IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlcjs/v60y2015i2id7976-cjas.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the content of crude protein and amino acids in the whole bodies of cocks and hens of Ross 308 and Cobb 500 hybrids at the end of fattening

Author

Listed:
  • E. Straková

    (Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • P. Suchý

    (Department of Animal Husbandry and Animal Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • P. Navrátil

    (Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • T. Karel

    (Department of Statistics and Probability, Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, University of Economics Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • I. Herzig

    (Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and the content of individual amino acids (AA) were determined in the bodies of Ross 308 and Cobb 500 hybrids including feathers after 40 days of fattening. Percentages for the content of individual AA were then calculated from the total sums of AA. The level of CP, irrespective of sex, was 453.16 ± 5.916 g/kg of DM for the Ross and 470.94 ± 5.404 g/kg of DM for the Cobb hybrid (P ≤ 0.05). For both hybrids, the content of CP was significantly (P ≤ 0.01) higher for cocks as opposed to hens. The AA levels in DM, irrespective of sex, were higher in the Cobb hybrid except for Glu; it was significantly higher for Asp, Ser, Ala, Lys (P ≤ 0.01), and Thr and Arg (P ≤ 0.05). The values for the majority of AA were higher for cocks than for hens in both hybrids. For the majority of essential AA, significant (P ≤ 0.01; P ≤ 0.05) differences were recorded between sexes. For non-essential AA except for Ser and Ala, significantly (P ≤ 0.01; P ≤ 0.05) higher values were found in cocks. Of the total sums of AA in DM of Ross broilers, the largest presence (here and after in %) was that of Glu (14.92), followed by Leu (8.80), Asp (8.73), Gly (8.71), Arg (7.21), Val (6.33), and Pro (6.09). The lowest contents were those of Met (2.41) and His (3.28). For the Cobb hybrid, the AA were Glu (13.90), Asp (9.12), Gly (8.48), Leu (8.43), Arg (7.48), Lys (6.44), and Pro (6.09). The AA lowest contents were those of Met (2.30) and His (3.16).

Suggested Citation

  • E. Straková & P. Suchý & P. Navrátil & T. Karel & I. Herzig, 2015. "Comparison of the content of crude protein and amino acids in the whole bodies of cocks and hens of Ross 308 and Cobb 500 hybrids at the end of fattening," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 60(2), pages 67-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:60:y:2015:i:2:id:7976-cjas
    DOI: 10.17221/7976-CJAS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/7976-CJAS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/7976-CJAS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/7976-CJAS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josef Vopálenský & Pavel Suchý & Eva Straková & František Šimek & Miroslav Macháček & Ivan Herzig, 2017. "Amino acid levels in muscle tissue of eight meat cattle breeds," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 339-346.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:60:y:2015:i:2:id:7976-cjas. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.