You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Animals
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

19 August 2025

Evaluation of Precision Feeding to Enhance Broiler Growth Performance

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
2
Complete Feed Solutions, Hornsby, NSW 2077, Australia
3
Feedworks Pty Ltd., Romsey, VIC 3434, Australia
4
Poultry Hub Australia, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
Animals2025, 15(16), 2433;https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15162433
This article belongs to the Section Poultry
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Simple Summary

Precision nutrition aims to meet birds’ nutrient requirements on a daily basis. An increase in feeding phases improves efficiency; however, the process of pelleting, transporting, and storing four or more separate diets is often impractical. Therefore, this study developed a precision nutrition program utilizing only two dietary concentrates blended on a daily basis to meet the daily energy and protein requirements of broilers using modern feeding technology. Precision nutrition treatments significantly improved the efficiency of chicken-meat production.

Abstract

The effects of precision feeding regimes on broiler performance, organ weight, nutrient utilization, carcass yield, and calculated wholesale returns were investigated over 42 days. The treatments consisted of a standard four-phase commercial diet as the control, a precision nutrition blend diet based on a daily nutrient requirement, a precision nutrition adjusted diet based on weekly bird weight, and a standard commercial blend diet. Each dietary treatment was replicated 10 times with 11 birds per replicate. A total of 440 male Ross 308 (Aviagen, Goulburn, NSW, Australia) broiler chickens were offered experimental diets from days 11 to 42 post-hatch. Dietary treatments did not affect the feed intake and weight gain over the entire study. However, a reduced weight corrected FCR (higher feed efficiency) was observed in birds fed a precision nutrition adjusted blend diet compared to those fed the control diet from days 11 to 42 (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in feed costs between treatments. Birds offered the precision nutrition adjusted diet improved AME (p = 0.002) measured from days 25 to 27 compared to the blended standard diet. Over the majority of time points, the precision nutrition adjusted diet significantly reduced the coefficient of variation in bird weight as compared to the control diet (p < 0.026).

1. Introduction

Poultry is the most consumed animal protein source in the world, and the trend is expected to continue increasing []. The world population reached 8 billion in 2022, and is likely to reach 9 billion in 2037 [], which will continue to increase pressure on the global chicken-meat industry. One way to meet this increasing demand is to improve the efficiency of chicken-meat production. Precision nutrition is a strategy to improve growth efficiency, reducing the resources needed for chicken-meat production and improving the profitability of the chicken-meat industry. The concept of precision nutrition aims to meet the birds’ daily nutrient requirement according to their growth rate. Broiler production involves constant changes in nutrient requirements as they grow rapidly, so birds may not receive sufficient nutrients if they are under-fed throughout the production cycle []. Consequently, a precision nutrition regime can reduce nutrient waste by adjusting the nutrient supply to more closely meet the daily requirement and prevent over-feeding of nutrient []. It was reported that by implementing a precision nutrition regime, the feed efficiency of broilers increased by 4.6% []. Consequently, based on this figure, the Australian poultry industry could save AUD 60 million by reducing feed production by 145,000 tons, compared with birds on a standard program of four diet phases [].
Kleyn [] indicated that blending a precise ration to meet a broiler’s daily energy and lysine requirements improved feed efficiency and reduced the coefficient of variation, as compared to a two-phase diet program. Similar results were found in pigs, where precision feeding reduced apparent digestible lysine intake by 26% without compromising growth performance compared to conventional feeding, saving USD 7.60 per pig []. In addition to reduced production cost, a similar study in pigs showed that a precision nutrition program reduced nitrogen and phosphorus excretion by 38% compared to traditional phase feeding, potentially benefiting the environment []. It is thought that by using synthetic amino acids, precision nutrition ensures the right balance of apparent digestible amino acids (e.g., lysine, methionine, threonine), reducing excess crude protein and, in turn, contributing to less nitrogen waste in manure.
Many studies have suggested that increasing the number of feeding phases makes feeding more efficient; however, pelleting, transporting, and storing four or more separate diets is often impractical [,]. Nevertheless, modern feed blending systems can automatically blend dietary components daily to achieve the desired nutrient profile. Thus, a protein dense concentrate diet can be formulated for day-old chicks, which can then be diluted by an energy dense concentrate on a daily basis to meet the nutritional needs. As this process requires only two concentrates to meet the daily needs of broilers, this program may now not be limited by the practicalities of feed transportation and storage of multiple diets.
Despite these potential benefits, there have not been many studies performed on precision nutrition strategies for broilers, as precision nutrition requires the use of equipment that is not at present commonly used in broiler sheds due to historically prohibitive cost; including feed blending and delivery systems, plus the cost of the extra silos required (two per shed vs. one per shed). Further, advanced tools including near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), are also needed to ensure the accuracy of feed formulations, but may not be affordable for non-integrated producers. Nevertheless, with the cost of technology reducing over time, this equipment is rapidly becoming more affordable for commercial use. Thus, it is timely to revisit the potential of precision nutrition regimes to improve the efficiency of chicken-meat production. To do so, as most of the current information is from studies in pigs, further study in broiler chickens is needed to confirm if precision nutrition may be an effective strategy to improve the efficiency of production.
Therefore, this study explored the development and implementation of a precision feeding program that blends two dietary components to meet daily broiler energy and protein requirements via modern feeding technology, to test the hypothesis that precision nutrition will increase the efficiency and profitability of chicken-meat production. For the first time, this includes not only blending the diets but also adjusting the diet blends fed to birds based on their bodyweight to more accurately meet their requirements.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design, Diets, and Housing

The study was approved by the University of New England’s Animal Ethics Committee (AEC20-106) and met the requirements of the Australian Code of Practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes [].
Upon arrival, day-old Ross 308 male broiler chicks from the female parent line were fed a common starter diet for the first 10 days in a temperature-controlled room. An initial room temperature of 32 ± 1 °C was maintained for the first week, which was gradually decreased to 21 ± 1 °C by the end of the third week, and maintained at this temperature until the end of the study. On day 11, birds were weighed and evenly allocated to dietary treatments based on body weight with 10 replicates of 11 birds per treatment (11 birds/0.96 m2). Birds were raised in floor pens (120 cm × 80 cm), with wood shavings as bedding material (depth = 7 cm) in a temperature-controlled room from days 11 to 42 post-hatch. A hanging feeder and three water nipples were provided to birds in each pen during the study. Birds had free access to water and feed throughout the study. The treatments consisted of (Table 1 and Table 2) (1) a standard four-phase commercial diet as a control (starter, grower, finisher and withdrawal diets); (2) a precision nutrition blend diet based on a protein “Hi Pro” and energy “Lo Pro” concentrate blended to meet the calculated daily nutrient requirement; and (3) a precision nutrition adjusted diet, based on protein “Hi Pro” and energy “Lo Pro” concentrates blended to meet the calculated daily nutrient requirement as per the precision nutrition treatment (treatment 2). Additionally, the birds offered this treatment also had their blend proportions of the protein and energy concentrates adjusted weekly based on the actual weekly bird weight data (as opposed to treatment 2, which was based on the predicted data only). (4) The fourth treatment consisted of a blended standard diet where the 4-phase commercial diet was gradually blended so that after the start of each phase, the diet was gradually replaced with the next dietary phase to avoid sudden nutrient changes. Bird weight was measured weekly as the precision nutrition adjusted treatment required this frequency to adjust the feeding schedule accordingly. Two basal diets were formulated for precision nutrition blend diets, which comprised a high-protein and low-energy concentrate, and a low-protein and high-energy concentrate. These concentrates were formulated such that the high-protein blend contained sufficient protein (i.e., standardized ileal digestible lysine) to meet the highest protein requirement during the trial (i.e., the first day) while also having a low enough energy content to meet the energy requirement at that stage. Likewise, the energy concentrate was formulated to meet the highest energy requirement over the trial (i.e., the last day) while having a low enough protein content to also meet the protein requirement at that stage. The remaining nutrients were formulated according to the breed (Ross 308 Broiler) nutrient requirements. Nutrient content of the dietary components, the daily blends offered, the calculated standardized ileal digestible lysine intake and AME intake based on the average intake of treatments is given in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. In the precision nutrition treatments, feed was provided ad libitum by giving the estimated daily feed intake (which was an accurate prediction, given we were measuring daily intake data) plus 10%. Any uneaten feed was weighed out on a daily basis if it was greater than approximately 200 g, immediately prior to the new blend being added. All the diets were based on wheat and soybean meal. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) was added in the withdrawal phase at 0.5% as an inert marker for digestibility analysis. Diets were mixed with a horizontal ribbon mixer for 15 min total (adding oil at 5 min duration). Diets were pelleted through a Palmer PP300 S/WIDE pellet press (Palmer Milling Engineering, Griffith, NSW, Australia) with a die diameter of 4.0 mm and pellet length of 0.5 mm. A ‘23 h on 1 h off’ lighting regime was applied for the first 3 days, followed by ‘20 h on 4 h off’ for 7 days and, finally, ‘18 h on 6 h off’ was used for the remainder of the study.
Table 1. Schedule of dietary treatments.
Table 2. Formulation of experimental diets/concentrates (%).
Table 3. Calculated and analyzed nutrient composition of experimental diets/concentrates (%, unless otherwise stated).
Table 4. Record of dietary blends offered from days 11 to 42 post-hatch.
Table 5. Daily calculated intake of standardized ileal digestible lysine (SIDL%) and AME (MJ/kg) of each treatment based on average treatment intake.
The composition and nutrient content of experimental diets are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.
The daily nutrient requirements of birds were modeled via EFG Model (2019, Version 5.1; EFG Software, Stellenbosch, South Africa) Broiler Growth Model growth curves (Figure 1) based on Ross 308 (Aviagen, Goulburn, NSW, Australia) performance and nutrient requirement handbooks []. From this information, as described above, a protein-dense concentrate and an energy-dense concentrate were blended, and a linear reduction in the protein concentrate for the energy concentrate was calculated. Birds on the precision nutrition adjusted treatment had the diet blends adjusted based on body weight on a weekly basis, where they were moved forward on the feeding schedule to match the requirement of their current weight (not age). Feed Logic (Feedworks Pty Ltd., Romsey, VIC, Australia) feed blending technology was used to accurately mix and deliver the components on a daily basis. Diets were provided as crumbles for starter (days 0–10), and pellets for grower (days 11–21), finisher (days 22–35) and withdrawal (days > 35) phases.
Figure 1. Daily nutrient requirements of standardized ileal digestible lysine (A) and apparent metabolisable energy (B) of the broiler, as modeled via EFG Software (2019, Version 5.1) Broiler Growth Model growth curves.

2.2. Data Collection

Birds and feed were weighed weekly starting on day 11 to calculate weekly weight gain and feed intake, from which the feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated, corrected for mortality by calculating the proportional feed intake per day of the bird that died and removing it from the total for the pen. A total of four birds per pen were moved to metabolic cages (0.44 m2 with the space taken up by the feeder removed) on day 21 in a different room but within the same research facility for total excreta collection. The temperature and lighting within the room containing metabolic cages was controlled and followed the same schedule as the main experimental facility. A four-day adaptation period was allowed, and feed intake and excreta output were measured from days 25 to 27 to calculate apparent metabolizable energy (AME). During the period from days 21 to 27, each treatment continued on their daily blends. Thus, due to the blending, there were differences at the point of excreta collection for AME, where the AME of each diet was control: AME = 13.27 MJ and crude protein (CP) = 20.8%; precision nutrition blend: AME = 13.30 MJ and CP = 21.0%; precision nutrition adjusted: AME = 13.33 MJ and CP = 20.8%; and blended standard: AME = 13.32 MJ and CP = 20.7%. On day 28, birds in the metabolic cages were euthanized via electrical stunning (MEFE CAT 44N, Mitchell Engineering Food Equipment, Clontarf, QLD, Australia) followed by cervical dislocation to measure fat pad weights and collect digesta for nutrient digestibility analysis. The jejunum was defined by the end of the duodenal loop through to Meckel’s diverticulum. The ileum was defined by Meckel’s diverticulum through to the ileo-cecal junction. Digesta was collected from the second half of the jejunal and ileal segments, pooled per cage, homogenized and freeze dried (Christ Alpha 1-4 LD plus, Osterode am Harz, Germany). On day 42, four birds per pen were euthanized via electrical stunning followed by cervical dislocation and sampled to measure fat pad, breast, and thigh and drumstick weights. The sex of the birds was also determined and the sex of any remaining birds was determined via their phenotypic characteristics, which were pronounced at this age. The feed cost per kilo of body weight gain was calculated based on both 2020 and 2022 costings by dividing the total cost of diet consumed per pen by the total kilos weigh gain generated per pen. The trial was completed in 2020 and thus the calculated returns were based on this period.

2.3. Laboratory Analysis

Nutritional parameters including dry matter (DM), digestible lysine, crude protein (CP), apparent metabolizable energy (AME), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P) and sodium (Na) in wheat, soybean meal and canola seed were analyzed using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (Foss NIR 6500, Hillerød, Denmark), which is standardized with Evonik AMINONIR Advanced calibration. This information was then used to formulate the experimental diets. Excreta samples were dried for 24 h at 80 °C in an air-forced oven. The gross energy (GE) of diets and excreta were determined via bomb calorimetry using an adiabatic calorimeter (Parr 1281 bomb calorimeter, Parr Instruments Co., Moline, IL, USA). The AME (MJ/kg) was calculated by the following equation.
A M E   d i e t = ( F e e d   i n t a k e × G E   d i e t ) − ( E x c r e t a   o u t p u t × G E   e x c r e t a ) F e e d   i n t a k e
N-corrected (nitrogen-corrected) AME values were calculated by correcting to zero N retention, using the factor of 36.54 kJ/g. N retention was calculated by the following equation:
N   r e t e n t i o n % = F e e d   i n t a k e × N   d i e t − E x c r e t a   o u t p u t × N   e x c r e t a F e e d   i n t a k e × N   d i e t × 100
Concentrations of starch in diets and ileal digesta samples were determined by methods described in Mahasukhonthachat et al. []. Nitrogen concentrations were determined as outlined in Siriwan et al. [].
Diets and digesta samples were analyzed for TiO2 concentrations in quadruplicate and duplicate, respectively, by the method described by Short et al. []. Then the nutrient digestibility (%) was calculated by the following equation.
N u t r i e n t   d i g e s t i b i l i t y % = N u t r i e n t M a r k e r d i e t − N u t r i e n t M a r k e r d i g e s t a N u t r i e n t M a r k e r d i e t × 100
Toe bone samples were collected from sample birds by severing the middle toe through the joint between the 2nd and 3rd tarsal bones from the distal end on days 28 and 42 per cage. Toes from each cage were pooled and the composite samples dried to a constant weight at 100 °C and then ashed in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 16 h for the assessment of bone mineralisation as described by Potter [].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

R Commander (version 3.3.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to analyze data. Data were tested for normality and variance homogeneity and analyzed via one-way ANOVA to test statistical differences between the treatments.
The model used may be represented as
y i j = μ + τ i + ε i j
where yij represents the j-th observation on the i-th treatment, µ represents the experimental effect, τ i   represents the i-th treatment effect, and ε i j represents the random error present in the j-th observation on the i-th treatment.
Tukey’s post hoc test was used to identify pairwise differences between the treatment means from significant ANOVA results. The p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

3. Results

3.1. Growth Performance

The effects of dietary treatments on weight gain, feed intake and FCR are presented in Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. The dietary treatments did not affect weight gain and feed intake over the entire study (Table 6 and Table 7). From days 14 to 21, birds offered the precision nutrition diets and blended standard diets had a lower FCR compared to those fed the control diet (p < 0.001, Table 8). Over the study there was a difference in bird weight between the treatments. Thus, as heavier birds have a higher FCR, weight corrected FCR was calculated for the study duration (11 to 42 days) where a correction of 3 points of FCR was applied to each pen for treatments two to four for every 100 g of weight gain greater than the average of the control treatment. There was a significant difference in weight corrected FCR, where the precision nutrition adjusted treatment significantly improved the corrected FCR compare to the control and blended standard diets treatments (p = 0.041). Mortality and culls over the trial totaled 5.6% and was unrelated to dietary treatment.
Table 6. Effects of dietary treatments on weekly and total (d11 to d42 post-hatch) weight gain (g/bird).
Table 7. Effects of dietary treatments on weekly and total (d11 to d42 post-hatch) feed intake (g/bird).
Table 8. Effects of treatments on weekly, total (d11 to d42 post-hatch) and weight corrected total feed conversion ratio (g/g).

3.2. Body Weight Uniformity and Feed Cost

The effects of precision nutrition on feed cost and body weight uniformity from day 11 to 42 are given in Table 9. The blended standard diet reduced the body weight coefficient of variation at days 28 and 35 compared to the control. Both precision nutrition treatment groups recorded highest body weights compared to the control and blended standard diet on day 42 (Table 10). Feed costs did not differ significantly between treatments, but precision nutrition adjusted treatments saved 3.2 cents/kg body weight, or 4.13 percent feed cost.
Table 9. Effect of treatments on coefficient of variation (CV; of the individual weights of birds within a pen) at days 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 post-hatch, and feed cost (AUD) per kilo body weight at d42.
Table 10. Effects of dietary treatments on body weight (g) (d11 to d42 post-hatch).

3.3. Carcass Yield

Relative weights of fat pad, breast, thigh and drumstick are shown in Table 11. Relative fat pad, breast, thigh and drumstick weight on day 28 and 42 was not affected by dietary treatments.
Table 11. Effects of dietary treatments on carcass parameters including relative fat pad weight (g/kg) at 28 and 42 days post-hatch, relative breast (g/kg), thigh (g/kg) and drumstick weights (g/kg) at 42 days post-hatch.

3.4. Apparent Ileal Nutrient Digestibility

The effects of dietary treatments on apparent ileal digestibilities (%) of dry matter, protein and starch on day 28 are shown in Table 12. Feeding the blended standard diet reduced apparent ileal starch digestibility compared to the control and precision nutrition diets on day 28 (p = 0.037). The apparent ileal digestibility of dry matter on day 28 was not significantly affected in precision nutrition diets compared to the control and blended standard diets (p > 0.05).
Table 12. Effects of dietary treatments on apparent dry matter, protein (N) and starch ileal digestibility as a percentage at 28 days post-hatch.

3.5. Nutrient Utilization and Excreta Moisture

The effects of dietary treatments on AME, N-corrected AME, and excreta moisture from days 25 to 27 are shown in Table 13. Both precision nutrition blended and adjusted treatments had the greatest AME (p = 0.002) and N-corrected AME (p = 0.013) from days 25 to 27 among the dietary treatments. The blended standard diet led to the lowest energy utilization from days 25 to 27, similar to the control group. Excreta moisture content was not influenced by the dietary treatments from days 25 to 27.
Table 13. Effects of dietary treatments on apparent metabolisable energy (AME; MJ/kg DM), N corrected AME (AMEn; MJ/kg DM) and excreta moisture (%) from 25 to 27 days post-hatch.

3.6. Toe Ash

The effects of dietary treatments on toe ash at days 28 and 42 are shown in Table 14. There was no significant influence of dietary treatments on toe ash at both day 28 and day 42.
Table 14. Effects of dietary treatments on toe ash (%) at 28 and 42 days post-hatch.

4. Discussion

Feed accounts for more than 65% of the total cost of chicken-meat production []. Hence, increasing feed efficiency could increase the productivity of the poultry industry and improve economic sustainability. The present study demonstrated that precision nutrition diet programs may improve feed efficiency in the early stage of broiler production compared to the conventional phase-feeding regime, as evidenced by an improved FCR between days 14 and 21 post-hatch. It is interesting to note that the impact of the precision nutrition program on FCR was observed over the first half of the study. The grower and finisher period immediately follow the greatest change in protein concentration during the diet change (starter to grower diets and grower to finisher diets, respectively); therefore, the greatest response should be seen immediately following these periods. The daily nutrient requirement in the present study was calculated by the EFG broiler growth model. Instructively, in a previous study, Gutierrez et al. [] also found that blending two dietary components to meet the daily nutrient requirement as calculated by the EFG Broiler Growth Model improved weight gain and feed efficiency, especially from days 21 to 28 and 35 to 42, thereby reducing feed costs per kilogram of weight gain.
Gutierrez et al. [] study fed the precision nutrition diets based on the calculated nutrient requirement from the EFG Model, but did not adjust the blends based on the birds’ actual performance. In the present study, birds offered the precision nutrition treatments grew heavier than other treatments as the experiment progressed. As heavier birds have a higher FCR, weight corrected FCR was calculated for the study duration (11 to 42 days), and it was found that birds offered the adjusted precision nutrition treatment improved weight corrected FCR by 7.8% compared to the control and blended standard diet treatments. Additionally, the precision nutrition adjusted treatment finished with birds reaching the final target blend (100% low protein, high energy concentrate) five days sooner than the precision nutrition treatment. This resulted in a reduction in feed cost of 3.2 cents/kg body weight, or by 4.13% compared to the control diet (based on 2020 costings). Thus, the present study is consistent with the Gutierrez et al. [] findings.
Feed intake and growth rate are associated with greater body fat accumulation in broiler chickens []. Considering the low economic value of broiler fat, and consumer preferences for lean meat, excessive deposition of fat presents a challenge for poultry producers and consumers alike. Birds on precision nutrition feeding programs may accumulate less fat within the body due to a reduced dietary over-supply of energy which can become stored as fat []. However, in this study, birds receiving precision nutrition treatments showed no significant changes to fat pads and additionally, no significant difference in breast, thigh and drumstick weight at 28 and 42 days of age. In a similar study, Roush et al. [] showed that broilers fed blended diets (starter and grower, starter and finisher, and grower and finisher), similar to that of the present study’s ‘blended standard diets’ treatment, did not differ significantly in final body weight, fat pads, or breast muscle from those offered traditional 4 phase feeding programs. Entire fat pad removal from carcasses can be difficult, and thus it may be worthwhile exploring if birds offered high-protein low energy diets may exhibit reduced mRNA expression of hepatic malic enzyme (HME), acetyl coenzyme carboxylase (ACC), and fatty acid synthase (FAS); key enzymes in the de novo lipogenesis pathway in chickens [], however this has not yet been explored. Contrary to the present study and the Roush et al. [] study, Moss et al. [] found that carcass dressed weight increased from 2.282 to 2.502 kg (p = 0.001), resulting in a decrease in the cost per kilogram of chicken-meat from 71.4 cents to 66.3 cents under a precision feeding program in comparison to a standard 4 phase feeding regimen at 42 days. Thus, the effect of precision nutrition programs on carcass composition is somewhat conflicting.
Improved flock uniformity may bring savings at the processing plant and is also a potential welfare indicator, associated with increased rejection rates at slaughter []. It is possible that reducing excessive nutrient supply may have contributed to the observed reduction in CV (improved flock uniformity) at 14 and 42 days within the precision nutrition adjusted treatment compared to the control treatment in the current study. The number of precision feeding studies on broilers is lacking, however the effect of precision feeding for broiler breeders has gained significant recent attention. Zuidhof [] recorded that in comparison to conventional feeding in broiler breeders, the precision feeding station developed by his laboratory has produced 100% flock uniformity for seven of the last 10 weeks of a pilot study. It was explained in Zuidhof [] that the precise feeding stations (automatic weighing and tracking) can provide real-time adjustments of nutrients, preventing aggressive birds from overeating and providing equal feeding opportunities to all birds. Nevertheless, this approach is substantially different from the precision nutrition programs discussed in the present study, as it manipulates feed intake (i.e., precision feeding) and not the nutrient content of the diet (i.e., precision nutrition).
In addition to the potential improvements in efficiency and CV, precision nutrition programs also present some logistical benefits for chick performance. The poultry industry faces a logistical challenge when it starts a new batch of broilers, of how to dispose of unused feed. While it can be removed, this provides an extra cost and wastage []. Thus, the withdrawal feed remaining in the silo unavoidably gets fed to the next batch of young chicks that arrive to the farm until it runs out and is replaced with the new starter feed. Precision nutrition programs avoid this logistics issue, as the concentrates are required for all stages, and so the blend percentages only need to be reset for the next flock. Thus, any leftover feed can be utilized while still meeting the next flock’s nutrient requirements.
The content of soybean meal was higher in the low protein blend than the finisher and withdrawal diets, and the content of oil was higher in the high-protein blend than the starter diet in the present study. Thus, precision nutrition diets are sensitive to the price of soybean meal and the price of oil compared to the control diet in the present study. To demonstrate this sensitivity, diet cost calculations are provided for both 2020 and updated for 2022 which saw an increased soybean meal and oil price over this period due to significant global events []. However, this may be avoided partly by utilizing alternative protein and oil sources that are cheaper.
The blended standard diet treatment of the present study was included to determine if some of the benefits of blending diets could be achieved by gradually blending the four feeding phases, which may aid the adoption of the feeding strategy. We hypothesized that while not precisely meeting protein and energy requirements as well as the protein and energy blends, it may still generate benefit from eliminating sudden diet changes. It has been demonstrated in multiple animal species that a sudden diet change disrupts the gut via the microbiome [,,]; thus, a gradual blending of diets would provide less disruption to the gut. While we did not measure gut microbiome in the present study, this effect appears not to have been realized, as blended standard diets saw a reduction in multiple parameters including nutrient digestibility and energy utilization. Thus, blending the standard 4-phase diets may not present an alternative to the concentrate blends in the precision nutrition diets.
The apparent metabolizable energy (AME) adjusted for zero nitrogen retention (AMEn) is commonly used to evaluate the energy value of ingredients []. Precision nutrition adjusted treatments showed the highest AME among dietary treatments from 25 to 27 days of age, which was significantly improved in comparison to the control. The AME was measured following the feed swap from grower to finisher diets for the control treatment. Thus, the improvement may have been attributed to either (i) more precisely meeting the energy requirement, and/or (ii) the lack of disturbance in the gut from a sudden diet change. While there is very limited research on the impact of changing feeding phases on the gut and performance of broiler chickens, there is a proven link between the gut microbiome and the maintenance of host circadian rhythms and metabolic homeostasis in several species [,]. Therefore, if the gut microbiome is disturbed under a sudden feed change, it is sensible that metabolic homeostasis would be disrupted which would disrupt the performance of the chicken []. Thus, this may be another avenue by which precision nutrition may enhance broiler performance. However, as we did not see any effect from the blended standard diets treatment, blending diets to reduce impact on the gut microbiome may not be the main reason for the improvements seen.
The present study demonstrates the benefits of precision feeding regimes. However, there are some barriers to practical industry adoption. Firstly, farms usually only have one silo per shed, and so investment would need to be made in both a feed blending system and an extra silo. However, as estimated by Moss et al. [], the cost of the initial outlay for equipment would be recovered within a short timeframe. Secondly, while the two silos of energy concentrates do create logistical advantages as discussed above, this system is more complex and would require farm staff who are interested in learning and utilizing this technology. There does appear to be an appetite of producers for such technology, as a recent survey revealed that while broiler producers were generally unfamiliar with what technology is available in precision livestock farming for broiler production systems, they would be willing to adopt new technology given it proved to increase farm productivity and profitability [].

5. Conclusions

It is concluded that precision nutrition may improve broiler weight corrected FCR. Improvements in energy utilization and flock uniformity were also demonstrated in birds offered precision nutrition programs in the present study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N., A.F.M. and T.H.D.; methodology, E.K. and T.H.D.; formal analysis, P.V.C. and T.H.D.; investigation, A.F.M., D.C., S.W. and T.H.D.; data curation, T.C. and R.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N.; writing—review and editing, A.F.M., E.K. and T.H.D.; supervision, A.F.M. and T.H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to thank Poultry Hub Australia for their financial support for this study (grant number: 19-103).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the University of New England’s Animal Ethics Committee (AEC20-106; approval date 1 March 2021) and met the requirements of the Australian Code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes [].

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Feedworks Pty Ltd. for their ongoing support of our precision nutrition program and for the donation of the Feedlogic precision feeding system with which we used to blend the feed in the present study. We also wish to thank Poultry Hub Australia for their support of this study, and the Poultry Research and Teaching Unit, at the University of New England, Australia for their help and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors D. Cadogan and S. Wilkinson declare that they are employees of a company Feedworks Pty Ltd., which sell precision feeding equipment, but this had no impact on the trial results. The author P. V. Chrystal declares they are an employee of the company Complete Feed Solutions as a nutritionist, but this had no impact on the trial results. All other authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dersjant-Li, Y.; Millán, C.; Casabuena, O.; Quiles, A.; Romero, L.F.; Gracia, M.I. Supplementation of Buttiauxella sp. 6-phytase to commercial laying hen diets with reduced nutrient density on productive performance and egg quality. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2018, 6, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gerland, P.; Raftery, A.E.; Ševčíková, H.; Li, N.; Gu, D.; Spoorenberg, T.; Alkema, L.; Fosdick, B.K.; Chunn, J.; Lalic, N.; et al. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 2014, 346, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kleyn, R. Chicken Nutrition: A Guide for Nutritionists and Poultry Professionals; Context Publications: Packington, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gaillard, C.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y. Improvement of feed and nutrient efficiency in pig production through precision feeding. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 268, 114611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moss, A.F.; Chrystal, P.V.; Cadogan, D.J.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Crowley, T.M.; Choct, M. Precision feeding and precision nutrition: A paradigm shift in broiler feed formulation? Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Andretta, I.; Pomar, C.; Rivest, J.; Pomar, J.; Radünz, J. Precision feeding can significantly reduce lysine intake and nitrogen excretion without compromising the performance of growing pigs. Animal 2016, 10, 1137–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pomar, C.; Hauschild, L.; Zhang, G.H.; Pomar, J.; Lovatto, P.A. Applying precision feeding techniques in growing-finishing pig operations. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2009, 38, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pomar, C.; Hauschild, L.; Zhang, G.H.; Pomar, J.; Lovatto, P.A. Precision feeding can significantly reduce feeding cost and nutrient excretion in growing animals. In Modelling Nutrient Digestion and Utilisation in Farm Animals; Sauvant, D., Van Milgen, J., Faverdin, P., Friggens, N., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  9. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 8th ed.; National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. World’s Poultry Science Association. European Table of Energy Values for Poultry Feedstuffs; Subcommittee Energy of the Working Group N 2. Nutrition of the European Federation of Branches of the World’s Poultry Science Association; Spelderholt Center for Poultry Research on Extension: Beekbergen, The Netherlands, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aviagen. Ross 308 Broiler: Nutrition Specifications; Aviagen: Huntsville, AL, USA, 2022; Available online: https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/Ross-BroilerNutritionSpecifications2022-EN.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2025).
  12. Mahasukhonthachat, K.; Sopade, P.A.; Gidley, M.J. Kinetics of starch digestion and functional properties of twin-screw extruded sorghum. J. Cereal Sci. 2010, 51, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Siriwan, P.; Bryden, W.L.; Mollah, Y.; Annison, E.F. Measurement of endogenous amino acid losses in poultry. Br. Poult. Sci. 1993, 34, 939–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Short, F.J.; Gorton, P.; Wiseman, J.; Boorman, K.N. Determination of titanium dioxide added as an inert marker in chicken digestibility studies. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 59, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Potter, L.M. Bioavailability of phosphorus from various phosphates based on body weight and toe ash measurements. Poult. Sci. 1988, 67, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wilkinson, S.J. Big data for poultry—What is possible. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Australia, 5–7 February 2018; pp. 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gutierrez, O.; Surbakti, N.; Haq, A.; Carey, J.B.; Bailey, C.A. Effect of continuous multiphase feeding schedules on nitrogen excretion and broiler performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2008, 17, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fouad, A.M.; El-Senousey, H.K. Nutritional factors affecting abdominal fat deposition in poultry: A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 27, 1057–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roush, W.B.; Boykin, D.; Branton, S.L. Optimization of phase feeding of starter, grower, and finisher diets for male broilers by mixture experimental design: Forty-eight-day production period. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 1264–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Rosebrough, R.W.; Poch, S.M.; Russell, B.A.; Richards, M.P. Dietary protein regulates in vitro lipogenesis and lipogenic gene expression in broilers. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2002, 132, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Moss, A.; Chrystal, P.; Cadogan, D. Precision feeding enhances feed efficiency and carcass yield compared to broilers offered standard feeding programs. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Poultry Science Forum, Atlanta, GA, USA, 27–31 January 2020; North American Meat Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  22. Vasdal, G.; Marchewka, J.; Newberry, R.C.; Estevez, I.; Kittelsen, K. Developing a novel welfare assessment tool for loose-housed laying hens—The aviary transect method. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zuidhof, M.J. Lifetime productivity of conventionally and precision-fed broiler breeders. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 3921–3937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martin-Rios, C.; Rogenhofer, J.; Alvarado, M. The true cost of food waste: Tackling the managerial challenges of the food supply chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 131, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barboza Martignone, G.M.; Ghosh, B.; Papadas, D.; Behrendt, K. The rise of soybean in international commodity markets: A quantile investigation. Heliyon 2024, 10, e34669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fernandes, D.J.; Spring, S.; Roy, A.R.; Qiu, L.R.; Yee, Y.; Nieman, B.J.; Lerch, J.P.; Palmert, M.R. Exposure to maternal high-fat diet induces extensive changes in the brain of adult offspring. Transl. Psychiatry 2021, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bartlett, A.; Kleiner, M. Dietary protein and the intestinal microbiota: An understudied relationship. iScience 2022, 25, 105313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, H.; Bao, L.; Wang, T.; Guan, Y. Dietary change influences the composition of the fecal microbiota in two rescued wild raccoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides). Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1335017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barzegar, S.; Wu, S.B.; Choct, M.; Swick, R.A. Factors affecting energy metabolism and evaluating net energy of poultry feed. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Song, D.; Yang, C.S.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. The relationship between host circadian rhythms and intestinal microbiota: A new cue to improve health by tea polyphenols. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Asher, G.; Sassone-Corsi, P. Time for food: The intimate interplay between nutrition, metabolism, and the circadian clock. Cell 2015, 161, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moss, A.F.; Dao, T.H.; Crowley, T.M.; Wilkinson, S.J. Interactions of diet and circadian rhythm to achieve precision nutrition of poultry. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2023, 63, 1926–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Klingberg, T.; Burns, R.; Hawkins, S.; Zhao, Y.; Thornton, T.; Schexnayder, S. A Producer Survey on Implementation of Precision Livestock Farming in the Broiler Industry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2025, 34, 100548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
The Influence of Vacuum Level on the Milk Emission Curves and Udder Health of Saanen Goats Reared in Italy
Previous
Assessment of Diagnostic Value of Post Mortem Tongue Tip Fluids for Disease Detection in Growing Pigs
Next