234, 5"# $%" & '( )"# $* & '( +, $4"# -2 !(6. D,D D (,-#D '7,D 8.,b T,# `, : # doi: /ar

/

/

1400

)

79

-65

(

!" # $%

&'(

')*#+

$,

- $( '.

/0

12

3 )

!

1

4) ,

5 6

,

7

8$

4

1

: #

5;<

-2 * 1 !"# $ % " & '( )"# $ * & '( +, $& -./01

,S. AL J4T - A4U ' ; +<

V V

+V4W#

$X.+

# *

4T 1 $Y % Z '

$ M1 D

8B V?*

; +VV< +VV +VVL

>1 +VV< 8VV4F4 $[VV *

% VV $

A4

%

4V? -V 8V* \* $2 4V )# 1

$[ *

4

-V] ]

L*

$ LV , V

D V 8V4F4

.8V -VL9+, +V^ -V] 1 V*

V4T 1 VM1 8 ,

VO4_* `. +V - 8a?# b 8* \*

A4U '

`4_*

V* ,% V LB - K'LM*

V

)

Kaur et al., 2007

(

.

-V'c -V#

L* d - E P -#

-] ] +4] 'G

-V 8V A4U V' LV ,

V* FL e+#

*% 4# A4* 1 W * - f

. V

-+

f LaV?# 2 1

+d b - E P -# 8 4^ $ B

2 +,

2I -

+L 2 )* 8 A) * g^ *

+d VVb -VV & VV , -VV# $-VVU+, . VV -LVV

# VV]

Y+L

2 % 8 4^ 2 +1

* +1

4V? A4V"# ] # 1

2I % FLV 2 HV4* * $

E P -# + a *

-./01 h J* ( ] +d b - 4d +4]

V] *

8.

V_* 2I

8V +V . V

* Vb 1 V)'*)

1383

.(

fLaV?# N OV

VB & , -#

V'< % .D V

--LVVV "#+4c

.

VVV

$j VVVa1 AVVV. .8VVV

23. % 4 I

V'< % V A.+LV"4

+V4c

.

V

-LV "#

VV* k VlLb VVb -VV & V , -VV#

VV

)

Meng et al., 2005

.(

-VV AVV. JVV4T -VV

.HVV#I

VV

Vm G lLb

V'<

-LV "# +V4c

.

V

-V#

& ,

'4

-# n +1 4d

$ #

'< A.

.

V

V* A. + V a# m J ^ g* 84gh

V # 1

e+#

% 8b J ^

+V^ +4Qo V1 8_1 & ,

V

)

Annison and Choct, 1991

.(

23.% 4 I

V

V'_*

^

LV?

V1

10

+V +

2%

Vb

pI

p/V]

V #

VV'_*

. VV

, aVV?U VV

4VV?

D VV

J)VV

VV

)

Ravindran et al., 1999

.(

-L.% )VVV?. q. HVVV9

r VVb VVa( 8(+VV $ VV , E VV. L_*

aVV?U

* q 9+l* r b 2 H4*

.

# 1 * +* A.

.

-L a# - #+< +)' ( q

V A4 U

$

, E . L_* +# +, q. H9

2 H4*

p/V] Vm

% /0* *

.HV#I A4V q

q

+LV?

V* q V

V .

)

McNab and Boorman, 2002

.(

+4]

.

-s+l*

#I

t(

q. HV9

, aV?U

*

2%

5L

; V,

q. HV9

% V

-V D

* q

)

Brenes et al., 1993

.(

+4b

$

;% q. H9 - 4*%

.% E \4\_1

-./01

% & V , -#

.HV#I % FLV

V!1 V

.HV#I % V). .8V -VL9+, E G

V*

VL* V

+4] FL

f

- 8 % #3. % $& , -. < +

% 4 I qM +

%I [V] * +VQ & , -# 23.

% V

A. -

T ' . Jb Y a_* /0* *

2I [41+1

Y+L

2 4B

* +^

)

Classen

and Bedford, 1991; Jaroni et al., 1999

.(

a -U+,

+)' (

uMV"* Vb -V % #3. % J )* s+l* 4d

8

$

: <

* *

v^ L*

"*

* - 8

% #3. % .H#I w # # * '* ( - -L? # 1

$& V , -V# . 4 4 ).H49 E 4G lb $

FL

#+< A S#

)

Bedford, 2002; Bedford and

Schulze, 1998

.(

/ # +4 -L < AL?) + E P % # q

[] * r b E P % # q .8 2I &+x

#I

2I +L"4

+L E P Y 1 nO q. H9

+

.H#I

p/] m % q. H9 8. #

,

* /0* *

)

Goodband et al., 2002; Svihus et

al., 2002

.(

- r b E P % # q . H* +5. %

8 r b H] 2 # [4 +1 8T g* d

)

Koch, 1996; Goodband et al., 2002

.(

E P $ 3(

-* q. H9 8'< & )_L 84F4 r b H.

)

Amerah et al., 2007a

.(

2 "# E \4\_1

- #

% #

-'c -# w # +4Qy1 8_1

p 4 I E P p 'O*

-# .8

K'LM*

2 ?).

4 I `. +

$

% #

* 4T 1 1 FL* E P

2I 8'( -

$

2 E FL*

8 E3c -# &+x

# qM ).H49 E 4G lb

Lentle et al., 2006

)

.(

A.

- j +* E gT O* $ B

b E P % #

-L9 .

_* r

2I % JG B

8 v^ L*

@

% FL q. *%I A.

720

< e A4U ' -gO^

d

%

7

1

35

; +<

J. L 9 E G

-3

×

3

f3* -. < N+d [T ^

E P % # nO - J* 9 l1

& ,

)

2

$

3

5

/

3

'4*

nO - (+L*

$+FG)

200

400

ppm

(

.H#I J )*

-#

41

U

+)1

20

#+<

5"# % " & '( )"# +)1 +

& !# 234,

.

.H#I J )*

FL *

$

.H#I

B 4

2200

$% #3. % &+, + B

200

+ B

&+,

% # ', L

$

100

&+, + B

%D '

100

+ B

&+,

<

4L)

%

.

A.+L"4

-d +* .H#I % FL nO

. #% 8 +

"4< Y +

% # A44g1

-#

CT % FL & ,

- 89+, E G G lM*

+^ p 4 I 5L Jb

.

* -. < +4]

]) q. *%I

FL

1

N O Y + (

4d . /c

# L

]

"4<

&+# % FL

H9

UFFDA

K . -T *+9

% FL AT

A<

H'9

g

1

×

1

- +L*

36

". *%I B

4?\1

%

LF

; +<

$

A4U ' -] ]

Y + A.% 1

2 ?). #% A45# 4*

". *%I

B

k lLb

. #

% ) q. *%I

2 . <

35

($

$2 2% q. H9

r b s+l*

$

r b J. a1 [.+h

$

E FG

- D

8M.

A4U ' -] ]

-./01

+4]

41

E FL*

+^

+ *

L9+,

.

% #

+4,

J* - D `a1+* E FG

-4B # 8 ,

2 $- 4

( #% 2% % G )

8M.

C.

A4U ' -] ] -gO^

L#

; +<

g

L" %

& !#

.

% # ;

d +4,

:

%

35

$; +V<

8 V?^ Vd . L" 41 + % #+<

KV'LM* V

) & V# { V. -V % J* CU

2 5 V %

V1

+FVVG

VV!*

% ) & VV#ee $(Y +)# VV<

+FG

!*

V{ % % ) & V>'. $(J)* { % 1 Y +)# <

J)*

1

% % V

] % Vg $(& )V -

l1 J_*

`b (+L# H*)

% # q

. +4,

*%I & !# _#

q.

89

:

*%I

q.

89

V

V

; % FLVVV

X VVV * VVV +VVV P

)

VVV4B

$| G

1394 Meng et al., 2005

;

(

% }< . & !#

84a~1

89

$

+

5 I

+4

2I

$

J)T %

k 'b

`V L*

D V V1

FL

)

50

VG

V1

100

VG

(

.

s FV 8V ]

'_* % J)T AL9+, }< % 89 2 +

V

H,

V'.

2

$

1

$

3

8W'c +)1)

2 V?).

. V FLV ( V'_*

2 U

*

W#

+4

+U

% 2 + s F

A4

V*

V#

$

+

A.

2 # +< 8 ]

2I JV_*

V

)

V!* E +VFB

T VVb

(

%

9 VV<

A4

p P

VV* VV

45

VV1

60

-VV]

Y 4?'

. FL

+V

V 5#

-V# #

;+V V

-# # $2 %

1

9 < %

A4

+^

#

[T ^ .

H'9 -gO^ J*

L

J)

#

2I 2 +^

$

Vag)* 8VT B

VL9+, Vb -V

2I 8V9

$

]

1

-. /c +4] -. 4 4 [4 +1 H]

-. <

Table 1. Ingredients and chemical compositions of basal diet

Value Chemical composition Amount (%) Ingredients 2900 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg)

40.43 Corn grain 24 Crude protein (%) 20 Wheat grain 0.80 Calcium (%) 34.26 Soybean meal 0.30 Phosphorus (%) 1.41 Soybean oil 0.15 Sodium (%) 1.32 Limestone 1.30 Lysine (%) 0.97 Dicalcium phosphate 1.39 Arginine (%) 0.36 Salt 0.50 Methionine (%) 0.25 Vitamin premix1 0.75 Methionine + Cysteine (%) 0.25 Mineral premix2 0.26 Tryptophan (%) 0.17 DL- methionine - 0.21 L- lysine HCl 1

Vitamin premix provide Vitamin A 9000 IU/g. Vitamin E 18 IU/g. Vitamin K3 2 mg, Vitamin B1 1.8 mg, Vitamin B2 6.6

mg. Vitamin B3 30 mg. Vitamin B6 3 mg, Vitamin B7 0.1 mg, Vitamin B12 0.015 mg, Choline chloride 500 mg, Ca

pantothenate 10 mg and Folic acide 1 mg in one kilogram diet.

2

[T ^

,

+4

r ' % ;+ .

1

-V4

V

V

5LV

*

& 1 +)4

. & !#

;+

8* Mh -

• <

*

2 +)4

1

-4

2I g

I s+€

V* V

40

V1

45

-V]

Y 4?'

'4V

-V# # $&D

V

V

+^ &D

#

9 < p P 8 ] .

A4

$&D

2I

3 1

50

1

60

-]

Y 4V?'

V^

+

•# *I

*I

H4

#

.

•# % W * 2 U

*I

H4

$

V'b HV] ALb H. L*

8VV9 'VV

VV VV

$

•VV# % q. VV*%I AVV.

*I

HVV4

A4'4? 1

FL A.% {

)

•V# - A4'4? 1

•# 8 ] I

*I

H4

8V ] H*+^ •# - A.% { -L?

•#

*I

H4

3< L4

(

% g .

&D -4 1

"* 8 ] $

'.

8x.+

-# # $

V V# ‚ )V +)4* V V

ƒ H

#

.

x

10

"*

#

}V)( }x .

+V

%

-# #

& !#

.

-. % FL +h B q. *%I % JG B

GLM

*I H9 &+#

SAS

+V^

V*I JV4'_1 -V.H!1 *

-?. \* .89+,

A45# 4*

nOV V1 2 V*%I V H4#

g*

• <

G

. & !#

A , B) #

2 2% q. H9

:

- j +* •. L#

+Q

E P K'LM* % #

Gutiriez del Alamo et al.,

2008)

gT O* •. L#

-.

# M +h B

J. a1 [.+h

r b

:

+ & , E P K'LM* % # +Q

A4U ' r b J. a1 [.+h +. \*

J < e

g* ; +<

])

2

A4U ' -] ] .(

% #

& , -. < + +4]

-./01

5

/

3

'4*

# 2 "# b % r b J. a1 [.+h A.+L"4 +L*

)

01

/

0

P

<

- j +* r b J. a1 [.+h A.+L .(

A4U '

E P % #

& ,

-./01 < e

2

'4*

+L*

% #

& , - 8a?# 2I E F1 -

E P

3

5

/

3

'4*

g* +L*

)

01

/

0

P

<

+Q .(

[.+h +. \*

+4] - .H#I K'LM* N O 2 H9

g* r b J. a1

)

01

/

0

P

<

N O 2 H9 .(

] - .H#I K'LM*

+4

g* d -

)

01

/

0

P

<

(

q. H9 r b J. a1 [.+h +. \* q [] *

. ; +<

J r b % FL .I

d -

.H#I J )* & , E P % # J \L* +Q

g*

)

01

/

0

P

<

d r b J. a1 [.+h (

]) +^ +4Qy1 8_1 q. *%I

3

- $(

d

E P % # & , % FL 2 *%

2

'4*

J )* +L*

.H#I

400

ppm $

"* r b J. a1 [.+h a

.

+4] - .H#I 2 H9 - 8

2 "# E gT O*

+

& , -. <

$

g* d - r b J. a1 [.+h

* a

$2 )

.+ ) "M

1381

…

et al., 1996 Allen Mathlouti et al., 2003;

* a A. - $(

# 1

& #ee $& # {

, * -L.% )?. q

& >'.

(Wu and Ravindran, 2004)

$

* m q. H9

+4 M1 + /0* *

+L 84' ^ q /0*

) C.

. .+L

Santos et al., 2004

a $(

J ^ e+# %

FL

% 8b

m 84' ^

E 4 + A4>1 +<

(Mohammed, 1995)

q

- : <

'9 +)4* -] 1 J ^ +4,

J )*

) .H#I

Dusel et al., 1998

(

`a1+*

.

+Q

& , E P % #

.HV#I K'LM* N O

E FVG

- D - j +*

:

+Q

.HV#I K'LM* N O

V])

4

(

2 $ V O -d _* +U G - D %

V $ V

$ V

_d $['^

Y

%

† V_T

V g* E VF1

V*I

.8V

#

-V

+V

VB

+VQ AV. $

+. V\*

aV?# 2%

2 5

a $

q4<

g*

g*

)

05

/

0

P

<

.(

-] ]

U '

A4

/01

-V.

V

] V

+V4

V

VB

JV )*

VV .H#I

aVV?# 2%

$ VVa

2 5 VV

q4VV<

VVg*

<

A4.

+1

+, - 8a?#

/01

-V.

V

] V

+V4

V

2

J )*

.H#I

#

.

2

# ,

* WB3*

-A4

1

.H#I

4

%

† _T

aV?# 2%

- 4V

E VF1

g*

]

)

01

/

0

P

<

.(

q4

A.+V1

VG

2%

- 4

B 41 - j +*

400

ppm

V .H#I JV )*

+1

A.

G

- 4 2%

V 41 -V j +*

JV )* 2 V

.8 .H#I

]

2

-QI

E P % # 'G

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

+)' ( E FG

& , -. < +

A4U ' -] ]

A4 < e

8

1

35

,%

Table 2. The main effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based

diets on growth performance of Japanese quail between the ages of 8 and 35 days

Main effects Average gain (g/bird/day) Feed intake (g/bird/day) Feed conversation ratio Enzyme level (ppm) 0 6.08 17.67a 3.40a 200 6.07 17.77a 3.30ab 400 6.07 16.59b 3.13b SEM 0.026 0.640 0.134 P-value 0.098 0.006 0.003

Wheat particle size (mm)

2 6.28a 16.54b 3.03b 3 5.96b 17.63a 3.36a 3.5 5.97b 17.86a 3.45a SEM 0.089 0.703 0.216 P-value 0.002 0.003 0.001 a-b

]

3

-QI

E P % # J \L*

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

+)' ( E FG

& , -. < +

A4U ' -] ]

A4 < e

8

1

35

,%

Table 3. The interaction effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on growth performance of Japanese quail between the ages of 8 and 35 days

Wheat particle size (mm) ×

Enzyme level (ppm) Average gain (g/bird/day) Feed intake (g/bird/day)

Feed conversation ratio 2 × 0 6.10 16.97abc 3.15bcd 3 × 0 5.95 18.13ab 3.51ab 3.5 × 0 6.01 17.91abc 3.75a 2 × 200 6.13 16.66abc 3.11cd 3× 200 6.06 18.46a 3.44abc 3.5 × 200 6.02 18.19ab 3.36abcd 2× 400 6.06 16c 3.03d 3× 400 6.00 16.32bc 3.12bcd 3. 5× 400 6.14 17.47abc 3.24bcd SEM 0.084 0.888 0.254 P-value 0.073 0.001 0.001 a-d

Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

& V# aV?# 2% q -O +h B q. *%I •. L#

V 8V\ O* V .H#I JV )* - : <

,

A4V\\_* ; HV,

A4V"4<

8V

)

Wang et al., 2005

;

Sayyazadeh et al., 2006

.(

) 2003 ( Selle et al.

q. HV9

a?# 2%

- 4 89

V - 8a?#

-V :V <

% VL49 % V#3. %

.H#I J )* 2 H9

-V. < +V +V4]

$& VVVV ,

; HVVVV,

VVVV# +

.

; HVVVV, Y VVVV +VVVV

)

1993

(

Brenes et al.

$

.HVV#I 2 HVV9

$

-L.% )VV?.

E . L_*

q

b

q t(

2%

U a?#

- 4

2

q4< $

2 5 g*

.

C'*

2 V, %

2 )

)

1389

(

g* +4Q 1

+

KV'LM* N O

J )*

.H#I

G

2%

- D

. # +)# ; H,

+

T O*

) -Vg

2005

(

Nadeem et al.

$

FLV

HV#I %

.

V

H!1

-.

'<

c

.

+4

-L "#

]

+4

V

Qy1 $E a4 +1 A. D N O

B

+4

aV?# 2%

< | 2 5 $['^

8

#

$

-V a a?# 2% T

VV g* VVd

q VV

.

-VV

+VV

VVB

q. VV*%I $

+5.

)

1993

Brenes et al.,

$(

+V4] -V .H#I 2 H9

Z+*

M1

/,

q - +! *

5LV aV?# 2%

a g T % T $; ,

.

& , E P K'LM* % #

V g* +4Qy1 ^ 9

+. V\* +V

a?# 2%

2 $ O -d _* +U G $- D %

$ V

'^ $

$ _d $[

2 5 V

$

Va

q4V< $

Y V Vg*

Y 4?.+ 9

])

4

(

.

-gT O* A. •. L#

E

H,

Abdollahi et al. (2011) Serranom et al. (2013)

-V

# 2 "#

& # a?# 2%

; V, 5LV K'LM*

+4Q 1 8_1

r b E P

# +^

+4,

8\ O* $

.

2% q. H9

& #

,

/01 2 , #+<

-.

V

V

* & , D N O

# 1

L#

-!4

: <

& # A.

-V

mB

'<

-LV "# +V4c

.

V & V ,

.

'< nO q. H9

-LV "# +V4c

.

-V +V! *

Vm 8V4' ^ q V

Vm * -L.% )?. q. H9

* /0* *

-L#

-V!4

2I

$

VL +B 8V4T g9

_ +1

& #

q. H9 m

V*

. V .

•. VL# AV.

8VVV\ O*

VVV

-VVVL9 .

8VVV A4VVV"4< 2 VVV\\_* VVV

(Svihus and Hetland, 2001; Gonzalez alvarado et

]

4

-QI

E P % # 'G

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

E 4G lb

- D

A4U ' -] ]

< e

Table 4. The main effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on carcass characteristics of Japanese quail

Main effects Carcass efficiency1 Breast2 Thighs2 Wings2 Heart1 Spleen1 Bursa of fabricius1 Gizzard1 Liver1 Proventriculus1 Abdominal fat1

Enzyme level (ppm) 0 61. 99 41.01b 25.55 7.13 0.84 0.07 0.12 2.16a 2.69a 0.43a 0.57 200 61.16 41.07b 25.72 7.64 0.87 0.07 0.11 2.01b 2.53ab 0.39ab 0.71 400 60.68 43.05a 25.95 7.70 0.86 0.06 0.10 2.02b 2.38b 0.37b 0.59 SEM 0. 941 0.166 0.081 0.191 0.025 0.0007 0.0005 0.015 0.049 0.002 0.104 P-value 0. 21 0.006 0.82 0.76 0.67 0.36 0.39 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.30

Wheat particle size (mm)

2 60. 84 41.79 25.55 7.53 0.84 0.07 0.09 2.02 2.47 0.40 0.63 3 60. 89 41.95 26.43 7.46 0.89 0.06 0.10 2.10 2.60 0.40 0.61 3.5 62. 09 41.40 25.25 7.48 0.84 0.07 0.11 2.07 2.54 0.39 0.63 SEM 1 0.157 0.666 0.010 0.041 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.009 0.0008 0.01 P-value 0.17 0.72 0.17 0.95 0.29 0.52 0.29 0.42 0.43 0.87 0.97 1

Percentage of live weight; 2 Percentage of live weight; a-c Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

]

5

-QI

E P % # J \L*

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

E 4G lb

- D

A4U ' -] ]

< e

Table 5. The interaction effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on carcass characteristics of Japanese quail Wheat Particle size (mm) ×

Enzyme level (ppm)

Carcass

efficiency1 Breast

2

Thighs2 Wings2 Heart1 Spleen1 Bursa of

Fabricius1

Gizzard

1

Liver1 Proventriculus1 Abdominal

fat1 2 × 0 60.61 40.82ab 26.08 7.03 0.86 0.079 0.10 2.25 2.10 0.43 0.60 3 × 0 63.03 41.60ab 25.78 7.18 0.85 0.066 0.12 2.22 2.62 0.47 0.49 3.5 × 0 62.35 40.97ab 24.80 7.19 0.81 0.083 0.11 2.28 2.64 0.40 0.62 2 × 200 60.67 40.75ab 25.08 7.74 0.88 0.066 0.10 2.08 2.55 0.38 0.73 3× 200 60.47 40.56ab 26.57 7.47 0.87 0.071 0.09 2.08 2.86 0.37 0.70 3.5 × 200 62.33 39.38b 25.51 7.70 0.86 0.077 0.11 1.96 2.68 0.35 0.71 2× 400 61.26 43.46a 25.50 7.81 0.78 0.063 0.11 1.89 2.16 0.38 0.57 3× 400 59.18 40.79ab 26.93 7.73 0.94 0.060 0.09 2.06 2.53 0.35 0.65 3. 5× 400 61.60 42.53a 25.44 7.55 0.84 0.067 0.10 2.23 2.58 0.39 0.56 SEM 1.67 0.416 0.208 0.014 0.002 0.001 0.0008 0.002 0.005 0.0008 0.083 P-value 0.16 0.01 0.732 0.911 0.275 0.928 0.097 0.069 0.243 0.276 0.91

„4\_1

) 1989 ( Petterson and Aman

$

CU

-] ]

/01

-.

+4]

& ,

B

J )* 2

.H#I

2 H4*

-3

d G

J.

+1

-] ]

%

/01

-.

- "* +4]

J )*

B *

.H#I

.

d

'

$

-] ]

8 ]

;%

+4] s+l*

% )?.

% c

s 4T

-2% q. H9

5L !B

; ,

*

) #% +<

Hakansson et al., 1978; Viveros

et al., 1994; Iji et al., 2001c

.(

2 #D d

2 *%

, # *

m *

a?U

& 1 - +! *

CU

a?# d ; , 5L

*

)

Rubio et al., 1990

.(

P % # +Q

& , E

^ 9

+4Qy1

g*

& # { a?# d +. \* +

& #ee $

'.

>

&

])

6

(.

Y +

•. L#

)

1998

(

Yu et al.

)

2001

(

Yin et al.

$

2 H9

J )*

.H#I

]

-+4

+

$ ] & , -. <

& # { a?# d

U ' & #ee

A4

< e

8_1

+^ +4Q 1

#

•. L#

-+h B q. *%I

8\ O*

- .

+

) q. *%I $ B

2005

(

Sieo et al.

$

.H#I % FL

% #3. %

]

+4

& , -. < +

+ -a'c

QI

p 'O* #

'<

c

.

+4

-L "#

q - +! *

d

a?#

8 ?^ a?# d . CU

E FL*

CU

])

7

E P % # J \L* +Q +4Q 1 8_1 (

.89+5# +^ .H#I J )* & ,

]

6

-QI

E P % # 'G

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

+

d

)

mm

(

-] ]

A4U '

< e

Table 6. The main effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on length of intestine (mm) of Japanese quail

Main effects Duodenum Jejunum Ileum

Enzyme level (ppm) 0 52.39 111.61 103.69a 200 46.56 104.57 101.10ab 400 46.15 100.78 90.71b SEM 0.225 0.256 0.590 P-value 0.08 0.10 0.01

Wheat particle size (mm)

2 48.22 100.93 101.13 3 48.75 107.42 94.71 3.5 48.13 108.61 99.66 SEM 0.085 0.465 0.618 P-value 0.97 0.28 0.17 a-b

Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

]

7

-QI

E P % # J \L*

,

&

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

+

d

)

mm

(

A4U '

< e

Table 7. The interaction effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on length of intestine (mm) of Japanese quail

Wheat Particle size (mm) ×

Enzyme level (ppm) Duodenum Jejunum Ileum

+Q

& , E P % #

.H#I K'LM* N O

8VM.

--] ]

U '

4

A

< e

:

QI

E P % V#

V .H#I J )* & ,

+V

8VM.

V

& V#ee

-V] ]

U '

A4

]

8

-{

8

.

2 H9 +Q

J )*

.H#I

+4]

„ ( %+< d

'V 8x.+

V

CU

g*

)

01

/

0

P

<

d - $(

2 H9

J )*

.H#I

] -V

+V4

V

[V] *

q. HV9

%+V< Vd

q

8x.+ „ (

.

+Q

& , E P % #

H4#

8Vx.+ „V ( %+V< Vd

'

CU

g*

%+V< Vd A.+L"4 .

A4U ' -] ] - j +*

/01

-.

& V , V

E P % #

2

*

'4

+L*

J) )

1

$(

8a?# 2I E F1

E P % #

& ,

-3

5

/

3

*

'4

g* +L*

)

01

/

0

P

<

.(

/01 2 , #+<

-.

& V , -V. < + +4]

V

E P % #

5

/

3

'4*

+L*

A.+L"4

8Vx.+ „ (

2 V"#

- #

2I E VF1

E P

& V , V -V?. \*

V

% #

2

*

'4

+L*

g*

J) )

1

$

05

/

0

P

<

.(

H4# .H#I J )* & , E P % # J \L* +Q

-V

Vd

g*

)

01

/

0

P

<

+4QyV1 8V_1 %+V< Vd (

+V^

])

9

(

$

d

E P % V# & , % FL

-2

*

'4

.H#I J )* +L*

400

ppm

%+V< d A.+L"4

) 2 "# b %

01

/

0

P

<

(

.

A.+1

8x.+ „ (

j +*

E P % V# V & V , V 41

-2

*

V'4

JV )* +VL*

.H#I

400

ppm

)

01

/

0

P

<

.(

J )*

& V# Vd 2% q V +V 3V(

.H#I

V

q. HVV9 CVVU

VV %+< VVd $ VVm

)

Viveros et al., 1994

(.

Montagne et al. (2003)

ub V 8Vx.+ „V ( %+< d - # + ; H,

V

*

*

p/V] 8V49+€ ; V, 5L 8*3

d VVM* VV"c

CVVU

-VV] ]

VV

LVV ,

L?

.

CVU

8x.+ „ ( %+< d q. H9

nOV q. HV9 2I Va# -V Y 1 nO q. H9 t(

* /0* * p/]

(Gabrie et al., 2007)

.

X^

V +LV"4 V %+< w VF1 -U +

$

/V] 8V49+€

% 8Vg# * [V] * +1 V ' %+V< . V b +L"4 C.

+ a(

X.

+1

r b

-qM

4. <

8 d q $

E . L_*

J. Va1 [.+Vh a

r Vb

V*

V

)

Deschepper et al., 2003

.(

E VVgT O* %

VV_* VVg1

$

E +VV4401

VV!.

VV

8M.

V + +V4] 9+l* -'c w #

2I •. L# - # +

h

\#

v4

j V +* E gT O*

CV.

/] nO .8

_* 4? A4U '

2 V"# q V Vb % . /Vc +V4] E +V4401 J \*

*

+V# +, V E3Vc % FLV .

+V4] +LV"4

-] ]

8x.+ !. [a 2 ] L ,

(

„V4

+V1

& V#e e

14

) 8VV VV VV,%

Iji et al., 2001c

.(

%+< g9 J_* 8x.+

„V4 ( 8Vx.+

+V1

2 "#

J. a1 +4401

L9

+

X.

+L"4 h \1 +1

. ] 89 .H5. ] +

8

)

Iji et al., 2001c; Zhu

et al., 2002; Luo et al., 2009

2 V D $A. + 3( .(

% & V , -V# JV~* V13c , a?U E 4G lb

c

5LV . V.+L 8V4T g9 q. HV9 4\L?*+4

+VV ; VV,

8VVM.

VV

VV.

+Q‡VV*

8VV

)

Mathlouthi et al., 2002

.(

q4 8x.+ „ (

+1

"*

V

+V4]

VB V

j VM* Vh \1 % V # .H#I J )* 2 ] & ,

VV. ] 8VV9 .H5. VV] 'VV +VV4~)1 -VV

8VV

(Mathlouthi et al., 2002a; Wu et al., 2004; Thomas

et al., 2005)

.

8b [.+M1 q. H9

!*

8V9

q. HV9

V 5# 8V ] /V0* * - 2I

*% 4#

*

% V - b -

V<

A4.

V L * 2 V4B +V1

V*

) V

Zhu et al., 2002

.(

; HV,

V

-V 8V

J )*

.H#I

*

T 'V +V4~)1 8(+V # 1

+L 8x.+

)

Silva and Smithard, 2002; Wu et

.H#I

400

ppm

J. a1 [.+h a - +! * +4]

J )* . r b

.H#I

A4 U

-

g* d

[] *

q. H9

%+< d

#ee qM

&

.

- -] 1

+ P [T O*

E P % # & , %

FL $

2

*

'4

nO

.H#I J )* + - +L*

400

ppm

& , -. < + +4]

J

; +<

* -4G 1

.

]

8

-QI

E P % # 'G

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

8M.

& #ee

A4U ' -] ]

< e

Table 8. The main effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on jejunum morphology of Japanese quail

]

9

-QI

E P % # J \L*

& ,

+4] .H#I K'LM* N O

& , -. < +

8M.

& #ee

A4U ' -] ]

< e

Table 9. The interaction effects of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on wheat-based diets on jejunum morphology of Japanese quail

Wheat Particle size (mm) ×

Enzyme level (ppm) Villus height (µ m) Crypt depth (µ m)

2 × 0 450abc 70bc 3 × 0 366.25bc 68.75bcd 3.5 × 0 318.75c 87.50a 2 × 200 558.75a 63.75bcd 3× 200 432.50abc 72.50ab 3.5 × 200 406.25bc 62.50 bcd 2× 400 567.50a 53.75d 3× 400 480ab 55cd 3. 5× 400 402.50bc 60bcd SEM 0.631 0.312 P-value 0.001 0.001 a-c

Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (P<0.05).

Main effects Villus height (µ m) Crypt depth (µ m) Enzyme level (ppm) 0 373.04b 77.29a 200 465.63a 65.83b 400 479.79a 57.91c SEM 0.600 0.259 P-value 0.001 0.001

Wheat particle size (mm)

2 79 a . 516 62.91b 3 426.67b 66.87b 3.5 375c 71.25a SEM 0.741 0.214 P-value 0.001 0.001 a-c

Fig. 1. Jejunum cross-section (×10 magnification) obtained from 35-day-old broiler chicks. Left image related to treatmentof wheat particle size (2 mm in diameter) and enzyme supplementation at 400 ppm and right image related to treatment with 3.5 mm wheat particle size without enzyme supplementation. 1: villus height (µ m) and

2: crypt depth (µ m)

J)

1

-l1

.

+

&D

1

4

-

1 %

4

35

,%

ƒ H & #ee qM %

#

.

x

10

.

l1

.

+

- j +* ˆU 8

14

B

E P % # & ,

2

*

4'

+L*

J )*

H#I

.

400

ppm

l1

.

+

8

8

j +*

1

4

B

& ,

% #

E P

5

/

3

*

4'

+L*

2

J )*

H#I

.

)

1

:

d

%+<

2

:

„ (

8x.+

(+L* +)4*

3 $DE

F,

.p | G

4B

1394

.

+L -. ] +4Qy1

+

# Vb V -! V +9 $ +)' ( + a^Ha -# ,

8

4

< . < e A4U '

+)4* 84g ]

.

2

-* #

5"#

. ]+4

.k

67

-69

.

p 4* $.E E ) $. .+

M)4# $.w

.w

$

.&

+*

1381

+V4] -V CV41 4 L#I 2 H9 .H#I nO $

I J ( +Q .

, 5L -g 1 +)' ( $ + € ?4T L* J ^ e+# \*

+ & ,

-] ]

+V# LV ,

.

& V'(

$2 +. % "

33

)

3

(

:

421

-431

.

C'*

& % 4 $.& +c % $. 2 , %

$.

.Y !'b

1389

.

V +)4* % VL49

VB

V!1 .HV#I LT * C. 2 H9 +4Qy1

+V

-] ] +)' (

] L ,

4

+

.

X V * % " }. +< $2 +. * & '( +5 A4* U .+F?9 a

2 + 1 5"# g4ad

.2 +. $‰+ $

.& 1 )'*

$

* b

%

.

1383

.& , -./01 A. #

; .

.2 + 1 $ E "L#

Abdollahi M. R., Ravindran V., Wester T. J., Ravindran G. and Thomas D. V. 2011. Influence of feed form and conditioning temperature on performance, apparent metabolisable energy and ileal digestibility of starch and nitrogen in broiler starters fed wheat-based diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 168: 88-99. Allen G. M., Bedford M. R. and McCracken K. J. 1996. Effect of rate of wheat inclusion and enzyme

supplementation on diet metabolisability and broiler performance. British Poultry Science, 37: S44-S45. Amerah A. M., Ravindran V., Lentle R. G. and Thomas D. G. 2007. Feed particle size: implications on the

digestion and performance of poultry. Poultry Science, 63: 439-455.

Annison G. and Choct M. 1991. Anti-nutritive activities of creals non-starch polysaccharides in broiler diets and strategies minimizing their effects. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 47: 232-242.

Banfield M. J., Kwakkel R. P. and Forbes J. M. 2002. Effects of wheat structure and viscosity on coccidiosis in broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 98: 37-48.

Bedford M. R. 2002. The role of carbohydrases in feedstuff digestion. In Poultry feedstuffs, (McNab, J.M. and Boorman, K.N. editors). CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 319-336.

Bedford M. R. and Schulze H. 1998. Exogenous enzymes for pigs and poultry. Nutrition Research Reviews, 11: 91-114.

1

Brenes A., Guenter W., Marquardt R. and Rotter B. A. 1993. Effect of B-glucanase- pentosanase enzyme supplementation on the performance of chickens and laying hens feed wheat, barley, naked oats and rye diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 73: 941-951.

Brenes A., Smith M., Guenter W. and Marquardt R. R. 1993. Effect of enzyme supplementation on the performance and digestive tract size of broiler chickens fed wheat- and barley-based diets. Poultry Science, 72: 1731-1739.

Classen H. l. and Bedford M. R. 1991. The use of enzymes to improve the nutritivevalue of poultry feed. In recent advances in animal nutrition. eds.W. Haresign and D. J. A. Cole). Butterworth, London, pp. 79-102.

Deschepper K., Lippens M., Huyghebaert G. and Molly K. 2003. The effect of aromabiotic and GALI D’OR on technical performances and intestinal morphology of broilers. In: Proccedings of 14th. European Symposium on Poultry Nutrition. August Lillehammer. Norway. P. 189.

Dusel G., Kluge H. and Jeroch H. 1998. Xylanase supplementation of wheat–based rations for broilers: Influence of wheat characteristics. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 7: 119-131.

Esteve-Garcia E., Brufau J., Perez-Vendrell A., Miquel A. and Duven K. 1997. Bioefficacy of enzyme preparations containing β-glucanase and xylanase activities in broiler diets based on barley or wheat, in combination with flavomycin. Poultry Science, 76: 1728-1737.

Gabrie I., Mallet S., Leconte M., Travel A. and Lalles J. 2007. Effects of whole wheat feeding on the development of the digestive tract of broiler chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 142: 144-162.

Gonzalez-Alvarado J. M., Jiménez-Moreno E., Valencia D. G., Lazaro R. and Mateos G. G. 2008. Effects of fiber source and heat processing of the cereal on the development and pH of the gastrointestinal tract of broilers fed diets based on corn or rice. Poultry Science, 87: 1779-1795.

Goodband R. D., Tokach M. D. and Nelssen J. L. 2002. The effects of diet particle size on animal performance. MF-2050 Feed Manufacturing, Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, p. 6.

Gous R. M. and Iji P. A. 2001. Evaluating the route of administration of an exogenous microbial enzyme for broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Reserch, 10: 150-153.

Gutiriez del Alamo A., Vetstegen M. W. A., Pen Hartog L. A., Perez de Ayala P. and Villamide M. J. 2008. Effect of wheat cultivar and enzyme addition to broiler chicken diets on nutrient digestibility, performance, apparent metabolisable energy content. Poultry Science, 87: 759-769.

Hakansson J., Eriksson S. and Svensson S. A. 1978. The influence of feed energy level on feed consumption, growth and development of different organs of chicks. Reprort No. 57. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agriculture. Science. Pp. 1-54.

Iji P. A., Saki A. A. and Tivey D. R. 2001a. Intestinal development and body growth of broiler chicks on diets supplemented with non-starch polysaccharides. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 89: 175-188. Iji P. A., Saki A. A. and Tivey D. R. 2001b. Intestinal structure and function of broiler chickens on diets

supplemented with a mannan oligosaccharide. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81: 1192-1186.

Jaroni D., Scheideler S. E., Beck M. M. and Wyatt C. 1999. The effect of dietary wheat middlings and enzyme supplementation II: Apparent nutrient digestibility, digestive tract size, gut viscosity, and gut morphology in two strains of leghorn hens. Poultry Science, 78: 1664-1674.

Kaur S., Mandal A. B., Singh K. B. and Kadam M. M. 2007. The response of Japanese quails (heavy body weight line) to dietary energy levels and graded essential amino acid levels on growth performance and immuno-competence. Livestock Science, 117: 255-260.

Koch K. 1996. Hammermills and rollermills. MF-2048 Feed Manufacturing, Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, p. 8.

Lentle R. G., Ravindran V., Ravindran G. and Thomas D. V. 2006. Influence of feed particle size on the efficiency of broiler chickens fed wheat based diets. Journal of Poultry Science, 43: 135-142.

Mathlouthi N., Saulnier L., Quemener B. and Larbier M. 2002. Xylanase, beta-glucanase, and other side enzymatic activities have greater effects on the viscosity of several feedstuffs than xylanase and beta -glucanase used alone or in combination. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistery, 50: 5121-5127. Mathlouti N., Mohamed M. A. and Larbier M. 2003. Effect of enzyme preparation containing zylanase and

β-glucanase on performance of laying hens fed wheat/barley or maiz/soybean meal-based diets. British Poultry Science, 44: 60-66.

McNab J. M and Boorman K. N. 2002. Poultry feedstuffs. CABI Publishing.

Mohammed A. H. 1995. Barley varieties, enzyme supplementation, and broiler performance. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 4: 230-234.

Montagne L., Pluske J. and Hampson D. 2003. A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young non-ruminant animals. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 108: 95-117.

Nadeem M. A., Anjum M. I., Khan A. G. and Azim A. 2005. Effect of dietary supplementing of non-starch polysaccharide degrading enzymes on growth performance of broiler chicks. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 25(4): 183-188.

Petterson D. and Aman P. 1989. Enzyme supplementation of a poultry diet containing rye and wheat. Britsih Journal of Nutrition, 62: 139-149.

Ravindran V., Selle P. and Bryden W. 1999. Effect of phytase supplementation individually and in combination with glycanase on nutritive value of wheat and barley. Poultry Science, 78: 1588-1595.

Rubio L. A., Brenes A. and Castano M. 1990. The utilization of raw and autocalved faba beans (Vicia faba L., var. minor) and faba bean fractios in diets for growing broiler chickens. Britsih Journal of Nutrition, 63: 419-433.

Santos J. A. A., Ferket P. R., Grimes J. L. and Edens F. W. 2004. Dietary pentosanase supplementation of diets containing different qualities of wheat on growth performance and metabolizable energy of turkey poults. International Journal of Poultry Science, 3: 33-45.

Sayyazadeh H., Rahimi G. and Rezaei M. 2006. Influence of enzyme broiler supplementation of maize, wheat and barley-based diets on the performance of chickens. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 9(4): 616-621.

Selle P. H., Ravidran V., Ravidran G., Pittolo P. H. and Bryden W. L. 2003. Effects of nutrient specifications and xylanase plus phytase supplementation of wheat-based diets on growth performance and carcass traits of broilers. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 16: 1501-1509.

Serranom M. P., Frikha M., Corchero J. and Mateos G. G. 2013. Influence of feed form and source of soybean meal on growth performance, nutrient retention, and digestive organ size of broilers. Britsih Journal of Nutrition, 92: 693-708.

Sieo C. C., Abdullah N., Tan W. S. and Ho Y. W. 2005. Influence of beta-glucanase-producing Lactobacillus strains on intestinal characteristics and feed passage rate of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 84: 734-741.

Silva S. S. P. and Smithard R. R. 2002. Effect of enzyme supplementation of a rye-based diet on xylanase activity in the small intestine of broilers, on intestinal crypt cell proliferation and on nutrient digestibility and growth performance of the birds. British Poultry Science, 43: 274-282.

Svihus B. and Hetland H. 2001. Ileal starch digestibility in growing broiler chickens fed on wheat-based diets improved by mash feeding, dilution with cellulose or whole wheat inclusion. British Poultry Science, 42: 633-637.

Svihus B., Hetland H., Choct M. and Sundby F. 2002. Passage rate through the anterior digestive tract of broiler chickens fed on diets with ground and whole wheat. British Poultry Science, 43: 662-668.

Thomas D. V., Ravindran V. and Thomas D. G. 2005. Performance, digestive tract measurements and gut morphology in broiler chickens fed diets containing maize, wheat or sorghum. Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium, 17: 61-62.

Viveros A., Brenes A., Pizzaro M. and Castano M. 1994. Effect of enzyme supplementation of a diet based on barley, an autoclave treatment, on apparent digestibility, growth performance and gut morphology of broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 48: 237-251.

Wang Z. R., Qiao S. Y., Lu W. Q. and Li D. F. 2005. Effects of enzyme supplementation on performance, nutrient digestibility, gastrointestinal morphology, and volatile fatty acid profiles in the hindgut of broilers fed wheatbased diets. Poultry Science, 84: 875-881.

Weiser M. M. 1973. Intestinal epithelial cell surface membrane glycoprotein synthesis. I: An indicator of cellular differentiation. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 248: 2536-2541.

Wu Y. B., Ravindran V., Thomas D. G., Birtles M. J. and Hendriks W. H. 2004. The Influence of method of whole wheat inclusion and xylanase supplementation on performance, apparent metabolisable energy, digestive tract measurements and gut morphology of broilers. British Poultry Science, 45:385-394. Yasar S. 2003. Performance, gut size and ileal digesta viscosity of broiler chickens fed with a whole wheat

added diet and the diets with different wheat particle sizes. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2: 75-82.

Yu B., Hsu J. C. and Chiou P. W. S. 1998. Effects of β–glucanase supplementation of barley diets on growth performance of broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 70: 353-361.

Zhu X. Y., Zhong T., Pandya Y. and Joerger R. D. 2002. 16S rRNA-based analysis of microbiota from the cecum of broiler chickens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68: 124-137.

Vol. 10, No. 1, 2021 (65-79)

Research paper

Effect of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme

supplement on performance, carcass traits, and small intestine

morphology of Japanese quail

S. Mashahiri

1

, H. Darmani Kuhi

2*

1. MSc Student of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2. Associate Professor, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

(Received: 29-04-2020 – Accepted: 18-08-2020)

Abstract

This experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of wheat particle size and different levels of enzyme on performance, carcass traits, and small intestine morphology of Japanese quails. A 3 × 3 factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design was used in nine experimental treatments replicated four times with 20 birds per replicate. The investigated factors were three wheat grain particle sizes (2, 3, and 3.5 mm) and three levels of dietary enzyme supplement (0, 200, and 400 ppm). The measured traits included: performance, carcass traits, and small intestine morphology. The results showed that the dietary enzyme significantly reduced feed intake and feed conversion ratio (P<0.01). The effect of wheat particle size on feed intake, body weight, and feed conversion ratio were also significant (P<0.01). The interaction effect of wheat particle size and enzyme affected significantly feed intake and feed conversion ratio through the experimental period from 7-35 days of age (P<0.01). Relative weights of proventriculus, gizzard, and liver were significantly reduced by enzyme supplementation (P<0.05). The relative weight of the breast significantly increased by dietary enzyme addition (P<0.01). Enzyme supplementation also significantly increased the villi length of the jejunum (P<0.01). In conclusion, dietary inclusion of wheat grain at 2 mm diameter particle size supplemented by 400 ppm enzyme is recommended.

Keywords: Enzyme, Particle size, Japanese quails, Intestine morphology