Lipid / wet liver sample liver weight X 00 Statistical analysis All data were analyzed by the f—test through the use of a Litronix 2270 calculatorl, with the exception of feed consumed, water consumed and body weight gain from Experiment 1. These data were subjected to analysis of variance by the 2 at the Michigan State University use of a CDC 6500 computer computer laboratory. Data which were expressed as per- centages and proportions were transferred into a variable meeting the assumption of the analysis of variance by the use of the angular transformation3. The mean treatment values were compared to each other by Tukey's (1953) all pairs comparison test at x = 0.05. 1 Litronix 2270, statistical model, Cupertino, California. 2Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3The Angular Transformation, Table K, page 129: Statistical Tables of F. James Rohlf and Robert R. Sokal. Copyright 1969 by W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. RESULTS 0n the study of the effect of interaction between the sugars in drinking water and the dietary energy on all data collected on each experimental period in both experiments, the data were tested by the use of analysis of variance. The results indicated that there were significant effects of interaction on some parameters collected from some periods in both experiments. However there was no signi- ficant effect of interaction on any data measured for the results of the l9-day trial in either experiments. Experiment 1 Feed and water consumed: Shown in Table 5 is the average feed consumed by chicks receiving various levels of glucose in tap water from two-day old to 20 days of age (19-day trial). Feed consumption by chicks decreased as the level of either dietary energy or glucose in drinking water increased. Feed consumed was highest (646 gm) in groups of chicks given the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg and the tap water. The lowest amount of feed consumed (455 gm) was by groups of chicks that were given the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the glucose solution at 8%. Chicks receiving the glucose solutions at 2% or 4% consumed slightly less feed than those given the tap water (Table 5). Chicks given the 8% glucose solution reduced their feed consumed (P <.05) as compared to those given the glucose solutions at 2%, 4% or the tap water (Table 5). 27 28 Table 5. Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Feed consumed (gm/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * t (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 646 570 581 533 5833 3000 588 565 547 473 543ab 3300 568 540 545 455 527b * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 601a 558a 558a 487b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. The reduction in feed consumption by chicks given the high level of glucose in drinking water or dietary energy occurred as early as the first period of the trial (Appendix Table 2 and 3). This indicated that the solutions of glucose up to 8% and dietary energy (2700, 3000 and 3300 kcal/kg) were able to influence the feed consumed by chicks at a very early age. The daily feed consumption for chicks dur- ing each experimental period is shown in Appendix Table 1. In most periods, the amount of water consumed by chicks tended to be the same at any level of glucose treatment (0, 2, 4 or 8%), as shown in Appendix Table 5. However,. during the 19-day trial, chicks given the glucose at 4% or 8% in their water consumed moderately less water than 29 those given the tap water (Table 6). Significantly less water was consumed (P <.05) by chicks given the 2% glucose solution when compared to the amount consumed by chicks receiving the tap water (1364 vs. 1481 m1, Table 6). Water consumed by chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg was not significantly different in amount from that consumed by those fed the diet containing 3300 kcal/kg in most periods (Appendix Table 6). Chicks fed the diet that con? tained 3000 kcal/kg consumed less water than those fed the other two diets (Table 6). The detail of data on water con— sumed by chicks during each period is shown in Appendix Table 4. Ratio of feed to water consumption by chicks for the l9-day trial is shown in Table 7. Chicks receiving the 8% glucose solution had a lower ratio of feed to water consumed (P< .05) than those given the glucose solutions at 2%, 4% or the tap water (.34 vs .41, .41 or .39, reapecitvely). The results referred to the decrease (P< .05) in feed consump— tions for chicks given the glucose solution at 8% (Table 5) while their water consumptions were not significantly dif— ferent from chicks receiving the glucose solutions at 2%, 4% or the tap water (Table 6). There was no significant differences in the ratio of feed to water consumptions among chicks given the tap water or the glucose solutions at 2% or 4% in most periods (Appendix Table 8) and for the 19~day trial (Table 7). The ratioof feed to water consump~ tion for chicks fed the diet containing 3300 kcal/kg was I lower (P< .05) than for those chicks fed the diets that 30 Table 6. Water consumed by broiler—type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet. Water consumed (ml/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) . Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean (21* (2) <2) (2) (81* 2700 1507 1384 1491 1473 1464a 3000 1444 1299 1328 1336 1352b 3300 1491 1409 1432 1446 1445ab * . (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 1481a 1364b 1417ab 1418ab * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. 85b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. c0ntained 2700-or 3000 kcal/kg in most periods (Appendix Table 9) and for the 19—day trial (Table 7). This result was due to the reduction in feed consumed by chicks fed the high energy diet (3300 kcal/kg) while their water consump- tions were not significantly different from those chicks fed the low energy diets (2700 and 3000 kcal/kg). Chicks that consumed the 2% glucose solution drank less water (P< .05) during the 19-day trial than those given the tap water. However, the ratio of feed to water consumed by these two treatments was the same (.41 vs. .41, Table 7). Although the chicks that were fed the diet that contained 3000 kcal/kg consumed less water (P <.05) than those fed 31 Table 7. Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19—day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean <2)* (2) <2) <2) (8)* 2700 .42 .40 .39 .36 .40a 3000 .41 .43 .41 .35 .40a 3300 .37 .36 .38 .31 .36b * (6) (6) _ (6) (6) mean .41a .41a .39a .34b represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg the ratio of feed and water was the same (.40 vs. .40, Table 7). This was due to less diet being consumed by chicks fed the diet that con- tained 3300 kcal/kg than by those fed the diet that contain- ed 2700 kcal/kg. Dietary energy consumed: During the l9-day trial, the chicks receiving each successively higher level of glucose in their water had a lower consumption in dietary energy as shown in Table 8. The dietary energy consumed by chicks given either tap water or the glucose solutions at 2, 4 or 8% were 1795, 1671, 1669 and 1453 kcal, respectively. This was a result of the decrease in feed consumption when 32 Table 8. Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean <2)* (2) <2) <2) (81* 2700 1746 1540 1568 1439 1573a 3000 1763 1691 1640 1419 1628a 3300 1876 1782 1799 1502 1740b * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 1795a 1671b 1669b 1453c represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. ’c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 39 chicks were given the glucose solutions (Table 5). This indicated that the glucose added in drinking water depress- ed the dietary energy consumed by chicks. The reduction in dietary energy consumed by chicks given the glucose solutions was shown in all five periods (Appendix Table 11). Chicks consumed less diet when the energy level in their diets increased (Table 5). However, the dietary energy con- sumed by chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg was higher (P< .05) than for those fed the diets that contained 2700 or 3000 kcal/kg (1740 vs. 1573 or 1628 kcal, respective- ly, Table 8). In most periods, the chicks receiving the diets with the highest energy level showed an increase 33 in dietary energy intake (Appendix Table 12). The detail of data on dietary energy consumed by chicks for each period is shown in Appendix Table 10. "Water-energy consumed or energy consumed from glucose in drinking water: According to Anderson gt gt. (1958), the metabolizable energy (ME) of glucose at dry weight was 3.64 kcal/gm. In this experiment, clintose was used as a source for glucose and it contained 9.1% moisture. There- fore, when calculating the availability of the ME of clin- tose, a mean figure of 3.28 kcal ME/gm was used in all calculations of energy consumed from glucose in drinking water. The water consumed by chicks tended to be the same amount whether chicks were given the glucose solutions or _ the tap water (Table 6). Thus the chicks that were given each successively higher level of glucose had a significantly higher (P <.05) amount of "water-energy" consumed as shown in Table 9. Similar results were obtained in most periods (Appendix Table 14). "Water-energy" consumed by chicks for the l9-day trial was lowest (P <.05) in chicks fed the diet with 3000 kcal/ kg as compared to those fed the diets containing 2700 or 3300 kcal/kg (Table 9). Similar results were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 15). This was due to a significant- ly lower water consumption by chicks fed the diet with 3000 kcal/kg (Table 6). 34 Table 9. "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable . energy in diet "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 - 91 198 391 2273 3000 - 86 176 354 205b 3300 - 93 189 383 2228 * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean - 90a 188b 376c represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a, b, means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. Total energy consumed from feed and glucose in drinking ggtgt: There was no significant difference in the total energy consumed by chicks given any of the glucose treat- ments (0% up to 8%) as shown in Table 10 and Appendix Table 17. Total energy consumed was higher (P< .05) in chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg than for those fed the diets that contained 2700 kcal/kg. This is shown ianable 10 (1906 vs. 1739 kcal) and Appendix Table 18 (periods 2, 4 and 5). This was a result of insufficient reduction in feed and water consumption of the chicks fed this diet (3300 kcal/kg) to equal the energy consumed by the 35 Table 10. Total energy consumed by broile-r-type chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Total energy consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 1746 1631 1765 1815 1739a 3000 1763 1775 1816 1773 1782a 3300 1876 1875 1988 1885 1906b * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 17953 1760a 1856a 1824a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the a b average value, at eight chicks per group, started. means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P<=.05), according to the Tukey's test. chicks fed the lower energy rations (2700 and 3000 kcal/kg). There was a small numerical increase in total energy consumed by chicks fed the diet that contained 3000 kcal/kg when compared to those fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg (1782 vs. 1739 kcal). However, this increase was not significant. The extra in the amount of total energy consumed by chicks fed the high energy diet was from the diet alone. This was due to the decrease in "water-energy" consumptions when chicks were fed the high energy diet while their dietary energy intake increased. "water-energy" consumed Dietary energypconsumed and expressed as pgrcent of total energy consumed: Percent of dietary energy consumed by chicks for 19-day trial 36 decreased (P< .05) as the level of glucose in drinking water increased as shown in Table 11 (94.9 vs. 89.7 vs. 79.5% for the glucose solutions at 2% vs. 4% vs. 8%). Similar results were produced in all five periods (Appendix Table 20). This result referred to the decrease in dietary energy consumed by chicks when the concentration of glucose in drinking water increased. Chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg had the lowest percent of dietary energy consumed (P< .05) when compared to those fed the diets containing 3000 or 3300 kcal/ kg as shown in Table 11. The percent "water-energy" consumed by chicks increased as the level of glucose in drinking water increased as shown in Table 12 (5.1 vs. 10.3 vs. 20.5% for the glucose solutions at 2% vs. 4% vs. 8%). The percent of "water- energy" consumed by chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg was higher (P< .05) than for those receiving the diets that contained 3000 or 3300 kcal/kg as shown in Table 12 (12.7 vs. 11.6 or 11.6%, respectively). This indicated that the glucose added in drinking water or the low energy level in diet depressed the percent of dietary energy consumption by chicks and increased the percent of "water-energy" consumed. Body weight gain and feed efficiency: Body weight gain of chicks for the l9-day trial is shown in Table 13. Chicks that were given glucose in their water had a reduced weight gain when compared to those receiving the tap water. 37 Table 11. Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during l9-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consum— (kcal/kg) ed (%) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 100 94.4 88.8 78.8 87.33 3000 100 95.3 89.8 80.1 88.4b 3300 100 95.0 90.5 79.7 88.4b * (6) (6) (6) (6) a b c mean 100 94.9 89.7 79.5 Table 12. "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet "Water—energy" consumed as percent of total energy consum- (kcal/kg) ed (%) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * k (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 _. 5.6 11.2 21.2 12.7a 3000 - 4.7 10.2 19.9 11.6b 3300 - 5.0 9.5 20.3 11.6b * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean - 5.1a 10.3b 20.5c * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 38 Table 13. Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable . energy in diet Body weight gain (gm/bird for 19 days) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 381 ‘ 362 380 350 368a 3000 371 370 377 358 3693 3300 428 389 418 367 401b * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 3933 374"lb 392"”l 358b represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. Chicks given the 8% glucose solution gained less (P< .05) than those given the tap water (358 vs. 393 gm. Table 13% Chicks gained faster with the higher energy diet when compared to those fed the lower energy diet (Table 13). Body weight gains were higher (P <.05) in chicks fed the diet containing 3300 kcal/kg than for those chicks fed the diets that contained 2700 or 3000 kcal/kg (401 vs. 368 or -369 gm, respectively). During the l9-day trial, the chicks gained fastest when they were given the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the tap water (428 gm, Table 13). The lowest weight gain was obtained when chicks were given the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg and the 8% glucose solution 39 (350 gm, Table 13). When the concentration of glucose in drinking water increased, the feed consumed by chicks declined (Table 5) and the weight gains of chicks also declined but to a lesser extent (Table 13). That is the reason why the feed/gain was thus less for chicks given each successively higher level of glucose in drinking water (Table 14). Feed ef- ficiency by chicks for the 19-day trial were as follows: 1.53 (tap water), 1.49 (2% glucose), 1.42 (4% glucose) and 1.36 (8% glucose). The significant difference (P< .05) in feed efficiency was obtained among chicks given the tap water and the glucose solution at 4% and 8%. These similar results were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 29). When the caloric density in the ration increased, the feed consumed by chicks decreased (Table 5) but the chicks gained faster. Meanwhile, the efficiency of feed conversion was improved in chicks receiving each successively higher level of dietary energy as shown in Table 14. Feed effi- ciency by chicks fed the diet that contained 2700, 3000 and 3300 kcal/kg for l9-day trial were 1.58, 1.47 and 1.31. When compared to each other, these three values showed a significant difference (Table 14). The best feed efficiency was found in chicks receiving the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the glucose solu— tion at 8% and the worst value was found in chicks given the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg and the tap water as shown in Table 14 (1.22 vs 1.67). 40 Table 14. Feed efficiency by broilerwtype chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Feed efficiency (gm feed/gm bird for 19 days) ' (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean t * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 1.67 1.51 1.48 1.52 1.588 3000 1.54 1.49 1.39 1.32 1.47b 3300 1.29 1.38 1.27 1.22 1.31c <6)* <6) <6) (6) mean 1.533 1.49ab 1.42b 1.36b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average a'b c value, at eight chicks per group, started. 9 9 means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. Liver weight and pancreatic weight: There were no significant differences due to the feeding of any level of glucose in drinking water (0% up to 8%) or dietary energy, on the liver weights, the percent liver weight as body weight, the pancreatic weights or the percent pancreatic weight of body weight of chicks sacrificed at the end of 19- day trial as shown in Tables 15,.16, l7 and 18, respectively. Mortality: Three chicks died in the first period for reasons which appeared to be unrelated to the experimental treatment. All three chicks were from different treatment groups. 41 Table 15. Liver weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Liver weight (gm/bird) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 18.7 17.0 17.6 17.7 17.78 3000 15.4 16.1 17.6 16.1 16.38 3300 17.4 16.2 17.6 16.3 16.98 s (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 17.1a 16.4a 17.68 16.78 Table 16. Liver weight as percent of body weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Liver weight as percent of body weight (%) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean *3 * (2) (2) (2) (2) (3) 2700 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.38 3000 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.98 3300 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.88 * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 3.9a 4.08 4.0a 4.28 * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P‘<.05), according to the Tukey's test. 42 Table 17. Pancreatic weight of broiler type chicks sacrified at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Pancreatic weight (gm/bird) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 2.2 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.03 3000_ 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.83 3300 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.98 * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean 2.03 1.8a 2.0a 1.7a Table 18. Pancreatic weight as percent of body weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Pancreatic weight as percent of body weight (%) (kcal/kg) Level of glucose in drinking water no glucose 2% 4% 8% mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (8) 2700 .52 .42 .52 .44 .48a 3000 .41 .41 .47 .42 .43a 3300 .46 .46 .40 .44 ‘ .44a * (6) (6) (6) (6) mean .478 .43a .46a .44a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P<:.05), according to the Tukey's test. Experiment 2 Feed and water consumed: Feed consumed by chicks for the 19-day trial is shown in Table 19. The amount of feed consumed by chicks given the tap water or the 4% of various carbohydrates was as follows: lactose (468), sucrose (440), tap water (422), glucose (421), fructose (380) and galactose (343 gm). Chicks given the 4% galactose decreas- ed their feed intake (P <.05) when compared to those receiving the 4% of lactose or sucrose or the tap water. Feed consumed by chicks given the 4% lactose was highest in most periods (Appendix Table 34), but the significant difference was not shown when compared to the control chicks that were given the tap water. Chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg consumed more diet (P< .05) than those fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg as shown in Table 19 (428 vs. 396 gm). The similar results were shown in all five periods (Appendix Table 35). Water consumed by chicks for l9-day trial is shown in Table 20. The water consumptions by chicks given the 4% of either glucose, galactose, fructose or sucrose in drink- ing water were not significantly different from the water consumed by chicks given the tap water (1368, 1313, 1139 or 1337 vs. 1096 ml, respectively). The chicks given the 4% lactose solution had a higher water consumption (P< .05) than those receiving the tap water (1562 vs. 1096 ml. for the 19-day trial, Table 20). These similar results 43 44 Table 19. Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- bOIi- Feed consumed (gm/bird for 19 days) zable 0 energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diet no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% (kcal/kg) carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 455 475 333 379 443 484 428a 3300 389 366 352 381 436 452 396b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 422ac 421ac 343b 380bc 440ac 4688 Table 20. Water consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Water consumed (ml/bird for 19 days) energy . in diet Carbohydrate in 2;inking4;ater 47 47 47 (kcal/kg) no 0 o o o a carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * s (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 1182 1432 1392 1176 1438 1645 1378a 3300 1009 1304 1233 1102 1236 1479 1227b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 1096a 1368ab 1313ab 1139a 1337ab 1562b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (Pi<.05), according to the Tukey's test. 45 were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 37). Chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg consumed more water (P <.05) than those fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg (1378 vs. 1227 ml, Table 20). This result might be related to the amount of feed consumed by chicks. The chicks consumed more diet (P< .05) when they were fed the diet that contained low energy (Table 19). Chicks con- sumed less water when they consumed less diet. This obser- vation was confirmed by the data on the ratio of feed to water consumed. There was no significant difference in the ratio of feed to water consumed between chicks fed these two diets as shown in Table 21 (.31 vs .33). The ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks given the 4% of either glucose, galactose or lactose was less (P <.05) than for those chicks receiving the tap water as shown in Table 21 (.31, .27 or .30 vs .39, respectively). This result indicated that chicks given the 4% of glucose or galactose in their water consumed more water than those receiving the tap water when there was a comparison to the amount of their feed consumption. The low ratio of feed to water consumed by chicks given the 4% lactose solution was due to their significantly higher amounts of water intake (Table 20) when compared to the chicks receiving the tap water. Dietary energy consumed: The dietary energy consumed by chicks for 19-day trial is shown in Table 22. Chicks that were given the 4% galactose consumed less 46 Table 21. Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird for 19 days) energy in diet Carbohydrate in drinking wster a a (k l/k ) no 4% 4% 4% 4% .44 ca g carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean i (2) (2) <2) (2) (2) (2) (12)* 2700 .38 .33 .24 .32 .31 .29 .31a 3300 .39 .28 .29 .35 .35 .31 .33a * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean .398 .31bc .27bc .34ac .33ac .30bc Table 22. Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- . zable Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diet ' 4 47 4" 47 47 (kcal/kg) no % . A . . carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 1229 1282 898 1023 1197 1304 1156a 3300 1284 1206 1161 1255 1441 1492 1307b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 1257ac 1244ac 1030b 1139bc 1319ac 1398a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 47 dietary energy (P< .05) than those given the tap water (1030 vs. 1257 kcal). The 4% of either glucose, fructose, sucrose or lactose did not induce any significant differ— ences in the amount of energy consumed when compared to the amount consumed by chicks given the tap water. There was a tendency for an increasing dietary energy consumed when chicks were given the 4% sucrose or lactose in their water in most periods (Appendix Table 43) and for the 19-day trial (Table 22). Chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg con- sumed a higher (P <.05) amount of dietary energy than those fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg (1307 vs. 1156 kcal, Table 22). Therefore, the dietary energy consumptions by chicks were highest in groups of chicks receiving the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the 4% lactose (1492 kcal). The lowest amount of dietary energy consumed was by the chicks given the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg and the 4% of galactose (898 kcal). The details of data on dietary energy consumed by chicks for each period are shown in Appendix Table 42, 43 and 44. "Water-energy" consumed or Energy consumed from the 4% of various carbohydrates in drinking water: The heats of combustion for glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and lactose are 673.0, 670.7, 675.6, 1349.6 and 1350.8 kcal/ mole, respectively*. The molecular weight for the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, pp. 1579-1587, (Heat of Combustion) Hodgman, Charles D., Ed. Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, Ohio. 48 first three monosaccharides was 180 each, the molecular weight for the last two disaccharides was 342 each. Thus the gross energy per gram for each kind of carbohydrate was 3.74, 3.73, 3.75, 3.95 and 3.95 kcal/gm, respectively. Shannon gt gt. (1969) studied the utilization of the energy of pure sugars by chicks, and they reported that the percentage of the metabolized energy of fructose and lactose were 95.5% and 44.5%, respectively. The ME of glucose was 3.64 kcal/gm (Anderson gt_gt., 1958). The gross energy of glucose was 3.74 kcal/gm, therefore the percent MB of glucose was 97.3%. The percent ME of sucrose was approxi- mated from the average value of fructose and glucose, and it is 96.4%. No data on the percent ME of galactose in chicks was obtained, so the ME of galactose was not known. The ME (dry weight) of fructose, sucrose and lactose was 3.58, 3.81 and 1.76 kcal/gm. The moisture contents in glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose and lactose were found to be 0.2, 0.3, 0.08, 0.03 and 4.8%, respectively. Therefore, the ME (as used) for glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose was 3.63, 3.58, 3.81 and 1.68 kcal/gm, respectively. When calculating the availability of the ME per ml of 4% glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose solutions, results were 0.145, 0.143, 0.152 and 0.067 kcal/ml of drinking water. The summary of all values is shown in Appendix Table 45. Since no energy was obtained from the water consumed by the chicks given the tap water, and because 49 thereinme no available data on the ME of galactose, the comparison on the "water-energy" consumed was only among birds given the 4% of glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose (Table 23). Although those chicks given the 4% of lactose in their drinking water drank the highest amount of water (Table 20), their "water-energy" consump- tions were lowest. This was due to the markedly lower value in the ME of the lactose when compared to sucrose, glucose or fructose as shown in Appendix Table 45 (1.68 vs, 3.81, 3.63 or 3.58 kcal/gm, as used, respectively). The "water-energy" consumed by chicks given the 4% of lactose was significantly lower (P <.05) than for those treated with the 4% of glucose, fructose or sucrose as shown in Table 23 (104 vs. 199, 163 or 204 kcal, respectively). No significant differences in the "water-energy" consump- tions by chicks given the 4% of glucose or sucrose were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 47) and for the 19-day trial (Table 23). Chicks that were given the 4% of fructose had a lower amount of "water-energy" consumed (P <.05) when compared to the chicks given the 4% of glucose (163 vs. 199 kcal, Table 23). The data on the water consumed (Table 20) showed that chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg drank more water (P <.05) than those fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg. This resulted in the higher (P <.05) amount of "water-energy" consumed by chicks fed the 50 Table 23. "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) energy in diet Carbohydrate in4§rinking4yater 4% 4% 4% (kcal/kg) no ° carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) g (2) (12>* 2700 0 207 - 168 219 109 176a 3300 0 190 - 157 188 99 159b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 0 199a - 163b 204a 104c * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. low energy diet (2700 kcal/kg) than those fed the high energy diet (3300 kcal/kg) as shown in Table 23 (176 vs. 159 kcal). Total energy consumed from feed and the 4% of various carbohydrates in drinking water: In Table 24 are the values for the total energy consumed by chicks for the 19-day triaL The total energy consumption by chicks given the different kinds of drinking water are in the following increasing order: tap water (1257), fructose (1303), glucose (1443), lactose (1502) and sucrose (1522 kcal/bird). There were no significant differences in the amounts of total energy intake among chicks given the 4% of fructose, glucose or the tap water. Chicks given 4% of either sucrose or 51 Table 24. Total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19- day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Total energy consumed (kcal/bird for 19 days) energy in diet Carbohydrate in4§rinking4zater 4% 4% 4% (kcal/kg) no ° carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * (21* (2) (2) (2) <2) (2) (12) 2700 1229 1490 - 1192 1415 1413 1348a 3300 1285 1396 - 1413 1629 1590 1463b (4)* (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 1257a 1443ab - 1303a 1522b 1502b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. lactose in drinking water consumed more total energy (P <.05) than those receiving 4% of fructose or tap water. Similar results are shown in most periods (Appendix Table 50). Total energy consumed was higher (P <.05) in chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg than for those fed the diet with 2700 kcal/kg. This is shown in Table 24 (1463 vs. 1348 kcal) and Appendix Table 51 (periods 2 and 3). Dietary energy consumed and "water—energy" consumed expressed as percent of total energy consumed: Percentages of dietary energy consumed by chicks for 19-day trial were not significantly different among chicks given the 4% of glucose, fructose or sucrose as shown in Table 25 (86.3 vs. 87.4 vs. 86.6%). Chicks given the 4% of lactose in 52 Table 25. Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed - by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- 2261; Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed (%) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diEt no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%. (kcal/kg)carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * <2) <2) <2) <2) (2) (2) (12)* 2700 100 86.1 - 85.8 84.6 92.3 87.2a 3300 100 86.5 — 89.0 88.5 93.8 89.5b (41* (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 100 ~ 86.3a - 87.48 86.68 93.1b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. drinking water had a higher percentage of dietary energy consumed (P <.05) than chicks given the other carbohydrates (93.1% vs. all percentages above). Similar results were produced in all five periods (Appendix Table 53). Percentages of dietary energy consumed were higher (P <.05) in chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg than for those treated with the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg (89.5 vs. 87.2%, Table 25). Similar results are shown in most periods (Appendix Table 54). Chicks given the 4% of either glucose, fructose or su- crose showed no significant difference in the percentages of "water-energy" consumed as shown in Table 26 (13.8 vs. 12.7 vs. 13.6%). The 4% of lactose solution caused 53 Table 26. "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta— :::i; "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed (%) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diet no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% (kcal/kg) carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * . * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) ‘2700 0 14.0 - 14.3 15.3 7.7 12.98 3300 0 13.5 - 11.1 11.6 6.2 10.6b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 0 13.88 - 12.78 13.63 . 7.0b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. the lowest (P <.05) percent of "water—energy" consumed by chicks (7.0% vs. all percentages above). Chicks fed the low energy diet (2700 kcal/kg) had a higher percentages of "water-energy" consumed than those fed the high energy diet (3300 kcal/kg) as shown in Table 26 (12.9 vs. 10.6%). The percentages of "water—energy" consumed by chicks for each period are shown in Appendix Table 55 and 56. Body weight gain and feed efficiency: The results showed that the body weight gain of chicks by the end of the 19— day trial fall in the following order: sucrose 313, lactose 296, glucose 274, fructose 262, tap water 250 and galactose 223 gm as shown in Table 27. Chicks given the 4% of either lactose, glucose or fructose solution gained moderately 54 Table 27. Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks during 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Body weight gain (gm/bird for 19 days) energy . in diet Carbohydrate in itinking zgter 47 4% 4% (kcal/kg) no 0 o o carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (121* 2700 260 280 201 234 291 276 2573 3300 239 268 245 289 335 316 282b * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 250ac 274abc 223a 262abc 313b 296bc * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P‘<.05), according to the Tukey's test. more than the control chicks given the tap water. Chicks receiving the 4% sucrose solution had heavier (P <.05) weight gains than those given the tap water or the 4% ga- lactose solution. The retarded weight gains of chicks given the 4% galactose solution were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 59). The chicks given the 4% sucrose in their water gained best in all five periods (Appendix Table 59). Chicks receiving the 4% lactose solution showed the symp- toms of diarrhea but they consumed more diet and water than other carbohydrate treatments (Table 19 and 20). The weight gains of chicks on this treatment were almost as high as those for the chicks given the 4% of sucrose 55 solution in all five periods (Appendix Table 59). In this second experiment, the chicks gained less than those chicks in the first experiment, particularly, when there was a comparison between chicks given the tap water or between chicks given the 4% glucose solution in both trials. This was due to the length of the light time pro- vided-in the housing. In the first experiment, the light was on continuously but, only 14 hours daily for the second experiment. The light provided affects the amounts of feed and water consumed by chicks. Therefore, the chicks from the first trial had more time to consume food than those chicks in the second trial. This was the reason why the chicks in the second experiment gained less. Chicks given the high energy diet consumed less feed (Table 19) but they gained more (Table 27) than those re- ceiving the low energy diet. This resulted in better feed efficiency (P <.05) by chicks fed the high energy diet as shown in Table 28 (1.42 vs. 1.67). Similar results were shown in most periods (Appendix Table 63). Feed efficiency by chicks for the 19-day trial or for each period were not significantly different whether chicks were given the tap water or the 4% of any of five different kinds of carbohydrate in drinking water (Table 28 and Appendix Table 62). However, the ratios of feed consumed to weight gain were lowest in chicks fed the sucrose solu- tion in 3 of 5 periods: number 2, 3 and 4 (Appendix Table 62).- 56 Table 28. Feed efficiency by broiler-type chicks during 19-day ‘ trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Feed efficiency (gm feed/gm bird for 19 days) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diet no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% (kcal/kg) carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12)* 2700 1.75 1.71 1.67 1.62 1.53 1.75 1.67a 3300 1.63 1.37 1.47 1.32 1.30 1.43 1.42b (4)* (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean .1 1.69a 1.54a 1.57a 1.47a 1.41a 1.59a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. Maximum weight gain of chicks for the 19-day trial was 335 gm (Table 27). This weight gain was obtained with the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the 4% sucrose solution in the drinking water. Minimum weight gain, 201 gm/bird/19 days, was found in chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/kg and 4% of galactose solution in the drinking water. The best feed efficiency was produced by chicks fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg and the 4% of sucrose solution in the drinking water, and the worst feed efficiency was found in chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 kcal/ kg and the tap water, as shown in Table 28 (1.30 vs. 1.75). Liver weight and lipids in liver: The liver weights and the concentration of lipids in livers given the 4% of either glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose or lactose 57 were not significantly different from those livers removed from the chicks given the tap water as shown in Table 29 and 30. However, chicks given the sucrose treatment had the heaviest livers. The liver weights of these chicks were significantly higher when compared to the liver weights of chicks on the galactose treatment which had the lowest weight (14.9 vs. 11.0 gm/bird). This difference of organ weight might be due to the size of the chicks. Chicks given the 4% sucrose solution had the highest body weight gain while the lowest was found in chicks given the 4% galac- tose solution (Table 27). As shown in Table 31, there was no significant difference in the liver weight when expressed as the percent of body weight of chicks that were given any of the treatments. The difference in dietary energy between diets that contained 2700 and 3300 kcal/kg did not cause any signifi- cant difference in liver weight, percent of liver weight or lipids in liver. Pancreatic weight: Pancreatic weights of chicks given the 4% of any carbohydrate solution were not significantly different from those of chicks receiving the tap water (Table 32). However, the chicks given the sucrose treat- ment had both the heaviest livers and the heaviest pan- creases. Chicks given the 4% galactose solution had the lowest liver weight and also lowest pancreatic weight. This was due to the size of the chicks: large when given sucrose and small when given galactose. Normally, 58 Table 29. Liver weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta— boli- zable Liver weight (gm/bird) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water 1“ diet 47 47 47 4% 47 (kcal/kg) no ° ° ° ° carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean t (21 (21 (21 (21 (21 (21 (121* 2700 12.6 13.7 10.7 12.5 14.3 12.7 12.78 3300 12.0 13.0 11.3 13.7 15.6 14.7 13.43 * . (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 12.3ab 13.3ab 11.0a 13.1ab 14.9b 13.7ab Table 30. Percent lipids in the livers of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta— boli- zable Percent lipids in the livers energy in diet Carbohydrate in drinking wgter (kcal/kg) no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 4.2 .4.4 4.7 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.2a 3300 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.0 4.4a * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 4.2a 4.43 4.5a 4.2a 4.4a 3.98 * represented the number of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. means carrying different superscripts are significantly different 59 Table 31. Liver weight as percent of body weight of broilerwtype chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli— zable Liver weight as percent of body weight energy in diet Carbohydrate in grinkingayater 47 4° 47 (kcal/kg) no % . . % o carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * t (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.18 3300 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.98 (41* (41 (41 (41 (41 (41 mean 4.0a 4.1a 3.98 .4.1a 4.0a 3.88 Table 32. Pancreatic weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of l9-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli— zable .Pancreatic weight (gm/bird) energy Carbohydrate in drinking water in diet a a a G (kcal/kg) no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.5a 3300 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.5a * (4) b (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 1.48 1.4ab 1.3a 1.4ab 1.8b 1.7ab * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. a,b 60 when the size of an animal increases the size of its organs will increase also. This was supported by the results shown in Table 33. There was no significant difference in the percent of pancreatic weight found among birds given the tap water or 4% of any carbohydrate solution. Pancreatic weights and percent of pancreatic weights were not significantly different between chicks fed the diet that contained 2700 or 3300 kcal/kg. Mortality: The percent mortality of chicks was calcu4 lated from the number of chicks that died during the 19-day trial and the number of chicks started at the beginning of the experiment. Data on the percent mortality of chicks for 19-day trial is shown in Table 34. Energy in the diet did not significantly affect the percent mortality. The percent mortality for chicks fed the diets that contained 2700 and 3300 kcal/kg were the same (15.6%). Galactose was the only sugar that significantly in- creased mortality in chicks. The chicks given the 4% galactose solution showed many strange actions: jumping and flying about the cage; having a peculiar stare and peeping loudly. When the convulsions occurred, the chicks fell to the cage floor and lay on their backs with excessive movement of their legs and wings. After a few seconds all movements ceased, the eyes closed, the legs became spastic, food sometimes was thrown from the mouth and respiration ceased. Within 1-2 minutes the chicks' respiration slowly returned. Then the chicks rose and walked 61 Table 33. Pancreatic weight as percent of body weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Pancreatic weight as percent of body weight energy in diet Carbohydrate in drinking wgter a . a (k l/k ) no 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% ca g carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 .52 .44 .49 .44 .49 .47 .47 a 3300 .42 .42 .46 .44 .46 .50 .45a * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean .473 .43a .47a .44a .47a .48a Table 34. Chick mortality in Experiment 2. Meta- boli- zable Percent of mortality energy in diet Carbohydrate in drinking zgter 40 a 4g (kcal/kg) no 4% % % 4% % ’ carbohydrate glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose mean * * (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (12) 2700 6.3 12.5 62.5 6.3 0 6.3 15.68 3300 12.5 0 37.5 _ 18.8 6.3 18.8 15.68 * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) mean 9.3a 6.38 50.0b ‘ 12.5a 3.1a 12.5a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 62 slowly looking perfectly normal. However, convulsions reoccurred during the 19-day trial but decreased in frequency and severity. DISCUSSION The dietary energy consumed by chicks decreased as the level of glucose in drinking water increased. However, there was no significant difference in the total energy consumed between those chicks given plain tap water and those given graded levels of glucose in their water. These results indicated that the chicks responded to the calories in the glucose solution by regulating their feed consumption to maintain a steady total energy consumed. Bogner (1957 and 1961) and Bogner and Haines (1961) reported that chicks have fully developed the absorption of glucose by a few days of age. Thus, it may be possible that the young chicks in the experiment here had the capability of utilizing glucose and that energy from the glucose solution can con- stitute a substantial portion of their total caloric intake. Kare and Medway (1959) found that the level of sugar had little, if any, influence on the amount of water con- sumed. They reported that the glucose solutions at 2.5% up to 20% were accepted by the chicks equally with water. In this experiment, the amounts of water consumed by chicks in most periods were not significantly influenced when chicks given solutions with glucose at 2, 4 or 8%. However, during the 19-day trial, the chicks receiving the 2% glucose solution consumed less water (P< .05) than those 63 64 given the other glucose solutions (at 4 and 8%) or the tap water. There was not enough information to eXplain why this occurred. Perhaps the chicks' physiological pro- cesses were able to adjust their energy consumed from the glucose (in drinking water) and their diet to maintain a consistent energy consumption. The equal amounts of total energy consumed did not produce equivalent body weight gains. The chicks given the 8% glucose solution had retarded growth (P< .05) when compared to the control chicks. This was due to the signi- ficant decrease in feed consumed by chicks given the high level of glucose (8%) in drinking water. The reduction in feed consumption may have induced some nutrient deficiencies that caused the poor body weight gain. Hill and Dansky (1954), by varying caloric density of feed, demonstrated that energy requirements influenced feed intake. They reported that although the rate of feed consumption was determined primarily by the energy level of the ration, the fact that equal amounts of energy were not consumed by the lots receiving rations of different energy levels indicated that some other factor affected the amount of feed consumed. This finding has been confirmed by the results of both experiments 1 and 2. The chicks fed the rations of low energy value did not consume enough additional feed to equal the energy intake of those on the high energy ration. Thus, more growth and better feed efficiency were found in chicks fed the high energy diet. 65 Pearce (1970) reported that birds receiving the diet that contained 70% glucose had heavier livers than birds fed the control diet. In the first trial there was no evidence of heavy liver weight produced by any level of glucose solution (2% up to 8%). This might indicate that energy consumed from glucose in drinking water was used by the chicks and not deposited as fat in the liver. The lack of change in liver weight and pancreatic weight suggested that the levels of glucose up to 8% in drinking water may not be high enough to alter the activity of liver and pancreas in regulation of carbohydrate metabolism. Galactose was a toxic compound and caused neurotoxicity in chicks (Kozak and Wells, 1969; Malone gt gt., 1971). Malone gt gt. (1971) reported that galactose neurotoxicity was induced by feeding chicks 10% (w/v) galactose in drinking water. In the experiment here, chicks given the 4% galactose solution appeared weak and developed a fine tremor within 24 to 48 hours. Some had convulsions and died during the first and second periods. When the convulsions occurred, chicks could not eat. Therefore, chicks receiv- ing the 4% galactose solution consumed less diet (P*(.05) than the control chicks, resulting in poor growth. Malone __t _t. (1971) observed that the galactose-toxic chicks excreted large amounts of watery material not seen in the control chicks. This result suggested alteration of body fluids and dehydration. They also reported that chicks, one day of age, given the 10% of galactose in drinking water 66 for 7 days developed severe hyperosmolar dehydration. Although the hyperosmolality did not correlate with neuro- toxicity as reported by Knull and Wells (1973), it might affect the amount of water consumed. In this study, the galactose-toxic chicks consumed less diet (P <.05) but their water consumption was not different from the control given the tap water. Thus, the chicks receiving the 4% galactose solution had the lowest feed to water consumption ratio. Rutter gt gt. (1053) reported more feed consumed when chicks were fed a diet that contained 53% lactose, and there was considerable diarrhea. Monson gt gt. (1950) observed that chicks fed the diet that contained 60% lactose consumed about twice the amount of water consumed by the control chicks, indicating the extent of diarrhea. In this study, chicks given the 4% of lactose in their water also showed the symptoms of diarrhea, and consumed more diet and more water than the control chicks. The pronounced diarrhea in chicks could be the causative factor of increased feed and water consumption. Paul and Hans (1963) fed diets containing 58% of dif- ferent carbohydrates to chicks. They reported that the chicks gained best with sucrose. The response to fructose was poor, and that to glucose intermediate. Chalupa and Fisher (1963) also found that chicks fed a diet containing 71% sucrose grew more than chicks those fed a diet containing 71% glucose. In this study, chicks given -67 the 4% sucrose in their water also had the best gains and best feed efficiencies. This result correlated with the increased amounts of feed and water consumed by chicks receiving the 4% sucrose solution. Chicks from this treat- ment consumed the highest amount of total energy. Those chicks given the 4% fructose solution had body weight gains only slightly less than those given the 4% glucose solution. However, chicks from these two treatments (the 4% fructose or glucose) gained moderately better than the control chicks. Heald (1962, 1963) and Hawkins and Heald (1966) reported that fructose stimulated the rate of respiration of liver slices more than glucose did, and also that lipids accu- mulated in liver slices incubated in the presence of fructose more than in the presence of glucose. Pearce (1970) fed pullets (7-8 weeks of age) with either 70% fructose, glucose or cereal-based control diet. He reported that the fructose diet produced the heaviest livers and the greatest hepatic lipid contents. Chicks fed the control diet had the lowest liver weights and smallest hepatic lipid contents. In this experiment, the author suggested that the 4% of various carbohydrates in drinking water were not enough to ginduce any difference in the liver weights or hepatic lipid contents of chicks. Malone gt gt. (1971) reported a high rate of mortality between the third and fifth days of his experiment when chicks were given a 10% galactose solution, starting at one day of age. In this experiment, chicks given the 68 4% galactose in drinking water also had a high rate of mortality (50%). Death due to galactose was generally- attributed to neurotoxicity. The galactose-toxic chicks in this study showed the same signs as described by Rigdon _t _t. (1963). Chicks developed a fine tremor and appeared weak. Some had convulsions and died. Some galactose- toxic chicks excreted large amounts of watery waste material not seen in chicks given the tap water. This sign was also reported by Malone gt gt. (1971). The mortality rate of galactose—toxic chicks given the low energy diet was about twice as high as the mortality rate of the galactose-toxic chicks given the high energy diet. This might be due to the greater amount of water consumed by the chicks that were fed the low energy diet. hThe more water consumed, the more galactose consumed, which might have caused more toxicity and therefore a higher death rate. Four percent lactose in drinking water did not affect the mortality of chicks but it affected the development of diarrhea. Since undigested lactose cannot be absorbed, an excess quantity of fluid entered the bowel lumen to dilute the sugar; gut motility was increased, and the subject 'developed diarrhea. However, chicks did not appear weak. They consumed more water and more diet. Chicks developed a symptom of diarrhea during the first period. In this period chicks given the lactose treatment consumed 31 ml of drinking water daily which meant providing 1.24 gms of lactose/chick/day. This indicated that chicks are 69 very sensitive to lactose. Hamilton and Card (1924) reported that diarrhea resulted when a chicken consumed more than 2 gms of lactose per day. CONCLUSION The presence of glucose up to 8% in drinking water did not affect water consumption in most periods. Thus, the energy consumed from glucose solutions increased as the level of glucose in drinking water increased. The energy obtained from glucose solutions depressed the dietary energy consumption (decreased the amount of feed consumption) and resulted in an equal amount of total energy consumed whether chicks were given the tap water or the glucose solutions at 2, 4 or 8%. Although equal amounts of total energy were consumed by chicks on any level of glucose treatments (0% up to 8%), body weight gain of chicks were not equal. The weight gain tended to be lower for chicks given glucose solution, especially those given the 8% glucose solution. The ratio of feed consumed to weight gain (feed efficiency) was improved as the level of glucose in drinking water increased. Chicks consumed less diet and less water when they were fed the diet that contained high energy. However, the total energy consumed by chicks fed the high energy diet was more than by those fed the lower energy diet. The total energy consumed by chicks fed the diets that contained 2700 or 3000 kcal/kg was significantly less than by those fed the diet that contained 3300 kcal/kg. Chicks fed the diet containing 3300 kcal/kg had a significantly higher body weight gain than those fed the diets with 2700 or 3000 70 71 kcal/kg. Therefore, feed efficiencies by chicks were im- proved as the level of dietary energy increased. Maximum weight gain was obtained from the control chicks fed the diet with 3300 kcal/kg and the minimum weight gain was by chicks fed the diet with 2700 kcal/kg and the 8% glucose solution. Dietary energy and glucose solution (2% up to 8%) did not affect liver and pancreatic weights. The first experiment indicated that young chicks have a capability to utilize glucose supplied in their drinking water and the energy from glucose can constitute a sub- stantial portion of their total caloric intake. The chicks are able to adjust their energy intake from glucose solution and diet to maintain a steady total caloric intake. The energy added (glucose) in drinking water did not increase weight gain of chicks but it improved feed efficiency. Galactose at 4% in drinking water induced a toxicity in chicks, with a mortality of 50%. Chicks on galactose treatment consumed significantly less diet and thus less dietary energy as compared to controls. Thus, the body weight gains of chicks given the 4% galactose solution were lowest but the significance was not found when compared to the control or those given the 4% of either glucose or fructose solution. The 4% of either glucose, fructose, sucrose or lactose solution did not significantly affect the amounts of feed consumed or dietary energy consumed. However, chicks 72 given the 4% of either lactose or sucrose solution tended to consume more diet while those receiving the 4%,of fructose solution tended to consume less diet. The water consumption of chicks receiving glucose, fructose or sucrose at 4% in drinking water was not significantly different from that of the controls. Chicks given the 4% lactose solution showed the symptom of diarrhea and consumed more water (P <.05) than the controls. The 4% levels of the carbohydrates: glucose, fructose, sucrose and lactose added to the chicks' drinking water increased the total energy consumed. Results were signifi- cant in groups receiving sucrose or lactose. Body weight gains were higher in all groups than in the control group. Gains were significant in the sucrose test group (P <.05). Feed efficiency in the test groups did not differ signifi- cantly from feed efficiency in the control group. However, the 4% addition of sucrose induced the best feed efficiency in chicks for most periods. Chicks consumed less diet with 3300 kcal/kg, but their total energy consumptions were more than for those fed the diet containing 2700 kcal/kg. The body weight gains of chicks fed the high energy diet were significantly higher than those of the chicks fed the low energy diet. Feed efficiency of chicks fed the high energy diet was better than that of those fed the low energy diet. The energy level of the diet fed had no significant effect on the liver weight, pancreatic weight, or liver lipids of 73 chicks in this experiment. The results of the second trial with four different carbohydrate solutions indicated that there was no significant change in liver weight or pancreatic weight (when expressed as percents of body weight) or in liver lipids (when expressed as a percent of liver weight), when compared to the control. However, when comparing actual weight, there was a significant difference between those chicks given sucrose solution, which resulted in the great- est liver and pancreatic weights, and those given galactose solution, which resulted in the lowest liver and pancreatic weights. These weights though, when calculated as percents of total body weight, were not significantly different. This is because the chicks given sucrose solution had the greatest weight gain, and the chicks receiving galactose solution had the lowest weight gain. This indicated that the sucrose was not the direct cause of the larger liver or pancreases. It was, however, the cause of increased body weight, which in turn, resulted in the larger liver and pancreas. Likewise, the galactose solution caused less weight gain, and resulted in a small liver and pancreas. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, D. L., Hill, F. W., and Renner, R., 1958. Studies of the metabolizable and productive energy of glucose for the growing chick. J. Nutri. 65, 561. Ashcraft, D. W., 1933. Effect of milk products on pH of intestinal contents of domestic fowl. Poult. Sci. 12, 292. Bath, W., 1906. Die Geschmacksorgane der Vogel. kwug. Diss. Berlin. Beach, J. R. and Davis, D. E., 1925. The influence of feeding lactose or dry skim milk on artificial infection of chicks with Eimeria avium. Hilgardia 1(8), 167. Bogner, P. H., 1957. Alimentary absorption of reducing sugars by embryos and young chicks. Dissert. Abst. 17, 2654. Bogner, P. H., 1961. Alimentary absorption of reducing sugars by embryos and young chicks. Proc. Soc. Biol. Med. 107, 263. Bogner, P. H. and Haines, I. A., 1961. Development of intestinal selective absorption of glucose in newly- hatched chicks. Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 107, 265. Botezart, E., 1904. Geschmacksorgane und andere nervose Endapparate im Schnabel der Vogel. Biol. Centralblatt 24, 722. Brindley, L. D. and Prior, 8., 1968. Effect of age on taste discrimination in the bobwhite quail. Anim. Behav. 16, 304. Brown, K. M., 1971. Sucrose activity in the intestine of the chick. J. Exp. Biol. 177, 493. Cameron, A. T., 1947. The taste sense and the relative sweetness of sugars and other sweet substances. Report No. 9. Sugar Research Foundation Inc. deYork. Chalupa, W. and Fisher, H., 1963. Comparative protein evaluation studies by carcass retention and nitrogen balance methods. J. Nutri. 81, 139. 74 75 Dam, H., 1944. Galactose-poisoning in chicks. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 55, 57. Duncan, G. J., 1960. The sense of taste in birds. Ann.~ appl. Biol. 42(2), 409. Emslie, A. R. G. and Henry, K. M., 1933. Glycogen formation in the fowl. Biochem J. 27, 705. Engelmann, C., 1934. Versuche uber den Geschmack von Taube, Ente und Huhn, Z. verg. Physiol. 20, 626. Engelmann, C., 1937. Weitere Versmfim uber den , Vesschmackssinn des Huhns. Z. verg. Physiol. 24, 451. Fischer, J. E. and Sutton, T. S., 1949. Effects of lactose on gastrointestinal motility: A review J. Dairy Sci. 32, 139. Folch, J., Lees, M., and Stanley, G. H. S., 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226, 497. Fuerst, W. F. and Kare, M. R., 1962. The influence of pH on fluid tolerance and preference. Poult. Sci. 41, 71. Gentle, M. J., 1972. Taste preference in the chicken (Gallus domesticus L.) J. Poult. Sci. 13, 141. Golden, W. R. C. and Long, C. N. H., 1942. Absorption and disposition of glucose in the chick. Am. J. Physiol. 136, 244. Goodridge, A. G., 1968. Conversion of (U—lac) Glucose into carbondioxide, glycogen, cholesterol and fatty acid in liver slices from embryonic and growing chicks. Biochem. J. 108, 655. Goodridge, A. G., 1969. The effects of dietary fat on fatty acid synthesis and malic enzyme activity in liver from growing chicks. Can. J. Biochem. 47, 743. Grant, W. C. and Fahrenbach, M. J., 1959. Effect of dietary sucrose and glucose on plasma cholesterol in chicks and rabbits. Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 100, 250. Hamilton, T. S. and Card, L. E., 1924. The utilization of lactose by the chicken. J. Agr. Research 27, 597. Hansen, R. G., Freedland, R. A., and Scott, H. M., 1956. The uridine nucleotides in galactose toxicity. J. Biol. Chem. 219, 391. 76 Harriman, A. E. and Milner, J. S., 1969. Preference for sucrose solutions by Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) in Two—Bottle Drinking Tests. Am. Midland Naturalist 81, 575. Hawkins, R. A. and Heald, P. J., 1966. Lipid metabolism and the laying hen: The synthesis of triglycerides by slices of avian liver in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. .Acta. 116, 41. Heald, P. J., 1962. Oxidation of fructose by liver of the domestic fowl. Nature 195, 603. Heald, P. J., 1963. The metabolism of carbohydrate by liver of the domestic fowl. Biochem, J. 86, 103. Hill, F. W. and Dansky, L. H., 1954. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens. Poult. Sci. 33, 112. Jacobs, H. L. and Scott, M. L., 1957. Factors mediating food and liquid intake in chickens. Poult. Sci. 36,3, Kare, M. R., Black, R., and Allison, E. B., 1957. The sense of taste in the fowl. Poult. Sci. 36, 129. Kare, M. R. and Ficken, M. S., 1963. Comparative studies on the sense of taste. In: Olfaction and Taste. Edit. Zotterman, Y. London, Pergamon pp. 285. Kare, M. R. and Maller, 0., 1967. Taste and food intake in domesticated and jungle fowl. J. Nutri. 92, 191. Kare, M. R. and Medway, W., 1959. Discrimination between carbohydrate by the fowl. Poult. Sci. 38, 1119. Kare, M. R. and Pick, H. L., 1960. The influence of the sense of taste on feed and fluid consumption. Poult. Sci. 39, 697. Kilsheimer, G. S., Weber, D. R., and Ashmore, J., 1960. Hepatic glucose production in developing chicken embryo. Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 104, 515. Kline, 0. L., Keeman, J. A., Elvehjem, A. C., and Hart, E. B., 1932. Lactose in nutrition. J. Biol. Chem. 98, 121. Knull, H. R. and Wells, W. W., 1973. Recovery from galac- tose-induced neurotoxicity in chick by the administration of glucose. J. Neurochemistry 20, 415. Knull, H. R., Wells, W. W., and Kozak, J. P., 1972. Galac- tose toxicity in the chicks: Hyperosmolality or depressed brain energy reserves? Science 176, 815. 77 Kozak, L. P. and Wells, W. W., 1969. Effect of galactose on energy and phospholipid metabolism in the chick brain. Archs. Biochem. Biophys. 135, 371. Kritchevsky, D., Kolman, R. R., Guttmacher, R. M., and Forbes, M., 1959. Influence of dietary carbohydrate and protein on serum and liver cholesterol in germ- free chickens. Archs. Biochem. BiOphys. 85, 444. Leveille, G. A., O'Hea, E. K., and Chakrabarty, K., 1968. In vivo lipogenesis in the domestic chicken. Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 128, 398. Lindenmaier, P. and Kare, M. R., 1959. The taste end- organs of the chicken. Poult. Sci. 38, 545. Malone, J. 1., Wells, H. J., and Segal, S., 1971. Galac- tose toxicity in the chicks: Hyperosmolality. Science 174, 952. Masoro, E. J., Chaikoff, I. L., Chernick, S. S., and Felts, J. M., 1950. Previous nutritional state and glucose conversion to fatty acids in liver slices. J. Biol. Chem. 185, 845. Monson, W. J., Dietrich, L. S., and Elvehjem, C. A., 1950. Studies on the effect of different carbohydrates on chick growth. Pro. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 75, 256. Paul, G. and Hans, F., 1963.- Fructose utilization in the growing chicken. Poult. Sci. 42, 1471. Pearce, J., 1970. The effects of dietary fructose and glucose on hepatic lipogenesis in the domestic fowl. Int. J. Biochem. 1, 306. Pick, H. L. and Kare, M. R., 1962. The effect of artifi- cial cues on the measurement of taste preference in the chicken. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 55, 342. Rigdon, R. H., Couch, J. R., Creger, C. R., and Fergus,lh M., 1963. Galactose intoxication pathologic study in the chick. Experientia 19, 349. Rutter, W. J., Krichevsky, P., Scott, H. M., and Hansen, R. G., 1953. The metabolism of lactose and galactose in the chick. Poult. Sci. 32, 706. Schoenheimer, R. and Rittenberg, D., 1936. Deuterium as an indicator in the study of intermediary metabolism: VI Synthesis and destruction of fatty acids in the organism. J. Biol. Chem. 114, 381. 78 Schutz, H. G. and Pilgrim, F. J., 1957. Sweetness of various compounds and its measurement. Food Research 22, 206. Shannon, D. W. F., Waring, J. J., and Brown, W. 0., 1969. In "Energy Metabolism of Farm Animal" (K. L. Blaxter, J. Kielanowski and G. Thorbek, eds.) Oriel Press Limited, Newcastle upon Tyne. pp. 349. Shaw, T. P., 1913. Digestion in chick. Am. J. Physiol. 31, 439. Sondergaard, E., Prange, 1., Dam, H., and Christensen, E., 1957. Uricemia and kidney damage in galactose- poisoned chicks. Acta. Path. Microbiol. Scandin. 40, 303. Tukey, J. W., 1953. The problem of multiple comparisons. Mimeographed Notes. Princeton, N. J., Prince Univ. Math. Dept. Yeh, Yu-Yan and Leveille, G. A., 1969. Effect of dietary protein on hepatic lipogenesis in the chick. J. Nutri. 98, 356. APPENDIX 79 Appendix Table 1 Feed consumed by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Feed consumed Glucose Metabo— # in lizable .../22:272.. 272:: ing in diet g y y water (kcal/ ' (%) kg) 1 2 3 4 5 2700 1 13.0 22.7 33.5 41.7 58.9 619 2 13.4 25.4 35.9 43.2 67.3 673 mean 13.2 25.4 34.7 42.5 63.1 646 no 3000 3 13.6 23.3 30.8 35.1 47.7 555 glucose 4 14.3 24.9 35.7 39.9 53.9 621 (tap mean 14.0 24.1 33.3 37.5 50.8 588 water) 3300 5 12.2 21.5 31.8 33.9 57.5 570 8.6 23.1 32.8 38.7 51.3 567 10.4 22.3 32.3 36.3 54.4 568 11.3 22.0 32.7 39.1 50.5 572 11.1 20.3 29.6 40.0 54.9 569 11.2 21.2 31.2 39.6 52.7 570 12.3 21.9 32.3 39.3 53.2 583 12.0 21.9 30.2 40.3 42.9 546 12.2 21.9 31.3 39.8 48.1 565 10.7 20.1 25.7 37.6 50.4 528 13.1 22.5 25.0 38.9 51.4 552 11.9 '21.3 25.4 38.3 50.9 540 13.1 21.6 30.5 36.3 50.8 558 14.2 24.4 33.3 37.4 55.2 603 13.7 23.0 31.9 36.9 53.0 581 4% 3000 15 12.8 22.8 31.9 39.3 51.2 581 16 10.4 19.8 27.6 34.0 48.4 512 mean 11.6 21.3 29.8 36.7 49.8 547 3300 17 11.4 20.4 28.2 37.5 47.9 534 18 11.7 22.1 31.1 37.1 49.5 557 mean 11.6 21.3 29.7 37.3 48.7 545 2700 19 13.6 21.8 29.8 35.5 48.3 548 20 11.1 21.4 29.3 35.9 42.4 518 mean 12.4 21.6 29.6 35.7 45.4 533 8% 3000 21 8.9 17.6 26.0 31.8 42.3 464 22 9.4 19.3 26.9 32.9 42.8 482 mean 9.2 18.5 26.5 32.4 42.6 473 3300 23 7.9 17.1 24.4 31.3 44.0 455 24 9.4 17.6 25.4 30.4 41.5 456 [mean 8.7 17.4 24.9 30.9 42.8 455 80 Appendix Table 2 Feed consumed by broiler—type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in Feed consumed (gm/bird/day) drinking water period . 1 2 (A) 3 5 * (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose a (tap water) 12.5 23.53 33.4a 38.88 56.13 27 11.8ab 21.5a 29.3bC 39.2a 50.6b 4% 12.3ab 21.9a 30.4ab 36.9a 50.5b 8% 10.1b 19.1b 27.0c 33.0b 43.6C Appendix Table 3 Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Feed consumed (gm/bird/day) energy in diet (kcal/kg) - period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 12.6a 22.58 31.88 38.68 53.5a 3000 11.7ab 21.4ab 30.2ab 36.6ab 47.8b 3300 10.6b 20.6b 28.1b 35.7b 49.2ab a,b,c represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. means, in vertical tog, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 81 Appendix Table 4 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Water consumed Glucose Metabo— # in lizable drink- energy period ml/bird for ing in diet (ml/bird/day) 19 days water (kcal/ (%) kg) 1 2 3 4 5 2700 1 36 52 73 109 135 1485 2 33 56 76 112 140 1528 mean 35 54 75 111 138 1507 no 3000 3 36 56 84 98 116 1444 glucose 4 36 56 84 98 116 1444 (tap mean 36 56 84 98 116 1444 water) 3300 5 39 59 84 118 131 1593 6 36 51 70 104 115 1389 mean 38 55 77 111 123 1491 2700 7 40 53 71 85 113 1335 8 40 55 78 92 124 1432 mean 40 54 75 89 119 1384 2% 3000 9 36 54 77 90 127. 1409 10 30 44 61 81 108 1188 mean 33 49 69 86 118 1299 3300 11 37 48 68 107 123 1409 12 37 48 68 107 123 1409 mean 37 48 68 107 123 1409 2700 13 39 57 80 103 124 1488 14 40 55 79 98 135 1493 mean 40 56 80 101 130 1491 4% 3000 15 33 48 67 88 110 1274 16 40 51 ' 79 87 118 1382 mean 37 50 73 88 114 1328 I 3300 17 38 50 81 99 120 1432 18 38 50 81 99 120 1432 mean 38 50 81 99 120 1432 2700 19 38 58 82 98 123 1473 20 38 58 82 98 123 1473 mean 38 58 82 98 123 1473 8% 3000 21 35 53 76 91 116 1368 22 32 48 69 86 121 1303 mean 34 51 73 89 119 1336 3300 23 46 51 76 98 129 1471 24 39 55 73 95 124 1420 mean 43 53 75 97 124 1446 82 Appendix Table 5 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in Water consumed (ml/bird/day) drinking water period (%) 1 2 3 4 5 * (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose (tap water) 363 55a 79a 107a 126a 2% 37a 50a 71a 94b 120a 4% 38a 52a 78a 96b 121a 8% 38a 54a 76a 94b 123a Appendix Table 6 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Water consumed (ml/bird/day) energy in diet (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 38ab 56a 78a 998 1273 3000 353 51b 75a 90b 117b 3300 39b 52b 758 1038 123ab * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b, means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P‘=.05), according to the Tukey's test. 83 Appendix Table 7 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Ratio of feed and water consumed Glucose Metaboli- # period gm/ml/bird in zable (gm/ml/bird/day) for 19 days drink- energy ing in diet water (kcal/ (%) kg) 1 2 3 4 5 2700 1 .36 .44 .46 .38 .44 .41 2 .41 .41 .47 .39 .48 .43 mean .39 .43 .47 .39 .46 .42 no 3000 3 .38 .42 .37 .36 .41 .38 glucose 4 .40 .45 .43 .41 .47 .43 (tap mean .39 .44 .40 .39 .44 .41 water) 3300 5 .31 .36 .38 .29 .44 .35 6. .24 .45 .47 .37 .45 .39 mean .28 .41 .43 .33 .45 .37 2700 7 .28 .42 .46 .46 .45 .41 8 .28 .37 .38 .44 .44 .40 mean .28 .40 .42 .45 .45 .40 2% 3000 9' .34 .41 .42 .44 .40 .40 10 .40 .50 .50 .50 .31 .45 mean .37 .46 .46 .47 .36 .43 3300 11 .29 .42 .38 .35 .41 .37 ’ 12 .35 .47 .37 .36 .42 .39 mean .32 .45 .38 .36 .42 .36 2700 13 .34 .38 .38 .35 .41 .37 14 .36 .44 .42 .38 .41 .40 mean .35 .41 .40 .37 .41 .39 4% 3000 15 .39 .48 .48 .45 .47 .45 16 .26 .39 .35 .39 .41 .36 mean .33 .44 .42 .42 .44 .41 3300 17 .30 .41 .35 .38 .40 .37 18 .31 .44 .38 .38 .41 .38 mean .31 .43 .37 .38 .41 .38 2700 19 .36 .38 .36 .36 .39 .37 20 .29 .37 .36 .37 .35 .35 mean .33 .38 .36 .37 .37 .36 8% 3000 21 .25 .33 .34 .35 .37 .33 22 .29 .40 .39 .38 .35 .37 mean .27 .37 .37 .37 .36 .35 3300 23 .17 .34 .32 .32 .34 .30 24 .24 .32 .35 .32 .34 .31 mean .21 .33 .34 .32 .34 .31 84 Appendix Table 8 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in , Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird/day) drinking , ter period "a (z) 1 2 3 4 5 k (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose b (tap water) .358 .42a .43a .37a .45a 27 .32ab .43a .42ab .42b .41a 47 .32ab .42a .39ab .39ab .42a 8% .27b .36b .35b .35a .36b Appendix Table 9 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird/day) energy in diet F period * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 .333 .40a 41a .39a ' 42a 3000 .343 .42a .41a .41a .40a 3300 .28b .40a .37a .35b .40a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 85 Appendix Table 10 Dietary energy consumed by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Grout Dietary energy consumed Glucose Metaboli- # period in zable (kcal/bird/day) kcal/bird drink- energy for 19 days ing in diet water (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 (%) kg) 2700 1 35.1 61.3 90.5 112.5 159.0 1677 2 36.2 68.6 96.6 116.6 181.1 1817 mean 35.7 65.0 93.7 114.6 170.1 1746 no 3000 3 '40.8 69.9 92.4 105.3 143.1 1663 glucose 4 42.9 74.7 107.1 119.7 161.7 1863 (tap mean 41.9 72.3 99.8 112.5 152.4 1763 water) 3300 5 40.3 71.0 104.9 111.9 189.8 1882 6 28.4 76.2 108.2 127.7 169.3 1870 mean 34.4 73.6 106.6 119.8 179.6 1876 2700 7 30.5 59.4 88.3 105.6 136.4 1544 8 30.0 54.8 79.9 108.0 148.2 1535 mean 30.3 57.1 84.1 106.8 142.3 1540 2% 3000 9 36.9 65.7 96.9 117.9 159.6 1748 10 36.0 65.7 90.6 120.9 126.9 1634 mean 36.5 65.7 93.8 119.4 143.3 1691 3300 11 35.3 66.3 84.8 124.1 166.3 1741 12 43.2 74.3 82.5 128.4 169.6 1822 mean 39.3 70.3 83.7 126.3 168.0 1782 2700 13 35.4 58.3 82.4 98.0 137.2 1508 14 38.3 65.9 89.9 101.0 149.0 1627 mean 36.9 62.1 86.2 99.5 143.1 1568 4% 3000 15 38.4 68.4 95.7 117.9 153.6 1742 16 31.2 59.4 82.8 102.0 145.2 1537 mean 34.8 63.9 89.3 110.0 149.4 1640 3300 17 37.6 67.3 93.1 123.8 158.1 1762 18 38.6 72.9 102.6 122.4 163.4 1836 mean 38.1 70.1 97.9 123.1 160.8 1799 2700 19 36.7 58.9 80.5 95.9 130.4 1479 20 30.0 57.8 79.1 96.9 114.5 1399 ‘ mean 33.4 58.4 79.8 96.4 122.5 1439 8% 3000 21 26.7 52.8 78.0 95.4 126.4 1391 22 28.2 57.9 80.7 98.7 128.4 1447 mean 27.5 55.4 79.4 97.1 127.4 1419 3300 23 26.1 56.4 80.5 103.3 145.2 1501 24 31.0 58.1 83.8 100,3 137.0 1504 mean 28.6 57.3 82.2 101.8 141.1 1502 Appendix Table 11 86 Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) d i ki wthr ng period (7) 1 2 3 4 5 (61* (61 (61 (61 (61 no glucose (tap water) 37.33 70.33 100.08 115.6a 167.4a 27 35.3ab 64.4a 87.2bC 117.58 151.23 4% 36.68 65.48 91.1b 110.88 151.13 8% 29.8b 57.0b 80.4C 98.4b 130.4b Appendix Table 12 Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) 'energy in diet period (kcal/kg) 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 34.08 60.68 85.93 104.38 144.68 3000 35.13 64.3ab 90.5a 109.7a 143.2a 3300 35.1a 67.8b 92.6a 117.7b 162.3b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. Appendix Table 13 87 "Water—energy" consumed by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group "Water-energy" consumed Glucose Metaboli- # period in zable (kcal/bird/day) kcal/bird drink- energy for 19 days ing in diet water (kcal/ (%) kg) 1 4 2700 1 - - - 2 - _ _ - mean - - — - no 3000 3 - — - glucose 4 — - - (tap mean — - — water) 3300 5 - - - 6 _ _ _ mean — - - 2700 7 2.6 3.5 4.7 5.6 7 5 88 8 2.6 3.6 5.2 6.1 8.2 95 mean 2.6 3.6 5.0 5.9 7.9 91 2% 3000 9 2.4 3.6 5.1 6.0 8.4 94 , 10 2.0 2.9 4.0 5.4 7.1 79 mean 2.2 3.3 4.6 5.7 7.8 86 3300 11 2.4 3.2 4.5 7.1 8.1 93 12 2.4 3.2 4.5 7.1 8.1 93 mean 2.4 3.2 4.5 7.1 8.1 93 2700 13 5.2 7.5 10.6 13.6 16.4 197 14 5.3 7.3 10.5 13.0 17.9 198 mean 5.3 7.4 10.6 13.3 17.2 198 4% 3000 15 4.4 6.4 8.9 11.7 14.6 169 16 5.3 6.8 10.5 11.5 15.6 183 mean 4.9 6.6 9.7 11.6 15.1 176 3300 17 5.0 6.6 10.7 13.1 15.9 189 18 5.0 6.6 10.7 13.1 15.9 189 mean 5.0 6.6 10.7 13.1 15.9 189 2700 19 10.1 15.4 21.7 26.0 32.6 391 20 10.1 15.4 21.7 26.0 32.6 391 mean 10.1 15.4 21.7 26.0 32.6 391 8% 3000 21 9.3 14.0 20.1 24.1 30.7 362 22 8.5 12.7 18.3 22.8 32.0 345 mean 8.9 13.4 19.2 23.5 31.4 354 3300 23 12.2 13.5 21.1 26.0 34.2 390 24 10.3 14.6 19.3 25.2 32.8 376 mean 11.3 14.1 19.7 25.6 33.5 383 88 Appendix Table 14 "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird/day) drinking water . period (A) 1 2 3 4 5 (61* (61 (6) (6) (6) no glucose (tap water) - — _ _ _ 22 2.4a 3 3a 4.7a 6.28 7.8a 4% 5.0b 6 9b 10.3b 12.7b 16.1b 8% 10.1C 14.3c 20.3C 25.2C 32.5C Appendix Table 15 "Water-energy' consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird/day) energy in diet (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 6.0ab 8.88 12.48 15.18 19.28 3000 5.33 7.7b 11.1b 13.6b 18.1b 3300 6.2b 8.0b 11.8ab 15.43 19.28 * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 89 Appendix Table 16 Total energy consumed by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Total energy consumed Glucose Metaboliw # period kcal/bird in zable (kcal/bird/day) for 19 days drink- energy water in diet (%) (kcal kg) 1 2 3 4 5 2700 1 35.1 61.3 90.5 112.5 159.0 1675 2 36.2 68.6 96.9 116.6 181.1 1817 mean 35.7 65.0 93.7 114.6 170.1 1746 no 3000 3 40.8 69.9 92.4 105.3 143.1 1663 glucose 4 42.9 74.7 107.1 119.7 161.7 1863 (tap mean 41.9 72.3 99.8 112.5 152.4 1763 water) 3300 5 40.3 71.0 104.9 111.9 189.8 1882 6 28.4 76.2 108.2 127.7 169.3 1870 mean 34.4 73.6 106.6 119.8 179.6 1876 2700 7 33.1 62.9 93.0 111.2 143.9 1633 8 32.6 58.4 85.1 114.1 156.4 1630 mean 32.9 60.7 89.1 112.7 150.2 1631 2% 3000 9 39.4 69.3 102.0 123.9 168.0 1842 10 37.0 68.6 94.6 126.3 134.0 1708 mean 38.2 69.0 98.3 125.1 151.0 1775 3300 11 37.7 69.5 89.3 131.2 174.4 1834 12 45.6 77.5 87.0 135.5 177.7 1916 mean 41.7 73.5 88.2 133.4 176.1 1875 2700 13 40.6 65.8 93.0 116.6 153.6 1705 14 43.6 73.2 100.4 114.0 116.9 1826 mean 42.1 69.5 96.7 112.8 160.3 1765 4% 3000 15 42.8 74.8 104.6 129.6 168.2 1911 16 36.5 66.2 93.3 113.5 160.8 1720 mean 39.7 70.5 99.0 121.6 164.5 1816 3300 17 42.6 73.9 103.8 136.9 174.0 1951 18 43.6 79.5 113.3 135.5 179.3 2026 mean 43.1 76.7 108.6 136.2 176.7 1988 2700 19 46.8 74.3 102.2 121.9 153.0 1840 20 40.1 73.2 100.8 122.9 147.1 1789 mean 43.5 73.8 101.5 122.4 150.0 1814 8% 3000 21 36.0 66.8 98.1 119.5 157.1 1753 22 36.7 70.6 99.0 121.5 160.4 1792 mean 36.4 68.7 98.6 120.5 158.8 1773 3300 23 38.3 69.9 100.6 129.3 179.4 1891 24 41.3 72.7 103.1 125.5 169.8 1880 mean 39.8 71.3 101.9 127.4 174.6 1886 90 Appendix Table 17 Total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in Total energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) drinking period ”3 er (2) 1 2 3 4 5 3k (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose b (tap water) 37.3a 70.38 100.08 115.68 167.33 27 ' 37.78 67.78 91.88 123.78 159.13 4% 41.68 72.28 101.4b 123.58 167.18 8% 39.98 71.38 100,6b 123.48 161.18 Appendix Table 18 Total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Total energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) energin in dietJ—- eriod (kcal/kg) p 1 2 3 4 5 ‘k (8) (3) (3) (8) (8) 2700 38.6a 67.2a 95.2a 115.6a 157.63 3000 39.08 70.1ab 98.98 119.93 156.78 3300 39.73 73.8b 101.3a 127.2b 176.7b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a, b means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 91 Appendix Table 19 Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 1. Dietary energy consumed as percent of Treatment Group total energy consumed (%) Glucose Metaboli- in zable # period drink- energy ing in diet water (kcal/ (%) kg) 3 4 19 day trial 2700 1 100 2 100 mean 100 no 3000 3 100 glucose 4 100 (tap mean 100 water) 3300 5 100 6 100 mean 100 2700 7 92.1 94.4 94.9 95.0 94.8 94.6 8 92.0 93.8 93.9 94.7 94.8 94.2 mean 92.1 94.1 94.4 94.9 94.8 94.4 2% 3000 9 93.9 94.8 95.0 95.2 95.0 94.9 10 97.3 95.8 95.8 95.7 94.7 95.6 mean 95.6 95.3 95.4 95.5 94.9 95.3 3300 11 93.6 95.4 95.0 94.6 95.4 94.9 12 94.7 95.9 94.8 94.8 95.4 95.1 mean 94.2 95.7 94.9 94.7 95.4 95.0 2700 13 87.2 88.6 88.6 87.8 89.3 88.5 14 87.8 90.0 89.5 88.6 89.3 89.1 tmean 87.5 89.3 89.1 88.2 89.3 88.8 4% 3000 15 89.7 91.4 91.5 91.0 91.3 90.1 16 85.5 89.7 88.7 89.9 90.3 89.4 mean 87.6 90.6 90.1 90.5 90.8 89.8 3300 17 88.3 91.1 89.7 90.4 90.9 90.3 18 88.5 91.7 90.6 90.3 91.1 90.7 mean 88.4 91.4 90.2 90.4 91.0 90.5 2700 19 78.4 79.3 82.3 78.7 85.2 79.2 20 74.8 79.0 78.5 78.8 77.8 78.3 mean 76.6 79.2 80.4 78.8 81.5 78.8 8% 3000 21 74.2 79.0 79.5 79.8 80.5 79.4 22 76.8 82.0 81.5 81.2 80.0 80.7 mean 75.5 80.5 80.5 80.5 80.3 80.1 3300 23 68.1 80.7 80.0 79.9 80.9 79.5 24 75.1 79.9 81.3 79.9 80.7 79.8 mean 71.6 80.3 80.7 79.9 80.8 79.7 92 Appendix Table 20 Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler- -type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy drinking consumed (%) water period (A) 1 2 3 4 5 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose (tap water) 100 100 100 100 100 22 94.13 95.1a 94.93 95.08 95.08 4% 87.9 90.4b 89.8b 89.7b 90.4b 8% 74.7 80.0C 80.6 79.7c 80.9c Appendix Table 21 Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy energy in diet consumed (%) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 . 4 5 * (3) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 86.03 88.28 88.68 88.1a 89.28 3000 87.58 89.6ab 89.5a 89.6bC 89.33 3300 85.98 90.0b 89.2a 89.0c 89.8a * represented the number of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 93 Appendix Table 22 "water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 1. "Water-energy" consumed as percent of Treatment Group total energy consumed (%) Glucose Metaboli— # period in zable drink- energy ing in diet water (kcal/ (%) kg) 1 2 3 4 5 19-day trial 2700 1 0 2 0 mean 0 no 3000 3 0 glucose 4 0 (tap mean 0 water) 3300 5 0 6 0 mean 0 2700 7 7.9 5.6 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.4 8 8.0 6.2 6.1 5.3 5.2 5.8 mean 7.9 5.9 5.6 5.1 . 5.2 5.6 2% 3000 9 6.1 5.2 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.1 10 2.7 4.2 4.2 4.3 5.3 4.4 mean 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.5 5.1 4.7 3300 11 6.4 4.6 5.0 5.4 4.6 5.1 12 5.3 4.1 5.2 5.2 4.6 4.9 mean 5.8 4.3 5.1 5.3 4.6 5.0 2700 13 12.8 11.4 11.4 12.2 10.7 11.5 14 12.2 10.0 10.5 11.4 10.7 10.9 mean 12.5 10.7 10.9 11.8 10.7 11.2 4% 3000 15 10.3 8.6 8.5 9.0 8.7 9.9 16 14.5 10.3 11.3 10.1 9.7 10.6 mean 12.4 9.4 9.9 9.5 8.2 10.2 3300 17 11.7 8.9 10.3 9.6 9.1 9.7 18 11.5 8.3 9.4 9.7 8.9 9.3 mean 11.6 8.6 9.8 9.6 9.0 9.5 2700 19 21.6 20.7 17.7 21.3 14.8 20.7 20 25.2 21.0 21.5 21.2 22.2 21.7 mean 23.4 20.8 19.6 21.2 18.5 21.2 8% 3000 21 25.8 21.0 20.5 20.2 19.5 20.6 22 23.2 18.0 18.5 18.8 20.0 19.3 ean 24.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.7 19.9 3300 23 31.9 19.3 20.0 20.1 19.1 20.5 24 24.9 20.1 18.7 20.1 19.3 20.2 mean 28.4 19.7 19.3 20.1 19.2 20.3 Appendix Table 23 94 "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in drinking water "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed (%) a period (A) 1 2 3 4 5 * (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose (tap water) 0 0 0 0 0 22 5.9a 4.9 5.18 5.0a 5.0a b 42 12.1b 9.6 10.2b 10.3b 9.6 8% 25.3c 20.0C 19.4C 20.3c 19.1c Appendix Table 24 "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy energy in diet consumed (%) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 14.08 11.88 11.4a 11.9a 10.8a 3000 12.58 10.4 10.53. 10.4bc 10.78 3300 14.18 10.0b 10.8a 11.0C 10.2a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P< .05), according to the Tukey's test. 95 Appendix Table 25 Body weight of broiler-type chicks in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Body weight gain Glucose Metaboli— # period gm/bird for in zable (gm/bird/day) 19 days drink- energy ing in diet water (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 (Z) kg) 2700 1 10.5 15.1 20.0 29.7 30.0 391 2 11.3 16.1 22.4 28.3 19.5 371 mean 10.9 15.6 21.2 29.0 24.8 381 no 3000 3 10.8 15.4 20.3 22.5 27.8 359 glucose 4 11.4 17.5 25.2 25.6 21.2 382 (tap mean 11.1 16.5 22.8 24.1 24.5 371 water) 3300 5 10.6 17.2 24.3 27.2 35.9 425 6 11.5 17.1 23.4 29.3 34.8 431 mean 11.1 17.2 24.1 28.3 35.4 428 2700 7 10.3 14.5 22.0 23.7 26.3 361 8 19.9 15.3 22.8 20.6 29.6 363 10.1 14.9 22.4 22.2 28.0 362 2% 3000 9.1 16.3 23.1 25.5 32.2 393 9.6 14.9 21.8 23.9 22.3 348 9.4 15.9 22.5 24.7 27.3 370 3300 11.8 15.6 16.1 33.4 30.9 400 12.4 16.8 16.8 32.4 21.0 377 12.1 16.2 16.5 32.9 25.8 389 2700 9.8 15.2 22.2 25.8 25.5 369 12.8 17.2 23.2 26.1 25.0 392 11.3 16.2 22.8 26.0 25.3 380 4% 3000 11.3 15.7 23.7 27.2 28.6 397 10.1 15.0 20.5 23.4 26.9 357 10.7 15.4 22.1 25.3 27.8 377 3300 10.4 16.6 24.8 26.1 32.0 408 11.1 17.8 25.7 28.9 31.2 428 10.8 17.2 25.3 27.5 31.6 418 2700 9.9 16.6 22.6 25.8 23.2 369 9.6 16.1 22.2 24.1 14.3 331 9.8 16.4 22.4 25.0 18.8 350 8% 3000 8.1 13.7 20.4 23.2 35.4 368 9.0 14.8 20.6 24.6 24.3 349 8.6 14.3 20.5 23.9 29.9 358 3300 7.0 13.7 21.1 26.3 31.2 366 8.8 13.7 22.0 25.8 27.8 367 7.9 14.0 21.6 26.1 29.5 367 96 Appendix Table 26 Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in drinking Body weight gain (gm/bird/day) t period "3 er (2) 1 2 3 4 5 * (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) no glucose (tap water) 11.0a 16.4a 22.78 27.18 28.23 2% 10.58 15.6ab 20.4b 26.68 27.18 4% 10.98 16.38 23.48 26.38 28.2a 8% 8.7b 14.9b 21.5ab 25.0a 26.0a Appendix Table 27 Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable Body weight gain (gm/bird/day) energy in diet (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 10.53 15.8a 22.23 25.58 24.28 3000 9.98 15.43 22.03 24.53 27.33 3300 10.5a 16.18 21.83 28.7b 30.6b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means , in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 97 Appendix Table 28 Feed efficiency by broiler—type chicks in Experiment]. Treatment Group Feed efficiency Glucose Metaboli- # period gm feed/ in zable (gm feed/gm bird/day) gm bird for drink— energy . 19 days ing in diet water (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 (Z) kg) 2700 1 1.24 1.50 1.78 1.40 1.96 1.56 2 1.19 1.57 1.60 1.53 3.45 1.78 mean 1.22 1.54 1.69 1.49 2.71 1.67 no 3000 3 1.26 1.51 1.52 1.56 1.72 1.50 glucose 4 1.25 2.42 1.42 1.56 2.54 1.57 (tap mean 1.26 1.47 1.47 1.56 2.13 1.54 water) 3300 5 1.15 1.25 1.31 1.25 1.60 1.30 6 0.94 1.35 1.38 1.32 1.47 1.28 mean 1.04 1.30 1.34 1.28 1.54 1.29 2700 7 1.10 1.52 1.49 1.65 1.92 1.52 8 1.12 1.33 1.30 1.94 1.85 1.49 mean 1.11 1.42 1.39 1.80 1.89 1.51 2% 3000 9 1.35 1.34 1.40 1.54 1.65 1.45 10 1.25 1.47 1.39 1.69 1.92 1.52 mean 1.30 1.41 1.39 1.61 1.79 1.49 3300 11 0.91 1.29 1.60 1.13 1.63 1.29 12 1.06 1.34 1.49 1.20 2.45 1.46 mean 0.98 1.31 1.54 1.16 2.04 1.38 2700 13 1.34 1142 1.37 1.41 1.99 1.48 14 1.11 1.42 1.43 1.43 2.21 1.48 mean 1.22 1.42 1.40 1.42 2.10 1.48 4% 3000 15 1.13 1.45 1.35 1.44 1.79 1.41 16 1.03 1.32 1.35 1.45 1.80 1.37 mean 1.08 1.39 1.35 1.45 1.79 1.39 3300 17 1.10 1.23 1.14 1.44 1.50 1.27 18 1.05 1.24 1.21 1.28 1.59 1.26 mean 1.08 1.24 1.17 1.36 1.54 1.27 2700 19 1.37 1.31 1.32 1.38 2.07 1.46 20 1.16 1.33 1.32 1.49 2.97 1.58 mean 1.26 1.32 1.32 1.43 2.52 1.52 8% 3000 21 1.10 1.28 1.27 1.37 1.19 1.24 22 1.04 1.30 1.60 1.34 1.76 1.39 mean 1.07 1.29 1.44 1.35 1.48 1.32 3300 23 1.13 1.25 1.16 1.19 1241 1.22 24 1.07 1.23 1.15 1.18 1.49 1.21 mean 1.10 1.24 1.16 1.18 1.45 1.22 98 Appendix Table 29 Feed efficiency by broiler-type chicks given different levels of glucose in drinking water in Experiment 1. Glucose in drinking water Feed efficiency (gm feed/ gm bird/day) (Z) 1 2 per3°d 4 5 (61* (61 (61 (61 (61 no glucose (tap water) 1.17a 1.43a 1.50a 1.44ab 2.128 2% 1.133 1.38ab 1.45ab 1.53a 1.908 4% 1.133 1.35ab 1.31b 1.41ab 1.818 8% 1.158 1.28b 1.30b 1.33b 1.823 gppendix Table 30 Feed efficiency by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 1. Metabolizable energy in diet Feed efficiency (gm feed/gm bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) 2700 1.20a 1.43a 1.45a 1.53a 2.308 3000 1.18a 1.39a 1.41ab 1.49a 1.80ab 3300 1.05b 1.27b 1.31b 1.25b 1.64b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. Appendix Table 31 99 Liver weight and percent liver weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of 19-day trial in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Glucose in Metaboli- # drinking zable Liver weight as water energy Liver weight percent body weight (7) in diet (gm/bird) (%) ° (kcal/ kg) 2700 1 16.8 3.9 2 20.6 4.9 mean 18.7 3:3 no glucose 3000 3 14 4 3.5 (tap water) 4 16.5 3.8 mean 15.4 _tgt 3300 5 17 8 3.8 6 16.9 3.6 mean 17.4 3.7 2700 7 16.8 4.2 8 17.1 4.2 mean 17.0 13tt 2% 3000 9 16 8 3 8 10 15.5 4.0 mean 16.1 242. 3300 11 5. 3.5 12 17.1 4.0 mean 16.2 3.8 2700 13 16.2 4.0 14. 19.0 4.3 mean 17. 6 it 4% 3000 15 17.2 3.9 16 18.0 4.6 mean 17.6 gt; 3300 17 17.5 3.9 18 17.7 3.7 mean 17.6 3.8 2700 19 18.3 4.4 20 17.2 4.6 mean 17.7 5;; 8% 3000 21 15 9 3 9 22 16.3 4.2 mean 16.1 .329 3300 23 16 6 4.1 24 16.0 3.9 mean 16.3 4.0 100 Appendix Table 32 Pancreatic weight and percent of pancreatic weight of broiler-type chicks sacrificed at the end of l9-day trial in Experiment 1. Treatment Group Glucose in Metaboli- # drinking zable Pancreatic weight water energy Pancreatic weight as percent of body in diet (gm/bird) weight (%) (%) (kcal/ - kg) 2700_ 1 1.8 .42 2 2.6 .62 mean .25.: .52 no glucose 3000 3 1 4 .35 4 2.1 .48 mean 1.1 is 3300 5 2.2 .46 6 2.2 .47 mean 2.2 .47 2700 7 1.6 .40 8 1.8 .45 mean .151 .33 2% 3000 9 1.8 .41 10 1.6 .42 mean 1.1 142 3300 11 2.1 .48 12 1.9 .44 mean 2.0 .46 2700 13 2.1 .50 14 2.4 .54 mean 2.2 tit 4% 3000 15' 2.2 .49 16 1.8 .46 mean 2.0 229 3300 17 1.7 .38 18 2.0 .42 mean 1.8 .40 2700 19 1.7 .42 20 1.8 .47 mean tt§_ .45 8% 3000 21 1.7 .41 22 1.7 .44 mean 11 .42. 3300 23 1.8 .44 24 1.8 .45 mean 1.8 .45 101 Appendix Table 33 Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Feed consumed Carbo- Metabo— # period hydrate lizable (gm/bird/day) gm/bird for in energy 19 days drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 1 3 4 water kg) 2700 1 9.1 15.7 18.9 32.4 45.0 439 no ' 2 9.5 15.5 25.9 32.8 45.3 471 carbo- mean 9.3 15.6 22.4 32.6 45.1 455 hydrate 3300 3 8.8 13.1 20.8 26.6 50.5 429 (tap 4 8.8 14.7 21.0 21.9 27.8 349 water) mean 8.8 13.9 20.9 24.3 39.2 389 2700 5 8.4 14.0 21.3 33.3 54.9 473 6 9.4 16.1 26.7 31.4 47.5 477 4% mean 8.9 15.1 24.0 32.4 51.2 475 glucose 3300 7 8.6 13.4 23.0 22.0 36.8 378 8 9.1 12.9 20.5 20.8 33.1 353 mean 8.9 13.2 21.8 21.4 35.0 366 2700 9 6.6 11.8 18.6 23.5 36.4 351 10 7.4 12.5 19.1 17.8 28.8 314 4% mean 7.0 12.2 18.9 20.7 32.6 333 galac- 3300 11 6.9 13.5 20.4 24.5 37.7 374 tose 12 8.8 10.8 16.7 16.2 39.7 329 mean 7.9 12.1 18.6 20.4 38.7 352 2700 13 7.4 14.0 22.6 28.0 40.7 410 14 7.8 13.1 18.1 26.0 29.3 348 4% mean 7.6 13.6 20.4 27.0 35.0 379 fructose 3300 15 4.0 14.9 21.3 25.9 37.7 378 16 6.2 13.3 20.9 25.3 40.1 383 mean 5.1 14.1 21.1 25.6 38.9 381 2700 17 9.7 14.9 22.8 28.6 41.1 428 18 10.1 15.6 24.5 31.1 44.5 459 4% mean 9.9 15.3 23.7 29.9 42.8 443 sucrose 3300 19 8.7 16.3 24.1 30.5 46.0 456 20 8.1 15.5 22.5 27.0 41.5 416 mean 8.4 15.9 23.3 28.8 43.8 436 2700 21 8.1 16.6 24.3 35.1 56.3 505 22 10.1 15.1 23.3 30.0 48.8 462 4% mean 9.1 15.9 23.8 32.7 52.6 484 lactose 3300 23 6.9 15.2 26.0 33.3 49.0 473 24 7.7 14.0 23.8 30.1 43.0 431 mean 7.3 14.6 24.9 31.7 46.0 452 Appendix Table 34 Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Feed consumed (gm/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) no carbohydrate a a ab a a (tap water) 9.1 14.8 21.7 28.4 42.2 4% glucose 8.93 14.1ab 22.9ab 26.9ab 43.18 4% galactose 7.4ab 12.2b 18.7a 20.5b 35.78 4% fructose 6.4b 13.88b 20.78b 26.38b 37.08 4% sucrose 9.2a 15.6a 23.5ab 29.38 43.38 4% lactose 8.2ab 15.2a 24.4b 32.23 49.38 Appendix Table 35 Feed consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Feed consumed (gm/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 8.63 14.68 22.23 29.23 43.23 3300 7.7b 14.08 21.83 25.3b 40.2a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means,in vertical row,carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 103 Appendix Table 36 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Water consumed Carbo- Metaboli- # period ml/bird for hydrate zable (ml/bird/day) 19 days in energy drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 23.4 37.9 67.5 73.8 108.1 1135 - no 2 25.6 36.6 64.8 90.2 119.6 1228 carbo— . mean 24.5 36.3 66.2 82.0 113.9 1182 3300 3 22.3 35.5 71.1 74.5 83.3 1064 hydrate (tap 4 25.9 35.5 62.1 63.8 68.6 955 mean 24.1 35.5 66.6 69.2 75.9 1009 water) 2700 5 25.8 41.1 86.3 88.4 118.1 1321 6 31.9 49.3 88.4 109.8 141.9 1543 4% _mean 28.9 45.2 87.4 99.1 130.0 1432 glucose 3300 7 31.6 43.5 88.0 107.3 114.6 1425 8 30.9 43.5 70.8 79.8 94.2 1183 mean 31.3 43.5 79.4 93.6 104.4 1304 2700 9 30.4 32.6 77.5 80.3 115.4 1229 10 40.2 41.5 107.5 109.4 120.0 1554 4% mean 35.3 37.0 92.5 94.9 117.7 1392 galac— 3300 11 28.1 41.9 78.5 84.3 126.7 1311 tose 12 35.9 38.5 69.6 72.6 96.0 1154 mean 32.0 40.2 74.1 78.5 111.4 1233 2700 13 31.3 36.5 58.8 71.4 96.3 1081 14 26.3 41.0 73.2 85.2 122.6 1271 4% _mean 28.8 38.7 66.0 78.3 109.5 1176 fructose 3300 15 26.2 36.3 64.3 69.1 90.0 1054 16 29.7 41.4 68.8 72.3 100.6 1151 mean 28.0 38.8 66.6 70.7 92.3 1102 2700 17 32.3 45.1 85.8 91.4 134.6 1422 18 38.0 49.5 90.8 92.3 123.8 1453 4% mean 35.2 47.3 88.3 91.9 129.2 1438 sucrose 3300 19 27.7 35.2 68.4 87.3 108.1 1199 20 31.1 39.6 84.4 74.2 118.8 1274 mean 29.4 37.4 76.4 80.8 113.5 1236 2700 21 33.7 58.1 109.3 115.4 114.0 1698 22 35.9 54.3 100.4 102.2 140.2 1592 4% mean 34.8 56.2 104.9 108.8 142.1 1645 lactose 3300 23 27.1 50.1 99.2 106.7 146.9 1573 24 27.4 41.4 82.5 93.2 135.5 1385 mean 27.3 45.6 90.9 100.0 141.2 1479 Appendix Table 37 104 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Water consumed (ml/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) no carbohydrate a a a a a (tap water) 24 36 66 76 95 4% glucose 30ab 44ab 838b 96ab 117ab 4% galactose 34b 39ab 83ab 87ab 115a 4% fructose zsab 39ab 66a 753 1028 4% sucrose 32b 4Zab 82ab 86ab 121ab 4% lactose 31ab 51b 98b 104b 142b Appendix Table 38 Water consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Water consumed (ml/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period t (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 313 44a 843 92a 124a 3300 29a 40b 76b 82b 107b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a, b means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 105 Appendix Table 39 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Ratio of feed and water consumed Carbo- Metabo- # period gm/ml/bird hydrate lizable (gm/ml/bird day) for 19 days in energy drink- in diet ing (kcal/ water kg) 1 2 3 4 5 2700 l .39 .41 .28 .44 .42 .39 no 2 .37 .42 .40 .36 .38 .38 carbo— 4 mean .38 .42 .34 .40 .40 .38 hydrate 3300 3 .39 .37 .29 .36 .61 .40 . (tap 4 .34 .41 .34 .34 .41 .37 water) mean .37 .39 .31 .35 .51 .39 2700 5 .33 .34 .25 .37 .46 .36 6 .29 .33 .30 .28 .33 .31 4% mean .31 .34 .28 .33 .40 .33 glucose 3300 7 .27 .31 .26 .21 .44 .27 ' 8 .29 .30 .29 .26 .35 .30 mean .28 .31 .27 .24 .40 .28 2700 9 .22 .36 .24 .29 .32 .29 10 .18 .30 .18 .16 .24 .20 4% mean .20 .33 .21 .23 .28 .24 galac- 3300 11 .25 .32 .26 .29 .30 .29 tose 12 .25 .28 .24 .22 .41 .29 mean .25 .30 .25 .26 .36 .29 2700 13 .24 .38 .38 .39 .42 .38 14 .30 .32 .25 .31 .24 .27 4% mean .27 .35 .31 .35 .33 .32 fructose 3300 15 .15 .41 .33 .37 .42 .36 16 .21 .32 .30 .35 .40 .33 mean .18 .37 .32 .36 .41 .35 2700 17 .30 .33 .27 .31 .31 .30 18 .27 .32 .27 .34 .36 .32 4% mean .28 .32 .27 .32 .33 .31 sucrose 3300 19 .31 .46 .35 .35 .43 .38 20 .26 .39 .27 .36 .35 .33 mean .29 .43 .31 .36 .39 .35 2700 21 .24 .29 .22 .30 .39 .30 22 .28 .28 .23 .30 .35 .29 4% mean .26 .29 .23 .30 .37 .29 lactose 3300 23 .25 .30 .26 .31 .33 .30 24 .28 .34 .29 .32 .32 .31 mean .27 .32 .27 .32 .33 .31 106 Appendix Table 40 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. gjigigzgrsziefn Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) no carbohydrate (tap water) .378 .40a .33a .38ac .46a 4% glucose .30b .32b .288 .288bc .408 47 galactose .23C .32b 23a .24b .32a 42 fructose .23C .36ab .323 .36C .378 42 sucrose .29bc .388b .298 .34C .368 47 lactose .26bc .30b .258 .31bc .358 Appendix Table 41 Ratio of feed to water consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Ratio of feed and water consumed (gm/ml/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 .288 .34a .27a .32a .35a 3300 .278 .358 .298 .318 .408 * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 107 Appendix Table 42 Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Dietary energy consumed Carbo— Metabo- # period kcal/bird hydrate lizable (kcal/bird/day) for 19 days in energy drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 24.6 42.4 51.0 87.5 121.4 1186 no 2 25.7 41.9 69.9 88.6 122.3 1271 carbo— mean 25.2 42 2 60.5 88.1 121.9 1229 hydrate 3300 3 29.0 43 2 68.6 87.8 166.7 1415 (tap 4 29.0 48 5 69.3 72.3 91.7 1152 water) mean 29.0 45 9 69.0 80.1 129.2 1284 2700 5 22.7 37 8 57.5 89.9 148.2 1276 6 25.4 43.5 72.1 84.8 128.3 1288 4% mean 24.1 40.7 64.8 87.4 138.3 1282 glucose 3300 7 28.4 44.2 75.9 72.6 121.4 1249 8 30.0 42 6 67.7 68.6 109.2 1163 mean 29.2 43 4 71.8 70.6 115.3 1206 2700 9 17.8 31 9 50.2 63.5 98.3 949 10 20.0 33 8 51.6 48.1 77.8 847 4% mean 18.9 32 9 50.9 55.8 88.1 898 galac- 3300 11 22.8 44.6 67.3 80.9 124.4 1236 tose 12 29.0 35.6 55.1 53.5 131.0 1086 mean 25.9 40.1 61.2 67.2 127.7 1161 2700 13 20.0 37 8 61.0 75.6 109.9 1107 14 21.1 35.4 48.9 70.2 79.1 939 4% mean 20.6 36.6 55.0 72.9 94.5 1023 sucrose 3300 15 13.2 49.2 70.3 85.5 124.4 1246 16 20.5 43 9 69.0 83.5 132.3 1265 mean 16.9 46.6 69.7 84.5 128.4 1255 2700 17 26.2 40.2 61.6 77.2 111.0 1154 18 27.3 42 1 66.2 84.0 120.2 1239 4% mean 26.8 41 2 63.9 80.6 115.6 1197 sucrose 3300 19 28.7 53 8 79.5 100.7 151.8 1506 20 26.7 51 2 74.3 89.1 137.0 1376 mean 27.7 52 5 76.9 94.9 144.4 1441 2700 21 21.9 44.8 65.61 94.8 152.0 1364 22 27.3 40.5 62.9 81.5 131.8 1244 4% mean 24.6 42.7 64.3 88.2 141.9 1304 lactose 3300 23 22.8 50.2 85.8 110.0 161.7 1560 24 25.4 46.2 78.5 99.3 141.9 1423 24.1 48.2 82.2 104.7 151.8 1492 mean 108 Appendix Table 43 Dietary energy consumed by broilerftype chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Siizzgzgrgziein Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 (41* (41 (41 (41 (41 no carbohydrate b (tap water) 27.18 44.08 64.73 84.18 125.53 4% glucose 26.6a 42.0ab 68.3ab 79.0ab 126.8a 4% galactose 22.4ab 36.5b 56.1a 61.5b 107.98 42 fructose 18.7b 41.68b 62.38b 78.78b 111.48 4% sucrose 27.28 46.83 70.4ab 87.78 130.08 42 lactose 24.43 45.48 73.2b 96.4a 146.9a Appendix Table 44 Dietary energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Dietary energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 . 2 3 4 5 7’ s (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 23.38 39.3a 59.98 78.83 116.78 3300 25.5b 46.1b 71.8b 83.6a 132.8a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (Pi<.05), according to the Tukey's test. 109 Appendix Table 45 Metabolizable energy of various sugars used in Experiment 2. Monosaccharide Disaccharide Item * glucose galactose fructose sucrose lactose Gross energy/ mole ' 673.0 670.7 675.6 1349.6 1350.8 Gross energy/gm 3.74 3.73 3.75 3.95 3.95 % Metabolize 97.3 - 95.5 96.4 44.5 M.E./gm (dry weight) 3.64 - 3.58 3.81 1.76 % moisture 0.2 0.3 0.08 0.03 4.8 M.E./gm (as used) 3.63 - 3.58 3.81 1.68 M.E.l ml of the 4% sugar solution 0.145 - 0.143 0.152 0.067 * No available data on the % metabolize of galactose in chicks, thus the M.E. of galactose was not known. Appendix Table 46 110 "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group "Water-energy" consumed Carbo- Metabo- # period kcal/bird hydrate lizable (kcal/bird/day) for 19 days in energy drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 O 0 no 2 0 0 carbo— mean 0 0 hydrate 3300 3 0 0 (tap 4 0 0 water) mean 0 0 2700 5 3.7 6.0 12.5 12.8 17.1 191 6 ‘4.6 7.1 12.8 15.9 20.6 223 4% mean 4.2 6.6 12.7 14.4 18.9 207 glucose 3300 7 4.6 6.3 12.8 15.6 16.6 207 8 4.5 6.3 10.3 11.6 13.7 172 mean 4.6 6.3 11.6 13.6 15.2 192 2700 9 10 4% mean No available data on M.E. of galactose galac- 3300 11 in chicks tose 12 mean 2700 13 4.5 5.2 8.4 10.2 13.8 155 14 3.8 5.9 4.5 12.2 17.5 182 4% _mean 4.2 5.6 9.5 11.2 15.7 168 fructose 3300 15 3.4 5.2 9.2 9.9 12.9 151 16 4.2 5.9 9.8 10.3 14.4 164 mean 4.0 5.6 9.5 10.1 13.7 157 2700 17 4.9 6.9 13.0 13.9 20.5 216 ‘ 18 5.8 7.5 13.8 14.0 18.8 221 4% mean 5.4 7.2 13.4 14.0 19.7 219 sucrose 3300 19 4.2 5.4 10.4 13.3 16.4 182 20 4.7 6.0 12.8 11.3 18.1 194 mean 4.5 5.7 11.6 12.3 17.3 188 2700 21 2.3 3.9 7.3 7.7 9 114 22 2.4 3.6 6.7 6.8 8. 104 4% mean 2.4 3.8 7.0 7.3 9. 109 1actose 3300 23 1.8 3.4 6.6 7.1 9. 105 24 1.8 2.8 5.5 6.2 9. 93 mean 1.8 3.1 6.1 6.7 9. 99 Appendix Table 47 111 "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 (41* (41 (41 (41 (41 no carbohydrate (tap water) - - - - - 4% glucose 4.4ab 6.48 12.18 14.0a 17.0ab 4% galactose No available data on M.E. of galactose in chicks 42 fructose 4.1a 5.68 9.5b 10.7b 14.7b 47 sucrose 4.9b 6.53 12.58 13.1ab 18.5a 47 lactose 2.1c 3.4b 6.5c 7.0c 9.3C Appendix Table 48 "Water-energy" consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet "Water-energy" consumed (kcal/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 (121* (12) (121 (121 (12) 2700 4.0a 5.88 10.68 11.78 15.83 3300 3.78 5.2b 9.7a 10.7a 13.9b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 112 Appendix Table 49 Total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Total energy consumed Carbo- Metabo- # period kcal/bird hydrate lizable (kcal/bird/day) for 19 days in energy . drink- in diet water (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 kg) 2700 1 24.6 42.4 51.0 87.5 121.4 1186 no 2 25.7 41.9 69.9 88.6 122.3 1271 carbo- _mean 25.2 42.2 60.5 88.1 121.9 1229 hydrate 3300 3 29.0 43.2 68.6 87.8 166.7 1415 (tap 4 29.0 48.5 69.3 72.3 91.7 1152 water) mean 29.0 45.9 69.0 80.1 129.2 1285 2700 5 26.4 43.8 70.0 102.7 165.3 1468 6 30.0 50.6 84.9 100.7 148.9 1512 4% mean 28.2 47.2 77.5 101.7 157.1 1490 glucose 3300 7 33.0 50.5 88.7 88.2 138.0 1456 8 34.5 48.9 78.0 80.2 122.9 1335 mean 33.8 49.7 83.4 84.2 130.5 1396 2700 9 10 4% mean No available data on M. E. of galactose galac- 3300 11 in chicks tose 12 mean 2700 13 24.5 43.0 69.4 85.8 123.7 1262 14 24.9 41.3 59.4 82.4 96.6 1122 4% mean 24.7 42.2 64.4 84.1 110.2 1192 fructose 3300 15 16.9 54.4 79.5 95.4 137.3 1397 16 24.7 49.8 78.8 93.8 146.7 1429 mean 20.8 52.1 79.2 94.6 142.0 1413 2700 . 17 31.1 47.1 74.6 91.1 131.5 1370 18 33.1 49.6 80.0 98.0 139.0 1460 4% mean 32.1 48.4 77.3 94.6 135.3 1415 sucrose 3300 19 32.9 59.2 89.9 114.0 168.2 1689 20 31.4 57.2 87.1 100.4 155.0 1569 mean 32.2 58.2 88.5 107.2 161.6 1629 2700 21 24.2 48.7 72.9 102.5 161.6 1478 22 29.7 44.1 69.6 88.3 140.6 1349 4% mean 27.0 46.4 71.3 95.4 151.1 1413 lactose 3300 23 24.6 53.6 92.4 117.0 171.5 1665 24 27.2 49.0 84.0 105.5 151.0 1516 mean 25.9 51.3 88.2 111.3 161.3 1590 Appendix Table 50 113 Total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Total energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 (0* (41 (41 (4) (4) no carbohydrate (tap water) 27.1abc 44.08 64.78 84.18 125.58 42 glucose 31.0bc 48.58b 80.4b 93.08b 143.88b 4% galactose 4% fructose 4% sucrose 4% lactose No available data on M.E. of galactose in chicks 22.8a 47.1ab 71.8ab 89.4ab 126.1a 32.1b 53.3b 82.9b 100.4b 148.4b 26.4ac 48.9ab 79.7ab 103.3b 156.2b Appendix Table 51 Total energy consumed by broiler—type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Total energy consumed (kcal/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 ‘ (121* (121 (121 (121 (121 2700 27.48 45.38 70.28 92.88 135.18 3300 28.38 51.4b 81.6b 95.58 144.98 * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P<:.05), according to the Tukey's test. 114 Appendix Table 52 Dietary energy Consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Dietary energy consumed as percent of Treatment Group total energy consumed (%) Carbo- Metabo- # period hydrate lizable in energy drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 19—day trial water kg) 2700 1 100 100 no 2 100 100 carbo- mean 100 100 hydrate 3300 3 100 100 (tap 4 100 100 water) mean 100 100 2700 5 86.0 86.3 82.1 87 5 89.7 86 9 6 84.7 86 0 84.9 84 2 86.2 85 2 4% mean 85.4 86.2 83 5 85 9 88 O 86 1 glucose 3300 7 86.1 87.5 85.6 82 3 88.0 85 8 8 87 0 87 1 86.8 85 5 88.9 87 2 mean 88 6 87.3 86 2 83 9 88.5 86 5 2700 9 10 4% mean No available data on M. E. of galactose galac— 3300 11 in chicks tose 12 mean 2700 13 81.6 87.9 87.9 88.1 88.8 87.8 14 84.7 85.7 82.3 85.2 81.9 83.7 4% mean 83.2 86.8 85.1 86.7 85.4 85.8 fructose 3300 15 78.1 90.4 88.4 89.6 90.6 89.3 16 83 0 88.2 87.6 89.0 90.2 88.6 mean 80.6 89.3 88.0 89.3 90.4 89.0 2700 - 17 84.2 85.4 82.6 84.7 84.4 84.2 18 82.5 84.9 82.7 85.7 86.5 84.9 4% mean 83.4 85.2 82.7 85.2 85.5 84.6 sucrose 3300 19 87.2 90.9 88.4 88.3 90.2 89.2 20 85 0 89.5 85.3 88.7 88.3 87.7 mean 86.1 90.2 86.9 88.5 89.3 88.5 2700- 21 90.5 92.0 90.0 92.5 94.1 92.3 22 91 9 91.8 90.4 92.3 93.7 92.3 4% mean 91.2 91.9 90.2 92.4 93.9 92.3 lactose 3300 23 92.7 93.7 92.9 93.9 94.3 93.7 24 93.4 94.3 93.5 94.1 94.0 93.9 mean 92.9 94.0 93.2 94.0 94.2 93.8 Appendix Table 53 115 Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed (%) _ period 1 2 3 4 5 (41* (41 (41 (41 (41 no carbohydrate (tap water) 100 42 glucose 86.03 86.73 84.93 84.9a 88.2a galactose fructose sucrose lactose No available data on M.E. of galactose in chicks 81.9b 88.18 86.68 88.3b 88.18 84.8ab 87.8a 84.8a 86.9ab 87.4a 91.2c 93.0b 91.8b 93.2C 94.0b Appendix Table Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable Dietary energy consumed as percent of total energy energy in diet~ consumed (%) (kcal/kg) period . 1 2 3 4 5 * (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 86.0a 87.68 85.53 87.7a 88.5a 3300 86.9a 90.4b 88.7b 89.3b 90.7b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at a,b,c means, in eight chicks per group, started. vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 116 Appendix Table 55 "water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total Treatment Group . energy consumed (%) Carbo- Metabo- # period hydrate lizable in energy drink— in diet ing (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 0 0 no 2 0 0 carbo- mean 0 0 hydrate 3300 3 0 0 (tap 4 0 0 water) mean 0 0 2700 5 14.0 13.7 17.9 12.5 10.3 13.1 6 15.3 14.0 15.1 15.8 13.8 14.8 4% mean 14.7 13.9 16.5 14.2 12.1 14.0 glucose 3300 7 13.9 12.5 14.4 17.7 12.0 14.2 8 13.0 12.9 13.2 14.5 11.1 12.8 mean 13.5 12.7 13.8 16.1 11.6 13.5 2700 9 10 4% mean No available data on M. E. of galactose galac- 3300 11 in chicks tose 12 mean 2700 13 18.4 12.1 12.1 11.9 11.2 12.2 14 15.3 14.3 17.7 14.8 18.1 16.3 4% mean 16.9 13.2 14.9 13.4 14.7 14.3 fructose 3300 15 21.9 9.6 11.6 10.4 9.4 10.7 16 17.0 11.8 12.4 11.0 9.8 11.4 mean 19.5 10.7 12.0 10.7 9.6 11.1 2700 ‘ 17 15.8 14.6 17.4 15.3 15.6 15.8 18 17.5 15.1 17.3 14.3 13.5 15.1 4% mean 16.7 14.9 17.4 14.8 14.6 15.5 sucrose 3300 19 12.8 9.1 11.6 11.7 9.8 10.8 20 15.0 10.5 14.7 11.3 11.7 12.3 mean 13.9 9.8 13.2 11.5 10.8 11.6 2700 21 9.5 8.0 10.0 10.5 5.9 7.7 22 8.1 8.2 9.6 7.7 6.3 7.7 4% mean 8.8 8.1 9.8 7.6 6.1 7.7 lactose 3300 23 7.3 6.3 7.1 6.1 5.7 6.3 24 6.6 5.7 6.5 5.9 6.0 6.1 mean 7.0 6.0 6.8 6.0 5.9 6.2 117 Appendix Table 56 "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy drinking water consumed (%) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) no carbohydrate (tap water) 0 4% glucose 14.0a 13.38 15.18 15.13 11.83 4% galactose No available data on M.E. of galactose in chicks 4% fructose 18.1b 11.98 13.48 11.7b 11.9a 42 sucrose 15.2ab 12.2a 15.2a 13.1ab 12.68 42 lactose 7.8c 7.0b 8.2b 6.8c 6.0b Appendix Table 57 "Water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy consumed by broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable "water-energy" consumed as percent of total energy energy in diet consumed (%) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 (121* (12) (121 (12) (121 2700 14.08 _ 12.4a 14.5a 12.3a 11.5a 3300 ' 13.1a 9.6b 11.3b 10.7b 9.3b * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b, means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 118 Appendix Table 58 Body weight gain of broiler—type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Body weight gain Carbo- Metaboli~ # period gm/bird for hydrate zable (gm/bird/day) 19 days ' in energy drink— in diet lng (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 6.8 8.9 11.3 19.6 22.0 252 no 2 7.0 10.2 14.0 19.2 22.2 268 carbo- mean 6.9 9.6 12.7 19.4 22.1 260 hydrate 3300 3 6.7 9.4 14.3 17.1 18.4 245 (tap 4 8.2 10.1 12.7 14.2 17.0 232 water) mean 7.5 9.8 13.5 15.7 17.7 239 2700 5 7.5 7.1 15.5 16.9 20.5 250 6 9.9 11.1 18.8 20.7 23.0 311 4% mean 8.7 9.1 17.2 18.8 21.8 280 glucose 3300 7 7.7 10.0 15.7 19.5 23.3 282 8 8.0 10.0 15.8 15.1 19.4 254 mean 7.9 10.0 15.8 17.3 21.4 268 2700 9 6.0 8.0 12.8 15.7 19.1 227 10 7.3 5.9 8.6 10 6 15 0 175 4% mean 6.7 7.0 10.7 13.2 17.1 201 galac— 3300 11 8.0 8.8 16.1 20.5 25.2 289 tose 12 8.5 7.0 12.6 14.0 10.8 201 mean 8.3 7.9 14.4 17.3 18.0 245 2700 13 5.5 5.6 14.6 16.1 23.5 254 14 4.4 6.5 12.7 14.6 20.7 215 4% mean 5.0 8.1 13.7 15.4 22.1 234 fructose 3300 15 5.4 9.2 18.3 20.1 23.8 283 16 6.6 5.8 17.4 19.7 27.0 295 mean 6.0 9.5 17.9 19.9 25.4 289 2700 17 7.9 9.3 16.6 17.9 26.3 286 18 8.3 10.0 17.4 19.6 24.9 296 4% mean 8.1 9.7 17.0 18.6 25.9 291 sucrOse 3300 19 9.4 11.6 20.2 22.2 30.0 344 20 8.5 11.3 18.5 21.5 29.3 327 mean 9.0 11.5 19.4 21.9 29.7 335 2700 21 7.4 9.1 16.6 18.5 24.7 281 22 7.8 8.3 16.7 16.5 24.6 271 4% mean 7.6 8.7 16.7 17.5 24.7 276 lactose 3300 23 8.9 10.3 19.8 21.0 28.4 325 24 7.8 9.0 17.8 21.6 27.4 307 mean 8.4 9.7 18.8 21.3 27.9 316 Appendix Table 59 Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Body weight gain (gm/bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 (41* (41 (41 (41 (41 72a58622213rate 7.2a 9.7a 13.1ab 17.5ab 19.9ab 42 glucose 8.3a 9 5a 16.5ac 18.1ab 21.6ab 4% galactose 7.5a 7.4b 12.5b 15.28 17.53 47 fructose 5 5b 8.8a 15.8abc 17.6ab 23.8ab 4% sucrose 8.5a 10.6a 18.2c 20.3b 27.6b 42 lactose 8.0a 9.28 17.7c 19.4ab 26.3b Appendix Table 60 Body weight gain of broiler-type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Body weight gain (gm/bird/day) (kcal/kg) period 1 2 3 4 5 * (12) (12) (12) (12) (12) 2700 7.2a 8.7a 14.73 17.23 22.2a 3300 7.8a 9.78 16.6b 18.9a 23.3a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a,b,c means, in vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 120 Appendix Table 61 Feed efficiency by broiler—type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Feed efficiency Carbo- Metaboli- # period gm feed/gm hydrate zable (gm feed/gm bird/day) bird for in energy 19 days drink- in diet ing (kcal/ 1 2 3 4 5 water kg) 2700 1 1.34 1.76 1.67 1.65 2.04 1.74 no 2 1.36 1.52 1.85 1.71 2.04 1.76 carbo— mean 1.35 1.64 1.76 1.68 2.04 1.75 hydrate 3300 3 1.31 1.39 1.45 1.56 2.74 1.75 (tap 4 1.07 1.46 1.65 1.54 1.64 1.51 water) mean 1.19 1.43 1.55 1.55 2.19 1.63 2700 5 1.12 1.97 1.37 1.97 2.68 1.89 6 0.95 1.45 1.42 1.52 2.07 1.53 4% mean 1.04 1.71 1.40 1.75 2.38 1.71 glucose 3300 7 1.12 1.34 1.46 1.13 1.58 1.34 8 1.14 1.29 1.20 1.38 1.71 1.39 mean 1.13 1.32 1.38 1.26 1.65 1.37 2700 9 1.11 1.48 1.45 1.50 1.91 1.55 10 1.01 2.12 2.22 1.68 1.92 1.79 4% mean 1.06 1.80 1.84 1.59 1.92 1.67 galac- 3300 11 0.86 1.53 1.27 1.20 1.50 1.29 tose 12 1.04 1.55 1.33 2.84 3.68 1.64 mean 0.95 1.54 1.30 2.02 2.59 1.47 2700 13 1.35 1.46 1.55 1.74 1.73 1.61 14 1.77 2.02 1.43 1.78 1.42 1.62 4% mean 1.56 1.74 1.49 1.76 1.58 1.62 fructose 3300 15 0.74 1.62 1.16 1.29’ 1.58 1.34 16 0.94 1.36 1.20 1.28 1.49 1.30 mean 0.84 1.49 1.18 1.29 1.54 1.32 2700 17 1.23 1.60 1.37 1.60 1.56 1.49 18 1.22 1.56 1.41 1.59 1.79 1.56 4% mean 1.23 1.48 1.39 1.60 1.68 1.53 sucrose 3300 19 0.93 1.41 1.19 1.37 1.53 1.33 20 0.95 1.37 1.22 1.26 1.42 1.27 mean 0.94 1.39 1.21 1.32 1.48 1.30 2700 21 1.09 1.82 1.46 1.90 2.28 1.80 22 1.29 1.82 1.40 1.83 1.98 1.70 4% mean 1.19 1.82 1.43 1.87 2.13 1.75 lactose 3300 23 0.78 1.48 1.31 1.59 1.73 1.46 24 0.99 1.56 1.34 1.39 1.57 1.40 mean 0.89 1.52 1.33 1.49 1.65 1.43 Appendix Table 62 Feed efficiency by broiler-type chicks given different kinds of carbohydrates in drinking water in Experiment 2. Carbohydrate in drinking water Feed efficiency (gm feed/gm bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 it (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) no carbohydrate (tap water) 1.27a 1.53a 1.66a 1.62a 2.128 42 glucose 1.08a 1.51a 1.39ab 1.50a 2.01a 4% galactose 1.01a 1.67a 1.57ab 1.81a 2.258 42 fructose 1.20a 1.62a 1.34ab 1.52a 1.568 4% sucrose 1.08a 1.498 1.30b 1.46a 1.588 42 lactose 1.04a 1.67a 1.38ab 1.68a 1.89a Appendix Table 63 Feed efficiency by broiler—type chicks fed different levels of dietary energy in Experiment 2. Metabolizable energy in diet Feed efficiency (gm feed/gm bird/day) period 1 2 3 4 5 (121* (121 (121 (121 (121 2700 1.24a 1.72a 1.55a 1.71a 1.958 3300 0.99b 1.45b 1.32b 1.49a 1.85a * represented the number of groups of chicks which gave the average value, at eight chicks per group, started. a, b means, vertical row, carrying different superscripts are significantly different (P <.05), according to the Tukey's test. 122 Appendix Table 64 Liver weight, percent liver weight and lipids in liver of broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Carbo- Metaboliw # hydrate zable in energy Liver weight Liver weight as Lipids in liver drink~ in diet percent of body as percent of ing (kcal/ (gm/bird) weight (%) wet liver water kg) weight (%) 2700 1 11.9 3.8 4.2 no 2 13.3 4.1 4.1 carbo- mean 12 . 6 3.2.9. _4_:_2_ hydrate 3300 3 13.0 4.4 4 6 (tap 4 11.0 3.9 3.9 water) mean 12.0 4.1 4.3 2700 5 12.0 4.0 4.0 6 15 3 4.2 4.8 4% mean 13 . 4 _lgt _4__4_ glucose 3300 7 13.2 3 9 4 8 8 12.7 4.1 4.3 mean 13.0 4.0 4.5 2700 9 12.4 4.4 4.2 10 8.9 4.0 5.0 4% mean 19;? ‘ggg ‘ggt galac- 3300 11 13.4 3.9 4.3 tose 12 9.2 3.7 4.2 mean 11.3 3.8 4.3 2700 13 13.7 4.4 4.3 14 11.2 4.1 3.5 4% mean 12:5 222. ‘;;g fructose 3300 15 14.2 4.2 4.9 16 13.1 3.7 4.2 mean 13.7 3.9 4.6 2700 17 13.8 4.0 4.3 18 14 9 4.2 4.0 4% mean 1343 .221 .222 sucrose 3300 19 15.3 3 7 4 8 20 15.8 4.0 4.5 mean 15.6 3.9 4.7 2700 21 13.2 3.9 3.9 22 12.1 3.7 3.8 4% mean 12.7 3.8 3.8 lactose 3300 23 15.4 4.0 3.9 24 14.0 3.8 4.1 mean 14.7 3.9 4.0 123 Appendix Table 65 Pancreatic weight and percent pancreatic weight of broiler-type chicks in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Carbohy- Metaboli- # drate in zable drinking Energy Pancreatic weight Pancreatic weight as water in diet percent of body weight (kcal/ (gm/bird) (%) kg) 2700 1 1.6 .52 no 2 1_7, .52 carbo- mean -LLZ 42g hydrate 3300 3 1 2 .40 (ta 4 1.2 .43 p \ mean 1.2 .42 water I 2700 5 1.2 .40 6 1.8 .48 4% mean t._5_ Jill glucose 3300 7 1.4 .42 8 1.3 .42 mean 1.4 .42 2700 9 1.3 .45 10 1.2 .52 4%. mean .Lai .232 galac- 3300 11 1.5 .44 tose 12 1.2 .47 mean 1.4 .46 2700 13 1.3 .43 14 1.3 .45 4% mean 142. _593 fructose 3300 15 1.6 .46 ‘ 16 1.5 .42 mean 1.5 .44 2700 17 1.8 .50 18 1.7 .47 4% mean t__8_ ._4_g sucrose 3300 19 2.0 .48 20 1.7 .43 mean 1.8 .46 2700 21 1.6 .48 22 1.5 .45 4% mean .ttg ggzy lcatose 3300 23 2 0 .50 24 1.8 .49 mean 1.9 .50 124 Appendix Table 66 Chick mortality in Experiment 2. Treatment Group Number dead Carbo- Metabolia # period hydrate zable in energy drink- in diet ing (kcal/ ' . water kg) 1 4 5 A 2700 1 1 — — 1 12.5% no 2 - - - - 0 % carbo- mean 6.3% hydrate 3300 3 1 - — 1 12.5% (tap 4 1 - - 1 12.5% water) mean 12.5% 2700 5 1 — - 1 12.5% 6 1 - - 1 12.5% 4% mean 12.5% glucose 3300 7 - - - - 0 % 8 - - - - 0 % mean 0 % 2700 9 3 - - 4 50 % 10 5 - - 6 75 1 4% mean 62.5% galac- 3300 11 3 - - 3 37.5% tose 12 1 1 — 3 37.5% mean 37.5% 2700 13 - - - - 0 % 14 1 - - 1 12.5% 4% mean 6.3% fructose 3300 15 1 - - 1 12.5% 16 2 - - 2 25 % mean 18.8% 2700 17 - - - - 0 % 18 - - - - 0 % 4% mean 0 % sucrose 3300 19 1 — - 1 12.5% 20 - — - - 0 % mean 6.3% 2700 21 1 - — 1 12.5% 22 - - - - 0 % 4% mean 6.3% lactose 3300 23 2 - - 2 25 1 24 1 - - 1 12.5% mean 18.8% S" ”1 NI A”3 6'