1
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2
Table S1. Nutritional composition of dietary ingredients (% dry mass, crude protein and fiber) and percent composition of ingredients in diets
3
fed to captive-reared Canada and snow goose goslings. These eight grass-based diets were a factorial combination of protein (3 levels, High HP,
4
Medium MP, and Low LP) and fiber (2 levels, Low LF and High HF).
Nutrient (%)
5
1
Diet Recipe (%)
Ingredient
IFN No.2
Protein
Fiber
Beet sugar
3-00-660
0
Soybean meal
5-20-637
Grass hay
VHP/LF
VHP/HF
HP/LF
HP/HF
MP/LF
MP/HF
LP/LF
LP/HF
0
5∙2
1
9∙2
1
22∙3
11∙9
32∙7
19∙4
44
6
56∙8
47
25∙8
35∙2
13∙7
22∙6
1∙3
13∙6
1-03-428
13-17
63-74
26
15∙5
21
15
25
21
29
15
Wheat-mids
4-28-220
17
3
10
0∙5
35
1
35
1
35
1
Oat hulls
1-03-281
4
78
1
35
8
46∙8
3
42∙5
1
50
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vitamin Mix3
6
1
7
compositions of the grass hay (six samples) were directly measured (see methods). Complete nutrient composition of each diet was directly
Protein and fiber content (% dry mass) of all ingredients except the grass hay are from National Research Council (1982). Nutrient
8
measured (see Table 1). Given the nutrient composition of the ingredients used to construct diets (Table S1), it was not possible to formulate the
9
very high protein diet with as high fiber as the other high-fiber diets (Table 1).
10
2
International feed numbers from the National Research Council (1982).
11
3
Standard vitamin and mineral premix formulated for domestic geese (Table 25 in Summers & Leeson (1985).
12
2
13
Table S2. Mean (± SE) fitted parameters for mass (g), culmen length (mm) and diagonal tarsal length (mm) generated by the logistic growth
14
model of captive-reared Canada goose goslings fed grass-based diets consisting of a factorial combination of protein (3 levels, High HP,
15
Medium MP, and Low LP) and fiber (2 levels, High HF and Low LF). Logistic growth model of the form W = A/(1 + be-kt), were A is the
16
asymptotic mass for females and males, separately, k is the growth rate constant, and b is the limit (b = (A – initial mass) / initial mass). Values
17
within a column followed by the same letter for each parameter estimate are not significantly different, denoted by lower case letters if genders
18
were analyzed separately or upper case for genders combined (ANOVA, Fisher’s Protected LSD multiple mean comparison). Significant
19
differences in the asymptote between the genders for each diet treatment are indicated by * at P<0∙05 and ** at P<0∙01.
Asymptote (A)
Protein
Fiber
N (F:M)
Low
10 (5:5)
High
Female
Pseudo
2
Male
k
b
R
2978 ± 60a
3185 ± 131ab
0∙128 ± 0∙004A
29∙20 ± 0∙99A
0∙989 - 0∙999
13 (7:6)
2680 ± 61ab
3042 ± 151ab*
0∙117 ± 0∙003B
28∙26 ± 1∙13AB
0∙993 - 0∙999
Medium Low
10 (5:5)
2772 ± 124
AB
0∙995 - 0∙999
High
15 (7:8)
2510 ± 74
ABC
0∙998 - 0∙997
Mass
High
20
ab
b
a**
AB
28∙42 ± 1∙96
C
26∙70 ± 1∙07
3320 ± 139
0∙121 ± 0∙003
b*
0∙103 ± 0∙002
2877 ± 93
3
Low
9 (5:4)
2154 ± 235c
2743 ± 144b**
0∙079 ± 0∙003D
23∙73 ± 1∙91C
0∙978 – 0∙999
High
10 (3:7)
1846 ± 207c
3014 ± 156ab**
0∙075 ± 0∙004D
27∙13 ± 2∙14BC
0∙984 – 0∙999
Low
10 (5:5)
49∙2 ± 0∙9
55∙5 ± 2∙1
0∙061 ± 0∙002
A
1∙92 ± 0∙05
0∙995 – 1∙000
High
13 (7:6)
50∙5 ± 0∙8
52∙4 ± 1∙9A**
0∙054 ± 0∙002B
1∙85 ± 0∙05
0∙997 – 0∙999
Medium Low
10 (5:5)
49∙9 ± 1∙4
53∙5 ± 1∙3
0∙059 ± 0∙002
AB
1∙93 ± 0∙06
0∙998 – 0∙999
High
15 (7:8)
47∙3 ± 1∙3
52∙0 ± 0∙8A
0∙056 ± 0∙002AB
1∙82 ± 0∙05
0∙997 – 0∙999
Low
9 (5:4)
47∙3 ± 1∙4
53∙6 ± 1∙7
0∙039 ± 0∙002
C
1∙86 ± 0∙10
0∙997 – 0∙999
High
10 (3:7)
44∙5 ± 1∙6
53∙3 ± 2∙1A**
0∙039 ± 0∙002C
1∙90 ± 0∙10
0∙996 – 0∙999
Low
10 (5:5)
98∙4 ± 3∙3
106∙9 ± 3∙3A*
0∙087 ± 0∙003A
1∙84 ± 0∙05
0∙996 – 0∙999
High
13 (7:6)
96∙0 ± 1∙6
102∙9 ± 2∙3A*
0∙075 ± 0∙003B
1∙77 ± 0∙05
0∙994 – 0∙999
Medium Low
10 (5:5)
95∙5 ± 2∙3
102∙5 ± 1∙2A*
0∙090 ± 0∙003A
1∙79 ± 0∙06
0∙996 – 0∙999
High
15 (7:8)
92∙1 ± 1∙3
96∙7 ± 1∙1B
0∙085 ± 0∙003A
1∙65 ± 0∙05
0∙997 – 0∙999
Low
9 (5:4)
95∙3
101∙6
0∙044 ± 0∙002
C
1∙80 ± 0∙06
0∙989 – 0∙997
High
10 (3:7)
95∙3
101∙6
0∙043 ± 0∙003C
1∙77 ± 0∙05
0∙984 – 0∙999
Low
Culmen
High
Low
A**
A
A*
Tarsus
High
Low
21
1
4
22
1
23
goslings were still growing at the end of the study.
Asymptote for low protein diet groups were forced to the mean of the high and medium protein groups for each gender separately because
5
24
Table S3. Mean (± SE) fitted parameters for mass (g), culmen length (mm) and diagonal tarsal length (mm) generated by the logistic growth
25
model of captive-reared Lesser Snow goose goslings fed grass-based diets consisting of a factorial combination of protein (3 levels, High HP,
26
Medium MP, and Low LP) and fiber (2 levels, Low LF and High HF). Logistic growth model of the form W = A/(1 + be-kt), were A is the
27
asymptotic mass for female and males, separately, k is the growth rate constant, and b is the limit (b = (A – initial mass) / initial mass). Values
28
within a column followed by the same letter for each parameter estimate are not significantly different, denoted by lower case letters if genders
29
were analyzed separately or upper case for genders combined (ANOVA, Fisher’s Protected LSD multiple mean comparison). Significant
30
differences in the asymptote between the genders for each diet treatment are indicated by * at P<0∙05 and ** at P<0∙01.
Asymptote (A)
Pseudo
Fiber
N
(F:M)
Female
Male
Low
10 (3:7)
1542 ± 173
1748 ± 107
0∙146 ± 0∙004
High
8 (3:5)
1517 ± 137
1966 ± 100A*
Medium Low
4 (2:2)
1651 ± 113
2133 ± 89
High
5 (2:3)
1418 ± 23
1652 ± 192
Protein
b
R2
A
19∙32 ± 1∙69
0∙990 – 0∙998
0∙136 ± 0∙007A
19∙63 ± 1∙68
0∙992 – 0∙998
k
Mass
High
31
A
A*
0∙148 ± 0∙014
A
20∙27 ± 3∙21
0∙996 – 0∙999
A
0∙134 ± 0∙004
A
19∙75 ± 2∙99
0∙979 – 0∙997
32
6
Low
984
1749 ± 288A*
0∙072 ± 0∙001B
17∙38 ± 2∙78
0∙992 – 0∙996
1099
0∙077
13∙66
0∙992 – 0∙992
Low
3 (1:2)
High
1 (0:1)
Low
10 (3:7)
54∙0 ± 4∙6
56∙4 ± 1∙9
0∙063 ± 0∙003
High
8 (3:5)
55∙7 ± 1∙8
59∙1 ± 1∙4A
0∙056 ± 0∙003AB
Medium Low
4 (2:2)
55∙0 ± 5∙0
61∙0 ± 2∙4
0∙062 ± 0∙007
High
5 (2:3)
53∙2 ± 0∙4
54∙6 ± 1∙3A
0.060 ± 0∙003AB
Low
3 (1:2)
41∙3
58∙5 ± 4∙1
0∙043 ± 0∙007
High
1 (0:1)
53∙0
Low
10 (3:7)
89∙3 ± 2∙3
High
8 (3:5)
Medium Low
Culmen
High
Low
A
A
1∙88 ± 0∙09
0∙997 – 0∙999
1∙98 ± 0∙08
0∙998 – 0∙999
1∙95 ± 0∙13
0∙998 – 0∙999
1∙85 ± 0∙06
0∙998 – 0∙999
1∙84 ± 0∙14
0.998 – 0∙999
0∙041
1∙70
0∙998 – 0∙998
86∙0 ± 1∙5A
0∙098 ± 0∙005A
1∙46 ± 0∙05
0∙996 – 0∙999
89∙5 ± 1∙8
91∙4 ± 2∙2A
0∙089 ± 0∙007A
1∙52 ± 0∙06
0∙995 – 0∙998
4 (2:2)
87∙1 ± 0∙7
93∙1 ± 2∙5
0∙100 ± 0∙010
A
1∙45 ± 0∙08
0∙996 – 0∙999
High
5 (2:3)
84∙6 ± 0∙1
91∙8 ± 1∙2A*
0∙091 ± 0∙005A
1∙56 ± 0∙05
0∙995 – 0∙998
Low
3 (1:2)
89∙5
88∙0
0∙039 ± 0∙001
B
1∙45 ± 0∙11
0∙991 – 0∙999
High
1 (0:1)
88∙0
0∙039
1∙44
0∙996 – 0∙996
A
A**
A
B
Tarsus
High
Low
33
A
7
34
1
35
goslings were still growing at the end of the study.
Asymptote for low protein diet groups were forced to the mean of the high and medium protein groups for each gender separately because
36
8
37
Supplemental Information – References
38
39
40
41
42
43
National Research Council (1982) Nutrient requirements of poultry: nutritional data for
the United States and Canada feeds. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Summers, J.D. & Leeson, S. (1985) Broiler carcass composition as affected by amino
acid supplementation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 65, 717-723.