Abstract

While the supplementation of methionine (Met) sources in broiler feeds has been established for several decades, there is debate on the nutritional value of the methionine hydroxy analogue of methionine (MHA) relative to DL-Met. Based on a recommendation suggesting that MHA is 65% as effective as DL-Met, many feeding trials have been conducted to challenge this recommendation. A literature search found 25 publications contributing 95 data sets suitable to compute Hedges’ g effect sizes used in the meta-analysis. The data had very little heterogeneity of almost zero and the small effect sizes of the DL-Met results were not significantly different from MHA. Data were split in various subgroups, finally suggesting that neither broiler strain (Cobb 500, Ross 308), diet type (corn, wheat based), origin of data (peer-reviewed, grey literature), nor MHA product (MHA-free acid, MHA-calcium salt) impacted the outcome of the meta-analysis. Moreover, distinguishing data in groups with dietary Met+Cysteine (Cys) levels below, at, or above requirement demonstrated that there was no interaction with general Met+Cys supply. It is therefore concluded that MHA products can be replaced by DL-Met in a weight-to-weight ratio of 100:65 in any production condition without compromising broiler performance

This article was published in: