Soybean vs. Pea Bean in the Diet of Medium-Growing Broiler Chickens Raised under Semi-Intensive Conditions of Inner Mediterranean Areas: Growth Performance and Environmental Impact.

GLEAM-i broiler chickens diet economic cost environment genotype greenhouse gas growth protein sources

Journal

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 Mar 2022
Historique:
received: 17 01 2022
revised: 23 02 2022
accepted: 01 03 2022
entrez: 10 3 2022
pubmed: 11 3 2022
medline: 11 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The effects of Glycine max L. (SOY) vs. Pisum sativum L. (PEA) in the diet were investigated on in vivo performance of two medium-growing broiler genotypes and on environmental impact. Sixty Kabir Red Plus and sixty New Red chickens were randomly allocated in 20 pens (n = 6 birds per pen). Each pen, i.e., experimental unit, received 1.18 kg dry matter (DM) including soybean (3.39%) in SOY, or pea bean (6.78%) in PEA groups. DM intake, DM refusals and bodyweight (BW) were recorded on pen basis, and average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion rate (FCR) were calculated. Data on in vivo performance were processed by ANOVA General Linear Model followed by Student−Newman−Keuls post hoc test. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were evaluated on a year basis by GLEAM-i software. The diet did not affect (p > 0.05) DM intake and DM refusals, BW, ADG and FCR. Diet x genotypes affected (p < 0.05) DM intake and DM refusals. PEA diet, cheaper than SOY diet, allowed the reduction in total GHG and CO2, and of meat emission intensity. However, an increase in total CH4 and N2O emissions was observed. The replacement of soybean with pea bean can represent a possible management strategy to reach trade-off between good farming practices and environmental protection on small-scale poultry farms of inner Mediterranean areas.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35268217
pii: ani12050649
doi: 10.3390/ani12050649
pmc: PMC8909337
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Animal. 2011 Feb;5(2):312-9
pubmed: 22440776
Poult Sci. 2011 Mar;90(3):534-42
pubmed: 21325223
Animals (Basel). 2020 Mar 25;10(4):
pubmed: 32218195
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2021 Jun 9;53(3):352
pubmed: 34105043
Animal. 2021 Dec;15 Suppl 1:100284
pubmed: 34246596
Animals (Basel). 2021 Apr 29;11(5):
pubmed: 33947001
Animals (Basel). 2020 Apr 17;10(4):
pubmed: 32316455
Poult Sci. 2022 Mar;101(3):101647
pubmed: 34998228
Food Chem. 2019 Mar 15;276:599-607
pubmed: 30409638
Poult Sci. 2008 Jun;87(6):1012-21
pubmed: 18492987
Poult Sci. 2014 Aug;93(8):1883-9
pubmed: 24931968
Poult Sci. 2017 Feb 1;96(2):511-518
pubmed: 27664196
Poult Sci. 2010 Jul;89(7):1537-43
pubmed: 20548084
Poult Sci. 2021 Mar;100(3):100966
pubmed: 33652532
Animals (Basel). 2020 May 14;10(5):
pubmed: 32422971
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 4;16(11):e0259333
pubmed: 34735511

Auteurs

Antonella Fatica (A)

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Ambiente, Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via Francesco de Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.

Francesco Fantuz (F)

Scuola di Bioscienze e Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Camerino, Via Gentile III Da Varano, 62032 Camerino, Italy.

Mengjun Wu (M)

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Ambiente, Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via Francesco de Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.

Siria Tavaniello (S)

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Ambiente, Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via Francesco de Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.

Giuseppe Maiorano (G)

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Ambiente, Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via Francesco de Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.

Elisabetta Salimei (E)

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Ambiente, Alimenti, Università degli Studi del Molise, Via Francesco de Sanctis 1, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.

Classifications MeSH