You are here

Головна » BTF №2 2025

Feeding of young geese with the enzyme preparation Hemicell® HT and its influence on hematological indicators, yield and quality of slaughter products

The direction of metabolic processes in a living organism can be inferred from the levels of individual metabolites in blood. Their amount can vary depending on feeding, that is, under the influence of individual feed additives. Among the studied doses, the average dosage of the enzyme preparation (250 g per 1 t) of the feed mixture for broiler goslings, compared to low and high, has the greatest effect on erythropoiesis in the bird’s body, increases redox reactions of metabolism with a pronounced anabolic nature and the protective functions of the body. The calculated yield of edible parts in the carcasses of experimental goslings differed significantly between the experimental groups and the control group. Thus, in goslings of the 1st control group, the mass of edible parts in the carcass was 2337 g, in the analogues of the 2nd experimental group, it was higher by 171 g, in the 3rd - by 323, and in the goslings of the 4th experimental group - by 244 g (p≤0.001). In relative terms, the yield of edible parts to the pre-slaughter weight of goslings was: in the analogues of the 1st control group 68.2%, in the 2nd – 69.1%, in the 3rd – 69.0% and in the goslings of the 4th group – 69.8%. The higher live weight of goslings in the experimental groups compared to the control group increased the inedible parts in their carcasses. Thus, in goslings of the 2nd experimental group by 35 g, in the 3rd by 104, and in the analogues of the 4th by 28.0 g. The ratio of edible to inedible parts in gosling carcasses allowed us to calculate the meat quality index, which increased from 2.15 in the control to 2.23 in the analogues of the 2nd and 3rd experimental groups. This ratio in the goslings of the 4th experimental group was 2.31. An important indicator of the quality of broiler gosling meat is the meat-bone index, i.e., the ratio of muscle tissue to bone. Adding an enzyme preparation to the diets of goslings in groups 2–4 increased this indicator. If in the control group it was 2.81, then in the analogues of the 2nd experimental group it increased to 3.00, in the goslings of the 3rd group to 3.11, and in the 4th experimental group to 3.16. Based on protein and fat calorie content, 100 g of meat from the 1st control group contained 122.8 kcal (514.0 kJ). In the 2nd group, this increased to 136.3 kcal (570.7 kJ); in the 3rd, 140.4 kcal (587.8 kJ); and in the 4th, 130.3 kcal (545.4 kJ). The calculation of the energy value of meat, carried out on the basis of the calorie content of protein and fat, shows that in 100 g of meat of goslings of the 1st control group the total energy content was 122.8 kcal, or 514.0 kJ, while in the experimental groups its energy value was higher and amounted to: in the analogues of the 2nd experimental group 136.3 kcal or 570.7 kJ, in the 3rd, respectively, 140.4 or 587.8, and in goslings of the 4th experimental group 130.3 kcal or 545.4 kJ Meat productivity measures include feed protein conversion (CCP) and energy conversion (CFE). At slaughter age (60 days), the average daily protein and fat deposition in the 1st control group were 414.4 g and 322.4 g, respectively. In the 2nd group, protein and fat deposition increased by 38.4 g and 64.6 g. In the 3rd group, these rose by 94.5 g and 44.5 g. In the 4th group, the increase was 61.5 g for protein and 37.8 g for fat. For each 1 kg of live weight, protein and fat deposition differed by group. The 1st control group, fed a single complete mixture, deposited 107.5 g of protein and 83.7 g of fat daily. With Hemicell® HT, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th groups saw increases in protein of 3.7 g, 10.9 g, and 7.3 g, and in fat of 11.3 g, 1.6 g, and 3.2 g, respectively. The highest protein conversion ratio of 19.3% was observed in goslings of the 3rd experimental group, 18.1% in analogues of the 4th, and 17.2% in goslings of the 2nd experimental group. A similar pattern is observed in the calculation of the energy conversion ratio for protein and fat deposition. In goslings of the 1st control group, it was 12.8%; in analogues of the 2nd group, 14.7%; in the 3rd, 15.0%; and in analogues of the 4th experimental group, 14.4%.

Keywords: morphological and biochemical indicators, control slaughter, chemical composition of meat, protein conversion, energy conversion.

BABENKO S.


KUZMENKO O.


BOMKO V. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5558-6924


CHERNYAVSKYY O.


TYTARIOVA O.


SLOMCHINSKIY M.


NEDASHKIVSKY V.


SOBOLEVA S. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9102-9666


  1. Balanchuk, I.M. (2014). Praktychne zastosuvannia fermentiv u tvarynnytstvi [Practical application of enzymes in animal husbandry]. Ptakhivnytstvo Ukrainy i cvitu [Poultry farming in Ukraine and the world]. Available at:http://market.avianua.com/?p=3958 (In Ukrainian).
  2. Babenko, S., Bomko, V., Kuzmenko, O., Cherniavskyi, O., Tytariova, O., Slomchynskyi, M., Nedashkivsky, V., Sobolievа, S. (2024). Vplyv fermentnogo preparatu Hemicell®HT na obmin rechovyn molodnjaku gusej [Effect of enzyme preparation Hemicell®HT on the metabolism of young geese]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac' «Tehnologija vyrobnyctva i pererobky produkcii' tvarynnyctva» [Animal Husbandry Products Production and Processing], no. 2, рр. 25–35. DOI:10.33245/2310-9289-2024-190-2-25-35 (In Ukrainian).
  3. Babenko S., Bomko V., Kuzmenko O., Cherniavskyi O., Tytariova O., Slomchynskyi M., Nedashkivsky V., Sobolievа S. (2024). Efektyvnist' zastosuvannja fermentnogo preparatu Hemicell® HT za vyroshhuvannja molodnjaku gusenjat [Efficiency of use of enzyme preparation Hemicell® HT for growing young gees]. Zbirnyk naukovyh prac' «Tehnologija vyrobnyctva i pererobky produkcii' tvarynnyctva» [«Animal Husbandry Products Production and Processing»], no. 1, рр. 42–50. DOI:10.33245/2310-9289-2024-186-1-42-50 (In Ukrainian).
  4. Borysenko, K. (2018). Maibutnie kormovykh fermentiv [The future of feed enzymes]. Nashe Ptakhivnytstvo [Our Poultry Farming]. Available at:https://agrotimes.ua/article/majbutne-kormovih-fermentiv/ (In Ukrainian).
  5. Holubiev, M.I., Shchaslyvyi, R.A. (2013). Efektyvnist vykorystannia kombikormiv z riznem rivnem zhyru u hodivli molodniaku husei [The effectiveness of using compound feeds with different levels of fat in feeding young geese]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMB im. S. Z. Hzhytskoho [Scientific Bulletin of the S. Z. Gzhytsky Lviv National University of Biomedical Sciences], Lviv, Vol. 15, no. 3 (57), Part 3, pp. 21–25. (In Ukrainian).
  6. Zaplatyskyi, V.S. (2017). Zv’iazok mirnykh oznak i zhyvoi masy z rivnem peropukhovoi produktyvnosti husei obroshynskoi siroi ta obroshynskoi biloi porodnykh hrup [The relationship between dimensional characteristics and live weight with the level of feather productivity of geese of the Obroshin gray and Obroshin white breed groups]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT im. S.Z. Gzhytskoho [Scientific Bulletin of the S.Z. Gzhytskyi LNUVMBT], Vol. 19, no. 74, pp. 156–160. (In Ukrainian).
  7. Petriv, M.D., Sloboda, L.Ya., Zahorets, N.M., Tesak, H.V. (2013). Intensyvnist rostu ta rozvytku molodniaku obroshynskykh bilykh husei, skhreshchenykh z porodoiu lehart [Growth and development intensity of young Obroshin white geese crossed with the Legart breed]. Peredhirne ta hirske zemlerobstvo i tvarynnytstvo [Foothill and mountain agriculture and animal husbandry]. Issue 55, Part I. (In Ukrainian).
  8. Fialovych, L., Kyryliv, I., Paskevych, H. (2018). Vyroshchuvannia husei z vykorystanniam netradytsiinykh dobavok u kombikormy [Growing geese using non-traditional additives in compound feed]. Naukovyi visnyk LNU veterynarnoi medytsyny ta biotekhnolohii [Scientific Bulletin of the Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology]. Silskohospodarski nauky [Agricultural Sciences], 20 (84), pp. 127–130. DOI:10.15421/nvlvet8423 (In Ukrainian).
  9. Ding, S., Yan, W., Ma, Y., Fang, J. (2021). The impact of probiotics on gut health via alternation of immune status of monogastric animals. Anim Nutr., 7 (1), pp. 24–30. DOI:10.1016/j.aninu.11.004.
  10. Dobos, Á., Bársony, P., Posta, J., Babinszky, L. (2019). Effect of feeds with different crude fiber content on the performance of meat goose. Acta Agraria Debreceniensis. 2, pp. 5–8. DOI:10.34101/actaagrar/2/3670
  11. Chen, F., He, J., Wang, X., Lv, T., Liu, C., Liao, L., Li, Z., Zhou, J., He, B., Qiu, H., Lin, Q. (2022). Effect of Dietary Ramie Powder at Various Levels on the Growth Performance, Meat Quality, Serum Biochemical Indices and Antioxidative Capacity of Yanling White Geese. Animals, 12 (16), 2045 p. DOI:10.3390/ani12162045
  12. Gu, W.J., Zhou, G.L., Wang, W.H., Zhang, W., Zhao, Q.Q., Zhang, L. (2022). Effects of dietary metabolizable energy and crude fiber levels on slaughter performance of goslings. Anhui Agricultural Sciences. 50 (20), pp. 67–70. DOI:10.20944/preprints202309.0863.v1
  13. Guojun Liu, Xu Luo, Xiuhua Zhao, Aizhong Zhang, Ning Jiang, Lingyu Yang, Meng Huang, Li Xu, Liyan Ding, Manyu Li, Zhenhua Guo, Xin Li, Jinyan Sun, Jingming Zhou, Yanzhong Feng, Haijuan He, Hongda Wu, Xiangkui Fu, He Meng. (2018). Gut microbiota correlates with fiber and apparent nutrients digestion in goose. Poultry Science. Vol. 97, Issue 11, pp. 3899–3909. DOI:10.3382/ps/pey249
  14. Omoor, I.N.A., Yankey, R., Shehata, A.I. (2024). Dietary supplement of fermented grass forage regulates growth performance, antioxidant capacity, and immune response of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, Vol. 103, Issue 2. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2023.103323.
  15. Plouhinec, L., Neugnot, V., Lafond, M., Berrin, J.-G. (2023). Carbohydrate-active enzymes in animal feed. Biotechnology Advances, Vol. 65. DOI:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2023.108145
  16. Liang, Y.Q., Zheng, X.C., Wang, J., Yang, H.M., Wang, Z.Y. (2023). Different amino acid supplementation patterns in low-protein diets on growth performance and nitrogen metabolism of goslings from 1 to 28 days of age. Poult Sci., 102 (2). DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2022.102395
  17. Hou, Q., Qian, Z., Wu, P., Shen, M., Li, L., Zhao, W. (2020). 1-Deoxynojirimycin from mulberry leaves changes gut digestion and microbiota composition in geese. Poultry Science, Vol. 99, Issue 11, pp. 5858–5866. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2020.07.048
  18. Riaz, M.H., Iqbal, A., Khan, S., Tahir, M., Shah, M.N., Memoon, S., Oksana, K. (2020). Effect of protease supplementation on the performance and digestibility of broilers. Animal Husbandry Products Production and Processing, 1, pp. 15–21. DOI:10.33245/2310-9270-2020-157-1-15-21
  19. Sobolev, O.I., Gutyj, B.V., Darmohray, L.M., Sobolieva, S.V., Ivanina, V.V., Kuzmenko, O.A., Chernyuk, S.V. (2019). Lithium in the natural environment and its migration in the trophic chain. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 9 (2), pp. 195–203.
  20. Ricke, S.C., In Lee, S., Ae Kim, S., Hong Park, S., Shi, Z. (2020). Prebiotics and the poultry gastrointestinal tract microbiome. Poultry Science, Vol. 99, Issue 2. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2019.12.018
  21. Sun, S., Zhao, Y., Pang, Z., Wan, B., Wang, J., Wu, Z., Wang, Q. (2025). Effects of Enterococcus faecalis Supplementation on Growth Performance, Hepatic Lipid Metabolism, and mRNA Expression of Lipid Metabolism Genes and Intestinal Flora in Geese. Animals. 15 (2), 268 p. DOI:10.3390/ani15020268
  22. Sychov, M., Ilchuk, I., Umanets, D., Balanchuk, I., Ibatullin, I., Umanets, R., Orishchuk, O. (2022). Slaughter parameters of broiler chickens at different levels and ratios of arginine and lysine in the compound feed. Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, 25 (4). ISSN 1336-9245
  23. Wang, R., Wang, X., Xiong, Y., Cao, J., Nussio, L.G., Ni, K., Lin, Y., Wang, X., Yang, F. (2024). Dietary Paper Mulberry Silage Supplementation Im proves the Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Meat Quality of Yangzhou Goose. Animals. 14 (3), 359 p. DOI:10.3390/ani14030359
  24. Xu, Q., Yuan, X., Gu, T., Li, Y., Dai, W., Shen, X., Song, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhao, W., Chang, G., Chen, G. (2017). Comparative characterization of bacterial communities in geese fed all-grass or highgrain diets. PLoS One, 12 (10). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0185590
  25. Yan, J., Zhou, B., Xi, Y.l., Huan, H., Li, M., Yu, J., Zhu, H., Dai, Z., Ying, S., Zhou, W., Shi, Z. (2019). Fermented feed regulates growth performance and the cecal microbiota community in geese. Poult Sci. 98 (10), pp. 4673–4684. DOI:10.3382/ps/pez169
  26. Cui, Y., Leng, X., Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, Q. (2024). Effects of dietary Artemisia annua supplementation on growth performance, antioxidant capacity, immune function, and gut microbiota of geese. Poultry Science, Vol. 103, Issue 5. DOI:10.1016/j.psj.2024.103594.
  27. Zhang, J., He, H., Yuan, Y., Wan, K., Li, L., Liu, A. (2022). Effects of Yeast Culture Supplementation on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Metabolites, and Immune Response in Geese. Animals. 12 (10), 1270 p. DOI:10.3390/ani12101270
AttachmentSize
PDF icon babenko_2_2025.pdf734.99 KB
BTF №2 2025