<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Animal Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2161-7597</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojas.2021.113034</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS-110665</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Age and Calcium Sources in Laying Hen Feed Affect Calcium Digestibility
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thiago</surname><given-names>Ferreira Diana</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Arele</surname><given-names>Arlindo Calderano</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fernando</surname><given-names>de Castro Tavernari</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Horácio</surname><given-names>Santiago Rostagno</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Alexandre</surname><given-names>de Oliveira Teixeira</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Luiz</surname><given-names>Fernando Teixeira Albino</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de S&amp;amp;#227o Jo&amp;amp;#227o del-Rei, S&amp;amp;#227o Jo&amp;amp;#227o del-Rei, MG, Brazil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Embrapa Suínos e aves, Concórdia, SC, Brazil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Animal Sciences, Universidade Federal de Vi&amp;amp;#231osa, Vi&amp;amp;#231osa, MG, Brazil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>0000-0002-3161-019X</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>06</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>11</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>501</fpage><lpage>513</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>27,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2021</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2021</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>20,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2021</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The apparent calcium (Ca) digestibility coefficient (ADC) and true digestibility coefficient (TDC) of different inorganic calcium sources were determined in laying hens of different ages. Three Ca digestibility tests were carried out, each assessing 240 Lohmann Brown lineage laying hens distributed in a completely randomized design. Nine dietary treatments were arranged in a 3 
  &#215; 3 factorial design consisting of three ages (40, 50 and 70 weeks) &#215; three Ca (dicalcium phosphate (DCP) sources, fine (FL) and coarse (CL)) limestone, comprising eight replicates per treatment of six birds per experimental unit. Regarding the DCP, the ADC was higher (P &lt; 0.05) in 40-week-old birds. The DCP ADC for 40-, 50- and 70-week-old birds w
  as
   0.889, 0.613 and 0.712, respectively. No effect (P &gt; 0.05) of age on the ADC was noted for either FL 
  or
   CL. Comparing Ca sources, DCP exhibited a higher (P &lt; 0.05) ADC (0.889), followed by FL (0.699) and CL (0.515), in 40-week-old birds. DCP (0.712) and FL (0.652) presented (P &lt; 0.05) higher ADC compared to CL (0.482), in 70-week-old birds. No effect of Ca sources at 50 weeks on the ADC was observed (P &gt; 0.05). Endogenous loss values of 790, 860 and 930 mg&#183;kg<sup>-</sup><sup>1</sup> of consumed dry matter were observed at 40, 50 and 70 weeks, respectively. For the TDC, no interaction (P &gt; 0.05) was observed between Ca sources and bird age. The highest TDC value (P &gt; 0.05) was found in birds fed DCP (0.786) followed by FL (0.637) and CL (0.534). In addition, birds at 40 weeks of age (0.714) exhibited higher TDC values (P &lt; 0.05) compared to animals at 50 weeks of age (0.608). The findings reported herein demonstrate that the true digestibility is greater in the youngest birds and that consumed the DCP and the FL in relation to the birds that consumed the CL.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Dicalcium Phosphate</kwd><kwd> Digestion</kwd><kwd> Endogenous Calcium</kwd><kwd> Granulometry</kwd><kwd> Limestone</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The main inorganic calcium (Ca) sources used in bird diets are calcitic limestone and calcium phosphates, which exhibit variable Ca bioavailability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref1">1</xref>]. However, the determination of Ca digestibility in these sources has received little attention, mainly due to their low cost, abundant availability and surplus global reserves [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref3">3</xref>].</p><p>Recently, the initiative to determine digestible phosphorus (P) in feed has led to further attention concerning Ca digestibility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref3">3</xref>]. In addition, young birds tend to absorb Ca more efficiently than older birds [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref4">4</xref>]. According to Albino et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref5">5</xref>], older laying hens exhibited a 20% reduction in intestinal Ca absorption, increasing bone Ca mobilization and reducing carbonic anhydrase activity, leading to lower eggshell calcification.</p><p>Previous studies on broilers reported low true Ca digestibility coefficients for fine limestone [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref7">7</xref>]. There was evidence that the Ca digestibility was due to the physical and solubility characteristics of the applied Ca sources [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref8">8</xref>]. Zhang and Coon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref9">9</xref>] reported that laying hens displayed the ability to maintain larger food particles in their gizzards for longer periods of time, thus increasing solubility and in vivo use. Limestone particle size influences in vitro solubility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref11">11</xref>] and a negative correlation between in vitro and in vivo Ca solubility in laying hens has been noted [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref12">12</xref>].</p><p>Given the above, the hypothesis of this study was that laying hen age and inorganic Ca source may influence Ca digestibility. Thus, the aim herein was to determine the apparent and true Ca digestibility coefficients of different inorganic Ca sources for laying hens of different ages.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>This research was authorized by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Universidade Federal de Vi&#231;osa (process number 06/2020) and was carried out per the ethical principles from the Brazilian College of Animal Experimentation.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Experimental Design and Diets</title><p>Three Ca digestibility tests were carried out for laying hens of different ages (40, 50 and 70 weeks). A total of 240 Lohmann Brown lineage laying hens were used in each trial, distributed in a completely randomized design, comprising eight replicates per treatment of six birds per experimental unit. A 3 &#215; 3 factorial scheme (three ages &#215; three Ca sources) was adopted. The birds were distributed according to their body weight (1.938 &#177; 190 g) and egg production. The interval of each test, the birds were fed with ration according to their requirement, according to the one proposed by Rostagno et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref13">13</xref>]. The tested Ca sources were dicalcium phosphate and fine and coarse calcitic limestone.</p><p>A basal diet containing 1.10 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup> total Ca and 0.89 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup> available P was formulated. The tested Ca sources replaced basal diet starch in varying amounts (DCP − basal diet + dicalcium phosphate; FL: basal diet + fine-grained calcitic limestone; CL: basal diet + coarse-grained limestone) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). A diet free of available Ca and P was also formulated to determine endogenous Ca losses (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Ingredient composition and analysis (g·kg<sup>−1</sup>) of experimental diets</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ingredients</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Basal</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >FL</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CL</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corn</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >598.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >598.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >598.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >598.08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soybean meal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >279.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >279.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >279.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >279.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soy oil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sugar</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Common Salt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Starch</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dicalcium phosphate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcite Limestone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vitamin Supplement<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mineral Supplement<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DL-Methionine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Threonine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BHT3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Choline chloride</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calculated composition</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude Protein</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Metabolisable energy (MJ·Kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Available Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca: Available Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Analysed composition</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dry matter</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >894.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >921.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >909.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >926.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Available Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca: Available Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.49</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>1</sup>Containing per kg: Vit. A—15,000,000 International Unite (IU); Vit. D3—1,500,000 IU; Vit E—15,000 IU; Vit B1—2.0 g; Vit B2—4.0 g; Vit B6—3.0 g; Vit B12—0.015 g; Nicotinic acid—25.0 g; B.C. Pantothenic—10.0 g; Vit. K3—3.0 g; B.C. folic-1.0 g; Zinc bacitracin—10.0 g; Selenium—0.25 g and antioxidant—10.0 g. <sup>2</sup>Containing per kg: Manganese—80 g; Iron—80 g; Zinc—50 g; Copper—10 g and Cobalt—2 g; Iodine-1 g. <sup>3</sup>Butyl Hydroxy Toluene. MJ = Mega Joule.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Composition and analysis of ingredients (g·kg<sup>−1</sup>) of the Ca and P free feed</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ingredients</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Amounts</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corn cob</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Starch</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >800.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soy oil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Potassium carbonate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Common Salt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vitamin Supplement<sup>1</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mineral Supplement<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DL-Methionine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Lysine HCl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Threonine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Valine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Arginine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Glycine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Tryptophan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >L-Isoleucine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BHT3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Choline chloride</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calculated Composition</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude Protein</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.93</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Metabolisable energy (MJ·Kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Available Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Analysed composition</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dry matter</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >917.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calcium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Phosphorus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>1</sup>Containing per kg: Vit. A—15,000,000 IU; Vit. D3—1,500,000 IU; Vit E—15,000 IU; Vit B1—2.0 g; Vit B2—4.0 g; Vit B6—3.0 g; Vit B12—0.015 g; Nicotinic acid—25.0 g; B.C. Pantothenic—10.0 g; Vit. K3—3.0 g; B.C. folic—1.0 g; Zinc bacitracin—10.0 g; Selenium—0.25 g and antioxidant—10.0 g. <sup>2</sup>Containing per kg: Manganese—80 g; Iron—80 g; Zinc—50 g; Copper—10 g and Cobalt—2 g; Iodine—1 g. <sup>3</sup>Butyl Hydroxy Toluene. MJ = Mega Joule.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Birds</title><p>The chicks used were acquired from a 1-day-old local hatchery and were fixed on the floor in an open shed and, at the 17th week of age, were transferred to a laying shed (60 &#215; 9 m) covered with clay tiles, housed in cages [25 cm wide, 35 cm long and 40 cm high; two birds per cage (three cages combined with the experimental unit)].</p><p>During the rearing, rearing and production phases up to 40 weeks of age, the birds were managed as described in the lineage manuals and fed with rations formulated according to the recommendations of Rostagno et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref13">13</xref>]</p><p>In the 40th week, the birds were fed with the experimental rations for nine days, being five days for adaptation to the cage and the experimental diet and four days for total excrement collection.</p><p>At each end of the experimental phase (nine days), the birds received the feed formulated according to the recommendations of Rostagno et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref13">13</xref>], until they are submitted to a new digestibility test.</p><p>Ambient temperature (˚C) was monitored through three maximum and minimum thermometers located throughout the shed. The maximum and minimum mean shed temperatures varied between 29.08˚C and 18.33˚C, respectively. A 16 h light/8h dark photoperiod was applied. Food and water were provided ad libitum.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Sample Collection and Processing</title><p>Hen excreta were collected and stored in plastic bags in a freezer (−18˚C) until the end of the collection period of each test. The hens received a diet free of calcium and phosphorus to assess endogenous losses. At the end of the collection period, the excreta were thawed, weighed, homogenized, dried in a ventilated oven at 55˚C for 72 h and ground and stored in plastic containers for subsequent analyses.</p><p>The following data was collected: feed intake (g) (FI), dry matter intake (g) (DMI), Ca intake (g) (CaI), basal feed diet and Ca sources (g), Ca supply by the basal diet and food (g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>), Ca content in the diets and excreta (g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>), Ca excretion (g) and Ca excreted by birds receiving a diet with low Ca content (g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>). These data were used to obtain the apparent and true Ca digestibility coefficients values and apparent dry matter digestibility coefficient, using the equations adapted by Rostagno and Featherston [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref14">14</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Calculations</title><p>Apparent Ca Digestibility Coefficient (ADC).</p><p>ADC = Ingested Ca ( g ) − Excreted Ca ( g ) Ingested Ca ( g )</p><p>True Ca Digestibility Coefficient (TDC).</p><p>TDC = [ Ingested Ca ( g ) − ( Excreted Ca ( g ) − Endogenous Ca ) ] Ingested Ca ( g )</p><p>Apparent Dry Matter Digestibility Coefficient (ADMDC).</p><p>ADMDC = Ingested dry matter ( g ) − Excreted dry matter ( g ) Ingested dry matter ( g )</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Chemical Analyses</title><p>The mean geometric diameter (MGD) determinations of the feed were performed at the Embrapa—CNPSA Animal Nutrition laboratory, in Concordia, SC, using the Softgran Granucalc<sup>&#174;</sup> program [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref15">15</xref>]. This is an alternative method that approximates the applied screen meshes (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>Ca content was determined by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref16">16</xref>]. In vitro solubility was determined according to Cheng and Coon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref10">10</xref>], through the percentage of weight loss, where 100 mL of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid was added.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Statistical Analyses</title><p>The analysis of variance was performed according to the statistical model to a completely randomized design:</p><p>Y i j = μ + t i + β j + ( t β ) i j + ε i j ,</p><p>in which Y<sub>ij</sub> = observed value for treatment i, in repetition j, &#181; = average of the experiment, t<sub>i</sub> = effect of level i of factor t, β<sub>j</sub> = effect of level j of factor β, (tβ)<sub>ij</sub> = effect of the interaction between t<sub>i</sub> and β<sub>j</sub>, and ε<sub>ij</sub> = random error associated to each observation.</p><p>The data were submitted to an ANOVA test, and the means were compared by the Tukey test at a 5% probability using the statistical package R Core Team [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref17">17</xref>].</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>An interaction (P &lt; 0.05) was observed between Ca sources and bird age (weeks), for FI and DMI (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The highest FI and DMI were found in 40- and 50-week-old birds relative to 70-week-old birds when consuming CL and in 40- and 70-week-old birds when consuming FL relative to DCP and CL (P &lt; 0.05).</p><p>Like FI and DMI, CaI also showed an interaction (P &lt; 0.05) between Ca sources and bird age. Birds at 40 and 50 weeks of age showed higher CaI (P &lt; 0.05) when consuming CL compared to birds at 70 weeks of age. The highest CaI (P &lt; 0.05) was found in the 40- and 70-week-old birds that consumed FL followed by CL and DCP, and at 50 weeks of age (P &lt; 0.05) that consumed FL and CL followed by DCP.</p><p>For ADMDC, there was no effect (P &gt; 0.05) of Ca sources, bird ages and their interaction.</p><p>Concerning the ADC, an interaction (P &lt; 0.05) between Ca sources and bird age was detected (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Regarding DCP, the ADC was higher (P &lt; 0.05) in</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Mean geometric diameter (MGD), geometric standard deviation (GSD), solubility and Ca and P concentrations of the test foods analyzed in the laying bird experiments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Test feeds</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >MGD (&#181;m)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >GSD</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Solubility (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ca (g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P (g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >560.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >266.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >184.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >558.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >365.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1998.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >363.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Means for feed intake (FI), dry matter intake (DMI), Ca intake (CaI) and apparent dry matter digestibility coefficient (ADMDC) of Ca sources at different ages for laying birds<sup>1</sup></title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sources</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Age (weeks)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Means<sup>Sources</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >SEM</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sources</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age &#215; Sources</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >FI (g/hen d)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.340Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.430Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.334Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.201Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101.916Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.041Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >105.053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.613</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.764ABa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.139Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.354Bb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.952</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.768</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.576</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >DMI (g/ hen d)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.588Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.352Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.850Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.263</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.110Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.131Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.407Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.549</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.722</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.258ABa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.119Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.138Bb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.838</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.319</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.534</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.798</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >CaI (g/hen d)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.543Ca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.568Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.463Ca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.524</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.681Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.466Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.600Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.582</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.221</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.380Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.411Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.822Bb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.204</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.871</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.628</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >ADMDC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.864</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.887</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.874</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.874</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.080</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.495</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.752</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.866</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.882</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.886</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.878</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.029</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.861</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.883</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.860</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.864</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.883</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.874</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Means followed by different lowercase letters on the line indicate a statistically significant difference by the Tukey test (P &lt; 0.05). Means followed by different capital letters in the column indicate a statistically significant difference by the Tukey test (P &lt; 0.05). <sup>1</sup>Each value represents the mean of eight replicates (six birds per replicate). SEM = standard error mean.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Means for Ca, Apparent (ADC) and True (TDC) Digestibility Coefficients of Ca sources, at different ages, for laying birds<sup>1</sup></title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sources</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Age (weeks)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Means<sup>Sources</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >SEM</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >P value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sources</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age &#215; Sources</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >ADC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.889Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.613Ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.712Ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.738</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.011</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.040</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.689Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.556Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.652Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.633</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.141</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.515Ca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.550Aa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.482Ba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.516</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.698</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.574</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.615</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >TDC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DCP</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.892</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.713</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.754</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.786A</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.013</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.208</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.692</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.559</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.662</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.637B</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.125</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.558</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.553</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.492</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.534C</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean<sup>Age</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.714a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.608b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.636ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Means followed by different lowercase letters on the line indicate a statistically significant difference by the Tukey test (P &lt; 0.05). Means followed by different capital letters in the column indicate a statistically significant difference by the Tukey test (P &lt; 0.05). <sup>1</sup>Each value represents the mean of eight replicates (six birds per replicate). SEM = standard error mean.</p><p>40-week-old birds, while no effect of age (P &gt; 0.05) on ADC was observed for FL and CL (P &gt; 0.05).</p><p>Comparing Ca sources, DCP exhibited a higher ADC (P &lt; 0.05), followed by FL and CL in 40-week-old birds. DCP and FL exhibited a higher ADC (P &lt; 0.05) compared to CL in 70-week-old birds, while no effect (P &gt; 0.05) of Ca sources on ADC was observed at 50 weeks.</p><p>Endogenous losses of 790, 860 and 930 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup> of consumed dry matter were obtained at 40, 50 and 70 weeks of age, respectively.</p><p>For TDC, no interaction (P &gt; 0.05) was observed between Ca sources and bird age. The highest TDC (P &gt; 0.05) was observed in birds fed DCP, followed by FL and CL. In addition, 40-week-old birds exhibited a higher TDC value (P &lt; 0.05), compared to 50-week-old birds.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The higher in vitro solubility of fine-grained limestone compared to coarse particles observed in the present study has also been observed in previous assessments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref18">18</xref>]. The larger surface area of the FL particle counts may increase the hydrochloric acid reaction and consequently, in vitro solubility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref19">19</xref>].</p><p>The calculated Ca value in the limestones specified by Rostagno et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref13">13</xref>] (377.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>) and by the NRC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref20">20</xref>] (380.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>) were close to those analyzed in the thin (365.50 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>) and coarse (363.50 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>) limestones assessed in the present study. The present findings are consistent with previously published data, in which limestone Ca concentrations range between 360.00 and 415.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref23">23</xref>]. Anwar et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref7">7</xref>] state that limestone cannot exceed 400.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup> of Ca based on the atomic and molecular weights of Ca carbonate, and that the aforementioned values can be attributed to analytical errors, contamination with Ca hydroxide or both.</p><p>The higher values found for FI and DMI, in the present study, with the 40 and 50-week-old birds, compared to older birds (70 weeks old), when treated with CL, may be attributed to the larger granulometry of limestone, because according to Portella et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref24">24</xref>] and Nir et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref25">25</xref>], older chickens tend to select and ingest larger feed particles. This greater intake of these feed particles may interfere with the dwell time of the feed in the gizzard and the rate of intestinal transit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref1">1</xref>], leading to greater satiety of the animal and decreased FI. This finding corroborates that found by Geraldo et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref26">26</xref>], when evaluating two limestone granulometry (0.135 mm versus DGM = 0.899 mm) during 8 to 12 weeks of age of Lohmann—LSL birds, observed lower IF of older birds that consumed feed with limestone with higher granulometry.</p><p>Given the results in this study, within each age (40 and 70 weeks of chicken age), birds treated with FL compared to CL and DCP, showed higher FI and DMI. These results reinforce that due to the greater consumption of coarser particles and longer time the feed remains in the gizzard, the hens are satiated longer, which reduces FI and consequent reduction in DMI. However, the DCP, by presenting the MGD (560.00 &#181;m) close to the MGD of FL (558.00 &#181;m), should not be attributed to the particle size of the DCP, but in relation to its Ca digestibility coefficient, which may have favored its lower FI and DMI.</p><p>The results of this study indicate that laying hens were more efficient in digesting Ca from DCP and FL, which contributed, in part, to the higher TDC values observed for DCP and FL compared to CL. This can be explained by the particle size of these ingredients (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>), as DCP and FL exhibit lower MGD, which, in turn, affects intestinal functions and digestive processes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref28">28</xref>]. Finer particle size increases the contact surface area of the particles per unit volume, which can improve digestion efficiency and nutrient absorption [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref30">30</xref>]. In addition, Ca levels in the DCP diet (6.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>) were lower than in the limestone diet (24.00 g·Kg<sup>−1</sup>), where it can be demonstrated by CaI. Thus, higher Ca levels may have intensified the lower Ca absorption effect observed in the CL diet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref31">31</xref>].</p><p>Birds consuming diets with high levels of Ca tend to have a low absorption rate for this mineral. This low absorption rate is associated with saturation of the Ca transport protein [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref32">32</xref>]. In addition, due to the increase in pH promoted by high Ca levels in the gut, the formation of insoluble calcium phosphate is reduced due to the neutralization in the gut promoted by the increase in pH [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref33">33</xref>]. Furthermore, in older birds, the capacity to absorb Ca is lower compared to younger birds [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref34">34</xref>].</p><p>Similar results were reported by Mayer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref35">35</xref>], who observed a 10% decrease in the apparent Ca digestibility rate (0.376 versus 0.275) with increased limestone particles from 126 to 933 micrometers. However, intact particles (coarse limestone) were notoriously excreted, explaining the low Ca CL digestibility.</p><p>The hens were expected to exhibit greater CL digestion compared to FL. Anwar et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref2">2</xref>] when comparing the effect of calcium source and particle size (fine (&lt;0.5 mm) and coarse (1 - 2 mm)) on the apparent ileal Ca digestibility coefficient for broilers reported higher coefficients for birds that consumed the larger particles, 0.430, versus 0.710 that consumed fine particles. It is possible that the inclusion of coarser particle size particles with low in vitro solubility increased in vivo solubility and caused improvements in nutrient retention and absorption in laying hen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref36">36</xref>]. In addition, diets with larger particles positively influence the development and size of poultry gizzards [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref38">38</xref>], as more rustic diets stimulate intestinal motility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref39">39</xref>], due to the stimulus of cholecystokinin release [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref40">40</xref>]. This, in turn, acts on the release of endogenous enzymes and gastro-duodenal reflux [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref42">42</xref>], which favors a decrease in the rate of digestion passage [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref25">25</xref>], and an increase in nutrient digestibility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref43">43</xref>], differing from the results of the present study.</p><p>The TDC observed in this study was higher in 40-week-old birds compared to 50-week-old birds. A similar result was reported by Sordi et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref44">44</xref>] when evaluating Ca digestibility for laying hens, who also noted a decrease in the true Ca digestibility coefficient of different DCP and limestone granulometries with increasing bird age. These results, in addition to being influenced by apparent digestibility, may also be due to the average endogenous Ca losses of the hens. Older birds exhibited higher endogenous losses, which may have influenced the reduction of TDC since, in the present study, endogenous loss values of 790, 860 and 930 mg·Kg<sup>−1</sup> of consumed dry matter were detected at 40, 50 and 70 weeks of age, respectively. David et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.110665-ref3">3</xref>], observed a higher coefficient of true ileal digestibility for limestone (0.510) in broilers compared to DCP (0.320). These results differ from those reported herein, where DCP (0.786) presented a higher coefficient compared to FL (0.637) and CL (0.534). Due to the discrepancies found in the present study in relation to other published assessments, further studies related to age and Ca source effects on Ca digestibility in laying hens are suggested.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>It can be concluded that currently researches still disagree regarding the ideal granulometry of calcium sources associated to their digestibility, mainly related to limestone. However, in the current study, although the true digestibility was higher in younger birds when treated with DCP and FL in relation to CL, some points still need to be elucidated, such as the proof that smaller limestone particles are more efficient in calcium digestibility, especially for brown laying hens.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>To the Coordena&#231;&#227;o de Aperfei&#231;oamento de Pessoal de N&#237;vel Superior (CAPES) for financial support.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Diana, T.F., Calderano, A.A., Tavernari, F. de C., Rostagno, H.S., Teixeira, A. de O. and Albino, L.F.T. (2021) Age and Calcium Sources in Laying Hen Feed Affect Calcium Digestibility. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 11, 501-513. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2021.113034</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.110665-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Muniz, E.B., de Arruda, A.M.V., Fassani, E.J., Teixeira, A.S. and Pereira, E.S. (2007) Avalia&amp;#231&amp;#227o de fontes de c&amp;#225lcio para frangos de corte. Revista caatinga, 20, 5-14. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2371/237117747002.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anwar, M.N., Ravindran, V., Morel, P.C., Ravindran, G. and Cowieson, A.J. (2016) Apparent Ileal Digestibility of Calcium in Limestone for Broiler Chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 213, 142-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.01.014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">David, L.S., Abdollahi, M.R., Ravindran, G., Walk, C.L. and Ravindran, V. (2019) Studies on the Measurement of Ileal Calcium Digestibility of Calcium Sources in Broiler Chickens. Poultry Science, 98, 5582-5589. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez314</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, W., Angel, R., Kim, S.W., Jim&amp;#233nez-Moreno, E., Proszkowiec-Weglarz, M. and Plumstead, P.W. (2018) Impacts of Age and Calcium on Phytase Efficacy in Broiler Chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 238, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2018.01.021</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Albino, L.F.T., Carvalho, B.D., Maia, R.C. and Barros, V.R.S.M. (2014) Galinhas poedeiras: Cria&amp;#231&amp;#227o e alimenta&amp;#231&amp;#227o. Aprenda F&amp;#225cil, Vi&amp;#231osa.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anwar, M.N., Ravindran, V., Morel, P.C.H., Ravindran, G. and Cowieson, A.J. (2016b) Effect of Limestone Particle Size and Calcium to Non-Phytate Phosphorus Ratio on True Ileal Calcium Digestibility of Limestone for Broiler Chickens. British Poultry Science, 57, 707-713. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2016.1196341</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anwar, M.N., Ravindran, V., Morel, P.C.H., Ravindran, G. and Cowieson, A.J. (2017) Effect of Calcium Source and Particle Size on the True Ileal Digestibility and Total Tract Retention of Calcium in Broiler Chickens. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 224, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.12.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roland Sr, D.A. (1986) Eggshell Quality IV: Oystershell versus Limestone and the Importance of Particle Size or Solubility of Calcium Source. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 42, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1079/WPS19860013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, B. and Coon, C.N. (1997) The Relationship of Calcium Intake, Source, Size, Solubility in Vitro and in Vivo, and Gizzard Limestone Retention in Laying Hens. Poultry Science, 76, 1702-1706. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/76.12.1702</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cheng, T.K. and Coon, C.N. (1990) Comparison of Various in Vitro Methods for the Determination of Limestone Solubility. Poultry Science, 69, 2204-2208. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0692204</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manangi, M.K. and Coon, C.N. (2007) The Effect of Calcium Carbonate Particle Size and Solubility on the Utilization of Phosphorus from Phytase for Broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science, 6, 85-90. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2007.85.90</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cheng, T.K. and Coon, C.N. (1990) Effect of Calcium Source, Particle Size, Limestone Solubility in Vitro, and Calcium Intake Level on Layer Bone Status and Performance. Poultry Science, 69, 2214-2219. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0692214</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rostagno, H.S., Albino, L.F.T., Hannas, M.I., Donzele, J.L., Sakomura, N.K., Perazzo, F.G. and Brito, C.O. (2017) Tabelas Brasileiras para Aves e Su&amp;#237nos: Composi&amp;#231&amp;#227o de Alimentos e Exigências Nutricionais. Departamento de Zootecnia-UFV, Vi&amp;#231osa, 488 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rostagno, H.S. and Featherston, W.R. (1977) Estudos e m&amp;#233todos para a determinacao de disponibilidade de amino&amp;#225cidos em pintos [farelo de soja e gergelim]. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brasil), 6, 64-76.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Embrapa su&amp;#237nos e aves. N&amp;#250cleo de Tecnologia e Informa&amp;#231&amp;#227o. Granucalc. Conc&amp;#243rdia (2013) Software on line. Aplicativo para o c&amp;#225lculo do Di&amp;#226metro Geom&amp;#233trico M&amp;#233dio (DGM) e do Desvio Padr&amp;#227o Geom&amp;#233trico (DPG) de part&amp;#237culas de ingredientes. http://www.cnpsa.embrapa.br/softgran/softgran.php</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Varian, H. (1989) Analytical Methods: Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. Varian Limited, Mulgrave.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, B. and Coon, C.N. (1997) Improved in Vitro Methods for Determining Limestone and Oyster Shell Solubility. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 6, 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/6.1.94</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guinotte, F., Nys, Y. and De Monredon, F. (1991) The Effects of Particle Size and Origin of Calcium Carbonate on Performance and Ossification Characteristics in Broiler Chicks. Poultry Science, 70, 1908-1920. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0701908</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">NRC (1994) Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Ninth Revised Edition, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 19-34.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Reid, B.L. and Weber, C.W. (1976) Calcium Availability and Trace Mineral Composition of Feed Grade Calcium Supplements. Poultry Science, 55, 600-605. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0550600</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wilkinson, S.J., Ruth, B. and Cowieson, A.J. (2013) Mineral Composition of Calcium Sources Used by the Australian Poultry Feed Industry. 24th Annual Australian Poultry Science Symposium, 24, 45-47.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Browning, L.C. and Cowieson, A.J. (2013) The Concentration of Strontium and Other Minerals in Animal Feed Ingredients. Journal of Applied Animal Nutrition, 2, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/jan.2013.9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Portella, F.J., Caston, L.J. and Leeson, S. (1988) Apparent Feed Particle Size Preference by Broilers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 68, 923-930. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas88-102</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nir, I., Hillel, R., Shefet, G. and Nitsan, Z. (1994) Effect of Grain Particle Size on Performance: 2. Grain Texture Interactions. Poultry Science, 73, 781-791. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0730781</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Geraldo, A., Bertechini, A.G., Brito, J.&amp;#193.G.D., Kato, R.K. and Fassani, E.J. (2006) N&amp;#237veis de c&amp;#225lcio e granulometrias do calc&amp;#225rio para frangas de reposi&amp;#231&amp;#227o no per&amp;#237odo de 3 a 12 semanas de idade. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 35, 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982006000100014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Svihus, B. and Hetland, H. (2001) Ileal Starch Digestibility in Growing Broiler Chickens Fed on a Wheat-Based Diet Is Improved by Mash Feeding, Dilution with Cellulose or Whole Wheat Inclusion. British Poultry Science, 42, 633-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660120088461</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, S.Y., Truong, H.H. and Selle, P.H. (2015) Whole-Grain Feeding for Chicken-Meat Production: Possible Mechanisms Driving Enhanced Energy Utilisation and Feed Conversion. Animal Production Science, 55, 559-572. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN13417</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Behnke</surname><given-names> K.C. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2001</year>)<article-title>Factors Influencing Pellet Quality</article-title><source> Feed Technology</source><volume> 5</volume>,<fpage> 19</fpage>-<lpage>22</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Goodband, R.D., Tokach, M.D. and Nelssen, J.L. (2002) The Effects of Diet Particle Size on Animal Performance. MF-2050 Feed Manufacturing. Kansas State University, Manhattan. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/grsci2/mf2050.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pelicia, K., Garcia, E., M&amp;#243ri, C., Faitarone, A.B.G., Silva, A.P., Molino, A.B., Berto, D.A., et al. (2009) Calcium Levels and Limestone Particle Size in the Diet of Commercial Layers at the End of the First Production Cycle. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 11, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2009000200003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Maiorka, A. and Macari, M. (2008) Absor&amp;#231&amp;#227o de minerais. In: Macari, M., Furlan, R.L. and Gonzales, E., Eds., Fisiologia avi&amp;#225ria: Aplicada a frangos de corte, 2nd Edition, FUNEP/UNESP, Jaboticabal, 167-173.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aguda, A.Y., Sekoni, A.A. and Omage, J.J. (2015) Requirement of Calcium and Available Phosphorus for Laying Japanese Quail Birds (Coturnix coturnix japonica) in Nigeria. Journal of Animal and Poultry Sciences, 4, 31-38. http://www.JAPSC.com</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Costa, C.H.R., Barreto, S.L.D.T., Umigi, R.T., Lima, H.J.D.A., Araujo, M.S.D. and Medina, P. (2010) Balan&amp;#231o de c&amp;#225lcio e f&amp;#243sforo e estudo dos n&amp;#237veis desses minerais em dietas para codornas japonesas (45 a 57 semanas de idade). Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39, 1748-1755. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010000800017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mayer, A. (2014) Granulometrias do calc&amp;#225rio calc&amp;#237tico e redu&amp;#231&amp;#227o do c&amp;#225lcio diet&amp;#233tico para frangos de corte. 95f. PhD Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Molnar, A., Maertens, L., Ampe, B., Buyse, J., Zoons, J. and Delezie, E. (2017) Supplementation of Fine and Coarse Limestone in Different Ratios in a Split Feeding System: Effects on Performance, Egg Quality, and Bone Strength in Old Laying Hens. Poultry Science, 96, 1659-1671. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew424</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Taylor, R.D. and Jones, G.P.D. (2004) The Incorporation of Whole Grain into Pelleted Broiler Chicken Diets. II. Gastrointestinal and Digesta Characteristics. British Poultry Science, 45, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660410001715849</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ege, G., Bozkurt, M., Ko&amp;#231er, B., Tüzün, A.E., Uygun, M. and Alkan, G. (2019) Influence of Feed Particle Size and Feed Form on Productive Performance, Egg Quality, Gastrointestinal Tract Traits, Digestive Enzymes, Intestinal Morphology, and Nutrient Digestibility of Laying Hens Reared in Enriched Cages. Poultry Science, 98, 3787-3801. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez082</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ferket, P.R. (2000) Practical Nutritional Perspective on Gut Health and Development. Proceedings 27th Carolina Poultry Nutrition Conference, Raleigh, NC. 2000, 74-86.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Svihus, B., Kl&amp;#248vstad, K.H., Perez, V., Zimonja, O., Sahlstr&amp;#246m, S., Schüller, R.B. and Prestl&amp;#248kken, E. (2004) Physical and Nutritional Effects of Pelleting of Broiler Chicken Diets Made from Wheat Ground to Different Coarsenesses by the Use of Roller Mill and Hammer Mill. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 117, 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.08.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Duke, G.E. (1992) Recent Studies on Regulation of Gastric Motility in Turkeys. Poultry Science, 71, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0710001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, Y. and Owyang, C. (1993) Vagal Afferent Pathway Mediates Physiological Action of Cholecystokinin on Pancreatic Enzyme Secretion. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 92, 418-424. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI116583</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carr&amp;#233, B. (2000). Effets de la taille des particules alimentaires sur les processus digestifs chez les oiseaux d’&amp;#233levage. Productions Animales, 12, 131-136. https://www6.inrae.fr/productions-animales/2000-Volume-13/Numero-2-2000/Effets-de-la-taille-des-particules-alimentaires https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2000.13.2.3774</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.110665-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sordi, C., Tavernari, F.D.C., Rigon, F., Bender, M., Pedon, V., Griza, A. and Bertechni, A. (2019) Digestibilidade de c&amp;#225lcio e f&amp;#243sforo de fontes inorg&amp;#226nicas para galinhas poedeiras. Embrapa Su&amp;#237nos e Aves-Artigo em peri&amp;#243dico indexado (ALICE). https://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/1112600/1/final9134.pdf</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>