USE OF SUNFLOWER MEAL IN FEED MIXTURES FOR LAYING HENS

5erman V .. N. Mas. V. Melenjuk. F. Dumanovski. Z. Mikulec: Useo/Sunflower Meal ill Feed Mixtures/or L(Iyillg Hens. Acta vet. Bmo 1997.66: 219-227. The nutritional effects of using decorticated sunflower meal (44 % protein) as the protein supplement in the laying hens feed mixture on egg production were investigated. The trial was performed on 75 laying hens (line hybrid Issa brown) during the first 150 days of lay. The hens were divided in five groups: control. and four experimental groups (15 hens in each). The control group (C) was fed on a commercial complete feed mixture (com-soybean meal and fish meal). The experimental feed mixtures contained sunflower meal (Ell. sunflower meal with correction of energy value by addition of sunflower oil (E,l. sunflower meal with correction of lysine (E,l and sunflower meal with con'ection of energy vaiue and lysine (E4). • The highest egg production was found in groups E3 and E4. The lowest consumption offeed was established in group E I • while the highest consumption was found in groups E3 and C. The highest increase in body mass was achieved in group E4. The deficiency of lysine in sunflower meal (Ell contributed to lower body mass, feed consumption and egg mass. Feed mixtures containing sunflower meal as the protein supplement (all experimental grouPS) had no influence on the health or mortality of laying hens. The results of this experiment indicate the possibility of a successfull use of sunflower meal in the nutrition of laying hens if sunflower meal is balanced with lysine and energy value. Laying hellS, sunfloll'er meal, lysine, energy balance Depending on local market, decorticated sunflower meal. obtained as a by-product in the sunflower seed oil production. might be a cheaper source of protein for poultry production than soybean meal and fish meal. However, low energy value and amino acid deficiency make the wider use of this feedstuff questionable. Use of sunflower meal in feed mixtures in the production of laying hens has been the subject of numerous researches. but the results of this research differ greatly. Ramirez et al. (1974) found that feed mixtures with 50 and 100 % sunflower meal, as the only source of protein, increased feed consumption and decreased the laying capacity of Leghorn hens. S u Ij 0 t i et al. (1986) concluded that substitution of fish meal with a mixture of soy and sunflower meal (25, 50 and 100 %) reduces egg production. In research reported by Kashani and Carlson (1988). 19 and 38 % sunflower meal in the feed mixture decreased the body weight of 19-week-old pullets and delayed the onset of egg laying compared to control pullets fed on commercial feed mixture. Deaton et al. (1979) observed that substituting soybean meal with sunflower meal increased the mass of the muscular gizzard but had no effect on change in body mass, egg production, egg mass, shell-breaking strength or mortality. S okarov s ki et al. (1988) found that substituting soybean meal with sunflower meal had no negative effects on laying capacity. although it increased feed consumption per egg and decreased egg mass. According to Vieira et al. (1992) substitution of soybean meal with sunflower meal (13-45 %) in feed mixtures had no effect on laying capacity. egg mass, body mass and mortality of Issa brown hens. Addition oflysine in feed mixture (0.07-0.22 %) had a beneficial effect only on body mass gain. Investigating the potential for protein phase-feeding of laying hens, N athanae 1 and Sell (1980) found


•
The highest egg production was found in groups E3 and E 4 .The lowest consumption offeed was established in group E I • while the highest consumption was found in groups E3 and C. The highest increase in body mass was achieved in group E 4 .The deficiency of lysine in sunflower meal (Ell contributed to lower body mass, feed consumption and egg mass.Feed mixtures containing sunflower meal as the protein supplement (all experimental grouPS) had no influence on the health or mortality of laying hens.
The results of this experiment indicate the possibility of a successfull use of sunflower meal in the nutrition of laying hens if sunflower meal is balanced with lysine and energy value.

Laying hellS, sunfloll'er meal, lysine, energy balance
Depending on local market, decorticated sunflower meal.obtained as a by-product in the sunflower seed oil production.might be a cheaper source of protein for poultry production than soybean meal and fish meal.However, low energy value and amino acid deficiency make the wider use of this feedstuff questionable.
Use of sunflower meal in feed mixtures in the production of laying hens has been the subject of numerous researches.but the results of this research differ greatly.Ramirez et al. (1974) found that feed mixtures with 50 and 100 % sunflower meal, as the only source of protein, increased feed consumption and decreased the laying capacity of Leghorn hens.S u Ij 0 t i et al. (1986) concluded that substitution of fish meal with a mixture of soy and sunflower meal (25, 50 and 100 %) reduces egg production.In research reported by Kashani and Carlson (1988).19 and 38 % sunflower meal in the feed mixture decreased the body weight of 19-week-old pullets and delayed the onset of egg laying compared to control pullets fed on commercial feed mixture.Deaton et al. (1979) observed that substituting soybean meal with sunflower meal increased the mass of the muscular gizzard but had no effect on change in body mass, egg production, egg mass, shell-breaking strength or mortality.S okarov s ki et al. (1988) found that substituting soybean meal with sunflower meal had no negative effects on laying capacity.although it increased feed consumption per egg and decreased egg mass.According to Vieira et al. (1992) substitution of soybean meal with sunflower meal (13-45 %) in feed mixtures had no effect on laying capacity.egg mass, body mass and mortality of Issa brown hens.Addition oflysine in feed mixture (0.07-0.22 %) had a beneficial effect only on body mass gain.Investigating the potential for protein phase-feeding of laying hens, N athanae 1 and Sell (1980) found that daily intakes of 700 mg of lysine were required for optimum performance (egg production, egg mass).Michel and Sunde (1985) evaluated sunflower meal as a replacement for soybean meal in pullet developer diets.In their experiment two sunflower meals (28 and 34 % protein) with or without lysine completely replaced soybean meal.The addition of lysine to either of the two sunflower meals failed to improve growth and feed efficiency.When birds were housed in cages, the diets utilising 28 % protein meal produced pullets smaller and less efficient than did the other diets.This effect was not observed when the floor management system was used.Cue a et al. (1973) found that in formulating rations containing sunflower meal for hens, lysine is the most limiting amino acid.Therefore in laying hen diets containing at least 5 % sunflower meal, synthetic lysine must be used to provide the hen's daily requirements.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of sunflower meal as dietary protein source on laying hens (Issa brown) production performances (laying capacity, egg mass, feed consumption, body mass).Standard protein components (soybean and fish meal) were substituted by decorticated sunflower meal (44 % protein).Due to high portion of decorticated sunflower meal, necessary to obtain the desired protein level in the mixture, the lysine content and energy value of the experimental mixtures were lower than those of the commercial one.Therefore, the amino acid deficiency of sunflower meal was overcome by supplementing lysine (two experimental groups) and the energy deficiency was made up (two experimental groups) by addition of sunflower oil to the diet.

Animals and diets
A total of 75 laying hens of the line hybrid Issa brown were divided into five groups (control and four experimental gro\!PS with 15 hens in each).Twenty-two-week-old laying hens were kept in cages (one hen to a cage) during the first five months of lay (150 days).The daily light and microclimatic conditions (temperature.air humidity and concentration of NH3 and CO 2 ) met the technological and zoohygienic requirements for this line throughout the investigation.The health state ofthe hens was checked daily.All hens were included in the regular vaccination programme for laying hens of the line hybrid Issa brown.IV; vltamm E, 4,000 mg; vltamm K 3 , 400 mg; B I , 400 mg; Bo, 1,000 mg; B..6' 400 mg; B\Z 2,400 mcg; vltamm C, 2,000 mg; niacin, 6,000 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 1.500 mg; choline chloride, ':15,000 mg; fo IC acid, 80 mg; Fe, 6,000 mg; Cu, 600 mg; Mn. 16,000 mg; J, 150 mg; Zn, 10,000 mg; Co, 20 mg; Se, 20 mg; methionine, 40,000 mg; BHA Feed and water were provided ad libitum.Composition of feed mixtures is given in Table 1.The control group (C) was fed a commercial complete feed mixture, whereas the mixtures for the experimental groups contained sunflower meal (44 % crude protein.3.36 % crude fat, 8.42 % crude fibre, 7370 kJ MElkg) as protein supplement.The experimental group EI received a feed mixture containing sunflower meal (without amino-acid and energy correction), E2 sunflower meal with correction of energy value by addition of sunflower oil, E3 sunflower meal with correction of amino-acid composition by addition of lysine, and E4 sunflower meal with correction of both energy value and amino-acid composition.
Nutritive value and chemical composition of the control and experimental diets are given in Table 2.The effect of sunflower meal in feed mixtures on laying capacity, egg mass, feed consumption, body mass and health of hens were observed.
Eggs were collected and weighed daily, with laying capacity being recorded for each month.
The feed consumption of each group was measured monthly, with results averaged per group, per hen and per egg.
Body mass was checked on the first day of the trial and subsequently every 30 days (5 measurements during the course of the trial) by individual weighing of all hens.
All results were subjected to statistical analysis (S pa tz 1997).The mean values of measured indices of each experimental group were compared with corresponding values of the control group; the significance of differences was assessed by Student's t-test (P<0.05).

Feeding variables
Average final body mass and average body mass gain (Table 3) show that the best results in body mass gain (expressed in percentage as related to control group), were obtained in experimental group E4 (114.81 %).Hens in experimental groups E2 and E3 had approximately the same body mass gain as the control group (102.88 and 103.7 %), while the lowest gain was recorded in experimental group E J (82.30 %).These values are shown in Fig. 1.
The highest average total feed consumption (Table 4) per group was recorded in experimental group E3 (258.30kg).Average total feed consumption in group E4 (249.00 kg) was similar to that of the control group (249.60 kg).The smallest average total feed consumption was observed in groups EI (238.80 kg) and E2 (240.60 kg).
Feed consumption per egg in groups EI (118.16 g), E4 (121.46 g) and E2 (121.91 g) was smaller than in the control group (124.49g), while the highest value was found in group E3 (125.75 g).
Differences between control and experimental groups presented in Tables 3 and 4 were not statistically significant (P>O.05).Egg production A verage number of eggs per hen (Table 5) and average laying capacity (Table 6) during the trial were about the same in experimental groups E3 (average number of eggs 136.93; laying capacity 91.74%) and E4 (136.67; 91.48%).Control (C) and EI groups produced a similar number of eggs (133.67 and 134.73) and had a similar laying capacity (89.44% and 90.35 %), while the poorest values were found in group E2 (131.57;88.01%).The differences between control and experimental groups were statistically non-significant (P>0.05).
Average egg mass (Table 7) in experimental groups E4 (64.36 g), E2 (64.13 g) and E3 (63.82 g) was significantly higher (P<0.05)than in the control group (61.65 g).A verage egg mass in experimental group E 1 was about the same (61.43g) as the control group.Average total egg production per hen (number of eggs, laying capacity, egg mass) and per group (number of eggs and total mass of eggs) during the 150 days of trial is presented in Table 8.

Discussion
Results related to average body mass and to average body mass gain (Table 3) show that the differences between control and experimental groups were statistically non-significant (P>0.05).The highest body mass gain was found in experimental group E4 (index 114.81 %), fed on sunflower meal with the addition oflysine and energy.Hens fed on energy-balanced Results related to body mass gain are in complete accordance with the published data (Aleandri and Olivetti 1978;Kwayjan et al. 1983;Karunajeewa et al. 1989).Similar results were obtained in a number of experiments carried out on chicks (Valdi vie et al. 1976(Valdi vie et al. , 1977;;Valdivie and Hernandez 1980;Ologhobo 1991;Serman et al. 1996).
A verage total feed consumption of the group fed on sunflower meal with added lysine and energy (249.00kg) was about the same as in the control group (249.60 kg) -Table 4. Experimental groups fed on sunflower meal without any correction (E l ) or with only energy correction (E 2 ) had an average feed consumption of 4.3 % and 3.6 % less than the control group.Hens fed on sunflower meal with the addition of lysine (E 3 ) consumed 3.5 % more feed than the control group.Feed consumption per egg was highest in this group also.The lowest feed consumption was recorded in the group of hens fed on sunflower meal without corrections (E l ).Similar results related to feed consumption was found by Karunajeew a et al. (1987) with White Leghorn hens.
All groups of hens had a similar average number of eggs (or average laying capacity), although the differences in average egg mass were statistically significant (P<0.05).Laying hens fed on sunflower meal without correction of energy and with no addition oflysine (E l ), as well as the control group, had similar average egg mass (61.43 and 61.65 g), but differences between all other experimental groups and the control group were statistically non-significant (P>0.05).These results are in accordance with similar trials made by other authors (Srichai and Balnave 1981;Karunajeewa et al. 1989).However, results of research reported by R 0 s e et al. (1972), show that the use of 50 and 100 % sunflower meal in feed mixtures significantly decreased laying capacity and egg mass.Conversely, Mirza and Sial (1993) found that the use of sunflower meal in feed mixtures for laying hens had no significant effect on production results (laying capacity, egg mass, shell quality, mortality).
During the whole duration of the experiment no sickness or death was diagnosed.

Table 1
Composition of the feed mixtures used in the trial *Premix contained: Feed .grad.e premix for hen~ pr~vided the following per kilogram: vitamin A, 2,000.000IV; vitamin D3: 3~,000

Table 2
Nutritive values and chemical composition of the feed mixtures used in the trial

Table 3
Average body mass (g) and total body mass gain of laying hens during the trial 1:0 •. -' --V-

Table 8
Average production of eggs during the trial (150 days) 102.88 %), amino acid balanced sunflower meal (E3 103.70 %) and the control group (100 %), demonstrated approximately the same body mass gain.Laying hens fed on sunflower meal without amino acid and energy correction (E l ) had a 17.7 % smaller body mass gain than the control group, and smaller than the other experimental groups.