Impact of Feed Pelletization Techniques on Performance Metrics and True Metabolizable Energy in Broiler Chickens

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Animal Science, Souphanouvong University, Lao PDR

2 College of Animal and Life Science, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon-si 200-701, Korea

10.22069/psj.2026.24004.2400

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of feed physical form mash, mechanical friction pelleting, and steam-conditioned pelleting on broiler growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and metabolizable energy values. A total of 150 Ross 308 broiler chicks were allocated to one of three dietary treatments over a 21-day period. All diets were formulated using a standard commercial grower formulation and processed into mash, mechanically pelleted (without steam), or steam-conditioned pelleted (85 °C) forms. Key parameters assessed included body weight, feed conversion ratio (FCR), pellet quality, apparent and true metabolizable energy (AME, TME), nitrogen-corrected energy values (AMEn, TMEn), and coefficient of total tract apparent retention (CTTAR). Broilers receiving steam-conditioned pellets exhibited significantly improved body weight gain and FCR compared to those fed mash or mechanical pellets (P < 0.05). However, mechanical pellets resulted in the highest AME, AMEn, TME, and TMEn values (P < 0.001). Both pelleting techniques enhanced pellet durability and reduced fine particles, though steam conditioning lowered pellet hardness. Nutrient digestibility was generally improved with pelleted diets, though ash retention was adversely affected. These findings suggest that pelleting improves energy and nutrient utilization in broilers, with mechanical pelleting showing superior energy recovery, while steam conditioning yields better growth performance. The results highlight the trade-offs between pellet processing methods and their implications for optimizing feed formulation strategies in broiler production systems.

Keywords

References

Abdollahi MR, Svihus B & Ravindran V. 2013. Pelleting of broiler diets: An overview with emphasis on pellet quality and nutritional value. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 179: 1-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.10.011
Abdollahi MR, Zaefarian F & Ravindran V. 2018. Feed processing technologies and their effects on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, and broiler performance. Animal Nutrition, 4: 241-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.007
Amerah AM, Ravindran V, Lentle RG & Thomas DG. 2008. Influence of feed particle size and feed form on the performance, energy utilization, digestive tract development, and digesta parameters of broiler starters. Poultry Science, 87: 2320-2328. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2008-00082
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). 1997. Method of Determining Pellet and Crumbled Feed Durability, S269.4. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.
AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.
Aviagen. 2019. Ross Broiler Management Handbook. Aviagen Group, Huntsville, AL, USA.
Behnke KC. 1994. Factors influencing pellet quality. Feed Technology, 1: 19-23.
Behnke KC & Beyer RS. 2002. Effect of feed processing on nutrient utilization. In: Poultry Feedstuffs: Supply, Composition and Nutritive Value. CABI, pp. 439-464. DOI: 10.1079/ 9780851994642.0439
Briggs JL, Maier DE, Watkins BA & Behnke KC. 1999. Effects of ingredients and processing parameters on pellet quality. Poultry Science, 78: 1464-1471. DOI: 10.1093/ps/78.10.1464
Dozier WA, Behnke KC, Gehring CK & Branton SL. 2001. Effects of feed form on growth performance and processing yields of broilers during a 42-day production period. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 10: 291-296. DOI: 10.1093/japr /10.3.291
Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42. DOI: 10.2307 /3001478
Hill FW & Anderson DL. 1958. Comparison of metabolizable energy and productive energy determinations with growing chicks. Journal of Nutrition, 64: 587-603. DOI: 10.1093/jn/64.4.587
Kawauchi IM, Sakomura NK, Kawashima K, Fernandes JBK & Malheiros EB. 2011. Digestible energy and metabolizable energy values of corn and soybean meal for broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 13: 177-183. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-635X2011000300006
Kluth H & Rodehutscord M. 2009. Effect of the amino acid pattern of the basal diet on the determination of prececal amino acid digestibility in broilers using the linear regression method. Poultry Science, 88: 1193-1200. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2008-00290
Liu SY, Truong HH & Selle PH. 2019. Whole grain feeding for poultry: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 248: 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.12.005
Liu Y, Shi H, Sun L & Li Y. 2020. Effects of pelleting and particle size on the growth performance and nutrient digestibility of broilers. Animal Nutrition, 6: 52-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2019.09.004
McNab JM & Blair JC. 1988. Modified assay for true and apparent metabolizable energy based on tube feeding. British Poultry Science, 29: 697-707. DOI: 10.1080/00071668808417096
Nguyen CV, Kim SK, Ahn JH, Lee JH, Kim YB & Kim IH. 2022. Evaluation of metabolizable energy and nutrient digestibility of pelleted diets with varying steam conditions in broilers. Livestock Science, 259: 104927. DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104927
NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th rev. ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Parsons CM. 1985. Influence of caecetomy and source of dietary fiber or starch on excreta output in roosters. Poultry Science, 64: 1199-1204. DOI: 10.3382/ps.0641199
SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 9.1.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Poultry Science Journal
Volume 14, Issue 2
November 2026
Pages 169-178

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics