Were assessed the effect of five traditional diets backyard turkeys in confinement. The experiment lasted 36 weeks, the turkeys were randomized to one of five diets: kitchen waste + fresh forage (T1), kitchen waste (T2), commercial feed + fresh forage (T3), cracked corn + fresh forage (T4) and commercial feed (T5). Food and water were provided ad libitum. Each treatment with birds of both sexes had two repetitions with four birds and each bird was considered as an experimental unit. Were evaluated daily weight gain, total weight gain, final live weight, total length peak-tail, monthly gain peak-tail, total length, total length of wings, monthly gain wings length, and feed cost. The data were analyzed in a completely randomized arrangement with adjusted means and Tukey’s mean comparison, then an evaluation of treatment groups by analyzing clusters for semi quantitative data. The biggest daily gain, total weight gain and final live weight was obtained with treatment T3, while the highest increase in peak-length tail and wings was obtained with treatment T1 (P < 0.05). T2 treatment turned out to be most economical, but the treatment that best scores obtained was T1. We conclude that the use of kitchen waste + fresh forage is a feasible strategy to feed slow-growing turkeys.
The turkey breeding and production slow-growing native or Creole, in Mexico, is a good choice for families with limited resources farmers obtain animal protein of high quality, but is not considered a major zootechnical activity [
The research was conducted in the Experimental Field of the Universidad del Mar (UMAR), in Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, Mexico. Fifty turkeys of bronze phenotype, mixed, slow growing and three months old, were acquired with backyard producers in rural communities in the region. Poults were selected with the phenotype of their parents, who were always bronze color and delayed corporal development. Arriving turkeys in the experimental field, had a week of adaptation, and then were randomized to start the experiment. They were housed in cages of 9 m2, with cement floor and walls mesh. The cages were equipped with two trays of initiation, two plastic sprues for 3 L, a feeding hopper, and hangers’ stainless steel tubes each. They were given vaccines for fowl cholera, fowl pox, avian influenza and Newcastle, according to the description of most common diseases in turkeys in the area [
In each experimental treatment consisted of two cages with 5 turkeys, each turkey was considered an experimental unit. The feeding system for all experimental units was to provide one of the treatments: T1 = kitchen waste + fresh forage, T2 = kitchen waste, T3 = commercial feed for turkeys + fresh forage, T4 = cracked corn + fresh forage, and T5 = commercial feed for turkeys, which served as control (
Feed and water were offered ad libitum. Every day was weighed the feed offered and refused, which was obtained by difference daily intake, weekly turkeys were weighed with an electronic scale platform Torrey® trademark EQB1007/200 model, with capacity of 50 kg and 200 g precision, measurements were made of head-tail and wingspan with a flexible tape Urrea® trademark with length of 100 cm, to estimate the weekly weight gain, which was obtained by weight difference obtained the previous week, likewise was estimated weekly increase in peak-tail length and wingspan.
The diet was based on waste of kitchen variety of ingredients contained in good state of preservation, and to determine their frequency 60 samples were taken randomly, two each week, and watch the content of the samples to determine the percentage of each ingredient,
The proximal analyses of the treatments were performed in the laboratory of food using standardized methods [
*The composition which includes fresh forage as a source of variation was estimated at a ratio of 4:1 food-forage. All results are expressed as percentages. T1 = kitchen waste + fresh forage; T2 = kitchen waste; T3 = commercial feed for turkeys + fresh forage; T4 = cracked corn + fresh forage; and T5 = commercial feed for turkeys.
1Proximal analysis prepared with 60 random samples of kitchen waste as feed offered.
To estimate power cost was considered the price per kilogram of food trade in the region which was $0.55 USD, the selling price of cracked corn was $0.60 USD. To estimate the cost of kitchen waste weekly was considered the price of bagging to $0.37 USD. It also included a cost for labor for cutting and harvesting of fresh forage based on 60 minutes of work as time dedicated daily to get fresh forage ($0.48 USD) and was related with the minimum daily wage was paid in region ($3.87 USD/day). Cost calculations were estimated in US dollars, with an exchange rate of $12.83 pesos per US dollar. The method used for determining the cost of feed was adjusted to that used by Jerez et al. [
We conducted a completely randomized design with 5 treatments and 10 repetitions, each treatment had two cages containing five birds, each individually turkey was considered as experimental unit. The results were evaluated using the program statistical SAS [
T1 = kitchen waste + fresh forage; T2 = kitchen waste; T3 = commercial feed for turkeys + fresh forage; T4 = cracked corn + fresh forage; and T5 = commercial feed for turkeys; a,b,cColumns with different letter are different (P < 0.05).
Respect to daily weight gain, treatment of commercial food + fresh forage (T3) had the best performance with average increase production more than 9 g/d compared to the gain of treatments with less weight gain, who were the turkeys with cracked corn + fresh forage (T4) and kitchen waste (T2), these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The total weight gain, T3 treatment had a weight of 3000 g more than T4 treatment and this difference was statistically (P < 0.05). For the variable final live weight, the best treatments were comercial feed + fresh forage (T3) and kitchen waste + fresh forage (T1), both treatments were significantly different (P < 0.05) than those of turkeys fed cracked corn forage + fresh (T4).
Two morphometric variables for the selection of broodstock, are measures of the total peak-tail length and wingspan, which together give an idea of the overall size of the turkey. These variables are presented in
The accumulated gain performance of that showed different treatments during the experiment shown in
It seems evident that the addition of fresh forage to the diet helps improve growth performance of the slowgrowing turkeys. This is observed by the behavior that had the commercial food + fresh forage (T3) that was what propitiated the greatest cumulative weight gain. Similar effect was in the kitchen waste + fresh forage (T1), which produced the cumulative weight gain, was even higher than that obtained by the commercial feed (T5). There is a favorable effect on weight gain in the presence of forage in the diet, both the commercial feed for turkeys as kitchen waste, improved their growth performance to add it. In the case of cracked corn, it is clear that its combination with fresh forage, only met the
T1 = kitchen waste + fresh forage; T2 = kitchen waste; T3 = commercial feed for turkeys + fresh forage; T4 = cracked corn + fresh forage; and T5 = commercial feed for turkeys; a,b,cColumns with different letter are different (P < 0.05).
needs of maintenance from the 20th week of the experiment, inferring that this feeding strategy yields the maximum weight at 32 weeks of age.
Considering that commercial feed for turkeys is formulated according to their nutritional needs, the best growth performance may possibly be related to the slowgrowing turkeys have different nutritional needs and require the presence of green forage to exploit the ability of feeding with forage have slow growing turkeys, as in wild turkeys [
Similar to the present results, reported in a study by adding different types of fodder to poultry diets, where he found highly significant differences in weight gain [
In a study of the anatomy and physiology of birds, was concluded that the feeding strategy of turkeys are omnivorous, and under natural conditions, not fed only grains [
There is controversy about the efficiency with poultry in the use of foods rich in fiber [
In this study, treatment of kitchen waste + fresh forage (T1), had a content of 18.9% fiber, the highest value compared to the other treatments (
This favorable response in the growth of the poultry and egg hatchability, caused by the addition of fresh forage, has been called “grass factor” [
Respect to total feed cost of the experiment and the cost to produce one kilogram of live weight, the results are presented in
More costly treatments were those involving comercial feed without forage (T5), or fresh forage (T3), while less expensive treatments were those involving kitchen waste with and without forage (T1 and T2). This confirms what was reported by Cuca et al. [
To evaluate the performance of the experimental treatments with respect to all variables, we used a numerical classification to produce an analysis of clusters for semi quantitative data groups.
Conglomerates analysis indicated that the best treatment considering all the variables analyzed in this study, was kitchen waste + fresh forage (T1), the worst performer was treatment of cracked corn + fresh forage (T4) and the other treatments were in the regular range. These results may be surprising, however one must consider that the matrix considers not only productive responses, also evaluates other as growth and production cost. Under this perspective, it is feasible to produce slow-growing turkeys with kitchen waste + fresh forage. This feeding strategy not get the maximum weight reached by the strategy that includes balanced feed for turkeys + fresh forage, but is competitive enough, from the points of view of production, weight gain and economic analysis. The qualification facilitates the assessment of the type of management that can be given to poultry in backyard
1Calculated in US dollars with an exchange rate of $12.83 Mexican pesos.
T1 = kitchen waste + fresh forage; T2 = kitchen waste; T3 = commercial feed for turkeys + fresh forage; T4 = cracked corn + fresh forage; and T5 = commercial feed for turkeys; 1We considered the probability of the average of Tukey’s comparison: A = 3, AB = 2, B = 1; 2We considered the range of 1 to 100 = 3, 101 to 200 = 2, 201 to 300 = 1; 3The range of 1 to 20 = 3, 21 to 40 = 2, 41 to 60 = 1; 4For the rating was considered the interval 9 - 14 = Poor, 15 - 20 = Fair, 21 - 27 = Good.
conditions. Therefore, commercial food will provide better final live weight, but the production cost is high, or, to use kitchen waste, weight gain will be lower, but the costs will be minimized. This type of analysis can be useful to dimensioning the actual feasibility of the treatments.
Considering all the results obtained, we can deduce that it is possible to make use of fresh forage as a viable source of feed for slow-growing turkeys reared in intensive conditions, and consider using kitchen waste to achieve nutritional cover the needs of these birds. Showed a good performance that can further reduce production costs if the inclusion of fresh forage is provided by family labor force which is always available and does not generate any extra cost, or whether by grazing poultry, handling common in traditional poultry production systems [
It is not recommended that kitchen waste are the only food source in chicks, because they will grow more slowly than with other nutritional strategy, Camacho-Escobar et al. [
However, a practical problem when using kitchen waste as food for slow-growing turkeys is in how easily it decomposes, causing odors and flies. It has been recommended to apply heat treatment of kitchen waste to be microbiologically safe as an ingredient in animal feed; it is subjected in to a sterilization process as boiling or cooking in steam at a temperature of 100 C, thereby avoiding disease transmission [
Feeding slow-growing turkeys with kitchen waste + fresh forage, it is feasible to obtain adequate productive results as long as kitchen waste be sufficient to cover the nutritional needs of turkeys and forage not generate additional costs labor, which can be solved with family labor force or with grazing.
It is advantageous to use fresh grass as a food supplement in feeding strategies where only commercial feed is used, which implies that it is possible to propose semi stabled production systems for slow-growing turkeys, which have access to commercial food, but also to grazing. Is worth mentioning that exist indications that suggest the importance of fresh forage on productive performance in turkey slow-growing, but more research is needed on the subject. However, studies are needed to evaluate the digestibility that have slow-growing turkeys consuming different forages, and the interaction they may have with different types of diets, to know and better exploiting their synergistic effect in the diet.