A— LJA‘

(
.-

  
 

 

  

  

.: P)
"".;‘ JR

{1...} $5M,

    

  

       
 

   
 
 
 

1!
mm (H :-,.i_.~:« .-
fiq'fi) “11314

Ué“

   

~' N
433% “

   

    
  
   
 
 

 
 

{II

 
 
  

A

   
  

N J‘
"u 0 .44‘

  
 
   

: it? '3
Eli-33‘ ' ‘h
"l

3‘“ an

 
  
   

   
 
 
   

  
 

n
‘ l

 
    

  

3. up '
5'11“.“ ”1‘7“?“ fiJL'Lt
”V...c.\T(m.. ijg'

5' 1:3.

i‘

    
 

'
a

 

a
v

A
‘.

     
   

.mr
.- 3;
'a

|-‘ ‘ |’
.7 vu~— ‘
“I'- ~:\. _:|..:] ““5511.“ ‘lufil.
. h,‘ M” ' _-c . _""C'HI. . A“..‘U

' 1", I‘Wir nwfi.‘

     
     

   

 

 

   

 

’ . L I l' ‘ ‘ "..II -
L” , ‘ H iI I“) ‘ , 31 ll 1,: : fi, ‘ ;. IU'I" "Lil. \ll“ :1 .. "nl "J":
‘. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . ‘ .. . . : u I. ' '.' ‘
v h ‘ . ‘ a «'r'~_u.:.“'~;v-.s 3W" it',.w"-:‘T" mu Ma” 11¢...er

  

‘ .. r , . .
‘I I ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ " .I . I '1': I “ ‘; l‘I U ’ :‘u “'I I' II' I‘: “I 1’ ‘ " II 1
~ ‘ ' ‘P. " 2 av ‘ ' ' ‘ ’ ‘“ -- ‘2'. "to "W ‘h"

‘
‘ my ‘ \' ’
In . . Ill .“n‘ .‘ “ A“ "I. "

Aguila? 37 ’u

 

 

THFS‘B

LIBRARY

Michigan State

Universi

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PROTEIN AND METHIONINE
REQUIREMENTS FOR STARTING
AND LAYING RING-NECKED PHEASANTS

presented by

Maria de Fatima Freire Fuentes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Poultry Science
degree in

 

 

61/ fl ?Zflflfl

/ Major profess/

Date December 30, 1980

0-7639

 

 

4' [{fl-:\\\\ A

‘3‘!!!

 

 

OVERDUE FINES:

25¢ per day per item

RETURNIIG LIIRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

 

 

PROTEIN AND METHIONINE
REQUIREMENTS FOR STARTING
AND LAYING RING-NECKED PHEASANTS

BY

Maria de Fatima Freire Fuentes

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Poultry Science

1981

ABSTRACT

PROTEIN AND METHIONINE REQUIREMENTS
FOR STARTING AND LAYING RING-NECKED PHEASANTS

BY

Maria de Fatima Freire Fuentes

Three experiments with starting and laying Ring—

necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in their first

 

and second year of egg production were conducted to assess
their protein and methionine or total sulfur amino acid
(TSAA) requirements.

The experiment with four hundred and twenty starting
pheasants from zero to four weeks of age was carried out
in battery brooders (three replicates of ten birds per
treatment). Fourteen isocaloric practical diets containing
24%, 26% and 28% protein and 0.36%, 0.40%, 0.44%, 0.48% and
0.51% of methionine within each protein level were formu-
lated. The diet that contained the highest protein level
(28%) and the lowest methionine level (0.36%) could not be
formulated with the available ingredients.

The minimum Optimum levels of methionine for each
protein level were calculated based on final body weight.
For the diet containing 24% protein the minimum optimum
methionine level was 0.637% of the diet, which lay out-
side the region of experimentation and it should not be
considered a reliable value without further research in-

cluding higher levels of methionine. For 26% and 28%

Maria de Fatima Freire Fuentes

protein diets the minimum optimum levels of methionine
calculated were 0.463% and 0.475% of the diet, respect-
ively. The requirements for TSAA were 0.893% and 0.935%
for the same diets, respectively.

The overall body weight mean of birds fed 28% pro-
tein diet was significantly higher than those of birds
fed 24% and 26% protein diets. Feed consumption, feed
conversion and mortality were not significantly affected
by methionine and/or protein levels used.

Two experiments with laying pheasants were conducted
in a cage management system for 112 days and 84 days.

Nine isocaloric practical diets containing 14%, 16% and
18% protein and 0.25%, 0.29% and 0.33% of methionine with-
in each protein level were fed to one hundred and fourty-
four birds (four replicates of four birds per treatment),
in each trial.

Hen-day percent egg production, body weight change
and mortality were not significantly affected by methionine
and/or protein levels used in both experiments.

Egg weight was significantly affected by protein
levels. Laying pheasants in their first year of egg pro-
duction fed diets that contained 18% protein laid eggs
significantly heavier than those birds fed either 14% or
16% protein diets. Pheasant hens in their second year
of egg production fed 16% and 18% protein diets laid eggs

significantly heavier than those birds fed 14% protein

Maria de Fatima Freire Fuentes

diets.

Feed consumption of laying pheasants in their
first year of egg production was significantly affected
by protein levels. Feed consumption of birds fed the
14% protein diet was not significantly different from
those fed either 16% or 18% protein diets. However,
birds fed the 18% protein diet had a significantly high-
er feed consumption than those fed the 16% protein diet.

The observations made in these studies suggest that:
1) Diets containing 26% protein and 0.463% of methionine
(or 0.893% of TSAA) seem to be appropriate for raising
pheasants for shooting preserves; 2) diets containing
28% protein and 0.475% of methionine (or 0.935% of TSAA)
might be used when pheasants are intended for meat pro-
duction; and 3) diets containing a minimum level of 16%
protein and 0.33% of methionine (or 0.59% of TSAA) seem
reasonable to be used with satisfactory results in egg
production rate and egg weight of laying Ring-necked

pheasants in their first and second year of egg production.

To the memory of my parents who had
the foresight to guide me into higher

education.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express her sincere appre-
ciation and thanks to her major professor, Dr. Cal J.
Flegal, for his guidance, interest and patience through-
out the graduate program development, the course and
preparation of her research.

Sincere appreciation is extended to the members
of her graduate committee, the late Professor Howard C.
Zindel, former.Chairman of the Department of Poultry
Science, Professor Theo H. Coleman, Department of Poul-
try Science, Professor Timothy S. Chang, Department of
Poultry Science, and Dr. John R. Brake, Department of
Agricultural Economics.

Special thanks are extended to Drs. John L. Gill
and Clyde R. Anderson of the Department of Dairy Science
for their valuable assistance in the statistical analy-
sis of the data and Dr. J. Roy Black of the Department
of Agricultural Economics for his orientation in the
computer formulation of the bird diets used in this
study.

The author is grateful to the staff of Poultry
Science Research and Teaching Center, to the Drs.
Richard Reynnells and Samson Ogundipe, and to her fellow

iii

graduate students Glenn Carpenter, Maria Marichal,
Adriano Caetano, Maria Narimatsu, Bridget Gregus and
Talal Hussein for their help at different stages in
this research.

The writer expresses her thanks to the Uni-
versidade Federal do Ceara, Brasil, and Programa de
Educacao Agricola Superior (PEAS) for the opportunity
and the financial support for her advanced train-
ing at Michigan State University.

Many thanks are extended to her fellow pro—
fessors from the Departamenbode Zootecnia, Centro de
Ciencias Agrarias da Universidade Federal do Ceara,
Brasil, for their understanding and interest in the
deve10pment of her doctoral education.

The author wishes to express her most sincere
gratitude and indebtedness to her parents-in-law, and her
brothers and sisters for their moral support, encourage-
ment and help through the course of her study.

Finally, her appreciation to her husband, Jorge,
for his love, understanding, and encouragement during
all her graduate study and grateful help in this research
and to her son Andre for his patience and love which

makes everything more enjoyable and meaningful.

iv

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.

Requirements of protein, methionine
and/or total sulfur amino acids (TSAA)
for game birds . . . . . . . . . . .

Requirements of protein, methionine
and/or total sulfur amino acids (TSAA)
for chicks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Requirements of protein, methionine
and/or total sulfur amino acids (TSAA)
for poults . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Requirements of protein, methionine

and/or total sulfur amino acids (TSAA)
for laying chickens and turkey breeder
hens 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

MATERIAL AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXperiment III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Experiment III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

17

32

32
35
38
39

42

42
55
77

96

VI.

VII.

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix A .
Appendix B .

Appendix C
Appendix D

vi

LI ST OF TABLES

Table

1. Final body weight (9) average of Ring-
necked pheasants at four weeks of age
fed different dietary levels of protein
and methionine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Feed consumption average (g/bird/day) of
Ring-necked pheasants from zero to four
weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Feed conversion of Ring-necked pheasant
from zero to four weeks of age . . . . . . .

4. Mortality of Ring-necked pheasants from
zero to four weeks of age . . . . . . . . .

5. Mean values of hen-day egg production
(%) of laying Ring-necked pheasants fed
three different levels of protein and
methionine for 112 days . . . . . . . . . .

6. Mean and standard error of hen-day percent
egg production, egg weight and feed
consumption of laying Ring-necked pheasants
for four periods of experimentation . . . .

7. Means of egg weight (g) of laying Ring-
necked pheasants fed three different
levels of protein and methionine in
the diet for 112 days . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Feed consumption (g/bird/day) of laying
Ring-necked pheasants fed diets with three
different protein and methionine levels
for 112 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Protein and methionine effect on feed

consumption (g/bird/day) of laying
Ring-necked pheasants for 112 days . . . . .

vii

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Page

Means of body weight gain (g/bird/day)

of Ring—necked pheasants fed diets with

three protein and methionine levels for

112 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Mortality of laying Ring-necked pheasants
on diets with three different levels of
methionine and protein for 112 days . . . . 76

Mean values of hen-day egg production (%)

of laying Ring-necked pheasants fed three
different levels of protein and methionine

for 84 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Mean and standard error of hen-day percent

egg production and feed consumption of

laying Ring-necked pheasants for three

periods of experimentation . . . . . . . . . 83

Mean and standard error of egg weight

(g) of laying Ring—necked pheasants fed

three different levels of protein and
methionine in the diet for 84 days . . . . . 85

Feed consumption averages (g/bird/day) of

laying Ring-necked pheasants fed diets

with three protein and methionine levels

for 84 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Means of body weight loss (g/bird/day) of

laying Ring-necked pheasants fed diets

with three protein and methionine levels

for 84 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Mortality of laying Ring-necked pheasants

on diets with three different levels of
protein and methionine for 84 days . . . . . 95

viii

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Effect of methionine in the diet on
final body weight of Ring-necked
pheasants at four weeks of age . .

Effect of methionine level in diet
on hen—day egg production at three
different protein levels . . . . .

Effect of protein level in diet
on hen-day egg production at three
different methionine levels . . . .

Effect of protein level in diet on

hen-day egg production at three
different methionine levels . . . .

ix

Page

44

58

6O

81

APPENDIX A

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

APPENDIX B

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

APPENDICES TABLES

National Research Council require-
ment recommendations for protein,
methionine and TSAA . . . . . . . .

Starter diet composition (g/Kg) and
calculated analysis . . . . . . . .

Breeder diet composition (g/Kg) and
calculated analysis . . . . . . . .

Composition values of feed ingre-
dients used to calculate nutrient
content of diets . . . . . . . . .

Vitamin-Trace Mineral Premixes
for Pheasants . . . . . . . . . . .

Regression analysis for body weight
of Ring-necked pheasants at four
weeks of age fed the 24% protein
level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regression analysis for body weight
of Ring-necked pheasants at four
weeks of age fed the 26% protein
level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Regression analysis for body weight
of Ring—necked pheasants at four
weeks of age fed the 28% protein
level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 values and standard errors cal-
culated for each protein level . .

ANOVA for feed consumption (Experi-
ment I) O O I O O O O O O O O O O O

114

115

118

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

APPENDIX B

Table

Table

APPENDIX C

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

APPENDIX D

Table

Table

(cont'd)

6.

7.

ANOVA for feed conversion (Experi-
ment I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA for mortality (Experiment I). .

ANOVA for hen-day egg production
(Experiment II) . . . . . . . . . . .

Means of the hen-day egg production
(%) of laying Ring-necked pheasants
through 112 days (Experiment II). . .

ANOVA for egg weight (Experiment II).

Means of egg weight (g) of laying
Ring-necked pheasants through 112
days (Experiment II) ... . . . . . .

ANOVA for feed consumption (Experi-
ment II) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Feed consumption (g/bird/day) of
laying Ring-necked pheasants through
112 days (Experiment II). . . . . . .

ANOVA for body weight change (Experi-
ment II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Body weight averages (g) of laying
Ring-necked pheasants fed diets with
different methionine and protein
levels through 112 days (Experi-
ment II). . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA for mortality (Experiment II) .

ANOVA for hen-day percent egg pro-
duction (Experiment III). . . . . . .

Mean values of the hen-day egg pro-
duction (%) of laying Ring-necked
pheasants through 84 days (Experi-
ment III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Page

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137
138

139

140

APPENDIX D (cont'd)

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

ANOVA for egg weight (Experi-
ment III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean and standard error of the egg
weight of laying Ring-necked pheas-
ants through 84 days (Experiment III)

ANOVA for feed consumption (Experi—
ment III) 0 O O O I O O O I O O O O 0

Feed consumption (g/bird/day) of
laying Ring-necked pheasants through
84 days (Experiment III). . . . . . .

ANOVA for change in body weight
(Experiment III). . . . . . . . . . .

Body weight averages (g) of laying
Ring—necked pheasants fed diets with
different protein and methionine
levels through 84 days (Experi-

ment III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA for mortality (Experiment III).

xii

142

143

144

145

146

147

I. INTRODUCTION

The Chinese Ring-Necked Pheasant (Phasianus

 

colchicus torquatus) is considered an economically

 

valuable natural resource in the state of Michigan and

it is grown for several purposes. Fanciers raise them
for studying unusual feather patterns. Some growers
produce birds for meat although there is a limited market
for game birds in this market. Other producers raise
them for selling to shooting preserves.

During recent years, the wild population of Ring-
necked pheasants in Michigan has suffered a tremendous
decline and the demand for birds by private shooting pre-
serves has increased. The game bird industry, not only
in the state of Michigan, but all over the country, has
experienced fast growth and more efficient methods of
production have become necessary. Many state game agencies
interested in the improvement of wildlife habitat and
also on restocking programs have been supporting research
projects with pheasants.

In 1972, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Lansing, and the Department of Poultry Science, Michigan
State University, established a cooperative pheasant

research project to study confinement rearing, intensive

management, nutrition and breeding conditions for these
birds (Flegal, 1979).

Studies on pheasant nutrition have been conducted
since the 19305. In these studies it has been demonstra-
ted that most of the nutrient requirements for pheasants
resemble those of the domestic chicken except for the
protein requirement which resembles that for the turkey
poult.

The National Research Council (NRC, 1977) guide-
lines in Nutrient Requirements of Poultry include the
requirements for starting and growing pheasants. How-
ever, no recommendations for laying pheasants are made
in this publication. The knowledge of specific nutrient
requirements of pheasants is necessary for the formula-
tion and use of more efficient rations.

The most common diets fed to poultry in the U.S.A.
use a combination of corn-soybean meal with minerals and
vitamins. The amino acid balance is of concern to nutri-
tionists when a corn-soybean meal ration is used. Methio-
nine and total sulfur amino acids (TSAA) are of consider-
able interest because they are the first limiting amino
acid(s) in corn-soybean meal diets for chickens and tur-
keys. Methionine has various functions in the animal body
and it has been demonstrated that it can be used in the
chicken for at least three distinct functions, namely:

1) as an essential amino acid for protein synthesis,

2) as a precursor of cystine, and 3) as a methylating
agent.

According to the background information collected,
a study of the methionine (or TSAA) requirements for
pheasants was easily justified. Because protein and
methionine requirements are interrelated these two nutri—
ents were evaluated simultaneously in a factorial design.
In this work the following objectives were established:
1) Adding some information to the existing knowledge on
the minimum/optimum levels of methionine (or TSAA) with
various protein levels for starting pheasants from zero
to four weeks of age, and 2) to study the influence of
protein and methionine levels (or TSAA) on the performance
of laying pheasants in their first and second year of

egg production.

II . LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Requirements of protein! methionine and/or total
sulfur amino acids (TSAA) for game birds

 

 

Publications concerning the protein requirement of
game birds have appeared since the 19308. Callenbach
and Hiller (1933), Norris §£_§l. (1936), Nestler g£_gl.
(1942), Scott and Reynolds (1949) and Baldini g£_gl.
(1950) reported that the usual corn-soybean oil meal
practical diets for game birds must contain approxi-
mately 28% protein to support rapid growth. Most of
these early studies were conducted without taking into
consideration the amount of methionine, lysine or other
critical amino acids in the rations.

Baldini g£_gl. (1953a, 1953b) reported that the
protein requirement of Bobwhite quail and turkey poults
could be reduced to 20% protein and still promote
results almost equivalent to a 28% protein diet when a
practical corn-soybean oil meal diet was adequately sup-
plemented with methionine and lysine. Based on the
results by Baldini, Scott §£_gl. (1954) indicated the
desirability to investigate the methionine and lysine
requirements of pheasants at various levels of protein.

They also reported that the protein requirement of

pheasant chicks was 28% for the first 2-3 weeks of age
and may be reduced to 24% for the 3-5th week growth
period.

Vohra (1973) reported that adequate growth could
be obtained in Japanese quail and the chukar partridge
when they were fed low-energy starter diets (2320 kcal
ME/kg) that contained 16% protein well balanced in the
essential amino acids. Vohra tended to minimize the
importance of higher dietary protein levels for rapid
early growth, because the birds tended to attain near
maximum body weight on all treatments by the time they
reached about twelve weeks of age.

Andrews et al. (1973) indicated that a level of
28% protein in diets of Bobwhite quail was required for
maximum growth.

Woodard et al. (1976) reported that pheasants
grow poorly during the first month of age on diets con-
taining less than 20% protein.

Woodard et a1. (1977) suggested that starter
rations for pheasants must contain at least 24% protein
until 8 weeks of age, but they did not mention the per-
centages of methionine and cystine:

Tuttle et al. (1953) reported an excellent growth
of Bobwhite quail when they were fed diets that con-
tained 26.5% protein supplemented with methionine or

methionine hydroxy analog.

Scott et a1. (1963), using corn-soybean meal
practical diets, reported that the protein requirement
of young Bobwhite quail and young Ring-necked pheasants
was shown to be 26.5% when the diet was supplemented
with 0.1% methionine hydroxy analog. The addition of
0.1% methionine hydroxy analog raised the total sulfur
amino acid (TSAA) content in the diet to 3.46% of the
protein. This indicated the TSAA requirements of pheas-
ants and quail to be approximately the same as the
requirement of young domestic chickens when expressed as
percentage of the protein in the diet. The metaboliz-
able energy content of this diet was 1370 Calories per
pound (or 3014 kcal/kg) indicating that the metabolizable
energy :protein ratio for Optimum growth and efficiency
in young pheasants and quail is approximately 52 calories
of metabolizable energy for each one percent of protein
in the diet.

Scott (1966) reported that studies on amino acid
requirements of game birds indicated that they are similar
to those of young turkey poults when expressed as per-
centage of the protein in the diet, and he considered
that the approximate methionine and cystine requirements
of young pheasants and quail are 2.0% and 1.5%, respec-
tively, as a percentage of dietary protein.

Millar and Smith (1971) evaluated different levels

of methionine and lysine in a 26% protein starter diet

for Ring-necked pheasants during a five week's period
and indicated that the methionine requirement of the
pheasant chick appeared to be slightly higher than
0.66% of the diet, the highest level studied in that
experiment, but the percentage of cystine in the diet
was not mentioned.

Serafin (1977) conducted some experiments with
purified and practical diets to examine the influence
of protein level and to estimate the TSAA requirement
of young Bobwhite quail. Results showed that Bobwhite
quail require no more than 26% protein for maximum growth
and efficiency of feed utilization when the total sulfur
amino acids (TSAA) level of the diet was approximately
1.0%.

The National Research Council (1977) established
the TSAA requirement for the starting pheasant as 1.0
percent of the diet and the protein level as 30 percent.
In Appendix A, Table 1, the protein, methionine and TSAA
requirements of starting chickens, turkeys and pheasants
are listed according to the National Research Council
(NRC, 1977).
B. Requirements of protein, methionine and/or total

sulfur amino acids (TSAA) for chicks.

Grau and Almquist (1943) stated that the methionine

plus cystine requirement of chicks is approximately 1.0

to 1.1% of the diet. The requirement may be met by

varying proportions of these amino acids except that the
minimum methionine level is approximately 0.5% to 0.6%.

McGinnis and Evans (1947) found that New Hampshire
chicks fed soybean oil meal, as the only source of pro-
tein, grew very well. The diet contained 22.4% protein,
0.26% methionine and 0.46% cystine or 0.72% methionine
plus cystine. Growth was not improved by the addition
of methionine, cystine or methionine plus cystine to the
diet. Evans and McGinnis (1948) found that all of the
methionine and cystine in the diet fed by McGinnis and
Evans (1947) was not utilized by the chicks, because
they excreted part of these amino acids unchanged in the
droppings. Only 84% of the methionine and 47% of the
cystine consumed were available to the chick. The diet,
therefore, contained 0.22% available methionine and 0.22%
available cystine or 0.44% available methionine plus
cystine determined by balance studies with chicks.

Grau and Kamei (1950) conducted a study of total
sulfur amino acid requirements of White Leghorn chicks
in relation to protein level and they stated that this
requirement is proportional to protein intake ranging
from 10 to 40%. The minimum methionine requirement at
20% protein was estimated as 0.50%. The cystine require-
ment at this level of methionine was estimated as 0.30%.

Milligan et a1. (1951) fed a 21% protein all-

vegetable diet, based on corn, alfalfa meal and soybean

meal, which contained, by analysis, 0.32% methionine
and 0.28% cystine, to Rhode Island Red chicks to six
weeks of age, and they found that there was an improve-
ment in growth when 0.10% methionine was added, but not
with further additions. The methionine requirement of
Rhode Island Red chicks was no higher than 0.42% to

six weeks or a combined total of 0.70% of methionine
and cystine.

Almquist (1952) stated that vitamin B12 is required
by chicks and plays a specific part in the metabolism of
methyl groups, such as the methyl group on methionine.
The minimum methionine requirement should be estimated
only under conditions of ample supplies of choline,
cystine and vitamin B12, so that the metabolic load on
methionine is diminished. Almquist also stated that the
requirement for methionine and other essential amino
acids expressed as a percentage of the dietary protein
appeared to decrease as the protein content of the diet
increased. He reported a study with three varieties of
chickens receiving diets well provided with vitamin B12,
choline, cystine and antibiotics and the methionine
requirement at 20% and 30% protein levels was no more
than 2.5% of the protein. In his review, Almquist stated
that the methionine requirement of young chickens was
0.45% in a diet that contained 20% protein, or the total

sulfur amino acid requirement was 0.80%.

10

Griminger et al. (1954) fed chicks a diet that
contained soybean oil meal as the only source of protein
and they obtained maximum growth when 0.14% cystine
and 0.10% DL-methionine were added to the diet which
contained 0.23% methionine. It was concluded that, in
the presence of adequate cystine, the methionine require-
ment of the chick, until 28 days old, does not exceed
0.33% of the ration.

Williams et a1. (1954) determined the amino acid
requirement of chicks by carcass analysis and found that
the methionine requirement was 0.22% of the diet and the
methionine plus cystine requirement was 0.44%. They
stated that these data were on the basis of utilized
methionine. These results were the same as those obtained
by Evans and McGinnis (1948).

Baldini and Rosenberg (1955), in studies with
methionine deficient broiler diets which contained 20-22%
protein, observed that the methionine requirement of
chicks was more nearly related to the energy content of
the diet than to the diet weight. They stated that the
methionine requirement of the chick expressed as percent
of the diet increases as the energy level of the diet
increases. Based on this, they stated that perhaps
differences in energy content of the diets used by the
different investigators might be a part of the reason for

variation in the available methionine and cystine

11

requirements calculated.

Evans et a1. (1956) reported that, depending upon
the study used, the "available" methionine plus cystine
requirement of growing chickens is between 0.22% and
0.46% with 0.15% to 0.42% as methionine. They also
stated that one of the reasons for the wide differences
in the reported methionine requirement of chicks might
well be in the differences of availability of the meth-
ionine and cystine in the dietary constituents. They
called "available" methionine or cystine the amount of
methionine liberated from a feed by in vitro digestion
with trypsin and erepsin. They observed that the per-
centage of methionine in soybean oil meal that was liber-
ated by in vitro digestion with trypsin and erepsin was
very nearly the same as the percentage utilized by chicks
fed soybean oil meal as the only source of protein (Evans
and McGinnis, 1948). They stated that by inference the
same may be true for cystine.

Rosenberg and Baldini (1957) reported that the
results obtained with isocaloric diets at different pro-
tein levels indicated that the energy content of the
diet governs the methionine requirement. When sufficient
energy is available from non-protein sources to permit
full utilization of the protein for tissue synthesis and
repair, methionine requirement, expressed as percent of

diet, increases as protein level increases. In the

12

absence of a sufficient amount of energy to permit the
birds to make full use of the protein offered for growth
purposes, increasing levels of dietary protein were

not found to require corresponding amounts of methionine.

Leong et a1. (1959), working with purified diets
fed to growing chicks, came to the same conclusion as
Rosenberg and Baldini (1957) that the requirement for
methionine plus cystine, expressed as percent of the
diet, increases as the protein level of the diet increases,
and it also increases as the dietary energy increases, if
protein is adequate.

Nelson et a1. (1960) stated that the quantitative
requirement of chicks for total sulfur amino acids was
3.51%:t0.025% of the protein. This relationship was found
to be constant for all protein and energy levels studied.

Klain et a1. (1960) studied the amino acid require-
ment of the growing chick and the methionine requirement
stated in the absence of L-cystine was 0.47% of the diet,
while in the presence of 0.4% L-cystine the methionine
requirement was 0.18% of the diet. Featherston and Steph-
enson (1960) found that a corn-soybean diet for broilers
with or without added choline needed to have more than
0.89% methionine plus cystine. Quillin et a1. (1961)
stated that broilers receiving a diet with added choline
needed 0.42% methionine. However, when choline was not

added, the methionine requirement was 0.50% of the diet.

13

Dean and Scott (1965) re-examined the Chick's
requirements during the early stages of growth for
each of 14 amino acids necessary for maximum chick
growth during the second week post-hatching. They
stated that the methionine and cystine requirements
were 0.45% and 0.35%, respectively, when expressed as
percentage of the diet.

Bornstein and Lipstein (1975) determined the
amount of dietary protein that can be reduced in milo-
soybean meal pratical-type starter broiler diets by
satisfying the first two limiting amino-acids, namely
methionine and lysine. The protein requirement of
broilers between one and four weeks of age in these
trials was about 22% and the total sulfur amino acid
requirement was about 0.80% of the diet or 3.63% expres-
sed as a percentage of the protein.

Woodham and Deans (1975) determined the amino acid
requirements for broiler chickens between 14 and 28 days
of age using an 18% protein diet consisting mainly of
conventional ingredients. The methionine plus cystine
requirement expressed as a percentage of the diet was
0.58% or 3.2% expressed as a percentage of the protein.

Pesti et a1. (1979) stated the total sulfur amino
acid requirement of chicks as 3.2% of protein which is
in good agreement with those values reported by Woodham

and Deans (1975) (3.2%), Graber et a1. (1971) (3.3%) and

l4

somewhat above that determined by Boomgardt and Baker
(1973) (3.05%) and lower than the estimates made by
Nelson §£_§l. (1960) (3.51%), NRC (1977) (4.04%) and
Bornstein and Lipstein (1975) (3.63%).

C. Requirements Ofgprotein, methionine and/or total
sulfur amino acids (TSAA) for turkeygpoults.

 

 

Kratzer et a1. (1949) fed a ration that contained
isolated soybean protein as the only source Of protein
(except 2% Of condensed fish solubles) to Bronze poults.
Approximately 0.5% methionine and 0.3% cystine were re-
quired for the Optimum growth Of the poults in a ration
that contained 24% crude protein.

Almquist (1952) stated the methionine requirement
for turkey poults as 0.45% of the diet or 0.75% total
sulfur amino acids in a 24% protein diet.

Ferguson et a1. (1957) fed Broad Breasted Bronze
turkey poults diets that contained 24%, 26%, and 28% pro-
tein with two productive energy levels and further sup-
plemented with 0.05% and0.10% DL-methionine. They found
that the maximum growth was Obtained in the group fed a
28% protein diet that contained 914 productive energy
calories per pound supplemented with 0.05% methionine
but they did not mention the total level Of methionine
in the diet. Feed efficiency was improved at each protein
level when the diet was supplemented with methionine or

the energy level was increased. Also, there was a

15

significant linear response to increasing levels Of
protein from 24% to 28%. Waibel (1959) reported

that supplementary methionine for turkey poults resulted
in consistent growth responses with high-energy, iso-
caloric, 24% and 28% protein diets. Birds receiving the
28% protein gained weight more rapidly than those fed a
24% protein diet.

Fitzsimmons and Waibel (1962) reported that a 24%
protein starter diet for young turkeys was deficient in
methionine and marginal in lysine, while a 20% protein
diet was deficient in both methionine and lysine which
is supported by Baldini et a1. (1954) and Fisher et al.
(1956).

Potter et a1. (1966) found no improvement by methi-
onine supplementation Of turkey starter diets that con-
tained 25%, 29% and 33% protein.

Couch et a1. (1969) fed computer-programmed least
cost rations tO turkey poults for the first three weeks
and they found that the predicted methionine requirement
was 0.50% and the total sulfur amino acids 0.85% Of the
diet.

Kelly (1970) using crystalline amino acid-corn
starch purified diets reported the methionine requirement
Of young turkeys during the first two weeks Of life as
0.50% Of the diet, but he did not mention the level Of

cystine.

16

Kummero et a1. (1971) conducted some experiments
to determine lysine and total sulfur amino acid require-
ments Of a commercial strain Of Large White turkey poults
from 0 to 3 weeks Of age using natural feed ingredients
and they predicted the Optimum requirement Of total sul-
fur amino acids as 0.282% per megacalorie per kg or 0.82%
Of the diet, for both sexes.

Investigations made by Warnick and Anderson (1973),
Murillo and Jensen (1974, 1976), Potter and Shelton (1974,
1976a, 1976b) and Potter et a1. (1977) indicated that the
total sulfur amino acid requirement Of young turkeys was
in the range Of 1.0% tO 1.10% Of the ration.

Atkinson et a1. (1976b)stated that turkey poults
receiving a diet containing 22.1% protein supplemented
with 0.2% lysine and 0.3% methionine have an acceptable
rate Of growth. The basal diet contained 0.65% methionine
plus cystine. They Observed that rations much lower in
protein than normally recommended may be utilized if the
prOper levels and balance Of amino acids such as arginine,
lysine and methionine are maintained.

Potter and Shelton (1979) conducted experiments
to determine the methionine or total sulfur amino acid
and the protein requirements Of Medium White turkeys
between zero tO four weeks of age. They stated that the
total sulfur amino acids in a practical type corn—soybean

diet with 5% or less menhaden fish meal is the most

17

limiting Of the amino acids. They reported that the
total sulfur amino acid requirement Of Medium White
turkeys to four weeks Of age is approximately 1.10% Of
the diet or 3.8 mg TSAA per kilocalorie of metabolizable
energy. The protein requirement during this period
should be at least 27%, when diets contained sufficient
total sulfur amino acids.

Behrends and Waibel (1980) investigated the total
sulfur amino acid requirements Of starting Large White
male turkeys from 1 to 4 weeks Of age using diets which
contained soybean meal, faba beans and field peas. They
stated that the total sulfur amino acid requirements with
diets marginally deficient in cystine were(L95% tO 1.01%
Of the diet or 0.298% to 0.332%/therm ME/kg Of feed.

The minimum methionine requirement determined with excess

dietary cystine was 0.46% Of the diet.

D. Requirements Of protein, methionine and/or TSAA for
laying chickens and turkey breeder hens.

Titus (1955) and Harms (1966) indicated that
methionine was the first limiting amino acid in a corn-
soybean meal diet for laying chickens, but some research-
ers, Reid et a1. (1951), Mehring et a1. (1954), Heywang
(1956),Britzman and Carlson (1964) and Sell (1964), did not
find any beneficial results when they supplemented layer

diets that contained 13% to 18% protein with methionine.

18

Scott (1960), based on calculated amino acid
analysis and requirements, concluded that for egg
production and tissue replacement, many high energy
diets for laying chickens are limiting in methionine.
Later, Scott (1962), demonstrated that both 15% and
17% protein diets were improved by methionine hydroxy
analog additions.

Other researchers, Waldroup and Harms (1961),
Yates and Schaible (1961), Bradley and Quisenberry
(1961), Harms g£_gl. (1962), Barton and Stephenson
(1960) and Heywang g£_gl. (1963), also reported im-
proved egg production and/or feed efficiency from the
addition of methionine or methionine hydroxy analogy to
laying chicken diets containing from 11% to 16% protein.

Scott (1962) stated that the high protein intake
Of laying hens was correlated with the high content in
egg proteins of certain essential amino acids, specif-
ically methionine, lysine, isolecucine and valine. The
average content of these amino acids, when considered
as percent of the protein in the usual corn-soy laying
diet is markedly lower than in egg proteins. However,
he found that by adding 2.5% of fish meal to a corn—
soybean meal diet the required amounts Of critical and
essential amino acids, except methionine, could be met
with a protein level of 15.50%. TO bring methionine to

the required level, the addition of approximately one and

19

a half pound of DL-methionine per ton was necessary. He
concluded that the amino acid requirements could be met
by increasing the amount Of total protein in the diet,
but this procedure may be more expensive and less satis-
factory from a nutritional standpoint.

Biely and March (1964), while studying responses
Of laying birds to different amino acid balances and
different levels Of dietary protein, noticed that birds
which received a diet that contained 16 percent protein
consistently laid larger eggs than did those receiving a
diet that contained 14 percent protein. Supplementation
Of the 14 percent protein diet with lysine and methionine
increased egg weight markedly over that obtained with
the unsupplemented 14 percent protein diet and to a
greater extent than did supplementation with either
lysine or methionine alone. They concluded that the
amino acid balance Of protein fed to laying chickens
has a greater bearing upon egg size than does the level
of protein, provided that protein intake is adequate
for normal egg production.

Thornton gg_gl. (1957), using four protein levels
(11%, 13%, 15% and 17%) fed to Single Comb White Leghorns,
found that the protein level within the range studied
had no effect on egg production, feed efficiency or
maintenance Of body weight. Egg weight was reduced in

a highly significant manner at the 11% protein level.

20

The addition Of 0.2% Of DL-methionine increased egg
weight and reduced small egg incidence at all protein
levels.

Heywang et al. (1955), Miller et a1. (1956), Frank
and Waibel (1959), Griminger'and Fisher (1959) and Thornton
et a1. (1959) reported satisfactory egg production with
protein levels Of 13% to 15% for laying chickens. How—
ever, Reid et a1. (1951), Quisenberry and Bradley (1962)
and Denton and Lillie (1959) reported Optimum performance
Of laying chickens with diets that had a protein level
above 15 percent.

Milton and Ingram (1957) found that pullets pro-
duced as well on 14% as on 16% and 18% protein diets.
However, slightly higher production was Obtained from
Old laying chickens with 16% and 18% protein diets. Feed
conversion was somewhat in favor Of the 16% and 18% pro-
tein diets.

Gordon et al. (1962) indicated that increasing
the protein level in laying diets from 11% tO 19% resulted
in a highly significant increase in egg production, egg
weight and feed efficiency.

Quisenberry and Bradley (1962) found that egg pro—
duction, egg weight and feed efficiency Of laying chickens
improved as dietary protein level was increased from 13%

to 17%.

21

Deaton and Quisenberry (1965) reported that egg
production Of laying chickens receiving 17% or 14% pro-
tein in their diet was not significantly different. On
the other hand, the hens that received a 17% protein diet
laid significantly heavier eggs and had significantly
better feed efficiency.

Harms et a1. (1966) reported that New Hampshire
pullets performed well on low levels Of protein (11%
and 13% protein). They concluded that breeder diets
might contain more protein than is necessary for maxi-
mum performance.

Summers et a1. (1967) reported that a level Of
14% protein in a broiler breeder hen diet supported
egg production that was not signicantly different from
that Of hens that received 16% or 18% protein diets.
These workers, however, suggested a level Of 16% pro-
tein for Optimum performance.

Lillie and Denton (1967) compared dietary protein
levels Of 12%, 14% and 16%. They found that when the
12% protein level was fed, egg production was signifi-
cantly lower than that Obtained with the 14% protein
level, but equivalent to that Obtained with the 16%
protein level. They stated that a 14% protein diet
was adequate for egg production, but not for body weight
maintenance or egg weights; at least 16% and 18% protein

were required for these two traits, respectively.

22

Smith (1967) tested three diets with different
protein levels (11%, 15% and 18%) in commercial laying
pullets and found that egg production was not affected
but egg weight and body weight responded tO increased
protein. Supplementation Of the laying diets with
methionine and lysine singly and in combination failed
to improve any Of the performance criteria, indicating
that neither one of these amino acids was limiting. He
also stated that the required amino acid pattern Of the
laying hen is not altered as a result Of changing the
dietary protein level.

Marret and Sunde (1967) conducted experiments
with yearling hens. The basal diet contained 14% pro-
tein and it was supplemented with lysine and methionine.
The overall results showed no differences among groups
for egg production and feed efficiency.

Arscott and Bernier (1968) reported that the
addition Of 0.05% DL-methionine to the 12% protein diet
Of dwarf White Leghorn layers increased egg weight, but
they did not mention the level Of methionine in the diet.
They also Observed that egg weight in dwarfs increased
with protein levels. The protein levels studied varied
from 12% to 21%.

Santana and Quisenberry (1968) indicated that a
diet that contained 16% protein was satisfactory for

body weight gain and resulted in the highest egg

23

production of laying chickens.

Gleaves g£_§l. (1968) reported that as estimated
dietary protein level was increased from 13% to 19% in
the diet of laying chickens, there was an increase in
Observed body weight gain, egg production and egg weight.

Guenthner gt_gl. (1972) reported that an increase
of protein level from 13.9% to 18.3% in the laying chick-
en's diet did not affect feed intake or feed conversion.
Although the rate Of egg production tended to increase,
it was not significantly altered.

Reid and Webber (1974) found that feeding laying
chickens with a 14% protein that contained 0.55% TSAA,
supported maximum egg production.

Thayer g£_gl. (1974), working with hybrid laying
hens, concluded that the protein consumption Of 14 g/hen
/day was adequate to support egg production and egg weight
but did not produce body weight gains comparable to gains
with higher protein intakes. A protein intake Of 15 g/hen
/day was recommended for practical conditions. Strict
attention was given to amino acid balance pattern in this
study.

Reid (1976) found that a 14.6% dietary protein
was adequate to support an egg production rate of 77%
at an average intake of 16.54 g/hen/day.

Ingram gt_gl. (1951), working with laying hens,

fed diets containing peanut meal as a source of protein

24

supplemented with tryptOphan and lysine to determine
the methionine requirement. They stated that the methi-
onine requirement of laying hens is not more than 0.38%
of the diet and the combined methionine and cystine
requirement is not more than 0.63%. They also Observed
that the amino acid composition of the egg and the
hatchability were not affected by a methionine deficiency
in the laying hen diet.

Leong and McGinnis (1952), using practical diets
in which 75% of the total protein was supplied by Alaska
pea meal, reported that for laying hens the methionine
level required for supporting maximum egg production,
body weight gain and egg size appeared to be approx-
imately 0.28% Of the diet in the presence Of 0.25% cys-
tine with a protein level of 15.4%.

Mehring, g£_gl. (1954) found that the addition
of 0.0847% DL-methionine and 9 mcb/lb vitamin B12, singly
and together to a corn-soybean diet fed to New Hampshire
pullets, had no statistically significant effect on egg
production, the quantity Of feed required for the pro-
duction of a dozen eggs or the gain in live weight. The
basal diet used contained by calculation 16.83% protein
and 0.25% to 0.31% methionine and 0.26% cystine.

Ingram and Little (1958), using a wheat-peanut meal

basal diet supplemented with various levels Of

25

DL-methionine, reported that the requirement Of the
laying hen for this amino acid was determined to be
0.25% Of the diet. Levels Of methionine as low as

0.225% supported egg production. However, egg size
and body weight were not maintained.

Combs (1960) developed tables for calculating
and determining the methionine requirement Of layers
according to body weight, egg production, gain or loss
in body weight and temperature condition. He found
the methionine requirement Of the layers tO vary from
as low as 0.208% (4 lb hen, gaining no weight, in the
winter, producing 279 Of eggs per hen per day and fed
a diet containing 900 calories Of productive energy)
tO as high as 0.341% (4 lb hen gaining l.5§;of weight
per day, producing 57g;eggs per hen day, during the
summer and fed a diet containing 1050 calories Of pro-
ductive energy). This proposal suggested that methi-
onine requirements could not be considered to be "static"
but must be considered on the basis Of a particular set
of well-defined conditions.

Daghir gg_gl. (1964), using an all-plant corn-
soybean meal breeder chicken diet with 15.54% protein,
which contained 0.28% methionine and 0.25% cystine, found
that supplementation Of this diet with 0.05%, 0,10% and
0.15% methionine hydroxy analog calcium (90%) had no

statistically significant effect on egg production,

26

body weight gain, mortality, egg weight and methionine
content of eggs produced. The requirement for methi-

onine and cystine found by these authors is in accord

with that stated by Leong and McGinnis (1952).

Lepore (1965) established lines Of chickens by
selection for high and low body weight at three weeks Of
age on a normal and a methionine deficient diet to study
the overall mechanism of growth rate inheritance. The
methionine and protein requirements, as estimated under
their dietary conditions of all four selected lines,
were found to be similar. A methionine level of 0.39%
Of the diet was the requirement in an 18.4% protein diet.

Combs (1964) reported that in a methionine require-
ment assay for laying hens an intake Of 295 mg Of avail-
able methionine per hen per day was necessary for a
maximum egg yield Of 46.5 g per day.

Bray (1965) conducted a detailed study Of the
methionine requirement. Of young laying pullets and
reported that not only total intake and dietary levels
must be considered but the egg yield as well must be
considered in order to achieve maximum results. A
dietary level of 0.216% methionine microbiologically
available in a 12% protein diet was adequate to support
an egg yield Of 40.58 g. A daily intake of 223.5 mg of
methionine was required. This methionine requirement

for egg production was lower than that reported by

27

Combs (1964), which was 295 mg/hen/day (chick assay).

The difference Of 5.9 g in daily egg output may explain
why Combs found an intake requirement of 295 mg Of
available methionine compared to 223.5 mg Of available
methionine found in Bray's test. The level or the intake
Of protein was not given in Comb's test.

Holmes and Kramer (1965), working with laying pullets,
found that the best egg production and feed efficiency
were Obtained when the diets (that contained soybean
meal as the only source Of protein) had a content Of
0.31% Of methionine, 0.28% cystine, 985.6 mg of choline

and 6.6 microgram Of vit B 2 per kilogram Of diet. The

1
protein level Of the diet was 16.4% and 2992 Calories Of
MB per kg.

Harms and Damron (1969) conducted several experi-
ments to determine the methionine and sulfur amino acid
requirements of commercial egg production type pullets
as influenced by diet formulation. Data from this study
indicated that the hen requires 250 mg to 280 mg Of
methionine daily provided she is supplied a total of
530 mg of sulfur amino acids. This requirement was met
by a level Of 0.268% methionine and 0.533% total sulfur
amino acids in a diet that contained 2887 kcal of
metabolizable energy per kg. However, this level Of

methionine did not support maximum performance when the

diet contained lower levels Of total sulfur amino acids.

28

Carlson and Guenthner (1969) worked with Single
Comb White Leghorns to determine the requirement Of methi-
onine and lysine supplementation Of typical corn-soybean
diets. They stated that diets containing 14% protein
needed methionine supplementation for maximum egg pro-
duction. Diets with 16% protein without methionine sup-
plementation were quite adequate under the conditions used.
Also, they estimated that the methionine requirement per
hen would be in excess Of 300 mg/day during the first four
months Of production and between 289 and 328 mg/day/hen
during later stages in the laying cycle.

Petersen g£_gl. (1971) conducted several experi-
ments with White Leghorn pullets and found that a 12%
protein diet (13.3 g protein/day/hen) resulted in a rate
of lay and egg weight significantly lower than did 14%,
16%, and 18% protein diets. Also, they stated that 14 g
protein/hen/day and 260 mg methionine/hen/day resulted
in egg production equal to that from 18 g daily protein
intake. Egg weight increased with each increase in
methionine at 14 g protein intake but did not equal that
from the 18 g protein intake.

Jensen gt_gl. (1974) stated that a level of methi-
onine for laying hens between 290 and 300 mg/hen/day
should be adequate to meet the requirements Of laying
chickens at different stages of the laying cycle. Also,

they stated that a corn-soybean meal diet formulated to

29

contain 16% protein is adequate in TSAA for Obtaining
optimum egg yield in laying chickens.

Picard (1975) concluded that the daily methionine
requirement for semi-heavy laying hens was between 360
and 390 mg. The diets used were based on maize, wheat
and soybean and the total protein was 13% and 15%.

Waldroup §£_§l. (1976), using a prediction equation,
found that the maximum daily needs for energy for normal
breeder hen was 422 kcal ME/day with 380 mg/day Of methi-
onine.

Schutte and Weerden (1978), working with diets
based on maize and soybean meal during 52 weeks of egg
production, stated that 775 mg to 800 mg total sulfur
amino acids of which 390 to 440 mg was methionine was the
daily requirement per hen for a maximum egg production
of 80 to 83 eggs per hundred hens daily. Diets with 13.8%
protein supplemented with methionine and lysine sup-
ported egg production and feed utilization as effectively
as a diet with 16.7% protein.

Harms and Wilson (1980) conducted experiments
with Cobb-color-sexed broiler breeder hens to determine
their protein and sulfur amino acid requirements. They
found that a daily intake between 400 and 478 mg of
methionine and 722 and 830 mg of total sulfur amino
acids was necessary for maximum egg production with a

13.07% protein diet.

30

Jensen and McGinnis (1961), in experiments with
large type turkey breeder hens, did not Observe protein
deficiency even though a ration containing as low as
10% protein was fed for a period of eleven weeks. They
considered that the 15% protein level recommended by
the NRC is more than adequate.

Bradley g£_gl. (1969), working with Broad Breasted
Bronze and Beltsville Small White turkey hens, suggested
that Broad Breasted Bronze turkey hens require at least
an 18% protein level and Beltsville Small White turkey
hens require at least 15% for normal reproductive per-
formance.

Minear gt_gl. (1970) fed isocaloric diets that
contained different protein levels (10%, 12%, 14%, and
16%) to Large White turkey breeder hens and measured
mortality, egg production, feed efficiency, fertility and
hatchability. They found no significant difference in
reproductive performance when 14% or 16% protein diets
were fed. Also, they stated that a diet that contained
10% protein could maintain reproductive performance comp-
arable tO a 16% protein diet. However, turkey breeder
hens fed a 12% protein diet did not perform at the level
of those fed 10%, 14%, or 16% protein.

Luther and Waldoup (1970) fed diets that contained
14.7% protein (0.45% total sulfur amino acids) and 16%

protein (0.46% total sulfur amino acids) to Broad Breasted

31

Bronze turkey breeder hens. DL-methionine was added
to diets up to 0.66% total sulfur amino acids. In
comparison to a standard 18% protein breeder diet fed,
there were no differences in reproductive performance
Of turkeys fed any of the experimental diets.

Jensen (1973), adding methionine to a wheat-dry

pea (Pisum sativum) diet that contained 12% protein,

 

failed to significantly improve the reproductive per-
formance Of Large White turkey breeder hens. The daily
feed intake per hen fed the basal diet was estimated to
be 337 mg methionine and 716 mg TSAA.

Atkinson e£_gl. (1974, 1975), working with Belts-
ville Small White turkey breeder hens, stated that the
total sulfur amino acid requirement Of the turkey hen
for Optimum egg production is approximately 0.60% Of
the diet.

Atkinson §E_gl. (1976a),using Beltsville Small
White turkey hens, found that the addition Of 0.05%
methionine to a practical type turkey breeder diet which
contained 0.50% methionine plus cystine improved pro-
duction, feed efficiency and egg size significantly.

The diet contained 18.26% protein and 2893 kcal ME/kg.

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Experiment I.

 

Eggs were Obtained from breeders kept by the De-
partment Of Natural Resources (DNR) game bird farm at Mason,
Michigan. All eggs were set in a Jamesway 252, single stage
incubator in the Poultry Science section, M.S.U. The eggs
were incubated for three weeks at 37.5°C and at 60% of rel-
ative humidity. After 21 days of incubation, the eggs were
transferred to appropriate baskets and placed in hatching
units where the temperature was approximately 37°C and at
70% relative humidity. On 8/16/78, the 26th day Of incuba-
tion, the hatch was taken Off. Chicks were individually
weighed and divided into groups according to weight. Then,
42 groups Of 10 birds with approximately the same weight
were formed. Birds were banded and transported to brooding
facilities at the Poultry Science Research and Teaching
Center (PSRTC).

These 42 groups of birds were randomly distributed
into four thermostatically heated battery brooders equip—
ped with wire mesh floors (Petersime battery). The battery
brooders were equipped with lights and also the rooms had
incadescent light bulbs to provide better illumination.
Birds were maintained on 24 hours light during the first

two weeks and then 14 hours light and 10 hours dark until

32

33

the end of the experiment. Lights were controlled by an
electric clock. The temperature was approximately 37.8 -
35°C (loo-98°F) for the first week, 35 - 32°C (95-90°F)
for the second week and 29.4°C (85°F) for the third and
fourth weeks.

Feed and water were provided ad libitum. Water was

 

provided in small glass waterers, one for each replicate Of
10 birds. Since the battery waterers were not divided to
avoid birds of different treatments drinking from the same
waterer, individual glass waterers were used during the
whole experiment.

Practical mash-type diets that contained common feed
ingredients were used in order that the results of this ex—
periment could be applicable to the game bird industry.
These diets were formulated to contain by calculation three
different protein levels and each protein level was formula-
ted tO contain five methionine levels. All diets were com—
puter formulated. Restrictions on methionine, cystine, ly-

sine and tryptOphan levels were employed.

The NRC (1977) states the protein requirement for
growing pheasants from zero to four weeks as 30% and the
methionine plus cystine as 1.0% Of the diet, but it does
not establish the methionine requirement alone. In this
study, the protein levels studied were 24%, 26% and 28%.
Within each level Of protein, five methionine levels were
used -- 0.36%, 0.40%, 0.44%, 0.48% and 0.51% Of the diet.

There was one exception, the diet that contained 28%

34

protein with methionine at 0.36% of diet could not be
formulated with the available ingredients. Therefore,

with those rations that contained 28% protein, only four
methionine levels were considered. The levels of protein
and methionine studied were lower than those values recom—
mended by NRC (1977). Cystine was maintained constant at
each level of protein. For cystine and tryptOphan, since
NRC (1977) does not state a requirement for growing pheas-
ants, the levels used were according to those values recom-
mended by Scott (1966) when expressed as percent Of pro-
tein. All diets were maintained isocaloric at 1250 kcal/lb
or 2750 kcal/kg Of metabolizable energy. The composition
and the calculated analysis of diets used are shown in
Table 2, Appendix A. Nutrient values Of feed ingredients
used in calculating the composition of diets are shown in
Appendix A, Table 4. Enough feed was mixed at one time

so all replicates were fed with feed ingredients from

the same source. The vitamin/mineral premix is also

shown in Table 5, Appendix A.

Four hundred and twenty birds were used in this
experiment. Each one Of the 14 dietary treatments had
three replicates and each replicate had 10 birds. The
experiment had a duration of four weeks due to the ver-
tical space limitations Of the Petersime battery-brooders.
Individual body weights were Obtained at the beginning of

the experiment and at 14 and 28 days of age. Data on

35

feed consumption were acquired biweekly for each replicate
or group Of 10 birds. From these data, feed consumption
per bird and feed conversion were calculated. Only the
final data, at 28 days of age, were used for statistical
analysis. Mortality was registered each day. When a

bird died its weight was recorded and it was considered
for calculating feed conversion. Birds that died during
the trial were taken tO the Michigan State University

diagnostic laboratory where necropsies were performed.

Experiment II.

 

Ring-necked pheasant pullets Obtained from DNR were
raised on the floor at the Poultry Science Research and
Teaching Center. At the age Of 240 days, 144 birds were
confined in a house with suspended single bird cages. The
cages had the following dimensions: 20.3 x 35.6 x 30.6
cm which gave a space Of 722.7 sq cm per bird. One inch
(2.54 cm) mesh and 14 gauge wire was used to construct
the cages. These cages had a 5.08 cm leping wire floor
and a 10.2 cm wide egg tray. Each cage was numbered and
the egg tray was divided by a piece of wire according to
cage number. Water was provided ad libitum from nipple
type waterers. Feed was also provided ad libitum in
plastic troughs. Each feeder was used by four hens;
therefore, four adjacent cages Of birds fed from a common

feeder was used as the experimental unit.

36

The house had no window. It was lighted by six
75 watt incadescent light bulbs, uniformly spaced on
the ceiling. The lights were controlled by an electric
clock which was set to light the room 14 consecutive
hours in each 24 hours. Therefore, 14 hours light and
10 hours dark (14 L :10 D) was the lighting program used
during the whole experiment. Attempts were made to main-
tain the room temperature in a range between 13-18.3° C
(55.3-65° F) through manipulation Of a temperature control
device. A gas brooder canopy hanging approximately 30 cm
from the ceiling near the center Of the house supplied sup-
plementary heating, since this experiment was conducted dur-
ing cold weather.

After birds were moved to the cage house, one week Of
acclimation was allowed before the trial began. Birds that
did not readily adapt to cage management were changed. Some
birds killed themselves by repeatedly jumping and hitting
the cage top. During this period all birds had the wings and
tail feathers clipped and specks removed. The allocation Of
birds tO each treatment was done randomly. Cages were ar-
ranged intO four statistical blocks and the nine different
diets were assigned at random into each Of four blocks. There
were four hens per replicate and four replicates per treatment.

Practical corn-soybean meal mash diets were
formulated tO contain by calculation three protein levels
with three different levels Of methionine and were fed to

laying pheasants in their first year Of egg production

37

for 112 days or four 28-day periods, in winter—spring
1980. All diets were computer formulated. Restrictions
on methionine, cystine, lysine and tryptOphan levels
were employed. NRC (1977) does not state any require-
ment for adult pheasants for these nutrients. The re-
quirements stated for laying and breeding chickens as
percentage of the diet were approximately followed in
this study. Three protein levels, 14%, 16%, and 18%,
with three methionine levels 0.25%, 0.29%, and 0.33% of
the diet, were used. All diets were maintained iso-
caloric at 1250 kcal/lb or 2750 kcal/kg Of metabolizable
energy, approximately the level recommended by Scott (1966)
for breeding Ring-necked pheasants.

Nutrient values of feed ingredients used in cal-
culating the composition Of diets are shown in Appendix
A, Table 4. The calculated analysis and the composition
of the diets used are shown in Table 3, Appendix A. The
vitamin/mineral premix composition used is also presented
in Table 5, Appendix A. Enough feed was mixed at one
time to allow the birds to be fed with feed ingredients
from the same source.

Egg production per bird was recorded daily. From
these data, rate of egg production was calculated on a

hen-day and hen-housed basis. For the first production

38

period, the percentage Of the production was calculated
considering only 14 days since the egg production began
approximately 14 days after the birds were lighted. Egg
weight in grams 1 .01 was measured by weighing all eggs
laid on three consecutive days during the last week Of
each period.

Feed consumption per replicate Of four birds was
measured at 28-day intervals. From these data, grams Of
feed per bird per day was calculated. Birds were indi-
vidually weighed at the beginning Of the trial and at the
end Of each 28-day period. However, the change in body
weight was calculated by the difference between the
initial and final body weight Of each surviving bird.
Mortality was registered daily. Dead birds during the
trial were taken to the Michigan State University diagnos-
tic laboratory. NecrOpsies were performed tO determine

the cause Of death.

Experiment III.

 

In this experiment recycled laying pheasants (in
their second cycle Of egg production) Obtained from DNR
were used. The experimental procedure, diets, management
and data collection used were the same as described for
Experiment II with the following exceptions: l) the
duration of the experiment was three consecutive periods

of 28 days, or 84 days since the egg production declined

39

rapidly, 2) these birds, when confined tO the cage
house, were in production and the egg production began
to be registered seven days after the trial started.
SO, for the first period, rate Of egg production was

calculated on the basis Of 21 days Of production.

Statistical Procedures

 

Regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) were the statistical methods common to all the
experiments.

A regression approach using a second order poly-
nomial model for final body weight adjusted for initial
weight was used in Experiment I, with growing birds. It
was used to determine if the different methionine levels
at each protein level had significant linear and/or
quadratic effect(s) on final body weight. After a
significant effect was detected a prediction equation

A A A 2 A .
Y = 80 + 81x1+ 82x1 in which Y = expected final body

A

weight; 80 = constant; 81 = the linear coefficient or

A

the regression coefficient Of Y on x1; x1 = the methionine
level; 82 = the quadratic coefficient or the regression
A 2

coefficient of Y on X; was calculated for each Of the
three protein levels studied. As the individual final
body weights were adjusted for initial weights, the
prediction equations were accordingly adjusted:

A A A 2 _
Y = 80 + Bixi + 82X1 + Baxz

A

40

in which 80, 81, 82 and x1 are as described above and
83 = the coefficient calculated for initial weight
and i2 = the initial body weight average of birds

for each treatment.

The Optimum methionine level for each protein
level was calculated using the following equation,
according to Gill (1978) xs = - 81/282, in which
xS = an estimate Of the level Of methionine at which
maximum growth is expected to occur, 81 = the regres-
sion coefficient on x1, 82 = the regression coefficient
on xi. The methionine levels as percentage Of the diet
0.36, 0.40, 0.44, 0.48 and 0.51% were coded from the
lowest of the highest level as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for
statistical analysis. After the Optimum methionine
levels were calculated, the values Obtained were trans-
formed intO percentage Of the diets.

For feed consumption, feed conversion and mortal-
ity analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to indicate
a significant difference among the different treatments.

With laying pheasants analysis Of variance (ANOVA)
was used in both experiments (Experiment II and Experi-
ment III) to detect any significant effect Of protein
and methionine for each one Of the variables studied:
hen-day percent egg production, egg weight, feed con-

sumption,change in final body weight and mortality.

For further tests beyond the ANOVA for all experiments,

41

Bonferroni t-statistic was used to determine the
specific differences between means.

The square root of the mean square error divided
by the number Of Observations per mean were used as
the standard error Of mean.

For each variable discussed with a statistical
analysis, the ANOVA tables are provided in Appendices
B tO D. The 0.01 and 0.05 levels Of probability pro-
vided the basis for all statements concerning statis-
tically significant differences. All procedures used

are described by Gill (1978).

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment I.

Body weight

 

The body weight means Of young Ring-necked phea-
sants at four weeks Of age feed diets with different
protein and methionine levels are shown in Table 1.

The regression analysis at the 24% protein level
(Table 1, Appendix B) showed a significant linear response
(P < 0.01). As the methionine level increased the body
weight means increased (Figure 1). Because a significant
linear effect was detected a prediction equation to
estimate the final body weight at this protein level
was calculated (using values from Table 4, Appendix B):

Y = 173.06156 + 10.27552X1 + (-0.63694)x:+ (0.710844 x
22.93). Y denotes the estimated body weight, x1 denotes
the methionine level, and the last term is the adjustment
for initial weight, in which the value Of 83, coefficient
for initial weight was multiplied by the initial body
weight mean Of pheasant chick for this treatment. Using
the coefficients 8; and 82 calculated for this protein
level, an estimate of the methionine level at which

maximum body weight is expected tO occur was found to

be 0.637% Of the diet, which lies outside Of the range

42

43

.OoumHseu0w on yo: canon ocwcoficuoa amm.o can :fiououa amm sua3 uowc one «ouoz

..mo.c w m. acouowmwc haucmoauwcmwm couocwmcoo mum mudwuomuomsu accumuuac saw: acme:

.ucoEMHOon on» mcwuoHQEoo women now some mo wound cumccmum « unmwoz amen Hmcwm mo ommuo><

n.m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
mm.munmv.m- mo.wwqo.nm~ mm.mnmm.hm~ Nh.m«mh.mm~ ma.w«nm.~o~ I on
mn.~«mao.mam mm.vaw~.wam mv.m«~a.m- fih.mnoo.o- me.w«v~.mam oo.wwvv.mm~ mm
mm.~wm-.mam mm.o«~v.o- am.m«mm.vam av.>«~m.o- howfloa.wom NH.m«Hm.a¢H «N

Sam A some Hm.o mv.o qv.o ov.o om.o w
Hamum>o .umwe no A. Hm>mfl mascownumz :Hmooua
H.0cwcoflnuoe can awououd mo mHo>oH SNMDOAO
acouowuwc emu mom mo mxoo3 anew um mucmmmwcd coxOOCIocwm no ommuo>m Am. unmfio3 wvon Hanan .H canoe

Flnal body weight, g

 

44

 

 

 

240 r—
230 -
i-
)—
220 -—
210 E-
200 —
- I, e - 24% protein
- ' -- — — -- 26% protein
190 - ._........... 28% protein
130 . l . l . 1 . l . l
0.32 .36 ' .40 .44 .48 .52
Methionine level (% of diet)
Figure 1 . Effect of methionine in the diet on final body weight

of Ring-necked pheasant at 4 weeks of age.

45

studied. According to Gill (1978), when the estimated
Optimum level lies outside the region Of experimentation,
the experimenter should not assume that the estimated
Optimum level is valid without additional experimentation
in the region Of the suggested Optimum.

When pheasant chicks were fed the ration that con-
tained the 26% protein level, the regression analysis
demonstrated that the methionine levels had both a linear
and quadratic relationship with final body weight (P < 0.01)
(Table 2, Appendix B).

This relationship can be Observed in Figure l. The
prediction equation to estimate the final body weight at

A

this protein level was : Y = 42.916183 + 32.463289x1+
(-4.541548)x: + (5.445467 x 22.89). Y = the estimated
body weight; x1 = the methionine level, the last term is
the adjustment for initial weight, in which the 83 co-
efficient calculated for this protein level was multiplied
by the initial body weight average Of pheasant chicks at
this protein level.

The Optimum methionine level calculated for 26%
protein level was 0.463% Of the diet (or 1.78% of the
protein). Because of the metabolic relationship Of
methionine to cystine, the level Of cystine calculated
for this protein level (0.43% Of the diet) was added to

the methionine requirement resulting in a total sulfur

amino acid (TSAA) requirement of 0.893% of the diet

46

(or 3.43% Of dietary protein), assuming 100% biological
availability.

As Observed earlier, at 28% protein, both a linear
and quadratic relationship between the methionine level
and final body weight was significant (P < 0.01) (Table 3,
Appendix B). These effects can also be Observed in
Figure 1. The prediction equation to estimate the final
body weight Of pheasant chicks at this protein level was:
Y = 68.047950 + 78.517213x1 + (-10.111522)x: + (0.825974
x 23.12) in which Y, x1 and the last term means the same
as explained previously. The Optimum methionine level
calculated for 28% protein level was 0.475% of the diet
(or 1.70% Of the protein). Cystine content calculated as
percent Of the diet for this protein level was 0.46%.

When the cystine was added to the methionine requirement

a TSAA requirement Of 0.935% Of the diet (or 3.34% of
dietary protein) was determined. The values Of 8 co-
efficients used in calculating the prediction equations
and the Optimum methionine levels for each protein level
are given in Table 4, Appendix B, with its standard errors.

The values calculated in this experiment as require-
ment of methionine and TSAA for maximum growth are not a
constant proportion of the level Of dietary protein.

These values, when expressed as percentage Of dietary
protein, decreased as protein level increased. This is

in agreement with the findings Of Grau and Kamei (1950)

47

and Almquist (1952), who stated that the methionine or
amino acid requirements Of chicks expressed as percentage
Of the dietary protein decreased as the protein level
increased. However, Nelson giggl. (1960) stated that

the quantitative requirement of chicks for TSAA was

3.51 i 0.25 percent Of the protein, and this relationship
was found to be constant for all protein and energy levels
studied.

The requirements Of methionine and TSAA for starting
Ring-necked pheasants from zero tO four weeks of age as a
percentage of the dietary protein found in this experiment
were lower than those values recommended by Scott (1966)
(3.5%) and closer tO the values recommended by NRC (1977)
3.33%) for starting pheasants. Also, these values were
lower than those values recommended by NRC (1977) for
chicks (4.04%) and for turkey poults (3.75%).

The body weight means at each protein level were
pooled together and the protein effect on final body weight
was tested by using Bonferroni t-test. NO significant
difference was found between the body weight means of
pheasant chicks fed the 24% and 26% protein diet, but
both these means were significantly lower than the body
weight mean of the pheasant chicks fed the 28% protein
diet. This is in contrast to the finding Of Woodard g£_gl.
(1977) who noticed that there was no significant difference

in body weight Of pheasant chicks fed either 24% or 28%

48

protein diets at four weeks Of age. They did not _
mention the methionine or TSAA content Of the diets
used, but all their diets were supplemented with 0.45%
DL-methionine. Norris gg_gl. (1936) also found no
significant difference in growth Of pheasants fed

24%, 27% and 30% protein diets. They reported that

the greatest growth at eight weeks Of age was Obtained
when pheasant chicks were fed a 30% protein diet.
However, Callenbach and Hiller (1933) reported that
pheasant chicks fed a diet that contained 28% protein
attained significantly better growth at 12 weeks Of

age than those fed a 24% protein diet. Scott gE_gl.
(1963) stated that a diet that contained 26.5% protein
adequately supplemented with methionine hydroxy analog
was sufficient for Optimum growth and maximum efficiency
of feed utilization in young Ring-necked pheasants. The
TSAA content in that diet was 3.46% Of the protein or
0.920% of the diet.

The final body weights Of Ring-necked pheasants at
four weeks Of age Obtained in this experiment were higher
than those values reported by Woodard g£_gl. (1977) and
Stadelman §E_gl. (1944), were similar to those values
presented by Reynnells (1979) and Scott gt_gl. (1954)
and were a little lower than those Obtained by Scott EE_§l-

(1963).

49

Currently pheasants are raised for shooting pre-
serves and for meat production. Birds raised for release
on shooting preserves do not need to attain a maximum body
weight. However, birds raised for meat production should
attain a maximum body weight as fast as possible. Depend-
ing on the purpose of the business, a poultry farmer can
decide which level Of protein is more economical to use.
The three protein levels studied, when supplemented with
an adequate amount Of methionine, will give satisfactory
results, although the 28% protein diet with 0.48% methi-
onine (or 0.94% TSAA) resulted in a significantly higher
final body weight than 24% and 26% protein diets. Con-
sidering this, when the goal is to produce meat, one would
be advised to use diets with 28% protein level, since a
rapid and maximum weight gain is desired to get more
profits. However, when the pheasant chicks are raised
for release, a 24% or 26% protein diet, sufficiently
supplemented with methionine, will give satisfactory
results, since lighter birds are acceptable. Therefore,

a future study using higher methionine levels to determine
the optimum methionine level for 24% protein diet is
advised, since the calculated value determined in this

experiment could not be considered a reliable value.

Feed Consumption

 

The average feed consumption in grams/bird/day

for the four week period are shown in Table 2. These

50

.tmumH55n0o on soc canoe messenzome wom.o new chanced wmm the; home one "muoz

.mflmxaoco HoOADmHuoum ca com: #0: oHoB oboc omofifV

.oa.o H was 2mm emaooa ween

.Amo.o w my no mooconoMMHO ucoOAMHcmflm maaoOHpmHuouo o: ouoB ouoSBm

.nooo woufln cou mo moumowamon oounu mo mosao> :ooE oum manna

 

Nh.mH mo.wH mo.mH Hm.MH I mm
mm.oH vo.¢a mm.mH mo.mH woo.vH wm
ma.oH mm.mH m©.mH vh.mH vmm.va «N
iMNddII Iqumll imwamll. iquml Immqml IIIMIII
cwououm

 

loose mo ms Hm>mfl ocecowtumz

 

m.~.H.omo mo mxoos HOOm Ou ouom
Eoum mpcomoonm coxooCImcflm mo Axoc\puwn\mv omouo>m coquEsmcoo pooh .m oases

51

values of feed consumption were in a range from 13.81 to
16.33 g/bird/day with a SEM i 0.90. The data when analyzed
by using ANOVA (Table 5, Appendix B) showed no significant
differences on feed consumption due to protein, methionine
level and replication. This is in agreement with Woodard 33
.31. (1977) who found no difference in feed consumption Of
pheasant chicks fed diets that contained 24% and 28% protein.

It was evident from these results that the methionine
levels studied affected body weight but not feed con-
sumption. Perhaps the lower methionine levels used were
not enough to support maximal growth but did not affect
feed intake. Chee (1978), working with young chicks,
stated that a moderate deficiency in methionine had no
effect on feed intake but prevented maximal growth.

The values Of feed consumption Obtained in this
experiment were similar to those reported by Stadelman

et a1. (1944) for pheasant chicks at four weeks of age.

Feed Conversion

Average data on feed conversion of Ring-necked
pheasants at four weeks Of age (weight gain/feed con-
sumed) for each treatment are shown in Table 3. NO
significant difference was detected for protein level,
methionine level and replication (Table 6, Appendix B).
However, there was a trend for improved feed conversion

at each protein level as the methionine level increased.

52

.emutH=Euoc on so: efisoo mascoazume awn. can camuoua saw cue: omen was “muoz

.Amo.o w m. we moocououuflp acoOAMACOAm zaamofiumfiumum 0: ohms muons

.mwmxamcm Honeymwumum cw pom: no: ouo3 sump omoaa

.mH.o a mm: :mm emflooa was

.nomo ocuwn now no moumowadou oounu mo mosam> some one came

e

m

N

H

 

 

 

m.~.H

mo.OHmH.m -.~ ~H.N w~.~ H~.~ 3 mm

oo.owo~.~ mm.~ H~.~ ~N.~ ~m.~ mm.~ mm

wo.onm.~ H~.m wm.~ mm.~ vv.~ ev.~ em

3 lid: do]... 1.31 you: iowi .
Hamum>o .uofio no A. Ho>ma mcflcoacumz cumuoua
.omo mo mxoo3 HSOH Ou ouon EOuw ucommonm poxooCImcflm mo cofimuo>coo pooh .m oHnoB

53

Pheasant chicks fed the 24% protein diet had the best
feed conversion at 0.51% methionine level, the highest
methionine level used. For pheasants fed the 26% and
28% protein diets the best feed conversion was shown
when the methionine content was 0.48% Of the diet. The
same trend was Observed for the protein effect. The
feed efficiency improved as the protein level increased
in the diet and the best feed efficiency was Obtained
by birds fed the 28% protein diet. However, the dif-
ferences in feed efficiency Of birds fed the three pro-
tein levels were not statistically significant. These
values reported are similar to those Obtained by Scott
gt_gl. (1963), but somewhat lower than those values
reported by Stadelman gt_gl. (1944). Perhaps the dif-
ferences in energy content of the diets used in the

experiments caused these differences.

Mortality

 

Mortality data, shown as the number of birds that
died from the total thirty birds (three replicates Of
ten birds each) for each diet used, is presented in
Table 4. A total of 30 birds (out Of 420 birds) died
during the experiment. There was no significant effect
due to protein or methionine (Table 7, Appendix B).
Approximately 60% of the total (18 birds) died during
the first seven to ten days Of the experiment, without

apparent cause. Pheasant chicks appeared to be more

.couoHSEH0m on no: OHOOO ochoHnuoE mm.o cam cHouonm me nuH3 uoHU one ”ouoz
.mHmeoco HMOHumHumum How OonoUHmcoo uo: ouoz pump omonam

.eAmOeo w my “m mwocmhmwmflv “CMOflMHcmHm 0c mum; me£BN

.Asooo mOHHn cop mo moDMOHHdoH oounu. mUHHn on NO uso mUHHn coop mo HonEdzH

 

54

N m H N I mN

N m H N mH mm

H N m H mN vN

Hm.o mv.o vv.o ov.o wm.o w
cHouOHm

 

loose mo w. mHm>mH mcacoflaumz

 

.omo mo mxooz HDOm Op OHoN Eoum uncommonm coxoocumcwm mo SDHHMUHOZ .v oHnoB

N.H

55

sensitive to environmental conditions early in life than
domestic chicks. As the pheasant chicks are a wild
species, when frightened their instinctive reaction is
to try to fly. As they were raised in battery brooders,
when this occurred, they beat themselves at the tOp of
the battery killing themselves by repeatedly jumping. Al-
though great care was taken to avoid this, 40% of the
mortality (or 12 birds) killed themselves that way.
Woodard gE_gl. (1977) stated that the incidence of
mortality in Chinese Ring-necked pheasants from one to
twenty weeks Of age was influenced by the protein level,
but in that study protein levels as low as 16% were
used. The highest mortality occurred at 16% protein
level (19.3%) when compared to 20% (9.1%) and 24% (4.5%)
protein levels. His trial was conducted using floor
pens. According to Reynnells (1979) pheasant chicks
raised on the floor had lower mortality than those pheas:
ants raised in battery brooders, although no signicant

difference was registered.

Experiment II.
Hen-day percent egg production

Mean values of hen-day percent egg production of
laying Ring-necked pheasants fed the different diets
are shown in Table 5. Although no significant effect

for protein and methionine was found when the data were

analyzed by using ANOVA (Table 1, Appendix C) there

56

.AmcoHuod usow x sumo mOHHQ HOOM mo moDMOHHdoH boom. chHum>uombo OH NO mcooz

.mm.N

.Amo.o w N. no moocouomec ucoOHMHcmHm o: ouoz ouone

a was 2mm eoHooa one

m

N
H

 

on.deH.mm

oh.HHmh.mm

on.Hth.Ho

 

2mm H CmoE
HHouo>O

mm.mo mm.mm
em.mo ms.mm
so.mo os.oo
.Immqu Immql

mm.mm

mm.No

mm.oo

mN.

 

inane mo w. Hm>mH mascoaaumz

mH

mH

«H

w
:Hououm

 

m.N.H.m>oO NHH MOM ochoHnuoE Odo cHououQ mo mHo>oH ucoquMHO oounu com
uncommonm coxoochch OCHNMH mo Aw. cOHuoscouQ mmo mocicon mo mosHo> coo:

.m oHQoB

57

was a trend to increase egg production as the methionine
level increased at each protein level (Figure 2). The
highest rate of egg production at 14% and 16% protein
levels was Obtained when the methionine level was 0.33%
of the diet. The cystine content calculated for 14% and
16% protein diets was respectively, 0.23% and 0.26% Of
the diet. These values added to the methionine level
made a TSAA content Of 0.56% Of the diet (or 4.00% Of
the protein) for the 14% protein diet and 0.59% Of the
diet (or 3.69% of the protein) for the 16% protein diet.
For birds fed the 18% protein diet, 0.29% methionine
level resulted in the highest rate of egg production
which was the same rate Obtained at 0.33% methionine
level. The cystine content (0.30%) of the diet added to
the methionine level resulted in a TSAA cOntent of 0.59%
Of the diet (or 3.28% Of the protein).

The methionine levels or TSAA that produced the
highest egg production of laying pheasants when considered
as percentage of the diet were higher than those values
recommended for the laying chicken by NRC (1977), Harms
and Damron (1969), Daghir §t_gl. (1964), Bray (1965),
Ingram and Little (1958) and Leong and McGinnis (1952).
However, they were lower than those values recommended by
Ingram g£_gl. (1951) and Lepore (1965) and approximately
the same as that recommended by Holmes and Kramer (1965) .

The requirements of methionine or TSAA stated by

NRC (1977) for turkey breeder hens are also lower than

Hen-day egg production, %

58

 

 

 

70 -
I. .. .. .. ..---- .. . 18% protein
/
/
I,
65 _ I ”’. 16% protein
1’ Hr”
/ ’,o” . 14% protein
I ”
.”¢”f'
/
I
e " fl 0
60 — [I
I
O
55 J l I
0‘125 .29 .33

Methionine level, % of diet

Figure 2. Etiect of methionine level In diet on hen-day
egg production at three different protein levels.

59

the values found in this experiment for laying pheasants.
Atkinson gtggl. (1976a) stated that the requirement Of
TSAA of turkey breeder hens for Optimum egg production,
egg size and feed efficiency was 0.55% Of the diet (or
3.01% of the protein). The protein content of the diet
was 18.26%. The requirement Of TSAA for the turkey breeder
hen was also lower than the value Of TSAA required for
laying pheasants for an Optimum rate Of egg production
in this experiment.

When the protein levels were considered, the same
trend was Observed within each methionine level (Figure 3).
The egg production rate increased at equivalent methio-
nine levels as the protein level increased. However, at
the highest protein level fed (18%), the lowest level
of methionine (0.25%) resulted in a decrease in egg
production rate. This indicates that perhaps at this
protein level methionine became a marginal amino acid.
Although no significant difference in egg production
was found between the different protein levels used, the
results showed an increase in egg production rate when
the protein level increased. This concept is supported
by the findings Of some researchers who worked with
laying chickens.

Reid g£_gl. (1951) found that laying chickens fed

an 18% protein diet had a higher but not significantly

Hen-day egg production, %

 

60

 

 

70 —
...r“
.e'.’
z
. .e‘" I
e- ". . ’e’
I
/e
60 _ \
......... .. ... 0.33% methionine level
._ -— — .. 0.29% methionine level
50‘;— = : 0.25% methionine level
l—Ie J 1 1
o ' 14 16 18

Protein level, %

Figure 3. Effect of protein level In diet on hen-day egg

production at three different methionine levels.

61

improved egg production when compared to laying chickens
fed either a 13% or 15% protein diet. Guenthner g£_gl.
(1972) reported an increase in egg production rate when
the protein level in the diet Of laying chickens increased
from 13.9% to 18.3%, although no significant difference
was detected. On the other hand, Quisenberry and Bradley
(1962), Gordon g£_gl. (1962) and Gleaves gE_gl. (1968)
reported a significant effect on egg production, egg
weight and feed efficiency Of laying chickens when the
protein level in the diet increased gradually from 13%

to 19%. Miller g£_gl. (1956), however, found that
neither egg production nor body weight maintenance of
laying chickens was affected by increasing the protein
level from 12% through 21%. Similarly, Smith

(1967), Summers EE_El- (1967) and Thornton gg_gl. (1957)
found that egg production of laying chickens was not
affected when diets with protein levels which ranged from
11% to 19% were fed. Milton and Ingram (1957) stated
that laying chickens fed a 14% protein diet produced as
well as those fed 16% and 18% protein diets. Minear gg_gl.
(1970) reported no signficant difference in reproduction
performance of Large White turkey breeder hens fed diets
with 14% and 16% protein levels. Luther and Waldroup
(1970) found no differences in reproductive performance
of Broad Breasted Bronze turkey breeder hens when fed

14.7% and 16% protein diets which contained 0.66% Of TSAA.

62

Based on these results, it can be stated that
although no significant difference in egg production
rate was found when laying pheasants were fed diets
that contained 14%, 16% and 18% protein levels, the
birds fed the higher protein level produced at a higher
numerical rate. Perhaps the number Of replications used
in this experiment was not enough to support a significant
difference in egg production among the diets used.

The highest rate Of hen-day egg production (68.26%)
was Obtained by birds fed the 18% protein diet which
contained 0.29% methionine (or 0.59% Of TSAA). This
rate Of egg production was 3.02% and 4.60% higher than
the egg production rate of those birds fed 16% and 14%
protein diets, respectively, with 0.33% methionine.
Although these differences in egg production rate were
not significantly different, it is important to notice
that in some cases an increase Of 3.02% or 4.60% in egg
production can economically compensate an increase in
the protein level of the diet. The size of the business
and the cost of the ingredients used in making the feed
should be taken into consideration to make the decision
on what protein level should be used.

Period analysis Of the data showed that there was
a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) for
percent hen-day egg production due to period (Table 6).

The lowest egg production rate was obtained during the

63

ucouomep mHucooHMHcon ouo muQHHomHomsm ucouomeO QDH3 CEDHOO o aanHB mcooz

..mo.o w a. pm
o.n.m

.coHudEDmcoo poom Ono unoHoB moo .coHuosooum moo ucoouom moOIcoa HON
OOHuom >3 Honuooou OoHoom co£3 mcoHuocHnEOO ucoEumouu oCH: on» mo mcooE ohm mama

H

 

ms.oaaam.mo
ma.ownem.mo
me.onn~m.ao
ms.onmms.sm

ON.ow mm.mN
ON.OH Ho.mN

ON.ow oh.mN

12.-0.0

o~.ommmm.sm

 

 

H

Amme\onan\mc
coHumEsmcoo coom

aw
HunoHo3 mom

mm.HHav~.mo e
om.HHoHe.Ha m
om.Hno~s.ms m
om.HamHm.~s H

 

HCOHDODOOHQ moo UOHHom

ucoouom wooicom

.coHuoucoEHuomxo mo mpoHuom MOON

How mucmmoonm poxooCIoch mcH>oH mo coHumEsmcoo coom one unoHos
moo .coHuospoum ooo ucoouom woplco: mo uonuo Unaccoum 0cm coo: .m oHnoB

64

first period followed by a sharp increase during the
second period and then a decrease for both the third

and fourth periods. This tendency was Observed in all
experimental groups (Table 2, Appendix C) and it was due
to a normal change in production by birds in general

as the production cycle progresses. The hen-day per-
cent egg production values Obtained in this experiment
were similar tO those values reported by Carpenter (1980)
and Reynnells (1979) for Ring-necked laying pheasants and

higher than that value reported by Smith et al. (1968).

Egg weight

 

The egg weight means for all treatment combinations
are summarized in Table 7. After these data were analyzed
using ANOVA (Table 3, Appendix C), a significant effect
for protein level (P < 0.001) was found but none for
methionine. Also, the interaction, protein and methionine,
was significant (P < 0.004) indicating that the protein
levels used did not produce the same difference in res-
ponses at each methionine level. Based on this, the
egg weight means for the different protein levels were
compared within each methionine level. At the lowest
methionine level (0.25% of the diet) the egg weight res-
ponse did not follow the same trend when compared to 0.29

and 0.33 percent methionine level.

65

.Amo.o w a. pm
ucouowwHU NHDCMOHMHcon one mumHnomuodsw ucoquMHO :uH3 aESHOO oEom onu CH mcooEn.m

om.o H mas 2mm ooHooa onem

.mOOHHom mmpimN HDOM

nosounu AmUHHn usow mo mouoOHHdou usow. mUMHQ mH ma couscoum mooo mo unoHo3 coozH

 

 

 

5H.onnme.mm amo.m~ hom.mm nm5.m~ ma
afl.onmoe.mm www.mm nmm.mm mmm.sm SH
sfi.onmmfi.mm moH.mm mmm.sm nmmm.mm «H
Sam M some Immql INM4I Immqi IIIMIII
HHoHo>o cHouonm

Aumae mo av Hm>wH mcaeoesumz

 

.m>MO NHH How DoHO on» :H ochoHsuoE Ugo CHouOHQ mo mHo>oH ucoHoMMHO

s
N H oounu pom mucomoonm poxooCIoch mchoH mo Amy usoHoz moo mo memo: .5 oHQoB

66

At the 0.25% methionine level the mean egg weight Of
birds fed the 16%protein diet was significantly (P < 0.05)
lower than that produced by birds fed the 18% protein
diet. However, nO significant difference was found when
the egg weight means of birds fed the 16% and 18% protein
diets were compared to that Of birds fed the 14% protein
diet.

At 0.29% methionine level there was an increase
in egg weight as the protein level increased. The egg
weight Of birds fed a 14% protein diet was significantly
(P < 0.05) lower than weight Of those laid by laying
pheasants fed the 16% and 18% protein diets. However,
no significant difference was found between egg weight
means of birds fed a 16% or 18% protein diet.

At 0.33% methionine level the egg weight means
numerically increased as the protein level increased, but
these differences were not statistically significant.

According to the results Obtained it can be stated
that a level of 0.25% methionine was enough to Obtain
an Optimum egg weight at 14% and 18% protein levels.
However, for birds fed the 16% protein level, 0.25% was
not enough methionine to support Optimum egg size, since
the birds fed the 16% protein diet laid significantly
smaller eggs than those fed the 18% protein diet. Based
on this, a higher methionine level (0.29% Of the diet)

should be advised for the 16% protein level. Although

67

the difference was statistically significant, it was
small and may be attributable to the lower feed intake
at this protein level and/or to the hen size (Table 8,
Appendix C, and Table 8) rather than to the methionine
level. The body weight averages Of the different experi-
mental groups were approximately the same for all groups
at the beginning of the experiment, but the range Of
individual body weights was not the same for all groups
at the end of the trial. This could cause some influence
in egg weight because Of the postive correlation between
hen size and egg size as shown by Graham, cited by Thorn-
ton §£_gl. (1957), and Funk (1935).

When the cystine contents calculated as percentage of
the diet were added to the methionine requirements, a TSAA
Of 0.50%, 0.55% and 0.53% Of the diet or 3.57%, 3.44% and
2.94% of the dietary protein were the best levels for
14%, 16% and 18% protein Of laying pheasants diets for
an Optimum egg weight.

These results indicate that the methionine or TSAA
requirements Of laying pheasants for an Optimum egg weight
at each protein level were lower than those found for
maximum rate Of production. This finding is not in agree-
ment with that reported by Harms and Damron (1969) and
Bray (1965) for laying chickens. They found that TSAA
requirement for maximum egg weight was slightly higher

than that for maximum rate Of egg production.

68

When the overall egg weight means for the
different protein levels were compared, there was
a tendency to increase egg weight as protein level
increased. Birds fed the diet that contained 18%
protein level produced a significantly heavier egg
weight than those fed either 14% or 16% protein diets.
NO significant differences was found between egg weight
of birds fed 14% and 16% protein diets. This result is
supported by the findings Of Deaton and Quisenberry
(1965), Smith (1967), Biely and March (1964) and
Thornton §E_gl. (1957) for laying chickens. These
authors reported that differences in protein levels
of from 11% tO 19% did not affect or slightly affected
egg production but did affect egg weight. They reported
that birds fed a higher protein diet laid significantly
heavier eggs than those fed lower protein levels.

Period caused a significant effect (P < 0.001) on
egg weight. Table 6 shows that egg weight increased
with time. This effect was expected and it was due to
a normal change associated with the increasing age Of
the laying pheasants. These birds were approximately
eight months Old at the beginning Of the trial. Period
one showed the lowest egg weight mean, which was signifi-
cantly different (P < 0.05) from the following three
periods, confirming the lack of total physical develOp-

ment. The differences shown between periods two, three

69

and four were not significant. Table 4, Appendix C,

shows the egg weight mean for each treatment combination
through the four periods. The egg weight means found in
this study ranged from 26.20 to 31.22 g with a SEM i 0.61.
This range is a little wider than those reported by Reyn—
nells (1979), Hinkson gt_gl. (1970), Greeley (1962),
Woodard §E_gl. (1978) and Labisky §£_gl. (1969), but
similar to those values reported by Breitenbach gE_§l.
(1963). These differences may be due to the fact that
the birds used in this experiment were Of different age

and size than the birds in the other trials reported.

Feed consumption

 

The feed consumption (grams/bird/day) as average
values Of four replicates of four birds each through
four 28-day periods for each treatment combination is
shown in Table 8. These data, when analyzed (Table 5,
Appendix C) showed that feed consumption was significantly
affected by protein (P < 0.007) and period (P < 0.001).
Methionine effect was nearly significant (P < 0.058).
The mean values for each protein level and methionine
level were calculated (Table 9) and Bonferroni t-test was
used to compare means. The feed consumption Of birds fed
14% protein diet was not significantly different from those
fed either 16% or 18% protein diets. However, birds fed
the 18% protein diet had a significantly higher feed con-

sumption than those fed the 16% protein diet.

70

.OH.HH was 2mm poH00d one

.AmOOHuom MSOM x mouooHHdou HDOMV mcoHuo>Homno mH mo mcmoE

N
one ouoo

 

 

 

H

mm.mm mo.mm vN.vo mH

hm.vo ov.mo om.Nm mH

mo.mo no.mo mn.mm eH

mm. mm. mm. m
lumen o0 m. Hm>mH maecoHaumz tampons
. .mmoo NHH MOM mHo>oH ochochoE Ono cHououd ucouowmflc oounu 5H3 muon

N H coo mucmmmmca eoxomcumcem mcflsmfl mo Asme\eunn\o. cofiuassmaoo ammo .m magma

71

.Amo.o v my ucoquMHp NHDcoOHchon one mumHHOmuomsm uconoMMHp :qu mcoozn.o

.eo.o a was 2mm emHoom mean

.monuooou poHoom mosHo> ochoHnuoE HO cwououm HHo wo mcooE one oquH

 

mom.om wom.sm so.so mmm.eo amm~.mo

mmm.mm a

oN. mN. mH mH «H
va Ho>oH cHouOHm

mm.
lemme mo w. Hw>mH mascoHaumz

.H.m>mp NHH new mucomoonm poxooclmch ocHon
wo Amo©\wan\ov coHmeDmcoo poom co Doomwo ocHCOHSDoE cam :Houonm .m oHQoB

72

When the methionine effect on feed consumption was
tested, no significant differences were detected between
the means representing feed consumption for each methionine
level; although, birds fed the diet that contained the
lower methionine level (0.25%) showed a lower numerical
feed consumption when compared tO those fed 0.29% and 0.33%
methionine levels.

Harms and Damron (1969) reported that laying chickens
fed diets that contained a methionine level as low as
0.188% of the diet had a slightly reduced feed intake.
However, nO differences in feed intake were found between
diets that contained higher methionine levels (0.228%,
0.268%, 0.301% and 0.348%). This finding supports the
results Obtained in this study with laying pheasants. The
methionine levels ranging from 0.25% to 0.33% Of the diet
did not significantly affect feed consumption.

Most Of the research done with laying chickens shows
a better feed efficiency when the protein level in the
diet is increased, but the researchers usually did not
mention the feed consumption. Only Guenthner gE_gl. (1972)
reported that feed intake and feed conversion Of laying
chickens were not affected when the protein level in the
diet increased from 13.95 to 18.3%, in contrast to the
results Obtained in this study.

The means and standard error Of feed consumption

for the different periods are shown in Table 6. The

73

only significant difference found was for period one

when compared with each Of the other three periods.

These averages paralleled the egg weight pattern (Table 6)
and they were related to the normal change associated
with the physical development of the pheasant hens and
the increased egg production. Feed consumption averages
of the different diets through the four 28-day periods
ranged from 54.2 to 72.64 iZIZJgrams/bird/day (Table 6,
Appendix C). These values are similar to those found by
Breitenbach g£_gl. (1963) and Reynnells (1979). On the
other hand values Of feed consumption reported by Hinkson
‘g£_gl. (1970) ranged from 96 to 111 g/bird/day, which were
higher than those values found in this study. This dif-
ference may have been due to the fact that these authors
reared the birds on the floor and included the males in

determining the average feed consumption.

Body Weight

 

The body weight change as an average for each group
of laying pheasants fed diets with three different pro-
tein and methionine levels during the 112 days of the
experiment is shown in Table 10. The change in body
weight as measured by the difference in weight at the
beginning and end of the experimental period, adjusted
for initial weight, showed no significant differences

within protein and methionine levels studied. However,

74

.Amo.o w N. no moocouommwc HGMOHMHcon o: ouos ouoce

.ucoEHHomxo on» mo coo one no mOHHn o>HH mo mcooE one came

N

 

 

H

mm.mHH mm.mHH mm.mHH 2mm H

mm.mmH om.mmH em.mNH came HHmuo>o
mm.mHHoo.mmH mm.meH oo.omH mo.mmH mH
mm.mHHHo.mmH so.o~H oo.mmH Hm.OOH mH
mm.mHHmm.omH oo.mHH mm.amH vo.mHH 4H
2mm H some IMMJI. Immql INMJI w

HHouo>O :Hououm

 

AHch Ho w. Hm>mH mcHaoHaumz

 

N.H

.mmop NHH MOM mHo>oH oCHcOHnuoE Ugo cHououm oounu cuH3 muoHO pom

mucommonm noxoocioch ochmH mo AOan\ov GHoo unoHo3 moon mo mono: .oH pome

75

when the protein effect was considered, the overall
mean showed a higher weight gain as the protein level
increased. This Observation is supported by the find-
ings Of Harms EE_2$- (1962, 1969), Gleaves gt_§l. (1968)
and Smith (1967) who reported that an increase in protein
level resulted in larger body weight gains of laying
chickens.

The laying pheasants showed a gain in weight during
the trial in all treatments. This was expected due to a
normal change in the physical development, since these
birds were about eight months Old at the beginning of
the experiment.

Initial body weights were significantly different
(P < 0.001) (Table 7, Appendix C). Although the experi-
mental groups formed were approximately Of the same weight
(Table 8, Appendix C) the range Of the individual body
weights (900 g to 1500 g) was not the same for all groups.
As the data were analyzed using individual weights, a

significant effect was detected for initial weight.

Mortality

 

The mortality that occurred in this experiment is
shown in Table 11. A total Of five birds died during the
whole experiment (112 days). There was no significant
effect due to protein, methionine or period (Table 9,

Appendix C). The causes of death were prolapse Of oviduct

76

.Anomo mUHHQ HDOM mo mouoOHHmou HOOMV mUHHQ mH mo uso mOHHQ poop mo HoQEsz

 

 

H
H H 0 NH
H o 0 0H
0 o N vH
Immlul INTI Iwml. w
cHououm

AumHe.oo we Hm>mH mchoHtumz

 

H.m>o© NHH now cHououd cam ocHOOHnuoE mo mHo>oH ucoHoMMHO
oownu :pHB muoHU co mucomoonm ooxooclocwm ochoH mo muHHouHoz

.HH oHQoE

77

(2 birds), repeatedly jumping against the tOp Of cage

(2 birds), unknown (1 bird).

Experiment III.

Hen-day percent egg production

 

Hen day percent egg production means during the
three 28-day periods can be seen in Table 12. Protein
and methionine levels used did not significantly affect
the rate Of egg production (Table 1, Appendix D), although
there was a strong significance (P < 0.033) for protein-
methionine interaction. The methionine effect at each
protein level was tested, comparing the mean values for
the different methionine levels within each protein level,
using Bonferroni t-statistics. The methionine levels
used did not significantly affect egg production rate
Of birds fed diets that contained 14% and 16% protein
level. However, the highest egg production rate at 14%
protein level was Obtained at 0.29% methionine. The
cystine content calculated for this diet was 0.23%.

This, when added to the methionine content, made a TSAA
content Of 0.52% of the diet (or 3.71% Of the protein).
For diets that contained 16% protein the highest egg
production rate was Obtained at 0.33% methionine level.
The cystine value calculated for this diet (0.26%) when
added to the methionine content made a TSAA content Of

0.59% Of the diet (or 3.69% of the protein). For birds

78

..mo.o w a. pm

ucoMoMMHc NHMGMOHMHcon oMm 30M oEom onu :H deHMomMomsm McoMoMMHc nuHs mnooz

.mm.v u mm3 2mm UoHoom one

.AmUOHMom ooMnu x moMHn Msom mo mouoOHHmoM Msomv mCOHum>Momno NH mo mcmoz

n.m

N

H

 

 

 

non.Nm mHm.He nHo.mm wH
omm.nm omo.om www.mv mH
omm.vv mHv.mm oom.mv «H
mm. mN. mN. w
AomHo no w. Hm>mH mchoHnumz :Hmponm
N.H.m>o© em MOM ochoHnuoE one :HoMOMm mo mHo>oH unoMoMMHO ooMnu com
mucomoonm coxoosIoch mnHmoH mo Hwy COHMODOOMQ ooo wopunon mo moDHo> coo: .NH oHnoB

79

fed the 18% protein diet the methionine levels used
significantly affected the egg production rate. The
highest egg production at 18% protein diet was Obtained
when the methionine content was 0.25% of the diet. This
production rate was significantly higher than the egg
production rate Of birds fed the diet that contained
0.29% methionine. However, no significant difference
in the egg production rate was found between birds fed
diets that contained either 0.25% or 0.33% methionine.
Also, no significant difference was found between the
egg production rate Of laying pheasants fed 0.29% and
0.33% methionine. Therefore, for 18% protein a level
Of 0.25% methionine or 0.53% Of TSAA Of the diet (or
2.94% Of the protein) resulted in the highest egg pro-
duction.

The best levels Of methionine or TSAA for maximum
rate Of egg production at each protein level Obtained
in this experiment were different from those Obtained
in Experiment II, with laying pheasants in their first
year of egg production. In this trial, with pheasants
in the second year Of production the Optimum methionine
(or TSAA) levels found for diets that contained 14% and
18% protein were lower than the levels found in Experi-
ment II. However, for 16% protein diet, the level Of
methionine required for maximum egg production was the

same in both experiments.

80

When the protein effect was tested within each
methionine level, the responses were not consistent
and different trends were Observed at each methionine
level (Figure 4). When laying pheasants were fed diets
that contained 0.25% methionine, the egg production rate
increased as the protein level increased. However, when
diets that contained 0.29% methionine were fed to the
laying pheasants, the egg production rate decreased
as the protein level increased. A different reSponse
was Obtained when laying pheasants were fed diets that
contained 0.33% methionine level. In this case, the
egg production rate increased as the protein content
in the diet increased from 14% to 16% and then decreased
at 18% protein. NO significant difference for egg pro-
duction rate was found when the means for the different
protein levels were compared within each methionine
level.

According to this experiment the highest rate Of
egg production was Obtained from laying pheasants fed
the 18% protein diet that contained 0.25% methionine or
0.53% of TSAA (2.94% Of the protein). Production Of
these birds was 2.26% and 4.20% higher than the egg
production rate Of hens fed 16% protein with 0.33%
methionine and 14% protein with 0.29% methionine, respec-
tively. Statistically, these differences were not sig-

nificantly different. Based on this, either one Of these

Hen-day egg production, %

81

60 — e 0.25% methionine

\\ \. 0.33% methionine

45 — \o 0.29% methionine

40 ""
LA/ I l I
14 16 18

Protein level, %

 

 

Figure 4. Effect of protein level in diet on hen-day egg
egg production at three different methionine levels.

82

levels of protein with the adequate amount Of methionine
can be used for laying pheasants. However, a higher
rate of egg production was Obtained with higher protein
(18%) diet. These results agree with those Obtained in
Experiment II. In both experiments, diets which contained
the highest protein level resulted in the highest egg
production, although no statistically significant dif-
ference was found between the diets used.
For period there was also a significant effect

(P < 0.001) on egg production rate, which was considered
normal. Table 13 shows the period effect on hen-day
percent egg production. As these birds were in production
when the experiment began, the first period showed a
higher rate of egg production and then a decrease for the
second and third periods. The only significant difference
found was for the third period which was significantly
lower when compared to the other two egg production periods.
The same tendency was Observed in all treatment combinations
(Table 2, Appendix D).

Laying pheasants in their second production cycle
had a lower percent hen-day egg production than those
young laying pheasants used in Experiment II. This find-
ing is not in agreement with Labisky gt_gl. (1969) who
found that laying pheasants showed greater egg laying capa—
city as two year olds than they did as yearlings. However,

Smith et a1. (1968) reported that laying pheasants in

83

.Amo.o w as on ucoquMHo

mHucoOHMHcon oMo mumHMOmMomsm ucoMoMMHO nqu nfisHoo o anuHB memo:

new

vcoHumESmnoo cooM one COHMOSOOMQ moo McoOMom mocicon

MOM UOHMom >9 MonuooOM coHoom cons mcoHuoanEOo MnoEuooMu oCHn onu Mo mcooE oMo moon

H

 

 

 

hm.HHnHm.mo mm.NMnNo.mm
hv.HHnmo.vm mm.NHohm.Hm
mm.HMMmo.mm mm.NMomm.Hm
AmoO\OMHn\mv HCOHMODUOMQ mmo
HcoHMmEsmnoo Ooom unoOMom moplnom

OOHMom

 

.GOHqunoEHMomxo
MO mpoHMom ooMnu MOM uncommonm Ooxoonlmch onwhoH Mo GOHMQEDocoo
OooM one COHMODOOMQ moo unoOMom moplcon Mo MOMMo OMoUnoum Odo coo:

.MH oHQoB

84

their first year Of production had a higher egg production
rate than two year Old laying pheasants, which is in

agreement with the results Obtained in these experiments.

Egg Weight

 

Table 14 shows a summary of egg weight means Of
laying pheasants in their second year Of production fed
nine different diets during 84 days Of production. When
the data for egg weight was analysed by using analysis Of
variance (Table 3, Appendix D), protein effect was sig-
nificant (P < 0.001) and protein-methionine interaction
also showed a significant effect (P < 0.001). As the
interaction Of protein-methionine was significant, the
means for the different protein levels were compared at
each methionine level. The protein levels did not pro-
duce the same differences in responses at each methionine
level.

When the methionine level in the diets was 0.25%,
the egg weight mean Of birds fed 14% protein was signifi-
cantly lower than the egg weight mean Of birds fed 16%,
but not significantly different from egg weight Of birds
fed 18% protein. Also, no significant difference was
detected between egg weight mean Of birds fed either
16% or 18% protein diets.

At 0.29% methionine, no significant difference was

found between egg weight means Of laying pheasants fed

85

..mo.o w as no

ucoMoMMHp mHucoOHMHnon oMo mMQHMOmMomsm ucoMoMMHU nuH3 cEsHoo oEom on» :H mnooz

n.m

.mpoHMom mooImN ooMnu

noDOMnu AmuMHn MSOM M0 mouoOHHmoM MSOM. mwMHn mH an woos©OMm mooo MO MnoHoz coo:

 

 

 

 

H
mm o+noH Hm we Mnomm om om +nvo mm mm Anomo mN mH
mm o+nom om mm +nmm Hm mm +lo mN om +an Hm mH
mm.owomm.mN om. Moom.mN mm.uovN.mN mm. MoVN.mN vH
2mm M nooE mm. mN. mN. w
HHmnm>o .umHo Mo w. Ho>oH mchoHnomz :Hmooua
H.m>o©
em MOM MoHO on» CH onHCOHnMoE ono CHouOMm Mo mHo>oH McoMoMMHO ooMQMOoM
munomoond ooxoonionHm onHNoH Mo Am. unoHoB ooo Mo MOMMo oMoonoMm poo nooz .VH oHnoB

86

either 14% or 16% protein diet. However, the egg weight
mean Of birds fed the 18% protein diet was significantly
heavier than that of those produced by birds fed the

14% and 16% protein diets. At 0.33% methionine level,
the birds fed the 14% protein diet laid significantly
smaller eggs than did those fed the 16% protein but

not significantly smaller than did the birds fed the 18%
protein diet. NO significant difference was found be-
tween the egg weight mean Of birds fed either 16% or

18% protein diets.

Similar to the results Obtained in Experiment II,
there was a significant effect for protein level and
also for protein-methionine interaction. However, when
the means Of egg weight for each protein level were
compared within each methionine level the responses
Obtained were different. This indicated that young
laying pheasants and two-year-Old laying pheasants be-
haved in a different way to the protein and methionine
levels used.

According to the results Obtained when the protein
levels in the diets were 14% and 16%, a methionine content
Of 0.33% of the diet was required for an Optimum egg
weight. However, in a diet that contained 18% protein,
a level Of 0.29% methionine was sufficient for an Opti-
mum egg weight. When the cystine content calculated for

each diet was added to the methionine values the TSAA

87

content was 0.56%, 0.59% and 0.59% Of the diet or
4.00%, 3.69% and 3.28 % Of dietary protein for 14%,
16% and 18% protein diets, respectively. These values
Of methionine or TSAA found for an Optimum egg weight
were higher than those found for a maximum rate Of

egg production. This is in contrast to the results
shown in Experiment II, but is in agreement with the
findings Of Harms and Damron (1969) and Bray (1965)
for laying chickens.

The methionine or TSAA requirements for an Optimum
egg weight were higher for laying pheasants in their
second year Of production than were those for the lay-
ing pheasants in their first year Of lay.

When the overall egg weight means for the different
levels Of protein were compared, the same tendency was
Observed in both experiments. The egg weight mean
increased as the protein level in the diets increased.
However, in trial III laying pheasants fed the 14% pro-
tein diet laid significantly smaller eggs than did those
fed either 16% or 18% protein diets. The egg weight
means of laying pheasants fed either 16% or 18% protein
diet were not significantly different.

In Experiment III, the egg weight means ranged from
28.7 g to 33.43 9 (Table 4, Appendix D). This range was

wider than that reported by Labisky et a1. (1969) for

88

two-year-Old laying pheasants. Perhaps, this was
caused by the differences in body weight Of laying
pheasants used in both experiments. Also this range
was wider than that range Of weight means of eggs laid
by the laying pheasants in their first year Of pro-

duction in Experiment II.

Feed Consumption

 

Feed consumption averages (g/bird/day) for the
different diets are shown in Table 15. Protein and
methionine levels used did not significantly affect
feed consumption. The only significant effect (P < 0.001)
found was for period (Table 5, Appendix D). Table 13
shows the average feed consumption by period. Period
one had a significantly lower average feed consumption
compared to the other two periods. NO significant dif-
ference in feed consumption was detected between periods
two and three.

Feed consumption averages did not parallel the
rate Of egg production and the highest rate Of egg pro-
duction was Obtained in period one when these birds had
the lowest feed consumption. Perhaps,this lower feed
consumption in period one can be explained by the stress
caused in changing these birds from a floor management

system to a cage management system.

.Amo.o w me no moocoMoMMHo McoOHMHcon NHHoOHumHMoMm on oMo3 oMonB

 

89

 

 

m

mm.m H was 2mm ooHoom maem

.AmUOHMod ooMnu x mouoOHHmoM MSOMV mnoHuo>Momno NH MO mnooE oMo ouoaH
sm.HHmo.mm RH.HG Ho.mm om.mm mH
sm.HH~o.Hm oH.Ho Ho.mm oo.oo SH
sm.HHes.~o sH.oo mm.eo me.mo «H

2mm H some mm. mm. mm. H
HHoMo>o GHoMOMm

.HoHo Mo H. Ho>oH ochoHnHoz

 

m.N.H.m>op em MOM mHo>oH ochoHnuoE Oco cHouOMQ ooMnu nuwz muoHO ooM
mucomoond ooxoonlonHm ochoH MO A>o©\UMHn\oV moooMo>o :OHMQEDmnOO pooh .mH oHnoB

90

The results Obtained for feed consumption in this
experiment showed some differences when compared to
the Experiment II, with the laying pheasants in their
first year Of lay. In general, the feed consumption
averages for these Old laying pheasants were lower than
the feed consumption averages Of the young pheasant
hens, in Experiment II (Tables 9 and 15).

Protein and methionine did not affect feed con—
sumption in these Old laying pheasants, but protein
did affect feed consumption in the young pheasant hens.
Although protein levels did not significantly affect
feed consumption, a tendency to decrease feed consumption
as protein level increased was Observed when the overall
means were compared. Birds at the highest protein
level (18%) showed the lowest feed consumption average.
In contrast to this, the young laying pheasants, in
Experiment II, had the highest feed consumption at this
highest protein level.

Feed consumption averages of the different—treat-
ment combinations through the three 28-day periods
ranged from 51.50 to 67.88i4.11 grams/bird/day (Table
6, Appendix D). These values were lower than those
presented by Breitenbach gt_gl. (1963) and Reynnells
(1979), and similar tO the valuesreported by Adams

et a1. (1967).

91

The lower feed consumption by these pheasant
hens was perhaps the main cause of a lower peak and
more rapid decline in the egg production rate and losses
in body weight that occurred in Experiment III. Breit-
enbach §£_gl. (1963) reported that laying pheasants in
a limited feed intake (45 g/bird/day) had a pronounced
ability to maintain egg size while the egg number was
markedly decreased when compared with those pheasant

hens fed ad libitum.

 

Body Weight

 

The body weight change as an average for each experi-
mental diet, during the 84 days Of the experiment, is
shown in Table 16. The change in body weight was meas-
ured by the difference in weight at the beginning and
end of the experimental period. These old pheasant hens
(in contrast with the young pheasant hens, in Experiment
II) lost weight during the experimental period when fed
any of the diets used.

Data Of individual body weight changes (adjusted
for initial weight) were anlayzed (Table 7, Appendix D)
and no significant effect for protein and methionine was
found. Only initial body weight showed a significant
effect (P < 0.001). This can be explained by the range
of variation Of individual body weights, which was not

the same for all experimental groups. The individual

.Amo.o w o. no moonoMoMMHU unoOHMHnon on oMoB oMonB

 

92

 

 

 

N

.ucoEHMomxo onM Mo poo on» no mOMHn o>HH MO mcooE oMo oMoQH

mm.mH Ne.oN No.0N 2mm H

mm.mm mm.>b mm.o0H nooE HHoMo>O
hm.mHHmm.vm vm.moH mm.HOH oo.hw mH
em.ONHmN.mm mm.mo om.mw mm.>VH MH
mH.0NHmH.mm mm.vNH om.mm Hm.n> «H
2mm H cooe mm. mN. mN. w

HHmHm>o HHmHo Ho HI Hm>mH mchoHnHoz :HmHon

N.H.m>oo om MOM mHo>oH oCHnoHnMoE coo cHoMOMQ ooMnu nuH3 muoHO ooM
munomoonm ooxoonloch onHNoH MO AUMHn\oV mmoH unoHoB moon MO mnooz .mH oHnoB

93

bird weights ranged from 1000 g to 1750 9, although the
body weight means of each experimental group had a
narrow range of variation from 1293.33 to 1435.71 9
(Table 8, Appendix D). These birds (as they were two
years Old) had a heavier body weight than those Of
Experiment II.

Protein and methionine did not significantly affect
the weight loss. However, the overall mean Of weight
loss for the different protein levels showed an increase
in weight loss as the protein level increased. Perhaps,
this fact was related to feed consumption, since it was
Observed (Table 15) that as protein level in the diet
increased, feed consumption decreased. Laying pheasants
fed the 18% protein diet had the lowest feed consumption
and also they had the highest loss Of weight.

When the overall means for methionine levels were
considered, a marked trend was not observed. However,
birds fed diets that contained 0.25% methionine had the
highest loss of weight and birds fed the diet that con-
tained 0.29% methionine had the lowest loss of weight,
but no significant difference was detected. Labisky
§t_gl. (1969) reported that two-year-Old pheasant hens
lost between 2 and 2.5 grams Of body weight per egg laid
or approximately 232 grams during the laying season

(120 days).

94

Mortality

 

Table 17 shows the mortality Of laying Ring-necked
pheasants through 84 days Of the experiment. A total
Of seven birds died during the trial. There was no
significant effect Of protein, methionine and period
(Table 9, Appendix D). All birds dead were autopsied
at the Michigan State University Diagnostic Clinic. The

deaths which occurred were not related to the diets used.

95

.Anooo mOMHn MDOM MO mouoOHHdoM MDOMV mOMHn mH M0 M90 mOMHn coop MO MonEsz

 

 

 

H

o o H mH

H H N oH

o N o vH

mm. mN. mN. w
neoMOMm

AuoHo MO NV Ho>oH oCHcoHnuoz .
H.m>oo em MOM ochoHnMoE Ono nHoMOMm MO mHo>oH unoMoMMHp

ooMnu nuHs wuoHO no mucomoonm ooxoonImCHm mnHmoH Mo muHHouMoz .oH oHnoB

V. SUMMARY

Starting Pheasants

 

A study was conducted tO determine the minimum
Optimum level Of methionine or total sulfur amino acids
(TSAA) in the diet for pheasants from zero tO four weeks
Of age. Because protein and methionine requirements are
interrelated these two nutrients were evaluated simul-
taneously in a factorial experimental design.

Fourteen isocaloric practical diets containing 24%
26% and 28% protein and 0.36, 0.40, 0.44, 0.48 and 0.51%
methionine within each level of protein were used. The
diet with 28% protein and 0.36% methionine could not be
formulated with the ingredients available for this
experiment.

From this study the following Observations were
made:

— Final body weight of Ring-necked pheasants at
four weeks Of age was influenced by methionine (or TSAA)
at all protein levels studied. When the protein content
in the diet was 24%, there was a significant linear
relationship between methionine level and final body
weight. As methionine level in the diet increased the

final body weight increased. In this study, a 0.637%

96

97

methionine requirement was calculated as the Optimum
minimum methionine level which could not be considered
a reliable value, because it was outside of the region
Of methionine values tested in this experiment. There-
fore, further growth studies using higher methionine
levels to determine the Optimum methionine level for
24% protein is advised.

- In diets that contained 26% and 28% protein,

a significant linear and quadratic relationship between
methionine levels and final body weight was Observed.
The methionine requirements calculated were 0.463% and
0.475% Of the diet or 1.78% and 1.70% of the dietary
protein for 26% and 28% protein levels, reSpectively.
The TSAA requirements were 0.893% and 0.935% of the diet
or 3.43% and 3.34% of dietary protein for 26% and 28%
protein levels, respectively.

- The requirements Of methionine or TSAA when
expressed as percentage Of the dietary protein decreased
as protein level increased.

- The overall body weight for birds fed the 28%
protein diets was significantly higher than those for
birds fed the 24% and 26% protein diets.

- The feed consumption, feed conversion and
mortality were not significantly affected by the methio—
nine and/or protein levels used in this study. However,

there was a trend for improved feed conversion as

98

methionine level increased within each protein level.

The same trend was Observed when protein level increased.
- According to these results a diet of 26% protein

containing 0.463% Of methionine (or 0.893% of TSAA) seems

to be appropriate for raising pheasants for shooting

preserves. A diet containing 28% protein with 0.475%

of methionine (or 0.935% Of TSAA) might be used when

pheasants are intended for meat production.

Adult Pheasants

 

Two experiments with adult laying pheasants were
conducted to study the influence Of dietary protein
and methionine or TSAA on egg production, egg weight,
feed consumption, body weight change and mortality Of
the birds.

One experiment was carried out with pheasants in
their first year Of egg production for 112 (four 28-day
periods). The other experiment was carried out with
pheasants in their second year Of egg production for
84 days (three 28-day periods). Both experiments were
conducted with birds in individual cages.

Nine isocaloric practical diets containing 14%,
16% and 18% protein and 0.25%, 0.29% and 0.33% methionine
for each level of protein were used.

From these studies the following Observations were

made:

99

- Hen-day percent egg production for birds in
both the first and second year Of egg production was
not significantly affected by protein and/or methionine
level in the diet. Nevertheless, a slight increase in
egg production rate with increased protein and/or methio-
nine was detected for the birds in their first year Of
production.

- Egg weight was significantly affected by protein
level. Laying pheasants in their first year of egg pro-
duction fed diets that contained 18% protein laid eggs
significantly heavier than those fed either 14% or 16%
protein diets. Birds in their second year of production
fed 16% and 18% protein diets laid eggs significantly
heavier than those fed a 14% protein diet.

- Feed consumption Of laying pheasants in their
first year of egg production was significantly affected
by protein level. The feed consumption of birds fed 14%
protein diet was not significantly different from those
fed either 16% or 18% protein diets. However, birds fed
the 18% protein diet had a significantly higher feed con-
sumption than those fed the 16% protein level.

- Mortality and body weight change in birds in their
first and second year egg production were not significantly
affected by protein and/or methionine levels used. How-
ever, it could be observed that birds in their first

year of production gained weight throughout the period

100

Of experimentation. On the other hand, birds in their
second year Of production lost weight during the same
period.

- The observations made in these studies suggest
that diets containing a minimum level Of 16% protein and
0.33% methionine (or 0.59% of TSAA) seem reasonable to
be used with satisfactory results in egg production rate
and egg weight Of laying Ring-necked pheasants in their

first and second year Of egg production.

VI . REFERENCES

Adams, A. W., A. J. Kahrs and C. W. Deyoe, 1967. The
effect Of length Of light period and cage con-
finement on reproductive performance Of Ring-
necked pheasants. Poultry Sci. 46:1226.

Almquist, H. J., 1952. Amino acid requirements Of chickens
and turkeys - A review. Poultry Sci. 31:966-981.

Andrews, T. L., R. H. Harms and H. R. Wilson, 1973. Pro-
tein requirement Of the Bobwhite chick. Poultry
Sci. 52:2199-2201.

Arscott, G. H. and P. E. Bernier, 1968. Effect of dietary
protein on performance Of dwarf White Leghorn
layers. Poultry Sci. 47:1652.

Atkinson, R. L., J. W. Bradley, J. R. Couch and W. F.
Krueger, 1974. Effect of adding lysine and
methionine to turkey breeder rations. Poultry
Sci. 53:1632.

Atkinson, R. L., J. W. Bradley and W. F. Krueger, 1975.
Amino acid supplementation Of turkey breeder
diets. Poultry Sci. 54:1729.

Atkinson, R. L., J. W. Bradley and W. F. Krueger, 1976a.
Amino acid supplementation Of turkey breeder
rations. Poultry Sci. 55:1575-1577.

Atkinson, R. L., K. K. Krueger, J. W. Bradley, and W. F.
Krueger, 1976b. Amino acid supplementation of
low protein turkey starting rations. Poultry
Sci. 55:1572-1575.

Baldini, J. T., R. E. Roberts and C. M. Kirkpatrick,
1950. A study of the protein requirements of
Bobwhite quail reared in confinement in battery
brooders to eight weeks of age. Poultry Sci.
29:161-166.

Baldini, J. T., R. E. Roberts and C. M. Kirkpatrick,

1953a. Low protein rations for Bobwhite quail.
Poultry Sci. 32:945-949.

101

102

Baldini, J. T. and H. R. Rosenberg, 1955. The effect
of productive energy level of the diet on the
methionine requirement Of the chick. Poultry
Sci. 34:1301-1307.

Baldini, J. T., H. R. Rosenberg and J. Waddell, 1953b.
Low protein diets for the turkey poult. Poultry
Sci. 32:888.

Baldini, J. T., H. R. Rosenberg and J. Waddell, 1954.
The protein requirement Of the turkey poult.
Poultry Sci. 33:539-543.

Barton, L. and E. L. Stephenson, 1960. Dietary inter-
relationships between levels Of protein, fat
and supplementary methionine hydroxy analogue
for both egg type and meat type hens. Poultry
Sci. 39:1233.

Behrends, B. R. and P. E. Waibel, 1980. Methionine and
cystine requirements of growing turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 59:849-859.

Biely, J. and B. E. March, 1964. Protein level and amino
acid balance in the laying ration. Poultry
Sci. 43:98-105.

Boomgaardt, J. and D. H. Baker, 1973. Effect of age
on the lysine and sulfur amino acid requirement
of growing chickens. Poultry Sci. 52:592-597.

Bornstein, S. and B. Lipstein, 1975. The replacement
of some of the soybean meal by the first limit-
ing amino acid in practical broiler diets. The
value of special supplementation of chick diets
with methionine and lysine. Brit. Poultry Sci.
16:177-188.

Bradley, J. W., R. L. Atkinson, J. R. Couch and J. H.
Quisenberry, 1969. Protein requirement of
breeder turkeys. Poultry Sci. 48:1788.

Bradley, J. and J. H. Quisenberry, 1961. Lysine and
methionine supplementation of 14, 16 and 18%
protein laying diets. Poultry Sci. 40:1381-
1382.

Bray, D. J., 1965. The methionine requirement Of young
laying pullets. Poultry Sci. 44:1173-1180.

103

Breitenbach, R. P., C. L. Nagra and R. K. Meyer, 1963.
Effect of limited food intake on cyclic annual
changes in Ring-necked pheasant hens. J. Wildl.
Mgt. 27:24-36.

Britzman, D. G. and C. W. Carlson, 1964. Amino acid
addition to corn-soy diets for laying hens.
Poultry Sci. 43:1305-1306.

Callenbach, E. W. and C. A. Hiller, 1933. The arti-
ficial propagation of Ring-necked pheasants.
Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 299.

Carlson, C. W. and E. Guenthner, 1969. Response of
laying hens fed typical corn-soy diets to
supplements Of methionine and lysine. Poultry
Sci. 48:137-143.

Carpenter, G. H., 1980. Improving egg production in
Ring-necked pheasants with selected matings.
Thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
Michigan State University.

Chee, K. M., 1978. Effects Of methionine on feed intake
vs. amino acids in plasma and brain in the
chicken. Dissertation for the Degree of Ph.D.,
Michigan State University.

Combs, G. F., 1960. Protein and energy requirements of
laying hens. Proceedings University of Maryland.
Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers,

p. 28-45.

Combs, G. F., 1964. Further studies of protein and amino
acid needs Of broilers and laying hens. Pro-
ceedings Of the Maryland Nutrition Conference
for Feed Manufacturers, p. 45-70.

Couch, J. R., J. H. Trammell and C. R. Creger, 1969.
Computer programmed least-cost diets for
turkey poults for the first 3 weeks. Poultry
Sci. 48:2086-2097.

Daghir, N. J., S. S. Akrabawi and K. Rottensten, 1964.
Methionine supplementation of breeder diets.
Poultry Sci. 43:1106-1109.

Dean, W. F. and H. M. Scott, 1965. The development Of
an amino acid reference diet for the early
growth of chicks. Poultry Sci. 44:803-808.

104

Deaton, J. W. and J. H. Quisenberry, 1965. Effects
of dietary protein level on performance Of
four commercial egg production stocks. Poultry
Sci. 44:936-942.

Denton, A. A. and R. J. Lillie, 1959. Effect of protein
restriction in growing and laying diets on the
performance Of White Leghorn pullets. Poultry
Sci. 38:1198.

Evans, R. J., S. L. Bandemer and D. H. Bauer, 1956.
Methionine and cystine requirements Of chicks
determined by calculation. Poultry Sci. 35:
174-178.

Evans, R. J. and J. McGinnis, 1948. Cystine and methio-
nine metabolism by chicks receiving raw or auto-
claved soybean Oil meal. J. Nutr. 35:477-488.

Featherston, W. R. and E. L. Stephenson, 1960. Dietary
interrelationships between methionine, glycine,
choline, protein level and energy content of
the chick diet. Poultry Sci. 39:1023-1029.

Ferguson, T. M., H. P. Vaught, L. D. Matterson, B. L.
Reid and J. R. Couch, 1957. The effect of
different levels of productive energy, protein
and methionine upon the growth Of Broad Breasted
Bronze turkey poults. Poultry Sci. 36:124-128.

Fisher, H., J. Dowling, Jr., and K. H. Maddy, 1956. Low
protein diets for turkeys raised under practical
conditions. Poultry Sci. 35:239-241.

Fitzsimmons, R. C. and P. E. Waibel, 1962. Determination
Of the limiting amino acid in corn-soybean oil
meal diets for young turkeys. Poultry Sci. 41:
260-268.

Flegal, C. J., 1979. Personal communication.

Frank, F. R. and P. E. Waibel, 1959. Effect Of dietary
energy and protein level and energy source on
White Leghorn pullets in cages. Poultry Sci.
38:1204-1205.

Funk, E. M., 1935. Relation of body weight and egg weight
in the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci. 14:232-236.

105

Gill, J. L., 1978. Design and analysis of experiments
in the animal and medical sciences. Volume 1.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Gleaves, E. W., L. Y. Tonkinson, J. D. Wolf, C. K. Harmon,
R. H. Thayer and R. D. Morris, 1968. The action
and interaction Of physiological food intake
regulators in the laying hens. Poultry Sci. 47:
38-67.

Gordon, R. S., W. A. Dudley and L. J. Machlin, 1962.
The effect Of energy levels, protein levels and
methionine hydroxy analogue supplementation Of
corn-soy diets in laying hen performance.
Poultry Sci. 41:1647.

Graber, G., H. M. Scott and D. H. Baker, 1971. Sulfur
amino acid nutrition of the growing chick: effect
Of age on the dietary methionine requirement.
Poultry Sci. 50:854-858.

Grau, C. R. and H. J. Almquist, 1943. The utilization
of the sulfur amino acids by the chick. J.
Nutr. 26:631-640.

Grau, C. R. and M. Kamei, 1950. Amino acid imbalance
and the growth requirements for lysine and
methionine. J. Nutr. 41:89-101.

Greeley, F., 1962. Effects of calcium deficiency on
laying hen pheasants. J. Wildl. Mgt. 26:186-193.

Griminger, P. and H. Fisher, 1959. Amino acid require-
ments of laying hens. 5. Effect Of amino
acid balance in low protein diets. Poultry
Sci. 38:1210.

Griminger, P., R. M. Forbes and H. M. Scott, 1954.
Studies on the methionine requirement Of the
chick. Poultry Sci. 33:1057.

Guenthner, E., D. Arshem, and C. W. Carlson, 1972. Pro-
tein, energy levels and best cost laying diets.
Poultry Sci. 51:1813-1814.

Harms, R. H., 1966. Evaluation of amino acid require-
ments of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 45:1080.

Harms, R. H. and B. L. Damron, 1969. Protein and sulfur
amino acid requirements Of the laying hens as
influenced by dietary formulation. Poultry
Sci. 48:144-149.

106

Harms, R. H., B. L. Damron and P. W. Waldroup, 1966.

Influence Of strain or breed upon the protein
requirement Of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 45:
272-275.

Harms, R. H., C. R. Douglas, and P. W. Waldroup, 1962.

Methionine supplementation of laying hens diets.
Poultry Sci. 41:805-812.

Harms, R. H. and H. R. Wilson, 1980. Protein and sulfur

Heywang,

Heywang,

Heywang,

Hinkson,

amino acid requirements of broiler breeder hens.
Poultry Sci. 59:470-472.

B. W., 1956. The effect Of supplemental
methionine in a corn-soybean diet for laying
chickens. Poultry Sci. 35:462-468.

B. W., H. R. Bird and M. G. Vavich, 1955. The
level Of protein in the diet of laying White
Leghorns during hot weather. Poultry Sci. 34:
148-152.

B. W., M. G. Vavich and B. L. Reid, 1963.
Supplemental methionine in a sixteen percent
protein diet for laying chickens. Poultry
Sci. 42:245-249.

R. S., L. T. Smith and A. G. Kese, 1970.
Calcium requirement of the breeding pheasant
hen. J. Wildl. Mgt. 34:160-165.

Holmes, C. E. and C. Y. Kramer, 1965. Vitamin B12,

Ingram,

Ingram,

Jensen,

choline and methionine in laying diets.
Poultry Sci. 44:1381.

G. R., W. W. Cravens, C. A. Elvehjem and J. G.

Halpin, 1951. The methionine requirement Of
the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 30:431-434.

G. R. and P. L. Little, 1958. Further studies

on the methionine, tryptOphan and lysine
requirements of laying hens. Poultry Sci.
37:1214-1215.

L. S., 1973. Failure to improve the reproductive

performance of turkey breeder hens by supple-
menting a lower protein diet with methionine.
Poultry Sci. 52:1988-1990.

107

Jensen, L. S., L. Falen and G. W. Schumaier, 1974.
Requirement of White Leghorn laying and breed-
ing hens for methionine as influenced by stage
of production cycle and inorganic sulfate.
Poultry Sci. 53:535-544.

Jensen, L. S. and J. McGinnis, 1961. Nutritional
investigations with turkey hens. 1. Quanti—
tative requirement for protein. Poultry Sci.
40:288-290.

Kelly, M., 1970. Amino acid requirements of young
turkey. Poultry Sci. 49:1402.

Klain, G. J., H. H. Scott and B. C. Johnson, 1960.
The amino acid requirement Of the growing chick
fed a crystalline amino acid diet. Poultry Sci.
39:39-44.

Kratzer, F. H., D. E. Williams and B. Marshall, 1949.
The sulfur amino acid requirements of turkey
poults. J. Nutr. 37:377-384.

Kummero, V. E., J. E. Jones and C. B. Loadholt, 1971.
Lysine and total sulfur amino acid requirements
of turkey poults, one day to three weeks.
Poultry Sci. 50:752-758.

Labisky, R. F. and G. L. Jackson, 1969. Production and
weights Of eggs laid by yearling, 2- and 3-year-
old pheasants. J. Wildl. Mgt. 33:718-721.

Leong, K. C. and J. McGinnis, 1952. An estimate of the
methionine requirement for egg production.
Poultry Sci. 31:692-695.

Leong, K. C., M. L. Sunde, H. R. Bird and C. A. Elvehjen,
1959. Interrelationships among dietary energy,
protein and amino acids for chickens. Poultry
Sci. 38:1267-1285.

Lepore, P. D., 1965. Methionine and protein requirements
of lines of chickens established by growth-
rate selection on a methionine deficient diet.
Poultry Sci. 44:797-803.

Lillie, R. J. and C. A. Denton, 1967. Evaluation Of
dietary protein levels for White Leghorns in
grower and subsequent layer periods. Poultry
Sci. 46:1550-1557.

108

Luther, L. W. and P. W. Waldroup, 1970. Protein,
methionine and energy requirements for turkey
breeder hens. Poultry Sci. 49:1408.

Marret, L. E. and M. L. Sunde, 1967. Protein, lysine
and methionine for hens in the second laying
year. Poultry Sci. 46:1289.

McGinnis, J. and R. J. Evans, 1947. Amino acid defic-
iency of raw and overheated soybean Oil meal
for chicks. J. Nutr. 34:725-732.

Mehring, A. L., H. W. Titus and J. Waddell, 1954. The
effect Of adding methionine and vitamin B12,
singly and together to corn-soybean diet
for laying chickens. Poultry Sci. 33:1191-1197.

Millar, R. I. and L. T. Smith, 1971. Evaluation Of
varying methionine and lysine levels in a
26% protein starter diet for Ring-necked
pheasants. Poultry Sci. 50:1606.

Miller, E. C., M. L. Sunde and C. A. Elvehjem, 1956.
Minimum protein requirement of laying pullets
at different energy levels. Poultry Sci. 35:
1159.

Milligan, J. L., L. J. Machlin, H. R. Bird and B. W.
Heywang, 1951. Lysine and methionine require-
ments of chicks fed practical diets. Poultry
Sci. 30:578-586.

Milton, J. E. and G. R. Ingram, 1957. The protein
requirement of laying hens as affected by
temperature, age, breed, system of management
and rate Of lay. Poultry Sci. 36:1141-1142.

Minear, L. R., D. L. Miller and S. L. Balloun, 1970.
Protein requirement of turkey breeder hens.
Poultry Sci. 49:1415.

Murillo, M. G. and L. S. Jensen, 1974. Relationship
Of methionine level to dermatitis in turkey
poults. Poultry Sci. 53:1959.

Murillo, M. G. and L. S. Jensen, 1976. Sulfur amino
acid requirement and food pad dermatitis in
turkey poults. Poultry Sci. 55:554-562.

National Research Council, 1977. Nutrient requirements
of poultry. 7th revised edition, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

109

Nelson, T. S., R. J. Young, R. B. Bradfield, J. B.
Anderson, L. C. Norris, F. W. Hill and M. L.
Scott, 1960. Studies on the sulfur amino
acid requirement of the chick. Poultry Sci.
39:308-314.

Nestler, R. B., W. W. Bailey and H. E. McClure, 1942.
Protein requirements Of Bobwhite quail chicks
for survival, growth and efficiency Of feed
utilization. J. Wildl. Mgt. 6:185-193.

Norris, L. C., L. J. Elmore, R. C. Ringrose and G. Bump,
1936. The protein requirements Of Ring-necked
pheasant chicks. Poultry Sci. 15:454-459.

Pesti, G. H., A. E. Harper and M. L. Sunde, 1979.
Sulfur amino acid and methyl donor status
Of corn-soy diets fed to starting broiler
chicks and poults. Poultry Sci. 58:1541-1547.

Petersen, C. F., E. A. Sauter and E. E. Steele, 1971.
Protein and methionine requirements for early
egg production. Poultry Sci. 50:1617.

Picard, M., 1975. Lysine and methionine requirements
of the semi heavy laying hen. In Poultry
Abstracts:4(l).

Potter, L. M., A. T. Leighton and C. E. Howes, 1966.
Methionine and lysine supplementation of
turkey starting diets containing varying
levels of protein. Poultry Sci. 45:1117-1118.

Potter, L. M. and J. R. Shelton, 1974. Methionine and
protein requirements of young turkeys. Poultry
Sci. 53:1967-1968.

Potter, L. M. and J. R. Shelton, 1976a. Protein,
methionine, lysine and a fermentation residue
as variables in diets of young turkeys. Poultry
Sci. 55:1535-1543.

Potter, L. M. and J. R. Shelton, 1976b. Dried whey
product, menhaden fish meal, methionine and
erytromycin in diets Of young turkeys.
Poultry Sci. 55:2117-2127.

Potter, L. M. and J. R. Shelton, 1979. Methionine and
protein requirements of young turkeys. Poultry
Sci. 58:609-615.

110

Potter, L. M., J. R. Shelton and E. E. Pierson, 1977.
Menhaden fish meal, dried fish solubles,
methionine and zinc bacitracin in diets of
young turkeys. Poultry Sci. 56:1189-1200.

Quillin, E. C., G. F. Combs, R. D. Creek and G. L.
Romoser, 1961. Effect Of choline on the
methionine requirement Of broiler chickens.
Poultry Sci. 40:639-645.

Quisenberry, J. H. and J. W. Bradley, 1962. Effects
Of dietary protein and changes in energy levels
on the laying house performance Of egg pro-
duction stocks. Poultry Sci. 41:717-724.

Reid, B. L., 1976. Estimated daily protein requirements
of laying hens. Poultry Sci. 55:1641-1645.

Reid, B. L., J. H. Quisenberry and J. R. Couch, 1951.
Aureomycin, vitamin B12, methionine and level
of protein in mature fowl nutrition. Poultry
Sci. 30:935-936.

Reid, B. L. and C. W. Weber, 1974. Lack of sulfur amino
acid sparing effect with ammonium sulfate and
sodium sulfate in laying hen diets. Poultry
Sci. 53:964-969.

Reynnells, R. D., 1979. Dietary calcium and available
phosphorus requirements of growing and adult
Ring-necked pheasants. Dissertation for the
Degree of Ph.D.. Michigan State University.

Rosenberg, H. R. and J. T. Baldini, 1957. Effect of
dietary protein level on the methionine-energy
relationship in broiler diets. Poultry Sci.
36:247-252.

Santana, J. and J. H. Quisenberry, 1968. Effects Of
protein and energy levels during the growing
and laying periods on performance and egg
production costs. Poultry Sci. 47:1714.

Schutte, J. B. and E. J. V. Weerden, 1978. Requirement
of the hen for sulfur-containing amino acids.
Brit. Poultry Sci. 19:573-581.

Scott, M. L., 1960. Protein requirements Of laying
hens. Proceedings of Cornell Nutrition Confer-
ence for feed Manufacturers, p. 8-13.

111

Scott, M. L., 1962. Balancing the diet Of laying hens.
Proceedings Of Cornell Nutrition Conference
for feed Manufacturers, p. 108-112.

Scott, M. L., 1966. The nutrition of pheasants and
quail. Distillers Fed. Research Council
Proceedings, Vol. 21:30-35.

Scott, M. L., E. R. Holm and R. E. Reynolds, 1954.
Studies on pheasant nutrition. 2. Protein
and fiber levels in diets for young pheasants.
Poultry Sci. 33:1237-1244.

Scott, M. L., E. R. Holm and R. E. Reynolds, 1963.
Studies on the protein and methionine require-
ments of young Bobwhite quail and young Ring-
necked pheasants. Poultry Sci. 42:676-680.

Scott, M. L. and R. E. Reynolds, 1949. Studies in the
nutrition of pheasant chicks. Poultry Sci.
28:392-397.

Sell, J. L., 1964. Low protein, wheat-soybean meal
rations for laying hens. Poultry Sci. 43:1360-
1361.

Serafin, J. A., 1977. Studies on the protein and sulfur
amino acid requirements of young Bobwhite quail.
Poultry Sci. 56:577-585.

Smith, R. E., 1967. The utilization of poultry diets
containing high, low and intermediate levels
of protein of identical amino acid pattern.
Poultry Sci. 46:730-735.

Smith, L. T., R. S. Hinkson and L. E. Ousterhout, 1968.
Reproductive performance of pheasant breeder
hens. Poultry Sci. 47:1858-1862.

Stadelman, W. J., R. R. Murphy, E. W. Callenbach and
R. V. Boucher, 1944. Satisfactory war-time
rations for pheasant chicks. J. Wildl. Mgt.
8:56-60.

Summers, J. D., W. F. Pepper, S. J. Slinger and J. D.
McConachie, 1967. Feeding meat type pullets
and breeders. 1. Methods for and significance
of lowering the live weight of meat-type pullets
at point of lay. 2. Evidence on the protein
and energy needs Of meat-type breeders. Poultry
Sci. 46:1158-1164.

112

Thayer, R. H., G. E. Hubbell, J. A. Kasbohm, R. D.
Morrison and E. C. Wilson, 1974. Daily protein

intake requirement Of laying hens. Poultry
Sci. 53:354-364.

Thornton, P. A., L. G. Blaylock and R. E. Moreng, 1957.
Protein level as a factor in egg production.
Poultry Sci. 36:552-557.

Thornton, P. A. and W. Whittet, 1959. The adequacy Of
low protein levels for egg production under
various conditions. Poultry Sci. 38:1255.

Titus, H. W., 1955. The scientific feeding Of chickens.
The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Dan-
ville, Illinois.

Tuttle, J. W., T. G. Culton, D. W. MacLaury and W. M.
Insko, Jr., 1953. Sources and levels of protein
in starting diets for Bobwhite quail. Poultry
Sci. 32:627-629.

Vohra, P., 1973. Feeding game birds. In Feedstuffs 45:
34.

Waibel, P. E., 1959. Methionine and lysine in rations
for turkey poults under various dietary condi-
tions. Poultry Sci. 38:712-721.

Waldroup, P. W. and R. H. Harms, 1961. Amino acid sup-
plementation Of diets for commercial egg pro-
duction type laying pullets. Poultry Sci. 40:
1466-1467.

Waldroup, P. W. and K. R. Hazen, 1976. A comparison
of daily energy needs Of the normal and dwarf
broiler breeder hens. Poultry Sci. 55:1383-
1393.

Warnick, R. E. and J. 0. Anderson, 1973. Essential
amino acid levels for starting poults. Poultry
Sci. 52:445-452.

Williams, H. H., L. V. Curtin, J. Abraham, J. K. Losly
and L. A. Maynard, 1954. Estimation Of growth
requirements for amino acids by assay of the
carcass. J. Biol. Chem. 208:277-286.

Woodard, A. E., R. L. Snyder, 1978. Cycling for egg
production in the pheasant. Poultry Sci. 57:
349-352.

113

Woodard, A. E., P. Vohra and R. L. Snyder, 1976. Protein
level and growth in the pheasant. Poultry Sci.
55:2108.

Woodard, A. E., P. Vohra and R. L. Snyder, 1977. Effect
of protein levels in the diet on the growth of
pheasants. Poultry Sci. 56:1492-1500.

Woodham, A. A., P. S. Deans, 1975. Amino acid require-
ments of growing chickens. Brit. Poultry Sci.
16:269-287.

Yates, J. D. and P. J. Schaible, 1961. Amino and arsa-
nilic acid supplementation Of low- and normal-
protein laying rations. Poultry Sci. 40:1472-
1473.

APPENDIX A

Table 1. National Research Council requirement recom-

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

mendations for protein, methionine and TSAA.1
Starting
Chicken (0-3 weeks) Laying hen
Protein 23 15
Methionine 0.50 0.27
TSAA 0.93 0.50
Starting
Turkey (0-4 weeks) Breeding hen
Protein 28 14
Methionine 0.53 0.20
TSAA 1.05 0.40
Pheasants Starting Laying hen
Protein 30 -
Methionine - -
TSAA 1.0 -

 

lValues expressed

as percentage Of the diet.

3115

.m: Mo Moa\:oHqu Mo Mom m<¢

 

 

om.o om.o om.o om.o cm.o
oH.H oH.H oH.H cH.H oH.H
Oo.m co.m oo.m oo.m oo.m
om.m om.m om.m om.m om.m
oo.oth co.oth oo.cmbN oo.cth oc.oth
co.omNH oo.omNH oc.omNH oo.omNH oo.cmNH
om.o cm.o Hm.o Hm.c Hm.o
mH.H mH.H ON.H ON.H ON.H
mh.m No.m wv.m mN.m 5H.m
th.o aho.c mmc.o mwo.o Hoo.o
om.o mm.c mm.o oh.o Mh.o
om.c ov.o mm.o mm.o ov.c
NH.N cm.H mm.H hw.H om.H
ch.o omo.c mmo.c Nmo.o mNo.o
Hm.o mv.o ev.o cv.c om.o

Nm.H\oo.vN Nm.H\oo.vN Nm.H\oo.vN Nm.H\oo.vN Nm.H\oo.VN
oo.oooH oo.oooH oo.oooH oo.oooH oo.oooH
Hv.m om.v wH.m mm.m hm.v
mh.N m>.N mh.N vs.N eh.N
cc.w oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o
oc.cm oo.om oo.om co.om oo.om
co.oH co.OH co.oH co.OH oo.oH
vo.H mv.H no.H ow.o mN.o
oo.o~ oo.0N oc.0N co.ON oo.oN
co.coH oo.HoH oo.HoH co.HoH co.HoH
oo.mnN oo.th oc.ohN oo.th oo.mbN
oo.aNm oo.mNm oo.mNm oo.th oo.th

m v m N H
acoEuooMa

.uoHc Mo a...HHo>o. monondmond
.uoHc Mo m. EoHoHoO
.HoHo «0 a. HoM Houoa
.uoHo Mo a. MonHM oosuu
ox\Hmox
nH\Hoox
hoMocm oHnoNHHonouoz
.uoHc M0 a. icondoudaMa
.uoHc Mo a. ocHoaq
.cHoHoHa Ho a.
OAnH\m= M0 a.
.uoHo M0 a. «(we
.uoHc M0 a. ocHuoNO
HcHoMOMd Mo a.
.nH\mz Mo a.
.uoHc M0 a. ochoHnuoz
ccHoMOMQ oOSMU

mHomHoc< couoHsoHoU

 

Hosea

HoMoCHz\uH>

uHom

EsHoHoOHO

HooE ocon poo poo:
ocouooEHH

an .oCHcoHnuoz
HooE Monuoom

:oMn Moon:

wmv .Hooe coon>om
:Mou

 

oucoHcoMmcH

 

.mHmmHoco couoHsoHoo

cco noxxo. coHuHmOQEoo uoHc.MouMoum :N oHnoe

1J16

.m: Mo MomxcoHqu Mo Mom on.

 

 

om.o om.o om.o om.o om.o
oH.H oH.H oH.H oH.H oH.H
cm.N om.N om.N om.N om.N
ov.m ov.m oq.m ov.m ov.m
oo.cth oo.oth oo.oth 00.0mmN oo.oth
oo.omNH oo.omNH oo.omNH oo.omNH oo.omNH
mm.o mn.o cm.c vm.o vm.o
mm.H mm.H mm.H mm.H mm.H
wm.m om.m Hm.m mH.m vo.m
who.o dwo.o ooo.o woo.o moo.o
no.0 Hm.c mm.o No.0 on.o
No.0 mv.o Nv.o Nv.o no.0
mo.H mm.H mo.H vm.H mm.H
Hvo.c mmo.o mmo.o Nmo.o mNo.o
Hm.o No.0 ve.o oe.o mm.o
mc.N\oo.MN mo.N\oo.wN mo.N\oo.oN mo.N\oo.MN mo.N\oo.oN
co.OOOH oc.oooH oo.oooH oo.o00H 00.000H
vw.m eo.m mv.o Hm.m mH.m
Nw.N Hm.N Hm.N Hm.N Hm.N
oo.m oo.m oo.m oo.m oo.m
oo.om co.om oo.om co.om oo.om
oo.oH co.oH oo.oH oo.oH oo.oH
vm.H mH.H on.o mm.o I
oc.ON oo.0N co.ON oo.ON oo.ON
co.mn oo.mh oo.m> oo.mh oo.oh
oo.on oo.mNm 00.0mm oo.Hmm oc.Nnm
oo.mmv oo.wmv oo.nmv oo.hmv oo.omv
oH m m h m
ucoEuooMB

.uoHc Mo w...HHo>o. msMondmonm
.uoHc M0 a. EoHoHoU
.uoHo Mo H. Hoe
.uoHc M0 a. MonHM oUSMU
mxHHmux
onHoox
hoMocm oHnoNHHonouoz
.HoHo Ho a. .cmcaooasue
.HoHo Mo a. ochsq
.cHouoHa no a.
.nH\mz «0 a.
.MoHc M0 m. ndme
.uoHc M0 a. ocHum>U
.cHoHoHa Ho a.
.nH\mz MO w.
.uoHc M0 w. ochoHnuoz
«CHoUOMm ocaMo

 

«HmHHocn couoHsoHoU

Hence

HoMocstuH>

uHom

EaHoHooHo

Hooe ocon cco Moo:
ocoumoEHq

no .ochoHnuoz
HooE Monuoom

:oMn Moon:

woe .HooE coonaom
cMoo

 

mucoHcoMocH

 

...U.u:00. N oHnoB

1137

.m: Mo uUQ\:oHqu Mo you one

 

 

om.o om.o om.o om.o
oH.H OH.H oH.H OH.H
on.N on.N on.N Oh.N
ON.m 0N.m ON.m ON.m
oo.ombN oc.oth oo.oth oc.oth
oo.omNH co.omNH oo.omNH co.OmNH
wm.o hm.o hm.o hm.o
mv.H om.H om.H cm.H
mv.m mm.m NH.m mo.m
sho.o mno.o Hho.o moo.o
om.o vm.o mm.c mm.o
mv.o ov.o mv.o mv.o
No.H mw.H hm.H nv.H
ch.o mmo.o mmo.c Nmo.o
Hm.o mv.o vv.o oe.o
vN.N\oo.mN vN.N\oo.mN VN.N\oo.mN vN.N\co.mN
oo.oooH oo.oooH co.oooH oo.oooH
om.m hN.m oo.m mo.m
mm.N mm.N mm.N mm.N
oo.m oo.m co.m oc.m
oo.om oo.om oo.om co.om
oo.OH oo.oH co.cH oo.oH
vN.H mm.o wv.o ho.o
oo.0N oo.ON oo.oN co.ON
oo.mm oo.mm oo.mm oo.om
oo.Nwm oo.mwm oo.vmm oo.mwm
oc.mwv oo.hov oo.hm¢ oo.oov
vH MH NH HH
acoEuooMB

.uoHc Mo a...HHo>o. msMondmonm
.uoHo Mo m. EoHoHoU
.uoHc Mo w. you
.uoHp M0 a. MonHM oooMo
ox\Hmox
onHoox
>oMocm oHnouHHonouoz
.uoHc Mo w. condoumeB
.HmHo no a. ochHH
.cHoMOMd Mo a.
.onmz Mo 0.
.uoHo M0 a. (owe
.HoHo Ho a. mcHHHHO
.cHoHoHa «0 H.
.nH\mz Mo a.
.uoHc M0 m. ochoHnMoz
enHoMOMd ocsMo

oHoNHocn couoHsoHou

 

HuHoa

HoMocwzqu>

uHom

EsHoHooHo

Hooe ocon cco Moo:
ocouooEHH

no .oanoHnuoz
HooE Monuooh

coMn Moon:

Nov .HooE coonhom
nuoo

 

mucoHcoMde

 

...o.ucoo. ~ oHnoa

1j18

.mz Ho Hoa\HmHo Ho Hoa ma.

 

 

No.0 mo.o mo.o
HH.m MH.m mH.m
mv.m em.m No.m
wh.m mc.v wo.m
oo.cmbN oo.oth oo.cth
oo.cmNH co.omNH oo.cmNH
HH.H HH.H ON.H
oH.c eH.o NH.o
mo.v mo.¢ 5H.v
om.c mm.o mm.c
mw.m om.m mm.m
mvo.o ch.o 000.6
cm.c Nm.o om.o
MN.o MN.o mN.o
mN.N Ho.N oh.H
wNo.o m~o.o ONo.o
mm.o oN.o mN.o
NH.H\vv.vH NH.H\mv.vH NH.H\mH.eH
oo.oooH oo.oooH oo.o00H
co.m oo.m oo.m
OH.e oo.v om.v
om.mH om.mH oe.om
cm.om oo.bm ov.mo
ON.H om.c ov.o
om.Hm ov.wm oo.mm
oo.om oo.om om.N
ON.h om.h om.mH
om.NH om.NH o~.v
oo.Nm om.hN I
co.mv ov.cm om.HOH
OH.Hmo om.omw om.mmw
m N H
ucofiuooMB

.HoHo Ho a...HHo>m. monogamoaa
.HoHo no a. asHono
.HoHo Mo H. How Hobos
.HmHo Ho a. HwnHH monuo
mx\Hmox
nH\Hmox
>mMonm oHnouHHonouoz
.chHoHa Mo H.
.HoHo Ho a. canaouasue
.cHouoHa Ho a.
.HoHo Mo ». ochHH
.cHoHoHa «0 a.
.nH\mz we a.
.HoHo H0 a. same
.HmHo Ho ». mcHHmHO
.cHouoHa Ho H.
.onoz Mo H.
.HoHo «0 a. ochoHnuoz
ecHoMOMm ocoMU

oHoHHon< couonoHoU

 

Hence

xHEoMm

uHom

esHoHooHa
ocoumoEHH

an .ochoHnuoz
:oMn Moon:

HooE ocon cco Moo:
Home Monuoom

HooE coon

whH .HooE oMHoMHd
woe .HooE coonaom
:Moo

 

mucoHcoMmcH

 

.mHm>Hoco couoHSOHoo

cco..ox\o. coHuHoomEoo uoHc MocooMm .m oHnoB

1319

.m: we Hoa\umHo Ho Hon mo.

 

 

mo.o ow.o mm.o
NH.m NH.m NH.m
om.m Hm.m om.m
mm.¢ MN.v oo.v
oo.oth oo.cth oo.oth
oo.omNH co.OMNH oo.cmNH
NH.H oH.H oH.H
mH.o mH.o oH.o
MN.v «N.q NH.v
mo.c mo.o no.o
hw.m mv.m mH.m
hvo.o voo.o Hvo.o
om.c mm.o Hm.c
MN.o MN.o MN.o
mc.N Hm.H om.H
mNc.o MNc.c oNo.o
mm.o oN.o mN.o
mN.H\mc.oH mN.H\mo.wH mN.H\Ho.MH
oo.oooH oo.oooH oo.oooH
co.m oo.m oo.m
ON.v 0N.v ON.v
om.hH om.hH om.hH
ON.mm ON.mm ON.mm
oa.o om.o oH.o
oo.om oo.om oo.om
OH.oH om.mH om.mH
oa.H ON.H om.o
oo.mo ov.om om.om
oo.hm oh.hm oh.hm
om.oom on.omo or.oow
o n v
unoEuooMB

.HmHo Mo H...HHo>o. msuonamona
.HmHo Ho H. esHoHuo
.uoHo Mo H. How Houoe
.HoHo «0 H. HonHH mosoo
ox\Hoox
nH\Hoox
HoMocm oHnoNHHonouoz
.cHoHoHa Ho H.
.HoHo Ho H. cmaaouomsue
.cHoHoHa Mo H.
.HoHo Ho H. mchHH
.cHoHoHa Ho H.
.hH\mz Mo H.
.HoHo «0 H. cams
.uoHo H0 H. ocHHumo
.cHouoHa «0 H.
..nH\mz H0 H.
.HoHo H0 H. wchoHauoz
ecHoMOMm oc=MU

 

mHmmHon< couoHsoHoU

Houoa

xHEoMm

uHom

EsHoHooHo
ocoumoEHH

an .ochoHnMoZ
HooE ocon cco Moo:
HooE Monuoom

HooE coon

HhH .HooE oMHoMH<
Hmv .HooE coonxom
:MOO

 

mucoHcoMmcH

 

...o.H:oo. m mHnme

12()

.m2 Ho Hoa\HoHo Ho Hos ma.

 

 

mo.c mo.o mo.c
MH.m NH.n NH.n
NH.m mH.m mm.m
Mh.m mw.n mm.N
oo.oth co.OMNN oc.cth
oo.omNH co.cmNH oo.omNH
hH.H NH.H NH.H
HN.o HN.o oN.o
om.v om.v mv.v
Hm.o Hm.o oh.o
vv.m mN.m mm.N
ovo.o ovo.o Nvo.o
No.o mm.o mm.o
mN.o om.o mN.o
mm.H Ho.H Hv.H
wNo.o MNo.c 0No.o
mm.o mN.c mN.o
vv.H\oc.mH ve.H\cc.mH Nv.H\mh.hH
co.OCOH oo.OQOH oo.oooH
oo.m oo.m oo.m
OH.v oH.v om.m
ON.hH ON.hH om.hH
om.cm on.mm om.hm
ow.o om.o I
I I ON.mHH
om.mH co.hN I
oo.om co.om oo.om
oo.oN oo.oN oo.oN
ch.mm cc.mv I
om.NVH ca.mvH oo.mNH
oH.Hmc om.omo oo.mmm
m a h
ucoEuooMB

HHoHo H0 H. ..HHH>H. msuonamoaa
.HoHo «0 H. eeHoHoo
HuoHo «0 H. you Houoa
.HoHo Mo H. HonHu oozuo
nH\HeoHI
nH\Hoox
>oMocu oHnoNHHonouo:
.cHououa Mo H.
.HmHo «o H. canaouaaus
.cHouoHa Ho H.
.HmHo «0 H. mchHH
HcHoHoHa H0 H.
.nH\o: «0 H.
.uoHo Ho H. coma
.HoHo Ho H. ocHHHHO
.chHoHa H0 H.
.nH\o: Ho H.
,HMoHc Mo H. ochoHnuoz
ecoHMOMQ ocaMU

«HmmHocd couoHnoHoU

 

Houoa

xHEoMm

uHom

enHoHooHo
ocouooEHH

Ho .ochoHsuo:
mmeHHooHs .HH Hows:
coMn Moon:

Home ocon coo Moo:
Home Monuoom

HhH .HooE oMHoMHn
How .HooE coonmom
:Moo

 

mucoHcoanH

 

...o.u:oo. H «Home

121

.oooHcoH

ouuoHoMHoq umoz .auHmMo>HoD oocMom .ooH>Mom oonooMxm o>Hquomooo

 

 

mhmH .oooHMoM mcMHn oEoo coo NMMHQOQ Mo ooHuoHoEMoM MousoEoo HoOMoom
ON. NH. vH. m.v o.» HN. mm. on. wH. c.5H com oooHHccHE
cMocooum Moon:
oN. NH. «H. o.v m.oH on. ov. He. HH. o.mH on ooMn Moon:
mo. HN. cN. m. o.m vs. vH.m mv.H ob. o.mv ooHH Hmv .HooE ooonaom
co.mm I I I I I I I I I I uHom
oH. om.mH oo.HN I I I I I I I I EdHoHoOHo
.ooMonmmonm
I I I I I I I 8.2.. 8.: ...: I .Ho 65523:
ms. oo.m oo.oH o.oH m.N om. ov.N oH.H mm. o.om oHoH HooE moon coo Moon
I I oc.mm I I I I I I I I . ooouooEHq
on. me. ON. I I ow. mo.H mm.N mm. o.mm mmoH HooE Monuoom
No. mo. No. m.m N.N mo. wN. on. mH. o.m oomH HoEMoo .oMou
Nm. mN. mN. o.H o.H Nb. cm.v mc.H mo. o.cm oOMH Hooe coon
mo. mN. om.H m.N m.vN oe. Nb. om. mN. o.NH mHm HHH .HooE oMHoMHo
.H. 3:35. 3. .H. .H. .H. .H. .H. .H. .H. 3339.. mucmHomHmcH
oz . «93 m. o H on a o is m3 :93: He: me o:

 

.mMoHc Mo Moouooo

MooHMuoo ouoHooHoo 0» com: muooHcoMooH cooM Mo mooHo> ooHuHmoaeoo

.v oHnoB

122

Table 5. Vitamin-Trace Mineral Premixes for Pheasants.

 

Per kg Premix

 

 

 

 

Ingredients
Starter Breeder

Vitamin A 1,320,000 1,760,000
Vitamin D 330,000 440,000
Riboflavin, mg 880 1,540
Pantothenic acid, mg 1,760 2,640
Niacin, mg 4,400 5,280
Choline chloride, mg 88,000 88,000
Vitamin B12, mg 2.2 2.64
Vitamin E, I.U. 660 1,100
Menadione sodium

bisulfite, mg 330 330
Manganese, mg 11,880 11,880
Iodine, mg 220 220
Copper, mg 440 440
Cobalt, mg 44 44
Zinc, mg 5,500 5,500

Iron, mg 3,960 3,960

 

APPENDIX B

123

Ho.o v m H%

 

mMVN.
comH.
«Hmcvo.HH

hNOHm.hv0H Nvmmv.thHvH
mNmo.mmN mNmo.me
omch.hmH mmom.ommHH I mHho.mmmHH
mvNN.thHH mNmo.mmN I mcom.ommHH

mmH Hmsonmm

H Hanms HoHHHeH

H oHHoHomso

H MoooHH
ochoHHHoz

 

oHHmHHon m

oMosom ooo: moMosom MO Eom

Mc ooooHMo> Mo oOMoOm

 

MooM Mo muoomoono coxoozioon Mo unoHoB mcon MOM mHmeooo oonooMoom

.Ho>oH oHoMOMQ HvN onu coM ooo Mo oxooz

.H mHame

124

Ho.o v m ea

 

 

HmHH.mNOH bmmmm.ovavH mmH Hoochom

«HmmmH.mH monoN.vacH mONHN.vacH H Mano3 HoHuHoH
«Hoocv.h hmm¢.ONom omNem.vmmMN I monv.momHm H OHqucoDO
«HooHo.n mmmc.mvmh moth.HomcH I thvm.vmwMN H MoooHH

ooHooHnuoS

OHMmHMoMm m oMooom oooz moMoooo Mo Eom Mc ooooHMo> Mo oOMoom

 

MooM no

.Ho>oH oHoMOMm HcN onu coM ooo Mo oxoo3
muoomoond coxoozIoon Mo ManoB acon MOM mHmeooo oOHmmoMmom .N oHnoB

125

Ho.o v m «H

 

 

cHMN.>mOH mNmoo.HmHvHH HOH Hoochom

HHHH. HHHm.m~m omHHm.H~m H HamHoz HmHHHcH
«Hmmcn.oH Nvmm.mHMHH Hmoo.NHmm I mNacc.mmNON H OHMoMcooo
HHmmmm.w NoNH.ommm mmnm.NNm I Hm0h.NHmm H MoooHH

ooHooHnuoz

OHumHMoum m oMooom ooo: moMooom MO Sow Mc ooooHMo> Mo oOMoom

 

.Ho>oH oHoHOMm HmN on» coM ooo Mo oxoos

MoOM Mo muoomoonm coxooZIoon MO unoHoB >con MOM mHmmHooo ooHomoMoom .m oHnoB

126

.Ho>oH oHoMOMm nooo Mo ooHooHnuoE
EoEHumo on» ooHEMouoc ou coo oooHuoooo ooHuoHcoMo on» ouoHooHoo ou coo: oMo3 ouoc ooona "ouoz

 

 

 

 

 

bcoomN.cm ommhcc.mw mmoomH.mm mchHm.Nv mvHNom.mm omcho.moH Ham. uooumooo

hhHHmo.m NNmHHH.oHI mchNow.H mvavm.vI HMMva.H vvmwmc.l . Awe. coMoaom .uoz

Nmmov5.HN MHNhHm.oh vamoH.oH QNchv.Nm MNtho.oH mmmth.cH .Hm. ooHoOHnuoS

mmNomo.H vommNo. movhmq.H mmvmvv.m mmhovm.H vvonh. Hum. uano3 HoHuHoH

MOMMo .cum mosHo> m MOMMo .cum moDHo> m MOMMo .cum mozHo> m moHnoHMo>
mN cN VN

 

H mHo>oH oHoMOMm

 

.Ho>oH oHoMOMm nooo MOM couoHooHoo mMOMMo cMocoouo coo mooHo> m .e oHnoe

127

 

 

mm Hom.cm Houoa

mvv.N NH omm.mN Hoochom

NHH. HHH. Hmo.H H Hmo.v .aom .m> .Houa

NHH. mam. NHH.~ o HHH.HH .aom .m> .Hoz

mom. HNm. moo.N c hmo.NH .uOMm .m> .uoz

HHH. Hmm. HHH. N HHH.H coHHmoHHaom

Non. mNN. owe. N ocm.H oHoMOMm

moo. omv. mmH.H m mmm.m ooHooHnuoS
OHuoHuoum m Mo OHMmHMoMm oMooom EocooMM ooMosom ooooHMo>
.QOMQ .on .xOMmmd m ooo: MO .mooo Mo Eom Mo oOMoom

 

AH uooEHMonm. ooHudEsmooo cooM

MOM <>OZ< .m OHQMB

128

 

 

Sm Smm.H HmHoe

HHS. NH HHS. Hmsonom

HSS. SHS. SSS. H SHH. .aom .m> .Honm

NHH. SHS. SSS. S SSH. .aom .m> .Hoz

HSH. HSS. HHS. S SHH. .Houm .m> .Hos

SSH. NHH. HHS. N HHS. coHHooHHmom

HSH. SHH.N NSH. N SSH. :Honoom

HSS. SSS. SNS. S HHS. oeHcoHnHoz
OHMmHuoum m MO OHumHMoMm oMooom EocooMM moMooom ooooHMo>
.QOMQ .on .xOMmm¢ m ooo: MO .mooo Mo Eom Mo oOMsom

 

.HH uooEHModxm. oOHmMo>ooo cooM

MOM <>OZ< .o oHnoB

129

 

 

mm omh.vN Houoe

SSS. NH SSS.N Hoochom

SSH. SSH.H HSH.H H HSS.S .oom .m>.Hon

SSS. HHN.H HS». S NHH.H .oom .m> .Hoz

SmN. Smm.H mom. S mmm.m .MOMm .o> .uoz

HSS. mNH. mmo. N SSH. oOHuooHHmom

Hmm. mNH. mmo. N SSH. oHouOMm

eve. Smm. oNS. m HSS.H ooHooHnqu
OHumHqum m Mo OHumeoum oMooom EocooMM oMooom ooooHMo>
.QOMQ .on .xOMmmn m ooo: MO .mooo Mo Eom MO oOMoom

 

.HH

uooEHMonm.

HHHHSHHOE HoM o>ozo .H oHnoe

APPENDIX C

130

 

 

 

mvH Sem.hthv Houoe

NvN.mmH ONH mvo.monSH Hoochom

mvo.o NSN.o SNN.mm S Hhm.mmN .Mom .m> .uoz
mmh.o Hhm.o oom.mn S mom.Shv .Mom .m>.uOMm
Hmm.o mmh.o SSS.0HH v th.Noq .uoz .m> .MOMm
Hoo.o moo.nm Nov.hmmo m Hmv.NHSMN coHMoo
HHH.o mmN.N Hmh.HHm N Nmm.MNS ooHoOHnMoz
th.o ham.o HOS.SMH N NOS.NSN oHoMOMm
OHMmHuoum m MO OHumHuoum oMooom EocooMM moMooom ooooHMo>
.QOMQ .on .xOMdmn m oooz MO .mooo Mo Eom MO oOMoOm
.AHH uooEHMomxm. oOHMODcOMQ ooo Socioon MOM <>Oz¢ .H oHnoB

IIILPLIIIIM

.om.m H moB 2mm coHoom onBN

.Hnooo mcMHn v Mo moMooHHmoM v. moOHuo>Momno HoocH>HcoH o MO moooE oMo ouoo

 

131

 

H
mN.SS Nm.NN NN.NS SH q
«N.Nb om.hh mb.mS mH m
om.vm vN.mb «S.mS mH N
oo.om NH.vv Nm.vm mH H
mv.mS mm.mm mo.mm SH v
MH.Hh Sm.mS no.mS SH m
Sm.Sh ov.mh NH.mh SH N
mm.vv oo.om m¢.Sv SH H
ov.mS NS.Nm on.MS «H w
Sm.Nh mo.Nh Sm.oS SH m
Sv.oh mh.Sb NS.Nh SH N
mo.hm Nm.Hv hS.hm «H H
SH. SH. SH. H ooHHom
oHouOMm

.HmHS S0 H. mcHSoHSHoz

 

N.H.AHH uooEHMomxm. mwoc NHH noDOMnu mpoomoona
coxoooIoon moHNoH Mo AH. ooHMoocOMd ooo HocIoon on» Mo moooz .N oHnoB

 

132

NVH HSm.th Houoe

 

SNS.H SNH SSH.S>H Hoochom
mvS.o mo>.o Svo.H S SNN.S .Mom .o> .Moz
mmn.o omm.o Hem. S SNN.m .Mom .m> .MOMm
Soo.o hvo.v mom.m q Hom.MN .uoz .m> .MOMm
Hoo.o mHv.mH mmh.NN m SNN.SS coHMom
nnv.o «v5.0 moo.H N mmH.N ooHoOHnuoz
Hoo.o moo.SH SSH.NN N mHm.SS oHouOMm

OHumHMoum m MO oHumHMoum oMooom EocooMM moMosom ooooHMo>
.nOMd .on .xOMmdo m ooo: Mo .mooo Mo Eom Mo oOMsom

 

.AHH MooEHMoexm. MnoHoB ooo MOM <>Ozo .m oHnoB

133

.NOS.o

.AmcMHn v MO moMoOHHQoM v. mcMHn SH en coODcOMQ munoHo3 ooo Mo moooE oMo oMoQ

mos 2mm coHOOQ one

N
.Anooo

H

 

 

hm.mN mm.mN NN.Hm SH v
Nm.oN No.om vv.om SH m
.SN.mN mo.mN SN.mN SH N
MS.hN SN.SN SN.SN SH H
No.mN Nm.om hm.SN SH v
hm.mN NH.mN no.mN SH m
NS.SN SS.SN Sm.hN SH N
mS.hN hm.SN MH.NN SH H
So.mN HS.mN Sm.oN SH v
mo.mN wh.hN SH.mN «H m
SS.SN mm.hN Ho.mN SH N
em.hN ON.SN mm.hN «H H
mm. oN. SN. w cOHMom
oHoMCMm

AHmHS S0 H. mchoHSHoz

 

N.H.AHH MooEHModxm. mmoc NHH noDOMnu
muoomoonm coxoooIoon oonoH Mo no. Mano3 ooo Mo moooz .v oHnoe

 

134

 

mSH Hmm.meem Houoe

mmv.oH SNH SNS.NmmN Hoochom

Svm.o SSN.o Soe.m S nmv.Nm .Mom .m> .uoz

Smm.o «mm.o eSv.e S Nom.vv .Mom .m> .MOMm

SmH.o Shh.H mmv.vm w NSN.>MH .uoz .m> .MOMm

Hoo.o mmo.om mSo.mem m mmH.mHmN cOHMom

mmo.o mHm.N SNh.Sm N mnv.mHH ooHooHnuoE

ooo.o SNH.S SSS.mm N mem.mmH oHoMOMm
OHuoHqum m Mo OHMmHqum oMosom EocooMM moMooom ooooHMo>
.nOMm .on .xOMmmd m ooo: Mo .mooa Mo EDS MO oOMoom

 

.AHH uooEHMonm. oOHMQEomoOO cooM MOM <>Oz< .S oHnoe

135

.Anooo mcMHn S MO mopoOHHmoM S. mooHuo>Momno HoocH>HcoH S Mo moooE oMo ouoo

.ON.N

+

mo3 2mm coHoom oneN

H

 

SN.ON
mm.mS
Nm.Hh
no.HS

om.SS
SS.>S
Hm.mS
Sm.mm

So.bS
ow.hS
mN.hS
Ho.mm

mm.

HN.ON
SS.NN
mm.Hh
Nm.om

hm.mS
hm.mS
mo.SS
mm.mm

om.SS
SS.NS
SN.NS
Sm.mm

oN.

SS.SS
Nm.hS
SS.SS
Sh.mm

om.mS
mm.SS
OS.MS
hN.hm

mo.Hh
mm.oo
mo.SS
SN.SS

SN.

 

AHmHS S0 H. wcHSoHSHmz

SH
SH
SH
SH

SH
SH
SH
SH

SH
SH
SH
SH

w

oHoHOMm

HNMQ‘ HNMV‘

HNMQ‘

coHMom

 

N.H.AHH MooEHMomxm. mwoc NHH nooOMnM
mpoomoonm coxoooioon ooH>oH Mo A>oc\cMHn\o. oOHMmEomooo coom .S oHnoe

136

 

 

 

mmH NHS.mmmmSom Hmuoe

mm>.mmnHH mNH SSS.S>mSHmH Hmschmm

hom.o mmm.o SHm.Smwm S th.th¢m .umz .m> .uoum

mSm.o SmS.H omm.SSmSH N OSH.mmhmm mchoflnumz

th.o mSh.H SSo.Hmhom m NmH.mmmHS :kuoum

Hoo.o Smo.mm MS~.moommS H MS~.moommS unmflm3 HwHuHcH
oHumHumnm m So UHumHumum wumsvw Eoommum mmumsvm mUCMHHm>
.Qoum .mHm .xoumm< m cam: mo .mmmo wo EDS So muusom

 

.AHH pcmEHquxmv mmcwno

uanm3 >Uon How

<>OZ¢ .h wHDMB

137

 

.ucmEHquxm may mo Sam mzu um ucmez SHHQ m>HH mo

mammE mum mama

 

N
.Hsowm mUHHn S mo mmumomemu S. mcan SH mo mcme mum mumnH
mm.SMNH 00.0m0H mm.mmHH mm.mOOH hm.SHNH mS.SmoH SH
oo.SMHH mm.mo0H oo.mSNH Sm.SSoH Hm.omHH oo.omoH SH
NS.mmHH NS.0SOH SS.mmHH NS.mSoH MS.HhHH Sh.HSOH SH
uanm3 uanm3 uanm3 uanm3 uanwB uanwB m
N HMCHm HmHuHcH N Hmch HHmHuHcH N chHm HmHuHcH cwmuoum
mN.

 

Aumflo Mo w. mcflcoflsumz

 

.HHH ucmeflummxm. mmmc
NHH smsounu mHm>oH CHmuoum cam mCHcoHnumE ucmummmHS :uH3 much
wow mucmmmmsm UmxomclmCHm OCmeH mo HOV mmmmum>m usmHmz >Uom

.S mHQMB

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

mmo.o ONH HmH.S Hmschmm

SNS.o Hm>.o mNo.o S mmH. .umm .m> .uoE

SNS.o Hmn.o mNo.o S mmH. .me .m> .uoum

SSH.o SmS.H mmo.o S Smm. .umz .m> .uoum

Smm.o Hmn.o mNo.o m who. SoHuwm

0Nm.o mmH.o moo.o N SHo. mCHcoHnumz

ONm.o mmH.o noo.o N SHo. :Hmuoum
UHHmHumum m we UHumHumum mumswm Eoommum mwumsvm mocmHHm>
.QOHQ .mHm .xoumm< m cme we .mmma mo EDS m0 mousom
.AHH ucmEHuwmxmv >uHHmuHOE HOS ¢>OZ< .m mHQMB

APPENDIX D

 

It

 

 

139

hoH MSo.Soomm HmuOB

 

00S.mmN mm OSS.omHSN Hmsonmm

bum.o mHH.o mom.mm S SMN.MMH .Hmm .m> .umz

Smm.o mmo.o bNH.SH S mom.SS .Hmm .m> .uoum

mmo.o Smh.N MON.mom S HHS.SMNm .umz .m> .poum

Hoo.o SOS.mH me.MNmS N HMS.hSom OOHHmm

omh.o SmN.o NmN.mS N Som.mmH wcwcoflnumz

HmS.o HMS.o SSm.SNH N HmH.mmN CHmuoum
OHumHumum m mo oHumHumum mumswm Eoommum mmumsvm mocmwnm>
.noum .mHm .xoumm< m cmmz mo .mmwa «0 85m mo mousom

 

.HHHH ucmEHnmmxmv :oHuoswoum mow unmoumm wwvlcm: HOS ¢>oz< .H mHnma

140

 

.hS.S

+

mm; 2mm SmHoom may

.Anomm mSHHQ S mo mmumoHHmmu S. mcoHum>umeo HMDUH>HSCH S no mammE mum mumo

N

H

 

 

Sm.NS No.mN SS.SS SH m
Sm.mm OS.0S SS.HS SH N
ho.MS OS.SS hN.SS SH H
Sb.bS oo.hm mH.mm SH m
HS.hm Sm.Hm SS.SS SH N
SS.SS mm.HS 0S.oS SH H
on.Hm MH.OS SS.SS SH m
SS.hS Hh.OS 0N.SS SH N
Sm.Sm Sm.mS NS.SS SH H
mm. SN. SN. w UoHHmm
:Hmuoum

Humflc Mo wv mcflcofinumz

 

N.H.HHHH pcmEHuwamv m>mo SS swaounu mucmmmmnm
UmxomCImch SGHmmH So HS. cowuoscoum mow Smoucmn mnu mo mmsHm> cmmz .N mHnme

141

 

 

 

Sm NSN.SSS Hmuoa

NBS.m Sh SOS.SSN HmDSHmwm

MSm.o omH. bmS.o S mSh.N .nmm .m> .umz

SSS.o hSN. mmo.H S HNN.S .me .m> .uoum

Hoo.o Smm.m Smm.mH S Shm.Sh .umz .m> .uoum

HOS.o SNm. Nmm.m N MS>.S SOHme

Smo.o hoo.m mSo.HH N mSo.NN mcficownumz

Hoo.o SON.NH SHS.SS N omS.mS :Hmuoum
OHDSHumum m mo UHDmHumum mHMDwm EOmeum mmHMDUm mUDMHum>
.QOHQ .mHm .xoummd m Dam: mo .mmmo mo EDS mo moHDOS

 

.AHHH ucmEHuwmxmv uanm3 mmm How <>Oz¢ .m mHQMB

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Hnomm mSHHn S mo mmumoHHmmH SS mSHHQ SH an UmoDSOHQ muanmB mow mo mammE mum mumoH
HH.H H hS.Hm mm.H H NS.mm HH.H H oH.om SH m
HH.H H SS.Hm Sm.o H Sm.mm Sm.o H No.mN SH N
HH.H H SS.SN Sm.o H Nm.Nm Sm.o H Sm.mN SH H
HH.H H SS.Hm Sm.o H SS.SN Sm.H H SN.Hm SH m
Sm.o H SS.Hm Sm.o H NS.SN Sm.o H NN.Hm SH N
Sm.o H Sm.Hm Sm.o H SS.SN Sm.o H So.Hm SH H
HH.H H Nm.SN Sm.o H SS.SN Sm.o H SS.SN SH m
HH.H H 5S.mN Sm.o H Nm.mN Sm.o H no.SN SH N
Sm.o H Hm.mN Sm.o H SN.mN Sm.o H mn.hN SH H

mm. SN. SN. w SOHHmm
Damuoum
Huch S0 w. mchoHnumz .
H.HHHH ucmEHHmmev Shaw SS anounu mucmmmmnm
Umxomclmch mchmH mo usmHm3 Smm ms» mo Honum cumccmum Sam :mwz .S mHnma

143

.57qu E . m

 

 

SSH mmo.oSoS Hmuoa

SSS.SS SS SSS.SNOS HMDSHmmm

HHS.o SSN.o SSS.SH S MHS.SS .Hmm .m> .umz

SSS.o MHH.o SSS.S S SNS.om .Hmm .m> .uoum

SHm.o SSN.H Smm.HS S NSH.SNm .sz .m> .Houm

Hoo.o HMS.oH SSS.SoS N Smm.mHSH SOHHmm

SSS.o SOS.o SSm.hN N SNS.SS mchoHnuwz

NSN.o SSN.H Hmm.SS N MSo.SSH DHmHOHm
UHHmHHme m mo UHHmHHmum mHMDvm Eocmmum mmHMDvm mODMHHm>
.QOHQ .mHm .xoummd m Dams So .mmwo mo EDS mo monDOS

 

.HHHH ucmEHHmmxmv DOHHQEDmcoo Umwm

MOM d>OZ¢

.m mHnma

144

FEKHHMH

 

.HH.S H mm: 2mm SmHooAH Scam

.Hnomm mSHHQ S mo mwumoHHmmH S. mcoHHm>ummno HMDSH>HSDH S mo mcme mum mumoH
SS.SS SS.SS SS.HS SH m
HS.~S SS.HS SS.SS SH m
SS.SS SS.SS SS.HS SH H
HS.SS 5H.SS SS.SS SH m
SS.>S h~.oS Sm.~S SH N
SS.SS SS.SS SS.SS SH H
om.HS SS.>S HS.~S SH m
SS.SS SS.SS SS.SS SH N
hm.SS SS.SS HS.SS SH H

mm. mm. mm. S ooHHmm

CHwHOHnH

 

HHmHS S0 S. mchoHsumz

 

.H.HHHH HDmEHHwam. m>m© SS anOHSH
mucmmmmnm Umxomcnmch SCHMSH mo A>mv\©HHn\m. COHHQEDSDOU Ummm .S mHnma

145

 

 

 

SON.SS>SH SNH SSH.NSNNSm HSDSHmmm

SHh.o NNm.o SSS.>SSS S mSm.oSHSm .Hmz .m> .Houm

SSS.o mNo.o HHS.SSS N mNS.HMS mchoHnuwz

SSS.o Hmo.o SSS.SSS N Smm.mHSH chHoum

Hoo.o SSS.Hm HHS.~SS~SS H HHS.~SS~SS uanmz HmHuHcH
UHHmHHmum m mo OHHmHHmum mHmDvm Eoommum mmHMDvm mUDMHHm>
.nonm .mHm .xoumm< m cam: So .mmmo So EDS mo moHDOS

 

..HHH

HcmEHHmmxm. HSSHmB Soon DH mmcmso HOS ¢>OZS .S mHnme

146

.HcmEHHmme mnu So Sam may Hm usmHmz SHHQ m>HH mo

mCMQE QHM SUMO

 

N
.ASUMG mUHflQ V MO W®HMUHHQOH Vv wQHflQ 0H MO WCQQE mum MHMQH
SN.HHNH SH.HHSH SS.SSNH Hm.ohmH SS.SSNH HS.mNmH SH
oo.HHmH SS.SHSH HS.S~NH SS.SSNH SS.SSNH HH.SSSH SH
SS.SHNH SS.SmmH SS.SSNH SS.SHHH SS.SSNH Hm.onH SH
“Smflw3 HSNH®3 unmflm3 Ufimflm3 “Smflm3 “Sufimz w
S HmcHH HmHuHcH N Hmch HSHHHcH m HmcHH HmHuHcH chHoum

SN.

 

HumHS So S. mchoHnumz

 

.HHHH HcmEHmexm. m>m©
SS LSDOHQH mHm>mH mcHDoanmE 0cm chHOHQ HcmummmHU £HH3 mumHS
6mm mucmmmmnm Umxomclmch SDHSMH Ho Ho. mmmmum>m unonz >©om

.S mHan

147

 

 

hoH SSS.S HmHOB

SSo.o SS SHS.S HSDUHmwm

mmm.o mS>.o Hmo.o S SON.o .Hmm .m> .Hmz

OSS.o whm.c hmo.o S SSH.o .Hmm .m> .uoum

hOS.o OHo.H mSo.o S SSN.o .Hmz .m> .Houm

SSS.o SSH.o Soo.o N SHo.o SOHme

SSS.o nnm.o nmo.o N Sho.o mchoHnumz

SSm.o OHo.H SSo.o N omH.o :Hmuoum
OHHmHHmum m So UHHmHHmum mHmDvm Eocmmuw mmHMDvm mocmHHm>
.QOHQ .mHm .xoummfl m cmmz mo .mmmo mo EDS mo moHDOS

 

.HHHH HcmEHummxm.

SHHHSHHoe HOS S>02S .m mHnma