EVALUATION OF SUGARCANE PRESS RESIDUE (SPR) IN TERMS OF ITS METABOLIZABLE ENERGY AND OTHER

NUTRIENTS IN BROILERS AND LAYERS

SURESH, B.N.

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL NUTRITION VETERINARY COLLEGE, HEBBAL, BANGALORE

KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, BIDAR

2007 EVALUATION OF SUGARCANE PRESS RESIDUE (SPR) IN

TERMS OF ITS METABOLIZABLE ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS IN BROILERS AND LAYERS

SURESH, B.N.

Thesis submitted to the

Karnataka Veterinary, Animal And Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the award of the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

ANIMAL NUTRITION

Bangalore August,

2007

Sincerely Dedicated To

My Beloved Mentor

Prof. B.S.Venkatarami Reddy

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL NUTRITION VETERINARY COLLEGE, BANGALORE

KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, BIDAR.

Certif icate

This is to certify that the thesis entitled "EVALUATION OF SUGARCANE PRESS RESIDUE (SPR) IN TERMS OF ITS METABOLIZABLE ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS IN BROILERS AND LAYERS" submitted by Mr.SURESH,B.N., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in ANIMAL NUTRITION of the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar is a record of bonafide research work carried out by him during the period of his study in this University under my guidance and supervision and the thesis has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associationship, fellowship or other similar titles. Bangalore-560 024. 31st August, 2007

(B.S. VENKATARAMI REDDY) Dean

Veterinary College, K.V.A.F.S.U., Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.

Approved By: Chairman: B.S.VENKATARAMI REDDY

Members: 1. R.GIDEON GLORI DOSS

2. T.M.PRABHU

3. M.L.SATHYANARAYANA

4. N.K.SHIVAKUMAR GOWDA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT At the outset, I place my deep sense of gratitude with heartfelt respect

to Prof. B.S. Venkatarami Reddy, Dean, Veterinary College, Hebbal,

Bangalore and Chairperson of my Advisory Committee, for his expert

guidance, constant encouragement, constructive suggestions, kindness and

the immense care and concern he bestowed on me throughout the course of

my study. I feel fortunate to have worked under such a elegant mentor and I

will remain faithful to him and his family members for their loving and caring

nature.

I am grateful to Dr. R. Gideon Glori Doss, Professor, Department of

Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Bangalore, for his suggestions and for

serving as member of my Advisory Committee.

I owe my thanks to Dr. T.M. Prabhu, Assistant Professor (Sr. Scale),

Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, Bangalore, for his

constructive criticism, valuable suggestions and for serving as member of my

Advisory Committee.

My Sincere thanks to Dr. M.L. Sathyanarayana, Professor and Head,

Department of Vety. Pathology, Veterinary College, Bangalore, for his

constant vigil on my research and for serving as member of my Advisory

Committee.

I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. N. K. Shivakumar Gowda,

Senior Scientist, NIANP (ICAR), Adugodi, Bangalore-560 030 for his regular

and sincere enquiries, concern, gentle appreciation and suggestion during

early stages of my study and for having served as member of my Advisory

Committee.

It is indeed, an immense pleasure to express my sincere gratitude to

Prof. K. Chnadrapal Singh, Head, Dept. of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary

College, Bangalore, for his gentleness, generous interest, deep concern and

undeterred faith.

Special thanks to Dr. A.S. Rajendiran, Senior Scientist, CSWRI (SRS), Kodaikanal for his immensely priced appreciation during my Masters’ degree programme, have academically and emotionally kindled and sustained my devotion and enthusiasm during later stages of my study.

My sincere thanks to Dr. U. Krishnamoorthy (Head, Division of Animal Science) and Dr. B. Umakanth (Former Head, Dept. of Poultry Science), for their goodwill, moral support and encouragement.

I gratefully acknowledge the contribution / assistance received from the

following organizations / dept. for making this study a success

Sri Venkateshwara Poultry Farm, Bangalore …..for provide all the necessary facilities to conduct trials involving

layers M/s KPS Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

…..for supplying enzyme preparations M/s Sujay Feeds and Sapna Hatcheries, Bangalore

…..for supplying feed ingredients and broiler chicks M/s Degussa-Huls-AG, Germany

…..for analyzing the amino acid profile of SPR samples M/s Mysore Sugars Ltd., Mandya

…..for sparing SPR sample for conducting biological trials National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore

…..for providing facilities to analyze mineral constituents of SPR samples

Dept. of Animal Nutrition, VCRI, Namakkal …..for providing laboratory facilities to analyze gross energy of

samples Dept. of Poultry Science, Bangalore

…..for sparing materials to conduct birds’ trials Dept. of Livestock Production and Management, Bangalore

…..for providing laboratory facilities to analyze P and Cr of samples Dept. of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Bangalore

…..for providing facilities to analyze blood mineral profiles Dept. of Vet. Pathology, Bangalore

…..for conducting Post Mortem Examination of dead birds I sincerely express my deep cordial gratitude to my colleague Dr. T.

Thirumalesh (Assistant Professor, College of Agriculture, Bijapur) for having stood with me always. I lovingly thank all the PhD Scholars of Dept. of Animal Nutrition: Mrs. Deepa Ananth, Ms. N. Suma, Dr. P.C. Bolka, Dr. Avinash Nirmale and Dr. B. Ramachanrda.

I sincerely express my loving gratitude to all my fellow PG students, colleagues and friends: Drs. Bhavisya, Pasha, Nagaraj, Ramesh (400 series), Aniket, Nagesh, Madhu, Hebbali (500 series), Devraj, Keshava, Ramu and Vishwanath (600 series).

I am highly grateful to Dr. C. Basavanth Kumar, for sharing his

knowledge in poultry husbandry related matter and for critical scrutiny of

manuscript. I also thank Mr. Basavaraju, Statistician and Dr. K. Venkata

Reddy, Assoc. Prof. (APM) for their needy help.

I am also grateful to Mr. Prakash of Proland Computers for his skillful

typing and alignment of the thesis in time.

I also express my memorable thanks without fail to non-teaching staff

members of Dept of Animal Nutrition: Mr. Rangaswamy, Swamy Gowda, Munirathnaiah and staff members of Dean’s Office, Mr. Chandrashekar,

Prabhakar and Mrs. Rosaline for their co-operation and help.

I am highly grateful to the Secretariat, Dept. of Animal Husbandry and

Fisheries, Govt. of Karnataka for extending my joining date for the post of

Veterinary Officer, to pursue the PhD course at KVAFSU.

I cannot find words of enough power to express my love and gratitude

to my parents who were not only understanding and tolerant but with open

heartedly allowing me to take any decision regarding my career. I also

express thanks to all my relatives for their moral support.

Lastly, I submit my record of gratitude to all my teachers who have

shaped my life and also to all the persons who involved in one way or the

other for the successful completion of this piece of work.

Bangalore (Suresh, B.N.) 31st August, 2007

C O N T E N T

CHAPTER TITLE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

VI. REFERENCES

VII. APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLE

Table No.

Particulars

2.1 Exclusive sources of minerals 2.2 Recommended nutrient specification for different classes of poultry

by various agencies 3.1 Ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of experimental

diets used in metabolism trial of broilers 3.2 Ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of experimental

diets used in metabolism trial of layers 3.3 Ingredient composition of experimental diets compounded for

different phases during performance trial of broilers 3.4 Calculated nutrient composition of experimental diets compounded

for different phases during performance trial of broilers 3.5 Ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of experimental

diets compounded during performance trial of layers 4.1 Per cent proximate composition of differentially dried SPR samples

from different factories 4.2 Fiber fractions (%) of sun-dried SPR samples from different factories 4.3 Mineral constituents of sun-dried SPR samples from different

factories 4.4 Amino acid profile of SPR samples from different factories 4.5 Fatty acids profile of SPR sample selected for biological trial 4.6 Proximate composition and gross energy of experimental diets used

in metabolism trial of broilers 4.7 Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of experimental

diets used in metabolism trial of broilers 4.8 Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of sun-dried SPR

sample employed for metabolism trial of broilers 4.9 Performance of birds under different treatments during different

weeks (2nd and 3rd week) of metabolism trial of broilers 4.10 Proximate composition and gross energy of experimental diets used

in metabolism trial of layers 4.11 Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of experimental

diets used in metabolism trial of layers 4.12 Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of sun-dried SPR as

determined by difference method in metabolism trial of layers 4.13 Performance of birds under different treatments during 14-day

metabolism period of layers 4.14 Analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets compounded

for different phases during performance trial of broilers 4.15 Weekly average body weight gain of birds as influenced by different

treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Table No. Particulars

4.16 Phase wise and cumulative average body weight gain of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.17 Weekly average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.18 Phase wise and cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.19 Weekly average feed conversion ratio of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.20 Phase wise and cumulative average feed conversion ratio of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.21 Metabolizability of various nutrients of experimental diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.22 Calcium and phosphorus retention of experimental diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4.23 Carcass characteristic of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

4.24 Relative weight of vital organs of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

4.25 Relative length of intestinal segments of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

4.26 Bone mineralization of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

4.27 Blood mineral profile of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals of 42-day performance trial of broilers

4.28 Net returns and performance scores of broiler birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors

4.29 Analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets compounded during performance trial of layers

4.30 Period wise and cumulative average egg production of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

4.31 Period wise and cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

4.32 Period wise and cumulative average feed efficiency of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

4.33 Period wise and cumulative average body weight change and livability birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

4.34 Period wise and cumulative average weight of egg of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factor during performance trial of layers

4.35 Average shape index values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.36 Average albumen index values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.37 Average Haugh unit score values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.38 Average yolk color values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.39 Average shell thickness values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.40 Average yolk index values of egg of experimental layers as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals

4.41 Period wise and cumulative average protein and energy utilization efficiencies of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factor during performance trial of layers

4.42 Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter and retention of minerals of diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

4.43 Blood mineral profile of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trial of layers

4.44 Period wise and cumulative average net returns of birds as

influenced by different treatments and main factor during performance trial of layers

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix No.

Title Page

1. Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to metabolism trail of broilers

2. Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to metabolism trail of layers

3. Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to performance trail of broilers

4. Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to performance trail of layers

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AME : Apparent Metabolizable Energy ANF : Anti Nutritional Factors AOAC : Association of Official Analytical Chemists BIS : Bureau of Indian Standards Ca : Calcium CD : Critical Difference CF : Crude Fiber CP : Crude Protein DCP : Dicalcium Phosphate DM : Dry matter EE : Ether Extract EEU : Efficiency of Energy Utilisation EIS : Economic Index Score EPU : Efficiency of Protein Utilisation FCR : Feed Conversion Ratio g : Gram iP : Inorganic Phosphorus Kg : Kilogram LUA : Lipid Utilizing Agents ME : Metabolisable Energy NDE : NSP Degrading Enzymes NFE : Nitrogen Free Extractives NRC : National Research Council OM : Organic Matter P : Phosphorus Pav : Available Phosphorus PIS : Performance Index Score SEm : Standard Error of Means SPR : Sugarcane Press Residue TA : Total Ash

tP : Total Phosphorus

I. INTRODUCTION

Poultry industry as one of the most profitable sectors of business of agriculture provides

nutritious meat and eggs for human consumption within the shortest possible time. In India,

poultry production has emerged as the most dynamic and fastest expanding segment in agricultural

sector with an annual growth rate (1997-2002) of 19 per cent in the broiler chicken and 5 per cent

in egg production. On the global arena, India is the fourth largest producer of eggs with an annual

production of 37 million eggs and ranked fifth in respect of poultry meat production with an

output of 1.44 million ton meat per year. Presently, Indian poultry sector is worth Rs. 24,000

crores contributing Rs. 33, 000 crores to national GNP (approx. 2.5% of total GDP) and is all set

to increase to Rs. 60, 000 crores in the next 5 years (Mahapatra, 2005).

Poultry and poultry products at present command a major share of food of animal origin

being produced and consumed in the country because of their cost effectiveness, easy availability,

superior protein quality and order of acceptance by all sections of the society. However, the per

capita availability is only 37 eggs or 1.5kg of egg mass and 1.2 kg of poultry meat which are quite

lower than the ICMR (1995) recommended requirements of 180 eggs and 9.5 kg of poultry meat.

The high biological value of egg and meat have nevertheless resulted in an increasing demand for

these products (Mahapatra, 2005).

Feed resource is a major constraint confronting the poultry industry as the feed alone

accounts for 65-70 and 75-80 per cent of the cost of production of broilers and layers, respectively.

Maize and soybean meal are the predominant energy and protein sources, respectively, in poultry

diets. Energy sources (cereal and cereal by-products) available at present are just sufficient enough

to meet the 70 per cent of requirement of animal feed while the vegetable protein sources (oil cakes

and meals) are just sufficient. However, the growth in oilseed production does not commensurate

with the anticipated requirement for animal feeding, their availability will be a major issue in

future. Hence, the unprecedented demand for cereal and protein sources has resulted in escalation

of feed costs which might marginalize the survival and growth of poultry industry (Chadha, 2005).

While computation of poultry diets orient around energy and protein, yet certain portion

of the broiler (3-4%) and layer diet (9-12%) indeed needs to be made up with mineral supplements

to accomplish proper growth and production. Marginal deficiencies of both major and trace

mineral elements cause significant reduction in the birds’ performance (Leeson and Summers,

2001). For this purpose, invariably addition of mineral supplements such as di-calcium phosphate,

calcite powder, shell grit, etc., are mandatory. Although shortage is not expected, in view of the

periodical scarcity as well as cost of mineral salts, alternate sourcing of minerals also assumes

significance (Reddy, 2005).

Thus, the ever increasing demand for quality foods by humans has intensified the efforts

of increasing the productivity of livestock and poultry which is already constrained due to many

reasons. The disparity between the two can only be addressed through significant gains in

efficiency in utilizing non-conventional feed ingredients and by-products. Prevalence and

acceptance of poor quality feed resources for such an activity not withstanding, yet the utilization

of certain agro-industrial by-products / waste products offers an opportunity to sustain the

livestock productivity (Reddy, 2005). The search for alternate feed ingredients is also driven

directly by the economics of the industry to find nutrient sources at lower costs than those

currently in use. Sugarcane press residue is one such by-product from sugar industry, which is

available abundantly in sugarcane growing areas, has to be exploited for economical poultry

production.

Sugarcane press residue (SPR), also known as filter cake / press mud, is obtained during

the process of precipitation of cane juice. It is a soft, spongy, amorphous dark brown material

containing sugars, fiber, coagulated colloids including wax, apart from containing albuminoids,

organic salts, etc. and rich in organic carbon and inorganic elements. It constitutes to about 3 to 5

per cent of cane crushing and the current annual production in India ranges from 3.3 to 3.6 million

tons as against the global production of 17 million tons (Singh and Solomon, 1995). However, only

fraction of this is used as soil conditioner for enhancing crop productivity and majority of it

remains unrecycled due to lack of proper technology.

Recent attempts carried out at this Institute have revealed that the SPR can be a

potential alternative source of both organic and inorganic nutrients for livestock and poultry. The

chemical analysis indicated that the SPR comprised of CP-9.96, EE-11.37, CF-17.67, Ca-2.40 and

total P-1.20% and Mn-228, Zn-36.5, Cu-22.6 and Co-236.7 ppm (Reddy et al., 2004). A

preliminary trial on magnitude of utilization of SPR in broiler birds (up to 4%) showed that SPR

can be a valuable non-conventional feedstuffs for poultry (Budeppa, 2004). An another trial

conducted in laying hens also revealed that there is a potential for use of SPR up to 10% as a

source of both organic and inorganic nutrients excepting energy (because of unavailable data) in

layer rations (Suma, 2005; Suma et al., 2007). In growing sheep, Suresh (2004) demonstrated that

SPR can serve as a valuable ingredient in the concentrate for stall fed sheep up to 3%.

The results of the aforementioned studies do encourage the use of SPR in livestock rations

at reasonably higher inclusion levels. Yet, the magnitude of utilization of energy from the SPR-

based diets and obviously that of SPR as well, has not yet been accomplished. Since energy is the

important deciding factor for animals to perform, it is therefore necessary to establish the energetic

worth of SPR-based diets and that of SPR. Hence, a holistic study is essential in this direction

and that the positive outcome from the study may render the SPR as a valuable feed ingredient,

which is currently posing the proper disposal and environmental problems.

Application of biotechnological tools in the feed industry such as usage of exogenous feed

enzymes has been adopted, especially when the diet comprises of unconventional feedstuffs. The

concept of using feed enzymes in poultry is well accepted and found to be economical (Reddy,

2005). Exogenous enzymes in feed endows animals with additional metabolic arsenal to fight

undigestible feed components as well as ANFs. Use of specific enzymes like xylanase, pectinase

and cellulase could breakdown plant fiber releasing energy as well as increasing the protein

digestibility due to better accessibility of protein when the fiber gets broken down (Saxena et al.,

2006).

Recently, Meng et al. (2004) reported that the dietary supplementation of bacterial lipase

improved fat utilization as the young birds have insufficient secretion of endogenous lipase.

Lecithin, an excellent source of phospholipids has the ability to promote fat absorption in the

digestive system as the birds’ cannot synthesize this component and thereby increases energy

efficiency of feed. Addition of lipase and lecithin may enhance the nutritive value of SPR.

In this context, a comprehensive study to evaluate the possibility of use of SPR as a feed

ingredient for poultry with biotechnological interventions was attempted to accomplish the

following objectives:

1. To evaluate the dried Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR) samples from

different sources by suitable chemical methods.

2. To determine the metabolizable energy and digestibility coefficients of

various nutrients of SPR in both broilers and layers by metabolic trials.

3. To identify proper biotechnological tool for efficient utilization of SPR

in poultry.

4. To assess the effect of inclusion of processed SPR at different levels on

the growth performance of broilers and production performance of

layers.

5. To observe the cost effectiveness of SPR inclusion in the diets of

poultry.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature relating to sugarcane press residue including the

importance of some major nutrients in poultry production is briefly reviewed

under the following headings:

2.1 Alternate Feed Resources for Poultry

2.2 Importance of Various Nutrients in Poultry Diets

2.2.1 Energy 2.2.2 Protein

2.2.3 Minerals 2.2.4 Nutrient Specification for Various Classes of Poultry 2.2.5 Performance of Birds on High Fiber Diets 2.2.6 Other Dietary Factors Influencing the Performance of Birds

2.3 Biotechnological Approaches for Optimizing Birds’ Performance

2.3.1 NSP Degrading Enzymes 2.3.2 Lipid Utilizing Agents

2.4 Sugarcane in Agriculture and Industry

2.4.1 General 2.4.2 Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR)

2.5 Chemical Composition of SPR

2.6 Effect of SPR Based Diets on Broilers’ Performance

2.6.1 Growth Rate and Livability 2.6.2 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency 2.6.3 Carcass Characteristics and Organometry

2.7 Effect of SPR Based Diets on Layers’ performance

2.7.1 Egg Production 2.7.2 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency 2.7.3 Body Weight Change 2.7.4 Egg Characteristics 2.7.5 Efficiency of Nutrient Utilization

2.8 SPR as a Feed Ingredient in Other Farm Animals

2.9 Effect of Inclusion of SPR on Utilization of Nutrients

2.10 Effect of Inclusion of SPR on Mineral Status of Birds/Animals

2.11 Economics of SPR Supplementation

2.1 Alternate Feed Resources for Poultry

The spiraling cost of feed ingredients is causing a steep increase in the

prices of compounded poultry diets leading to a corresponding raise in

production costs with the resultant low marginal profit for the poultry farmer.

Hence, it is imperative to resort to other means for alleviating the problem of

high feed cost without impairing the performance of the chickens. In this

direction, utilization of cheap and locally available non-conventional feed

resources, not directly utilized for human food appears to be the most

practical and economic approach to this problem (Reddy, 2005).

India, due to its highly variable landscape, rainfall and agro-climate,

produce large number and quantities of agro-industrial by-products for

livestock feeding. However, only a narrow range of these raw materials are

used in poultry feed formulations because of:

1. problem of collection, transportation, processing and storage

2. higher fiber content or low energy value

3. presence of certain anti-nutritional or toxic factors

4. seasonal availability and hence irregular supply

5. variability in nutrient quality

Added to the above constraints, more importantly there is a lack of

reliable data on their nutritive quality, feeding value and safe or effective

levels of inclusion. Only conventional feed ingredients such as maize, soybean

meal, groundnut extractions and fish meal have bean evaluated with a fair

degree of accuracy and reliability but database is limited for other ingredients.

Hence, there is always a urgent need to develop database for conventional

feed ingredients on nutrient contents, digestibility/availability of different

nutrients and safe/effective level of inclusion and the presentation form of

feed for feeding (Mandal et al., 2006).

In last two decades there were occasions when India was facing the

shortage of food grains for human beings. During such situations poultry

industry is the first to be affected and this led many nutritionists in India to

depend on the agro industrial by-products, as a component of poultry rations

and as a result several potential sources of feed have come to the light.

The agro-industrial by-products are of primary importance in poultry

feeding in view of their availability in quantities sufficient for small farm and

commercial use. However, most of them are seldom able to meet the required

nutritive value and moreover almost all of these are plagued by the presence

of anti-nutritive factors like mycotoxins, phytate, oxalate, tannins and others

including high fiber and lignin apart from low nutrient profile (Saxena et al.,

2006).

Although their feeding values are known to be poorer than that of

conventional feed ingredients, yet when the price of conventional feed

ingredients particularly maize is very high, then the compensation in terms of

feeding cost may be more than the loss in production while using non-

traditional feed ingredients together with biotechnological approaches in

formulations.

2.2 Importance of Various Nutrients in Poultry Diets

Among the various nutrients, the role of energy, protein and minerals

is of great significance in poultry, because of the exclusive function of each

such nutrient. Compounding of poultry diets is being normally done

primarily to meet these requirements. Since SPR appears to be a poor source

of energy and protein but a good non-traditional source of minerals, it is

pertinent to review the literature related to influence of different nutrients on

the performance of birds. The role of crude fiber is also considered because of

its anti-nutritive properties.

2.2.1 Energy

Energy, described by Kleiber as the fire of life, is of utmost importance

because in the diets containing adequate amounts of all required nutrients,

the efficiency of feed utilization nearly depends upon the available energy

content of the diet (Leeson and Summers, 2001).

The energy required by the chickens for growth of body tissues,

production of egg, carrying out of vital physical activities and maintenance of

normal body temperature, is derived from organic compounds viz.,

carbohydrates, protein and fats in the diets (McDonald et al., 2002).

a) Procedures for measuring metabolizable energy

Various bioassay procedures are available for determination of

metabolizable energy (ME) of feed ingredients wherein feed intake and

excreta output are measured over a 2 to 5-day test period. In the method of

Sibbald and Slinger (1963), the test ingredient is substituted essentially for

part of the complete basal diet. However, to avoid mineral and vitamin

deficiencies, the components of the diets containing these nutrients are left

intact.

Hill and Anderson (1958), assuming that if nitrogen is not retained it

will appear as uric acid, proposed a correction value of 8.22 kcal/g nitrogen

retained because this is the energy obtained when uric acid is completely

oxidized.

Several researchers have also developed prediction equations to

estimate the energy content of feed ingredients from their proximate

components. Janssen et al. (1979) conducted a series of studies to correlate the

chemical composition of different types of feed ingredients to the ME value.

By using multiple regression analysis, equations were derived to estimate

MEn (kcal/kg dry matter) from chemical composition. A subcommittee of

European Federation of the World’s Poultry Science Association (1989)

developed a set of equations to estimate the energy value of ingredients. Dale

et al. (1990) developed an equation to estimate the TMEn value of dried

bakery products, a blend of various by-products produced from the baking

industry.

The ME values obtained by predication equations are highly variable.

For example, the ME value of grain sorghums is known to be influenced by

tannin content. Sibbald (1977) reported TME values of 3300 and 3970 kcal/kg

for high and low-tannin grain sorghums, respectively.

Employing high levels of added fat often leads to more MEn than can

be accounted for from the summation of ingredients. Several literature

(Mateos and Sell, 1981; Mateos et al., 1982; Sell et al., 1983) reported that the

high level fat feeding evidently increases the intestinal retention time of feed

and so allows for more complete digestion and absorption of the non-lipid

constituents.

Factors influencing the MEn value of fat that are not directly associated

with fat quality are age of poultry and method of measurement. Renner and

Hill (1961), Sibbald and Karmer (1978) and Lessire et al. (1982) reported that

an improved utilization of dietary fat occurs after 2 to 6 weeks of age in case

of chickens. Such type of improvement, according to Young and Garrett

(1963) and Sell et al. (1986) was evident with long chain saturated fatty acids

and fats containing substantial proportions of these fatty acids. A synergism

in the absorption of the saturated fatty acids (tallow) related to the added

amounts of unsaturated fatty acids (vegetable oil) was also reported (Ketels et

al., 1986; Ketels and DeGroote, 1987).

b) Low energy density diets

A series of experiments were conducted by Leeson et al. (1996) to

demonstrate the effect of broiler response to variable dietary energy. In the

first experiment where the chickens were offered corn-soy diets providing

2700, 2900, 3100 and 3300 kcal ME/kg ad libitum, showed no effect on growth

rate and energy intake was constant. In second experiment when the feed

intake was restricted, there was reduced growth rate as the energy level

decreased from 3300 to 2700 kcal ME/kg. In third experiment, when the

broilers offered a choice of diets (3300 kcal diet and either 3100, 2900 or 2700

kcal diet separately), they showed remarkably precise control of intake, such

that energy intake was gain constant across all treatments. They also

concluded that the broilers possess a good ability to control their feed intake

based on desire to normalize energy intake.

Recently, Nagaraju (2006) reported that the broilers consumed a

relatively higher amount of feed (3619g/bird) when fed with low nutrient

density diet containing 3.5% lesser ME and protein as against the moderate

nutrient density diet (3132g/bird) while the body weight gain (2020 and

2055g, respectively) and FCR (1.99 and 2.00 g feed/g weight gain) remained

almost similar during 42-day experimental period.

Savory and Gentle (1976a), in studying feeding pattern of quail fed

diets diluted with 20% showed that normalization of energy intake had

occurred at 8 to 10 days. In this study with quail, birds were able to normalize

their nutrient intake, although growth rate was not maintained suggesting

that the diet dilution with fiber in some way influenced energy portioning.

However, Savory and Gentle (1976b) measured ME of their diluted quail diets

and showed that the fiber per se had no effect on utilization of other feed

components.

Since chickens increase their feed consumption as the energy content of

the diet reduced, a deficiency of energy can be produced only by using very

low energy diets which are usually quite bulky surpassing the capacity of the

crop and digestive system (Leeson and Summers, 2001) to hold the ingested

feed.

As the energy content of the diet of growing chickens drops below the

critical value (2600 kcal/kg), growth is reduced and the amount of fat

deposited in carcass decreased. However, as long as the energy content of the

diet is adequate for maintenance, no other deficiency systems were observed

(Leeson and Summers, 2001).

If the diet is so low in energy that it entails a feed intake which exceeds

the physical capacity of the bird, energy intake will then be inadequate to

support normal egg production. From the evidence reviewed by (Morris,

1968) it would seem that the lower limit to dietary energy concentration is

about 2300 kcal ME/kg. Below this level one can expect reduced rates of the

lay if mash diets are fed. The exact limiting value in mash diets is probably

determined more by energy per unit volume than energy per unit weight.

As and when sunflower meal was incorporated at higher levels,

nutrient and energy densities of the resulting diet may be significantly diluted

and growth being retarded (Senkoylu and Dale, 1999). Fat can be a good way

of fortifying the energy density of the diets (Zatari and Sell, 1990).

c) Factors affecting utilization of dietary energy

Feedstuffs containing high amounts of fiber possess relatively low

energy values for poultry unless they are also high in fat content (Leeson and

Summers, 2001). Variation in available energy and protein content of

feedstuffs can be attributed to wide range of anti-nutritive factors such as

non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), tannins, protease inhibitors, alkaloids,

saponins etc. (Hughes and Choct, 1999).

Of the known anti-nutritive components of poultry feedstuffs, soluble

NSP stand out as a major determinant of the available energy and other

nutrients for poultry (Hughes et al., 2001). One of the modes of action of

soluble NSP is to form a viscous gel in the gut which in turn affects the rates

of digestion and absorption of nutrients (Choct, 1999).

Among the bird-related factors influencing energy metabolism,

capacity to digest and absorb carbohydrates develops during incubation,

providing the newly hatched chick with a relatively mature system for

utilization of starch, the main carbohydrates in the diet of poultry (Moran,

1985). On the other hand, the capacity to utilize fat can take 10 days or so to

develop in broiler chickens due to lag in lipase secretion by the pancreas (Jin

et al., 1998).

2.2.2 Protein

Protein, being the premier nutrient, is always judiciously maintained at

certain specified optimum level for different classes of poultry. In general, as

the age advances, the level of protein suggested invariably declines (BIS, 1992;

NRC, 1994). Correspondingly the concentration of energy in the diets is

increased with the age of the broilers.

Bedford and Summers (1985) found that as long as the essential amino

acids comprised 55 per cent CP, then the level of dietary CP was not a factor

affecting the growth and feed intake. Han et al. (1992) observed that the amino

nitrogen itself can be a limiting factor in low protein diets.

Edward and Campbell (1991) emphasized the importance of dietary

energy in determining the limit response to protein. A small decrease in net

energy yield resulting from large dietary inclusions of poor-quality protein is

sufficient to explain the impairment of maximum response.

Boorman and Ellis (1996) confirmed that it was impossible to elicit

maximum response to the limiting amino acid by feeding large amounts of

poor quality protein.

Ferguson et al. (1998) reported that there is a critical dietary CP level

below which the birds’ performance will decline. Reducing CP content below

18.8 per cent in the diet fed from 3 to 6 weeks of age would adversely affect

performance parameters.

2.2.3 Minerals

a) Role of Minerals

Minerals are the inorganic part of feeds or tissue. They fulfill

physiological, structural and regulatory functions as mentioned below:

Role of individual mineral elements and the effects of their deficiency

Element Role / functions Deficiency symptoms Calcium Bone and egg shell, Growth retardation, decreased

transmission of nerve impulse

feed consumption, rickets, osteomalacia, thin egg shells

Phosphorus Bone, energy metabolism Rickets, osteomalacia, depraved appetite, poor fertility

Potassium Osmoregulation, acid-base balance, nerve and muscle excitation

Retarded growth, weakness

Sodium Acid-base balance, osmoregulation

Reduced egg production, poor growth, cannibalism, soft bones, low body weight gains and high mortality

Chloride Acid-base balance, osmoregulation, gastric secretion

Alkalosis, poor growth, high mortality, nervous trouble

Sulfur Structure of amino acids, vitamins. Hormones, chondrotin

-

Magnesium Bone, activator of enzymes for carbohydrate and lipid metabolism

Nervous irritability and convulsion

Iron Haemoglobin, enzymes of electron transport

Anemia, depigmentation of red and block feathers

Copper Haemoglobin synthesis, enzyme systems, pigments

Anemia, poor growth, depigmentation, sway back

Cobalt Component of vitamin B12 Iodine Thyroid hormones Goiter, drop in production,

lacy feathers, weak or dead young ones

Manganese Enzyme activation Perosis, retarded growth, reduced egg production, weak egg shell, skeletal abnormality, atoxia

Zinc Enzyme component and activator

Poor growth, depressed appetite

Selenium Component of glutathione peroxidase, iodine metabolism, immune function

Myopathy, exudative diathesis, encephalomalacia

(Source: McDonald et al., 2002)

b) Sources of Minerals

Most of the feed ingredients that are used as the energy and protein

sources in poultry diets invariably also provide minerals in addition to basic

organic nutrients. Hence, whenever possible or practicable the mineral

requirements should be met by selection or combination of available

feedstuffs which supply energy and protein. The amount of different minerals

present in commonly used poultry feed ingredients is given below:

Major minerals, % Trace minerals, mg/kg Ingredients

Ca Pav Cl Mg Na K Fe Mn Cu Zn Se Maize 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.38 100 4 3 29 0.04

Wheat 0.05 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.52 100 48 7 40 0.51

Wheat bran 0.10 0.65 0.30 0.15 0.06 1.24 200 115 12 86 0.95

Rice polish 0.06 0.18 0.10 0.65 0.11 1.17 200 30 7 41 0.30 Soybean meal 0.20 0.33 0.05 0.27 0.05 2.54 100 27 36 52 0.11

Sunflower extr. 0.30 0.75 0.03 0.75 0.02 1.00 100 70 4 30 0.18

Fish meal 6.50 4.00 0.55 0.21 0.47 0.32 600 25 8 119 1.83

Meat meal 8.00 0.17 0.90 1.00 0.55 1.23 400 16 8 98 0.40 Source: Leeson and Summers, 2001

The minerals present in commonly used feedstuffs of poultry rations

may not be sufficient to meet the requirements for high yielding modern

birds. In addition, there is a considerable variability in their availability across

various feed ingredients since some of the mineral elements are present in

chelated forms, which are largely unavailable for absorption. For example, P

from plant sources is only 30 to 45 per cent available (Perney et al., 1993),

because much of the P is in the form of phytate (myo-inositol hexaphosphate)

and is poorly utilized in poultry. Further, phytate P can complex with several

cations such as Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe, K and Cu, as well as amino acids (Ravindran

et al., 1998). Hence, the availability of minerals, particularly P in feedstuffs of

plant origin is the key issue in poultry nutrition.

Hence, although considerable opportunity exists to provide most of the

mineral needs from basal feedstuffs, the flexibility needed in formulating

diets often requires concentrated sources of one or more mineral elements

sources. The supplementation of inorganic salts is not only expensive but also

fails to address the problem of over supplementation, especially in case of P

leading to potential environmental pollution in soil and ground water.

Specific and exclusive sources of some minerals are given in Table 2.1.

2.2.4 Nutrient Specification for Various Classes of Poultry

The requirement of various nutrients for broilers at different age and

for laying hens is presented in Table 2.2. The standards show considerable

variation in the specifications for all the nutrients. In view of the faster growth

observed in the present day broiler genotype and higher egg production rate

in layers, the levels recommended by the Governmental agencies (BIS, 1992;

NRC, 1994) is lower than the ones followed in the filed particularly for broiler

finishers. Current practice is to supply nutrients some what excess of the

accepted requirements.

2.2.5 Performance of Birds on High Fiber Diets

Crude fiber is known to increase the passage rate in the gut and

bringing physicochemical changes in the ingesta due to its hydrophilic

property (Southgate, 1973) there by affecting the performance.

Several reports available show the adverse effect of high dietary crude

fiber on the digestibility of poultry diets.

Deaton et al. (1979) and Mandelkar (1992) found that using high fiber

sunflower meal (36% CP and 24% CF) up to 30 per cent in a layer diet

significantly decreased feed efficiency while egg production, egg weight and

egg shell strength and mortality remained unchanged.

Chaturvedi and Singh (2000) reported that the correlation coefficient

between the crude fiber and feed intake on rice bran based diets (9.87, 10.87,

11.48 and 11.57 % CF) has followed the generally accepted concept that on

high fiber (low energy) diets, feed intake is relatively higher. They also

noticed that the severe deficiency of nutrient (energy) (15.58 to 16.00% CF)

lowered feed intake and the degree of reduction in feed intake was governed

by the severity of the deficiency.

2.2.6 Other Dietary Factors Influencing Performance of Birds

An important nutritional factor, in addition to the composition of the

diet and its caloric value, is the structure of the food, which induces marked

changes in behavioral and metabolic parameters. Physical texture and

appearance have some effect on the willingness of the birds to approach and

consume feed and this is particularly important with young birds.

a) Particle size

Portella et al. (1988) concluded that birds select feed material on the

basis of particle size. Further, he observed that the juvenile meat type chick

was able to distinguish small differences in food particle size.

The intake of very finely ground or dusty feeds is often a little lower

than that of a coarsely ground mash. Reece et al. (1985) reported that the

broiler chicks performed better with a mash containing coarse rather than fine

particles. Further, the propensity to consume more feed containing coarse vs.

fine particles when given the choice is associated with improved performance

(Nir et al., 1990).

Leghorn type cockerels are less susceptible to diet particle size than the

broiler type cockerels. Nir et al. (1990) showed that the preference for particle

size vary with age. The disappearance of large particle from the feed is most

pronounced as birds become older.

Nir et al. (1994) also reported that the particle size uniformity has a

positive effects on performance.

As birds age, their preference for larger particles increases. In choice

situations, the refusal of the fine grind was obvious at all ages and was more

pronounced as birds got older (Nir and Ptichi, 2001).

When fed a diet in mash form, the weight of the gizzard and its

contents are positively related to the size of the feed particle, where as the pH

of its contents is negatively related (Nir et al., 1994; Nir et al., 1995).

Nir and Ptichi (2001) opined that the passage rate of smaller particles

through the gizzard of young chicks is faster than that of large particles,

resulting in marked atrophy of stomachs (proventriculus and gizzard) and the

hypertrophy of the small intestine, and lower pH of the intestinal chyme. The

later could be result in excessive bacterial fermentation, producing volatile

fatty acids.

b) Density

The physical form of a diet has a substantial influence on the resulting

physical density and on growth. Although the dietary energy concentration is

normally expressed as energy per unit weight there is some evidence to

suggest that energy per unit volume may be a value in defining the energy

content of a diet, particularly at the lower end of the scale. Martz et al. (1957)

observed that neither energy concentration nor physical density alone was

satisfactory for measuring the adequacy of a diet fro rapid chick growth and

they preferred to use an energy / volume measurement.

Sibbald et al. (1960) also observed that for young chicks nutrient

concentration expressed as a gravimetric basis was not as satisfactory as

nutrient concentration expressed on a volumetric basis.

c) Palatability

Apart from particle size, the other major dietary factors which affects

the feed intake and growth rate is palatability of the diet. The acceptability of

the feed is a less important factor with poultry than with other classes of farm

livestock, probably because the senses of taste and smell are not developed in

birds.

The sense of the taste and smell in birds is less developed than

mammalian species (Lindenmaier and Kare, 1959), but this is compensated by

mechanoreceptors located in the beak. Mechanoreceptors have been described

in chicken beaks (Roumy and Leitner, 1973).

Feed refusal is generally attributed to the presence of mycotoxins in the

diets. However, quite often the diet’s texture is responsible for this

phenomenon. The past-ingestive nutritional effects of the feed are memorized

and coupled with sensorial cues to build feed identification.

As stated earlier, high amount of fines in the diets cause an

agglomeration of pasty material on the beak, reduce feed intake, increase

water consumption and waste feed in the water trough.

2.3 Biotechnological Approaches for Optimizing Birds’ Performance

Biotechnology is a wide discipline incorporating applied biosciences

and technology and involving practical application of microorganisms or

their sub-cellular components to the manufacturing and service industry. It is

an exciting filed offering tremendous scope for more control over biochemical

activities with in the body and also helping dietary nature or the nutritive

quality of feedstuffs and feeds.

Application of biotechnological tools in the feed industry such as usage

of exogenous feed enzymes has been found to be logical, especially when the

diet comprises of unconventional feedstuffs. The concept of using feed

enzymes in poultry is well accepted and found economical (Reddy, 2005).

2.3.1 NSP Degrading Enzymes

Poultry, being a simple stomach creature, has a very limited ability to

cope up with toxic and anti-nutritive substances if present in any significant

amount in their diet. Crude fiber and non-starch polysaccharides are the most

important anti-nutrients in the poultry feeds which hamper productivity

either through exerting direct effects in the system or by way of lowering

digestion and / or absorption of dietary nutrients in birds. These negative

effects get further aggravated by inclusion of non-conventional feed

ingredients as they are rich in these components in addition to gum and

mucilages. Enzymes possessing cellulolytic and hemicellulolytic activity have

been found useful in hydrolyzing such components in feeds.

Choct et al. (1995) stated that suitable enzyme combination strategies

for different feed ingredients might result in an increase in feed intake,

stimulation of growth, improvement of feed conversion and would overcome

the problem of wet litter, all of which ultimately would culminate in the cost

effectiveness of diets. Enzyme supplementation not only enhances bird

performance and feed conversion, but also lessens the environmental

problems (Yi et al., 1996).

Rajeshwara Rao and Devegowda (1996) reported that supplementation

of enzymes to diets based on SFE and DORB improved the performance of

broilers which was attributed to improved nutrient digestibility.

However, Chennegowda et al. (2001) showed a marginal (non-

significant) improvement in weight gain by 3.6 to 4.2 per cent in the groups

fed 20 % sunflower extraction with commercial enzyme preparations

(xylanase and pectinase or xylanse and cellulase) which was attributed to

improved digestibility of NSPs by enzyme supplementation only at sufficient

levels of substrate (20% SFE) as feed enzymes have higher Km.

In layers, Sharma and Katoch (1993) observed a numerical increase in

egg production when a fiber degrading enzyme was supplemented in a diet

of 26 weeks old birds. Similar observations were also made by Jayanna and

Devegowda (1993) and Mohandas and Devegowda (1993).

Zang Sumin et al. (1996) reported that addition of 0.5% compounded

enzyme to the basal diets significantly (p<0.01) decreased the feed intake in

layers. The improvement in the feed efficiency due to addition of single or

compound enzyme was also reported by Francesh et al. (1995).

Ponnuvel et al. (2001) observed that the per cent hen-day and hen-

housed egg production, egg weight and feed efficiency were statistically

comparable among groups fed standard layer diet and high fiber diets

supplemented with cellulase at different levels (0.06, 0.12 and 0.18%).

However, numerically better egg production and feed efficiency were noticed

when high fiber diet supplemented with cellulase. Further, they also noticed

that the average daily feed intake was significantly lower in all the enzyme

supplemented diets and standard layer diet fed groups when compared with

unsupplemented high fiber ration fed group.

Exogenous enzymes in feed endows animals with additional metabolic

arsenal to fight undigestible feed components as well as ANFs. Use of specific

enzymes like xylanase, pectinase and cellulase could breakdown plant fiber

releasing energy as well as increasing the protein digestibility due to better

accessibility of protein when the fiber gets broken down (Saxena et al., 2006).

2.3.2 Lipid Utilizing Agents

In addition to simple nature of stomach, birds also have low level of

natural lipase production during early ages. Hence, young birds do not utilize

and absorb fat effectively.

Sell et al. (1986) reported that fat retention improved with age in poults,

regardless of fat source or fat level. In their study, fat retention ranged from

66.4 to 83.7% and from 90.8 to 96.5% at 2 and 8wk age, respectively.

Korgdhal and Sell (1989) found that dietary fat (animal or vegetable

origin) was not effectively utilized until the time that lipase activity reached

maximum levels between 40 to 56 days of age. Similarly, Wiseman et al. (1991)

also observed a marked reduction in overall AME of fats linearly with

increasing free fatty acids; the effect was more pronounced with young birds.

Noy and Sklan (1995) reported that net duodenal secretion of amylase,

trypsin, and lipase were low at 4 days of age and increased 100, 50 and 20-

fold, respectively. Leeson and Attech (1995) also concluded that turkey poults,

similar to chicks, have an age-related depression in fat utilization that is

undoubtedly related to the saturated fatty acids found predominately in

animal fats.

Al-Marzooqui and Leeson (2000) found that the supplemental lipase

enzymes (Pancreatin® and Pancreatic®) increased (p<0.01) the diet ME and

apparent fat digestibility. However, both enzymes caused lower feed intake

and lower body weight gain (p<0.01) of male broilers chicks and such a trend

was not noticed in feeding crude porcine pancreas. Further, they also

observed that the ME values of the diets were greater as the enzyme levels

increased.

Recently, Meng et al. (2004) reported that the dietary supplementation

of bacterial lipase improved fat use as the young birds have insufficient

secretion of endogenous lipase.

In addition to age related effect, fat utilization is also correlated with

less efficient bile salts in very young chicks (Serafin and Nesheim, 1970).

Several studies have shown that supplementing the diet with bile salts

improves the utilization of dietary fat by chicks (Polin and Hussein, 1982;

Attech and Leeson, 1985).

Since the synthetic bile salts are expensive, the cheaper alternative

emulsifying agents or detergents that have the ability to transform a

hydrophobic surface into a hydrophilic surface were tried by several

researchers. For example, Jones et al. (1992) showed that the addition of

emulsifier increased digestibility of tallow (p<0.01). However, Al-Marzooqui

and Leeson (2000) did not observe any improvement in fat utilization upon

supplementing a detergent mixture of 95% sorbitan monstearate and 5%

polyoxyethylene sorbitan monstearate (Tween-80). Furthermore, other

researchers (Agur et al., 1974; Polin et al., 1980) reported that the addition of

lecithin, an emulsifier, increased the digestibility of fats containing long chain

saturated fatty acids.

Lecithin, an excellent source of phospholipids has the ability to

promote fat absorption in the digestive system as the birds’ cannot synthesize

this component and thereby increases energy efficiency of feed. Soybeans are

the most common source for commercial lecithin. Soy oil has the greatest

lecithin and phospholipids content. Lecithin contains about 50%

phospholipids and 25-30% unrefined soy oil (Meng et al., 2004).

In general, enzymes such as pentosanases and beta-glucanases

hydrolyze the non-starch polysaccharides. A recognized benefit of enzyme

usage is a better litter quality which itself is indicative of better poultry health

and lysophospholipids can improve digestion and absorption of nutrients

(Reddy, 2006). Further, the lysophospholipids are powerful surfactants and

can improve the mixing of digesta and facilitate the enzyme access to

nutrients in the GIT.

2.4 Sugarcane in Agriculture and Industry

2.4.1 General

Sugarcane is one of the most important commercial crops that plays a

key role in the Indian economy. Indian sugar industry with 480 sugar

factories located at rural areas through out the country is a prime catalyst in

economically strengthening the potential agro-industrial rural sector

(Hunsigi, 2001).

The cultivation of sugarcane crop generates huge quantities of varied

by-products viz., sugarcane tops, filter cake/ press residue, bagasse and

molasses as renewable resources. However, only limited fractions of total

produce are utilized as feed for livestock and much of sugarcane by-products

is wasted.

The by-product availability in India and the World (1997-98) is given

below:

Availability in million tons By-product Yield (as % of sugarcane) India World

Bagasse 30 52 150 Filter cake 3 5 16 Molasses 4 6.9 18 Cane tops 7 75 130

(Hunsigi, 2001)

The efficient utilization of these agro-industrial by-products assume

significance due to a chronic shortage of feedstuffs for animal feeding. The

sugarcane press residue that accounts for 3% of sugarcane is one such by-

product but most of it being wasted.

2.4.2 Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR)

Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR), also known as filter cake, is a by-

product of sugar industry obtained during the process of precipitation of cane

juice. It is a soft, spongy, amorphous dark brown material containing sugars,

fiber, coagulated colloids including wax, apart from containing albuminoids,

organic salts, etc., and is a rich source of organic carbon and minerals with

good proportion of N, P, Ca, Fe and Mn (Singh and Solomon, 1995).

The quantity of SPR obtained in any sugar factory depends on the

extent of impurities (non-sugars) present in cane juice and the process of

clarification adopted. In carbonation process, a large quantity of milk of lime

used is neutralized by passing carbon dioxide and the precipitate formed is

mostly calcium carbonate. In sulphitation process, the little quantity of milk of

lime is used which is neutralized by sulfur dioxide gas and the precipitate

formed is mainly calcium sulphite. The weight of the carbonation press cake

(on wet basis) is about 8 to 10% of the cane crushed while the sulphitation

press cake is about 3 to 4 % (Hunsigi, 2001).

The current production of SPR in India amounts to be more than 3.6

million tons annually (Singh and Solomon, 1995) which is roughly 23% of

world’s production. The SPR is normally considered as a waste and only

fraction of this is used as a soil conditioner or as an ameliorating agent as

manure for enhancing soil productivity. A large quantity of it remains

unrecycled or partly utilized due to lack of proper technology and thus

causing environmental pollution as well.

Ranjhan (2001) reported that the organic matter content in the SPR is

about 64 percent of dry weight and is a rich source of calcium and further

recommended that it can be used for feeding ruminants in combination with

other ingredients.

2.4 Chemical Composition of SPR

The chemical composition of any feedstuff is subjected to variation

with respect to variety, stage of maturity and agro-climatic conditions under

which it is grown, besides the methods of analysis (Lodhi et al., 1976).

The chemical composition of SPR is highly variable depending on the

quality of cane crushed and the process followed for clarification of cane juice

(Yadav, 1995).

The chemical composition (%) of sugarcane press residue obtained in

the sugar mills of different countries are as follows:

Countries Ash Organic matter

Lipids Protein CaO MgO P2O5

Argentina 26.7 73.3 6.6-13.7 8.4-14.6 6.2-7.7 - 5.3-6.3 Brazil 14.9-22.3 77.7-85.1 - 6.9-8.8 4.8-5.5 0.2-0.6 0.7-1.0 South Africa

- - - 9.5-12.0 2.1-3.1 0.6-0.8 1.7-1.3

Mauritius 12.0 87.3 9.4-16.5 11.4-12.0 2.8-3.6 0.6 1.8-2.0 Jamaica - - - 8.8 3.8 1.1 2.8 Trinidad - - - 7.1 3.2 0.6 2.9 Puerto Rico - - - 13.7 3.0 0.5 2.8 Philippines 16.2 83.7 11.2 7.0 4.6 - 32.6 Santo Domingo

14.9-31.0 - 10.7-16.9 - 1.4-2.5 0.3-06 -

Taiwan - 27.4-74.0 - - 1.2-3.9 0.6-1.2 0.7-2.5 India1 9.0-20.0 - 5.0-14.0 5.0-15.0 1.0-

14.0 0.5-1.5 1.0-3.0

1Singh and Solomon (1995) Source:

ICIDCA, 1988

Gupta and Ahuja (1998) reported that the SPR contained organic

matter–80.0,crude protein-6.0 and ether extract–4.7 % and the fiber fractions

viz, neutral detergent finer, acid detergent fiber, hemi cellulose and cellulose

were 66.5, 51.3, 15.2, and 24.7%, respectively. The AIA and lignin contents

were found to be 11.4 and 17.2 %, respectively.

Reddy et al. (2003) revealed that the sun dried SPR comprised (%) of

CP-9.69, EE–11.37, CF–17.67, TA-13.42 and NFE–47.85. The mineral profile of

SPR was of Calcium–2.40, phosphorus–1.20, magnesium–1.28, potassium-1.81,

sulfur-2.62% and Iron-2042, manganese–228, Zinc-36.5, copper-22.6 and cobalt

–236.7 ppm. The acid insoluble ash and lignin contents of same sample were

found to be 4.04 and 15.97 %, respectively (Suresh, 2004; Suresh, 2006). Where

as Suma (2005) reported that the sun dried SPR contained CP-12.67, EE– 7.5,

CF–17.5, TA-24.62 and NFE-37.71%. She also reported that SPR contains 4.52%

Ca and 1.25% P.

The content of amino acids (% on air dry basis) that have been

identified in the gross protein portion of the press residue obtained in the

Cuban sugar mills has been reported as: Aspartic acid-4.4, threonine-2.8,

glutamic acid-3.7, methionine-0.5, isoleucine- 2.1, alanine-5.8, valine- 3.5,

leucine-3.6, tyrosin-0.6, phenylalanine–1.3, tryptophan-1.2, histidine-2.2,

lysine-2.1 and arginine–0.9 (ICIDCA, 1988).

2.4 Effect of SPR Based Diets on Broilers’ Performance

Only a scanty information is available regarding the utilization of SPR

in animal feeding. A study conducted in commercial broilers where in SPR

was included up to 4% level as a source of minerals in their diets is briefly

mentioned hereunder:

2.4.1 Growth Rate and Livability

Budeppa (2004) demonstrated that the inclusion of SPR at 1, 2, 3 and

4% in either the soy based or fish based broiler diets at the expense of

sunflower extractions, rice polish and relevant mineral contributing salts

affected the growth rate significantly during 3rd and 6th week of age as well as

during starter phase (0- 21days) and cumulatively (0-42 days). The trial also

indicated that the cumulative weight gains (1777, 1721, 1713, 1568 and 1664

g/bird) were tended to decrease gradually in accordance with the inclusion

level of SPR (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 %, respectively) in fish based diets. However,

such a trend was not evident with the soy based diets (1851, 1749, 1699, 1731

and 1840 g/bird, respectively). He concluded that there was a non significant

(P>0.05) inconsistent decline in body weight gain of broilers as the level of

SPR increased in test diets irrespective of protein sources (Budeppa, 2004). He

further reported that the inclusion of SPR up to 4% either in fish based or soy

based diets has no significant effect on livability of birds (80.0 to 96.7%)

(Budeppa, 2004).

2.4.2 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency

Budeppa (2004) noticed that there was an inconsistent and significant

(p<0.05) difference in feed consumption among different dietary treatments

during starter phase (0-21 days) with the values being 912, 981, 1099, 983 and

919 g/bird in fish based diets and 973, 900, 872, 956 and 937 g/bird in soy

based diets at 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4% SPR inclusion levels, respectively, where as

values during grower phase (22-42 days) as well as cumulatively were similar

(p>0.05) among different groups with the cumulative values ranging from

3266 (soy:2%SPR) to 3722 g/bird (fish:3%SPR).

Budeppa (2004) reported that the inclusion of SPR has significantly

(p<0.05) affected the feed conversion ratio during both starter (0-21 days) and

finisher phases (22-42 days) as well as cumulatively with the cumulative FCR

values 1.85, 2.04, 2.17, 2.04 and 1.99 for fish based diets and 1.70, 1.93, 1.92,

2.06 and 1.89 for soy based diets that were incorporated with 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 %

SPR, respectively indicating that the FCR tended to be affected with the

inclusion of SPR.

2.4.3 Carcass Characteristics and Organometry

Budeppa (2004) reported that the dressing percentage (71.31 to 72.93),

meat to bone ratio (2.91 to 3.27) and relative weights (g/100g live weight) of

giblet organs viz. liver (2.19 to 2.39), heart (0.38 to 0.48) and gizzard (2.16 to

2.42) remained statistically similar among the groups fed diets with either 0, 1,

2, 3 or 4% SPR either soy or fish based protein source. However, with regards

to protein source as main factor, he noticed a significant difference in relative

weight of heart (soy- 0.42 and fish-0.45%).

In general, it was opined that SPR can be a valuable non-conventional

feedstuff for broilers and it might prove still better than being observed in the

above study, if energy and protein in the diets are optimally appropriated

(since non-isonitrogenous and non-isocaloric diets used in that trial) beyond

the level of 4 % that has been tested.

2.5 Effect of SPR Based Diets on Layers’ Performance

In layers also, the literature is quite limited. An experiment conducted

in layers where in SPR was included up to 15% level at the expense of DORB

and mineral contributing salts in their diets is briefly reviewed hereunder:

2.5.1 Egg Production

Suma (2005) reported that the 84-day average egg production was

93.33, 91.25, 87.14 and 90.71 % in birds fed 0, 5, 10 and 15 % SPR included soy-

based diets, respectively and the values in fish based diets were 91.13, 92.08,

92.38 and 83.93 %, respectively. The corresponding egg production values

were 92.33, 91.67, 89.76 and 87.32% irrespective of the protein source, a non-

significant decrease as the level of SPR inclusion increased.

2.5.2 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency

Suma (2005) reported an inconsistent trend in feed consumption values

(g/hen/day) of 119.1, 118.1, 117.4 and 120.3 in soy diets and 120.6, 121.7, 121.7

and 119.9 in fish based diets at 0,5,10 and 15% SPR inclusion, respectively. She

also reported that the corresponding feed consumption values were 119.9,

119.9, 119.6 and 121.7 g/hen/day irrespective of the protein source.

Suma (2005) demonstrated that the 84-day cumulative feed efficiencies

in 5, 10 and 15 % SPR based soy diets (1.56, 1.65 and 1.62 respectively) were

poorer when compared to soy control group (1.53) while it was not consistent

with the level of SPR inclusion (1.59, 1.58, and 1.74, respectively) in fish based

diets against the fish control (1.61). Further, considering SPR and protein

source as main factors, the average values were found to be 1.57, 1.57, 1.61

and 1.68 in 0, 5, 10 and 15% SPR included diets, respectively while the soy

based diets (1.59) showed better FCR when compared to fish based diets

(1.63). Similar trend was persistent when the feed efficiency was expressed in

terms of egg mass ( 2.33 to 2.75 g/g).

2.5.3 Body Weight Change

Suma (2005) noticed a general loss in body weight in all the groups at

the end of 84-days with the values ranging from as low as 10.05 to as high as

118.5g in the birds fed on diets containing 0, 5, 10 and 15% SPR incorporated

soy or fish based diets excepting only soy control group (0 % SPR) which

showed slight gain in body weight (4.45g).

2.5.4 Egg Characteristics

Suma (2005) observed that the inclusion of SPR at 0, 5,10 and 15 % does

not affect the egg weight with the non-significant values of 54.39, 53.90, 52.84,

and 53.66 g, respectively at the end of 84 days experimental period. However,

a numerically increased egg weight in the group fed diet containing 15 % SPR

was noticed when compared to 10% SPR on different (28th, 56th and 84th day)

days (Suma, 2005).

Contrarily, the birds fed with 10% SPR showed numerically better

percent shape index (77.10) when compared to 5% (76.97) and 15% SPR

dietary groups (76.78) barring the source of protein i.e., either soybean meal

or fish meal. She also noticed a non-significantly higher egg weight in birds

fed soy based diets while a better shape index prevailed in birds fed fish

based diets.

Suma (2005) observed a significantly (p<0.05) lowest yolk index values

of 0.355 (15% SPR) and 0.368 (10% SPR) in fish based diets against the

corresponding highest values on 0.390 and 0.401 on 28th and 56th day of

experiment, respectively and concluded that a particular type of protein

source has got significant influence on the yolk index rather than the SPR

level. However, the yolk colour remained unaffected with the values ranging

from 6.75 to 6.94 during the 84-day experimental period Suma (2005).

Suma (2005) reported that the shell quality was not affected by the

inclusion of SPR up to 15% in either soy or fish based diets. She also noticed

an increasing trend in shell thickness values during initial stages (0.365, 0.368,

0.373 and 0.374 mm on 28th day) but a reducing trend was observed on 56th

day (0.319, 0.316, 0.305 and 0.305mm) and 84th day (0.297, 0.295, 0.279 and

0.294mm) of experiment with incremental level of SPR at 0, 5, 10 and 15%,

respectively.

Suma (2005) noticed an non-significant increase in albumen index

values as the SPR level in diets increased from 0 to 15% during the 84-day

experiment excepting on terminal day (84th day) with the significant different

values of 0.033 and 0.053 in 0 and 10% SPR included soy based diets.

However, such trend was not noticed when albumen height expressed in

relation with egg weight i.e., Haugh unit score with the mean values ranging

from 49.17 to 59.34 during the entire experiment.

Based on the different egg characteristics parameters studied, Suma

(2005) concluded that the inclusion of SPR up to 15 % either in soy or fish

based diets did not affect the quality of egg including its weight.

In general, there was no difference in egg production performance as

well as egg characteristics between test and control diets when the layers were

fed diets containing several non-conventional feedstuffs such as dried poultry

manure, rice polishing , cassava leaf meal, rubber seed cake and ragi (

Ravindran, 1995)

2.6 SPR as a feed Ingredient in Other Farm Animals

Experiments conducted in Mauritius, one of the main sugarcane

producing countries, have suggested direct utilization of dried SPR as animal

feed. Parish (1962) observed that air-dried SPR along with molasses and green

cane tops (in the ratio of 38:14:48) had an apparent digestibility of about 33

per cent in experimental sheep.

Staub and Drane (1965) observed that the experimental cows fed a diet

incorporated with SPR/molasses/fish meal (in the ratio of 50:35:15) showed

better response to milk yield and cost of production as compared to those fed

control diets.

Efforts have been made at the Institute of Animal Science, Cuba, to

incorporate pressmud in animal feed along with preheated straw or cellulosic

residues from cane cleaning centre (Singh and Solomon, 1995).

A trial conducted at this Institute where SPR was evaluated at 1, 2 and

3% of concentrate mixtures which were offered to meet 50% dry matter

requirement of lambs, Suresh (2004) demonstrated that the dry matter intake,

average daily body weight gain and feed conversion ratio were uniform

among different treatment groups including that of the control (0% SPR)

group. He concluded that the stall fed sheep can tolerate the inclusion of SPR

up to 3% in concentrate mixtures.

2.7 Effect of Inclusion of SPR on Utilization of Nutrients

From a metabolism trial involving 4 laying hens per treatment, Suma

(2005) concluded that the percent metabolizability of various proximate

principles viz., dry matter (52.71 to 55.46), organic matter (58.91 to 63.29),

ether extract (69.01 to 75.14), crude fiber (63.18 to 71.35) and NFE (52.47 to

57.93) with exception of crude protein (70.10 to 73.72) varied significantly

(p<0.05) with out showing any definitive trend among different groups fed

diets prepared by incorporating SPR at 0, 5, 10 and 15% with either soy or fish

meal as protein source.

Similarly, the retention of calcium by layer birds under different

dietary treatments ranged significantly (p<0.05) from 90.43 to 92.31 % while

phosphorous retention values ranged non-significantly from 61.33 to 63.99%

(Suma, 2005). Further, it was concluded that although there was a significant

variation in the metabolizability values of various nutrients and calcium

retention, birds did tolerate SPR inclusion up to 15% in their diets. Thus, the

results indicated that SPR can be incorporated in layers’ rations effectively as

a source of organic and inorganic nutrients (Suma, 2005).

In sheep, Suresh (2004) found that the digestibility coefficients of

proximate principles and fiber fractions were similar among diets prepared

with 0, 1, 2 and 3% SPR and so was the balance of nitrogen and calcium.

In general, Basavaraja Reddy (1984) reported that the dry matter

metabolizability values ranged from 85 to 95 per cent for cereals such as

maize, jowar, broken rice and bajra, while the range was from 50 to 70 per

cent for protein sources such as groundnut cake and fish meal and 15 to 30

per cent for by-products such as wheat bran and rice bran. He further

reported that the DMM of the diet was inversely related to the amount of

crude fiber and inorganic matter in the diets.

Han et al. (1976) using total collection method, suggested that dry

matter metabolizability of individual feedstuffs is a significant measuring

index for assessing the quality of the feeds or feedstuffs. Although Hartel et al.

(1977) explained that almost at the same time the digestibility co-efficient of

individual nutrients differed between feedstuffs.

2.8 Effect of Inclusion of SPR on Mineral Status of Birds/Animals

Bone ash contents viz., tibial ash and toe ash are shown to be the good

indicators of Ca and P status of birds and toe ash is reasonably accurate in

determining the extent of P availability from diet of poultry (Potter, 1988).

Budeppa (2004) noticed that a non-significant increase in tibial ash

content (30.63, 31.25, 32.69 %) with increased level of SPR inclusion (0, 1, 2

and 3%) with an exception of unreasonably lower value at 4% inclusion

(29.52%), irrespective of protein source. He also noticed a similar trend with

toe ash content (18.77, 19.36, 20.17, 22.10 and 19.81%, respectively).

Similarly, in an attempt to incorporate dried yeast sludge (DYS) in

broiler diets, Senthilkumar et al. (1997) reported a significantly higher tibial

ash content in the 5% DYS included diets (39.24%) when compared to that of

basal (34.50%) and 10% DYS dietary groups (33.68%). They also noticed that

the level of calcium (29.98 to 31.50%) and phosphorous (12.38 to 14.00%) were

nearly same in all the treatments.

The serum calcium and plasma inorganic phosphorous levels among

the broiler birds fed diets containing 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4% SPR were well with in

the normal physiological range suggesting that the bone mineralization was

quite effective by dietary SPR supplementation (Budeppa, 2004). In his study,

serum calcium ranged from 9.8 to 11.2 mg/dl on 21st day and from 8.5 to 11.4

mg/dl on 42nd day and plasma inorganic phosphorous ranged from 6.67 to

8.70 mg/dl on 21st day and 6.69 to 8.30 mg/dl on 42nd day of experiment.

Similarly in laying hens, Suma (2005) observed that the average serum

calcium and plasma inorganic phosphorous concentration values ranged non-

significantly (p>0.05) from 13.85 to 25.58 and 3.82 to 6.37 mg/dl, respectively

among groups fed with either soy or fish based diets incorporated with SPR at

0, 5, 10 and 15% levels. However, elevated and significantly different values

of plasma phosphorous (5.03 to 9.32 mg/dl) were observed on 56th day of

experiment (Suma, 2005).

In sheep, Suresh (2004) reported that the calcium, magnesium and

phosphorous status in blood of SPR based groups were comparable to those

of control (serum Ca: 8.20 to 11.36 mg/dl, serum Mg: 1.43 to 3.40 mg/dl and

plasma iP: 5.04 to 9.62 mg/dl) at different stages of experimental period.

2.9 Economics of SPR Supplementation

Budeppa (2004) observed that as the SPR level increases, the cost of

both soy and fish based starter and finisher diets got reduced while the mean

net returns from groups fed diets with increasing levels of SPR showed an

inconsistent decreasing trend.

Suma (2005) noticed that the cost of the soy and fish based diets

reduced by 25 and 23 paise per kg, respectively as the SPR level increased

from 0 to 15 %, which was partly due to the progressive decreasing cost of

mineral salt at the expense of SPR as mineral source. However, the

cumulative net returns per bird decreased from Rs. 7.88 to 6.76 with

incremental level of SPR from 5 to 15%, respectively irrespective of protein

source.

Similarly, Ravindran (1995) reported that the cost to produce a dozen

eggs was decreased by feeding layers with diet containing several non-

conventional feedstuffs such as dried poultry manure, rice polishing, cassava

leaf meal, ipil ipil leaf meal, rubber seed cake and ragi and attributed the

benefit to the price structure of such feedstuffs.

In general, Reddy (2005) reported that the reduction in feed cost by

incorporating locally available unconventional feed ingredients may appear

advantageous but the resulting loss in performance may have negative effects

on economics.

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The materials and methods adopted for the present study are described under the following headings: 3.1 PROCUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF SPR SAMPLES

3.1.1 Collection, Processing and Preservation 3.1.2 Chemical Evaluation

3.1.2.1 Proximate Principles 3.1.2.2 Fiber Fractions 3.1.2.3 Mineral Constituents 3.1.2.4 Amino Acids Profile 3.1.2.5 Fatty Acids Profile 3.1.2.6 Gross Energy Values

3.2 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SPR BY METABOLISM TRIALS 3.2.1 Metabolism Assay in Broilers

3.2.1.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management 3.2.1.2 Sample Collection and Analytical Procedure 3.2.1.3 Determination of Metabolizability of Energy and other

Nutrients of SPR and Ileal Nitrogen Absorbability 3.2.1.4 Other Observations

3.2.2 Metabolism Assay in Layers 3.2.2.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management 3.2.2.2 Sample Collection and Analytical Procedure 3.2.2.3 Determination of Metabolizability of Energy and other

Nutrients of SPR 3.2.2.4 Other Observations

3.3 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SPR BY FEEDING TRIALS 3.3.1 Growth Performance in Broilers

3.3.1.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management 3.3.1.2 Growth Performance Parameters 3.3.1.3 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients 3.3.1.4 Blood Biochemical Profile 3.3.1.5 Carcass Characteristics and Organometry 3.3.1.6 Bone Mineralization 3.3.1.7 Performance Indices

3.3.2 Production Performance in Layers 3.3.2.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management 3.3.2.2 Egg Production Parameters 3.3.2.3 Egg Characteristics 3.3.2.4 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients 3.3.2.5 Blood Biochemical Profile 3.3.2.6 Efficiency of Utilization of Protein and Energy

3.4 ECONOMICS 3.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A series of biological trials were conducted to evaluate the sugarcane press residue (SPR) (Plate-1, 2 and 3) as a possible alternate feed ingredient for

broilers and layers. A metabolism assay was performed to determine the metabolizable energy (ME) content of SPR followed by a feeding trial to asses the effect of dietary inclusion of SPR on growth performance of broilers at the Animal Nutrition Experimental Unit, Main Research Station, UAS/KVAFSU,

Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Parallely, a metabolism assay to arrive at ME content of SPR in layers and subsequently, a feeding trial to asses the effect of

inclusion of SPR on egg production performance of layers were also carried out at Sri Venkateshwara Poultry Farm, Srirampura, Bangalore North Taluk, where

all facilities for the purpose existed.

3.1 PROCUREMENT AND ANALYSIS OF SPR SAMPLES

3.1.1 Collection, Processing and Preservation

For initial screening, the fresh samples of SPR of about 5 kg each were

collected from different sugar factories namely 1) Mysore Sugars Ltd., Mandya; 2) Sri

Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd., K.M.Doddi; 3) SCM Sugars Ltd., Koppa; 4) Mysore

Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi; 5) Davangere Sugar Company Ltd., Kukkawada

(Davanagere) and 6) Bidar Sahakari Sakhare Karkhane, Hallikhed, located at different

regions of sugarcane growing areas of Karnataka. About each 1kg of SPR sample was

preserved in fresh form in a deep freezer at -200C, while the remaining quantity was

divided into two equal parts and dried separately either under sun till to became air

dried or in hot air oven at 1000C for 48 hrs making it moisture free. Then the dried

samples were ground to pass 1mm sieve and stored in plastic containers for further

chemical evaluation.

Following the chemical analysis, a sugar factory was identified for

procurement of SPR sample in bulk quantum for experimental purpose. The selection

of sugar factory for this purpose was done mainly on the basis of chemical

composition especially the crude protein and acid insoluble ash (AIA) contents of

different SPR samples as well as on the proximity of the sugar plant to the research

station i.e. Bangalore. Sufficient amount of SPR (about 1.5 tons) was procured from

the identified sugar factory (M/s My Sugars Ltd., Mandya), dried under sun till it

became air dried (Fig. 3.1) and then stored in air tight polythene bags for further

usage during biological trials. A representative sample was also drawn from the SPR

so obtained for experimental purpose, processed and preserved in a similar manner as

described previously for further chemical analysis.

3.1.2 Chemical Evaluation

The SPR samples collected from different sugar factories for initial screening

and the samples collected form the subsequently selected and procured SPR for

experimental purpose were subjected for chemical analysis (Plate-5) for the following

constituents.

3.1.2.1 Proximate Principles

The SPR samples dried in sun or in oven were analyzed for their proximate

principles namely dry matter, crude protein, ether extract and crude fiber as per the

methods described by AOAC (2005) while the nitrogen free extract was calculated as

the difference.

3.1.2.2 Fiber Fractions

Different fiber fractions of the sun-dried SPR samples viz., neutral detergent

fiber, acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin were determined as per the

procedures described by Van Soest et al. (1991) using Fibertec 2010 hot extractor

(M/s. Foss Instruments, Sweden). The hemicellulose and cellulose contents were

estimated analogously.

3.1.2.3 Mineral Constituents

The calcium content of sun-dried SPR samples was determined by titration as

explained by Talapatra et al. (1940) and the total phosphorous was analyzed

spectrophotometrically (UV-visible Spectrophotometer, M/s Jenway) after

ammonium-vanadium-molybdate pretreatment (AOAC, 2005). Other mineral

constituents: magnesium, copper, iron, zinc, manganese and cobalt in sun-dried SPR

samples were estimated by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer AA 300

(M/s. Perkin Elmer) at National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology,

Adugodi, Bangalore – 30.

3.1.2.4 Amino Acids Profile

Three representative sun-dried SPR samples were sent to M/s Degussa Huls-

AG, Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany and the amino acid profile of SPR samples were

obtained.

3.1.2.5 Fatty Acids Profile

The ether extract (fat) component of the SPR sample procured for biological

trials was further subjected for assay of different fatty acid components in gas

chromatography at M/s Bangalore Test House, Vijayanagar, Bangalore.

3.1.2.6 Gross Energy Values

The gross energy worth of sun-dried SPR samples were estimated using

adiabatic bomb calorimeter (AOAC, 2005) employing benzoic acid as the standard.

3.2 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SPR BY METABOLISM TRIALS

An important measure of the relative usefulness of a feed ingredient is its

metabolizable energy (ME). Since no data is currently available as regards the

energetic value of SPR in poultry, an earnest effort was made to determine the ME

value of SPR for broilers and layers separately. The procedures adopted to determine

metabolizabilty of energy in SPR are explained hereunder:

3.2.1 Metabolism Assay In Broilers

3.2.1.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management

a) Experimental Diets: The experimental diets were prepared based on

conventional system of replacing varying level of basal diet by test ingredient

as described by Sibbald and Slinger (1963). A practical starter type of diet of

comprising maize and soybean meal was prepared to serve as a basal mixture.

The test diets were prepared by replacing 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per

cent of the basal ration by the sun-dried SPR i.e., basal mixture and test

ingredient (sun-dried SPR) in the ratios of 90:10, 80:20 and 70:30,

respectively.

Further, the basal and test diets were supplemented with either lipid utilizing

agents (lipase 0.2 g + soy lecithin @ 2g/kg) or NSP degrading enzyme

preparation @ 0.4g /kg or their combination to result in another set of 12 diets.

The tailor made enzyme preparations employed were sourced from M/s

KayPeeYess Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Hebbal Industrial Area, Mysore. The supplier

reported that the NSP degrading enzyme preparation was derived from

Asperigillus species and claimed to contain NSP degrading enzymes viz.,

xylanase-2500, beta-glucanase–1000, cellulase–500 and pectinase–250 units/g

while that the second enzyme preparation was an experimental lipase and

claimed to contain mainly lipase – 500 units/g. The description of diets

formulated is:

Biotechnological tool Basal Mix

10 % SPR

20 % SPR

30 % SPR

No supplement T1 T5 T9 T13 Lipase + Lecithin T2 T6 T10 T14 NSPases T3 T7 T11 T15 Lipase + Lecithin + NSPases T4 T8 T12 T16

The mineral sources (Plate-6) and other additives were added over and above

100 % to all the diets, so that a uniform supply of these was ensured after

substitution of the test ingredient SPR in the basal mixture. The chromic oxide

(Cr2O3) as an inert indicator was added to all the diets at 0.5 per cent level to

observe the ileal nitrogen absorbability. The detailed ingredient and chemical

composition of experimental diets is given in Table 3.1.

b) Experimental Birds: Three hundred and twenty, one-day-old straight-run

commercial broiler chicks (Hubbard strain) were distributed into 32 replicate

groups of 10 chicks each. The birds were reared on raised wire floor battery

brooders (Plate-7) kept in a well-ventilated and hygienic house. Ground maize

was offered on 1st day while a corn-soy type starter diet was prepared and

offered to all the chicks uniformly for the next 6 days. From 8th day onwards,

the experimental diets were assigned randomly to two replicates of such

groups. The diets were offered ad libitum to the respective groups of birds in

colony feeders and potable water in PVC fountains for initial 2 weeks and in a

continuous channel from the next week (3rd week). During the course of the

experiment, standard vaccination and managemental practices including

brooding were uniformly followed as per the commercial practice.

3.2.1.2 Sample Collection and Analytical Procedure

a) Collection and processing of samples: On 19th, 20th and 21st day of the

experiment, feed consumed by each replicate group was accurately measured

and the excreta voided (Plate-8) by such replicate group were collected before

the beginning of the subsequent day at 0900 h for three consecutive days.

Utmost care was exercised to avoid contamination from feathers, scales and

debris. The collected excreta samples were immediately weighed and dried for

24 h at 1000C in hot air oven. The three-day dried excreta samples from each

replicate were weighed and pooled replicate wise. Then the samples were

allowed to equilibrate to atmospheric conditions, ground to pass through 1mm

sieve and the well-homogenized samples were stored separately in airtight

polythene bags for further analysis.

The dietary feed samples were also collected at beginning and at the end of

metabolism trial and dried in hot air oven to arrive at the dry matter per cent of

such samples. Further, the samples were ground to pass through 1mm sieve

and stored in plastic containers till further analysis.

b) Chemical analysis: The proximate analysis of assay diets and excreta samples

were performed according to standard procedures (AOAC, 2005) and that for

fiber fractions using methods of Van Soest et al. (1991). Gross energy content

of such samples was determined by adiabatic bomb calorimeter (AOAC,

2005). Appropriate corrections were made for differences in moisture content.

c) Collection and analysis of ileal digesta: On completion of AME bioassay

(end of 21st day), 5 birds from each replicate were slaughtered by cervical

dislocation. The body cavity was cut opened and the entire intestinal tract was

removed. The digesta content in the terminal 1/5th segment of the ileum was

gently squeezed into a 120ml reagent bottle containing 20 ml of 5% H2SO4.

The ileal digesta samples of birds from each replicate were pooled and stored

at -200C till further analysis.

At the time of analysis, the contents were thawed, homogenized and were

made upto 100 ml volume. Duplicate samples of the homogenate were run

each for nitrogen and chromium oxide as per the methods described by Hill

and Anderson (1958). The nitrogen content of ileal digesta was obtained as per

the standard procedure (AOAC, 2005) while the chromic oxide content was

analyzed spectrophotometrically following the procedure of Fenton and

Fenton (1979).

3.2.1.3 Determination of metabolizability of energy and other nutrients of

SPR and ileal nitrogen absorbability

The metabolizability of various nutrients of assay diets including gross energy

were calculated and then the metabolizability of energy and other components of SPR

were arrived at by using simultaneous equations.

a) Dry matter and other nutrients: The group wise dry matter metabolizability

(DMM) of diets was determined using the following formula (Han et al.,

1976).

Weight of the dry feed consumed (g)

Weight of the dried excreta voided (g) DMM (%) =

Weight of dry feed consumed (g) X 100

Similarly, the metabolizability of organic matter (OM) and other nutrients viz.,

crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), nitrogen free extractives (NFE), neutral

detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were also determined

using the formula given below.

Unit nutrient intake - Unit nutrient outgo Metabolizability coefficient of nutrient (%)

= Unit nutrient intake

X 100

b) Metabolizable energy: Based on the gross energy (GE) values of assay diets

and the excreta samples determined by bomb calorimetry, the apparent ME

(AME) values of the diets were calculated by subtracting the GE of the excreta

from GE intake divided by total dry matter intake using the following formula:

(Feed intake x GEdiet)-(Excreta output x GEexcreta) AMEdiet (kcal/kg) = Feed intake

The nitrogen corrected AME (AMEn) values were calculated using a factor of

8.22 kcal per g of nitrogen retained in the body (Hill and Anderson, 1958).

c) Ileal nitrogen absorbability: The ileal nitrogen digestibility (IND) of assay

diets were calculated using Cr as a marker as follows:

[(N/Cr)d – (N/Cr)i] IND (%) = (N/Cr)d X 100

Where (N/Cr) d = the ratio of nitrogen to Cr in diet and

(N/Cr) i = the ratio of nitrogen to Cr in ileal digesta

d) Meabolizabile energy content of SPR: The ME content of the test SPR was

arrived at by using simultaneous equation methods i.e., the difference between

measured digestibility or the calorific value for basal and test diets. AME of

the test material (kcal/kg) =

% of basal in test diet AME of the test diet-

{AME of reference diet x % of basal in the reference

diet % of the test material in test diet

x100

Similarly, metabolizability / digestibility coefficient of other nutrients were

also arrived at.

e) Regression analysis: Linear regression equations were derived to predict the

ME value of diets based on the digestibility coefficient of dry matter and

organic matter. The formula for linear regression is:

y = a + bx Where, ‘y’ is the predicted ME value

‘a’ is the intercept ‘b’ (slope) is the simple regression coefficient and ‘x’ is per cent digestibility coefficient of DM

3.2.1.4 Other Observations

During the 21 day experimental period, growth performance parameters of

birds under assay diets such as the daily feed intake of each replicate and weekly body

weight gain of individual bird were also recorded and from such data, the feed

efficiency was arrived at.

3.2.2 Metabolism Assay In Layers

Since there are differences with in type of birds with respect to ability to

metabolize energy or digest other nutrients, a metabolism trial was also conducted

with egg type chicken to arrive at ME worth of SPR in layers as well.

3.2.2.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management

a) Experimental Diets: The dietary design employed was very much similar to

that described under Sec 3.2.1.1. A conventional practical type layer diet

comprising maize, soybean meal, groundnut extraction and sunflower

extraction was prepared to serve as basal mixture (T1). The test diets viz., T5,

T9 and T13 were prepared by incorporating sun dried SPR at 10, 20 and 30 %,

respectively replacing the corresponding proportion of basal mixture. Further,

a parallel set of another 12 diets were prepared by supplementing the basal

mixture-T1 and test diets – T5, T9 and T13 with either lipid utilizing agents

(lipase 0.2 g + soy lecithin @ 2g/kg) or NSP degrading enzyme preparation @

0.5g /kg or their combination to result in diets T2 to T4; T6 to T8, T10 to T12 and

T14 to T16, respectively. The enzyme preparations added were the same as

those employed in broiler metabolism trial. The rest of the components in the

diets namely shell grit, mineral mixture, common salt and vitamin premix

were maintained in all diets at uniform level. The chromic oxide (Cr2O3) as an

external indicator was added to all diets at 0.5 per cent level. The detailed

ingredient composition of each diet is given in Table 3.2.

b) Experimental Birds: A total of one hundred forty four BV-300 commercial

layers of about 35 weeks age and uniform body weight with proper history

were selected and randomly divided into 48 groups of 3 birds each in a

commercial poultry farm (Sri Venkateshwara Poultry Farm). The replicate

groups were housed alternatively in colony cages with each cage unit

measuring 15’’x15’’x18” size (Plate-9). Each of the 16 diets described earlier

(Sec. 3.2.2.1a) were offered to three such replications of 3 birds each. A

continuous feed trough was partitioned with a partition material to avoid

mixing up of test diets, if any. The rest of the managemenatal practices was

essentially uniform.

3.2.2.2 Sample Collection and Analytical Procedure

After conditioning the laying hens with their corresponding experimental diets

for 11 days, a conventional metabolism trial for 3 days was carried out, during which

the feed intake and excreta output (Plate-10) from each group of birds was measured

quantitatively to obtain the AME data. The procedure adopted for collection and

processing and chemical analysis of excreta and diet samples were by and large

similar to that of broilers’ metabolism trial as described under section 3.2.1.2.

3.2.2.3 Determination of Metabolizability of Energy and other Nutrients

The metabolizable energy and other components of SPR in layers were arrived

at by methods which are very much similar that of broilers’ metabolism study

(Section 3.2.1.3).

3.2.2.4 Other Observations

In addition to metabolism trial, the daily group-wise feed consumption and

egg production including egg weight under each treatment were recorded. The body

weight of individual bird at the beginning and at the end of experimental period of 14

days was also studied.

3.3 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SPR BY FEEDING TRIALS

Previous reports (Budeppa, 2004) indicated that young birds such as broilers

tolerated low levels of SPR (up to 3%) while that of adults such as layers (Suma,

2005) tolerated reasonably higher SPR (up to 15%) levels in their diets. Yet, the

information available in both broilers and layers is not sufficient to include SPR at

safe / economic level in practical poultry diets. Therefore, separate feeding cum

performance trials were conducted in meat type chicken i.e., broilers and in egg type

chicken i.e., layers by making use of the results of recently concluded metabolism

trials i.e., mainly energetic worth of SPR.

3.3.1 Growth Performance in Broilers

A feeding trial was conducted in broilers to asses the effect of inclusion of

SPR at different levels in broiler diets on performance parameters such as body

weight gain, feed consumption and feed efficiency, carcass characteristics and

organometry, biochemical profiles in blood, nutrient utilization and cost effectiveness

of SPR inclusion. A brief account about the performance trial in broilers is presented

hereunder:

3.3.1.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management

a) Experimental Diets: Three iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric diets were

prepared by incorporating sun dried SPR at 0, 5 and 10 % levels to meet or

exceed the nutrient requirements specified by Bureau of Indian Standards

(BIS, 1992). The sun dried SPR was included at the expense of the

conventional organic as well as inorganic nutrient sources. Further, the diets

were supplemented with either lipid utilizing agents (lipase 0.2 g + soy

lecithin @ 2g/kg) or NSP degrading enzyme preparation @ 0.4g /kg or their

combination to result in another set of nine iso-nitorgenous and iso-caloric

diets. Like wise, the diets were prepared separately for each phase i.e., starter

(0-14 days), grower (15-28 days) and finisher (29 to 42 days) phases. The

ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of starter, grower and finisher

diets are detailed in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. The design was aimed to

study the influence of inclusion of SPR at different levels on broiler

performance as well as for increasing the efficiency of SPR utilization through

biotechnological approaches and the dietary design is described as follows:

Biotechnological Tool 0 % SPR 5 % SPR 10 % SPR No supplement T1 T5 T9 Lipase + Lecithin T2 T6 T10 NSPases T3 T7 T11 Lipase + Lecithin + NSPases T4 T8 T12

b) Experimental Birds: A total of 360 one-day-old straight-run commercial

chicks (Hubbard) were randomly divided into 36 groups of 10 chicks each.

The birds were housed in raised wire floor battery brooders of single tier

system (Plate-11), which were kept in a well-ventilated hygienic house. The

brooding was done up to 2 weeks of age as per the standard practice and all

the birds were vaccinated against New Castle disease and Infectious Bursal

disease on 8th and 14th day of age, respetively. Each of the 12 diets (section

3.3.1.1a) were offered randomly to triplicate groups of 10 chicks each. The

diets in colony feeders were provided to the corresponding birds ad libitum

and the potable water was provided in PVC fountains (initial 2 weeks) or in a

continuous channel (3rd week onwards) was made available round the clock.

The rest of the managemental practices were applied uniformly to all the birds

during the 42-day experimental period.

3.3.1.2 Growth Performance Parameters

Several parameters were studied to observe the effect of inclusion of SPR in

broiler diets with biotechnological approaches and are described hereunder:

a) Body Weight Gain: The weekly individual body weights of birds were

recorded and the body weight gains were arrived at for each week. The body

weight gain was also calculated for each phase (starter, grower and finisher)

and on a cumulative basis. Accordingly, the body weight gains in different

dietary groups were compared as per treatment wise and main factors (SPR

levels and Biotechnological tools) wise.

b) Feed Consumption: The daily feed offered to any individual group was

accurately recorded and at the end of each week, the residual feed, as well as

spilled over feed from that group was accounted. Care was taken to delete the

amount of feed consumed by the birds that died during a particular week by

calculating the daily feed consumption during that week. Thus the average

feed consumption in different groups was calculated during each week as well

as during starter phase (0 to 14 days), grower phase (15 to 28 days) and

finisher phase (29 to 42 days) and cumulatively (0 to 42 days).

c) Feed Conversion Ratio: The feed conversion ratio (FCR) expressed as the

ratio of amount of feed consumed to the body weight gained under each group

of birds arrived at each week and each phase wise as well as cumulatively.

d) Mortality: Mortality in respective groups was recorded as and when the birds

died. The dead birds were necropsied to identify the dietary cause, if any. The

physical consistency and the colour of fecal droppings of various groups was

under observation from time to time.

3.3.1.3 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients

A conventional 3-day metabolism trial involving all the replicates was

conducted from 19th to 21st day of experiment, during which the amount of feed

consumed and the excreta voided by the birds were recorded. Based on such data,

metabolizability of different dietary components as well as retention of certain

minerals were arrived.

a) Metabolizability of various Nutrients : The procedures adopted for

obtaining the metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of experimental

diets were same as described under section 3.2.1.3.

b) Calcium and Phosphorous Retention: The calcium and phosphorus contents

of feed and fecal samples were estimated using procedures described by

Talapatra et al. (1940) and Ger and Kurmies (1952), respectively. Calcium and

phosphorus retentions were worked out using the following formulae.

Calcium intake (g) - Calcium out go (g) Calcium retention (%) =

Calcium intake (g) X 100

Phosphorus intake (g)

- Phosphorus out go (g) Phosphorus

retention (%) = Phosphorus intake (g)

X 100

3.3.1.4 Blood Biochemical Profiles

On 21st day of the experiment (mid way), blood was collected replicate wise

from randomly selected birds (one male and one female bird per replicate) by

puncturing the brachial vein of the bird (Plate-12) and collecting the blood in 10ml

glass test tubes. After 8 to 10 hours, serum was collected as per the standard

procedures (Calnek et al., 1992) and was stored at –200C till subsequent analysis.

Again on 42nd day (terminal day), blood samples were collected in a similar way form

the same birds.

The individual serum samples were analyzed for mineral profile viz., calcium

and inorganic phosphorous using auto-analyzer (M/s Span Diagnostics Ltd., Surat) as

per the procedures described by the manufactures.

3.3.1.5 Carcass Characteristics and Organometry

At the end of the experiment (42nd day), the birds (1 male and 1 female) which

were earlier selected for blood collection (section 3.3.1.4) on 21st day were separated

and starved for 12 hrs however with a provision of plenty of water. Then immediately

after recording their live body weights (pre-slaughter bird weight), the birds were

sacrificed by cervical dislocation and the carcasses (Plate-13) were subjected for the

study of following parameters:

a) Dressing Percentage: The slaughtered birds were defeathered, denecked and

eviscerated along with two legs beneath the hock joint to observe the effect of

various experimental diets on the dressing percentage. The dressing

percentage was calculated as the percent of the carcass weight obtained after

removing the feathers, neck, legs and internal viscera, to its live body weight.

b) Meat to bone ratio: A specific portion of the carcass viz., thigh from all the

72 carcasses were separated, weighed and preserved under frozen conditions.

Later, the thigh portions were thawed and the bone and muscles were

separated manually from each other and their individual weights were

recorded to arrive at meat: bone ratio as:

Weight of the meat (g) Meat : Bone ratio = Weight of bone (g) c) Organometry: From the sacrificed birds, different organs viz., heart, liver,

gizzard, spleen and bursa as well as abdominal fat were carefully separated

and weighed to observe the effect of different dietary treatments on growth

and development of certain organs. The procedure followed are briefed here

under:

Giblets: The weight of the giblet organs viz., heart without pericardium, liver

with out gall bladder and gizzard with out the food contents and internal

lining membrane from each sacrificed bird were recorded and expressed as the

per cent of pre-slaughter bird weight as follows:

Relative heart percentage = [heart weight (g)/live weight (g)]*100

Relative liver percentage = [heart weight(g)/live weight (g)]*100

Relative gizzard weight = [heart weight (g)/live weight (g)]*100

Lymphoid organs: The weights of the lymphoid organs viz., bursa and

spleen from each sacrificed bird were recorded and expressed as the percent of

pre-slaughter bird weight (g/100g).

Abdominal fat weight: The weight of the fat present in abdomen including

the fat surrounding gizzard, bursa, cloaca and adjacent muscles of each bird

was recovered and expressed as percent of concerned pre-slaughter bird

weight.

d) Intestinal tract measurements: Along with other parameters of organometry

study, the digestive tract of the all sacrificed birds were carefully removed and

the length of different segments of intestine viz., duodenum, jejunum, ileum

and caeca were measured as follows:

Length of duodenum = the length of pancreatic loop

Length of jejunum = from pancreatic loop to Meckel’s diverticulum

Length of ileum = from Meckel’s diverticulum to ileocaecal junction

Length of caeca = average of the lengths of left and right caecum.

The length of each segment was expressed in terms of percentage of pre-

slaughter body weight (cm/100g)

3.3.1.6 Bone Mineralization

From the same birds which were sacrificed on 42nd day for carcass

characteristic studies (Section 3.3.1.5), apart from left thighs, the left leg portions

(Plate-14) were also collected and were preserved in deep freezer at -200C to observe

the effect of dietary inclusion of SPR (availability of minerals in SPR) on bone

mineralization, if any.

a) Tibial ash: From the thigh portion which was earlier used for the meat: bone

ratio study, the tibial bone was speared by stripping off all the adhering soft

tissue. The tibial bones from each replicate were polled and dried at 1000C for

48 hrs and weighed. Then the dried tibial bones were soaked in petroleum

ether for 48 hrs followed by ashing at 6000C for 6 hrs. The tibial ash so

obtained were expressed as percent of dried tibial bone mass.

b) Toe ash: Toe samples were obtained from severing the left middle toe through

the joint between the second and third tarsal bones from distal end. The toes of

all the birds within a replicate were pooled, and the composite samples were

dried to a constant weight at 1000C and then subjected for ashing in a muffle

furnace at 6000C for 6h. The content of toe ash was also expressed in terms of

percentage of dry weight.

c) Tibial calcium and phosphorous: The tibial ash samples (section 3.3.1.6a)

were further subjected for estimation of calcium and phosphorous content as

per the procedures described under section 3.1.2.3. The calcium and

phosphorus values obtained were expressed as percent of tibial ash.

3.3.1.7 Performance Indices

The cost of the starter, grower and finisher types of all the experimental diets

was arrived at by considering the prevailing prices of the constituent feed ingredients

and feed additives including that of enzymes and lecithin. The relative cost

effectiveness of each diet was thus assessed. Further, by considering the prevailing

sale price of the broiler bird, the Performance Index Score (PIS) and the Economic

Index Score (EIS) were arrived at i.e.

Gram average body weight x % livability 1) PIS = FCR x No. of days reared x 10

PIS 2) EIS = Cost of diet (Rs./kg)

3.3.2 Production Performance in Layers

By making use of the ME value of SPR so obtained from layers’ metabolism

trial, SPR was included at 0, 5 and 10 % levels in layers diets and evaluated in terms

of egg production, feed consumption, feed conversion efficiency, egg characteristics

(egg weight, Haugh unit, shell thickness etc.), nutrient utilization, calcium and

phosphorus status in blood and efficiency of utilization of energy and protein. At the

end, the cost effectiveness of SPR was also assessed. The 84-day layer production

performance trial was conveniently divided into 3 periods of 28 days duration each. A

brief description about the materials and methods adopted for feeding cum production

performance trial in layers are presented hereunder:

3.3.2.1 Experimental Diets, Birds and Management

a) Experimental dietary design : The practical type layer diet (control)

involving maize as the main energy source and soybean meal, groundnut

extraction and sunflower extraction as the protein sources with shell grits,

calcite powder, di-calcium phosphate and salts of pertinent trace minerals was

prepared to meet or exceed the nutrient specification of Bureau of India

Standards (BIS, 1992). In the test diets, the sun dried SPR was included at 2

different levels (5 and 10 per cent, respectively) to cater to organic and

inorganic nutrients at the expense of relevant organic nutrients and mineral

contributing salts.

Further, such three iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric diets were supplemented

with either lipid utilizers (lipase @ 0.2g and lecithin 2g/kg diet) or NSP

degrading enzyme preparation @ 0.5g/kg diet or their combination to result in

another set of 9 test diets, a design similar to that described under section

3.3.1.1a, was aimed to study the effect of inclusion of SPR at different levels

as well as increasing the efficiency of SPR utilization through

biotechnological approaches. The detailed ingredient and calculated nutrient

composition of each diet are given in Table 3.5.

b) Experimental birds: After a gap of one month following a metabolism trial,

the same birds were used for production trial. Infact all the birds were on a

common practical standard layer diet so as to nullify any variable effect if any,

due to previous metabolism study diets. One hundred forty four BV-300

commercial layers of about 40 weeks age were redistributed randomly into 36

replicate of 4 birds each. The birds were housed (Plate-15 and 16) in two tier

colony cages. Four birds were housed in each cage measuring 15’’x15’’x18”

size to serve as a replication. Each of the 12 diets (Sec. 3.3.2.1a) was offered

to four such replications of 4 birds each in colony cage units. The birds were

placed in cages in such a way that there was one empty cage between the two

groups to prevent the access of other diet in adjacent cage. Added to it, the

continuous feed trough was partitioned with a partition material to avoid

mixing up of test diets, if any. By and large, the distribution of replications of

treatments was essentially uniform.

The birds were maintained under standard managemental conditions including

periodical deworming, preventive or therapeutic disease control, lighting programme,

feeding frequency, watering methods and other routine bio-security aspects. The

experiment lasted for 84 days which was conveniently divided into three 28-day

interval periods.

3.3.2.2 Egg Production Parameters

Various egg production performance parameters were considered to critically

evaluate the scope of inclusion of SPR in layer diets in combination with

biotechnological approaches for enhancing its nutritive value and are described

hereunder:

a) Body weights: Individual body weights of birds were recorded at beginning of the experiment as well as at every 28-day interval to monitor the pattern of body weight changes, if any, due to dietary regimen. Group wise average weights under different treatments were calculated and the

period wise changes (loss / gain) in body weight were arrived at. The weighing of the birds was done in the early hours of the day before

feeding and oviposition.

b) Egg production: Every day in late hours, the number of eggs produced in a particular replicate group was recorded and the hen day egg production

was arrived at on the basis of three 28-day periods as per various treatments for further statistical analysis. The rate of egg production was calculated both for the individual periods and on the basis of cumulative

period as well.

c) Daily feed consumption: An amount of 120 g feed per bird per day was

collectively offered to the four bird replicate group during the initial few

days of experiment. Subsequently, the daily required amount of

concerned diet was adjusted based on the pattern of feed being consumed

by the particular group of birds. The diets were offered in divided doses

of about 50 per cent in morning and the remaining 50 per cent in the

afternoon hours. The feed residue, if any was recorded in each replicate

group at end of every week.

d) Feed efficiency: The amount of feed consumed to produce one kg egg

mass and/or a dozen eggs in each dietary replication was calculated. Such

feed efficiency values (kg feed/kg egg mass or kg feed/dozen eggs) were

calculated both period-wise (28-day) and cumulatively.

e) Mortality: The health status of the birds of various groups was under

constant observation from time to time. The dead birds were subjected

for post mortem examination to identify the dietary cause, if any. The

physical consistency of fecal droppings of various groups was under

periodical observation.

3.3.2.3 Egg Characteristics

On the terminal day of every 28-day interval, all the eggs produced from

different replicate groups were collected and were weighed individually during

the experimental period of 84 days. Further, on the immediate next day, each egg

was broken and the entire contents were carefully placed on a glass slab for

measurement of albumen and yolk indices (Plate-17 and 18). The values were

then arranged according to treatments and main factors wise under each 28-day

period as well as cumulatively.

a) Egg weight : Egg weights were recorded twice a week on two days i.e.,

Tuesday and Friday of every week and in addition, egg weights were also

taken at the end of 28-day periods. The weights so obtained on eight

occasions during a particular 28-day (4-week) period were averaged and

the data were arranged as per treatments and main factors.

b) Egg shape index: The width and length of an each egg (unbroken) was measured by using Vernier Calipers as described by Reddy (1979) and

egg shape index (ESI) was calculated as: Horizontal diameter (breadth) in cm ESI (%) = Vertical diameter (length) in cm X 100

c) Albumen index : The height and diameter of egg albumen were obtained

using Ames Haugh Unit Spherometer and Vernier Caliper, respectively and the albumen index (AI) was calculated as:

Albumen height in mm AI= Albumen diameter* in mm X 100

*Average of albumen length (mm) and albumen width (mm)

d) Haugh unit score: After recording the height of albumen at two places (one near to yolk and the other at the end of dense albumen) by using Ames Haugh unit meter, the relationship between egg weight and albumen

height for each egg was calculated as Haugh unit score (Haugh, 1937) as follows:

Haugh unit = 100 x log (H + 7.57 – 1.7 x W0.37) Where H= albumen height (mm) and W= egg weight (g)

e) Egg yolk colour : The colour of yolk of every broken open egg was scored

by matching (contrast) technique using Roche yolk colour fan (Roche Company, 1969). Its colour value denotes the colour intensity from 1 to 14

scale according to the degree of yolk colour.

f) Yolk index: The height (at centre place) and diameter of the yolk was measured using Ames Haugh Unit Spherometer and Vernier Calipers and

the yolk index (YI) was calculated as: Yolk height in mm

YI (%) = Yolk diameter in mm X 100

g) Shell thickness: Following the breaking of egg, the shell pieces devoid of

shell membranes at broad end, narrow end and middle band were carefully selected and their thickness were measured using a digital

calipers as described by Ogunmodde and Oguntella (1971). The average of all the three pieces was represented as shell thickness.

3.3.2.4 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients

Towards the end of the experimental period (on 75th, 76th and 77th day), a

three-day metabolic trial involving all the replicates (4 birds each) under each diet

was carried out. The total collection method was adopted to study nutrient

metabolizability and the retention of calcium and phosphorus. The procedure

followed was similar to that described under section 3.2.1.3.

The analytical procedure and calculations followed for arriving

metabolizability of different proximate and fiber constituents as well as retention of

calcium and phosphorus was similar to that being described under section 3.3.1.4.

3.3.2.5 Blood Biochemical Profiles

By selecting one bird from each replication, about 2 ml of blood was collected

from it’s wing vein and was transferred into a clean, sterilized and labeled test tube.

The test tube was held in a slanting position to facilitate serum separation. The clear

non-haemolysed serum was then transferred into a clean, sterilized and labeled vial.

Every 28-day, the same birds were bled to collect the serum. The calcium and

inorganic phosphorus content of serum samples were analyzed using auto-analyzer

(BT-224 photometer) as described by commercial supplier (M/s.Span Diagnostics).

3.3.2.6 Efficiency of Utilization of Protein and Energy

The gross efficiency of converting dietary protein and metabolisable

energy to those of eggs under all treatments and during different periods was

calculated based on intake and transfer of the said nutrients as described below:

a) Protein utilization: Gross efficiency of protein utilization (EPU) was

calculated as follows:

Total egg mass produced X 0.12 EPU (%) =

Total dietary protein intake X 100

Where, 0.12 represents the unit of protein present in one unit of egg.

b) Energy utilization: Gross efficiency of energy utilization (EEU) was

calculated as follows: Total egg mass produced X 1.6 EEU (%) = Total dietary ME intake X 100

Where, 1.6 represents the amount of kcal per every gram of egg mass as

described by Reddy (1979).

3.4 ECONOMICS

The cost of each diet prepared during both broilers’ and layers’ feeding trial

was arrived at by considering the prevailing prices of the constituent feed ingredients,

mineral salts and other additives including that of enzymes and lecithin. The relative

cost effectiveness of each diet was thus assessed. Further, by considering the sale

price of broiler chicken including the expenditure on chicks or laying hens and their

eggs, labor, medicine etc., the net profit for each treatment was calculated separately

for broilers and layers under different treatment.

3.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data generated during all the trials in broilers and layers involving SPR were analyzed manually using Microsoft excel based one way ANOVA (CRD) for the treatments and the main effect of dietary regimen (SPR level and Biotechnological tool) according to the procedures described by Snedecor and Cochran (1989). All the

percentage values were transformed into arc sign value before analysis. The differences in means were tested by using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955) when significant.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the present study have been presented and discussed under the following headings:

4.1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SUGARCANE PRESS RESIDUE (SPR)

4.1.1 Proximate Principles

4.1.2 Gross Energy Content

4.1.3 Fiber Fractions

4.1.4 Mineral Constituents

4.1.5 Amino Acid Composition

4.1.6 Fatty Acids Profile 4.2 METABOLIZABILITY OF ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS OF SPR IN BROILERS

4.2.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets 4.2.2 Metabolizability of various Nutrients and Energy of Experimental Diets 4.2.3 Ileal Nitrogen Absorbability 4.2.4 Metabolizability of Energy and other Nutrients of SPR 4.2.5 Growth Performance of Birds

4.3 METABOLIZABILITY OF ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS OF SPR IN LAYERS 4.3.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets 4.3.2 Metabolizability of various Nutrients and Energy of Experimental Diets 4.3.3 Metabolizability of Energy and Other Nutrients of SPR 4.3.4 Production Performance of Birds

4.4 PERFORMANCE OF BROILER BIRDS FED SPR BASED DIETS 4.4.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets 4.4.2 Body Weight Gain and Livability 4.4.3 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency 4.4.4 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients and Balance of Minerals 4.4.5 Carcass Characteristics and Organometry 4.4.6 Bone Mineralization 4.4.7 Blood Biochemical Profile 4.4.8 Economics

4.5 PERFORMANCE OF LAYER BIRDS FED SPR BASED DIETS 4.5.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets 4.5.2 Egg Production 4.5.3 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency 4.5.4 Body Weight Changes and Livability 4.5.5 Egg Characteristics 4.5.6 Efficiency of Utilization of Energy and Protein 4.5.7 Metabolizability of Various Nutrients 4.5.8 Blood Biochemical Profile 4.5.9 Economics

4.6 GENERAL DISCUSSION

4.1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SUGARCANE PRESS RESIDUE

(SPR)

4.1.1 Proximate Principles

The values of proximate constituents of sun-dried and oven-dried SPR

samples including acid insoluble ash and gross energy content of only sun-

dried SPR samples from different sugar factories are presented in Table 4.1.

The moisture content of freshly obtained SPR samples ranged between 76.53

to 86.46 per cent with an average value of 79.6 per cent. The dry matter (DM)

content of sun-dried SPR samples ranged form 91.71 to 92.95 per cent while

that of air-equilibrated oven-dried SPR samples ranged from 91.18 to 94.23

per cent. On an average, sun-dried dried SPR samples contained 92.30 and

93.10 per cent DM, respectively.

The organic matter (OM) content of sun-dried and oven-dried SPR

samples ranged from 74.22 to 80.03 and 76.07 to 84.70 per cent, respectively.

The corresponding total ash (TA) values were between 19.97 to 25.78 and

17.91 to 23.93 per cent with average values of 21.94 and 18.91 per cent,

respectively.

The crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), ether extract (EE) and

nitrogen free extractives (NFE) contents of sun-dried and oven-dried SPR

samples ranged from 9.18 to 14.11 and 8.62 to 12.19; 3.60 to 12.24 and 4.28 to

11.41; 4.64 to 9.98 and 4.50 to 9.00 per cent; from 38.57 to 54.84 and 49.26 to

58.64 per cent, respectively. The average CP, CF, EE and NFE values of sun-

dried and oven-dried SPR samples were 11.76 and 10.34; 10.08 and 9.06; 7.87

and 6.91; 48.35 and 54.78 per cent, respectively.

In general, the TA content of sun-dried SPR samples were marginally

higher than that of oven-dried samples while CP values were lower in oven-

dried SPR samples compared to sun-dried samples. The variation in other

proximate constituents between sun-dried and oven-dried SPR samples were

inconsistent with no definite trend. These results indicate that the method of

processing has little impact on the proximate composition of SPR samples.

The higher TA in sun-dried SPR samples may be due to the possible

contamination of samples with soil / sand or due to loss of some organic

matter via wind / aerial route during the process of drying under sun.

Similarly, the lower CP in dried SPR samples might be due to the loss of

volatile nitrogen during drying process in the oven at 1000C.

The proximate composition of SPR samples obtained were well within

the range of values reported by Singh and Solomon (1995). The observations

were also close to the values reported by Suma (2005) but however with a

marginally lower CF and TA and higher EE and NFE values. On contrary, the

average CP, CF and TA content of SPR samples obtained were higher with

lower EE content than the values reported by Budeppa (2004) and Suresh

(2004). Such a variation in chemical composition of SPR samples could be due

to differences in agro-climatic conditions, quality of the cane crushed

including variety and the method employed for clarification of cane juice in

the sugar factory including the quantity of chemical added.

The proximate composition of sun-dried SPR (The Mysore Sugars Ltd.,

Mandya) procured in bulk for conducting biological trials (Table 4.1 and Fig

1A) comprised of: DM-92.83, TA-23.95, CP-11.80, CF-13.73, EE-11.95 and NFE-

38.57 per cent with the AIA of 4.93 per cent. The TA and NFE content were

comparable to the values reported by Suma (2005) while the EE content was

similar to the value reported by Suresh (2004). The CP content was

intermediate to the values reported by Suma (2005), Budeppa (2004) and

Suresh (2004). Further, these values were different from the earlier analyzed

values for the SPR sample obtained from same factory (A) indicating that the

SPR composition was quite variable depending on the season as well.

Further, from the proximate analysis data, it is evident that the SPR

resembles certain cereal by-products and as far as protein and crude fiber

contents are concerned, SPR is quite similar to brans (DORB).

4.1.2 Gross Energy Content

The gross energy (GE) content of sun-dried SPR samples obtained from

various factories together with the predicted metabolizable energy (ME)

values using prediction equation (NRC, 1994; Janssen and Carre, 1989) are

presented in Table 4.1. The GE values of different sun-dried SPR samples

ranged from 3719 to 4310 kcal/kg with an average value of 4083 kcal/kg. The

SPR used for biological trials contained 4068 kcal/kg GE. The variation in GE

content of SPR samples was attributed to the differences in the amount of OM

(74.22 to 80.33 per cent) and its components particularly that of CF (7.94 to

13.73 per cent) and EE (4.64 to 11.95 per cent) content. However, at the best

the GE values indicate a balance of organic vs. inorganic components only.

The calculated ME values of sun-dried SPR samples ranged from 1534

to 2530 kcal/kg with an average value of 1980 kcal/kg dry matter. The

predicted ME content of SPR used for biological trials was 1784 kcal/kg DM.

The ME content of SPR was comparable to that of certain feedstuffs e.g. DORB

– 1900 kcal/kg, fish meal - 1800 kcal/kg (NRC, 1994). However, these values

were also just an approximation because this type of predication equation is

not accurate (±500 kcal/kg). Furthermore, a number of dietary factors per se

(e.g. anti-nutritional factors, protein quality, and effect of processing and

storing) which are not determined by chemical characterization and animal

factors may influence the biologically available energy value (ME) of feed

ingredient (Leeson and Summers, 2001).

4.1.3 Fiber Fractions

The values of fiber factions of the sun-dried SPR samples obtained

from different sugar factories including the SPR employed in biological trial

are given in Table 4.2. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber

(ADF) and AD-lignin content ranged from 47.37 to 59.42, 20.92 to 33.70 and

from 5.93 to 17.78 per cent, respectively. The hemicellulose and cellulose

contents were between 17.77 to 32.36 and 14.99 to 18.84 per cent, respectively.

The average NDF, ADF, AD-lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose values were

found to be 55.01, 28.84, 11.69, 29.17 and 17.14 per cent, respectively. The

NDF, ADF, AD-lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose contents of sun-dried SPR

employed in biological trial (Table 4.2 and Fig 1B) were 55.80, 29.42, 11.13,

26.38 and 18.29 per cent, respectively.

The average values of different fiber fractions viz. NDF, hemicellulose

and cellulose obtained in the present study were higher than the values

reported by Suresh (2004), however, the ADF value was comparable and AD-

lignin value was slightly lower. The NDF and ADF values were lower than

the values reported by Gupta and Ahuja (1998). In general, the differences in

fiber fractions were mainly attributed to the quality of cane and in particular

due to the maturity of plant at harvesting time.

4.1.4 Mineral Constituents

The mineral composition of sun-dried SPR samples was (Table 4.3)

determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and the values ranged from:

2.80 to 4.90 per cent for Ca, 0.75 to 1.35 per cent for total P, 0.63 to 1.35 per

cent for Mg, 37.0 to 140.0 ppm for Cu, 65.0 to 210.0 ppm for Zn, 2100 to 4300

ppm for Fe, 250.0 to 330.0 ppm for Mn and 1.8 to 9.7 ppm for Co. The

corresponding average values were 3.87, 1.10, 0.95 per cent, 61.5, 112.6, 3500,

284.3 and 5.0 ppm, respectively. The mineral profile of SPR used in biological

evaluation (Table 4.3 and Fig 1C) comprised of: Ca-4.90, total P – 1.25, Mg –

1.35 per cent, Cu – 58.5, Zn – 86.5, Fe – 4300, Mn – 260.0 and Co – 6.4 ppm.

The mineral profile of SPR samples obtained in the present study were

well within the range reported by Singh and Solomon (1995). However, the

average values appeared to be higher than the values reported by Budeppa

(2004) and Suresh (2004). Contrarily, the Ca and total P values of SPR

obtained by Suma (2005) were higher than the average values obtained in the

present study. The wide variation in mineral composition of SPR samples

procured from different sugar factories located in different parts of Karnataka

was again attributed to the differences in agro-climatic conditions and

particularly to the mineral status of soil on which the sugarcane plant was

grown and also due to the procedural differences in the clarification of cane

juice at the sugar factory.

The mineral analysis indicated that the SPR contains substantial

amount of inorganic nutrients and was found to be superior (except iron) in

comparison to other conventional feed ingredients used in poultry rations,

such that it can alternatively conserve the mineral supplements.

4.1.5 Amino Acid Composition

Amino acid profile of selected SPR samples obtained from the analysis

carried out by M/s. Degussa-Huls AG, Germany (2006) is presented in Table

4.4. The profile of all the essential amino acids except tryptophan and some

non essential amino acids in the SPR samples were compared to that of the

amino acid profile of maize and de-oiled rice bran, the ingredients whose CP

contents are very much comparable to that of SPR samples.

The amino acid profile (% of CP) of SPR samples obtained from

different sources were comparable among each others except lysine. The

average essential amino acids content of SPR was: methionine – 2.21, cysteine

– 1.05, lysine – 4.56, threonine – 5.48, arginine – 4.10, isoleucine – 4.77, leucine

– 8.72, valine – 6.27, histidine – 2.44, phenylalanine- 4.90 and glycine – 5.95

g/16g N and that of non essential amino acids was: serine – 4.76, proline –

4.83, alanine – 6.44, aspartic acid – 10.28, glutamic acid – 12.45 g/16g N.

The ratio of essential to non essential amino acid in SPR was

approximately 1:1. The asparatic acid content was in highest amount followed

by glutamic acid, both are non essential amino acids. Among the essential

amino acids, the leucine content was highest followed by valine and threonine

with cystine content being the lowest.

When expressed as percentage of protein content, essential amino acid

composition of SPR was found to be different than that of corn and DORB.

With respect to the limiting amino acids, sulfur containing amino acids

(methionine + cysteine) were lower in SPR samples when compared to maize

and DORB whereas the lysine and threonine contents were higher in SPR. The

concentration of rest of the essential amino acids in SPR were more or less

similar to that of maize and DORB except arginine which was lower in SPR.

The amino acid content of SPR obtained in the present study were higher than

the values reported by ICIDCA (1988). The total sulfur containing amino acids

of SPR were proportionately lower in SPR compared to maize and DORB

however with the substantially higher arginine.

The results reveal that the amino acid profile of SPR notwithstanding

its mineral value, is a significant attribute of SPR.

4.1.6 Fatty Acids Profile

In addition to its major role in providing energy, the dietary fat has a

role in providing individual fatty acids which have specific nutritional roles

within the animal body. Hence, information on quality of the fat i.e., fatty acid

composition is of prime importance in any nutritional investigation.

The fatty acid profile of the fat component of SPR sample analyzed by

chromatography is presented in Table 4.5 and also pictorially represented in

Fig 1D. The analysis revealed that in general, among the constituent fatty

acids, the linoleic acid was found in highest concentration (4.541%) and least

being caprylic and capric acid (0.2% each).

With regard to the presence of double bonds in fatty acids, the ratio of

unsaturated (with at least one double bond) to saturated fatty acids in SPR is

about 3:2. Among the unsaturated fatty acids, linoleic acid was in highest

concentrations (4.541%) followed by oleic acid and linolenic acid with no

palmitoleic or arachidonic acid, while palmitic acid was in highest

concentration (3.621%) among saturated fatty acids followed by lauric acid

(0.167%) with no caproic acid. As far as the chain length of fatty acid is

concerned, more than 95% of fatty acids were of long chain (C>16) type.

The quality assessment of ether extract fraction of SPR revelead that

like oils of plant and marine origin, SPR fat contains more unsaturated fatty

acids particularly linolenic acid, an important essential fatty acid. However,

SPR also contains good amount of saturated long chain fatty acid (palmitic

acid).

In general, the by-product obtained from various sources may vary

widely in their nutritional composition. In this particular case, the nutritional

composition of SPR varied in comparison with SPR samples used in previous

studies. Crude protein levels of SPR in this study were 3 to 5% lower than

levels previously reported. The level of ether extract was 8 to 10% higher than

the levels typically reported in literature. As far the remaining nutritional

components are concerned, slight variations were obvious with by-products

of such origin.

The chemical composition of SPR in general revealed that the SPR is a

valuable source of both organic and inorganic nutrients. Its nutrient

composition is comparable to that of cereal grains, their by-products and

appeared to be a potential feed ingredient for poultry.

4.2 METABOLIZABILITY OF ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS OF SPR IN BROILERS Since the metabolizable energy (ME) content of a feed ingredient is a

prerequisite for its inclusion in the practical diet formulated with precision, an

earnest effort was made to determine the ME value of SPR for young birds i.e.,

broilers. The results including the growth performance of broilers during 14-day

metabolism trial (7-21days of age) are discussed here under.

4.2.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets

The proximate composition and gross energy content of the experimental diets

compounded during the metabolism trial in broilers is given in Table 4.6. The dry

matter content was more or less consistent in all the diets and ranged from 90.23 (T1)

to 91.85 per cent (T8). The total ash, crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber and NFE

contents ranged from 7.76 (T1) to 13.47 (T16), 18.34 (T14) to 23.40 (T1), 3.61 (T1) to

4.96 (T16), 6.12 (T4) to 11.36 (T13) and from 50.97 (T12) to 59.44 per cent (T4),

respectively. The gross energy values ranged from as high as 4250 kcal/kg (T1) and as

low as 3814 kcal/kg (T15). The basal diets (T1 to T4) contained all the nutrients similar

to that of a practical type broiler starter diet (BIS, 1992) while the test diets (T5 to

T16) were different depending on the level of substitution of basal diet (T1) with SPR.

As expected, the contents of crude fiber, ether extract and total ash in the

experimental diets increased with the incremental level of SPR (0, 10, 20 and 30%)

while the trend was declining for rest of the nutrients i.e. NFE and crude protein.

Such a pattern was obviously due to the chemical composition of SPR per se. The

higher amounts of crude fiber (13.73%), ether extract (11.95%) and total ash

(19.97%) of SPR and with lower crude protein (11.80%) and NFE (38.57%) than that

of the basal diets was responsible for such a variation. Other important nutrient i.e.,

gross energy content decreased progressively with the incremental level of SPR which

was again due to the reduced organic matter content of SPR diets. However, with in

the groups i.e., 0, 10, 20 or 30% SPR included diets, the proximate constituents and

gross energy contents remained by and large similar to each other. The marginal

variation in diets belonging to the same group (SPR level) was due to the addition of

biotechnological products to the basic ingredient composition which remained same

for such diets.

4.2.2 Metabolizability of various Nutrients and Energy of Experimental Diets

The metabolizability coefficient of dry matter, organic matter, ether extract,

crude fiber and gross energy including the ileal nitrogen digestibility of all the

experimental diets employed for metabolism trial in broilers is presented in Table 4.7.

a) Dry matter and other proximate constituents

The metabolizability of dry matter, organic matter, ether extract and crude

fiber of experimental diets (Table 4.7) ranged from 58.67 (T14) to 71.29 (T2), 61.61

(T16) to 74.65 (T2), 53.04 (T14) to 66.75 (T2) and from 45.55 (T7) to 54.50 per cent

(T1), respectively. The variation among different treatments was highly significant

(P<0.01) for dry matter, organic matter and ether extract metabolizability and

significant (P<0.05) for metabolizability of crude fiber. In general, the better

metabolizability values for different nutrients were observed in the reference / basal

diets (0% SPR) when compared to that of SPR based test diets.

With regard to the main factor SPR, the average metabolizability coefficient

values ranged between 59.80 (30% SPR) and 70.59 per cent (0% SPR) for dry matter,

62.58 (30% SPR) and 73.98 per cent (0% SPR) for organic matter, 56.59 (30% SPR)

and 66.28 per cent (0% SPR) for ether extract and between 49.54 (20% SPR) and

53.34 per cent (0% SPR) for crude fiber. The differences among different groups were

highly significant (P<0.01) for dry matter, organic matter and ether extract

metabolizability while that of crude fiber was significant at p<0.05.

With regard to the main factor biotechnological tool, the metabolizability

coefficients of dry matter, organic matter and crude fiber were statistically similar

(P>0.05) among different groups. However, the metabolizabilty coefficient values of

ether extract were significant (P<0.05) and the diets supplemented with lipid utilizing

agent showed the lowest value (57.63 %) when compared to rest of the groups (59.58

to 60.42 %).

The results indicated that the metabolizability of different components of

experimental diets decreased with the incremental level of SPR (0, 10, 20 and 30%).

The marginally improved metabolizability values for dry matter and organic matter

was observed in diets supplemented with combination of biotechnological agents.

The higher dry matter outgo and in turn, the poor metabolizability of SPR

based diets was due to the relatively higher amount of crude fiber and inorganic

matter coupled with poor utilization of ether extract fraction. The crude fiber is

poorly digested by the poultry and thus the higher crude fiber in the diet may lead to

low DM metabolizability. Also is the fact that the crude fiber increases the rate of

passage in the gut and brings about physico-chemical changes in the ingesta due to

its hydrophilic property (Southgate, 1973). Higher levels of inorganic matter are also

known to reduce the DM metabolizability (Scott et al., 1989). Similar observations

were made on studies with dried poultry manure (Scott et al., 1989), wheat barn and

rice bran (Basavaraja Reddy, 1984) and dried silk worm excreta (Narayanaswamy,

1984) in broiler chicks.

The other reason for reduced nutrient metabolizability of SPR based diets with

higher level of SPR inclusion was due to suboptimal development of the gastro-

intestinal tract during 0 to 3 weeks of age which could not cope with the high fiber

and total ash content of such diets. Hence, the incomplete development of digestive

cum secretary organs might have resulted in insufficient production of endogenous

enzymes such as lipase, carbohydrases and proteases which were responsible to

reduced ether extract and NFE metabolizability of SPR based diets.

Among the diets compared for biotechnological factors as the main factor,

there was no statistical difference observed for different nutrients metabolizability

except for EE metabolizability. Addition of lipase and lecithin or lipase, lecithin and

NSP degrading enzymes together could not improve the metabolizability of EE for

which the reason is unknown. Also addition of NSP enzymes has no additional

beneficial effects on nutrient metabolizability which indicates that the presence of

different type of NSPs in SPR based diets.

b) Gross Energy

The metabolizability coefficient of gross energy content of different

experimental diets (Table 4.7) employed in the metabolism trial in broilers ranged

from 68.90 (T10) to 78.11 per cent (T3). There was a significant difference (P<0.01) in

metabolizability of gross energy values among dietary treatments.

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the average metabolizability values of

gross energy were 77.67, 74.84, 69.98 and 69.85 per cent in diets containing with 0,

10, 20 and 30% SPR, respectively. The values were highly significantly (P<0.01)

different with the highest value in control diets (0% SPR) and lowest value in 20 and

30% SPR diets.

With regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the average values of

gross energy metabolizability values were 73.58, 72.29, 73.65 and 73.62 per cent in

diets fortified with no supplement or with lipid utilizing agent or with NSP degrading

enzymes or both, respectively. The values were statistically similar (P<0.05).

Based on their gross energy content and its metabolizability, the

metabolizable energy (ME) content of all the experimental diets employed in the

broilers’ trial was also arrived at. The values were found to be statistically similar

and ranged between 2682 (T15) and 3303 kcal/kg (T4) among different diets. The

average ME values for 0, 10, 20 and 30% SPR substituted diets were 3293, 3039,

2803 and 2686 kcal/kg, respectively and the values were significantly (P<0.01)

different from one another. The average values irrespective of SPR inclusion were

2964, 2955, 2948 and 2953 kcal/kg in diets with no supplement, with lipid utilizing

agent or with NSP degrading enzymes or both, respectively and the values were

statistically similar (P>0.05).

It was clearly evident that the ME content of SPR based diets was significantly

lower (P<0.01) and there was a linear reduction in ME content of the diets with the

incremental level of SPR (0, 10, 20 and 30%). There was no improvement in ME

content with dietary fortification with either lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading

enzymes or both their combination indicating the ineffectiveness of biotechnological

tools in improving ME.

The progressive decrease in ME content of SPR based diets with the

incremental level of SPR was due to the decrease in the metabolizability of dry matter

and other organic nutrients particularly crude protein, ether extract and NFE on one

hand and due to progressive increasing levels of CF and total ash on the other hand.

Similar relationship with ME was also observed by Scott et al. (1989), Basavaraja

Reddy (1984) and Narayanaswamy (1984) with different feed ingredients in broiler

chicks.

c) Regression equations for prediction of energy values of diets

The simple regression equations for the prediction of energy values of

experimental diets used in the metabolism trial were derived wherein the ME was

regressed on the metabolizability coefficients of DM and OM and are given below:

Classical ME (kcal/kg) = -(48.77 x DMM %) -163.1 R2 = 0.94 r = 0.97** Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (47.69 x OMM %) -248.6 R2 = 0.95 r = 0.97**

Where **Significant (P<0.01) DMM = Dry matter metabolizability coefficient OMM = Organic matter metabolizability coefficient

The correlation between the metabolizability coefficient of DM and OM to

that of ME values was highly significant (P<0.01). The predicted values are in close

association with the assayed values. However, the relationship between the

metabolizability of individual nutrients to that of ME values was not significant

(P>0.05). The results indicated that the energy content (ME) of a broiler diet can be

predicted based on DM or OM metabolizability with greater accuracy.

4.2.3 Ileal nitrogen absorbability

The ileal digestibility values provide a sensitive index of protein quality that is

not confounded by caecal bacteria. The average ileal nitrogen absorbability (Table

4.7) values of experimental diets were statistically different (P<0.01) among different

treatments and the values varied from as low as 69.14 (T16) to as high as 91.45 per

cent (T4).

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the ileal nitrogen absorbability values

were highly significant (P<0.01) the values being 83.67, 76.17, 79.94 and 70.55 per

cent for 0, 10, 20 and 30% SPR included dietary groups, respectively. However, with

regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the nitrogen absorbability values

were statistically similar (P>0.05) and were 75.44, 77.54, 76.44 and 80.94 per cent for

diets with no supplement or with lipid utilizing agent or NSP degrading enzymes or

both, respectively.

Nitrogen absorbability in general, was significantly decreased as the level of

incorporation of SPR increased from 0 to 30% with an atypical value at 20%

inclusion. However, non-significantly (P>0.05) better ileal nitrogen absorbability

values were observed with supplementation of biotechnological agents, where in the

diets supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes

showing the highest value.

The results were contrary to the findings of Li et al. (1993) who reported that

the apparent ileal amino acid digestibility decreased as the dietary protein increased.

Since the experimental diets were of non-equinitrogenous, the better nitrogen

absorbability found in diets devoid of SPR was attributed to the effect of type of

dietary protein that influences the amino acid composition of ileal contents as

observed by Varnish and Carpenter (1975). In basal diets, maize and soybean meal

were the major feed ingredients and their combination was regarded as ideal protein

source for poultry while the inclusion of SPR, an ingredient containing comparatively

low crude protein and different amino acid profile, to such diets part by part resulted

in deviation from the ideal protein concept. Hence, significantly lower ileal nitrogen

absorbability obtained in SPR based diets with the incremental level of SPR. The

results obtained were also similar to the report of Green (1987) who observed a

numerically lower nitrogen digestibility when soybean meal was substituted by other

protein sources such as groundnut cake and sunflower extractions in broiler diets.

4.2.4 Metabolizability of Energy and other Nutrients of SPR

The absolute metabolizability values of experimental diets presented so far has

enabled to arrive at the metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients present in the

test feed ingredient (SPR) by applying simultaneous equations. The metabolizability

coefficient of different nutritional components of SPR including its ileal nitrogen

digestibility is presented in Table 4.8.

The metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of SPR under different

treatments ranged from 11.81 to 39.19 and from 15.43 to 40.11 per cent, respectively.

Considering SPR as the main factor, the average metabolizability of dry matter

content of SPR at 10, 20 and 30% inclusion were 27.34, 21.32 and 34.64 per cent,

respectively and that of organic matter was 30.03, 25.36 and 35.99 per cent,

respectively. The values were found to be statistically similar (P>0.05) for all the

parameters.

The metabolizability coefficient values for crude fiber were highly significant

(P<0.01) among different treatments with the values ranging from 15.42 to 53.45 per

cent. The average metabolizability of crude fiber content of SPR at 10, 20 and 30%

inclusion were 18.78, 34.75 and 47.44 per cent, respectively.

The metabolizability coefficient values of ether extract were highly significant

(P<0.01) with the values ranging from -2.37 to 44.27 per cent. The average

metabolizability values of ether extract content of SPR at 10, 20 and 30% inclusion

were 12.09, 15.90 and 33.97 per cent, respectively.

The absorbability of nitrogen content of SPR in the ileum was found to be

highly significant (P<0.01) among different treatments with the values ranging

between a negative value of (-) 8.68 and a high positive value of 82.95 per cent. The

average ileal absorbability of SPR nitrogen were 8.63, 65.03 and 39.93 per cent at 10,

20 and 30% inclusion, respectively.

The metabolizability of gross energy content of SPR was found to be

statistically similar (P>0.05) among different treatments with the values ranging from

35.53 to 56.68 per cent. The average metabolizability of gross energy content of SPR

at 10, 20 and 30% inclusion level were significantly different (P<0.01) and the values

were 53.03, 39.19 and 53.00 per cent, respectively. The absolute ME values of SPR

varied non-significantly (P>0.05) from 683.2 and 1626.6 kcal/kg among different

treatments. The average values were 1035.7, 842.3 and 1437.9 kcal/kg and the values

were found to be significantly different (P<0.01).

With regard to the main factor biotechnological tools, the dry matter, organic

matter and gross energy metabolizability of SPR were found to be statistically

(P>0.01) similar among different treatments while that of crude fiber and ether extract

showed highly significant differences (P<0.01). The ileal absorbability of SPR

nitrogen were also highly significantly(P<0.01) different among different groups. The

absolute ME content of diets irrespective of the SPR inclusion were found to be non-

significantly varied between 2955 and 3013 kcal/kg.

Irrespective of its level of inclusion and supplementation of biotechnological

products, on an average the metabolizabiliy of different component of SPR was as

follows: Dry matter – 27.77, organic matter - 30.46, crude fiber – 33.52, ether extract

– 12.59 and gross energy – 48.40 per cent. The absorbability of its nitrogen in the

ileum was about 37.86 per cent. The average ME content of SPR was arrived to be

1105.3 kcal/kg.

The metabolizability of SPR dry matter tended to be higher with the higher

level of its inclusion. Similarly, the organic matter metabolizability of SPR was also

lower at higher level of inclusion. This confirms that the dry matter metabolizability

had a positive correlation with that of organic matter.

The metabolizability of crude fiber content of SPR was found to be better at

higher level of inclusion. Such trend was in confirmation with the findings of Pal and

Singh (1998) who observed a maximum digestibility of crude fiber occurred on the

diets containing 14.40% CF (due to addition of soybean husk) while the lowest value

on the husk free diet (2.50% CF).

Interestingly, the metabolizability co-efficient of ether extract component of

SPR showed negative values. Such an observations are not uncommon to biological

experimentations of the kind wherein experimental error at several points is

unavoidable.

The ileal nitrogen absorbability values obtained for SPR were highly variable

and lower than the reported values for other feed ingredients. The possible reason

could be destruction of amino acids during the process of obtaining SPR, a residue

left after precipitation of cane juice which involves boiling. Such results conforms to

the findings of Zhang and Parsons (1994) who reported that the over cooking leads to

reduced amino acid availability and therefore, reduced nutritive value of processed

sunflower meal for broiler chickens.

The maximum metabolizability coefficient values for various nutrients of SPR

(Table 4.8) obtained when SPR was included at 30% level and hence the maximum

ME values were obtained at that level.

The ME value of SPR was significantly (P<0.01) higher at 30% level of

substitution as compared to that at 10% level. The ME value of SPR at 20% level of

substitution was tended to be midway as compared to that at either 10% or at 30%,

the difference being statistically non-significant. The observation was in conformity

with that of Bhatia (1969) who found that ME value of most of the ingredients at

lower level of inclusion was lower and indicated that incorporation at a higher level

of test ingredient would provide a more reliable appraisal of the ME value of the

feedstuff. Similar conclusion was made by Podder and Biswas (1991) while

evaluating metabolizability of rice bran at 20 and 40% levels of inclusion.

The ME value of SPR resembles that of some of the feed ingredients such as

dried leaf meals (Reddy, 1979) which is attributed to its chemical composition i.e.,

exceptionally high total ash content and moderate crude fiber content. The higher

amount of ash and fiber adversely affected the digestibility of SPR lowering its ME

value. Besides, the ash component does not contribute to any energy. The ME value of

SPR was also lower than the ME value reported for coarse rice bran which was 1,933

kcal/kg (Zablan et al., 1963).

The results revealed that the metabolizability coefficient of various

components of SPR was poor. The biological worth of SPR protein was also inferior

compared to commonly used feed ingredients in poultry.

No literature report is available to confirm the obtained ME value of SPR.

Earlier researchers, Suma (2005) and Budeppa (2004) used an approximate ME value

of 1,200 kcal/kg which is close to the arrived value of the present study.

4.2.5 Growth Performance of birds

The performance of birds in terms of body weight gain, feed consumption and

feed efficiency during different weeks of metabolism trial with their cumulative values

along with their survivability values are presented in Table 4.9.

The total average body weight gain among different treatments ranged from

109.6 (T16) to 219.9 (T2) during 2nd week, 200.2 (T13) to 421.5 (T3) during 3rd week

and from 327.3 (T14) to 637.2 (T3) on cumulative basis. The total feed consumption

values (g/bird) on an average ranged from 303.2 (T16) to 333.7 (T1) during 2nd week,

486.7 (T16) to 636.1 (T3) during 3rd week and from 784.7 (T15) to 929.2 (T2) on

cumulative basis. The FCR values ranged from 1.32 (T2) to 2.68 (T15) during 2nd week

and from 1.31 (T4) to 2.24 (T15) during 3rd week where as the cumulative values

ranged from as better as 1.29 (T4) to as poorer as 2.38 (T15). The differences in all the

above said performance parameters among various treatments were highly significant

(P<0.01) for both the weeks of metabolism trial as well as cumulatively. The average

livability of birds during metabolism trial period (2nd and 3rd week) was 100% in all

the groups excepting in T6 group which had a livability of 90% (P>0.05).

The cumulative (2nd and 3rd week) body weight gain and feed consumption

decreased linearly with the increasing level of substitution of test ingredient (SPR)

(P<0.01). The rate of decrease in body weight gain was much more when compared

to feed consumption which eventually resulted in poorer FCR with incremental level

of SPR.

Although the general concept is that voluntary feed intake of chicken varies to

keep the their energy intake almost constant (Mayer and Garrcet, 1969), yet the feed

intake of SPR based diets were lower compared to control which was mainly due to

substantially lower caloric and protein content in them. Thus the results followed the

statement that if the deficiency of nutrients is severe, feed intake is lowered and the

degree of reduction in feed intake is governed by the severity of the deficiency.

Similar results were observed by Pal and Singh (1998) who reported that the

voluntary feed intake was reduced with the addition of soybean husk (a by-product

resembling SPR with respect to certain nutrients) to growing chick diets. Further, the

development and functioning of the gastrointestinal tract of birds under SPR based

diets was also hindered due to higher crude fiber content of PSR based diets with the

incremental level of SPR. Hence, the suboptimal nutrient profile of SPR based diets

mainly energy and protein coupled with poor digestion and absorption efficiency of

birds on such diets resulted in linear decline in growth rate (P<0.01) of birds with the

incremental level of SPR inclusion.

Thus, it was inferred that the energy and crude protein content of test diets

(SPR based diets) was not sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement of the broiler

chicks, hence the lower feed intake and consequently reduced body weight gain with

the poorer FCR values. However, since this trial was conducted with an objective to

establish bioavailability of various nutrients of SPR, the results of metabolizability

values namely DM of 27.77, OM of 30.46, GE of 48.40 per cent and ME of 1105

kcal/kg can be considered as and when the dried SPR can be included in broiler diets.

4.3 METABOLIZABILITY OF ENERGY AND OTHER NUTRIENTS OF SPR IN

LAYERS

The efficiency with which the adult birds (laying hens) metabolize different

components of diets containing SPR at different levels and in turn that of the SPR was

also attempted. The results including the egg production performance of birds

obtained during the 14-day metabolism trial are discussed here under.

4.3.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets

The proximate composition and gross energy content of the experimental diets

used in the metabolism trial of layers is given in Table 4.10. The dry matter content of

the diets ranged from 90.39 (T1) to 93.07 per cent (T15) to), while crude protein, ether

extract and crude fiber contents ranged between 15.98 (T13 to T16) to 17.85 (T1 to T4),

2.74 (T4) to 4.22 (T15) and from 6.39 (T4) to 9.56 (T14), respectively while the NFE

ranged from 47.14 (T14) to 59.95 (T4) per cent. The gross energy content was highest

in T4 (3893 kcal/kg) and lowest in T15 (3554 kcal/kg).

The nutrient composition of all the basal diets (T1 to T4) was more or less

similar to that of BIS (1992) specification. However, the crude protein, NFE and

gross energy of the experimental diets decreased gradually as the level of SPR

increased from 10 to 30 per cent in diets. On the other hand the crude fiber, ether

extract and total ash contents in test diets gradually increased with the higher level of

SPR substitution (0, 10, 20 and 30%), a pattern similar to those diets employed in

broilers’ metabolism trial. Such variation was obviously due to nutrient profile of

SPR per se. The gross energy content decreased linearly as the inclusion level of SPR

increased in the diet which was due to the reduced organic matter content of such

diets. The variation between different diets was less when compared to broiler

experimental diets. Within the SPR groups i.e., 0, 10, 20 and 30% SPR included diets,

the chemical composition and gross energy was by and large similar.

4.3.2 Metabolizability of various Nutrients and Energy of Experimental Diets

The percent metabolizability coefficients of proximate principles and gross

energy including their metabolizable energy of the experimental diets employed in

metabolism trial of layers are presented in Table 4.11.

a) Proximate constituents

The metabolizability coefficient of proximate constituents of experimental diets

(Table 4.11) namely dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, ether extract, crude

fiber and NFE contents ranged from 55.52 (T14) to 69.79 (T2), 60.22 (T14) to 74.53

(T2), 59.40 (T13) to 84.43 (T2), 41.78 (T12) to 64.91 (T2), 8.02 (T12) to 26.76 (T13) and

from 70.64 (T14) to 83.38 (T4) per cent, respectively. The variation among different

treatments for all the proximate principles except crude fiber metabolizability were

highly significant (P<0.01). In general, a decreased metabolizability coefficient of

different components of experimental diets was observed with the incremental level of

SPR.

With regard to the main factor SPR, the metabolizability coefficient values

ranged between 56.45 to 67.95 per cent for dry matter, 59.21 to 72.99 per cent for

organic matter, 62.02 to 73.68 per cent for ether extract, 16.20 to 24.81 per cent for

crude fiber and between 74.19 to 82.73 per cent for NFE. In all the cases, the

metabolizability coefficient values differed highly significantly (P<0.01) with the

highest value in control group (0% SPR) and the lowest value in 30% SPR based

diets. However, in case of crude fiber, it was the converse.

With regard to the main factor biotechnological tool, the metabolizablity

coefficients of proximate principles excepting ether extract were statistically similar

(P>0.05) among different groups. The metabolizability coefficient of ether extract was

significantly (P<0.01) low in diets supplemented with lipase and lecithin (49.37%)

when compared to those of remaining groups (55.02 to 57.51%). In case of crude

fiber, the metabolizability coefficient values were numerically lower in diets

supplemented with biotechnological agents particularly with both lipid utilizing agent

and NSP degrading enzymes (14.84%). However, for rest of the nutrients, by and

large, the metabolizability coefficient values were close to each other.

A linear decrease in metabolizability of crude protein, ether extract and NFE

and an increase in the crude fiber metabolizability were observed with increasing

levels of substitution of SPR. Such a trend in metabolizability coefficient values for

various proximate principles was very much similar to those obtained with

metabolism trial in broiler birds. Although the gastro-intestinal system of laying hen

is relatively well equipped for efficient digestion of nutrients particularly that of crude

fiber when compared to broilers, yet the reasons for such a variation between

metabolizability coefficient of basal diets and SPR based diets are the same as

explained in case of broilers’ metabolism trial. No significant improvement in

metabolizability values was evident with supplementation of biotechnological agents

particularly in NSP degrading enzyme supplemented diets even in layers.

The lower metabolizability of diets substituted with SPR at different levels was

due to the higher crude fiber and total ash content of such diets. The results confirm

the earlier report on the adverse effects of high dietary crude fiber on the digestibility

of rations i.e., the high crude fiber diets had faster transit time and lower digestibility

(Southgate, 1973). Similar observations were made on dried silk worm excreta in

broiler breeders (Jayanaik, 1989) and on rice bran in pullets (Chatrurvedi and Singh,

2000). However, the results are contrary to the reports that the higher feed intake is

generally associated with lower digestibility (McDonald et al., 2002).

Suma (2005) observed an inconsistently significant difference in dry matter,

organic matter, ether extract and crude fiber metabolizability and highly significant

differences in NFE metabolizability of the iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric diets

incorporated with SPR at 0, 5, 10 and 15% level in laying hens.

b) Gross energy

The percent metabolizability coefficient of gross energy content of different

experimental diets (Table 4.11) ranged from as low as 62.40 (T14) to as high as 75.07

(T2). There was a highly significant difference (P<0.01) in metabolizability of gross

energy values among dietary treatments.

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the metabolizability of gross energy of

SPR based diets was 74.69, 77.67, 80.97 and 72.58 per cent in diets substituted with

0, 10, 20 and 30% SPR, respectively. The values was significantly (P<0.01) different

with the highest value in 20% SPR included diets and least in 30% SPR diets.

With regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the metabolizability of

gross energy was 68.89, 78.43, 78.33 and 81.72 per cent in diets fortified with no

supplement or with lipid utilizing agent or with NSP degrading enzymes or both,

respectively. Although no improvement were noticed in metabolizability of various

proximate constituents, the metabolizability coefficient of gross energy was

numerically higher in diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agent or NSP degrading

enzymes or both, yet the values were statistically similar (P<0.05).

The metabolizable energy content of all the experimental diets employed

during metabolism trial in layers were arrived at using the dry matter intake, dry

matter out go and their gross energy values. The values were statistically different

(P<0.01) among different treatments and ranged between 2243 (T14) and 2883

kcal/kg (T4). The average ME values for 0, 10, 20 and 30% SPR substituted diets were

2848, 2648, 2466 and 2303 kcal/kg, respectively and the values were significantly

(P<0.01) different from one another. The average values irrespective of SPR

inclusion, were 2562, 2542, 2552 and 2609 kcal/kg in diets with no supplement, with

lipid utilizing agent or with NSP degrading enzymes or both, respectively which were

statistically not different (P>0.05) from each other.

It was clearly evident that the ME content of SPR included diets was

significantly lower (P<0.01) and there was a linear decrease in ME content of the

diets with the incremental level of SPR (0, 10, 20 and 30%). The lower ME values for

SPR based diets was due to the higher amount of total ash in such diets as the SPR

contained 23.95 % total ash. There was no improvement in ME content with dietary

fortification with lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes or both together.

Similar observations were also recorded during metabolism trial with broilers in the

present study.

As observed in metabolism trial involving broilers, a direct relationship

between the metabolizability of DM and other organic nutrients and ME values were

observed in case of layers also. Thus, the significantly (P<0.01) lower DM, OM, CP

and EE metabolizability coefficient values in SPR incorporated diets were responsible

for decreased ME contents.

c) Regression equations for prediction of energy values of diets

The simple regression equations for the prediction of energy values of

experimental diets used in the metabolism trial were derived wherein the ME were

regressed on the metabolizability coefficients of DM and OM and are given below:

Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (42.79 x DMM %) - 62.87 R2 = 0.93 r = 0.96** Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (43.49 x OMM %) - 337.2 R2 = 0.95 r = 0.95** Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (21.34 x CPM %) + 1086 R2 = 0.50 r = 0.71** Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (25.04 x EEM %) + 1240 R2 = 0.77 r = 0.88** Classical ME (kcal/kg) = (53.96 x NFEM %) -1651 R2 = 0.90 r = 0.95**

Where **Significant (P<0.01) DMM = Dry matter metabolizability coefficient OMM = Organic matter metabolizability coefficient CPM = Crude protein metabolizability coefficient EEM = Ether extract metabolizability coefficient NFEM = NFE metabolizability coefficient

The correlation between the metabolizability coefficient of DM and OM to

that of ME values was highly significant (P<0.01). From R2 value it is clear that the

dependent variable (ME) can sufficiently be predicted by the independent variable

(DMM or OMM). The predicted values are in close association with the assayed

values.

The prediction equation derived from this study was different from that

reported by Suma (2005) [ME (kcal/kg) = 442.9 + 35.85xDMM%] wherein the

prediction was done using the calculated ME values obtained by taking the ME value

of SPR as approximately 1200 kcal/kg, which was included up to 15% in the layer

diets..

4.3.3 Metabolizability of Energy and other Nutrients in SPR

By employing simultaneous equations, the metabolizability coefficient of

various nutrient components of SPR was derived from those of the assay diets. This

was done at different levels of SPR inclusion and with different combinations of

biotechnological agents. Such average values are represented in Table 4.12.

The metabolizability coefficient of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein,

ether extract, crude fiber and NFE of SPR under different treatments ranged from 4.36

to 34.03, 13.05 to 41.89, -36.92 to 80.34, -42.96 to 29.07 and -30.90 to 60.66 per cent,

respectively. The metabolizability coefficient of gross energy content of SPR ranged

between 41.72 and 62.39 per cent. The metabolizable energy content of SPR under

different treatments was obtained to be between 780 to 1133 kcal/kg. The analysis of

variance showed significant differences in crude protein (P<0.05) and NFE

metabolizability values (P<0.01) while for rest of the nutrients the variation remained

statistically similar (P>0.05).

Pertaining to SPR as the main factor, the average metabolizability of dry

matter content of SPR was 21.67, 18.46 and 29.63 per cent at 10, 20 and 30%

inclusion levels, respectively. The corresponding values were for organic matter:

30.21, 23.56 and 37.14 per cent, for crude protein: 60.35, 24.71 and 33.31 per cent,

for ether extract: 1.21, -17.18 and 8.58 per cent, for crude fiber: 53.09, 48.97 and

54.24 per cent and for gross energy: 42.92, 40.30 and 38.93 per cent, respectively.

The corresponding absolute ME values were 845, 937 and 1031 kcal/kg. The

metabolizability coefficient values for all the nutrients of SPR was found to be

statistically similar (P>0.05) except for NFE which showed significantly different

(P<0.05) values at different levels of SPR inclusion.

Regarding the biotechnological tools as the main factor, the dry matter,

organic matter, ether extract, crude fiber and gross energy metabolizability of SPR

were found to be statistically similar (P>0.05) among different treatments. However,

the metabolizability coefficient of crude protein and NFE content was significantly

(P<0.01) low in SPR supplemented with lipid utilizing agents. The ME content of SPR

was found to be statistically (P>0.05) unaffected by biotechnological agents, yet

numerically better values were obtained when supplemented with NSP degrading

enzymes either alone (943) or in combination with lipid utilizing agents (1028) when

compared to no supplement (918 kcal/kg).

The mean dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber

and NFE metabolizability of SPR irrespective of its inclusion level were 23.25, 30.30,

39.46, -2.46, 23.28 and 52.01 per cent, respectively. The average gross energy

metabolizability of SPR was found to be 40.72 per cent and thus overall ME content

of 937 kcal/kg was obtained.

Although the ME value of SPR appeared to increase slightly with an increase

level of its inclusion in the diet, the differences did not reach significant level. The

ME value of SPR obtained for layers (973) was lower than that of 1105 kcal/kg

determined for young birds (3wk age) in the metabolism trial conducted with broilers.

4.3.4 Production Performance of Birds

The production performance of laying hens such as egg production, feed

consumption, feed conversion ratio (FCR), egg weight and body weight changes

recorded during the metabolism trial of 14 days is presented in Table 4.13.

All the parameters excepting FCR showed highly significant difference among

the different treatments. The mean daily feed consumption was highest in T7 (117.7 g)

and the lowest in T13 (106.9 g). The highest egg production was noticed in T2 (93.65

per cent) and the lowest in T13 (68.25 per cent). The FCR values ranged non-

significantly (P>0.05) between 2.113 (T2) and 2.958 g feed/g egg mass (T15). The

birds in groups T1 gained 113 g during 14 day interval while the loss of 19.33 g body

weight was noticed in T1 group. The average egg weights ranged from 51.44 (T15) to

57.93 g (T6). All the birds under different treatments survived during the course of

metabolic period.

As regards the main factors, all the production parameters namely per cent egg

production, feed consumption, FCR, egg weight and body weight changes showed

highly significant (P<0.01) differences for the main factor SPR. The highest egg

production was noticed in birds fed diet substituted with 30% SPR (92.06 per cent)

and the lowest in control group (71.83 per cent) while the feed consumption was

highest in 10% SPR included group (117.2 g) and lowest in 30 % SPR groups (108.9

g). The decrease in egg production was not statistically significant up to 20% SPR

inclusion in the diet when compared with that of the control. The average egg weight

was highest in control groups (57.89g) with better FCR value (2.205) as against the

lowest in 30% SPR group (53.67g) with the poorer FCR value (2.848 g feed/g egg

mass). The groups fed diet substituted with 30% SPR showed the lowest body weight

change (+17.39g) when compared to other groups (+57.25 to +68.61g).

With regard to the main factor biotechnological tool, all the production

parameters showed non-significant (P>0.05) differences among different groups.

However, numerically better egg production, feed consumption, FCR and egg weight

were noticed group fed in diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents (lipase and

lecithin) while those for diets supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP

degrading enzymes showed lowest values.

Absence of any significant improvement in egg production, feed intake and

feed efficiency among the diets supplemented with biotechnological products was

either due to very high fiber content of SPR based diets which interfere with

utilization of other nutrients or due to nature of fiber in the diet for which the

combination of individual enzymes used appears to be inappropriate.

With the findings of metabolism of layers trial, the metabolizability values

namely DM of 23.25, OM of 30.30, GE of 40.72 per cent and ME of 937 kcal/kg can

be attributed to SPR since there was no statistical difference for these parameters

under different treatments.

As such the metabolism trials were aimed to determine the ME value of the

SPR in broilers and layers. From the results, it was concluded that the ME content of

the SPR having the nutrient contents similar to that evaluated in the present study

could well be taken around 1000 kcal/kg for broilers and 950 kcal/kg for laying hens

for all practical purposes.

The results also revealed that SPR is a low energy feedstuff with substantially

lower ME value less than that of conventional cereals such as maize and also slightly

lesser than many agro-industrial by-products such as rice bran and wheat bran.

4.4 PERFORMANCE OF BROILER BIRDS FED SPR BASED DIETS

4.4.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets

The analyzed percent chemical composition of the experimental diets

compounded for different phases viz., starter, grower and finisher phases during the

performance trial in broilers is presented in Table 4.14.

The analyzed crude protein (CP) content of starter, grower and finisher diets

were 22.67, 21.86 and 21.25 %; 21.44, 20.95 and 20.93 %; 19.80, 19.54 and 19.47 %,

respectively in 0, 5 and 10% SPR incorporated diets in that order. The corresponding

ether extract (EE) contents were 3.16, 3.87 and 4.77 %; 4.85, 5.39 and 6.04 %; 4.62,

6.03 and 6.42 %. The total ash (TA) content ranged between 6.84 to 7.74 %.

Similarly, the ranges for crude fiber (CF) content were from 5.50 to 6.25 %, the NFE

content from 59.99 to 62.68 %, calcium content from 1.76 to 1.11 % and total

phosphorous content from 1.18 to 0.77 % for different diets prepared for different

phases.

In all the cases, the analyzed values were fairly in close agreement with the

calculated values, based on which the formulation of diets was attempted. However,

the analyzed CP values of 5 and 10% SPR based diets were slightly lower than the

calculated values and the calcium content were generally higher than the calculated

values in all the diets. As expected, the higher EE values in 5 and 10% SPR

incorporated diets compared to that of control was obviously due to addition of higher

levels of vegetable oil to make up poor energy status of SPR as well as due to the high

EE content of SPR per se (11.95%). The CF content of SPR based test diets were

similar or marginally lower than that of corresponding control diets prepared during

starter, grower and finisher phases. Such a trend was mainly because of inclusion of

SPR (CF- 13.73%) at the expense of sunflower extractions, an ingredient containing

relatively higher amount of CF (24%) than SPR.

The calculated metabolisable energy (ME) value was 2822 kcal/kg in the

starter diets. In grower diets, the values were 2909, 2910 and 2910 kcal/kg for 0, 5

and 10% SPR based diets, respectively. The corresponding values were 3000, 3004

and 3004 kcal/kg for finisher diets. The differences existed within the 3 treatments of

either starter, grower or finisher treatment diets were negligible and thus the diets

were regarded as iso-calorific.

4.4.2 Body Weight Gain and Livability

a. Body weight gain

The pattern of mean body weight gains of broilers under different dietary

groups during different weeks is presented treatment wise and main factor wise in

Table 4.15 and that of different phases (starter, grower and finisher) as well as

cumulatively in Table 4.16. The average cumulative body weight gains of birds under

different treatments and main factors are also graphically represented in Fig. 2.

The weekly average body weight gains (g/bird) among various treatments

ranged from 58.8 (T6) to 70.5 (T8) during 1st week; 175.3 (T12) to 226.3 (T1) during

2nd week; 336.2 (T3) to 373.9 (T8) during 3rd week; 375.5 (T11) to 457.5 (T1) during 4th

week; 417.3 (T11) to 544.5 (T5) during 5th week and from 285.3 (T1) to 482.7 (T8)

during 6th week. The differences in body weight gains among different treatments

were statistically significant (P<0.05) during 1st and 3rd week and highly significant

(P<0.01) during the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th weeks of the trial. In general, the groups fed

diets containing 10% SPR showed least body weight gains when compared to those

fed 5% SPR based diets which in turn were lower compared to those of control

groups.

The phase wise average body weight gains among various treatments ranged

from 236.6 (T12) to 296.1 (T1), 734.7 (T7) to 830.4 (T1) and from 743.0 (T11) to

1020.3 g/bird (T2) during starter, grower and finisher phases, respectively. The

variation among different treatments were statistically significant (P<0.05) during

starter phase and highly significant (P<0.01) during grower and finisher phases. The

cumulative average body weight gains among different treatments also varied highly

significantly (P<0.01) with the values ranging from as low as 1737.7 (T11) to as high

as 2081.1 g/bird (T2).

With regard to the effect of main factor SPR, the inclusion of SPR at 5 and

10% levels in broiler diets resulted in significantly (P<0.05) lower body weight gain

during 1st and 4th week and such a reduction was highly significant (P<0.01) during

2nd, 5th and 6th week (Table 4.15). The influence of SPR on body weight gain was also

highly significant (P<0.01) during finisher phase and cumulatively (Table 4.16).

However, no such statistical differences (P>0.05) were observed during 3rd week as

well as during starter and grower phases. The cumulative values were 1999.7, 1924.1

and 1803.8 g/bird for 0, 5 and 10% SPR included diets, respectively.

With regard to the influence of main factor biotechnological tool, the average

body weight gains were highly significant (P<0.01) during last three weeks of the trial

(4th to 6th week) (Table 4.15). Such highly significant differences (P<0.01) were also

manifested during grower and finisher phases as well as cumulatively (Table 4.16).

However, no such significant (P>0.05) differences were evident during initial three

weeks of trial including starter phase. The lowest cumulative value was noticed in

birds fed diets supplemented with NSP degrading enzymes (1833.9 g) and highest in

diets supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes

(1974.3 g).

It is clearly evident from the results that the groups fed diets incorporated

with either 5 or 10 % SPR tended to gain less body weight when compared to the

birds fed control diet devoid of SPR. The results are in accordance with Budeppa

(2004) who observed inconsistent, but non-significant (P>0.05) decline in the

cumulative weight gains of broilers as the level of SPR increased in their diets from 0

to 4%. However, the test diets employed by him (Budeppa, 2004) were of non iso-

nitrogenous and non iso-caloric. The SPR level included in the present study was

wide enough to show the significant difference and no literature regarding inclusion

of SPR as feed ingredient beyond 4 % level in diets of broilers is available to

substantiate these findings.

The decreased body weight gain in broilers fed SPR based diets particularly at

10% inclusion level was mainly attributed to the reduced feed consumption (Sec

4.4.3). Further, due to the reduced feed consumption by the 2nd week of the feeding

trial itself, it can speculated that the development of gastro intestinal tract was not

complete during initial weeks of age and hence the lower digestion and absorption

efficiency might have resulted in a linear decline in growth rate with increasing

inclusion levels. However, the compensatory growth rate which was expected at the

later phase of growth was also not evident especially in groups fed 10% SPR diets.

This might have been due to initial lower body weight gains which were subsequently

surfaced during later stages. The inclusion of higher amount of vegetable oil, a

concentrated source of energy to adjust SPR based diets to be iso-caloric with that of

the control was also failed to yield the results particularly at 10% SPR inclusion

level.

It was also evident that the fortification of SPR based diets with

biotechnologically derived products such as lipase with lecithin, NSP degrading

enzymes and their combination failed to show any definitive trend in body weight

gain of broilers during different individual weeks. However, on cumulative basis, the

significantly (P<0.01) higher body weight was observed in groups fed diets

supplemted with either lipid utilizing agents alone or in combination with NSP

degrading enzymes, but not with NSP degrading enzymes alone. Although Swain et

al. (1994), Babu and Devegowda (1997) and Kumar et al. (2007) reported a

moderate improvement in weight gains in broilers fed diets fortified with NSP

degrading enzymes, but no such beneficial effects were noticeable in the present

study. Other reports (Kumar et al., 2007) also indicated that the supplementation of

commercial enzyme preparation containing NSP degrading enzymes to palm kernel

cake containing diets yielded inconsistent results. Further, there was no consistent

trend in weight gains among the control diets (0% SPR) during different weeks, yet

numerically better values were observed in groups supplemented with

biotechnological agents. The results conform the observations made by de Koning and

van der Wel (1996) and Swift et al. (1996) that significant improvement in weight

gains in broilers fed maize-soy based diets supplemented with NSP degrading

enzymes. However, Rama Rao et al. (2006) reported that the supplemental NSP

hydrolyzing enzymes to corn-soybean meal or corn-sunflower extractions based diets

did not yield any beneficial effect on growth and feed efficiency in commercial

broilers, a trend similar to current results. With regard to lipid utilizing agents, the

reduced growth rate caused by various supplemental lipase enzyme was noticed by

Al-Marzooqui and Lesson (2000) while Meng et al. (2004) reported no effect of

addition of lipase on chicken performance, the results contrary to the present finding

that the inclusion of both lipase and lecithin improved the growth rate at several

occasions of experiment as well as cumulatively.

The results indicated that the body weight gains in birds fed 10% SPR based

diets were significantly lower than those of 5% SPR based groups which however

were comparable to those of control (0% SPR) groups. Thus it can be inferred that

the inclusion of SPR up to 5% in broiler diets, the minimum level which was tried in

the present study, was able to support the optimal growth rate. The supplementation

of biotechnological agents particularly the lipid utilizing agents to such diets did

improve the body weight gain of the broiler birds.

b. Livability

Also presented in Table 4.16 is the percent livability of birds under different

treatments during the 42-day experimental period as per the treatment wise and main

factor wise. The percent livability of birds among different treatments was statistically

(P>0.05) similar. The livability values were 93.33 % in T8, 96.67 % in T5, T7 and T12

and 100% in the remaining groups. The higher livability / survivability (average of

98.61%) values recorded in the experiment besides due to the better management and

biosecurity measures, also could be due to the quality of the diets per se.

With regard to the effect of main factors, SPR inclusion and biotechnological

tools, it was evident that neither of the main factor’s effect was significant (P>0.05)

on livability of birds. However, groups fed diets containing SPR particularly at 5%

level showed numerically lower livability value (96.7%) compared to 99.20% in 10%

SPR group and 100% in control.

The results indicated that the inclusion of SPR caused the mortality non-

significantly. The findings were contrary to the observations of Budeppa (2004) who

reported that the inclusion of SPR up to 4% in broiler diets did not have any

significant (P>0.05) effect on livability of birds. Similarly, Suma (2005) also reported

that the inclusion of SPR up to 15% in layer diets did not affect the livability of layer

birds between 18 to 35 weeks of age. It appears that the mortality in the 5% SPR

groups might have been due to chance factor since such an effect was not evident in

the 10% SPR groups. The livability percentage among the groups fed diets with or

with out biotechnological derived product(s) was uniform implying their minimum

role in immune system of birds. No clear cut reason could be reflected even upon

post mortem examination of dead birds.

4.4.3 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency

a. Feed consumption

The treatment wise and main factor wise data on average feed consumption of

birds under various dietary groups during different weeks and different phases of the

experiment including cumulative values are presented in Tables 4.17 and Table 4.18,

respectively. The pattern of cumulative average feed consumption values under

different treatments and main factors are graphically represented in Fig. 3.

The weekly average feed consumption values (g/bird) among different

treatments ranged form 104.8 (T10) to 109.4 (T1, T2 and T4) for 1st week; 291.4 (T10)

to 343.1 (T1) for 2nd week; 508.0 (T12) to 561.4 (T8) for 3rd week; 764.2 (T12) to 821.5

(T8) for 4th week; 888.0 (T9) to 1021.1 (T2) for 5th week and from 724.5 (T12) to 858.3

(T2) for 6th week (Table 4.17). The differences among various treatments were highly

significant (P<0.01) during the first three weeks of the trial (1st, 2nd and 3rd week).

However, the differences in feed consumption during subsequent weeks (4th week

onwards) were non-significant (P>0.05).

The phase wise (Table 4.18) average feed consumption (g/bird) during starter,

grower and finisher phases ranged between 396.2 (T10) and 452.5 (T1), 1272.2 (T12)

and 1382.9 (T8) and between 1625.5 (T7) and 1879.5 (T2), respectively. The

cumulative average feed consumption was found to range from as low as 3317.6

g/bird (T12) to as high as 3678.0 g/bird (T2) during 42-day experimental period. The

variation in feed consumption among different treatments were highly significant

(P<0.01) during starter phase of the trial. However, the differences were non-

significant (P>0.05) during other two phases of the experiment i.e. grower and

finisher phases as well as cumulatively.

As regard to the main factor SPR, the incorporation of SPR at different levels

in broiler diets showed highly significant (P<0.01) differences in feed consumption

during 1st, 2nd and 3rd week and during starter and grower phases (P<0.01) and

significant (P<0.05) differences were evident during 5th week and cumulatively

whereas, the differences during 4th and 6th week of the experimental period were non-

significant (P>0.05). In general, the feed consumption was lower in birds fed diets

incorporated with SPR (either 5 or 10 %) compared control.

The main factor, biotechnological tool showed non-significant (P>0.05)

difference in feed consumption during all the weeks except 1st week and all the phases

as well as cumulatively. The cumulative values were 3501.0, 3530.8, 3409.2 and

3493.6 g/bird for diets without supplement or with lipid utilizing agents or NSP

degrading enzymes or both, respectively (Table 4.18).

Although the diets were calculated to be iso-caloric with the addition of

vegetable oil, it was observed that the feed consumption in groups fed SPR based

diets were significantly (P<0.05 or p<0.01) lower than that of control (Table 4.17).

The results are contrary to the findings of Budeppa (2004) and Suma (2005) who

reported non-significant (P>0.05) differences in feed consumption with the inclusion

of SPR up to 4 % in broiler diets and up to 10 % in layers diets, respectively. As

stated earlier, the suboptimal development of gastro-intestinal tract might be the

factor responsible for reduced feed intake. Since, the gastro-intestinal tract function

of the chickens is expected to be developed more potential to digest and absorb the

crude fiber and fat during later stages of growth, the consumption of SPR based diets

was rather in tune with the level of SPR inclusion in the diets, on cumulative basis.

In addition to the composition of the diet and its caloric value, another

important nutritional factor which induces marked changes in behavioral and

metabolic parameters is the structure of the food. In the present experiment, the test

ingredient (SPR) was ground through 2mm mesh (hammer mill) to break lumps that

were formed during sun drying, thus resulting in higher degree of fineness (dusty

nature). Such finer particles (powder) in the diet might have caused an agglomeration

of pasty material on the beak thereby reducing the feed intake. This postulate was

also supported by the observations made during the trial regarding the behavior of the

birds such as increased water consumption and wastage of feed in water trough.

Furthermore, the reduced consumption of SPR based diets was also due to

marked increase in bulkiness of such diets with addition of SPR. Although the SPR

was substituted against the relatively fiber-rich ingredient (sunflower cake), the

increase in bulkiness with the addition of SPR was due to the higher amount of fines

in sun-dried SPR. The difference in nature of crude fiber particle in SPR compared to

sunflower cake could also be responsible for such bulkiness. In the later ingredient

the CF particles were in compressed form as against the loose finely powdered

particles in SPR, which contributed for nutrient dilution in such diets.

Pertaining to the supplementation of biotechnologically derived feed additives,

no significant differences were observed. Such findings are in agreement with that of

Rama Rao et al. (2006) who reported that the supplemental NSP hydrolyzing

enzymes to corn-soybean meal or corn-sunflower extractions based diets do not alter

the feed consumption. Contrary to the present results, Al-Marzooqui and Lesson

(2000) noticed a clear pattern of reduced feed intake due to supplemental lipase.

The results signified that the inclusion of SPR in diets of broilers did affect

their appetite. Thus, it can be inferred that the feed consumption was moderately

affected by incorporation of SPR as feed ingredient at 5% level and substantially at

10% level.

b. Feed conversion ratio (FCR)

The efficiency of the birds to convert ingested feed into body weight was

arrived at and the data as per treatment and main factor wise for different weeks is

presented in Table 4.19 and that for different phases with cumulative values in Table

4.20. The cumulative FCR among different treatments and main factors is also

graphically represented in Fig. 4.

The weekly average FCR values expressed as kg feed consumed to kg live

body weight gain among different treatment groups during different weeks of

experimental trial ranged form 1.565 (T8) to 1.793 (T5) for 1st week; 1.517 (T1) to

1.742 (T12) for 2nd week; 1.425 (T12) to 1.577 (T3) for 3rd week; 1.787 (T1) to 2.062

(T11) for 4th week; 1.793 (T5) to 2.247 (T11) for 5th week and from 1.580 (T8) to 2.856

(T12) for 6th week (Table 4.19). The differences among different treatments were

statistically non-significant (P>0.05) during all the weeks. In general, the poorer FCR

values were recorded in birds fed with diets containing SPR at either 5 or 10%.

The phase wise average FCR values (kg feed/kg weight gain) among different

treatments during starter, grower and finisher phases ranged between 1.529 (T1) and

1.758 (T6), 1.644 (T1) and 1.794 (T7) and from 1.789 (T8) and 2.341 (T11),

respectively (Table 4.20). The cumulative average FCR was better in T4 (1.753) and

poorer in T11 (1.977) during 42 days experimental period. Unlike weekly average

FCRs, the values were significant (P<0.05) among different treatments during finisher

phase and highly significant (P<0.01) during starter phase. However, the grower

phase and cumulative FCR values remained statistically similar (P>0.05).

As regards the main factor SPR, its inclusion showed highly significant

(P<0.01) difference during starter and finisher phases and significant (P<0.05)

differences during 3rd week and cumulatively. The cumulative average FCR values

were 1.771, 1.837 and 1.908 for 0, 5 and 10 % SPR based diets, respectively i.e., the

poorest FCR in 10 % SPR (Table 4.20). In general, the diets incorporated with SPR

showed numerically inferior FCR when compared to that of control during all the

weeks, phases as well as cumulatively.

As regards the main factor biotechnological tool, none of the approaches

showed statistical significance (P>0.05) during different weeks and different phases

except for 5th week (P<0.05). The cumulative FCR values were 1.853 (no

supplement), 1.807 (lipid utilizing agents), 1.876 (NSP degrading enzymes) and 1.819

(both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes) and the values were

statistically similar (P>0.05) when compared to each other (Table 4.20).

The results revealed that the feed conversion ratio was tended to decline with

inclusion level of SPR. However, it was inconsistent with the level of SPR inclusion

either at 5 or 10%. Contrary to the findings, Budeppa (2004) observed that the dietary

inclusion of SPR up to 4% did not affect the FCR in broilers. His conclusion was also

supported by Suma (2005) who reported non-significant differences in FCR in layers

fed diets incorporated with SPR up to 15%.

During finisher phase as well as cumulatively, a non-significant improvement

in feed conversion efficiency in 5% SPR based diets was observed with either lipid

utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes or both. However, the lack of

improvement in feed conversion efficiency at higher level of SPR (10%) might be due

to inadequacy of the enzyme concentration in proportion to the amount of substrate or

insufficient specific substrate for enzyme hydrolysis, since the nature of fiber in SPR is

unknown.

Taking into account of all the above discussed results of growth performance

parameters viz., body weight gain, feed consumption and its efficiency, it was

concluded that the inclusion of SPR at 5 or 10% level affects the growth performance

of the broiler birds. Hence, the substitution of SPR beyond 5%, the minimum level

that was tested is not practically feasible. Further, it can be inferred that the

enzyme/s supplementation was beneficial in improving the utilization of SPR

incorporated at 5% level in broiler diets, but did not accrue beneficial response when

supplemented in the diets containing 10% SPR.

4.4.4 Metabolizability of various Nutrients and Balance of Minerals

i) Metabolizability of Various Nutrients: The percent metabolizability of various

proximate principles (except crude fiber) of experimental diets are presented as per

the treatment wise and main factor wise effects in Table 4.21, while the treatment

wise values are graphically represented in Fig. 5.

a. Dry matter metabolizability

The treatment-wise average dry matter metabolizability coefficient of different

diets varied from 68.33 (T11) to 74.44 per cent (T7). The variation in dry matter

metabolizability coefficient of consumed dry matter was highly significant (P<0.01).

Similarly, highly significant (P<0.01) dry matter metabolizability values were

observed as affected by the main factor SPR. The dry matter metabolizability values

of 10 % SPR included diets (69.34 per cent) was significantly (P<0.01) lower than

that of 0 and 5% SPR incorporated diets (71.58 and 73.15 per cent, respectively).

However, with regard to the main factor biotechnological approaches, the dry matter

metabolizability values ranged non-significantly (P>0.05) from 70.66 (lipid utilizing

agents) to 72.29 per cent (both lipid utilizing agent and NSP degrading enzymes).

The results indicated that the inclusion of SPR at 5% level has no adverse

effect on metabolizability of dry matter whereas its inclusion at 10% level,

significantly reduced the overall dietary dry matter metabolozability. Although the

effect of supplementation of biotechnologically derived products was non-significant

(P>0.05), yet the numerical improvement was noticed in dry matter metabolizability

of diets prepared with SPR inclusion.

b. Organic matter metabolizability

Among the different treatments, the organic matter metabolizability values

ranged from 83.94 (T8) to 85.30 per cent (T3). The differences among different

treatments were highly significant (P<0.01). With SPR as the main factor, the organic

matter metabolisability values were though significantly (P<0.05) lower in 5 %

(84.10) and 10% SPR incorporated diets (84.29 per cent) compared to the control

(84.68), yet were far from distinctive numerical differences. While for the main factor

biotechnological tools, the values were non-significant (P>0.05) and varied in a

narrow range from 84.18 per cent in unsupplemented diets to 84.53 per cent in NSP

degrading enzymes supplemented diets.

c. Crude protein metabolizability

The values for crude protein metabolizability among different treatments

ranged between 67.36 (T1) and 76.89 (T6). The analysis of variance of the same

revealed highly significant (P<0.01) differences among different treatment groups.

With regard to the influence of main factor SPR, the crude protein

metabolizability of diets containing SPR at 5 % was significantly (P<0.01) higher

than that of 0 or 10% SPR groups indicating that the protein digestibility is well

tolerated by SPR inclusion.

As regards the main factor biotechnological tool, the crude protein

metabolizability values were significantly (P<0.05) higher (71.10, 72.80 and 71.97 in

groups supplemented with either lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes or

together, respectively) than that of control group (67.76%) which may be mainly due

to the action of enzymes..

The results indicated that the SPR inclusion beyond 5% level in the diets did

not affect the protein metabolisability. But however, high dietary fiber can provoke

increased sloughing of intestinal epithelial cells, causing an increase in secretion of

the mucosa into the intestine, which leads to losses of endogenous amino acids

(Parsons, 1985). Thus the endogenous losses and gut microflora together contributing

nitrogen to content of excreta, might have masked apparent protein metabolizability

and hence the protein metabolizability may not represent the actual nitrogen

utilization and thus it can only be better inferred using ileal nitrogen digestibility

values.

d. Ether extract metabolizability

The metabolizability of ether extract (crude fat) among different treatments

varied from 59.30 (T12) to 73.49 (T3) and the variation was highly significant

(P<0.01). With regard to SPR as the main factor, the fat metabolisability values

among different groups were statistically similar (P>0.05) but however, the values

were numerically lower in both 5 % SPR (63.64%) and 10% SPR based diets

(63.78%) when compared to control (67.12%). With regard to biotechnological tool as

the main factor, the fat metabolizability values were significantly (P<0.05) higher in

diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents (68.21%) and NSP degrading enzymes

(68.96%) individually when compared to the diets unsupplemented (62.01%) or

supplemented with both agents (60.21%).

The reduced fat digestibility in 5 and 10% SPR based diets might be attributed

to the higher crude fat content of SPR per se and also to the inclusion of higher level

of vegetable oil in such diets to compensate low energy status of SPR, which gone

unutilized due to failure of physiological make up to digest higher amount of fat.

In general, a linear decrease in digestibility of nutrients was observed with

incremental level of SPR. The digestibility of dry matter, organic matter and crude

protein at 5 % or 10 % inclusion levels were significantly (P<0.05 or p<0.01) lower

than those of the control group. However, the dry matter, organic matter, crude

protein, ether extract, crude fiber and NFE digestibility values reported by Suma

(2005) for layers fed SPR up to 15% were not significantly different from those fed a

soy or fish based control diets free from SPR. The relatively higher fine particles of

the test ingredient, which increase the rate of feed passage through the gastro-

intestinal tract, was suspected to have decreased the digestibility of several nutrients.

The current results also failed to confirm the theory that the supplementation of

exogenous enzymes to the poultry diets improves nutrient digestibility (Choct et al.,

1995; Yi et al., 1996).

ii) Balance of minerals: The treatment wise and main factor wise pattern of

retention of calcium and phosphorous (% and g/d/bird) is presented in Table 4.22 and

also graphically represented in Fig. 6.

a. Calcium retention

With regards to the treatment wise calcium retention, T7 recorded the highest

calcium retention (75.29 %) while T4 recorded the lowest (50.05%) and the

differences were highly significant (P<0.01). similarly, the g calcium retained per bird

per day ranged from 0.50 (T4) to 0.88 (T7). The main factors, SPR and

biotechnological tools exerted highly significant (P<0.01) influences on the retention

of dietary calcium. The calcium retention values for 0, 5 and 10% SPR included diets

were 59.19, 68.02 and 67.50 % of calcium intake, respectively and the amount of

daily calcium retrained was 0.57, 0.83 and 0.74 g/bird/day, respectively. Among the

biotechnological approaches, the highest (P<0.05) calcium retention was recorded in

diets supplemented with NSP degrading enzymes (70.04 % or 0.75 g/day) as against

the lowest in diets fortified with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading

enzymes (59.45 % or 0.66 g/day).

The results implied that a numerically higher Ca retention value observed at

higher level of SPR inclusion in the diets is a reflection of SPR as a valuable source of

calcium.

Such results also support previous findings that the incorporation of SPR has a

beneficial effect on calcium retention in growing sheep (Suresh, 2004) and in laying

hens (Suma, 2005). The reason for better calcium absorption and retention of SPR

based diets might be the acidic pH of the SPR at which, calcium salts particularly

phosphates and carbonates are quite soluble.

b. Phosphorous retention

With regard to phosphorous retention (Table 4.22), T10 recorded the highest

phosphorous retention value (50.81 %) while T8 recorded the lowest (29.80 %) and

the differences among the treatments were highly significant (P<0.01). Unlike

calcium, the main factor SPR showed non-significant (P>0.05) differences in

phosphorous retention with the values 41.23, 41.12 and 40.54 % or 0.32, 0.31 and

0.30g/bird/day for 0, 5 and 10% SPR based diets, respectively. However, the main

factor biotechnological tool showed highly significant (P<0.01) differences with the

values 40.98, 46.78, 45.00 and 31.09% for no supplement, lipid utilizing agents, NSP

degrading agents and their combination, respectively.

As that of calcium, there was no significant difference in P retention also

between control and SPR based diets, but marginally lower phosphorous retention

values were observed as the level of SPR increased in the diets. Similar observations

were reported by Suma (2005) who stated that the incorporation of SPR at higher

levels (15%) reduced the phosphorous retention in laying hens.

The better calcium and phosphorous retention was observed in diets

supplemented with either lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes. However,

antagonistic effect was observed when they were supplemented together for which no

substantial explanation could be given.

Even though incorporation of SPR reduced the phosphorous retention at

higher levels, results of the test groups were yet comparable to the control groups

(o% SPR). These findings also support the earlier statement that the minerals present

in SPR particularly calcium and phosphorous were optimally available.

4.4.5 Carcass characteristics and organometry

The treatment wise and main factor wise average dressing percentage, meat to

bone ratio and abdominal fat content values (g/bird or % of body weight) of broilers

under different dietary groups at the end of 42-day experimental period are presented

in Table 4.23.

a. Dressing percentage

Among different treatments, the dressing percentage value was highest in T7

(79.61) and lowest in T5 (75.58). However, no significant differences were observed

among different treatments. Better dressing percentage values obtained in the study

may be due to less feathering status of the birds.

As regards the SPR and biotechnological tools as the main factors, the

dressing percentage values were statistically similar for both the main factors. The

average dressing percentages of the birds were 78.33, 78.44 and 77.87 % for 0, 5 and

10% SPR based diets, respectively while the values were 91.71, 91.56 and 91.00 %

for lipid utilizing agents, NSP degrading enzymes and their combinations respectively

as against value of the 76.80 % in the unsupplemented diets.

The results implied that the inclusion of SPR up to 10 % in broiler diets has no

influence on dressing percentage, which was in conformation with the findings of

Budeppa (2004) who reported no significant (P>0.05) differences in dressing

percentage among the broiler birds fed diets containing SPR up to 4%.

b. Meat to bone ratio

The meat to bone ratio among different treatments ranged from 2.98 (T2) to

3.98 (T11) and the values were statistically similar (P>0.05).

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the meat to bone ratio was statistically

similar (P>0.05) with the values 3.50, 3.60 and 3.54 for 0, 5 and 10 % SPR inclusion,

respectively. For the main factor biotechnological tool, the values were 3.50, 3.73 and

3.62 for lipid utilizing agents, NSP degrading enzymes and their combinations,

respectively as against the value 3.34 in unsupplemented group. Although the

differences were non-significant, numerically better meat to bone ratios were

observed in groups supplemented with biotechnologically derived feed supplements

compared to unsupplemented groups.

The results indicate that the inclusion of SPR up to 10 % in broiler diets has no

influence on meat to bone ratio, which is in conformation with the findings of

Budeppa (2004) who observed non-significant (P>0.05) differences in meat to bone

ratio values among the broiler birds fed diets containing SPR up to 4%.

c. Abdominal fat

The abdominal fat content of birds fed different diets were significantly

different (P<0.05) and that the values ranged from as low as 15.20 (T12) to 36.00

g/bird (T4). However, when the abdominal fat content values expressed in terms of

per cent post-fast body weight, the differences among different treatments became

statistically non-significant (P>0.05) with the values ranging from 1.54 (T12) to 2.41

% (T4). Compared with the control group, the 10% SPR group which showed lowest

relative abdominal fat weight (P<0.05).

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the abdominal fat content (g/bird) were

27.79, 22.60 and 19.13 g for birds fed diets formulated with 0, 5 and 10% SPR,

respectively and the values were statistically different (P<0.05). The corresponding

values when expressed as per cent pos-fast body weight were 1.81, 1.47 and 1.33%

and were also significantly different (P<0.05).

With regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the abdominal fat

content values ranged non-significantly (P>0.05) from 21.56 (lipid utilizing agents) to

24.15 g/bird (lipid utilizing agents + NSP degrading enzymes) and correspondingly

from 1.40 to 1.61 % on the basis of post-fast body weight.

The results indicates that the abdominal fat pad of broilers was affected by the

SPR inclusion in their diets. Higher the level of SPR in the diet, lesser was the

abdominal fat deposition in broilers. The lower amount of abdominal fat accumulation

in birds fed SPR based diets implied that the energy available in such diets was poorer

as reflected by lower body weight gain in such groups or that the SPR has the ability

to decrease abdominal fat accretion. The former statement is in conformation with the

recent findings that the lesser fat deposition in birds on low energy (Leeson et al.,

1996; Nagaraju, 2006) and / or protein/ amino acid diets (Jaishankar, 2006).

From the study, it was inferred that the inclusion of SPR up to 10 % in broiler

diets has no influence on carcass characteristic parameters namely dressing

percentage and meat to bone ratio besides substantially decreasing the abdominal fat

pad deposition. Similar findings were made by Budeppa (2004) with regard to

dressing percentage and meat to bone ratio. No literature is available to conform the

effect of inclusion of SPR on the abdominal fat deposition.

d. Organometry

The relative weight of giblet organs (liver, heart and gizzard) and lymphoid

organs (spleen and bursa) as well as proventriculus under different treatments and

main factors are presented in Table 4.24 and are represented graphically in Fig. 7.

The relative weights of liver among different treatments were found to be

statistically (P>0.05) similar with values ranging from 2.41 (T5) to 3.07 g/100 g post-

fast body weight (T4). Similarly, the relative liver weight values also differed non-

significantly (P>0.05) for the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool.

The percent weights of heart under different treatments varied non-

significantly (P>0.05) with values ranging from 0.55 (T5) to 0.68% (T10) g/100 g post-

fast body weight. With regard to the SPR and biotechnological tool as the main

factors, the relative heart weight values were statistically (P>0.05) similar among

different groups. The values ranged from 0.61 to 0.63 % for SPR and from 0.59 (No

supplement) to 0.64% (NSP degrading enzymes) for biotechnological tools.

In case of gizzard, the relative weights under different treatments were

statistically (P>0.05) similar with values ranging from 2.22 (T1) to 2.79 % (T12). With

regard to SPR as the main factor, the relative gizzard weight values were 2.35 (0%

SPR), 2.41 (5% SPR) and 2.58 % (10% SPR) which were statistically (P<0.05)

different. Where as the biotechnological to as the main factor showed non-significant

(P>0.05) variation ranging from 2.37 (unsupplemented group) to 2.53 % (lipid

utilizing agents).

As far as the proventriculus was concerned, the relative organ weight ranged

non-significantly (P>0.05) from 0.45 (T8) to 0.57% (T3 and T10). Even when data was

arranged as per the main factors SPR and biotechnological tool, the differences were

non-significant (P>0.05). However, the relative proventriculus weight was higher in

10% SPR based groups when compared to that of control and 5% SPR groups.

In case of spleen, the relative weights under different treatments were

statistically (P>0.05) similar with values ranging from 0.16 (T7) to 0.28% (T4). With

regard to the main factor SPR, the values were 0.23, 0.20 and 0.22 % for 0, 5 and 10%

SPR, respectively and they were statistically similar (P>0.05). However, with regards

the main factor biotechnological tool, the relative weight of spleen was significantly

(P<0.05) higher in groups supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP

degrading enzymes when compared to the groups supplemented with or with out lipid

utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes separately.

With respect to Bursa, the relative weights among different treatments varied

significantly (P<0.01) ranged from 0.16 (T7) to 0.32 % (T8) without any noticeable

definite trend. Such a variation was nullified when data was arranged as per the main

factors, SPR and biotechnological tool (P>0.05).

The relative gizzard weight was numerically higher in 10% SPR based group

compared to 5% SPR group which in turn higher than that of control. The relative

higher bulkiness (crude fiber) of SPR based diets might be responsible for

numerically higher relative gizzard weight in such groups (Scheideler et al.,1998). Nir

et al. (1995) observed that weight of gizzard and its contents are positively related to

the size of the feed particle, which incidentally was more fines in SPR based diets.

With increasing inclusion level of SPR, the relative proventriculus weight was

also linearly increased (P<0.05) and was accompanied by a linear decrease in the

relative abdominal fat weight (P<0.05). These results are in conformation with the

findings that higher fiber content decreased the absorption and retention of fat in

poultry (Janssen and Carr’e, 1989; Longstaff and Mc Nab, 1991) and enhanced the

development of proventriculus and gizzard in pullets (Scheideler et al., 1998).

In the present study, weight of the organs viz., liver, heart and gizzard was not

influenced by either various treatments or the main factors excepting the main factor

SPR on gizzard weight. The results confirmed the earlier findings of Budeppa (2004)

who reported that the weight of liver, heart and gizzard remains statistically similar

(P>0.05) among the broiler birds fed with either 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4% SPR included diets.

The results also indicated that the weight of the lymphoid organs spleen and bursa

were not influenced by inclusion of SPR and no literature is available to confirm the

same. Thus it was implied that the development of gizzard and proventriculus were

slightly affected by SPR inclusion at 5 and 10%. However, several vital organs

remained unaffected by SPR inclusion up to 10%.

e. Digestive tract measurements

The relative length of different segments of small intestine to 100g post-fast

body weight of birds under different dietary groups is presented in Table 4.25 as per

the treatment and main factors.

In case of duodenum, the relative length under different treatments were

statistically (P>0.05) similar with values ranging from 1.20 (T10) to 1.89 (T9) cm/100g

body weight. Similarly, the relative length of duodenum also differed non-

significantly (P>0.05) for both the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool.

Pertaining to the jejunum, the relative length of jejunum under different

treatments varied significantly (P<0.05) and the values ranged from 3.86 (T7) to 4.72

cm/100g (T11). With regard to the SPR as the main factor, the relative jejunal length

was significantly (P>0.05) different between 5% SPR (4.09) and 10% SPR included

groups (4.50 cm/100g). For the main factor biotechnological tools, the measurements

were non-significant (P>0.05).

As regards the ileum, its relative length under different treatments was

statistically (P<0.05) different with the values ranging from 4.10 (T2) to 4.82 cm/100g

(T12). As regard to the main factors, the SPR inclusion showed significant (P<0.05)

differences in relative length of ileum among different groups whereas non-significant

differences were observed for the main factor biotechnological tool. Like jejunum the

longest ileal segment was found in birds fed 10% SPR based diets (4.57 cm/100g)

when compared to the shortest in 5% SPR based diets (4.26 cm/100g).

The total relative length of small intestine of birds under different treatments

was found to be statistically significant (P<0.05) with the values ranging from 9.64

(T8) to 11.13 cm/100g (T12). When data was arranged as per main factors, the SPR

inclusion showed highly significant (P<0.01) differences in relative lengths of small

intestine (9.86 in 5% SPR to 10.78 cm/100g in 10% SPR) but not for the main factor

biotechnological tool.

The length of different segments of small intestine viz., jejunum and ileum

excluding duodenum of birds was found to be influenced by the SPR inclusion at 10%

level but however such an effect was not evident at 5% SPR level when compared to

control for which no explanation can be given.

4.4.6 Bone mineralization

Although live performance is an important measure of dietary changes and

since SPR is also a contributing source of minerals, the bone parameters which are

generally more sensitive and reliable than performance might have been influenced by

SPR diets. The influence of various treatments and main factors on bone

mineralization of birds viz., toe ash, tibia ash and its calcium and phosphorous content

is presented in Table 4.26.

a. Toe ash

The treatment wise total ash content of toes obtained from the slaughtered

birds under different treatments was statistically different (P<0.05) with the values

varying from 32.25 (T2) to 41.42 (T7). As regards the main factors, the toe ash values

were found to be highly significant (P<0.01) for both the SPR inclusion and

biotechnological tools. The toe ash contents were 35.55, 38.24 and 37.66 % in birds

fed diets incorporated with 0, 5 and 10 % SPR, respectively. The values were 36.60,

39.65 and 39.34 % in birds fed diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents, NSP

degrading enzymes and their combination, respectively as against the value of 33.01%

in diets with no supplement.

b. Tibia ash

The ash content of tibia from the slaughtered birds under different treatments

were statistically similar (P>0.05) with the values ranging between 43.50 (T5) to

50.50 % (T8). With regard to the main factors, both SPR inclusion and

biotechnological tool showed non-significant differences (P>0.05). The values ranged

between 45.04 (10% SPR) to 47.16 % (5% SPR) for the main factor SPR. The

numerically better tibia ash contents were noticed in diets supplemented with

biotechnological products when compared to un-supplemented diets.

c. Calcium and phosphorous status of tibia

The calcium content of tibia obtained from slaughtered birds was statistically

significant (P<0.05) among different treatments ranging from as low as 33.15 (T4) to

high as 45.58 % (T11). Whereas the mean tibial phosphorus contents were non-

significantly (P>0.05) ranging between 13.19 (T4) and 19.19 % (T8).

Considering SPR as the main factor, the mean tibial calcium and phosphorus

content was found to be statistically similar (P>0.05) with the values being 37.22,

39.01 and 39.93 per cent for 0, 5 and 10% SPR based diets, respectively. The

corresponding phosphorus values were 15.18, 16.62 and 16.24 per cent. The close

observation revealed that the inclusion of SPR has numerically enhanced the

mineralization of tibial bone.

With regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the mean calcium

content of tibia varied significantly (P<0.05). The values were 38.45, 42.86 and 37.61

per cent for lipid utilizing agents, NSP degrading enzymes and their combination,

respectively when compared to 35.95 per cent in unsupplemented diets. Whereas the

phosphorus content of tibial bones was statistically (P>0.05) similar with the values

ranging between 15.55 and 16.64 per cent.

The results implied that the bone mineralization was influenced by SPR

inclusion in the diets as well as by biotechnological tools that were tested.

Interestingly, the P retention (tibial P) in broilers fed SPR based diets was higher than

those of control diets. The most sensitive measure of P utilization, toe ash was also

significantly (P<0.01) greater in birds fed SPR based diets. It is difficult to provide a

plausible explanation for these findings despite the possibility of presence of

endogenous phytase activity in SPR that might have enhanced the available

phosphorus content in the gut. That apart, it might be due to presence of calcium and

phosphorous in an easily available form in the SPR per se.

The data demonstrated that the bone mineralization of birds fed diets

incorporated with SPR was quite optimum and hence, the minerals present in SPR

particularly calcium and phosphorous are of significance and bioavailable.

4.4.7 Blood biochemical constituents

Blood biochemical factors are important for assessing the nutritional and

metabolic status of birds. The status of calcium and inorganic P in serum of birds

under different treatments at the mid way (21st day) and at the end of the experiment

(42nd day) are presented in Table 4.27 and their profile is also graphically represented

in Fig. 8.

a. Serum Calcium

The treatment wise differences in the values of serum calcium at the mid way

and at the end of the 42-day experimental period were not significant (P>0.05). The

concentrations among different treatments ranged from 11.51 (T11) to 13.53 mg/dl

(T6) on 21st day and from 12.61 (T5) to 14.63 mg/dl (T4) on 42nd day. The serum

calcium levels on 21st and 42nd day were also found to be statistically similar (P>0.05)

when the data was arranged as per the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tools.

b. Serum inorganic phosphorous

Similar to serum calcium, the differences in serum inorganic P values among

different treatments at the mid way and at the end of the 42-day experimental period

were not significant (P>0.05). The values among different treatments ranged from

6.00 (T9) to 7.12 mg/dl (T10) on 21st day and from 5.56 (T2) to 7.32 mg/dl (T10) on

42nd day. Further, the serum inorganic P levels on 21st and 42nd day were also

statistically similar (P>0.05) for both the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool.

Although there appeared to be better tibial calcium and phosphorus reservoir

in the bird fed SPR based diets when compared to control, the serum failed to show

any such status for calcium and inorganic phosphorous levels. The values remained

uniform among all the treatments and the values were well with in the normal

physiological values reported by Benzamin (1985). The results were also in

conformation with the findings of Budeppa (2004) who noticed similar serum calcium

and plasma inorganic P status among birds fed diets prepared with 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 %

SPR.

The blood biochemical measurements clearly demonstrate that there were no

differences in serum calcium and phosphorous values during the broiler growth

period.

4.4.8 Economics

a. Net returns

Since the inclusion of SPR has influenced the body weight gain and feed

consumption, its economic proposition in terms of cost per kg live weight gain is

relevant.

Based on the prevailing prices of the constituent feed ingredients and feed

additives including that of lecithin, lipase and NSP degrading enzymes, the cost of the

diets prepared for starter, grower and finisher phases was arrived at. The cost of the

starter diets ranged from Rs. 9.91/kg (T9) to 11.01/kg (T4). The corresponding cost of

grower and finisher diets ranged from Rs. 10.34 to 11.35 and from Rs. 10.50 to

Rs.11.43 per kg, respectively. In all the cases, the cost of the SPR incorporated diets

was lower than corresponding control diets since SPR is available at cheaper prices.

The net returns calculated as the difference of the cost of broiler starter,

grower and finisher diets, as well as that of chicks, medicines, labour and brooding

charges on one hand and the sale price of live birds on the other hand from different

treatments were arrived at and are presented in Table 4.28 and the treatment wise

values are also graphically represented in Fig. 9. The net profits per bird among

different treatment groups were statistically non significant (P>0.05) and ranged from

Rs 6.13 in T10 to Rs.13.51 in T8.

With regard to SPR as the main factor, the relative net profit value per bird

under different treatments decreased non-significantly (P>0.05) in SPR based diets

(Rs. 7.77 in 10% SPR based diets) as compared to the control diets (Rs. 11.12).

With regard to biotechnological tool as the main factor, the relative net profit

value per bird differed non-significantly (P>0.05) in inconsistent manner and the

values ranged from Rs. 8.20 in NSP degrading enzymes supplemented diets to that of

Rs. 10.62 in diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents.

In general, the SPR incorporated diets showed poorer net profit when

compared to the control groups and in many cases, the diets fortified with

biotechnological products failed to improve the net returns. Hence, it was inferred that

the preparation of diets using SPR as a feed ingredient replacing the conventional feed

ingredients was not economical.

b. Performance Scores

The performance index score (PIS) as the relationship of weight gain, percent

livability, FCR and number of days reared under each dietary group and the PIS’s

relationship with cost of each diet as economic index score (EIS) was worked out and

the treatment wise and main factors wise values are presented in Table 4.28.

The PIS values were statistically similar (P>0.05) among different treatments

and the values ranged from 198.9 (T11) to 278.8 (T4). With regard to SPR as the main

factor, the relative PISs decreased significantly (P<0.01) with incremental level of

dietary inclusion of SPR. The values were 272.1, 250.9 and 226.7 for 0, 5 and 10%

SPR based diets, respectively. However, with regard to biotechnological tool as the

main factor, the relative PIS values varied non significantly (P>0.05) from 230.8

(NSP degrading enzymes) to 257.3 (lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading

enzymes).

As regards the EIS, the values were statistically (P>0.05) similar among

different treatments and ranged between 19.04 in T11 and 25.01 in T8. With regard to

main factors, the SPR showed significant differences (P<0.01) in the relative EIS

values while biotechnological tool remained statistically uniform.

The production performance index scores in terms of both PIS and EIS were

better in control diets when compared to diets prepared with SPR either at 5% or 10%

inclusion.

Considering the pattern of parameters of economic importance, it is possible to

include SPR at level up to 5%.

4.5 PERFORMANCE OF LAYER BIRDS FED SPR BASED DIETS

Consequent to the metabolism trial in layers, an effort was also made to

include sun-dried SPR in layer bird rations to asses its effect on their production

performance.

4.5.1 Chemical Composition of Experimental Diets

The analyzed percent proximate composition including that of calcium and

phosphorus of the experimental layer diets compounded on different occasions of the

84-day experimental period is presented in Table 4.29.

The dry matter content was more or less consistent in all the diets and ranged

from 88.99 (T9) to 90.25 per cent (T2). The total ash, crude protein, ether extract,

crude fiber and NFE contents ranged from 18.01 (T10) to 21.04 (T2), 17.31 (T9) to

17.92 (T2), 2.21 (T1 and T2) to 3.96 (T10), 7.60 (T11) to 8.10 (T1) and from 51.09 (T2) to

54.27 per cent (T8), respectively.

The results revealed that the proximate constituents of experimental diets were

almost similar to each other and such values were by and large in conformation with

BIS (1992) recommendations. However, the ether extract content was generally

higher in 10% SPR incorporated diets when compared to control which was

essentially due to EE content of SPR per se. As far as the crude fiber is concerned,

there was no much difference between control and SPR based test diets. Such values

were due to similar CF content of SPR (13.93 %) and DORB (14.00%), a major

ingredient which was substituted by SPR in test diets.

The calculated metabolizable energy (Table 3.4) values of 0, 5 and 10% SPR

based layer diets were 2433, 2410 and 2386 kcal/kg, respectively. The marginal

differences were presumed to be negligible and such diets were considered as iso-

caloric.

4.5.2 Egg production

The percent hen day egg production under different treatment groups recorded

during different periods as well as cumulatively are presented together with main

factor values in Table 4.30 and the values are also graphically presented in Fig. 10.

The egg production values among different treatments ranged from 78.57 (T7)

to 85.95 per cent (T2) during Period I, from 73.81 (T12) to 84.49 per cent (T4) during

Period II and from 74.14 (T8) to 83.94 per cent (T1) during Period III. The cumulative

average egg production values ranged from 76.03 (T8) to 84.50 (T4) per cent. The

differences among different treatments were statistically similar (P>0.05) during

Period I while the values differed significantly (P<0.05) during Period II and highly

significantly (P<0.01) during Period III as well as cumulatively.

As regards the SPR factor as the main factor, the percent egg production

during the 28-day periods were highly significant (P<0.01) during all the three

individual periods as well as cumulatively. The cumulative egg production was 83.61,

80.11 and 78.11 per cent for 0, 5 and 10% SPR based dietary groups, respectively.

As regards the biotechnological tool as the main factor, the egg production

values were statistically similar (P>0.05) during all the periods. However, the

cumulative egg production values were significantly different (P<0.05) and the

highest value was observed in diets supplemented with NSP degrading enzymes

(81.87%) and lowest in diets supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP

degrading enzymes (79.07%). The values for groups fed diets with no supplement and

with lipid utilizing agent were 80.97 and 80.54 per cent, respectively.

The egg production data was also presented on the basis of total number of

eggs produced over each period of 28 days (Table 4.30).The 28-day average egg

number values ranged from 22.0 (T9) to 24.1 (T2) during Period I; from 20.7 (T12) to

23.7 (T4) during Period II; from 20.8 (T8) to 23.5 (T1) during Period III and from 21.3

(T8) to 23.7 (T4) on cumulative basis. The differences among different treatments

were statistically similar (P>0.05) during Period I while the values differed

significantly (P<0.05) during Period II and highly significantly (P<0.01) during

Period III as well as cumulatively.

In general, the birds fed diets containing either 5 or 10% SPR showed

significantly (P<0.01) lower egg production when compared to that of control diets

devoid of SPR. Intensity of such trend was low during initial period while the effects

were much more pronounced during later stages of experimental period as well as

cumulatively.

Thus, it was clearly evident that higher the SPR inclusion level, lower was the

egg production percentage. The results were in accordance with that of the experiment

conducted by Suma (2005) where in, a non-significant reduction in percent egg

production with the incremental level of SPR from 0 to 15% was observed. The

reduction in feed consumption (section 4.4.3) with the incremental level of SPR in

their diets was responsible for decreased egg production, since the quantum of

nutrients per se available became limiting for egg production over and above the

maintenance.

As regards the biotechnological tool, results are in agreement with the findings

of Ponnuvel et al. (2001) who observed a numerical increase in egg production when

fiber degrading enzymes was supplemented in the fiber-rich diets of layers. Similar

observations were also made by Sharma and Katoch (1993), Jayanna and Devegowda

(1993) and Mohandas and Devegowda (1993). However, no literature is available to

confirm the numerically reduced egg production in birds supplemented with lipid

utilizing agents and its antagonistic effect with NSP degrading enzymes.

The results clearly indicated that the egg production declined with the

inclusion of SPR even at 5%, the minimum level that was tested. Thus, it was inferred

that the egg production may be optimally maintained only when SPR level is below 5

per cent in layer diets.

4.5.3 Feed Consumption and Feed Efficiency

a. Feed consumption

The daily average feed consumption values under various treatments during

different periods as well as cumulatively and along with main factor wise values are

presented in Table 4.31 and the values are also graphically presented in Fig. 11.

The average feed consumption values (per bird) among different treatments

ranged from 115.0 (T8) to 116.8 g (T2) during Period I, from 115.1 (T12) to 119.1 (T3)

during Period II and from 114.2 (T12) to 119.0 g (T2) during Period III. The highest

cumulative feed consumption of 117.9 g/hen/day was recorded in T2 as against the

lowest of 115.0 g in T12. Analysis of variance showed non-significant differences in

feed consumption during first period. But however, this pattern of non-significance

did not persist during the subsequent periods. During Periods II and III as well as

cumulatively, highly significant (P<0.01) differences were noticed among different

treatments.

When the data was analyzed for the effect of main factors, the feed

consumption was significantly (P<0.01) affected by SPR inclusion at 10% during

periods II and III as well as cumulatively. The cumulative average feed consumption

was 117.1, 116.9 and 115.6 g/day/bird for diets containing 0, 5 and 10% SPR based

diets, respectively. With regard to the other main factor biotechnological tool,

significant differences (P<0.05) were noticed only during period II but not either

during periods I and III or cumulatively.

The results revealed that the inclusion of SPR at 10% level affected the birds’

appetite. Such type of results are in agreement with the findings of Suma (2005) who

observed that inclusion of SPR beyond 10% level in layer diets considerably reduces

the feed consumption. These observations are also supported by our earlier findings

(section 4.3.3) that the broilers consumed significantly (P<0.01) lesser amount of SPR

based diets compared to control. However, the results were not in compliance with the

findings of Budeppa (2004) who observed non-significant differences in feed

consumption of broilers fed diets containing SPR at 1, 2, 3 and 4 per cent levels.

The changes in physical characteristics of SPR based diets might account for

the observed changes. Unlike that of broilers, the possibility of interference of crude

fiber is minimum because there were only marginal differences between crude fiber

content of SPR based diets and that of control. Deaton et al. (1979) showed that diets

with a crude fiber content as high as 8.07% did not affect the layer performance.

It was also observed that fortification of diets with either lipid utilizing agents

or NSP degrading enzymes numerically increased the feed consumption while

decreased trend was noticed when both biotechnological agents were supplemented

together. Contrary to these results, Ponnuvel et al. (2001) reported that addition of

cellulase enzyme to fiber-rich diet (12.10% crude fiber) significantly (P<0.01)

decreased the feed intake. Similar observation was made by Zang Sumin et al. (1996)

using 0.5% compound enzyme. They presumed that cellulase supplementation in high

fiber layer diet reduces the feed intake by improving the availability and utilization of

nutrients possibly by acting on the non-starch polysaccharides present in feed.

However, the maximum crude fiber level of diets in the present experiment was

around 7.00%. No reports are available to confirm the results related to lipid utilizing

agents or its combination with NSP degrading enzymes.

The results reflected that adult birds too failed to adopt for the diets containing

SPR particularly at 10% level. Thus, the effective acceptability of SPR by the birds

was questionable when included as an ingredient in their diets.

b. Feed efficiency

The efficiency of the birds to convert ingested food into eggs either as dozen

egg basis or kg egg mass basis was arrived at and the treatment wise and main factor

wise data is presented in Table 4.32 and the values are also graphically presented in

Fig. 12.

The average feed efficiency (FE) expressed as kg feed / dozen eggs among

different groups was highly significant (P<0.01) during all the periods as well as

cumulatively. The cumulative FE was better in T4 (1.664) while poorer in T8 (1.844

kg feed /kg egg mass). Similarly, the FE when expressed as kg feed / kg egg mass

also differed significantly (P<0.01) among different treatments with the values

between 2.375 (T4) and 2.602 (T8).

With regard to the main factors, the cumulative average FE values as affected

by SPR factor were highly significant (P<0.01) in that both 5 and 10 per cent SPR

included groups (1.757 and 1.778 kg feed/dozen eggs, respectively) were poorer than

that observed for control group (1.689 kg feed/dozen eggs). Such pattern of

significance was also persisted during all the periods. As regards the biotechnological

tool, highly significant (P<0.01) differences were observed in FE (kg feed/dozen

eggs) through all periods of the experimental period as well as cumulatively. The

cumulative pooled over values were 1.728, 1.741, 1.723 and 1.769 kg feed/dozen eggs

in no supplement, lipid utilizing agents, NSP degrading enzymes and both lipid

utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes supplemented groups. These trends were

also persisted when FE expressed as kg feed / kg egg mass except for the main factor

biotechnological tool during period I.

In general, the feed efficiency was poor in birds fed diets containing 5 and

10% SPR when compared to control. Hence, it was inferred that performance of birds

was inferior in diets prepared with 5 and 10 per cent SPR. The results also indicated

that feed efficiency can be improved by supplementing lipid utilizing agents either

alone or with NSP degrading agents but such an improvement was not noticed when

NSP degrading enzymes alone was supplemented.

The FE in terms of both egg number as well as egg mass revealed that the

energy limitation with the incremental levels of ash-rich (AIA-rich) SPR might explain

for poorer (P<0.01) FE of SPR based diets.

4.5.4 Body Weight Changes and Livability

During the course of the experiment, the dietary variables might exert their

influence on the body weight of hens for which the average body weights at initial,

28th day, 56th day and 84th day were recorded and the data pertaining to body weight

changes of birds both period wise and cumulatively are presented in Table 4.33.

The average body weights of birds in different dietary groups at the start of the

experiment ranged from 1493 (T12) to 1573 g (T8) which were statistically similar

(P>0.05). At the termination of the experiment also, the body weights ranged non-

significantly (P>0.05) from as low as 1465 (T12) to as high as 1584 g (T8). The change

(gain/loss) in body weight during different periods except period III, were also non-

significant (P>0.05). All the birds lost their body weight during period I. The

cumulative body weight change ranged from a loss of 35.3 g/bird in T7 to a gain of

119.4g/bird in T9, yet the values were statistically similar (P>0.05). When data was

categorized as per the main factors, the body weight changes showed non-significant

(P>0.05) differences for both the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool.

Also presented in Table 4.33 is the percent livability of birds under different

treatments during the 84-day experimental period. The percent livability values of

birds among different treatments were statistically (P>0.05) similar. The livability

value was 91.67 % in T4 and T9 and the remaining groups showed 100% livability.

When data was arranged as per the main factors, the livability values remained

statistically similar (P>0.05) for both the main factors (SPR and biotechnological

tool).

From the results, it was evident that there was a non-significant (P>0.05)

inconsistent variation in body weight change and livability of the birds in different

groups. It was inferred that the body weight changes and livability percentage were

not influenced by any dietary treatment or main factors. The results are in

conformation with the findings of Suma (2005) who noticed non-significant (P>0.05)

loss in body weights of layers as the level of SPR increased in the diets.

4.5.5 Egg Characteristics

a) Egg weight

The influence of different treatments and main factors on the average egg

weight under different dietary groups is presented in Table 4.34 and the values are

also graphically presented in Fig. 13.

The treatment wise average egg weight values during 24-day periods

(averaged over eight occasions during each period) ranged from 57.5 (T3) to 59.4 g

(T11) for period I, 57.8 (T1) to 59.8 g (T7) for period II, 58.7 (T1) to 60.4 g (T7) for

period III and from 58.1 (T1) to 59.9 g (12) on cumulative basis. From the analysis of

variance, it was evident that the mean egg weights during the periods I and III were

statistically significant (P<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively) but not during period II.

However, the cumulative egg weight differed significantly (P<0.01) among different

treataments.

As far as the main factors were concerned, SPR inclusion showed significant

differences in egg weights during periods I and II and highly significant values on

cumulative basis. Close observation revealed that during all periods, 5 per cent SPR

tended to increase the egg weights when compared to 10 per cent SPR which in turn

was more than that of the control (0% SPR). Similarly, average egg weight values

were significantly (P<0.05) higher in birds fed diets supplemented with lipid utilizing

agents or NSP degrading enzymes but not their combination during period II as well

cumulatively. The cumulative average egg weight values were 59.2 and 59.4 g

observed in diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading

enzymes as against 58.8 and 58.7 g in diets with no supplement and with both lipid

utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes, respectively.

The results conformed the reports of Suma (2005) who indicated non-

significant (P>0.05) increase in egg weights with incremental level of SPR from 0 to

15% in layer diets. The results were also in confirmation with findings of (Ousterhout,

1980) who reported that the egg weight was highly significantly and inversely related

to the dietary calcium level.

In general, the egg weights under SPR based dietary groups are higher than

those of control and that they further indicate that inclusion of SPR up to 10 per cent

does influence the egg weights. As egg weights are influenced by energy, protein and

linoleic acid (Leeson and Summers, 2001), it appears that SPR inclusion might not

have enhanced the availability of the nutrients and instead of lower egg production in

SPR diets may be a reason.

b) Egg shape index

The values Egg Shape Index (ESI) as one of the indices of egg quality being

influenced by various treatments and main factors are presented in Table 4.35 and

graphically in Fig 14(a). The average ESI values ranged from 74.35 (T10) to 84.52

(T4) on 1st day, from 74.07 (T8) to 80.29 (T2) on 28th day, from 74.67 (T10) to 82.98

(T11) on 56th day and from 75.64 (T10) to 79.87 (T9) on 84th day. Statistical analysis

did not reveal any significant (P>0.05) differences during different periods of the

experiment nor for that matter cumulatively.

As regards the main factors, both SPR and biotechnological tool showed non-

significant (P>0.05) variation among different groups. The values with reference to

the SPR level ranged from as low as 77.22 (10% SPR group) to as high as 78.05 (0%

SPR group) on cumulative basis. As far as the biotechnological tools were concerned,

NSP degrading enzymes supplemented diets produced better shape index (78.32) than

with lipid utilizing agents (76.71).

The results suggested that the SPR at any given level in the diets did not affect

the shape index of the eggs and thus hatchability also. Such results was also observed

by Suma (2005).

c) Albumen Index

The average albumen index scores of eggs of experimental hens fed different

diets during different periods of the experiment are presented as per treatment wise

and main factor wise in Table 4.36 and graphically in Fig 14(b).

The average values ranged from 2.76 (T5) to 3.38 (T4) on 1st day, from 6.07

(T12) to 7.11 (T6) on 28th day, from 4.357 (T12) to 4.70 (T5) on 56th day and from 3.77

(T2) to 4.42 (T7) on 84th day of the experimental period. All the values were found to

be non non-significant (P>0.05). The mean albumen index values pooled over the

periods ranged from 4.36 (T9 and T3) to 4.71 (T7), which again were non-significantly

(P>0.05) different from each other.

As regards the main factors, the albumen index scores were found to be not

significantly (P>0.05) influenced by the SPR level or biotechnological tools. Both the

main factors, SPR and biotechnological tools showed inconsistent trends throughout

the experimental period.

d) Haugh unit score

An interrelationship between egg weight and albumen height in terms of

Haugh unit (HU) score, is an important egg quality measure for shelf life of eggs. The

average Haugh unit scores under different dietary groups as per treatment and main

factor wise are presented in Table 4.37 and graphically in Fig 14(c).

The average values ranged from 51.42 (T8) to 58.15 (T3) on 1st day, from

66.26 (T12) to 71.81 (T6) on 28th day, from 54.28 (T3) to 60.20 (T5) on 56th day and

from 45.72 (T8) to 56.14 (T7) on 84th day. The average values at any particular

interval were statistically non-significant (P>0.05). The pooled over (periods) average

values ranged non-significantly (P>0.05) from 57.01 (T8) to 60.20 (T7).

As regards the main factors, the Haugh unit score values were non-

significantly (P>0.05) influenced by both the main factors, SPR level and

biotechnological tool. Similar to albumen index, there was no definitive trend in either

SPR and biotechnological tool.

The non-significant (P>0.05) differences observed between different

treatments during different time intervals revealed that Haugh unit scores were not

affected by the inclusion of SPR. Further, none of the biotechnological additives

improved the HUS. The Haugh unit values observed under all groups of present study

are in the range of 52-59, which are quite lower than the normal values in the range of

75-85 (Jayanaik, 1989; Umashankar, 1998). Though there appeared to be certain

uniform low recording of the height of dense albumen by Ames Spherometer (Section

3.3.2.3d) and hence lower HUSs, yet the observed data did still allow the dietary

comparisons.

e) Yolk colour

Egg yolk colour is an important quality characteristic from the consumer point

of view. The period wise and cumulative average yolk colour scores of eggs of

experimental birds fed different diets were arranged as per treatment and main factor

wise basis and are presented in Table 4.38 and Fig 14(d).

The Roche yolk colour fan values ranged from 7.17 (T1 and T11) to 7.60 (T9)

on 1st day, from 6.61 (T1) to 7.45 (T10) on 28th day, from 6.09 (T2) to 7.18 (T5) on 56th

day and from 6.09 (T12) to 6.64 (T11) on 84th day of the experimental period. The

influence of different treatment diets in imparting colour to the yolks was found to be

non-significant (P>0.05) at 28th day and 56th day of experiment.

As regards main factors, the yolk colour scores were significantly (P<0.01)

affected by the SPR factor on the 56th day with a highest value being 6.78 (5% SPR)

as against lowest value of 6.20 (control) and significantly (P<0.05) on cumulative

basis (6.73-0% SPR to 6.93-5% SPR). Infact such trend might be due to the chance

factor as evident by the fact that during preceding and successive 28-day intervals as

well as between control and 10% SPR based diets, no significant (P>0.05) differences

were surfaced. For the biotechnological tool factor, no significant (P>0.05)

differences were observed during all the periods as well as cumulatively.

The results were in conformation with the findings of Suma (2005) who

reported non-significant (P>0.05) differences in yolk colour between control and SPR

included diets. Also observed was the fact that the SPR based diets did not enhance

the yolk colour intensity which otherwise would have been possible in view of the

fact that the SPR per se appears to be rich in colouring pigments as that with forages

(Reddy, 1979).

f) Yolk index

The treatment and main factor wise average yolk index values of eggs of

experimental birds fed different diets during different periods are presented in Table

4.39 and graphically in Fig 14(e).

The treatment wise average yolk index values ranged from 29.92 (T5) to 31.57

(T12) on 1st day, 34.80 (T10) to 36.55 (T5) on 28th day, 32.33 (T1) to 34.01 (T6) on 56th

day, 2.42 (T7) to 34.99 (T3) on 84th day and from 32.82 (T7) to 33.80 (T2) on

cumulative basis. The values at different intervals differed non-significantly (P>0.05).

The effect observed when the data was analyzed on the basis of main factors

was found to be non significant (P>0.05) as regards the SPR factor was concerned,

while the biotechnological tool revealed significant (P<0.05) differences only on 1st

day of experiment which was obviously not due to lipid utilizing agents, NSP

degrading agents or their combinations. Stability of yolk as reflected by higher yolk

index scores is important from the point of shelf life of eggs as well as the

hatchability. Since SPR contains large amount of lipid portion (11.95 %), it might

cause mottling of yolks and affect yolk index, which however did not occur in the

study even at 10 per cent inclusion of SPR.

The results obtained were in agreement with the findings of Suma (2005) who

observed no significant (P>0.05) difference in yolk indices between diets containing

SPR at 0, 5, 10 and 15% level. Thus, it was inferred that egg quality is sustainable

with SPR even up to 10 per cent in layer diets.

g) Egg shell thickness

Shell thickness is also an important egg quality factor, which is dependent on

dietary regimen amongst many factors. The treatment and main factor wise average

shell thickness values of eggs of experimental birds fed different diets during different

periods are presented in Table 4.40 and graphically represented in Fig 14(f).

The treatment wise egg shell thickness values among different groups ranged

from 0.344 (T10) to 0.371 mm (T2) on 1st day, 0.310 (T1) to 0.366mm (T10) on 28th

day, 0.302 (T6) to 0.347 mm (T4) on 56th day and from 0.325 (T8) to 0.347 mm (T10)

at the end of experiment and on cumulative basis, the values ranged from 0.329 (T1)

to 0.350 mm (T11). Analysis of variance revealed that the differences among different

treatments were statistically (P>0.05) similar except for the values on 28th day of the

experiment. No definitive trend was observed among dietary treatments.

Amongst the main factor effects, cumulative average egg shell thickness

values were 0.337, 0.338 and 0.342 mm at 0, 5 and 10 per cent SPR inclusion levels.

The average values were statistically similar (P>0.01) during all the periods except on

28th day. A close observation indicated that the mean cumulative egg shell thickness

values were slightly higher in 10% SPR group when compared to control.

For the main factor biotechnological tool, the egg shell thickness values

differed significantly (P<0.01) on 28th and 56th days of experiment. The cumulative

values varied significantly (P<0.05) from 0.332 (no supplement) to 0.344 mm (lipid

utilizing agents + NSP degrading agents) However, no definitive trend could be traced

at all the time intervals.

Egg shell thickness is largely affected by calcium assimilation, under the

influence of vit. D3 as well as by minerals namely zinc and manganese (Leeson and

Summers, 2001). Inclusion of SPR appeared to have effectively contributed the said

nutrients to support optimal shell thickness since they were quantitatively replaced to

the extent that could be contributable from SPR even at 10 per cent level of inclusion.

Similar observations were also made Suma (2005).

4.5.6 Efficiency of utilization of energy and protein

Protein and energy levels in the diets are by far the most important nutrients

for birds whose efficiency to utilize them under varied dietary profile are rather

important.

a) Efficiency of Protein utilization (EPU)

The average values of efficiency of utilization of dietary protein are presented

as per treatments and main factors in Table 4.41 and graphically in Fig 15. The

treatment wise results revealed that the per cent EPU was highly significant (P<0.01)

during all the periods. The average values ranged from 27.61 (T10) to 29.69 (T5)

during Period I; 26.01 (T12) to 28.44 (T4) during Period II and from 26.11 (T8) to

29.62 per cent (T11) during Period III. So also, the cumulative values ranged

significantly (P<0.01) from 26.52 (T8) to 29.13 per cent (T11).

As regards the main factor SPR, the effects were significant (P<0.05) during

Periods I and II but not during Period III (P>0.05). However, on cumulative basis, the

values were found to be highly significant and were 28.50, 27.95 and 27.81 per cent

for 0, 5 and 10 % SPR based diets. In general, the EPU values were better in control

group (0 % SPR) when compared to SPR based groups. The main factor

biotechnological tool also showed highly significant (P<0.01) differences during

Period II and cumulatively and significant (P<0.05) during Period III. The better

cumulative value was observed in diets supplemented with NSP degrading enzymes

(28.52%) and was poorer in diets with both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading

enzymes (27.49%).

The results of the present study were different from those obtained by Suma

(2005) who noticed non-significant (P>0.05) differences in EPU of hens fed diets

containing 0, 5, 10 and 15% SPR.

b) Efficiency of ME utilization (EEU)

The data pertaining to the efficiency of energy utilization as analyzed on the

basis of total treatments as well as main factors is presented in Table 4.41 and

graphically in Fig 15. As that of efficiency of protein utilization, the efficiency of

energy utilization was also found to be highly significant (P<0.01) during all the

periods as well as cumulatively. The average values ranged from 26.57 (T10) to 28.60

(T5), 25.03 (T12) to 27.38 (T4) and from 25.15 (T8) to 28.50 per cent (T11) for period I,

II and III, respectively. On cumulative basis, the EPU was as low as 25.55 (T8) to as

high as 28.04 (T11).

The effects of main factors on EEU also followed similar trend as that of EPU.

As regards the main factor SPR, the EEU values were significant (P<0.05) during

Periods I and II but not during Period III (P>0.05). However, on cumulative basis, the

values were found to be highly significant and were 27.44, 26.92 and 26.76 per cent

for 0, 5 and 10 % SPR based diets. In general, the EEU values were better in control

group (0 % SPR) when compared to SPR based groups. The main factor

biotechnological tool also showed highly significant (P<0.01) differences during

Period II and cumulatively and while it was significant (P<0.05) during Period III. A

better cumulative value was observed in diets supplemented with NSP degrading

enzymes (27.47%) while it was poorer in diets with both lipid utilizing agents and

NSP degrading enzymes (26.47%).

Similar to EPU, the results obtained were different from those obtained by

Suma (2005) who noticed non-significant (P>0.05) differences in EEU of hens fed

diets containing 0, 5, 10 and 15% SPR. the trend were similar to that for EEU.

Results indicated that efficiency of protein and energy utilization was not

uniform among different dietary treatment groups and even when the data was

analyzed on the basis of main factors. However, the inclusion of SPR either at 5 or 10

per cent level in the diets did affect the ability of birds to transfer dietary protein and

energy to the egg not withstanding the apparently low nutritive value of SPR.

4.5.8 Metabolizability of various nutrients

a) Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter

The pattern of metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of different

experimental diets arranged as per the treatment wise and main factor wise is

presented in Table 4.42 and graphically in Fig 16. The metabolizability coefficient of

dry matter ranged non-significantly (P>0.05) from 68.19 (T9) to 72.54 (T8) and that

of organic matter varied highly significantly (P<0.01) from 67.97 (T11) to 72.38 (T1)

among different treatments.

As regards the main factors, the metabolizability of dry matter (68.94 to

70.77%) was statistically similar (P>0.05) and that of organic matter was highly

significant (P<0.01) for the main factor SPR. The metabolizability of organic matter

was 71.83, 69.51 and 68.47 per cent for diets containing 0, 5 and 10% SPR,

respectively. However, the metabolizability coefficients for dry matter (69.60 to 71.43

%) and organic matter (69.73 to 70.15%) were statistically similar for the main factor

biotechnological tool.

The results indicated that the metabolizability of organic matter was

significantly (P<0.01) lower in both 5% and 10% SPR based diets when compared to

control diets. There was no significant improvement in metabolizability of dry matter

of different diets upon supplementation of biotechnological products while the

numerically better values were observed with diets supplemented with both lipid

utilizing agents and NSP degrading agents.

b) Calcium and Phosphorus retention

The pattern of retention of calcium and phosphorus is presented in Table 4.42

and graphically represented in Fig 17. The calcium retention showed non-significant

(P>0.05) differences among different dietary treatments. The values ranged from 4.04

g (T12) to 4.38 (T10) g/h/d and on per cent basis, the values ranged from 75.25 (T9) to

78.06 per cent (T8). The values were also found to be statistically similar (P>0.05)

when arranged as per the main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool. However,

marginally higher per cent of calcium retention (% of intake) but with a lower amount

of absolute calcium retention (g/h/d) were seen with the incremental levels of

inclusion of SPR particularly at 5 % (76.86 g).

The retention of phosphorus was not significant (P>0.05) between different

treatments. The values ranged from as low as 0.62 (T9 and T10) to as high as 0.72 (T3

and T4) g/h/d whereas the per cent values ranged from 58.34 (T9) to 63.25 (T12).

However, considering SPR as the main factor, the P retention (g/h/d) was significantly

lower in 10% SPR incorporated diets (0.64g) when compared to that of control (0.69

g), while no such statistical difference between control and 5% SPR incorporated

diets (0.66g) was evident. The values were statistically similar (P>0.05) for the main

factor biotechnological tool, yet numerically better P retention values were obtained

for diets fortified with lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes or both.

The results indicated that the retention of calcium and phosphorous was

significantly (P<0.01) lower in 10% SPR based diets when compared to control diets

but however the difference between that of 5% SPR based diets and control diets was

not significant. There was no significant improvement in metabolizability of

different diets upon supplementation of biotechnological products, yet the numerically

better values were observed with diets supplemented with both lipid utilizing agents

and NSP degrading agents.

The numerically better calcium retention (% of intake) in SPR based diets was

essentially due to production of heavier egg which demanded for the higher amount of

calcium for shell formation. However, decreased amount of calcium retained per day

observed in such diets was because of the lower rate of egg production.

The results obtained are in conformation with the findings of Suma (2005)

who observed a marginal decrease in retention of P with the increasing levels of

inclusion of SPR. However, she noticed the beneficial effect on calcium retention (%

of intake) as marginal increases with the increasing levels of inclusion of SPR were

seen.

Thus, based on the metabolizability of various nutrients, it was opined that the

SPR can be incorporated up to 5 per cent in layer rations effectively as a source of

organic nutrients as well as some of the minerals substituting the expensive

conventional feed ingredients.

4.5.9 Blood Biochemical Profile

Influence of SPR as a mineral source on profile of serum calcium and plasma

inorganic phosphorus has been studied and the results of which are presented here

under.

a) Serum calcium

The average values of concentration of calcium in serum of layers as

influenced by various treatments and main factors at different intervals as well as

cumulatively are presented in Table 4.43. Also given in the same table are the values

relating to plasma inorganic phosphorus levels. Both are graphically represented in

Fig 18.

The average values of serum calcium were statistically (P>0.05) similar

among all dietary groups during all the periods of the experiment. The values ranged

from 17.30 (T5) to 18.13 (T3) mg/dl on 28th day; from 18.53 (T7) to 19.20 (T9) mg/dl

on 56th day and from 18.73 (T12) to 19.20 (T2, T3 and T11) mg/dl on 84th day. The

serum calcium level got marginally elevated with the age of the birds. The mean

values also varied non-significantly (P>0.05) from 18.36mg/dl (T7) to 18.83 (T3).

As regards the main factors, both SPR and biotechnological tool exerted non-

significant (P>0.05) influence on serum calcium levels.

Serum calcium levels of birds at different time intervals were within the

normal blood serum concentrations in layers (Benzamin, 1985) and these results are

in accordance with those of Roush et al. (1986) and Robertson and Edwards (1994).

Keshavarz and Nalajima (1993) also reported that the plasma calcium was not

influenced by dietary calcium level.

Thus, the results indicate that SPR has been effectively utilized as a source of

calcium and has maintained the serum calcium concentration well within the range.

The results of present study are similar to those obtained by Budeppa (2004) and

Suma (2005) who fed different levels of SPR in diets of broilers and layers,

respectively and reported normal range of serum calcium values. Similar results were

also obtained by Suresh (2004) in growing lambs. Hence, no adverse effects are seen

when SPR is being used up to 10 per cent in layer diets as far as the calcium

metabolism is concerned.

b) Serum inorganic phosphorus

From Table 4.43, it can be observed that serum inorganic phosphorus at 28th

day, 56th day and 84th days of the trial ranged respectively, from 6.20 (T6) to 7.17

(T10); from 7.70 (T2 and T3) to 8.47 (T11) and from 8.63 (T2 and T10) to 8.90 (T3)

mg/dl. The mean values ranged from 7.63 (T6) to 7.97 (T10 and T11) mg/dl. There was

no significant (P>0.05) difference in plasma inorganic phosphorus levels of the layers

receiving different treatments at different intervals except at 56th day.

With regard to the main factor effects, both SPR and biotechnological tool did

not affect the plasma inorganic phosphorus levels at any interval or cumulatively.

Results indicate that the birds fed different test diets could maintain normal

plasma inorganic phosphate concentration during different time intervals and the

results obtained in this study do conform with results obtained by Budeppa (2004) and

Suma (2005) who reported normal range of plasma inorganic phosphorus levels in

SPR fed broilers and layers, respectively. Thus the SPR has been used effectively as a

source of phosphorus, which is quite comparable with that of control groups.

The results of the present study are however not in agreement with the

findings of Mangle et al. (1979) who observed a positive correlation between the egg

production and serum calcium phosphorous levels. Prasad and Reddy (1990) also

reported a positive correlation between serum calcium and phosphorus levels and egg

production in birds fed diets containing hatchery by-product meal. The reason for

such a deviation was due to the possibility of limitation of some major nutrients in

SPR based diets.

4.5.10 Economics

a) Net returns

The net returns obtained as the difference between the cost of feed only as the

input factor and the sale price of eggs as the output factor during different periods as

well as cumulatively, have been worked out and are presented in Table 4.44 as per the

treatment wise and main factor wise.

The cost of control diet (T1) was Rs. 7.13/kg which got reduced to Rs. 6.88/kg

as the SPR level got increased to 15 per cent (T9), which was partly due to the

progressive decreasing cost of mineral salts at the expense of SPR as mineral source.

The cost of the diets supplemented with biotechnological products were relatively

higher when compared to the corresponding diets with no supplement, depending on

the cost of biotechnological product/s.

The mean net returns ranged significantly (P<0.01) from Rs. 9.83 (T8) to 13.20

(T5); from 7.62 (T8) to 11.19 (T5); from 7.23 (T8) to 12.25 (T11) and from 8.23 (T8) to

12.12 (T5), respectively, during Period I, Period II, Period III and Cumulatively.

The effect of main factors revealed that throughout the experimental period,

the net returns were significantly (P>0.05) affected by both the main factors.

Cumulatively, the incremental levels of SPR gradually reduced the net returns (from

Rs. 11.39 in control diets to 10.27 in 10% SPR diets). With regard to the

biotechnological tool as the main factor, the returns from lipid utilizing agents

supplemented diets were quite lower than those from control or NSP degrading

enzyme fortified diets. The cumulative average values of net returns from hens fed

different diets are graphically represented in Fig. 19.

4.6 GENERAL DISCUSSION

Sugarcane press residue (SPR) is a byproduct of sugar industry constituting

about 3 per cent of cane crushing and available to the tune of 5 million tons annually

in India. It is a soft, spongy, amorphous dark material containing sugars, fiber,

coagulated colloids including wax, apart from containing albuminoids, organic salts,

etc. and rich in N, P, Ca, Fe and Mn (Singh and Solomon, 1995). Currently SPR is

used as a manure for enhancing crop productivity and majority of it remains

unutilized due to lack of proper technology. Preliminary studies conducted at this

Institute proved that the incorporation of sun-dried SPR up to 10% in layer rations

(Suma, 2005) and up to 4 % in broiler rations (Budeppa, 2004) is economical to

minimize the feed costs. Considering the above facts, a holistic approach was made to

include SPR as a source of feed ingredients in both broilers and layers. The primary

objective of the present study is to obtain precise knowledge of the nutrient contents

and the energy value of the SPR and then to test this novel stuffs for possible utility in

poultry with appropriate feed formulae.

At the outset, detailed chemical evaluation of the SPR samples from different

factories was carried out to asses the nutrient worth of SPR interms of proximate

principles, fiber fractions, minerals, amino acids and fatty acids. The chemical

composition of SPR appears to be similar to that of cereal byproducts (brans) in terms

of crude protein (11.80%) and crude fiber content (13.73%). Additionally it contains

higher amount of fat (11.95%) which is unique to itself and the linoleic acid, one of

essential fatty acid constitutes about 38.0% of fat. Besides organic nutrients, SPR

contains substantial amount of both macro and micro minerals especially calcium

(4.90%), phosphorus (1.25%), iron (4300ppm) and manganese (260ppm). The

chemical composition of SPR from different sources is variable and such variations

are mainly attributable to the differences in agro-climatic conditions, quality of the

cane and clarification method followed at sugar plant. The results indicated that there

is a potential for use of SPR as a source of both organic and inorganic nutrients. Thus

the sun-dried SPR appears to have the ability to substitute the costly and scarce

conventional feed ingredients such as DORB, etc. and also mineral sources

particularly that of di-calcium phosphate and certain trace mineral salts that are

mandatorily included in the poultry rations. Hence, from the initial screening sun-

dried SPR appeared to be the potential prospective feed ingredient in the rations of

poultry.

As either too much or too little energy leads to less than the optimal

performance, it is essential for the nutritionist to have an accurate knowledge of the

energy value of each feed ingredient incorporated in to poultry rations. Hence, the

sun-dried SPR after having been subjected to screening for chemical constituents have

been further subjected for determination of metabolizable energy in both broilers and

layers. The results revealed that about 40 per cent of the gross energy of sun-dried

SPR can be metabolized in both younger (broilers) and mature birds (layers). The

average ME value of SPR included at 10, 20 and 30% of basal diets was observed to

be 1130 and 937 kcal/kg in broilers and layers, respectively. The values appear to be

inferior when compared to that of other conventional feed ingredients (eg. DORB –

2200 kcal/kg). Important factors that could have rendered such a low ME of SPR

include:

1. Higher amounts of inorganic matter and crude fiber 2. Poor digestibility of crude fiber in poultry 3. Poor metabolizability of ether extract fraction of SPR 4. The digestibility and absorbability of other nutrients may be indirectly affected by

crude fiber by trapping them 5. Since SPR is the residue left during boiling of cane juice, it may contain lot of

impurities including sand and silica which might affect the utilization of nutrients accounting for low ME.

The effect of afore mentioned factors is more predominant in young birds as

suggested by our results. Hence, the separate ME value for sun-dried SPR were taken

for broiler chicks and laying hens during subsequent feeding cum performance trials.

It is also important to note that the nutrient metabolizability of the diet is

estimated with a greater degree of precision, than that of a test ingredient. This view

was supported on the grounds that any error introduced in determination of

metabolizability of different components of diets would magnify while the nutrient

metabolizability of value of a test ingredient is being estimated in accordance with the

level of test ingredient added to the basal diet. For example, one unit error in DM

metabolizability determination of a diet containing 10 per cent of test ingredient

would magnify any error to ten units in estimating the DM metabolizability of the

latter. Thus the error magnifying unit became small with the higher inclusion level of

the test ingredient in the basal diet. This would party explain the difference in

precision of metabolizability determination at different levels. Thus, metabolizability

of sun-dried SPR at 30 per cent inclusion level seemed appropriate in the present

study also. However, as the possibility of inclusion of SPR beyond 10% was not

practicable, the ME values obtained at 10% inclusion level were considered during

further studies.

From the results, it was concluded that the ME content of the SPR having the

nutrient contents similar to that evaluated in the present study could well be taken

around 1000 kcal/kg for broilers and 950 kcal/kg for laying hens for all practical

purposes. It was also evident that the fortification of SPR based diets with

biotechnologically derived products such as lipase with lecithin, NSP degrading

enzymes and their combination failed to enhance its’ nutritive value.

The results also being revealed that SPR is a low energy feedstuff with the

substantially lower ME value less than that of conventional cereals such as maize and

also slightly lesser than many agro-industrial by-products such as rice bran, wheat

bran. It was, therefore viewed that the SPR is a very poor source of energy and can

only be included along with concentrated source of energy such as oils and fats in

poultry feed formulations as a filler material whenever the scarcity of conventional

feed ingredients occurs.

After assessing the nutrient composition and energetic worth of SPR, attempt

to include sun-dried SPR in the rations of poultry was undertaken with an objective to

determine safe and economical level of inclusion of SPR. For that purpose, two

feeding trials, on each in broilers and layers were conducted. In both the cases, the

sun-dried SPR was included as the source of both organic nutrients as well as

minerals at the expense of other feed ingredients and mineral sources particularly

DORB, sunflower extraction, di-calcium phosphate and other pertinent mineral salts.

In the performance trial involving broilers, the sun-dried SPR was included at

5 and 10% levels in iso-nitrogeous and iso-caloric diets including calcium,

phosphorus and other minerals. Each of such diets was further fortified with no

supplement, lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading agents or both and offered to

triplicate groups of 30 day old commercial chicks for the duration of 42 days. The

results clearly indicated that the groups of birds fed diets incorporated with either 5 or

10 % SPR tended to consume less feed and gained less body weight compared to

control diet devoid of SPR. The feed conversion ratio was also declined with

inclusion of SPR but however, inconsistent with the level of SPR inclusion either at 5

or 10%. The reduced feed consumption of SPR based diets was mainly attributable to

the dusty nature of such diets caused due to finer particle size of SPR. The reduced

feed consumption occurred at the beginning of the feeding trial itself, which resulted

in improper development of gastro intestinal tract and hence the lower digestion and

absorption efficiency resulted in a linear decline in growth rate with increasing

inclusion levels. Pertaining to the supplementation of biotechnological derived feed

additives, no significant differences were observed. These are against the results of

Budeppa (2004) who observed non significant differences in feed consumption, body

weight gain and FCR of broilers fed both fish-based and soy-based diets containing

SPR at 1, 2, 3 and 4 per cent levels.

A metabolism trial conducted between 19th to 21st day of trial indicated that

the metabolizability of dry matter, organic matter and crude protein at 5 % or 10 %

inclusion levels were significantly (P<0.05 or p<0.01) lower than those of the control

group. The data reveals that there was a progressive decrease in average

metabolizability of various nutrients with the incremental level of SPR. However, a

balance of minerals indicated a non-significantly (P>0.05) better Ca retention value at

higher level of SPR inclusion in the diets. The better mineral status might be due to

presence of calcium and phosphorous in an easily available form in the SPR per se.

A slaughter study conducted at the termination of the experiment (42nd day)

implied that the inclusion of SPR up to 10 % in broiler diets has no influence on

dressing percentage, meat to bone ratio, relative weight of vital organs and length of

intestinal segments. However, broilers fed 10% SPR based diets showed lowest

relative abdominal fat weight compared to control. The inclusion of SPR has also

numerically enhanced the mineralization of tibial bone. However, such effect was not

noticed in calcium and phosphorus profile of blood during different stages of trial.

A carcass evaluation carried at the terminal day of performance trial of

broilers indicated that the inclusion of SPR does not affect the carcass characteristics

of the birds like dressing percentage and meat to bone ratio. The developmental of

vital organs was unaffected with incorporation of SPR in broilers diets. The bone

mineralization and blood mineral profile of birds under SPR based diets were also

comparable to that of control.

The results pertaining to economics of SPR inclusion in broiler diets indicated

that the inclusion of SPR at either levels (5 or 10% ) is not economically feasible.

Although the inclusion of SPR reduced the cost of the diets, the net profit and

performance indices were poorer in SPR diets when compared to the control groups

and fortification of diets with biotechnological products failed to improve the net

returns. Considering the parameters of economic importance, it can be inferred that

the inclusion of SPR as feed ingredient in broiler diets at 5% level or above is not

practicable.

The effect of inclusion of SPR on the production performance of layers was

also attempted. When sun-dried SPR was included at 5 and 10 per cent in layer diets,

the feed consumption and egg production were significantly lower in both 5 and 10%

SPR based groups when compared to control group. The feed efficiency of SPR based

diets was also inferior compared to control diets. The reason for reduced performance

was again attributable to dusty nature of SPR based diets which resulted in reduced

feed intake that culminated in decreased egg production and feed efficiency. Contrary

to the present findings, Suma (2005) reported non-significant (P>0.05) differences in

feed consumption, egg production and feed efficiency in layers fed soy-based or fish-

based diets containing SPR up to 15% when compared to control.

The egg characteristics studied at 28-day intervals of the layer’s experiment

revealed that the inclusion of SPR up to 10% in layer diets does not alter the egg

quality parameters such as egg shape index, albumen index, yolk index, yolk colour,

Haugh unit score and shell thickness. However, the weight of eggs obtained from

birds fed SPR based diets were numerically heavier when compared to that from

control groups. The results are in agreement with the findings of Suma (2005). Thus,

it can be inferred that the egg quality is sustainable with SPR even up to 10 per cent in

the layer diets.

The mineral status of layers under SPR based diets was comparable to that of

control during different intervals. However, the balance of mineral indicated that the

per cent retention of calcium intake was better in SPR based diets. The minerals in

SPR might exist in the chelated (organic) form as the SPR allows certain microbial

fermentation during it’s procurement stage and thus allowing better utilization of

minerals.

The results pertaining to cost effectiveness of SPR inclusion in layer diets

indicated that the inclusion of SPR at either level (5 or 10% ) is not economical.

Although the inclusion of SPR reduced the cost of the diets, the net returns per bird

was poorer in SPR diets when compared to the control groups. Hence, by taking into

account of the parameters of economic importance, it can be inferred that the

inclusion of SPR as feed ingredient in layer diets at 5% level or above is not

practically feasible.

Contrary to the earlier reports (Budeppa, 2004; Suma, 2005) and expectations,

it is inferred that carcass characteristics of broiler birds can be maintained when SPR

is included up to 10% in their diets, but not the growth performance traits even at 5%

SPR inclusion. Similarly, the egg quality traits of laying hens can be sustainable with

inclusion of SPR even up to 10 per cent in the layer diets. Thus, the usefulness of SPR

as a feed ingredient in poultry diets is feasible only when the nutritional responses are

looked beyond the usual criteria of body weight gain in broilers and egg production in

layers as they tended to get negatively affected by SPR inclusion. The

supplementation of combination of biotechnological agents namely lipid utilizing

agents (lipase and lecithin) and NSP degrading enzymes shown occasional beneficial

effect in improving performance of broilers and layers.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A comprehensive attempt was made to assess the possibility / feasibility of

inclusion of sugarcane press residue (SPR) at different levels in poultry diets. A

detailed chemical evaluation of SPR comprising proximate principles, fiber fractions,

mineral constituents, amino acid composition and fatty acid profile was performed

followed by a series of biological trials in broilers and layers to determine nutritional

worth and safe/economic inclusion level of sun-dried SPR. Two metabolism trials

(one each in broilers and layers) were performed to arrive at the metabolizable energy

of SPR and using such values, the performance trials of independent nature, one in

broilers to asses the growth performance and carcass characteristic of young growing

birds and another in layers to asses the production performance and egg

characteristics of post-peak laying hens, both fed diets containing SPR at different

levels were conducted. All the experiments were conducted at the Dept. of Animal

Nutrition, Veterinary College, KVAFSU, Hebbal, Bangalore.

The results of the said experiments are summarized below:

A. Chemical evaluation

1. The crude protein, crude fiber, ether extract and nitrogen free extractives of

sun-dried SPR samples from different sugar factories ranged from 9.18 to

14.11, 3.60 to 12.24, 4.64 to 9.98 and 38.57 to 54.84 per cent, respectively and

the gross energy from 3719 to 4310 kcal/kg. The neutral detergent fiber, acid

detergent fiber and AD-lignin of sun-dried SPR samples ranged from 47.37 to

59.42, 20.92 to 33.70 and 5.93 to 17.78 per cent, respectively.

2. The mineral profile of SPR samples was: Calcium-3.87, total phosphorus –

1.10, magnesium – 0.95 per cent, copper – 61.5, zinc – 112.6, iron – 3500,

manganese – 284.3 and cobalt – 5.0 ppm.

3. The average essential amino acids (% of CP) of selected dried SPR was:

methionine – 2.21, cysteine – 1.05, lysine – 4.56, threonine – 5.48, arginine –

4.10, isoleucine – 4.77, leucine – 8.72, valine – 6.27, histidine – 2.44, and

phenylalanine- 4.90.

4. The fatty acid profile of ether extract component of SPR reveled that it a rich

source of linoleic acid (4.541%).

The chemical analysis indicated that SPR is a valuable source of both

organic nutrients and inorganic nutrients and comparable to that of cereal by-

products.

B. Metabolism trial in broilers

5. A total of sixteen diets were prepared by replacing basal mixture (T1) with

sun-dried SPR at 10 (T5), 20 (T9) and 30% (T13) levels and each such diet was

further supplemented with either lipid utilizing agents (T2, T6, T10 and T14) or

NSP degrading enzymes (T3, T7, T11 and T15) or their combination (T4, T8, T12

and T16, respectively). Each diet was offered to duplicate groups of 10 chicks

each for a period of 14 days (7 to 21 day of age) which included terminal 3

days collection period.

6. The metabolizability coefficient of dry matter, organic matter, ether extract

and crude fiber of experimental diets ranged significantly (p<0.01) from 58.67

(T14) to 71.29 (T2), 61.61 (T16) to 74.65 (T2), 53.04 (T14) to 66.75 per cent

(T2) and from 45.55 (T7) to 54.50 (T1), respectively.

7. The ME content of experimental diets were between 2680 (T16) and 3303

kcal/kg (T4) with the gross energy metabolizability coefficient ranged

significantly (p<0.01) from 68.90 (T10) to 78.11 per cent (T3) among different

treatments.

8. The average ileal nitrogen absorbability of birds differed significantly

(p<0.01) among different treatments and the values varied from as low as

69.14 (T16) to as high as 91.45 per cent (T4).

9. The metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of test ingredient (SPR)

arrived by applying simultaneous equations were: dry matter - 11.81 to 39.19,

organic matter - 15.43 to 40.11, crude fiber-15.42 to 53.45 and ether extract-(-

)2.37 to 44.27 per cent. The absorbability of SPR nitrogen in the ileum varied

between a negative value of (-) 8.68 to 82.95 per cent.

10. The gross energy metabolizability of SPR among different treatments was

statistically similar (p>0.05) with the values ranging from 35.53 to 56.68 per

cent and the absolute ME values ranged between 683.2 and 1626.6 kcal/kg.

The ME of SPR at 10, 20 and 30% inclusion level were 1035.7, 842.3 and

1437.9 kcal/kg, respectively. No improvement in ME value of SPR upon

supplementation of biotechnological products was observed.

C. Metabolism trial in layers

11. In total, sixteen diets were prepared by replacing basal mixture (T1 to T4) with

sun-dried SPR at 10 (T5 to T8), 20 (T9 to T12) and 30% (T13 to T16) fortified

without supplement or with lipid utilizing agents or NSP degrading enzymes

or both in that order. Each diet was offered to triplicate groups of 3 laying

hens (45 week old) for a period of 14 days which included terminal 3 days

collection period.

12. The metabolizability of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, ether extract,

crude fiber and NFE of experimental diets ranged significantly (p<0.01 or

p<0.05) from 55.52 (T14) to 69.79 (T2), 60.22 (T14) to 74.53 (T2), 59.40 (T13)

to 84.43 (T2), 41.78 (T12) to 64.91 (T2), 8.02 (T12) to 26.76 (T13) and from

70.64 (T14) to 83.38 (T4) per cent, respectively. In general, a decreased

metabolizability coefficient values with the incremental level of SPR was

noticed.

13. The gross energy metabolizability of experimental diets ranged significantly

(p<0.01) from 62.40 (T14) to 75.07 per cent (T2) with the ME content between

2243 (T14) and 2883 kcal/kg (T4).

14. Employing simultaneous equations, the metabolizability coefficient of dry

matter, organic matter, crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber and NFE of

SPR were found to be ranged from 4.36 to 34.03, 13.05 to 41.89, -36.92 to

80.34, -42.96 to 29.07 and -30.90 to 60.66 per cent, respectively. The

metabolizability value for gross energy of SPR was ranged from 41.72 to

62.39 per cent. The ME of SPR was found to be between 780 and 1133

kcal/kg. The significant differences observed only for crude protein (p<0.05)

and NFE metabolizability values (p<0.01).

15. The average dry matter metabolizability of SPR was 21.67, 18.46 and 29.63

per cent at 10, 20 and 30% inclusion level, respectively. The corresponding

values for organic matter: 30.21, 23.56 and 37.14 per cent, crude protein:

60.35, 24.71 and 33.31 per cent, ether extract: 1.21, -17.18 and 8.58 per cent,

crude fiber: 53.09, 48.97 and 54.24 per cent, gross energy: 42.92, 40.30 and

38.93 per cent, respectively. The corresponding absolute ME content was 845,

937 and 1031 kcal/kg. The differences were found to be statistically similar

(p>0.05) excepting for NFE (p<0.05).

16. The fortification of diets with biotechnological agents on nutrient

metabolizability of SPR was found to be statistically (p>0.05) not beneficial.

However, numerically better values were obtained in diets supplemented with

NSP degrading enzymes.

C. Performance trial in broilers

17. By making use of the ME value of SPR obtained from metabolism trial

involving broilers, test diets were prepared by incorporating sun-dried SPR at

5 and 10 per cent SPR replacing the relevant organic nutrients as well as

mineral sources of the control. The diets containing 0 (control; T1), 5 (T5) and

10% SPR (T9) were supplemented with lipid utilizing agents (T2, T6 and T10)

or NSP degrading enzymes (T3, T7 and T11) or their combination (T4, T8 and

T12, respectively) to result in a set of 12 iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric diets.

Each such diet was prepared for starter (0-14 days), grower (15-28 days) and

finisher (29-42days) and phases were offered to triplicate groups of 10 chicks

each.

18. The cumulative average body weight gains (1737.7-T11 2081.1 g/bird-T2), and

feed consumption (3317.6-T12 to 3678.0 g/bird-T2) varied significantly

(p<0.01) among different treatments during 42 days experimental period. The

main factor SPR showed significant (p<0.01) differences in cumulative body

weight gain (1999.7, 1924.1 and 1803.8 g/bird for 0, 5 and 10% SPR included

diets, respectively) and feed consumption while no such variation was

observed with regard to the main factor biotechnological tool. The cumulative

average FCR (kg feed/kg weight gain) was non-significantly (p>0.05) better in

T4 (1.753) and poorer in T11 (1.977) and the values remained non-significant

(p>0.05) for the main factors, SPR (1.771, 1.837 and 1.908 for 0, 5 and 10 %

SPR based diets, respectively) and biotechnological tool. The livability of

birds under different treatments and main factors were statistically (P>0.05)

similar.

19. The variations in dry matter, organic matter, crude protein and ether extract

metabolizability coefficient values of experimental diets were significantly

(p<0.01) different among different treatments and as with the case of retention

of calcium and phosphorus. Similarly, significant (p<0.01) variation among

various nutrients metabolizability and mineral retention was observed for the

main factors, SPR and biotechnological tool with no definitive trend.

20. At the termination of the experiment (42nd day), no significant (p>0.05)

differences in dressing percentage (75.58-T11 to 79.61-T7), meat to bone ratio,

abdominal fat (15.20 -T12 to 36.00 g/bird-T4 or 1.54-T12 to 2.41 % of live

weight -T4), relative weights of giblet organs (liver, heart and gizzard),

proventriculus, lymphoid organs (spleen) excepting bursa (p<0.01) among

different treatments. The main factor SPR showed significant (p<0.01)

differences only in abdominal fat (27.79, 22.60 and 19.13 g/bird or 1.81, 1.47

and 1.33% in 0, 5 and 10% SPR based groups) and biotechnological tool in

relative weight of spleen. The relative length of different segments of small

intestine viz., duodenum, jejunum and ileum of birds under different

treatments were also statistically (p>0.05) similar.

21. The toe ash of birds was found to be statistically different (p<0.05) among

different treatments and main factors (SPR inclusion and biotechnological

tools) while the tibial ash contents remained statistically similar (p>0.05)

among different treatments and main factors. The tibial calcium and

phosphorus contents were statistically similar (p>0.05) among different

treatments. The main factor biotechnological tool showed significant

differences (p<0.05) (35.95, 38.45, 42.86 and 37.61 % for no supplement,

lipid utilizing agents, NSP degrading enzymes and their combination,

respectively), but not for the phosphorus content of tibia.

22. The profile of serum calcium and inorganic phosphorous in birds under

different groups were comparable to each other at 21st and 42nd day of

experiment and the values were well with in the physiological range.

23. In all the cases (starter, grower and finisher diets), the cost of the SPR

incorporated diets were lower than corresponding control diets. The

differences in net returns and performance indices were non-significant

among different treatments. Considering the main factor SPR, the relative net

profit values differed significantly (p<0.01) from as low as Rs. 7.77 in 10%

SPR based diets to as high as Rs. 11.12 in diets devoid of SPR (control).

However, non significant (p>0.05) differences were observed with regard to

the main factor biotechnological tool.

D. Performance trial in layers

24. Using the ME value of SPR obtained from metabolism trial in layers, three

iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric experimental diets including calcium and

phosphorous were prepared by incorporating sun-dried SPR at 0 (T1), 5 (T4)

and 10 per cent (T9). Further, each diet was supplemented with lipid utilizing

agents (T2, T6 and T10) or NSP degrading enzymes (T3, T7 and T11) or their

combination (T4, T8 and T12, respectively) to result in another set of 8 diets.

Each such diet was offered to triplicate groups of 4 laying hens each. The

feeding trial was carried for 84 days, which was divided into three periods of

28-days each.

25. The cumulative average egg production (76.03-T8 to 84.50 per cent-T4), feed

consumption (117.9-T2 to 115.0 g/hen/day-T12) and feed efficiency (1.664-T4

to 1.844 kg feed /kg dozen egg-T8) showed significant (p<0.01) differences

among different treatments. As per the main factor wise, the values were also

found to be significant for both SPR (p<0.01) and biotechnological tool

(p<0.05) excepting feed consumption. The cumulative body weight changes (a

loss of 35.3 g/bird in T7 to a gain of 119.4g/bird in T9) were statistically

similar (p>0.05) among different treatments and no significant (p>0.05)

effects was noticed due to main factors.

26. The treatment wise average egg weight values ranged significantly (p<0.01)

from 58.12 (T1) to 59.89 g (T11) on cumulative basis. Such a differences were

also observed for the main factor SPR in which 5 per cent SPR incorporated

diets showed higher egg weights (59.32g) when compared to 10 per cent SPR

(59.05g) and control (58.62 g). The cumulative average egg weight values

were 59.2 and 59.4 g in diets supplemented with lipid utilizing agents and

NSP degrading enzymes as against 58.8 and 58.7 g in diets with no

supplement and both lipid utilizing agents and NSP degrading enzymes,

respectively.

27. The egg quality characteristics such as Egg Shape Index (ESI) (75.64-T10 to

79.87-T9), albumen index (4.36-T9 and T3 to 4.71-T7), Haugh unit scores

(HUS) (57.01-T8 to 60.20-T7), yolk index (32.82-T7 to 33.80-T2) and yolk

colour was found to be statistically similar (p>0.05) among different

treatments at different stages of experiment. However, the influence of

different treatment diets on egg shell thickness was significant (P<0.01) on

28th and 56th day of trial. No significant differences could surface at different

levels of SPR and between combinations of biotechnological tools excepting

for shell thickness and yolk colour.

28. The efficiencies of protein (26.52-T8 to 29.13 per cent-T11) and energy

utilization (25.55-T9 to 28.04-T11) among different treatments were highly

significant (p<0.01) during all the periods as well as on cumulative basis. As

regards the main factors, both the SPR and biotechnological tool showed

significant (p<0.01) differences in protein and energy utilization efficiency on

cumulative basis.

29. The metabolizability coefficient of dry matter ranged non-significantly

(p>0.05) from 68.19 (T9) to 72.54 (T8) and that of organic matter varied highly

significantly (p<0.01) from 67.97 (T11) to 72.38 (T1) among different

treatments. The metabolizability of dry matter (68.94 to 70.77%) was

statistically similar (p>0.05) and that of organic matter was highly significant

(p<0.01) for the main factor SPR.

30. The calcium (4.04-T12 to 4.38g/h/d-T10 or 75.25-T9 to 78.06%-T8) and The

phosphorus retention (0.62-T9 and T10 to 0.72g/h/d -T3 and T4) of birds showed

non-significant (p>0.05) differences among different dietary treatments and

the values ranged from. The values were also found to be statistically similar

(p>0.05) when arranged as per the main factors, SPR and biotechnological

tool excepting the P retention showing significantly (p<0.01) lower in 10%

SPR incorporated diets (0.64g) when compared to that of control (0.69 g).

31. The serum calcium values of birds ranged from 17.30 (T5) to 18.13 (T3) mg/dl

on 28th day; from 18.53 (T7) to 19.20 (T9) mg/dl on 56th day and from 18.73

(T12) to 19.20 (T2, T3 and T11) mg/dl on 84th day. The serum inorganic

phosphorus of birds at 28th day, 56th day and 84th days of the experimental

period ranged from 6.20 (T6) to 7.17 (T10); from 7.70 (T2 and T3) to 8.47

(T11), 8.63 (T2 and T10) to 8.90 (T3) mg/dl, respectively and no significant

(p>0.05) difference were evident during all the intervals except at 56th day.

32. The cost of control diet (T1) was Rs. 7.13/kg which got reduced to Rs. 6.88/kg

as the SPR level increased to 10 per cent (T9), which was partly due to the

progressive decreasing cost of mineral salts at the expense of SPR as mineral

source. The cumulative net returns ranged significantly (p<0.01) from 8.23

(T8) to 12.12 (T5) among different treatments. The values were significantly

(p>0.05) affected by both the main factors, SPR (from Rs. 11.39 in control

diets to 10.27 in 10% SPR diets) and biotechnological tool (lower lipid

utilizing agents supplemented group when compared to those from control or

NSP degrading enzyme fortified diets).

CONCLUSION

Sugarcane press residue (SPR), a by-product of sugar industry is a potential

source due to availability and unique nutrient composition. Though the chemical

analysis of SPR reflects it as a good source of both organic and inorganic nutrients,

yet the biological experiments revealed that the nutritive value of SPR is poor.

To conclude, the possibility of inclusion of SPR as an unconventional feed

resource in diets for non-ruminants particularly in poultry diets beyond 5% level, the

minimum level that was tested appears to be remote. If the nutritional responses are

looked beyond the usual criteria of weight gain in broilers and egg production in

layers to parameters such as birds’ optimal health and consumers’ preference for lean

meat, SPR appears to be a optional ingredient in poultry rations. However, since

limited reports available on the utilization of SPR in both broilers and layers, it is

rather inferred that some more research is required to confirm the present findings.

VI. REFERENCES Al-Marzooqui, W. and S. Leeson, 2000. Effect of dietary lipase enzyme on gut

morphology, gastric motility, and long term performance of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci., 79: 956-960.

Ammerman, C.B., P.R. Henry and R.D. Miles, 1998. Supplemental organically

bound mineral compounds in livestock nutrition. In: Garnsworthy, P.C. and J. Wiseman (Eds) Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, Nottingham, Nottingham University Press, pp 67-91.

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical

Chemists. 18th Ed., Washington, D.C. Attech, J.O. and S. Leeson, 1985. Response of laying hens to dietary saturated

and unsaturated fatty acids in the presence of varying dietary calcium levels. Poult. Sci., 64: 520-528.

Augur, H.S., H.S. Rollman and H.J. Deuel, 1974. The effect of crude lecithin on

the coefficient of digestibility and the rate of absorption of fat. J. Nutr., 33: 177-186.

Babu, A.M.P. and G. Devegwoda, 1997. Effect of fiber degrading enzymes in

diet on performance of broilers. Indain J. Poult. Sci., 32(3): 207-211. Basavaraja Reddy, A.I., 1984. Prediction of metabolizable energy based on dry

matter metabolizability. MVSc Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

Bedford, M.R. and J.D. Summers, 1985. Influence of ratio of essential to non-

essential amino acids on the performance and carcass composition of the broiler chick. Br. Poult. Sci., 26: 483-491.

Benzamin, M.M. 1985. Outlines of Veterinary Clinical Pathology. III Edn.,

Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi – Ludhiana. Bhatia, I.S. 1969. Evaluation of feedstuffs available in India for protein quality

and energy value. Final report (1964-1969), PAU, Ludhiana. BIS, 1992. Bureau of Indian Standards, Poultry Feed Specifications, 4th Review,

Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.

Boorman, K.N. and G.M. Ellis, 1996. Maximum nutritional response to poor-quality protein and amino acid utilization. Br. Poult. Sci., 37: 145-156

Budeppa, H.B., 2004. Sugarcane Pressmud as a source of minerals for broilers.

M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to U.A.S., Bangalore. Calneck, B.W., H.J. Barnes, C.W. Beard, W.M. Reid and H.W. Yoder. 1992.

Diseases of Poultry. 9th Edn. Wolf Publishing Ltd., USA. Chadha, R.C., 2005. Indian feed industry scenario vis-à-vis World. In: Proc.

XXIII Indian Poult. Sci. Assoc. Conf. held on 2-4 February, 2005, Hyderabad. Pp92-109

Chaturvedi, V.B. and K.S. Singh, 2000. Intake and digestibility of nutrients in

chickens fed diets based on rice bran. Indian J. Poult. Sci., 35(3): 318-321. Chennegowda, H.K., C.V. Gowda and G. Devegowda, 2001. Efficacy of

enzyme mixture to improve performance of broilers fed sunflower extraction rich diets. Indian J. Poult. Sci., 36(3):256-259.

Choct, M. 1999. Soluble non-starch polysaccharides affect net utilization of

energy by chickens. In: Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition in Australia. 12: 211.

Choct, M., R. J. Hughes, R.P. Tremble, K. Angkanaporn and G. Annison. 1995.

Non-starch polysaccharide degrading enzymes increase the performance of broiler chickens fed wheat of low apparent metabolizable energy. J. Nutri., 125 (3): 485-492.

Dale, N.M., G.M. Pesti and S.R. Rogers, 1990. True metabolizable energy of

dried bakery product. Poult. Sci., 69: 72. de Koning, W. and C. Van der Wel, 1996. Effect of inclusion of vegetable

protein enzyme in broiler starter diets. In: Proc. World’s Poult. Sci. Conf., 3-5 September 1996. New Delhi, India Vol IV, p250.

Deaton, J.W., J.L. McNaughton and D. Burdiuk, 1979. High fiber sunflower

meal as replacement for soybean meal in layer diets. Br. Poult. Sci., 20: 159-132

Degussa Corporation, 2001. Amino Dat 2.0 Interactive software. Degussa AG. Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany.

Degussa Huls A.G. 2006. Feed Additives Division., Applied Technology. D-63403 Hanau, Germany.

Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics. 11: 1-42. Edward, A.G and R.G. Campbell, 1991. Energy-protein interactions in pigs:

Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition-1991 pp-3-19 (Oxfard, Butterworth-Heineinan).

Fenton, T.W. and M. Fenton, 1979. An improved procedure for the

determination of chronic oxide in feed and faeces. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59: 631-634.

Ferguson, N.S., R.S. Gates,, J.L. Taraba, A.H. Cantor, A.J. Pescatore, M.J. Ford

and Burnhams, 1998. The effect of dietary crude protein on growth, ammonia concentration and litter composition of broilers. Poult. Sci., 77: 1481-1487.

Francesh, M., A.M. Perezvedrell, E. EsteveGracia and J. Brufau, 1995. J. Appl.

Poult. Res., 4(1):32-40. Green, S. 1987. Digestibility of Amino Acids in Feedstuffs for Poultry and Pig’

Digestibility Report 8/87, A.E.C. Rhone-Poulenc, Commentry, France, pp-34.

Gupta, B.K. and A.K. Ahuja. 1998. Use of sugarcane press mud as cattle feed.

Feed trends, 15(2): 6. Han, I.K., H.W. Hochstiter and M.L Scot, 1976. Metabolizable energy values of

some poultry feeds determined by various methods and their estimation using metabolizability of the dry matter. Poult. Sci., 55: 1335-1342.

Han, Y., H.Suzuki, C.M. Parsons and D.H. Baker, 1992. Amino acid

fortification of low protein corn and soybean meal diets for chicks. Poult. Sci., 71: 1168-1178.

Hartel, H., R. Schneider, Seibold and H.J. Lantzsch, 1977. Belgichungon

zwischen der M. Komigeierten unsetabaren energic and day Nahrstaff gehaltin des furthers brim huch. Arch. Geflugelk 41: 52-81.C.F. Poult. Sci., 59:808-811, 1980.

Haugh, R.R., 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. U.S. Poult. Mg., 43: 552. cited by Eisen et al., 1992. Poult. Sci., 41: 1461.

Hill, F.W. and D.A. Anderson, 1958. Comparison of ME and productive

energy determinations with chicks. J. Nutr., 64: 587-603. Hughes, R.J. and M. Choct, 1999. Chemical and physical characteristics of

grains that are related to variability in energy and amino acid availability in poultry. Austr. J. Agri. Res., 50: 689-701.

Hughes, R.J., M. Choct and van Barnevld, 2001. Factors affecting energy

values of Australian cereal grains fed to broilers. Australian Poultry Science Symposium. 13: 30-38.

Hunsigi, G. 2001. Sugarcane in Agriculture and Industry. Prism Books Pvt. Ltd.,

Bangalore-70. ICIDCA. 1988. Hand Book of Sugar Cane Derivatives. A publication of Cuban

Research Institute of Sugar Cane Derivatives (ICIDCA)-GEPLACEA-UNDP. pp 43-44.

ICMR, 1995. Nutrient requirements and recommended dietary allowances for

Indians. New Delhi P: 14-21. Jaishakar, N. 2006. Influence of lysine producing probiotics vis-à-vis type of

protein source on performance of broilers. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to K.V.A.F.S.U., Bidar.

Janssen, W.M. and B. Carre. 1989. Influence of fiber on the digestibility of

poultry feeds. Pages 78-96 in Recent advances in Poultry Nutrition. Ed: D. Cole, Butterworths, London.

Janssen, W.M., A.K. Terpstra, F.E.E. Beeking and A.N.J. Bisalsky, 1979.

Feeding value for poultry. 2nd edn. Beekelbergen, Netherlands. Jayanaik. 1989. Nutritive value of silk worm (Bombyx mori. L.) excreta in

broiler breeders. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to U.A.S., Bangalore. Jayanna, H.S. and G. Devegowda. 1993. Proc. Karnataka Vet. Assoc. Scientific

meet. 13-14th March, 1993 Jin, S., A. Coreless, J.L. Sell and S.H. Jin. 1998. Digestive system development

in post-hatch poultry. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 54: 335-345.

Jones, D.B., J.D. Hancock, D.I. Harmon and C.E. Walker. 1992. Effect of

exogenous emulcifiers and fat sources on nutrient digestibility, serum lipids, and growth performance in weaning pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 3473-3482.

Keshavarz, K and S. Nakajima. 1993. Reevaluation of calcium and phosphorus

requirements of laying hens for optimum performance and egg shell quality. Poult. Sci., 72: 144-153

Ketels, E. and G. DeGroote, 1987. Effect of fat source and level of aft inclusion

on the utilization of fatty acids in broiler diets. Arch. Gefluegelkd, 51: 127.

Ketels, E., G. Huyghebaert and DeGroote, 1986. The nutritional value of

commercial fat blends in broiler diets. 2. effect of incorporation level on the fatty acid utilization. Arch. Gefluegelkd, 51: 59.

Korgdhal, A. and J.L. Sell. 1989. Influence of age on lipase, amylase, and

protease activities in pancreatic tissue and intestinal contents of young turkeys. Poult. Sci., 68:1561-1568.

Kumar, P.V., R. Ravi, M. Purushothaman and B. Mohan. 2007. Performance of

broilers fed graded levels of mango (Mangifera indica) seed kernel during finisher phase. Anim. Nutr. Feed Tech., 7: 21-28.

Leeson, S. and J.D. Summers, 2001, Nutrition of the Chicken. 4th Edn.,

University Books, Canada, NIH6N8, Publications. Leeson, S. and J.D. Summers, 2002, Commercial Poultry Nutrition.

International Book Distributing Co., Lucknow. Leeson, S. and J.O. Attech. 1995. Utilization of fats and fatty acids by turkey

poult. Poult. Sci., 74: 2003-2010 Lesson, S., L.J. Caston and J. D. Summers, 1996. Broiler response to diet

energy. Poult. Sci., 75: 529-535. Lessire, M., B. Leclercq and L. Conana, 1982. Metabolizable energy value of

fats in chicks and adult cockerels. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 7: 365-374

Li, S., W.C. Sauer and M.Z. Fan, 1993. The effect of dietary crude protein level on amino acid digestibility in early weaned pigs. J. Anim. Physio. Anim. Nutr., 70: 26-37.

Lindenmaier, P. and M.R. Kare, 1959. The taste end-organs of the chicken.

Poult. Sci., 38: 545-550 Lodhi, G.N., Daulat Singh and J. S. Ichhponani., 1976. Variation in nutrient

content of feeding stuff rich in protein and reassement of the chemical method for metabolizable energy estimation for poultry. J. Agric. Sci., Com. 8: 293

Longstaff, M and J.M. McNab. 1991. The inhibitory effect of hull

polysaccharides and tannins of filed beans on the digestion of amino acid, starch and lipid and on digestive enzyme activities in young chickens. Br. J. Nutr., 65: 119-126.

Mahapatra, S.C., 2005. Poultry production in India in the changed global

scenario: Opportunities and challenges. In: Proc. XXIII Indian Poult. Sci. Assoc. Conf. held on 2-4 February, 2005, Hyderabad. Pp3-11

Mandal, A.B., P.K. Tyagi and A.K. Shrivatsav. 2006. Research Priorities in

Poultry Nutrition and Feed Technology to 2020. In: Research Priorities to 2020. pp-97-112

Mangle, N.S., A.G. Khan, M.A. Quadri and I.C. Dutta. 1979. Association of

certain inorganic elements in blood plasma with production traits in the WLH pullets. Indian J. Poult. Sci., 14: 165-168.

Martz, F.R., R.V. Boucher and M.G. McCartney. 1957. The influence of dietary

productive energy and fiber on growth response in chickens. Poult. Sci., 36: 1217-1220.

Mateos, G.G. and J.L Sell, 1981. Nature of the extrametabolic effect of

supplemental fat used in semi-purified diets for laying hen. Poult. Sci., 60:1925.

Mateos, G.G., J.L. Sell and J.A. Eastwood. 1982. Rate of food passage (transit

time) as influenced by level of supplemental fat. Poult. Sci., 61: 94. Mayer, J.H. and W.H. Garret. 1969. Techniques and procedure in animal

science research. American Society of Animal Science. C/o Corporation 49, Sheridan Avenue, Albany. N.Y. 12210.

McDonald, P., R.A. Edwards, J.F.D. Greenhalgh and C.A. Morgan, 2002,

Animal Nutrition. 6th Edn., Pears Education (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. Publishing.

Mendelkar, S.M., 1992. Influence of dietary protein and amino acid

supplementation on the laying performance of egg type chickens. Poultry Advisor. 25 (10):33-38.

Meng, X., B.A. Slominski and W. Guenter. 2004. The effect of fat type,

carbohydrase, and lipase addition on growth performance and nutrient utilization of young broilers fed wheat-based diets. Poult. Sci., 83: 1718-1727.

Mohandas and G. Devegowda. 1993. Proc. Karnataka Vet. Assoc., Scientific

meet. 13-14th March, 1993. Moran, E.T. 1985. Digestion and absorption of carbohydrates in fowl and

events through perinatal development. J. Nutr., 115: 665. Morris, T.R. 1968. The dietary energy level on the voluntary caloric intake of

laying birds. Br. Poult. Sci., 9: 2519. Nagaraju, R. 2006. Prospects of humic acid based product in broiler rations.

M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to K.V.A.F.S.U., Bidar. Narayana Swamy, T., 1986. Nutritive value of silkworm (Bombyx mori L.)

excreta in broilers. MSc thesis, University of Agricultural Science., Bangalore.

Nir, I. and I. Ptichi. 2001. Feed particle size and hardness: Influence on

performance, nutritional, behavioral and metabolic aspects. In: Advances in Nutritional Technology-2001 (Eds. A.F.B. van der Poel, J.L. Vahl and R.P. Kwakkel). Wagningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Nir, I., G. Shefet and Y. Aroni.1994. Effect of particle size on the performance

1. Corn. Poult. Sci., 73: 45-49. Nir, I., J.P. Melcion and M. Picard. 1990. Effect of particle size of the sorghum

grains on feed intake and performance of young broilers. Poult. Sci., 73:2177-2184.

Nir, I., R. Hillel, G. Shefet and Z. Nitsan.1994. Effect of particle size on the performance 1. Grain texture interaction. Poult. Sci., 73: 781-791

Nir, I., R. Hillel, I. Ptichi and G. Shefet.1995. Effect of particle size on the

performance 1. Grinding pelleting interaction. Poult. Sci., 74: 771-783 Noy, Y. and D. Sklan. 1995. Digestion and absorption on young chick. Poult.

Sci., 74: 366-373. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Nutrient Requirement of Poultry, 9th

Revised Edition., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Ogunmodde, K.T. and B. Oguntela. 1971. Utilization of palm, groundnut and

melson seed oils by pullets. Br. Poult. Sci., 12:187. Ostterhout, L.E. 1980. Poult. Sci., 59: 1480-1484. Pal, R.S. and K.S. Singh. 1998. Effect of soybean husk in the wheat soybean

diets on eh voluntary feed intake and digestibility of nutrients in growing chickens. Indain J. Poult. Sci., 33(1): 92-96.

Parsons, C.M., 1985. Influence of caecectomy on digestibility of amino acids by

roosters fed distillers’ dried grains with soluble. J. Agri. Sci. Comb. 104: 469-472.

Parish, D.H., 1962. Ann. Rep. Mauritius Sugar Ind. Res. Inst., pp105-110. Pathak, N.N., D.N. Kamra and N. Agarwal. 1996. Analytical Techniques in

Animal Nutrition Research. International Book Distributing Co., Lucknow.

Perney, K.A., A.H.Canton, M.L.Straw and K.L.Herkelman, 1993. The effect of

dietary phytase on growth performance and phosphorus utilization of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 72: 2106-2114.

Poddar, K and S. Biswas. 1991. Metabolizable energy value of two rice bran

samples differing in proximate composition. Indian J. of Poult. Sci., 26(2): 84-88.

Polin, D. and T.H. Hussein, 1982. The effect of bile acids on lipid and nitrogen

retention, carcass composition, and dietary metabolizable energy in very young chicks. Poult. Sci., 61: 1697-1707.

Polin, D., T.L. Wing, P.Ki and K.E. Pell. 1980. The effect of bile acids and lipase on absorption of tallow in young chicks. Poult. Sci., 59: 2738-2743.

Ponnuvel, P., A. Jalaludeen and A. Ramakrishnan. 2001. Influence of cellulase

enzyme supplementation in high fiber diet on the production performance of layer chicken. Indian J. Poult. Sci., 36:93-95.

Portella, F.J., L.J. Caston and S. Leeson. 1988. Apparent feed particle size

preference by broilers. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 68: 923-930. Potter, L.M. 1988. Bioavailability of phosphorus from various phosphates

based on body weight and toe ash measurements. Poult. Sci., 67:96-102. Prasad, N.V.K.S. and S.J. Reddy. 1990. Hatchery by-product meal as protein

supplement for laying chicken. Indain J. Poult. Sci., 25(2): 88-92. Rajeshwara Rao, N. and G. Devegowda. 1996. Study on dietary

supplementation of enzymes on broiler performance. In: Proc. XX World’s Poult. Conf., New Delhi, 218pp

Ranjhan, S.K. 2001. Animal Nutrition and Feeding Practices. 6th Revised Edn.,

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Rama Rao, S.V., M.V.L.N. Raju, A.K. Panda, G. S. Sunder and R.P. Shrama.

2006. Effect of supplementing NSP hydrolyzing enzymes on the performance of broiler chickens. Indian J. Anim. Nutri., 23(1): 41-46.

Ravindran, V. 1995. Evaluation of a layer diet formulated from non-

conventional feeding stuffs. Br. Poult. Sci., 36(1):165-170. Ravindran, V., L.I. Hew and W.L. Bryden. 1998. Influence of gunanidination

on apparent ileal amino acid digestibility as some proteins sources for broilers. Poult. Sci., 77: 873-877.

Reddy, B. S.V., 1979. Feeding value of forages in poultry. PhD thesis, Punjab

Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Reddy, B.S.V., 2005. Personnel Communication. Reddy, B.S.V., Suresh, B.N., Jagadish, B., Singh, K.C. and M.M. Kailas (2004).

Sugarcane pressmud as a non-conventional source of minerals for livestock. Proc. of V Biennial Conf. of Animal Nutrition Association

held at National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore, 24-26 November 2004, Abstr. No.216, pp151.

Reddy, D.V. 2006. Emerging role of nutraceuticals in animal nutrition

research: some thoughts. In: Proc. of VI Biennial Conf. of Anim. Nutr. Assoc. Sep 15-17, Jammu, India, 84 pp

Reece, E.N. B.D. Lott and J.W. Deaton. 1985. The effect of feed form, grinding

method, energy level, and gender on broiler performance in moderate (210C) environment. Poult. Sci., 64: 1834-1839.

Renner, R. and F.W. Hill. 1961. Utilization of fatty acids by chicken. J. Nutr.,

74: 259-269. Robertson, K.D. and H.M. Edwards. 1994. Effect of 1, 25-Dihydroxy chole

calciferol and phytase on growth performance of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 73: 312-319.

Roche company, 1969, Roche yolk colour Fan no. 1155 printed in Switzerland, DF, Bornstein and Bartov, 1966.

Roumy, M. and L.M. Leitner. (1973). Activites afferntes provenant du bec

superieur de la poule domestique. Centre de Recherche de l’Academie des Sciences. Paris. Serie D 277. 1791-1794

Roush, W.B., J. Mylet, J.L. Rosenbeyer and J. Derr. 1986. Investigation of

calcium and availability phosphorus requirements of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 65: 964-970.

Savory, C.J. and M.J. Gentle. 1976a. Effect of dietary dilution with fiber on the

food intake and gut dimensions of Japanese quail. Br. J. Poult. Sci., 17: 561-570.

Savory, C.J. and M.J. Gentle. 1976b. Changes in food intake and gut size in

Japanese quail in response to manipulation of dietary fiber content. Br. J. Poult. Sci., 17: 571-583.

Saxena, M.J., A. Karla and M. Sharma. 2006. Feed fortification- Drivers for the

decade. In: Proc. of VI Biennial Conf. of Anim. Nutr. Assoc. Sep 15-17, Jammu, India, 89 pp.

Scheideler, S.E., D. Aroni and U. Puthpongsiriporn. 1998. Strain, fiber source,

and enzyme supplementation effects on pullet growth, nutrient

utilization, gut morphology, and subsequent layer performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 7: 69-74.

Sell, J.L., A. Kroddahl and N. Hanyu. 1986. Influence of age on utilization of

supplemental fats by young turkeys. Poult. Sci., 65: 546. Sell, J.L., J. A. Eastwood and G.G. Mateos. 1983. Influence of supplemental fat

on diet metabolizable energy and digesta transit time in laying hens. Nutr. Rep. Int., 28: 487.

Senkoylu, N. and N. Dale. 1999. Sunflower meal in poultry diets: a review.

World’s Poult. Sci. J., 55: 153-174. Serafin, J.A. and M.C. Nesheim, 1970. Influence of dietary heat labile factors in

soybean meal upon bile acid pools and turn over in the chick. J. Nutr., 100: 786-795.

Sharma, M. and B.S. Katoch. 1993. Indian J. Anim. Nutri., 10(4):247-250 Sibbald, I.R. 1977. The true metabolizable energy values of some feeding

stuffs. Poult. Sci. 68:668-673. Sibbald, I.R. and J.K.G. Karmer, 1978. The effect of the basal diet on the true

metabolizable energy value of fat. Poult. Sci., 57: 685-691. Sibbald, I.R. and S.J. Slinger, 1963. A biological assay for ME in poultry feed

ingredients together findings which demonstrate some of the problems associated with the evaluation of fats. Poultry Science 42: 313-325.

Sibbald, I.R., S.J. Slinger and G.C. Ashton. 1962. Factors affecting the

metabolizable energy content of poultry feeds 5. The level of protein and test materials in diets. Poult. Sci. 41: 107-116.

Singh, B.G. and S. Solomon. 1995. Alternative products form sugarcane:

Industrial and agricultural uses. In: Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Alternatives (Eds. Singh, B.G. and S. Solomon). Vijay Pimlani for Oxford and IBH Pub. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1989, Statistical Methods. 9th Edn., The

Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Southgate, D.A.T. 1973. Fiber and other unavailable carbohydrates and their

effects on the energy value of the diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32:131.

Staub, S. and A. Drane, 1965. Proc. 12th Cong. ISSCT, pp. 1865-1885. Suma, N., 2005. Effect of inclusion of sugarcane press residue in soy-based

and fish-based diets for layers. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to K.V.A.F.S.U., Bidar.

Suma, N., B.S.V. Reddy, R.G. Gloridoss, R. Rao, K.C. Singh, M.T. Rekha and

A. R. Gomes. 2007. Egg quality traits of layers influenced by supplementation of different levels of sugarcane press residue. Inter. J. Poult. Sci., 6(2):102-106.

Suresh, B.N. 2004. Preliminary study on utilization of sugarcane pressmud in

growing sheep. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to U.A.S., Bangalore. Suresh, B.N., B. S. V. Reddy, T.M. Prabhu, R.G. Gloridoss and B. Jagadish.

2006. Nutritional evaluation of sugarcane pressmud in lambs. Indian J. Anim. Nutri., 23(1): 47-49.

Swain, B.K., T.S. Joshi, A.K. Shrivastav and S. Majumdar, 1994. Indian J. Poult.

Sci., 29: 49. Swift, M.L., M.A.G. van Keyserlingk, A. Leslie and D. Teltge. 1996. The effect

of Allzyme Vegpro supplementation and expander processing on nutrient digestibility and growth of broilers. 12th Annual Symp. Biotech. in Feed Industry, Lexington, Kentucky, Supplement 1, enclosure code UL 2.1.

Talapatra, S.K., S.C. Roy and K.C. Sen. 1940. The analysis of mineral

constituents in biological materials. Part I: Estimation of phosphorus, chlorine, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium in feeding stuffs. Indian J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb.,10: 283-296.

Umashankar, B.C. 1998. Influence of different levels of ragi (Eleusine coracana)

grain varieties in layer diets on their performance. M.V.Sc. Thesis submitted to U.A.S., Bangalore.

Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber,

neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Symposium on Carbohydrate methodology, metabolism and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3563-3597.

Varnish, S.A. and K. J. Carpenter. 1975. Mechanisms of heat damage in protein. The digestibility of individual amino acids in heated prolonylated proteins. Br. J. Nutr., 34: 339-349.

Wiseman, J., F. Salvador and J. Craigon. 1991. Prediction of apparent

metabolizable energy content of fats fed to broiler chickens. Poult. Sci., 70: 1527-1532.

Yadav, D.V., 1995. Recent trends in the utilization of pressmud cake in Indian

agriculture. In: Sugarcane Agro-Industrial Alternatives. Eds. Singh, G.B. and Solomon, S. pp: 371-386.

Yi, Z., E.T. Kornegay, V. Ravindran and D.M. Denbow. 1996. Improving

phosphorus availability in corn and soybean meal for broilers using microbial phytase and calculations of phosphorus equivalency values for phytase. Poult. Sci., 75: 386-390.

Young, R.J. and R.L. Garrett. 1963. Effect of oleic and linolenic acid on the

absorption of saturated fatty acids in the chicken. J. Nutr., 81: 321-329. Zablan, T.A., M. Griffith, M.C. Neshein, R.J. Young and M.L. Scott. 1963. ME

of some oilmeals and some unusual feedstuffs. Poult. Sci., 43(3): 619-625.

Zang Sumin, Guokia, Zhang Boaging and Li Tongzhou. 1996. Poult. Abstr.

22(3):107. Zatari, I.M. and J.L. Sell. 1990. Effect of pelleting diets containing sunflower

meal on the performance of broiler chickens. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 30:121-129.

Zhang, Y. and C.M. Parsons, 1994. Effects of over processing on the

nutritional quality of sunflower meal. Poult. Sci., 73:436-442.

Appendix-1: Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to metabolism trail of broilers Mean Sum of Squares

Source of Variation df Metabolizable

Energy Dry matter Organic

matter Crude fiber Ether

extarct Gross

energy

Ileal Nitrogen

digestibility

Treatments 15 106441.113 ** 42.104 ** 44.356 ** 45.750 * 12.394 ** 23.817 ** 78.116 * Biotech Tool 3 5453.322 0.667 0.617 102.785 11.150 * 3.522 45.520 SPR 3 523072.386 ** 203.483 ** 215.983 ** 47.291 * 24.383 * 114.670 ** 250.958 **

Metabolisability of experimental

diets Error 16 4974.509 2.371 1.951 6.064 5.175 3.034 23.895

Treatments 11 194343.878 138.147 96.778 1176.590 ** 1300.476 ** 115.622 3018.154 Biotech Tool 3 166721.522 168.270 109.726 1888.934 ** 1098.078 ** 66.528 4374.526 SPR 2 738512.521 * 355.963 227.028 1646.806 * 4308.174 ** 509.722 ** 6387.349 *

Metabolisability of SPR

Error 12 117434.627 173.021 143.225 245.231 138.092 72.643 444.436 I Week II Week Cumulative

Treatments 15 27309.513 ** 98012.897 ** 246471.790 ** Biotech Tool 3 5480.819 ** 17055.663 ** 7507.969 SPR 3 128775.694 ** 466990.080 ** 1215763.846 **

Body weight gain

Error 304 834.944 3714.664 6041.841 I Week II Week Cumulative I Week II Week Cumulative

Treatments 15 172.041 ** 4424.070 ** 6147.903 ** 0.309 ** 0.158 ** 0.192 ** Biotech Tool 3 107.390 908.359 1297.365 0.100 0.138 0.106 SPR 3 509.002 ** 19811.325 ** 27100.498 ** 1.309 ** 0.559 ** 0.767 **

Feed Consumption

Error 16 42.655 641.197 759.418

Feed Conversion

Ratio 0.054 0.043 0.037

*Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-2: Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to metabolism trail of layers

Mean Sum of Squares

Source of variation df Dry matter

Organic matter

Crude protein

Ether extract

Crude fiber NFE

Gross energy ME

Treatments 15 68.4425 ** 64.8543 ** 147.8707 ** 166.5873 ** 99.6454 ** 41.7721 ** 147.8707 ** 135040.8452 ** Biotech Tool 3 0.1013 2.2103 95.5251 20.6905 ** 114.9255 11.4808 3.4829 10464.3296 SPR 3 329.0773 ** 305.9757 ** 469.3409 ** 751.2701 ** 190.0802 ** 176.1359 ** 258.1633 ** 662042.3528 **

Metabolisability of experimental

diets Error 32 6.4182 5.5255 29.6789 24.6129 41.0054 6.5897 5.9361 8044.3079

Dry matter Organic matter

Crude protein

Ether extract

Crude fiber NFE

Gross energy ME

Treatments 11 322.5627 264.9462 1573.5640 * 1573.5640 2151.6398 148.7703 ** 126.4219 38872.8254 Biotech Tool 3 606.6870 407.4054 3129.0146 * 3129.0146 1818.2980 160.3395 ** 312.8960 43395.4650 SPR 2 396.3936 553.4959 2111.6413 2111.6413 3289.7218 92.2921 ** 49.5259 104362.0585

Metabolisability of SPR

Error 24 217.0554 163.9291 1780.5288 1780.5288 1426.3581 403.0654 189.5293 255469.5135

Body weight change

Egg production

Feed consumption FCR

Egg weight

Treatments 15 8477.5255 ** 38.4572 ** 207.6011 ** 12.2069 * 0.2161 Biotech Tool 3 2250.0440 0.1566 46.4144 4.7720 0.0674 SPR 3 19280.8588 ** 182.0424 ** 933.6026 ** 35.6803 ** 0.8612 **

Production performance

Error 128 2202.4340 2.7615 74.8772 5.8021 0.1105 *Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-3: Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to performance trail of broilers

Mean sum of squares

Source of Variation df I wk II wk III wk IV wk V wk VI wk Starter Grower Finisher Cumulative

Treatments 11 415.14 * 6305.21 ** 5290.58 * 20710.23 ** 37264.66 ** 179085.22 ** 9079.01 ** 34521.22 ** 223181.09 ** 398824.51 ** Biotech Tool 3 263.83 1615.73 5898.39 46773.82 ** 34820.79 ** 377058.17 ** 2827.40 73413.37 ** 253466.83 ** 253466.83 ** SPR 2 609.94 * 27910.42 ** 1242.30 15609.93 ** 110933.59 ** 187899.04 ** 35733.58 ** 26594.80 539634.74 ** 539634.74 **

Body weight gain

Error 348 189.79 790.59 2579.58 4919.30 8281.74 24491.16 1199.69 10067.81 34840.19 34840.19

Treatments 11 6.01 ** 847.51 ** 943.39 ** 1702.55 4334.38 5753.44 1013.21 ** 4250.44 15919.49 35162.18 Biotech Tool 3 6.71 ** 82.83 176.50 1871.57 4489.32 5961.30 140.08 1871.29 18550.43 24477.96 SPR 2 16.60 ** 3905.87 ** 2862.32 ** 4122.11 7919.39 * 15899.96 4628.38 ** 12968.79 ** 40255.13 103005.84 *

Feed consumption

Error 24 0.25 104.90 225.26 1549.76 2156.96 5749.84 135.67 2239.91 13036.86 24576.57

Treatments 11 0.02383 0.01526 0.00623 0.02144 0.05588 0.60808 0.01492 ** 0.00732 0.09274 * 0.01522 Biotech Tool 3 0.01150 0.00837 0.00668 0.04899 0.06079 * 1.06195 0.00512 0.01844 0.07856 0.00893 SPR 2 0.02633 0.03102 * 0.01518 0.00338 0.14331 0.75321 0.02746 ** 0.00460 0.26068 ** 0.05597

Feed conversion

ratio Error 24 0.02255 0.00710 0.00652 0.02217 0.03575 0.36189 0.00272 0.00817 0.03749 0.01122

*Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-3: (Contd…) Mean sum of squares

Source of Variation df Dry matter

Organic matter

Ether extarct Crude protein

Treatments 11 11.03398 * 0.55361 ** 76.23650 ** 32.68185 *

Biotech Tool 3 5.92543 0.20405 173.14245 ** 43.94816

SPR 2 43.81025 ** 1.05072 ** 46.66016 62.33470 **

Metabolizability of various nutrients

Error 24 2.90794 0.13093 21.80568 6.82835 Ca-% Ca-g/day P-% P-g/day

Treatments 11 126.99037 ** 0.04183 ** 149.41626 ** 0.00843 **

Biotech Tool 3 171.40334 ** 0.01346 * 442.60816 ** 0.02269 **

SPR 2 294.13263 ** 0.19710 ** 1.67195 ** 0.00191 ** Balance of minerals

Error 24 28.88759 0.00407 30.53516 0.00163

Dressing

Percentage Meat to

bone ratio Abdominal fat g/bird Abdominal fat %

Treatments 11 12.53471 0.61408 171.92499 0.74784

Biotech Tool 3 22.93517 0.50216 22.70681 0.17549

SPR 2 7.09079 0.05591 455.69431 * 1.47470 *

Carcass charecteristics

Error 60 10.36204 0.34870 96.49250 0.46413

Liver Heart Gizzard Proventriculus

Treatments 11 0.40762 0.00778 0.14773 0.00785

Biotech Tool 3 0.27586 0.00744 0.07800 0.01605

SPR 2 0.92880 0.00421 0.33355 * 0.00310 Organometry

Error 60 0.31041 0.00802 0.09150 0.01164

Duodenum Jejunum Ileum Small Intestine

Treatments 11 0.07495 0.45266 * 0.34361 * 1.85276 *

Biotech Tool 3 0.05075 0.11357 0.30649 0.15217

SPR 2 0.01665 1.00825 * 0.61438 * 5.06177 **

Intestinal measurements

Error 60 0.11077 0.20731 0.14890 0.92099 Toe Ash Tibia Ash Tibia-Ca Tibia-P

Treatments 11 33.6592 ** 13.6044 39.3526 * 6.4711

Biotech Tool 3 85.5841 ** 13.1909 78.1890 * 2.0703

SPR 2 23.9083 ** 15.9362 22.7180 6.7436 Bone mineralization

Error 24 1.7973 10.5161 17.4447 6.4659 Calcium Phosphorus 21st day 42nd day 21st day 42nd day

Treatments 11 1.36067 1.34383 0.58862 0.94429

Biotech Tool 3 0.49688 0.67446 0.27880 1.04107

SPR 2 0.62550 1.85836 0.08920 0.92640

Blood mineral profile

Error 24 0.74281 2.08187 0.62400 0.48040 Net returns PIS EIS Livability

Treatments 11 13.7850 1979.3004 11.8794 14.8990

Biotech Tool 3 10.7943 1388.0955 8.1316 17.5926

SPR 2 35.4392 7088.0040 38.6291 36.1111 Economics

Error 24 11.4351 1020.6597 8.9026 11.1111 *Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-4: Mean sum of squares of ANOVA pertaining to performance trail of layers

Mean sum of squares

Source of Variation df Period I Period II Period III Average

Treatments 11 108.2745 141.1725 * 165.7413 ** 359.1692 **

Biotech Tool 3 39.0153 46.4024 60.6329 148.0356 *

SPR 2 377.6648 ** 425.8872 ** 333.8623 ** 1118.6253 **

Egg production - %

Error 132 60.7280 61.3273 44.0956 55.0260

Treatments 11 8.4887 11.0583 * 12.9941 ** 28.1589 **

Biotech Tool 3 3.0588 4.9390 4.7536 11.6060 *

SPR 2 29.6089 ** 33.3896 ** 26.1748 ** 87.7002 **

Egg production - Number

Error 132 4.7611 4.7585 3.4571 4.3140

Treatments 11 6.7152 18.4066 ** 14.7766 ** 24.9813 **

Biotech Tool 3 11.2714 13.6506 * 4.9955 4.9955

SPR 2 1.5908 63.6391 ** 61.9760 ** 61.9760 **

Feed consumption

Error 132 14.5632 3.7358 2.5308 2.5308

Treatments 11 0.0182 ** 0.0311 ** 0.0276 ** 0.0598 **

Biotech Tool 3 0.0086 0.0277 ** 0.0172 ** 0.0431 **

SPR 2 0.0530 ** 0.0420 ** 0.0264 ** 0.1172 **

Feed effiency (kg feed/kg egg mass)

Error 24 0.0040 0.0028 0.0042 0.0069

Treatments 11 0.0107 ** 0.0117 ** 0.0150 ** 0.0295 **

Biotech Tool 3 0.0038 ** 0.0057 ** 0.0049 ** 0.0117 **

SPR 2 0.0408 ** 0.0276 ** 0.0201 ** 0.0824 **

Feed effiency (kg feed/dozen egg)

Error 24 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0030

Treatments 11 3153.4301 26927.6349 3912.5243 20956.5544

Biotech Tool 3 1922.4514 49867.2991 2405.2909 30991.0000

SPR 2 2546.2647 2663.0648 2727.8110 4800.7230

Body weight changes

Error 132 3398.5117 20265.4651 1941.8791 22594.2901

Treatments 11 28.1168 * 41.0403 ** 30.2547 75.8106 **

Biotech Tool 3 3.7776 60.8928 ** 45.3782 80.4730

SPR 2 69.4621 * 17.5295 70.1402 * 114.1665 ** Egg weight

Error 852 15.4602 15.2320 17.6950 16.3873

*Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-4: (Contd…)

Mean sum of squares

Source of Variation df 1st day 28th

day 56th day 84th

day Average

Treatments 11 71.3936 33.5725 50.4896 14.7111 48.9149 Biotech Tool 3 66.5331 29.5761 20.0711 20.0711 68.9785 SPR 2 132.3835 15.4668 5.7396 5.7396 59.1443

Egg Shape Index

Error 132 71.2319 18.3189 10.1715 10.1715 34.1655

Treatments 11 0.3233 0.8672 0.3293 0.4499 0.5717 Biotech Tool 3 0.5961 0.6957 0.5373 0.1678 0.1597 SPR 2 0.2917 1.5831 0.3984 0.1273 0.6206

Albumen Index

Error 132 0.2467 0.6976 0.3463 0.5772 2.1174

Treatments 11 56.3383 24.5698 26.7459 68.7522 31.5145 Biotech Tool 3 48.4068 13.0392 48.2759 56.3725 9.5623 SPR 2 137.4325 76.7113 42.0073 5.8895 17.8884

Haugh Unit

Score Error 132 37.4346 25.2801 27.0899 54.7456 102.0727

Treatments 11 0.4132 0.8379 1.3016 0.2420 0.4976 Biotech Tool 3 0.6116 0.6311 0.9084 0.3145 0.0696 SPR 2 0.0751 1.0034 3.8025 0.0594 1.8510

Yolk Index

Error 132 0.3609 0.3809 0.4613 0.3354 0.5796

Treatments 11 6.2535 4.3824 3.2906 8.4226 5.9259 Biotech Tool 3 19.3176 7.9829 4.4789 9.4852 3.5509 SPR 2 1.7094 1.4681 1.6085 4.1503 1.4513

Yolk colour

Error 132 3.5373 2.6688 2.0302 4.1918 7.2898

Treatments 11 0.0007 0.0044 0.0025 0.0004 0.0017 Biotech Tool 3 0.0003 0.0108 ** 0.0076 ** 0.0006 0.0045 * SPR 2 0.0014 0.0050 ** 0.0008 0.0013 0.0013

Shell Thickness

Error 132 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0014 0.0012 *Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Appendix-4: (Contd…)

Mean sum of squares Source of Variation df Period I Period II Period III Cumulative Treatments 11 1.637134 2.701403 2.772828 5.226421 Biotech Tool 3 1.054697 2.749795 1.990679 4.705951 SPR 2 2.875221 1.537721 0.815736 4.619664

Efficiency of Energy

Utilization

Error 24 0.522022 0.288119 0.481748 0.805892

Treatments 11 1.749607 2.906008 2.992263 5.614225 Biotech Tool 3 1.137961 2.966821 2.147183 5.077148 SPR 2 3.010559 1.612070 0.885718 4.852000

Efficiency of Protein

Utilization Error 24 0.563176 0.310910 0.519873 0.869462

Treatments 11 3.890146 4.308954 6.179917 11.398514 Biotech Tool 3 4.599068 5.345000 5.282166 14.339771 SPR 2 8.061498 4.202856 3.703284 13.904121

Net returns

Error 24 0.181810 0.105903 0.069227 1.040257 1st day 28th day 56th day 84th day

Treatments 11 0.286263 0.139394 0.087778 0.198552 Biotech Tool 3 0.037778 0.076296 0.081852 0.071235 SPR 2 1.338611 0.180833 0.101944 0.643426

Serum calcium profile

Error 24 0.766944 0.352778 0.405278 0.744884

Treatments 11 0.220505 0.161414 0.015429 0.154032 Biotech Tool 3 0.104074 0.138519 0.009907 0.069722 SPR 2 0.141944 0.474444 0.018611 0.241759

Serum phosphorus

profile Error 24 0.393056 0.255556 0.107500 1.087940

Dry matter

Organic matter

Treatments 11 6.114714 6.961792 Biotech Tool 3 10.622557 0.271819 SPR 2 10.068693 35.499863

Metabolizability of nutrients

Error 24 14.947522 1.291346

Ca-% of intake Ca-g/day

P-% of intake P-g/day

Treatments 11 3.682619 0.016333 7.791904 0.003151 Biotech Tool 3 5.248542 0.017947 21.514053 0.003554 SPR 2 8.416048 0.023832 1.463866 0.008563

Balance of minerals

Error 24 7.775245 0.024818 14.671091 0.001521 *Significant at P<0.05 **Significant at P<0.01

Table 2.1: Exclusive sources of minerals

Major mineral1 Trace mineral2

Source Ca % P %

Ava. P % Na % Source Element % Source Element %

Limestone 38.0 - - Cobalt oxide 71.0 Manganese oxide 77.0

Oyster shell 38.0 - - chloride 24.0 chloride 27.5

Calcium carbonate 40.0 - - sulphate 21.0 sulphate 32.5

Bone meal 26.0 13.0 carbonate 46.0 carbonate 47.0

Monocalcium PO4 17.0 23.0 98 0.10 Copper oxide3 79.0 Zinc oxide 78.0

Dicalcium PO4 25.0 18.0 97 0.02 chloride 37.0 chloride 48.0

Deflurinated rock PO4 32.0 18.0 95 5.50 sulphate 25.5 sulphate 36.0

Monosodium PO4 - 20.0 95 15.0 carbonate 55.0 carbonate 52.0

Disodium PO4 - 22.0 98 29.0 Iron oxide4 77.0 Selenium Sodium selenite 46.0

Meat and bone meal 11.0 6.0 90 0.60 chloride5 34.0 Sodium selenate 42.0

Fish meal (60%CP) 6.5 3.5 92 0.50 sulphate4 32.0 Iodine Potassium iodine 77.0

Common salt - - - 39.0 carbonate4 40.0 Calcium iodate 65.0

Sodium bicarbonate - - - 27.0 Magnesium oxide 56.0

carbonate 30.0 1Leeson and Summers (2002); zAmmerman et al. (1998) 3Cupric; 4Ferrous; 5Ferric

Table 2.2: Recommended nutrient specification for different classes of poultry by various agencies Broiler birds Laying hens

BIS (1992) NRC (1994) Hubbard manual BIS (1992) NRC (1994)1 BV-300 manual Nutrients Starter

0-5 wk Finisher 5-8 wks 0-3 wks 3- 6 wks 6-8

wks 0-10 days 11-25 days +26 days > 20wks 28-50 wks

ME, kcal/kg 2800 2900 3200 3200 3200 2900 3050 3100 2600 2500 2450 Crude protein, % 23 20 23 20 18 21-23 20-22 18-20 18 18 16 Crude fiber, % max 6 6 - - - - - - 8 - - Lysine, % 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.85 1.2 1.1 1.0 - 0.65 0.88 Methionine, % 0.50 0.35 0.50 0.38 0.32 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.65 0.30 0.34 Met+Cyst 0.90 0.70 0.90 0.72 0.60 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.30 0.55 0.62 Threonine, % - - 0.80 0.74 0.68 0.78 0.75 0.71 - 0.51 Trptophan, % - - 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.18 - 0.15 Linoleic acid, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 Calcium, % 1.2 1.2 1.00 0.90 0.80 1.03 0.97 0.87 3.00 3.25 3.80 Available P, % 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.42 Magnesium, ppm - - 600 600 600 - - - - - 900 Chlorine, % - - 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 - - 0.18 Sodium, % - - 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.17 - - 0.18 Potassium, % - - 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.75 - - - Copper, ppm 12 12 8 8 8 10 10 10 9 30 5 Iodine, ppm 1 1 0.35 0.35 0.35 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.30 Iron, ppm 120 120 80 80 80 60 60 60 75 60 20 Manganese, ppm 90 90 60 60 60 80 80 80 55 50 35 Selenium, ppm - - 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - 0.30 Zinc, ppm 60 60 40 40 40 80 80 80 75 60 35 1Assumes an average daily intake of 100g/hen Note: Under practical conditions, the level of requirement of various nutrients may vary quite widely.

Table 3.1: Ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of experimental diets used in metabolism trial of broilers Ingredients, Kg T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

Basal mix1 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 80 80 80 80 70 70 70 70 Sugarcane press residue - - - - 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Di-calcium phosphate 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 Calcite powder 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Trace mineral premix2 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Vitamin and additive mix3 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 Chromic oxide 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Lipid utilizing agents4 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 NSP degrading enzymes5 - - 0.40 0.40 - - 0.40 0.40 - - 0.40 0.40 - - 0.40 0.40

Calculated composition ME. Kcal/kg 2864 2692 2521 2349

CP, % 21.62 20.69 19.75 18.82 EE, % 3.25 3.91 4.57 5.23 CF, % 3.93 5.43 6.94 8.44 Ca, % 1.02 1.25 1.48 1.71 TP, % 0.79 0.86 0.94 1.01 Pav, % 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.60

1 Basal mix consisted of 61% maize, 38% soybean meal and 1% soya oil 2 Trace mineral premix contained Fe-90000, I-2000, Cu-15000, Mn-90000, Zn-80000 and Se-300ppm 3 Vitamin and additive mix contained vitamin premix 0.05kg (each 500g contained vit A–12.5MIU, vit D3-2.8MIU, vit E-30g, vit K-2g, vit B1-2g, vit B2-5g, vit B6-3g, vit B12-0.015g, niacin-40g, Cal-d-pantothenate-15g, folic acid-1g, biotin-0.08g, organic nutritive carrier-q.s.), Hepatocare 0.5kg, Tylosin phosphate 0.05kg, Curotox 0.05kg, Choline chloride 0.05kg, DL-methionine 0.195 kg and L-lysine 0.094kg 4 Lipid utilizing agents comprised of lipase-0.02kg (lipase - 500 units/g) and lecithin - 0.2kg 5 NSP degrading enzymes contained xylanase-2500, beta-glucanase–1000, cellulase–500 and pectinase–250 units/g

Table 3.2: Ingredient and calculated nutrient composition of experimental diets used in metabolism trial of layers Ingredients, Kg T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

Basal mix1 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 80 80 80 80 70 70 70 70 Sugarcane press residue - - - - 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Shell grit 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 8.96 Mineral mixture2 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 Salt 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 Vitamin and additive mix3 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Chromic oxide 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Lipid utilizing agents4 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 - 0.22 NSP degrading enzymes5 - - 0.56 0.56 - - 0.56 0.56 - - 0.56 0.56 - - 0.56 0.56 Calculated composition

ME. Kcal/kg 2608 2454 2301 2147 CP, % 17.53 16.92 16.32 15.71 EE, % 2.36 3.04 3.73 4.41 CF, % 5.41 6.64 7.88 9.11 Ca, % 3.30 3.51 3.71 0.92 TP, % 0.56 0.63 0.69 0.76 Pav, % 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.38

1Basal mix consisted of 65% maize, 10% soybean meal, 15% groundnut extractions and 10% sunflower extractions 2Mineral mixture contained: Calcium -32, phosphorus – 6% and other trace elements 3Vitamin and additive mix contained AB2D3K -0.1 kg (each 500g contained vit A-12.5 MIU, vit D3-2.8 MIU, vit E-30g, vit K-2g), B-complex-0.2 kg (vit B1-2g, vit B2-5g, vit B6-3g, vit B12-0.015g, niacin-40g, Cal-d-panthothenate-15g, folic acid-1g, biotin-0.08g, organic nutritive Carrier- q.s.), lysine - 0.13kg, DL-methionine 0.07kg 4Lipid utilizing agents comprised of lipase-0.02kg (lipase - 500 units/g) and lecithin - 0.2kg 5NSP degrading enzymes contained xylanase-2500, beta-glucanase–1000, cellulase–500 and pectinase–250 units/g

Table 3.3: Ingredient composition of experimental diets compounded for different phases during performance trial of broilers Starter phase Grower phase Finisher phase Ingredients, Kg 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR

Maize 528.5 513.4 494.6 554.5 523.0 484.0 621.0 584.0 536.0 Soybean meal 311.5 336.0 359.0 311.0 323.2 331.7 275.0 285.0 288.0 Sunflower extractions 112.0 55.0 2.0 78.0 46.0 23.0 44.3 18.4 7.9 Soya oil 10.0 15.0 21.1 18.0 27.0 38.0 21.6 32.4 45.6 Di-calcium phosphate 20.2 19.3 18.2 20.2 18.8 17 20 18 16 Calcite powder 14.5 8.3 2.2 14.5 8.5 2.8 14 8.5 2.8 Salt 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Sugarcane press residue 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 FeSO4, g 274.0 0.0 0.0 274.0 0.0 0.0 274.0 0.0 0.0 ZnSO4, g 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 CuSO4, g 18.0 13.5 8.9 19.0 13.5 8.9 22.0 16.0 10.0 CoSO4, g 9.5 7.9 6.4 9.8 7.9 6.4 9.8 8.3 6.8 KI, g 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Na2SeO3, g 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 MnSO4, g 220.0 190.0 159.0 223.0 191.0 158.0 223.0 191.0 158.0 DL-Methionine, g 2000 2010 2020 2000 2050 2100 1800 1940 2000 L-Lysine, g 1000 1000 1000 1000 950 900 1200 1100 1000 Additives1 + + + + + + + + +

TOTAL 1004.8 1004.8 1004.9 1004.3 1004.3 1004.3 1004.0 1004.1 1004.1 1Additives contained Brovit plus-0.5kg (each 500g contained vit A-12.5 MIU, vit D3-2.8 MIU, vit E-30g, vit K-2g, vit B1-2g, vit B2-5g, vit B6-3g, vit B12-0.015g, niacin-40g, Cal-d-panthothenate-15g, folic acid-1g, biotin-0.08g, organic nutritive carrier.-q.s), Tylosine phosphate-0.5kg; Hepatocare-1.0kg; Choline chloride-0.5kg; Curotox-0.5kg Note: Parallely, another set of 9 diets with SPR at 0, 5 and 10% were also prepared using either lipase and lecithin (three) or NSP degrading enzymes (three) or their combination (three).

Table 3.4: Calculated nutrient composition of experimental diets* compounded for different phases during performance trial of broilers Starter phase Grower phase Finisher phase Nutrients 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR

Cost Rs/kg 10.47 10.18 9.91 10.81 10.56 10.34 10.89 10.70 10.50 ME kcal/kg 2822 2822 2822 2909 2910 2910 3000 3004 3004

CP, % 22.22 22.23 22.24 21.48 21.47 21.48 19.48 19.49 19.51 EE, % 3.19 3.88 4.67 4.02 5.06 6.27 4.54 5.73 7.14 LA, % 1.63 1.86 2.13 1.86 2.19 2.57 2.04 2.42 2.85 CF, % 6.12 5.59 5.13 5.36 5.30 5.41 4.44 4.49 4.84 Ca, % 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.14 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.10 TP, % 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.82 0.84 0.87

Pav, % 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 Na, % 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 Cl, % 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 K, % 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.96 0.97 0.96

Mg, % 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.17 0.22 0.28 S, % 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.23 0.36 0.48 0.22 0.34 0.46

Fe, ppm 120.08 277.30 486.72 117.67 275.57 485.85 113.21 271.43 482.05 I, ppm 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01

Cu, ppm 25.53 25.55 25.59 25.10 25.16 25.54 25.25 25.24 25.40 Co, ppm 2.00 1.98 1.98 2.06 1.98 1.98 2.06 2.06 2.07 Mn, ppm 90.67 90.83 90.76 90.64 90.62 90.53 88.84 89.08 89.20 Zn, ppm 60.56 60.48 60.65 57.52 58.93 60.90 52.92 54.72 57.46 Se, ppm 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 Lys, % 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Arg, % 1.41 1.36 1.31 1.34 1.31 1.28 1.20 1.16 1.14 Met, % 2.32 2.32 2.32 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.46 0.47 0.48 Cys, % 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22

Met+Cyst, % 2.59 2.58 2.57 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 Try, % 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.24 Thr % 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.73 0.73 0.74

*Similar nutrient composition prevailed in rest of the each of the 3 types of the nine diets as the basic dietary variation was due to addition of biotechnological product

Table-3.5: Ingredient and nutrient composition of experimental diets compounded during performance trial of layers

A. Ingredient composition B. Calculated nutrient composition

Ingredients, kg 0 % SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR Nutrient 0 % SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR Maize 43.55 45.30 46.91 Cost(Rs/kg) 7.13 7.01 6.88 De-oiled rice bran 17.00 11.00 5.40 ME, kcal/kg 2433 2410 2386 Soybean meal 12.90 12.90 12.90 CP, % 17.57 17.41 17.22 Groundnut extractions 5.00 5.00 5.00 EE, % 1.97 2.48 3.00 Sunflower extractions 10.00 9.98 9.70 LA, % 1.08 1.29 1.50 Di-calcium phosphate 1.25 1.18 1.10 CF, % 7.18 7.06 6.93 Calcite powder 3.00 2.35 1.69 Ca, % 3.93 3.93 3.93 Shell grit 7.00 7.00 7.00 TP, % 0.80 0.76 0.73 Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 Pav, % 0.35 0.35 0.35 SPR1 0.00 5.00 10.00 Na, % 0.15 0.15 0.14 FeSO4 0 0 0 Cl, % 0.23 0.22 0.21 ZnO 10 9.64 9.27 K, % 0.75 0.70 0.65 CuSO4 8 6.94 5.81 Mg, mg 0.28 0.31 0.33 CoSO4 0 0 0 S, % 0.17 0.29 0.41 KI 0.34 0.34 0.34 Fe, ppm 205.95 416.15 626.59 Na2SeO3 0.44 0.44 0.44 I, ppm 2.01 2.01 2.01 MnSO4 25 21.15 17.28 Cu, ppm 25.47 25.60 25.56 DL-methionine 49.8 50 50 Co, ppm 0.00 0.32 0.64 L-Lysine 20 21.3 22.4 Mn, ppm 89.68 89.63 89.57 Additives2 + + + Zn, ppm 93.94 93.76 93.60 Se, ppm 2.02 2.02 2.02 TOTAL 100.11 100.11 100.11 Met, % 0.27 0.27 0.27

Met+Cyst, % 0.50 0.50 0.50 Lys, % 0.73 0.71 0.70 Arg, % 1.24 1.21 1.18 C/P 138.46 138.45 138.55 Ca/Pav 11.22 11.23 11.22

Arg/Lys 1.71 1.70 1.69 1Sugarcane press residue 2Additives contained AB2D3K - 100g (each 500g contained vit A-12.5 MIU, vit D3-2.8 MIU, vit E-30g, vit K-2g), B-complex-200g (vit B1-2g, vit B2-5g, vit B6-3g, vit B12-0.015g, niacin-40g, Cal-d-panthothenate-15g, folic acid-1g, biotin-0.08g, Organic Nutritive Carrier.Q.S), Oxymycin-500g, toxin binder - 750g, choline chloride - 500g and hepatocaare-100g Note: Parallely, another set of 9 diets with SPR at 0, 5 and 10% were also prepared using either lipase and lecithin (three) or NSP degrading enzymes (three) or their combination (three).

Table 4.1: Per cent proximate composition of differentially dried SPR samples from different factories

Sugar factories1

Constituent A B C D E F

Bulk

SPR2 Mean ±SE

Fresh SPR

Moisture 77.28 76.95 82.31 76.53 77.67 86.46 - 79.61±3.64

Sun dried SPR

Dry matter 91.71 91.93 92.64 92.09 92.95 91.96 92.83 92.30±0.19

Organic matter 79.16 79.84 74.22 79.82 77.28 80.03 76.05 78.06±0.86

Total ash 20.84 20.16 25.78 20.18 22.72 19.97 23.95 21.94±0.86

Crude protein 9.18 11.81 11.01 14.11 11.54 12.87 11.80 11.76±0.58

Crude fiber 10.50 7.94 13.50 12.24 9.04 3.60 13.73 10.08±1.38

Ether extract 4.64 6.70 6.61 6.81 9.98 8.35 11.95 7.87±0.92

NFE 54.84 53.39 43.10 46.66 46.72 55.20 38.57 48.35±2.41

AIA 5.37 3.64 10.63 7.56 8.17 4.38 4.93 6.38±0.94

Oven dried SPR

Dry matter 94.23 94.05 92.63 92.99 93.52 91.18 - 93.10±0.46

Organic matter 82.09 84.70 76.07 81.09 80.30 82.28 - 81.09±1.17

Total ash 17.91 15.30 23.93 18.91 19.70 17.72 - 18.91±1.17

Crude protein 8.62 10.75 8.89 12.08 9.53 12.19 - 10.34±0.64

Crude fiber 10.34 9.38 11.41 10.42 8.52 4.28 - 9.06±1.04

Ether extract 4.50 6.35 6.51 6.80 9.00 8.30 - 6.91±0.65

NFE 58.64 58.21 49.26 51.79 53.25 57.51 - 54.78±1.59

Energy worth of sun-dried SPR

GE, kcal/kg 4310 4250 3962 4251 4019 3719 4068 4083±78.5

ME3, kcal/kg 2010 2167 1534 1666 2165 2165 2530 1980±130

1 Source of SPR: A- The Mysore Sugars Pvt. Ltd., Mandya B - Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd., K.M.Doddi C- SCM Sugars Ltd., Koppa D- Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi

E- Davangere Sugar Company Ltd., Kukkawada, Davanagere

F- Bidar Sahakari Sakhare Karkhane, Hallikhed, 2 Sample procured for biological trials 3 Calculated values

Table 4.2: Fiber fractions (%) of sun-dried SPR samples from different factories

Sugar factories1 Constituent

A B C D E F

Bulk

SPR2 Mean ±SE

Cell contents 42.33 43.71 42.54 40.58 48.95 52.63 44.20 44.99±1.61

Neutral detergent fiber 57.67 56.29 57.46 59.42 51.05 47.37 55.80 55.01±1.61

Acid detergent fiber 30.43 23.94 30.15 33.70 33.28 20.92 29.42 28.84±1.79

Acid detergent lignin 11.59 7.66 12.72 17.78 15.05 5.93 11.13 11.69±1.54

Hemicellulose 27.23 32.36 27.30 25.72 17.77 26.45 26.38 26.17±1.63

Cellulose 18.84 16.28 17.43 15.92 18.23 14.99 18.29 17.14±0.54

1 Source of SPR: A- The Mysore Sugars Pvt. Ltd., Mandya; B - Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd., K.M.Doddi; C- SCM Sugars Ltd., Koppa; D- Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi; E- Davangere Sugar Company Ltd., Kukkawada (Davanagere) and F- Bidar Sahakari Sakhare Karkhane,

Hallikhed, 2 Sample procured for biological trials

Table 4.3: Mineral constituents of sun-dried SPR samples from different factories

Sugar factories1 Constituent

A B C D E F

Bulk

SPR2 Mean ±SE

Major minerals, %

Calcium 2.80 4.40 3.90 4.20 3.60 3.30 4.90 3.87±0.27

Phosphorous 0.75 1.35 0.98 1.07 1.16 1.12 1.25 1.10±0.07

Magnesium 0.63 0.80 0.81 0.99 1.30 0.79 1.35 0.95±0.10

Trace minerals, ppm

Copper 39.0 140.0 55.0 37.0 48.0 53.0 58.5 61.5±13.43

Zinc 65.0 130.0 89.0 88.0 120.0 210.0 86.5 112.6±18.23

Iron 2100 3500 4100 4000 3700 2800 4300 3500±298.4

Manganese 320 250 330 290 310 230 260 284.3±14.46

Cobalt 3.50 9.70 1.80 4.30 3.30 6.30 6.40 5.0±1.00

1 Source of SPR: A- The Mysore Sugars Pvt. Ltd., Mandya; B - Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd., K.M.Doddi; C- SCM Sugars Ltd., Koppa; D- Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi; E- Davangere Sugar Company Ltd., Kukkawada and F- Bidar Sahakari Sakhare Karkhane, Hallikhed,

2 Sample procured for biological trials

Table 4.4: Amino acid profile of SPR samples from different factories

Sugar factories MSL, Mandya MPML, Bhadravati BSSK, Hallikhed Average Maize1 De-oiled rice bran1 Constituent

% as is % of CP % as is % of CP % as is % of CP % of CP % as is % of CP % as is % of CP Crude Protein 11.33 - 12.38 - 9.43 - - 8.6 - 13.0 - Methionine 0.23 2.03 0.26 2.10 0.19 2.01 2.21 0.18 2.09 0.31 2.38 Cystine 0.11 0.97 0.11 0.89 0.10 1.06 1.05 0.19 2.21 0.28 2.15 Meth + Cyst. 0.34 3.00 0.37 2.99 0.29 3.08 3.27 0.37 4.30 0.59 4.54 Lysine 0.44 3.88 0.62 5.01 0.43 4.56 4.85 0.26 3.02 0.44 3.38 Threonine 0.59 5.21 0.62 5.01 0.47 4.98 5.48 0.31 3.60 0.43 3.31 Arginine 0.37 3.27 0.48 3.88 0.40 4.24 4.10 0.43 5.00 1.02 7.85 Isoleucine 0.50 4.41 0.53 4.28 0.43 4.56 4.77 0.28 3.26 0.51 3.92 Leucine 0.90 7.94 0.99 8.00 0.78 8.27 8.72 0.99 11.51 1.00 7.69 Valine 0.65 5.74 0.71 5.74 0.56 5.94 6.27 0.39 4.53 0.72 5.54 Histidine 0.25 2.21 0.29 2.34 0.21 2.23 2.44 0.26 3.02 0.37 2.85 Phenylalanine 0.51 4.50 0.55 4.44 0.44 4.67 4.90 0.45 5.23 0.67 5.15 Glycine 0.63 5.56 0.66 5.33 0.53 5.62 5.95 0.45 5.23 0.67 5.15 Serine 0.48 4.24 0.56 4.52 0.42 4.45 4.76 Proline 0.50 4.41 0.55 4.44 0.43 4.56 4.83 Alanine 0.66 5.83 0.73 5.90 0.58 6.15 6.44 Aspartic Acid 1.07 9.44 1.17 9.45 0.91 9.65 10.28 Glutamic Acid 1.33 11.74 1.42 11.47 1.07 11.35 12.45 Total (without NH3) 9.22 81.38 10.25 82.79 7.95 84.31 89.51 Ammonia 0.19 1.68 0.17 1.37 0.16 1.70 1.71 Total 9.41 83.05 10.42 84.17 8.11 86.00 91.22 Dry Matter 92.54 92.59 92.46 100.00 88.00 88.00 1Degussa Huls, 2001

Table 4.5: Fatty acid profile of SPR sample selected for biological trials

Constituent Formula % as is % of EE

Crude fat - 11.95 -

Caproic acid C5H11∙COOH 0.000 0.0

Caprylic acid C7H15∙COOH 0.024 0.2

Capric acid C9H19∙COOH 0.024 0.2

Lauric acid C11H23∙COOH 0.167 1.4

Myristic acid C13H27∙COOH 0.108 0.9

Palmitic acid C15H31∙COOH 3.621 30.3

Stearic acid C17H35∙COOH 0.490 4.1

Oleic acid C17H33∙COOH 2.055 17.2

Linoleic acid C17H31∙COOH 4.541 38.0

Linolenic acid C17H29∙COOH 0.645 5.4

Table 4.6: Proximate composition and gross energy of experimental diets used in metabolism trail of broilers

Dietary Description Proximate Composition (%)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Treatment

No. Dry

Matter

Total

Ash Crude Protein

Ether Extract

Crude Fiber NFE

Gross Energy Kcal/kg

No supplement T1 90.23 7.76 23.40 3.61 6.96 58.27 4247

Lipase+Lecithin T2 90.27 8.01 22.83 3.68 6.81 58.67 4243

NSPases T3 90.45 7.95 20.92 3.95 6.71 60.47 4218 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 90.34 8.28 22.14 4.02 6.12 59.44 4250

No supplement T5 91.21 9.54 22.18 4.13 8.56 55.59 4102

Lipase+Lecithin T6 91.20 9.70 21.93 3.78 8.57 56.02 4106

NSPases T7 90.70 10.00 19.63 3.99 8.64 57.74 4054 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 91.85 10.79 21.60 3.97 7.93 55.71 4052

No supplement T9 91.14 10.73 21.53 4.33 10.55 52.86 4079

Lipase+Lecithin T10 90.69 11.86 19.43 4.39 10.74 53.58 4032

NSPases T11 91.33 10.67 19.69 3.98 9.86 55.80 3977 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 91.04 11.05 20.29 4.64 10.05 53.97 39.34

No supplement T13 91.65 12.60 19.56 4.61 11.36 51.87 39.38

Lipase+Lecithin T14 91.13 12.84 18.34 4.18 11.25 53.39 3950

NSPases T15 91.71 12.95 18.92 4.62 11.14 52.37 3814 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 91.81 13.47 19.20 4.96 11.40 50.97 3875

Table 4.7: Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of experimental diets used in metabolism trial of broilers

Dietary Description Metabolizability Coefficients (%)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. DM OM EE CP GE

ME

Kcal/kg

Ileal Nitrogen Digestibility (%)

No supplement T1 69.88 0.29 ab 73.04 0.26 ab 66.31 0.36 a 54.50 1.17 a 77.63 6.23 a 3297 16.11 a 83.16 6.45 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T2 71.29 0.15 a 74.65 0.14 a 66.75 0.90 a 54.32 0.11 ab 77.25 6.21 a 3277 101.76 ab 78.11 6.28 bcd

NSPases T3 70.83 0.38 ab 74.23 0.34 ab 66.74 0.09 a 54.28 2.16 ab 78.11 6.25 a 3295 13.37 a 81.98 6.40 ab 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 70.34 1.80 ab 73.98 1.58 ab 65.30 2.05 ab 50.25 3.39 abc 77.70 6.23 a 3303 49.82 a 91.45 6.76 a

No supplement T5 66.27 2.72 bcde 69.21 2.49 bcde 61.27 0.08 bc 52.38 3.36 ab 75.54 6.15 abc 3098 24.52 c 69.66 5.90 cd

Lipase+Lecithin T6 66.41 1.36 abcd 69.92 1.22 abc 55.65 1.90 bcd 51.03 1.04 abc 74.08 6.09 abc 3042 39.94 bc 77.15 6.21 bcd

NSPases T7 65.80 0.40 abcd 69.09 0.36 abcd 58.31 0.38 bcd 45.55 0.13 d 75.92 6.16 ab 3077 22.40 abc 76.43 6.18 bcd 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 66.58 0.20 abc 70.10 0.18 abc 58.53 1.62 bcd 50.57 0.72 abc 75.30 6.14 ab 3051 20.32 bc 81.44 6.38 ab

No supplement T9 60.99 0.76 cdef 64.15 0.69 cdef 57.37 1.33 bcd 50.35 1.46 abcd 70.13 5.92 bc 2860 61.46 cd 80.56 6.35 b

Lipase+Lecithin T10 59.40 0.31 def 62.80 0.28 def 55.10 1.34 bcd 51.71 1.18 ab 68.90 5.87 c 2779 41.36 d 79.08 6.29 bc

NSPases T11 60.22 1.02 cdef 64.53 0.91 cdef 53.45 1.28 cd 46.51 0.81 cd 70.24 5.93 bc 2794 46.03 d 78.49 6.26 bcd 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 62.33 0.22 cdef 65.53 0.20 cdef 58.89 0.56 bc 49.59 0.45 bcd 70.63 5.94 bc 2779 44.73 d 81.66 6.39 ab

No supplement T13 60.20 1.42 cdef 63.16 1.32 cdef 56.73 1.05 bcd 50.39 0.30 abc 71.00 5.96 bc 2796 88.31 d 68.38 5.85 d

Lipase+Lecithin T14 58.67 0.93 ef 61.94 0.85 ef 53.04 1.66 d 51.49 1.12 ab 68.93 5.87 c 2723 34.07 d 75.82 6.16 bcd

NSPases T15 61.34 0.16 cdef 63.61 0.15 cdef 59.83 0.73 b 51.99 1.96 ab 70.31 5.93 bc 2682 65.35 d 68.86 5.87 cd 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 59.01 1.15 f 61.61 1.08 f 56.74 0.58 bcd 52.40 1.20 ab 70.85 5.95 c 2745 23.97 d 69.14 5.88 cd

SEM 1.540 1.540 1.650 2.275 1.742 70.530 4.888

CD 4.496 4.496 4.818 4.823 5.086 205.948 10.363

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.047 <0.001 <0.001 0.012

Effect of SPR

0% 70.59 0.33 a 73.98 0.31 a 66.28 0.4 a 53.34 0.85 a 77.67 0.43 a 3293 18.02 a 83.67 1.86 a

10% 66.26 0.48 b 69.58 0.45 b 58.44 0.7 b 49.88 0.97 b 75.21 0.3 b 3067 10.99 b 76.17 1.36 b

20% 60.73 0.39 c 64.25 0.35 c 56.20 0.7 bc 49.54 0.67 b 69.98 0.43 c 2803 18.37 c 79.94 0.99 ab

30% 59.80 0.45 c 62.58 0.39 c 56.59 0.8 c 51.57 0.46 ab 70.27 0.53 c 2736 22.15 d 70.55 1.80 c

SEM 0.770 0.770 0.8249 1.137 0.871 35.265 2.444

CD 1.986 1.986 2.128 2.229 2.247 90.984 6.306

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.015 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 64.34 1.61 67.39 1.60 60.42 1.5 a 51.90 0.97 73.58 1.29 3013 78.1 75.44 2.85

Lipase+Lecithin 63.94 1.99 67.33 2.00 57.63 2.1 b 52.14 0.61 72.29 1.45 2955 86.9 77.54 1.29

NSPases 64.55 1.60 67.86 1.61 59.58 1.8 a 49.58 1.50 73.65 1.37 2962 92.2 76.44 2.38

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 64.46 1.67 67.81 1.80 59.87 1.3 a 50.70 0.80 73.62 1.19 2969 86.6 80.92 3.14

SEM 0.770 0.770 0.8249 1.137 0.871 0.341 2.444

CD - - 1.617 - - - -

P-value1 0.838 0.814 0.021 0.133 0.355 0.379 0.169

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-fMeans with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.8: Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of sun-dried SPR sample employed for metabolism trial of broilers

Dietary Description Metabolizability of Various Nutrients of SPR %

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. DM OM CF EE GE

% Ileal N

Absorbability

ME

Kcal/kg

No supplement T1 33.71 27.24 34.70 24.87 33.30 33.56 a 15.85 0.76 abcd 56.68 5.98 -51.84 14.54 d 1307.9 245.2

Lipase+Lecithin T2 22.48 13.59 27.36 12.18 21.43 10.43 a -44.27 19.01 e 45.59 9.73 68.50 1.58 ab 924.1 399.4

NSPases T3 20.46 4.01 22.87 3.63 -33.07 1.31 b -17.56 3.83 de 56.16 5.53 26.52 10.85 abc 1122.8 224.0 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 32.71 2.05 35.18 1.83 53.45 7.15 a -2.37 16.15 cd 53.69 5.01 -8.68 18.89 cd 788.2 203.2

No supplement T5 25.43 3.78 28.59 3.47 33.79 7.31 a 21.61 6.67 abc 40.13 7.53 70.17 20.19 ab 112.8 307.3

Lipase+Lecithin T6 11.81 1.55 15.43 1.42 41.26 5.88 a 8.47 6.70 abcd 35.53 5.13 82.95 3.33 a 783.1 206.8

NSPases T7 17.77 5.09 25.72 4.54 15.42 4.03 a 0.27 6.42 bcd 38.76 5.79 64.51 15.79 ab 790.3 230.1 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 30.28 1.11 31.69 1.02 46.93 2.26 a 33.24 2.80 ab 42.34 5.68 42.48 14.69 ab 683.1 223.6

No supplement T9 37.60 4.74 40.11 4.39 40.80 1.01 a 34.36 3.52 ab 55.51 7.47 33.90 17.66 abc 1626.6 294.4

Lipase+Lecithin T10 29.22 3.08 32.29 2.84 44.87 3.73 a 21.03 5.52 abc 49.49 2.87 70.50 6.63 ab 1428.3 113.6

NSPases T11 39.19 0.54 38.81 0.51 46.65 6.55 a 43.72 2.44 a 52.12 5.71 38.26 24.72 abc 1252.2 217.8 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 32.56 3.84 32.74 3.60 57.42 4.01 a 36.78 1.92 a 54.86 2.06 17.08 11.29 bc 1444.6 79.9

MeanSE 27.77 2.55 30.46 2.25 33.52 5.36 a 12.59 5.38 48.40 1.97 37.86 8.35 1105.3 80.2

SEM 13.15 11.97 15.66 11.75 8.52 21.08 342.69

CD - - 47.919 35.959 - 64.510 -

P-value1 0.642 0.738 0.006 <0.001 0.218 0.001 0.200

Effect of SPR

10% 27.34 6.23 30.03 5.64 18.78 13.88 b -12.09 9.6 c 53.03 3.08 a 8.63 17.47 c 1035.7 129.1 ab

20% 21.32 2.95 25.36 2.57 34.35 4.91 a 15.90 5.25 b 39.19 2.49 b 65.03 7.88 a 842.3 111.0 b

30% 34.64 1.98 35.99 1.79 47.44 2.83 a 33.97 3.4 a 53.00 2.10 a 39.93 9.62 b 1437.9 89.4 a

SEM 6.577 5.984 7.830 5.876 4.262 10.541 171.344

CD - - 15.268 15.159 10.995 27.195 335.834

P-value1 0.171 0.245 0.011 <0.001 0.010 0.001 0.014

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 32.24 7.55 34.47 6.91 35.96 9.00 a 23.94 3.97 a 50.77 4.61 17.41 24.20 b 1349.1 158.3 a

Lipase+Lecithin 21.17 4.84 25.02 4.54 35.85 5.63 a -4.92 13.8 b 43.54 3.94 73.98 3.46 a 1045.1 172.3 b

NSPases 25.81 4.58 29.14 3.45 9.66 14.81 b 8.81 11.7 ab 49.01 4.18 43.10 10.75 ab 1055.1 132.7 b

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 31.85 1.26 33.20 1.26 52.60 2.93 a 22.55 8.98 a 50.29 3.24 16.96 11.57 b 972.0 170.9 b

SEM 7.594 5.984 9.041 6.7846 4.921 12.171 197.851

CD - - 23.326 17.504 - 31.402 -

P-value1 0.438 0.535 0.004 0.003 0.462 0.001 0.285

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.9: Performance of birds under different treatments during different weeks (2nd and 3rd week) of metabolism trail of broilers

Dietary Description Body Weight Gain (g/bird) Feed Consumption (g/bird) FCR (g feed/g weight gain) Livability

SPR % Biotech. Tool

Tr.

No. II Wk. III Wk. Cumulative II Wk. III Wk. Cumulative II Wk. III Wk. Cumulative %

No supplement T1 218.2a 367.1bc 629.6 a 333.7 a 583.9 abc 917.5abc 1.45cde 1.51cd 1.49 cd 100

Lipase+Lecithin T2 219.9a 384.1ab 604.0 a 322.5 ab 606.7 ab 929.2ab 1.32de 1.42d 1.38 d 100

NSPases T3 215.7b 421.5a 637.2 a 333.0 a 636.1 a 969.1a 1.39de 1.36d 1.37 d 100 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 191.9c 383.5ab 601.3 a 321.1 abc 589.0 abc 910.0abcd 1.27e 1.31d 1.29 d 100

No supplement T5 184.4cd 308.0de 492.4 bc 305.2 bc 554.6 bcd 859.8bcdef 1.49cde 1.62bcd 1.57 cd 100

Lipase+Lecithin T6 191.3c 329.3cd 520.5 b 308.4 bc 557.5 bcd 924.8ab 1.61cde 1.61bcd 1.61 cd 90

NSPases T7 193.4bc 336.4bcd 529.7 b 324.0 ab 578.6 abc 902.6abcd 1.51cde 1.55bcd 1.53 cd 100 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 178.4cd 335.2bcd 513.6 b 310.5 bc 581.1 abc 891.5abcd 1.48cde 1.47d 1.48 d 100

No supplement T9 153.6ef 253.9 fgh 407.4 d 313.2 bc 519.6 cde 832.8def 1.63cde 1.64bcd 1.64 cd 100

Lipase+Lecithin T10 161.4de 249.4ghi 410.8 d 319.9 abc 520.4 cde 840.3cdef 1.78bcde 1.88abcd 1.84 abcd 100

NSPases T11 152.7ef 289.0def 441.7 cd 313.1 bc 555.9 bcd 868.9bcde 1.85bcde 1.73abcd 1.77 bcd 100 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 141.8efg 273.8efg 415.6 d 308.1 bc 550.0 bcde 858.1bcdef 1.62cde 1.50cd 1.54 cd 100

No supplement T13 133.5 fgh 200.2 i 333.6 e 312.3 bc 490.7 de 803.0ef 1.99bcd 2.09abc 2.05 abc 100

Lipase+Lecithin T14 120.5ghi 206.8hi 327.3 e 317.5 abc 491.3 de 808.8ef 2.38ab 2.14ab 2.23 ab 100

NSPases T15 114.8hi 217.4hi 332.2 e 307.2 bc 477.5 e 784.7 f 2.68a 2.24a 2.38 a 100 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 109.6 i 224.1 jhi 333.7 e 303.2 c 486.7 de 789.8ef 2.10abc 1.62bcd 1.77 bcd 100

SEM 9.14 19.27 24.58 6.53 25.32 27.56 0.23 0.21 0.19 3.54

CD 23.6 49.73 63.42 19.07 73.94 80.47 0.68 0.60 0.56 -

P-value1 0.00 <0.001 <0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.50

Effect of SPR

0% 211.4a 389.0a 618.0 a 328 a 603.9 a 931.4a 1.36c 1.40c 1.38 c 100

10% 186.8b 327.2b 514.0 b 312 b 567.9 b 894.7b 1.52bc 1.56bc 1.55 bc 97.5

20% 152.4c 266.5c 418.9 c 314 b 536.5 b 850.0c 1.72b 1.69b 1.70 b 100

30% 119.6d 212.1d 331.7 d 310 b 486.5 c 796.6c 2.29a 2.02a 2.11 a 100

SEM 4.57 9.64 12.29 3.27 12.66 13.78 0.12 0.10 0.10 1.77

CD 11.79 24.86 31.71 8.43 32.67 35.55 0.30 0.27 0.25 -

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 172.4a 282.3b 465.7 316 537.2 853.3 1.6 1.72 1.69 100

Lipase+Lecithin 173.3a 292.4ab 465.6 317 544.0 875.8 1.8 1.76 1.77 97.5

NSPases 169.1a 316.0a 485.2 319 562.0 881.3 1.9 1.72 1.76 100

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 155.4b 304.1ab 466.0 311 551.7 862.3 1.6 1.47 1.52 100

SEM 4.57 9.64 12.29 3.27 12.66 13.78 0.12 0.10 0.10 1.77

CD 11.79 24.86 - - - - - - - -

P-value1 <0.001 0.004 0.294 0.095 0.275 0.205 0.18 0.05 0.07 0.42

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-i Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.10: Proximate composition and gross energy of experimental diets used in the metabolism trail of layers

Dietary Description Proximate Composition (%)

SPR % Biotech. Tool

Treatment

No. Dry

Matter

Total

Ash Crude

Protein Ether

Extract Crude Fiber NFE

Gross Energy Kcal/kg

No supplement T1 90.39 14.88 17.85 2.84 7.30 57.13 3812

Lipase+Lecithin T2 90.40 14.10 17.85 2.92 6.87 58.26 3780

NSPases T3 92.52 18.37 17.85 2.88 6.74 54.16 3769 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 91.76 13.07 17.85 2.74 6.39 59.95 3893

No supplement T5 90.63 16.82 17.71 3.16 7.86 54.45 3712

Lipase+Lecithin T6 90.77 17.10 17.71 3.44 8.13 53.62 3673

NSPases T7 92.53 15.73 17.71 3.46 8.19 54.91 3697 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 91.58 17.86 17.71 3.12 6.99 54.32 3728

No supplement T9 90.97 19.71 16.59 3.57 9.23 50.91 3686

Lipase+Lecithin T10 92.74 18.62 16.59 3.60 8.27 52.93 3625

NSPases T11 92.56 19.20 16.59 3.32 8.54 52.35 3594 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 91.89 21.49 16.59 3.04 8.16 50.72 3641

No supplement T13 90.98 19.79 15.98 3.87 9.39 50.97 3651

Lipase+Lecithin T14 92.82 22.92 15.98 3.80 9.56 47.74 3594

NSPases T15 93.07 21.13 15.98 4.22 9.08 49.59 3554 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 91.51 16.70 15.98 3.99 9.68 53.66 3604

Table 4.11: Metabolizability coefficient of various nutrients of experimental diets used in metabolism trail of layers

Dietary Description Metabolizability of various Nutrients (%)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. DM OM CP EE CF NFE GE ME (Kcal/kg)

No supplement T1 66.97 0.97 abc 72.47 0.82 abc 72.41 0.29 bcd 59.40 0.90 abc 19.62 3.60 abc 83.30 0.80 a 74.68 0.96 a 2846 36.56 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T2 69.79 0.82 a 74.53 0.41 a 84.43 0.87 a 64.91 2.46 a 23.26 3.25 ab 83.04 0.60 a 75.07 0.44 a 2838 16.60 ab

NSPases T3 67.12 1.14 abc 71.39 1.16 abc 73.26 0.33 abcd 62.87 2.01 ab 14.34 4.33 bcd 81.21 1.16 abc 75.00 0.82 a 2827 31.00 abc 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 67.92 0.71 ab 73.58 0.45 ab 71.60 1.82 bcde 62.97 0.83 ab 12.14 3.23 cd 83.38 0.17 a 74.04 2.32 a 2883 90.26 a

No supplement T5 63.68 0.81 bcde 68.69 0.54 bcde 72.15 2.72 bcd 56.37 1.67 abcde 17.02 1.09 abcd 79.95 1.00 abcd 71.28 1.38 abc 2646 51.31 cd

Lipase+Lecithin T6 63.25 0.53 bcde 68.92 0.55 bcd 78.08 0.53 ab 57.09 2.67 abcde 22.78 3.81 ab 79.23 1.47 abcde 71.73 0.70 ab 2634 25.55 de

NSPases T7 62.22 0.54 cdef 68.16 0.31 cdef 73.97 1.85 abc 58.51 5.27 abcd 16.53 1.00 abcd 78.61 1.76 abcdef 70.92 1.09 abc 2622 40.36 de 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 64.14 1.87 bcd 69.10 0.97 bc 71.48 3.56 bcde 53.65 5.08 bcdef 12.49 4.72 cd 81.28 2.15 abc 72.14 1.03 ab 2689 38.49 bcd

No supplement T9 58.37 1.79 efg 63.81 1.32 efg 69.92 3.10 bcdef 49.39 1.02 cdefg 23.59 3.22 ab 75.38 1.16 defg 66.43 1.28 cdef 2449 47.02 efg

Lipase+Lecithin T10 57.46 0.48 fg 63.73 0.64 fg 60.16 5.64 ef 45.25 2.23 fg 12.43 0.78 cd 77.78 1.09 bcdef 67.73 0.99 bcde 2455 35.75 efg

NSPases T11 59.62 1.90 defg 63.41 3.54 fg 68.50 4.76 bcdef 49.95 1.70 cdefg 20.77 3.97 abc 74.31 4.17 fg 68.27 1.33 bcde 2454 47.75 efg 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 56.76 0.73 g 61.48 0.67 g 62.56 3.62 cdef 41.78 1.43 g 8.02 1.32 d 76.46 0.62 cdef 68.82 0.92 bcd 2506 33.52 def

No supplement T13 57.07 2.86 fg 63.09 1.79 g 59.40 4.29 f 47.37 2.50 efg 26.76 4.41 a 74.98 0.98 defg 63.19 1.77 ef 2307 64.46 gh

Lipase+Lecithin T14 55.52 0.93 g 60.22 1.16 g 69.67 2.59 bcdef 48.07 1.60 defg 24.71 4.82 a 70.64 0.56 g 62.40 1.46 f 2243 52.58 h

NSPases T15 56.32 2.87 g 61.57 2.22 g 62.41 4.39 def 44.09 4.53 fg 21.07 6.74 abc 74.55 0.57 efg 64.84 2.37 def 2304 84.16 gh 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 56.90 1.11 fg 64.08 0.92 defg 59.67 2.39 f 45.87 3.99 fg 26.70 3.25 a 76.57 0.13 cdef 65.42 1.94 def 2358 69.94 efg

SEM 2.07 1.919 4.448 4.051 5.228 2.096 1.989 73.23

CD 5.34 4.95 11.48 10.45 10.25 5.41 5.13 188.94

P-value1 0.00 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.017 <0.001 <0.001 0.00

Effect of SPR

0% 67.95 0.52 a 72.99 0.48 a 73.98 0.31 a 75.53 1.52 a 17.34 2.03 b 82.73 0.42 a 74.69 0.58 c 2848 22.96 a

10% 63.32 0.51 b 65.25 0.90 b 68.66 0.85 b 51.77 1.6 b 17.20 1.73 b 79.77 0.76 b 77.67 1.12 b 2648 18.69 b

20% 58.05 0.67 c 60.73 0.39 c 64.25 0.35 c 49.74 1.9 b 16.20 2.20 b 75.98 1.04 c 80.97 1.01 a 2466 19.04 c

30% 56.45 0.94 c 59.21 0.81 c 62.02 0.76 c 41.09 3.74 c 24.81 2.23 a 74.19 0.71 c 72.58 1.57 c 2303 31.78 d

SEM 1.03 0.960 1.207 1.864 2.614 1.048 0.995 36.62

CD 2.67 2.48 3.11 4.81 6.74 2.70 2.57 94.47

P-value1 0.00 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.00

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 61.52 1.43 67.01 1.26 66.90 1.71 55.02 4.33 a 21.75 1.80 78.40 1.12 68.89 1.45 2562 65.06

Lipase+Lecithin 61.50 1.71 63.94 1.99 67.33 2.00 49.37 8.11 b 20.79 2.10 77.67 1.42 78.43 1.22 2542 67.92

NSPases 61.32 1.42 64.07 1.60 67.44 1.60 56.23 4.54 a 18.18 2.10 77.17 1.33 78.33 2.19 2552 63.08

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 61.43 1.53 63.97 2.07 67.25 2.17 57.51 4.03 a 14.84 2.57 79.42 1.02 81.72 2.74 2609 65.06

SEM 1.03 0.960 1.207 1.864 2.614 2.599 0.995 36.62

CD - - - 4.81 - - - -

P-value1 1.00 0.754 0.964 0.002 0.056 0.178 0.628 0.29

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-g Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.12: Metabolizability coefficients of various nutrients of sun-dried SPR as determined by difference method in metabolism trail layers

Dietary Description Metabolizability Coefficient of Various Nutrients of SPR (%)

SPR % Biotech. Tool

Tr.

No. DM OM CP EE CF NFE GE

ME of SPR

Kcal/kg

No supplement T1 34.03 8.07 34.66 5.40 69.79 27.20ab 29.07 16.73 -6.46 10.94 49.76 10.03d 40.68 13.82 845 513

Lipase+Lecithin T2 4.36 5.29 18.38 5.45 20.91 5.34b -13.28 26.67 18.46 38.07 44.98 14.67def 41.67 6.96 803 256

NSPases T3 18.10 5.41 39.08 3.09 80.34 18.54a 19.26 52.71 36.27 9.96 55.21 17.56c 34.23 10.92 780 404 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 30.18 18.73 28.72 9.70 70.36 35.62ab -30.23 50.75 15.56 47.23 62.39 21.52a 55.12 10.33 950 385

No supplement T5 23.97 8.97 29.21 6.58 59.93 15.51ab 9.38 5.10 39.46 16.11 43.68 5.78ef 33.47 6.38 859 235

Lipase+Lecithin T6 8.12 2.38 .20.50 3.20 -36.92 28.21c -33.40 11.15 -30.90 3.89 56.73 5.43bc 38.38 4.93 925 179

NSPases T7 29.64 9.48 31.47 17.71 49.47 23.82ab -10.74 8.48 46.52 19.83 46.69 20.86def 41.97 6.64 953 238 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 12.12 3.66 13.05 3.36 26.37 18.11ab -42.96 7.15 -8.47 6.58 48.77 3.08de 47.97 4.60 1000 168

No supplement T9 33.97 9.54 41.20 595 29.05 14.29ab 19.30 8.35 43.42 14.69 55.58 3.25bc 36.39 5.88 1058 215

Lipase+Lecithin T10 22.21 3.11 26.82 3.88 35.25 8.62ab 8.77 5.33 28.10 16.05 41.72 1.85 f 32.84 4.88 855 175

NSPases T11 31.13 9.57 38.64 7.41 37.11 14.63ab 0.27 15.12 36.78 22.47 59.00 1.91abc 41.16 7.89 1086 281 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 31.19 3.69 41.89 3.01 31.84 9.78ab 5.67 13.30 60.66 10.84 60.67 0.43ab 45.31 6.47 1133 233

MeanSE 23.25 2.64 30.30 2.33 39.46 6.97 -2.46 6.90 23..28 6.78 52.10 3.00 40.72 2.17 937 72

SEM 12.03 10.454 28.582 34.453 30.837 2.096 16.362 412.69

CD - 56.02 - - 5.41 - - -

P-value1 0.20 0157 0.038 0.568 0.193 <0.001 0.956 1.00

Effect of SPR

10% 21.67 5.81 30.21 3.59 60.35 12.53 1.21 18.46 15.96 14.08 53.06 7.30 42.92 5.14 845 172

20% 18.46 3.93 23.59 4.70 24.71 14.71 -17.18 7.41 11.65 11.31 48.97 5.02 40.30 2.90 937 90

30% 29.63 3.34 37.14 2.93 33.31 5.26 8.58 5.22 42.24 7.92 54.24 2.42 38.93 3.07 1031 103

SEM 6.01 5.227 14.291 17.227 15.418 1.048 8.196 206.34

CD - - - - - 2.704 - -

P-value1 0.18 0.051 0.051 0.323 0.121 <0.001 0.797 0.67

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 30.66 4.74 35.02 3.46 52.92 11.68 19.25 6.28 25.47 10.66 49.67 3.87b 36.85 4.83 918 177

Lipase+Lecithin 11.56 3.32 21.90 2.49 6.41 14.02 -12.64 10.44 5.22 15.07 47.81 5.09b 37.63 3.11 861 105

NSPases 26.29 4.67 36.40 5.75 55.64 11.62 5.93 16.36 39.86 9.27 53.63 8.10ab 38.92 4.49 943 164

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 24.50 6.41 27.89 5.19 42.86 13.75 -22.40 16.95 22.58 17.37 57.28 6.63a 49.47 4.04 1028 141

SEM 6.95 6.036 16.502 19.892 17.804 2.599 9.464 238.27

CD - - 32.344 - - 6.705 - -

P-value1 0.06 0.085 0.024 0.182 0.305 <0.001 0.756 0.92

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-f Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.13: Performance of birds under different treatments during 14-day metabolism period of layers

Dietary Description

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No.

Body wt.

change g/bird

Egg

Production

Feed

Consumption

g/day/bird

Egg Weight

g

FCR

g feed/g

egg mass

No supplement T1 113.22 41.4a 92.86 2.38a 117.5 0.96a 56.80 1.68abc 2.231 0.13

Lipase+Lecithin T2 60.11 21.4abc 93.65 3.64a 116.6 1.53ab 59.00 0.39a 2.113 0.09

NSPases T3 33.22 24.7bcd 92.86 2.38a 117.1 1.07a 57.24 0.32abc 2.204 0.05 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 42.78 25.4bc 88.89 9.01ab 117.4 0.80a 58.52 2.91a 2.269 0.12

No supplement T5 73.33 35.3ab 91.27 1.37a 117.7 0.61a 55.83 1.87abc 2.310 0.04

Lipase+Lecithin T6 55.78 77.2bc 87.30 2.75abc 116.9 1.26ab 57.93 2.69ab 2.316 0.11

NSPases T7 66.78 62.8ab 89.68 15.85a 117.7 2.22a 54.35 1.81bcd 2.477 0.52 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 33.11 41.5bcd 84.92 13.95abcd 116.6 1.67ab 54.24 2.68bcd 2.598 0.58

No supplement T9 55.67 48.8bc 84.92 10.74abcd 115.3 1.07ab 55.82 1.49abc 2.454 0.25

Lipase+Lecithin T10 76.00 37.0ab 80.95 16.67abcd 114.6 0.79ab 55.27 3.77abcd 2.660 0.68

NSPases T11 68.89 50.5ab 84.92 3.64abcd 114.3 1.01bc 57.56 0.89ab 2.343 0.12 20

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 73.89 45.0ab 79.37 11.25abcd 113.8 0.33bc 54.43 1.71bcd 2.683 0.50

No supplement T13 5.33 48.8cd 68.25 3.64d 106.9 3.94e 53.67 1.26cd 2.926 0.23

Lipase+Lecithin T14 -19.33 61.4d 76.98 5.50abcd 109.6 1.08de 54.30 2.1bcd 2.629 0.08

NSPases T15 39.56 54.3bc 72.22 4.96bcd 108.6 2.91de 51.44 5.11d 2.958 0.46 30

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T16 44.00 38.9bc 69.84 5.99cd 110.6 1.20de 55.28 2.8abcd 2.879 0.20

SEM 22.12306 7.065 1.357 1.967 0.271

CD 57.08 18.23 3.50 3.89 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 0.038 0.055

Effect of SPR

0% 62.33 7.00a 92.06 0.80a 117.159 0.17a 57.89 0.29 2.205 0.02

10% 57.25 9.40a 88.29 1.57a 117.206 0.24a 55.59 0.42 2.425 0.06

20% 68.61 7.39a 82.54 1.69b 114.496 0.15bc 55.77 0.38 2.535 0.07

30% 17.39 9.31b 71.83 0.92c 108.921 0.44c 53.67 0.51 2.848 0.05

SEM 11.06153 2.040 0.392 0.568 0.078

CD 28.54 5.26 1.01 1.46 0.20

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 61.89 9.59 84.3254 1.888 114.31 0.82 55.53 0.30 2.480 0.05

Lipase+Lecithin 43.1410.59 84.7222 1.696 114.45 0.54 56.62 0.49 2.430 0.06

NSPases 52.11 8.43 84.9206 1.833 114.42 0.69 55.15 0.58 2.496 0.07

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 48.44 6.65 80.754 1.94 114.59 0.49 55.62 0.47 2.607 0.07

SEM 11.062 2.040 0.392 0.568 0.078

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.385 0.607 0.982 0.491 0.613

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.14: Analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets compounded for different phases during performance trial of broilers

Starter diets Grower diets Finisher diets Constituents,

% 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR 0% SPR 5% SPR 10% SPR

Dry matter 91.03 91.79 91.96 92.23 91.50 91.53 90.10 91.55 91.22

Total ash 7.74 6.84 7.39 7.05 7.00 7.19 7.40 7.27 7.52

Crude protein 22.67 21.86 21.25 21.44 20.95 20.93 19.80 19.54 19.47

Ether extract 3.16 3.87 4.77 4.85 5.39 6.04 4.62 6.03 6.42

Crude fiber 6.25 5.98 5.65 6.12 5.81 5.85 5.50 5.64 5.93

NFE 60.18 61.45 60.94 60.54 60.84 59.99 62.68 61.52 60.66

Calcium 1.13 1.44 1.19 1.11 1.41 1.31 1.61 1.76 1.64

Phosphorus 1.06 1.18 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.84 0.77

ME1, Kcal/kg 2822 2822 2822 2909 2910 2910 3000 3004 3004 1Calulated values

Table 4.15: Weekly average body weight gains of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Body Weight Gain (g/bird)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. I Wk. II Wk. III Wk. IV Wk. V Wk. VI Wk.

No supplement T1 69.8 2.0 a 226.3 4.8 a 372.9 8.7 ab 457.5 13.6 a 511.8 18.4 ab 285.3 8.7 e

Lipase+Lecithin T2 65.0 1.9 abc 207.3 5.3 b 357.1 14.1 abcd 431.2 18.2 abcd 516.7 17.2 ab 503.6 41.1 a

NSPases T3 67.1 2.4 ab 209.9 4.5 ab 336.2 6.4 d 410.5 12.9 bcde 501.7 16.3 ab 432.8 16.1 abc 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 69.4 2.1 a 209.1 4.8 ab 382.4 8.7 a 438.1 12.3 abc 481.7 12.3 bc 471.8 33.1 ab

No supplement T5 61.3 1.9 bc 202.1 5.7 b 365.2 8.4 abc 434.6 9.5 abc 544.5 14.5 a 285.4 37.6 e

Lipase+Lecithin T6 58.8 2.2 c 199.8 5.1 bcd 349.2 10.2 bcd 421.8 9.3 abcde 464.2 14.0 bcd 412.7 26.9 bcd

NSPases T7 67.6 4.4 ab 196.5 6.6 bcd 359.4 8.5 abcd 382.7 11.2 de 485.3 15.1 abc 337.9 25.4 cde 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 70.5 3.5 a 210.7 5.7 ab 373.9 9.4 ab 455.6 19.4 ab 478.6 23.3 bc 482.7 13.6 ab

No supplement T9 63.5 2.0 abc 188.7 4.2 bcde 346.9 7.5 cd 401.1 8.9 cde 467.9 13.5 bcd 324.2 23.7 de

Lipase+Lecithin T10 65.5 2.3 abc 181.4 5.1 de 352.0 8.3 bcd 442.4 8.9 abc 464.9 14.1 bcd 389.5 16.1 bcde

NSPases T11 63.7 1.9 abc 186.8 4.3 cde 370.5 10.4 abc 375.5 12.4 e 417.3 18.9 d 324.4 20.5 de 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 61.3 2.1 bc 175.3 4.9 e 356.5 8.6 abcd 427.1 12.1 abcd 434.2 18.6 cd 339.6 49.7 cde

MeanSE 65.3 0.7 199.5 1.6 360.2 2.7 423.2 3.9 480.7 5.0 382.5 9.0

SEM 3.6 7.3 13.1 18.1 23.5 40.4

CD 7.0 18.7 25.7 46.7 60.6 104.3

P-value1 0.015 <0.001 0.023 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 67.8 2.1 a 213.2 5.0 a 362.2 10.2 434.3 14.6 a 503.0 16.2 a 423.4 49.9 a

5% 64.6 3.3 ab 202.3 5.8 b 361.9 9.2 423.7 13.7 b 493.1 17.8 b 379.7 47.7 b

10% 63.5 2.1 b 183.0 4.7 a 356.5 8.8 411.5 11.5 b 446.1 16.7 c 344.4 48.2 b

SEM 1.8 3.6 6.6 9.1 11.7 20.2

CD 3.5 9.4 - 17.7 30.3 52.1

P-value1 0.041 <0.001 0.618 0.043 <0.001 0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 64.9 2.1 205.7 5.7 361.7 8.4 431.1 11.5 a 508.0 16.5 a 298.3 47.6 c

Lipase+Lecithin 63.1 2.2 196.2 5.5 352.8 11.0 431.8 12.8 a 482.0 15.7 ab 435.3 56.3 a

NSPases 66.1 3.1 197.7 5.5 355.4 8.9 389.6 12.4 b 468.1 17.9 b 365.0 41.2 b

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 67.1 2.8 198.4 5.9 371.0 9.0 440.3 15.0 a 464.8 18.9 b 431.4 67.4 a

SEM 2.1 4.2 7.6 10.5 13.6 23.3

CD - - - 27.0 35.0 60.2

P-value1 0.246 0.107 0.078 <0.001 0.006 <0.001

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.16: Phase wise and cumulative average body weight gains of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Body Weight Gain (g/bird)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Starter Phase Grower Phase Finisher Phase Cumulative

Livability

%

No supplement T1 296.1 5.9 a 830.4 20.3 a 797.1 22.6 def 1923.6 39.5 abc 100.00 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T2 272.4 6.4 bc 788.3 20.1 ab 1020.3 45.5 a 2081.0 58.0 a 100.00 0.00

NSPases T3 277.0 6.3 bc 746.7 17.3 b 917.9 28.8 abcd 1941.5 43.0 abc 100.00 0.00 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 278.5 6.4 bc 820.5 20.1 a 953.5 35.3 abc 2052.5 49.7 a 100.00 0.00

No supplement T5 263.4 6.5 cde 799.8 16.4 ab 829.9 38.7 cdef 1893.3 49.3 bcd 96.67 3.33

Lipase+Lecithin T6 251.9 9.1 def 771.0 16.6 ab 877.0 33.5 bcde 1899.9 49.7 bcd 100.00 0.00

NSPases T7 264.9 5.4 cd 734.7 16.8 b 823.1 32.9 def 1822.3 46.6 cd 96.67 3.33 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 282.5 5.5 ab 829.5 25.4 a 964.8 27.9 ab 2080.8 43.4 a 96.67 3.33

No supplement T9 252.2 5.3 def 748.0 13.7 b 792.0 27.6 ef 1792.3 40.4 cd 100.00 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T10 246.8 6.4 ef 794.4 14.7 ab 854.4 22.2 bcdef 1895.6 33.8 bcd 100.00 0.00

NSPases T11 250.5 5.6 def 746.0 17.4 b 743.0 33.0 f 1737.7 44.8 d 100.00 0.00 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 236.6 6.0 f 778.8 18.1 ab 769.2 49.6 ef 1789.6 57.9 cd 96.67 3.33

MeanSE 259.7 2.8 782.4 5.5 861.9 10.6 1915.6 14.7 98.61 0.58

SEM 8.9 25.9 48.2 66.2 2.722

CD 17.5 66.8 124.3 170.9 -

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 2.630

Effect of SPR

0% 281.0 6.4 796.5 20.2 922.2 58.2 a 1999.7 77.6 a 100.00 0.0

5% 265.7 7.0 783.8 20.0 873.7 78.9 a 1924.1 78.9 a 96.7 1.4

10% 246.5 5.9 766.8 16.3 789.7 72.3 b 1803.8 72.3 b 99.2 0.8

SEM 4.5 13.0 24.1 33.1 1.571

CD - - 62.2 85.5 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.073 <0.001 <0.001 0.056

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 270.6 6.8 792.8 18.0 a 806.3 55.1 c 1869.7 80.3 bc 98.9 1.1

Lipase+Lecithin 257.0 7.6 784.6 17.2 a 917.2 67.9 a 1958.8 91.7 ab 100.0 0.0

NSPases 264.1 6.1 742.5 17.0 b 828.0 61.9 bc 1833.9 85.6 c 98.9 1.1

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 265.9 7.0 809.6 21.6 a 895.8 76.0 ab 1974.3 101.5a 96.7 1.7

SEM 5.2 15.0 27.8 38.2 1.361

CD - 38.6 71.8 98.7 -

P-value1 0.072 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.219

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-f Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.17: Weekly average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Feed Consumption (g/bird)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. I Wk. II Wk. III Wk. IV Wk. V Wk. VI Wk.

No supplement T1 109.4 0.1 a 343.1 0.2 a 547.8 11.8 abc 815.0 3.2 953.7 12.2 799.8 32.2

Lipase+Lecithin T2 109.4 0.1 a 328.5 4.1 abc 540.0 7.0 abcd 820.6 24.7 1021.1 20.8 858.3 9.2

NSPases T3 107.5 0.3 bcd 327.5 3.9 abc 530.2 5.2 abcd 783.9 7.1 930.7 15.4 777.8 5.1 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 109.4 0.1 a 329.6 7.9 ab 561.8 2.9 a 810.4 13.4 952.6 3.5 834.0 10.8

No supplement T5 109.1 0.1 a 322.0 6.3 abcd 557.6 6.1 ab 810.8 11.9 970.9 4.5 765.3 34.4

Lipase+Lecithin T6 107.0 0.3 bc 334.6 5.4 a 532.3 11.8 abcd 791.5 18.3 920.5 16.9 751.8 33.1

NSPases T7 107.2 0.2 cd 340.3 5.8 a 551.7 10.8 ab 758.7 59.0 898.1 54.7 727.4 66.8 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 108.5 0.6 ab 337.7 10.9 a 561.4 15.0 a 821.5 33.9 896.5 46.3 738.7 86.3

No supplement T9 107.1 0.4 cd 303.5 3.7 de 514.1 6.0 cd 764.6 12.3 888.0 30.8 807.0 19.9

Lipase+Lecithin T10 104.8 0.4 e 291.4 7.5 e 526.9 1.0 bcd 788.8 4.1 954.8 22.5 810.0 21.1

NSPases T11 106.5 0.3 d 306.9 3.5 bcde 537.3 7.9 abcd 767.1 4.6 924.0 25.3 741.0 62.1 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 107.9 0.1 bc 305.1 4.8 cde 508.0 7.7 d 764.2 7.2 907.9 16.2 724.5 53.3

MeanSE 107.8 0.0 322.5 3.1 539.1 3.5 791.4 6.7 934.9 8.9 778.0 12.6

SEM 0.4 8.4 12.3 32.1 37.9 61.9

CD 1.2 23.4 34.3 - - -

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.403 0.074 0.474

Effect of SPR

0% 108.9 0.3 a 332.3 2.8 a 545.0 4.7 a 807.5 7.5 964.5 11.9 a 817.5 12.0

5% 108.0 0.3 b 333.6 3.8 a 550.7 5.9 a 795.6 16.9 921.5 18.1 b 745.8 25.8

10% 106.6 0.4 c 301.7 2.8 b 521.6 4.4 b 771.1 4.5 918.7 12.7 b 770.6 21.8

SEM 0.2 4.2 6.1 16.1 19.0 31.0

CD 0.6 11.7 17.2 - 39.1 -

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.090 0.041 0.083

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 108.5 0.4 a 322.9 6.1 539.8 7.8 796.8 9.5 937.6 15.9 790.7 16.1

Lipase+Lecithin 107.1 0.7 b 318.2 7.4 533.1 4.4 800.3 10.3 965.5 17.9 806.7 19.3

NSPases 107.1 0.2 b 325.0 5.4 539.7 5.2 769.9 17.6 917.6 18.6 748.8 27.4

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 108.6 0.3 a 324.1 6.4 543.7 10.2 798.7 13.9 919.0 16.6 765.7 34.1

SEM 0.2 4.8 7.1 18.6 21.9 35.7

CD 0.7 - - - - -

P-value1 <0.001 0.512 0.515 0.328 0.129 0.394

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.18: Phase wise and cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments

and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Feed Consumption (g/bird)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Starter Phase Grower Phase Finisher Phase Cumulative

No supplement T1 452.5 0.2 a 1362.8 14.5 1753.5 41.9 3568.8 56.4

Lipase+Lecithin T2 437.9 4.1 ab 1360.6 30.5 1879.5 15.7 3678.0 40.7

NSPases T3 435.3 3.7 abc 1314.1 7.1 1708.5 18.8 3457.9 23.8 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 439.0 8.0 ab 1372.2 14.8 1786.6 14.4 3597.8 36.9

No supplement T5 431.2 6.4 abc 1368.4 17.9 1736.1 37.5 3549.9 33.7

Lipase+Lecithin T6 441.6 5.4 a 1323.8 9.1 1672.3 48.3 3437.7 181.0

NSPases T7 451.1 9.2 a 1310.4 66.2 1625.5 116.4 3387.0 191.0 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 449.7 13.9 a 1382.9 48.8 1668.0 139.0 3565.4 57.2

No supplement T9 410.6 4.1 cd 1278.7 7.4 1695.0 48.7 3384.2 24.9

Lipase+Lecithin T10 396.2 7.1 d 1315.6 4.9 1764.8 26.4 3476.7 96.6

NSPases T11 413.4 3.5 abc 1304.4 8.9 1665.1 85.1 3382.9 66.6 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 413.0 4.7 bcd 1272.2 14.8 1632.4 51.6 3317.6 66.6

MeanSE 431.0 32.4 1330.5 8.9 1715.6 19.7 3483.7 27.8

SEM 9.5 38.6 93.2 128.0

CD 26.6 - - -

P-value1 <0.001 0.092 0.326 0.223

Effect of SPR

0% 441.2 2.9 a 1352.4 10.5 a 1782.0 21.8 3575.6 29.6 a

5% 443.4 4.6 a 1346.4 20.2 ab 1675.5 42.5 3485.0 62.2 ab

10% 408.3 3.0 b 1292.7 6.8 b 1689.3 28.4 3390.3 33.1 b

SEM 4.8 19.3 46.6 64.0

CD 13.3 54.1 - 179.2

P-value1 <0.001 0.009 0.064 0.027

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 431.4 6.4 1336.6 16.1 1728.2 23.2 3501.0 38.6

Lipase+Lecithin 425.2 7.8 1333.4 11.6 1772.2 34.2 3530.8 43.2

NSPases 433.2 6.2 1309.6 19.5 1666.4 43.7 3409.2 60.9

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 433.9 7.3 1342.4 23.4 1695.6 48.9 3493.6 74.0

SEM 5.5 22.3 53.8 73.9

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.396 0.488 0.261 0.412

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.19: Weekly average feed conversion ratio of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Feed Conversion Ratio (Kg Feed/ Kg Weight Gain)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. I Wk. II Wk. III Wk. IV Wk. V Wk. VI Wk.

No supplement T1 1.569 0.04 1.517 0.02 1.471 0.02 1.787 0.07 1.870 0.07 2.708 0.08

Lipase+Lecithin T2 1.688 0.07 1.585 0.03 1.513 0.03 1.917 0.13 1.984 0.10 1.736 0.16

NSPases T3 1.610 0.08 1.563 0.02 1.577 0.02 1.911 0.02 1.856 0.04 1.873 0.07 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 1.580 0.05 1.577 0.00 1.469 0.00 1.851 0.02 1.978 0.02 1.768 0.00

No supplement T5 1.793 0.10 1.597 0.06 1.536 0.06 1.875 0.07 1.793 0.06 2.766 0.32

Lipase+Lecithin T6 1.821 0.05 1.742 0.05 1.528 0.05 1.877 0.06 1.983 0.03 1.897 023

NSPases T7 1.615 0.15 1.681 0.12 1.566 0.12 2.011 0.08 1.853 0.03 2.226 0.24 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 1.565 0.14 1.555 0.04 1.507 0.04 1.820 0.12 1.960 0.08 1.580 0.14

No supplement T9 1.689 0.06 1.612 0.03 1.483 0.03 1.910 0.07 1.900 0.07 2.629 0.44

Lipase+Lecithin T10 1.612 0.09 1.612 0.01 1.497 0.01 1.785 0.04 2.058 0.05 2.093 0.11

10

NSPases T11 1.675 0.04 1.643 0.01 1.450 0.01 2.062 0.14 2.247 0.16 2.404 0.18

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 1.769 0.09 1.742 0.01 1.425 0.01 1.823 0.11 2.187 0.29 2.856 0.97

MeanSE 1.665 0.03 1.619 0.01 1.502 0.01 1.886 0.02 1.973 0.03 2.211 0.11

SEM 0.123 0.069 0.066 0.122 0.154 0.491

CD - - - - - -

P-value1 0.432 0.057 0.509 0.500 0.174 0.139

Effect of SPR

0% 1.612 0.03 1.560 0.02 a 1.507 0.02 1.866 0.04 1.922 0.03 2.021 0.13

5% 1.698 0.06 1.644 0.03 b 1.534 0.03 1.896 0.04 1.898 0.03 2.117 0.17

10% 1.689 0.04 1.652 0.01 b 1.464 0.01 1.895 0.05 2.098 0.08 2.495 0.25

SEM 0.061 0.034 0.033 0.061 0.077 0.246

CD - 0.071 - - - -

P-value1 0.328 0.024 0.119 0.860 0.194 0.147

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 1.684 0.05 1.575 0.02 1.497 0.02 1.857 0.04 1.854 0.04 b 2.701 0.16

Lipase+Lecithin 1.707 0.05 1.646 0.02 1.513 0.02 1.860 0.05 2.008 0.04 ab 1.909 0.10

NSPases 1.633 0.05 1.629 0.04 1.531 0.04 1.995 0.05 1.986 0.08 ab 2.168 0.12

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 1.638 0.06 1.625 0.02 1.467 0.02 1.831 0.05 2.042 0.09 a 2.068 0.35

SEM 0.071 0.040 0.038 0.070 0.089 0.284

CD - - - - 0.184 -

P-value1 0.679 0.339 0.399 0.113 0.031 0.054

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-b Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.20: Phase wise and cumulative average feed conversion ratio of birds as influenced by different treatments and main

factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Feed Conversion Ratio (Kg Feed/ Kg Weight Gain)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Starter Phase Grower Phase Finisher Phase Cumulative

No supplement T1 1.529

0.01 d

1.644

0.05 2.175

0.03 abc

1.778

0.04

Lipase+Lecithin T2 1.608

0.01 cd

1.728

0.05 1.856

0.12 cd

1.773

0.08

NSPases T3 1.572

0.02 cd

1.761

0.02 1.864

0.05 cd

1.781

0.02

0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 1.578

0.02 cd

1.673

0.01 1.874

0.01 cd

1.753

0.00

No supplement T5 1.639

0.04 bcd

1.720

0.06 2.110

0.10 abcd

1.887

0.08

5

Lipase+Lecithin T6 1.758

0.07 a

1.720

0.05 1.922

0.09 bcd

1.813

0.05

NSPases T7 1.654

0.01 abc

1.794

0.07 1.991

0.09 bcd

1.869

0.08

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 1.550

0.03 cd

1.677

0.08 1.789

0.06 d

1.779

0.04

No supplement T9 1.629

0.02 bcd

1.711

0.04 2.164

0.19 abc

1.894

0.09

Lipase+Lecithin T10 1.606

0.04 cd

1.657

0.02 2.068

0.04 abcd

1.835

0.02

NSPases T11 1.651

0.01 abc

1.753

0.06 2.341

0.18 a

1.977

0.09

10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 1.746

0.03 ab

1.636

0.05 2.237

0.17 ab

1.925

0.07

MeanSE 1.627 0.01 1.706 0.01 2.032 0.04 1.839 0.02

SEM 0.043 0.074 0.158 0.086

CD 0.119 - 0.326 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.558 0.031 0.255

Effect of SPR

0% 1.571 0.01 b 1.701 0.02 1.942 0.05 b 1.771 0.02b

5% 1.650 0.03 a 1.728 0.03 1.953 0.05 b 1.837 0.03ab

10% 1.658 0.02 a 1.689 0.02 2.202 0.07 a 1.908 0.03a

SEM 0.021 0.037 0.079 0.043

CD 0.060 - 0.211 0.089

P-value1 0.001 0.577 0.004 0.015

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 1.599 0.02 1.692 0.03 2.149 0.06 1.853 0.04

Lipase+Lecithin 1.657 0.03 1.702 0.03 1.948 0.06 1.807 0.03

NSPases 1.626 0.01 1.769 0.03 2.065 0.09 1.876 0.04

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 1.625 0.03 1.662 0.03 1.967 0.09 1.819 0.04

SEM 0.025 0.043 0.091 0.050

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.160 0.108 0.127 0.508

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.24: Relative weight of vital organs of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description g / 100 g body weight

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Liver Heart Gizzard Proventriculus Spleen Bursa

No supplement T1 2.81 0.16 0.59 0.03 2.22 0.09 0.49 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.23 0.05 abc

Lipase+Lecithin T2 2.89 0.17 0.60 0.03 2.54 0.13 0.54 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.24 0.03 abc

NSPases T3 2.69 0.20 0.62 0.03 2.34 0.15 0.57 0.04 0.19 0.01 0.22 0.02 abc 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 3.07 0.49 0.66 0.07 2.30 0.12 0.50 0.03 0.28 0.07 0.16 0.02 c

No supplement T5 2.41 0.22 0.55 0.03 2.34 0.11 0.52 0.05 0.18 0.02 0.21 0.04 abc

Lipase+Lecithin T6 2.89 0.37 0.60 0.03 2.52 0.09 0.56 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.02 c

NSPases T7 2.32 0.07 0.65 0.05 2.54 0.10 0.55 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.18 0.02 c 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 2.29 0.06 0.62 0.04 2.31 0.11 0.45 0.03 0.27 0.05 0.32 0.05 a

No supplement T9 2.70 0.16 0.63 0.03 2.55 0.04 0.55 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.30 0.03 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T10 2.83 0.22 0.68 0.03 2.54 0.15 0.57 0.03 0.18 0.04 0.20 0.03 bc

NSPases T11 2.91 0.12 0.64 0.03 2.45 0.19 0.52 0.04 0.22 0.02 0.21 0.02 bc 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 2.44 0.08 0.58 0.02 2.79 0.14 0.52 0.03 0.27 0.02 0.27 0.02 abc

MeanSE 2.69 0.07 0.62 0.01 2.45 0.04 0.53 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01

SEM 0.32 0.05 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.04

CD - - - - - 0.109

P-value1 0.240 0.483 0.118 0.757 0.170 0.009

Effect of SPR

0% 2.87 0.62 0.62 0.02 2.35 0.06 b 0.52 0.02 0.23 0.02 0.21 0.02

5% 2.48 0.61 0.61 0.02 2.43 0.05 ab 0.52 0.03 0.20 0.02 0.22 0.02

10% 2.72 0.08 0.63 0.02 2.58 0.07 a 0.54 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.24 0.01

SEM 0.16 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.02

CD - - 0.17 - - -

P-value1 0.058 0.594 0.032 0.767 0.460 0.316

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 2.64 0.11 0.59 0.02 2.37 0.06 0.52 0.02 0.21 0.01 b 0.24 0.02

Lipase+Lecithin 2.87 0.14 0.63 0.02 2.53 0.07 0.55 0.03 0.19 0.02 b 0.20 0.02

NSPases 2.64 0.10 0.64 0.02 2.45 0.08 0.55 0.03 0.19 0.01 b 0.20 0.01

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 2.60 0.18 0.62 0.03 2.46 0.09 0.49 0.02 0.27 0.03 a 0.25 0.02

SEM 0.19 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.02

CD - - - - 0.05 -

P-value1 0.452 0.433 0.471 0.258 0.011 0.104

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-c Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.21: Metabolizability of various nutrients of experimental diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Metabolizability Coefficient (%)

SPR% Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Dry Matter Organic Matter

Crude Protein Ether Extract

No supplement T1 71.09 4.87abcd 84.64 5.31abc 67.36 4.74b 61.17 4.52bc

Lipase+Lecithin T2 70.77 4.86abcd 84.64 5.31abc 67.55 4.75b 71.75 4.89ab

NSPases T3 72.58 4.92ab

85.30 5.33a

73.26 4.94a

b 73.49 4.95a 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 71.88 4.90abcd

84.14 5.30bcd

71.24 4.87a

b 62.06 4.55bc

No supplement T5 71.91 4.90abcd 83.80 5.29d 68.53 4.78b 59.72 4.46c

Lipase+Lecithin T6 72.56 4.92abc 84.37 5.30bcd 76.89 5.06a 64.84 4.65abc

NSPases T7 74.44 4.98a 84.29 5.30bcd 75.92 5.03a 70.61 4.85ab 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 73.68 4.96a

83.94 5.29cd

72.75 4.92a

b 59.37 4.45c

No supplement T9 69.08 4.80bcd 84.10 5.29bcd 67.38 4.74b 65.12 4.66abc

Lipase+Lecithin T10 68.99 4.78cd 84.22 5.30cd 68.87 4.79b 68.03 4.76abc

NSPases T11 68.33 4.77d 84.01 5.29bcd 69.22 4.80b 62.76 4.57bc 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 71.31 4.88abcd

84.84 5.32bcd

71.91 4.90a

b 59.20 4.44c

MeanSE 71.36 1.41 84.36 1.53ab 70.91 1.40 63.83 1.33

SEM 1.39 0.30 2.13 3.81

CD 3.90 0.83 5.97 10.68

P-value1 0.03 0.002 0.01 0.005

Effect of SPR

0% 71.58 0.38a 84.68 0.14a 69.85 0.82b 67.12 2.13

5% 73.15 0.59a 84.10 0.14b 73.52 1.19a 63.64 1.92

10% 69.34 0.54b 84.29 0.12b 69.34 0.97b 63.78 1.17

SEM 0.70 0.15 1.07 1.91

CD 1.80 0.38 2.75 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.002 0.001 0.140

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 70.69 0.53 84.18 0.15 67.76 1.04b 62.01 2.31b

Lipase+Lecithin 70.66 0.67 84.41 0.13 71.10 1.61a 68.21 1.25a

NSPases 71.78 1.14 84.53 0.24 72.82 1.07a 68.96 2.01a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 72.29 0.62 84.31 0.15 71.97 0.79a 60.21 0.88a

SEM 0.80 0.17 1.23 2.20

CD - - 3.18 5.68

P-value1 0.135 0.225 0.002 0.001

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.22: Calcium and phosphorus retention of experimental diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Calcium Phosphorus

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. % of Intake g/day % of Intake g/day

No supplement T1 57.90 4.39bc 0.58 0.44cd 46.09 3.92ab 0.38 0.35 a

Lipase+Lecithin T2 63.91 4.62ab 0.60 0.45cd 43.10 3.79abcd 0.33 0.33 abc

NSPases T3 64.91 4.65ab 0.61 0.45cd 44.83 3.87abc 0.34 0.34 abc 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 50.05 4.08c 0.50 0.41d 30.89 3.21de 0.25 0.29 cd

No supplement T5 70.40 4.84a

0.87 0.54a

39.26 3.62abcd

e 0.30 0.31 abc

d

Lipase+Lecithin T6 63.26 4.59ab 0.77 0.51ab 46.41 3.93ab 0.34 0.34 abc

NSPases T7 75.29 5.01a 0.88 0.54a 49.01 4.04ab 0.35 0.34 ab

5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 6 3.13 4.59ab 0.79 0.51ab 29.80 3.15e 0.23 0.28 d

No supplement T9 64.91 4.65ab 0.72 0.49abc 37.59 3.54bcde 0.28 0.31 bcd

Lipase+Lecithin T10 69.99 4.83ab 0.77 0.51ab 50.81 4.12a 0.38 0.36 a

NSPases T11 69.93 4.83ab

0.77 0.51ab

41.16 3.70abcd

e 0.31 0.32 abc

d

10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 65.16 4.66ab 0.69 0.48bc 32.58 3.30cde 0.23 0.28 d

MeanSE 64.90 1.34 0.71 0.14 40.96 1.07 0.31 0.09

SEM 4.39 0.05 4.51 0.03

CD 12.29 0.15 12.63 0.09

P-value1 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 59.19 2.38 b

0.57 0.02c

41.23 2.16

0.32 0.02

5% 68.02 1.94a 0.83 0.02a 41.12 2.66 0.31 0.02

10% 67.50 1.39a 0.74 0.02b 40.54 2.50 0.30 0.02

SEM 2.19 0.03 2.26 0.02

CD 5.66 0.07 - -

P-value1 0.001 <0.001 0.947 0.328

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 64.40 2.57ab 0.72 0.05ab 40.98 1.63a 0.32 0.02a

Lipase+Lecithin 65.72 2.11ab 0.71 0.04ab 46.78 2.15a 0.35 0.02a

NSPases 70.04 1.79a 0.75 0.04a 45.00 2.21a 0.33 0.02a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 59.45 2.76b 0.66 0.04b 31.09 1.55b 0.24 0.01b

SEM 2.53 0.03 2.60 0.02

CD 6.54 0.06 6.72 0.05

P-value1 0.004 0.037 <0.001 <0.001

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.23: Carcass characteristic of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Abdominal Fat

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Dressing

Percentage Meat: Bone ratio

g/bird % of live weight

No supplement T1 78.06 0.99 3.61 0.21 27.50 2.49 1.79 0.16

Lipase+Lecithin T2 79.39 0.71 2.98 0.06 24.33 1.96 1.50 0.13

NSPases T3 78.20 1.11 3.83 0.30 23.33 1.71 1.54 0.15 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 77.68 1.33 3.57 0.34 36.00 6.75 2.41 0.45

No supplement T5 75.91 2.48 3.32 0.24 21.33 2.69 1.31 0.17

Lipase+Lecithin T6 78.99 1.18 3.84 0.38 19.83 3.98 1.29 0.22

NSPases T7 79.61 0.51 3.36 0.09 28.00 5.56 1.89 0.42 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 79.23 0.97 3.86 0.16 21.25 1.99 1.38 0.16

No supplement T9 76.44 0.83 3.08 0.11 21.67 4.92 1.50 0.36

Lipase+Lecithin T10 78.44 1.00 3.68 0.19 20.50 5.38 1.41 0.39

NSPases T11 75.58 0.98 3.98 0.35 19.17 3.88 1.37 0.24 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 76.95 0.92 3.42 0.20 15.20 2.91 1.05 0.19

MeanSE 77.87 0.35 3.55 0.07 23.18 1.23 1.54 0.08

SEM 1.670 0.14 5.67 0.39

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.214 0.082 0.077 0.119

Effect of SPR

0% 78.33 0.51 3.50 0.13 27.79 2.06a 1.81 0.14a

5% 78.44 0.76 3.60 0.13 22.60 1.89ab 1.47 0.13ab

10% 76.86 0.41 3.54 0.13 19.13 2.10b 1.33 0.15b

SEM 0.835 0.07 2.84 0.20

CD - - 5.56 0.39

P-value1 0.114 0.852 0.012 0.049

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 76.80 0.90 3.34 0.12 23.50 2.04 1.53 0.14

Lipase+Lecithin 78.84 0.54 3.50 0.16 21.56 2.23 1.40 0.15

NSPases 77.80 0.64 3.73 0.16 23.50 2.36 1.60 0.17

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 77.96 0.63 3.62 0.14 24.15 3.19 1.61 0.21

SEM 0.964 0.08 3.27 0.23

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.188 0.240 0.871 0.769

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.25: Relative length of intestinal segments of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description cm / 100g body weight

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Duodenum Jejunum Ileum Small Intestine

No supplement T1 1.64 0.11 4.69 0.23ab 4.73 0.15ab 11.06 0.42a

Lipase+Lecithin T2 1.53 0.11 4.08 0.17de 4.10 0.15c 9.71 0.35b

NSPases T3 1.54 0.08 4.33 0.11de 4.22 0.11c 10.09 0.17ab 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 1.62 0.10 4.11 0.14de 4.45 0.23abc 10.18 0.49ab

No supplement T5 1.51 0.10 4.06 0.22de 4.19 0.19c 10.35 0.47b

Lipase+Lecithin T6 1.70 0.12 4.34 0.16de 4.31 0.15b 9.89 0.25ab

NSPases T7 1.54 0.05 4.09 0.12de 4.26 0.09c 9.79 0.15b 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 1.67 0.10 3.86 0.13e 4.26 0.14c 10.61 0.35b

No supplement T9 1.89 0.36 4.21 0.18de 4.51 0.14abc 10.21 0.35ab

Lipase+Lecithin T10 1.50 0.04 4.46 0.23cd 4.25 0.12c 10.21 0.54ab

NSPases T11 1.52 0.08 4.72 0.25a 4.71 0.14ab 10.95 0.39a 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 1.62 0.08 4.59 0.21bc 4.82 0.22a 11.03 0.52a

MeanSE 1.61 0.04 4.30 0.06 4.40 0.05 10.30 0.12

SEM 0.19 0.26 0.22 0.55

CD - 0.52 0.437 1.09

P-value1 0.75 0.03 0.02 0.04

Effect of SPR

0% 1.58 0.05 4.30 0.09ab 4.37 0.09 10.27 0.20ab

5% 1.60 0.05 4.09 0.08b 4.26 0.07 9.86 0.16b

10% 1.63 0.09 4.50 0.11a 4.57 0.09 10.78 0.23a

SEM 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.28

CD - 0.26 0.22 0.71

P-value1 0.86 0.01 0.021 0.006

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 1.68 0.13 4.32 0.13 4.48 0.10 10.33 0.26

Lipase+Lecithin 1.58 0.06 4.29 0.11 4.22 0.08 10.19 0.24

NSPases 1.56 0.04 4.38 0.11 4.40 0.08 10.41 0.19

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 1.61 0.05 4.19 0.12 4.51 0.12 10.28 0.29

SEM 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.32

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.71 0.65 0.12 0.92

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.26: Bone mineralization of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description % of Dry Bone % of Tibial Ash

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Toe Ash Tibia Ash Calcium Phosphorus

No supplement T1 33.41 3.34c 45.36 3.89 35.94 3.46cd 15.78 2.29

Lipase+Lecithin T2 32.25 3.28c 46.96 3.96 38.91 3.46cd 15.41 2.27

NSPases T3 37.41 3.53b 44.52 3.85 43.89 3.82ab 16.32 2.33 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 39.15 3.61ab 44.41 3.85 33.15 3.32d 13.19 2.10

No supplement T5 33.29 3.33c 43.50 3.81 35.62 3.45cd 16.63 2.35

Lipase+Lecithin T6 39.03 3.61ab 46.77 3.95 41.00 3.70ab 15.99 2.31

NSPases T7 41.42 3.72a 47.87 3.99 39.10 3.61abcd 14.69 2.21 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 39.20 3.61ab 50.50 4.10 40.33 3.67abc 19.19 2.53

No supplement T9 32.32 3.28c 43.34 3.80 36.31 3.48cd 15.90 2.30

Lipase+Lecithin T10 38.53 3.58ab 46.66 3.94 38.46 3.58bcd 15.26 2.26

NSPases T11 40.12 3.66ab 46.57 3.94 45.58 3.90a 16.23 2.33 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 39.67 3.64ab 43.60 3.81 39.35 3.62abcd 17.56 2.42

MeanSE

SEM 1.095 2.648 3.410 2.076

CD 3.06 - 7.03 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.286 0.046 0.474

Effect of SPR

0% 35.55 0.92b 45.32 0.73 37.22 1.79 15.18

5% 38.24 0.98a 47.16 1.33 39.01 1.18 16.62

10% 37.66 0.98a 45.04 0.71 39.93 1.23 16.24

SEM 0.547 1.324 1.705 1.038

CD 1.53 - - -

P-value1 <0.001 0.240 0.290 0.368

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 33.010.488c 44.07 0.56 35.95 0.22b 16.10

Lipase+Lecithin 36.60 1.14b 46.80 0.43 38.45 1.25b 15.55

NSPases 39.65 0.68a 46.32 0.94 42.86 1.15a 15.75

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 39.34 0.41a 46.17 1.91 37.61 2.37b 16.64

SEM 0.632 1.529 1.969 1.199

CD 1.77 - 4.06 -

P-value1 <0.001 0.312 0.012 0.811

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.27: Blood mineral profile of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at different intervals of 42-day performance trial of broilers

Dietary Description Serum Calcium (mg/dl) Serum Phosphorus (mg/dl)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. 21st day 42nd day 21st day 42nd day

No supplement T1 11.73 1.98 13.35 2.11 7.00 1.53 6.28 1.45

Lipase+Lecithin T2 11.55 1.96 13.27 2.10 6.04 1.42 5.56 1.36

NSPases T3 13.02 2.08 14.63 2.21 5.80 1.39 6.52 1.47 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 12.91 2.07 14.30 2.18 7.00 1.53 7.16 1.54

No supplement T5 11.95 2.00 12.61 2.05 6.52 1.47 5.72 1.38

Lipase+Lecithin T6 13.53 2.12 13.60 2.13 6.32 1.45 6.80 1.51

NSPases T7 13.09 2.09 14.01 2.16 6.72 1.50 6.12 1.43 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 12.14 2.01 12.87 2.07 6.52 1.47 7.04 1.53

No supplement T9 12.61 2.05 14.01 2.16 6.00 1.41 6.88 1.51

Lipase+Lecithin T10 12.06 2.01 13.05 2.09 7.12 1.54 7.32 1.56

NSPases T11 11.51 1.96 12.91 2.07 6.04 1.42 6.40 1.46 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 12.87 2.07 12.65 2.05 6.24 1.44 6.92 1.52

MeanSE 12.41 0.59 13.44 0.61 6.44 0.42 6.56 0.43

SEM 0.704 1.178 0.645 0.566

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.104 0.773 0.519 0.081

Effect of SPR

0% 12.30 0.28 13.89 0.36 6.46 0.24 6.38 0.26

5% 12.68 0.29 13.27 0.44 6.52 0.16 6.42 0.24

10% 12.27 0.28 13.15 0.37 6.35 0.28 6.88 0.17

SEM 0.352 0.589 0.322 0.283

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.443 0.423 0.868 0.167

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 12.10 0.34 13.32 0.37 6.51 0.30 6.29 0.23

Lipase+Lecithin 12.38 0.43 13.31 0.49 6.49 0.27 6.56 0.34

NSPases 12.54 0.34 13.85 0.58 6.19 0.24 6.35 0.25

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 12.64 0.15 13.27 0.39 6.59 0.26 7.04 0.19

SEM 0.406 0.680 0.372 0.327

CD - - - -

P-value1 0.579 0.808 0.722 0.118

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.29: Analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets compounded during performance trial of layers

Diet Description Proximate Composition (%) Minerals (%)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Dry matter Total Ash Ether Extract Crude Protein Crude Fiber NFE Calcium Phosphorus

No supplement T1 89.49 18.14 2.21 17.78 8.10 53.77 3.98 0.80

Lipase+Lecithin T2 90.25 21.04 2.21 17.73 7.94 51.08 4.00 0.81

NSPases T3 90.22 19.03 2.22 17.89 7.20 53.66 4.00 0.81 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 89.91 18.20 2.36 17.92 7.80 53.72 4.00 0.80

No supplement T5 89.96 20.70 2.97 17.72 7.85 50.76 3.95 0.78

Lipase+Lecithin T6 89.28 18.16 2.88 17.72 7.66 53.58 3.95 0.78

NSPases T7 89.48 20.21 3.07 17.61 7.62 51.49 3.98 0.75 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 89.03 17.59 3.07 17.35 7.73 54.26 3.98 0.78

No supplement T9 88.99 19.45 3.36 17.31 7.58 52.30 4.00 0.75

Lipase+Lecithin T10 89.70 18.01 3.96 17.56 8.00 52.47 3.98 0.76

NSPases T11 89.51 17.52 3.33 17.55 7.60 54.00 4.00 0.73 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 89.42 17.70 3.55 17.77 7.65 53.33 4.02 0.78

Table 4.30: Period wise and cumulative average egg production of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Egg Production (%) Egg Production (Number)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 84.52 2.31 79.76 3.43 abcd 83.94 1.71 a 82.63 1.48a 23.7 0.65 22.2 0.94 abcd 23.5 0.48 a 23.1 0.41 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T2 85.95 1.95 82.54 2.37 ab 82.48 2.07 a 83.66 1.23a 24.1 0.55 23.1 0.66 ab 23.1 0.58 a 23.4 0.34 ab

NSPases T3 84.94 1.56 83.23 1.18 ab 82.85 1.51 a 83.68 0.81a 23.8 0.44 23.3 0.33 ab 23.2 0.42 a 23.4 0.23 ab 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 85.85 1.98 84.49 2.53 a 83.16 2.53 a 84.50 1.34a 24.0 0.55 23.7 0.71 a 23.3 0.71 a 23.7 0.37 a

No supplement T5 85.12 1.82 81.70 2.31 ab 83.33 1.62 a 83.38 1.11a 23.8 0.51 22.9 0.65 ab 23.3 0.45 a 23.3 0.31 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T6 80.30 1.73 80.11 2.45 abc 82.18 2.35 a 80.86 1.24ab 22.5 0.48 22.4 0.69 abcd 23.0 0.66 a 22.6 0.35 ab

NSPases T7 82.98 2.73 80.41 2.22 abc 77.17 1.82 ab 80.19 1.34abc 23.2 0.77 22.5 0.62 abc 21.6 0.51 ab 22.5 0.38 ab 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 78.75 1.94 75.20 2.10 cd 74.14 1.88 b 76.03 1.16c 22.1 0.54 21.1 0.59 cd 20.8 0.53 b 21.3 0.32 b

No supplement T9 78.57 2.65 77.58 1.78 bcd 74.53 2.32 b 76.89 1.31bc 22.0 0.74 21.7 0.50 bcd 20.9 0.65 b 21.5 0.37 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T10 79.05 3.10 74.95 2.99 cd 77.32 1.96 ab 77.11 1.56abc 22.1 0.87 21.0 0.84 cd 21.7 0.55 ab 21.6 0.44 ab

NSPases T11 82.62 1.89 79.51 1.47 abcd 83.15 1.20 a 81.76 0.91a 23.1 0.53 22.3 0.41 abcd 23.3 0.33 a 22.9 0.25 ab 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 78.87 2.74 73.81 1.10 d 77.33 1.60 ab 76.67 1.14c 22.1 0.77 20.7 0.31 d 21.7 0.45 ab 21.5 0.32 b

MeanSE 82.29 0.67 79.47 0.68 80.26 0.60 80.67 0.38 23.0 0.19 22.3 0.19 22.5 0.17 22.6 0.11

SEM 3.181 3.197 2.711 1.748 0.891 0.891 0.759 0.490

CD - 6.266 6.994 4.511 - 1.745 1.958 1.263

P-value1 0.063 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 0.063 0.012 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 85.32 0.96 a 82.42 1.23 a 83.11 0.97 a 83.61 1.07 a 23.9 0.27 a 23.1 0.34 a 23.3 0.27 a 23.4 0.30 a

5% 81.79 1.07 ab 79.35 1.16 ab 79.21 1.08 b 80.11 1.11 b 22.9 0.30 ab 22.2 0.32 ab 22.2 0.30 b 22.4 0.31 ab

10% 79.78 1.30 b 76.46 1.01 b 78.08 0.99 b 78.11 1.12 b 22.3 0.36 b 21.4 0.28 b 21.9 0.28 b 21.9 0.31 b

SEM 1.591 1.599 1.355 0.874 0.445 0.445 0.380 0.245

CD 4.104 4.124 3.497 2.255 1.149 1.149 0.979 0.632

P-value1 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 <0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 82.74 1.37 79.56 1.46 80.60 1.29 80.97 0.80 ab 23.2 0.38 22.3 0.41 22.6 0.36 22.7 0.22 a

Lipase+Lecithin 81.77 1.41 79.20 1.56 80.66 1.26 80.54 0.82 ab 22.9 0.39 22.2 0.44 22.6 0.35 22.6 0.23 ab

NSPases 83.51 1.20 80.82 1.02 81.06 0.98 81.87 0.61 a 23.4 0.34 22.7 0.27 22.7 0.27 22.9 0.17 a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 81.16 1.38 78.06 1.37 78.21 1.31 79.07 0.79 b 22.7 0.39 21.8 0.39 21.9 0.37 22.1 0.22 b

SEM 1.837 1.846 1.565 1.009 0.514 0.514 0.438 0.283

CD - - - 0.979 - - - 0.554

P-value1 0.589 0.520 0.253 0.046 0.589 0.378 0.253 0.046

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.32: Period wise and cumulative average feed efficiency of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Feed efficiency (kg feed/kg egg mass) Feed efficiency (kg feed/ dozen egg)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 2.354 0.04 cd 2.550 0.04 bc 2.400 0.03 bcd 2.435 0.03 cd 1.629 0.01 de 1.776 0.00 c 1.691 0.01 f 1.698 0.02 cd

Lipase+Lecithin T2 2.317 0.05 d 2.410 0.02 d 2.412 0.04 bcd 2.379 0.03 d 1.631 0.01 de 1.725 0.01 cde 1.731 0.01 ef 1.696 0.02 cd

NSPases T3 2.364 0.01 cd 2.438 0.01 bd 2.412 0.02 cd 2.405 0.01 d 1.632 0.02 de 1.716 0.00 de 1.715 0.01 f 1.688 0.02 cd 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 2.309 0.02 d 2.402 0.02 d 2.414 0.03 bcd 2.375 0.02 d 1.599 0.03 e 1.686 0.00 e 1.705 0.01 f 1.664 0.02 d

No supplement T5 2.323 0.05 d 2.470 0.01 cd 2.388 0.01 bcd 2.394 0.03 d 1.637 0.02 de 1.738 0.00 cde 1.701 0.01 f 1.692 0.02 cd

Lipase+Lecithin T6 2.437 0.03 abcd 2.470 0.02 cd 2.373 0.04 cd 2.427 0.02 cd 1.729 0.01 abc 1.750 0.01 cd 1.714 0.01 f 1.731 0.01 bcd

NSPases T7 2.386 0.03 acd 2.467 0.03 cd 2.526 0.04 ab 2.460 0.03 bc 1.678 0.02 cd 1.771 0.0 c 1.832 0.01 c 1.760 0.02 bc 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 2.484 0.03 abc 2.682 0.04 a 2.640 0.02 a 2.602 0.03 a 1.752 0.02 ab 1.879 0.00 a 1.900 0.01 a 1.844 0.02 a

No supplement T9 2.468 0.04 abc 2.486 0.02 cd 2.620 0.07 a 2.524 0.03 abc 1.748 0.00 abc 1.777 0.01 c 1.855 0.02 b 1.794 0.02 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T10 2.526 0.05 a 2.647 0.07 ab 2.502 0.05 abc 2.558 0.04 ab 1.755 0.02 a 1.858 0.04 b 1.781 0.02 d 1.798 0.02 ab

NSPases T11 2.370 0.02 bcd 2.456 0.01 cd 2.354 0.03 d 2.393 0.02 c 1.689 0.01 bcd 1.777 0.01 c 1.693 0.01 f 1.720 0.02 cd 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 2.511 0.04 ab 2.687 0.02 a 2.513 0.03 abc 2.568 0.03 ab 1.757 0.01 a 1.871 0.01 a 1.772 0.00 de 1.800 0.02 a

MeanSE 2.404 0.02 2.513 0.02 2.463 0.02 2.460 0.01 1.686 0.01 1.777 0.01 1.757 0.01 1.740 0.01

SEM 0.052 0.043 0.053 0.039 0.023 0.019 0.015 0.026

CD 0.144 0.121 0.148 0.110 0.064 0.054 0.043 0.073

P-value1 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 2.336 0.02 b 2.450 0.02 b 2.409 .01 b 2.398 0.02 b 1.623 0.01 c 1.726 0.01 c 1.711 0.01 b 1.689 0.02 b

5% 2.408 0.02 a 2.523 0.03 a 2.482 0.04 a 2.471 0.03 a 1.699 0.02 b 1.784 0.02 b 1.786 0.03 a 1.757 0.02 a

10% 2.469 0.02 a 2.567 0.03 a 2.497 0.04 a 2.511 0.03 a 1.737 0.01 a 1.821 0.02 a 1.775 0.02 a 1.778 0.02 a

SEM 0.026 0.022 0.026 0.020 0.011 0.010 0.008 0.013

CD 0.067 0.056 0.068 0.051 0.029 0.025 0.020 0.034

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 2.382 0.03 2.502 0.02 b 2.469 0.04 ab 2.451 0.02 b 1.671 0.02 bc 1.764 0.01 b 1.749 0.03 b 1.728 0.01 b

Lipase+Lecithin 2.427 1.41 2.509 0.04 b 2.429 0.03 b 2.455 0.02 b 1.705 0.0 a 1.778 0.02 b 1.742 0.35 b 1.741 0.01 ab

NSPases 2.373 1.20 2.454 0.01 b 2.431 0.03 b 2.419 0.01 b 1.666 0.01 c 1.755 0.01 b 1.747 0.27 b 1.723 0.01 b

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 2.435 1.38 2.588 0.05 a 2.522 0.04 a 2.515 0.03 a 1.703 0.03 ab 1.812 0.03 a 1.792 0.37 a 1.769 0.02 a

SEM 0.030 0.025 0.031 0.023 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.015

CD - 0.064 0.060 0.059 0.034 0.029 0.023 0.029

P-value1 0.118 <0.001 0.017 0.001 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 0.012

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.33: Period wise and cumulative body weight change and livability of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Body Weight Changes (g)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No.

Initial Body

Weight (kg) Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

Final Body

Weight (kg)

Livability

%

No supplement T1 1.548 0.03 -51.3 20.2 41.1 11.6 10.4 7.9 0.2 16.6 1.549 0.02 100.0 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T2 1.547 0.03 -24.8 16.8 -14.7 11.2 40.2 13.0 0.7 22.1 1.547 0.03 100.0 0.00

NSPases T3 1.548 0.04 -24.4 12.3 1.1 13.7 -8.9 10.1 -32.8 13.1 1.522 0.03 100.00 0.00 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 1.527 0.04 -8.6 15.1 -9.7 14.6 36.9 10.6 18.6 18.7 1.540 0.03 91.67 8.33

No supplement T5 1.535 0.03 -18.3 18.3 6.6 16.7 22.7 10.8 11.0 18.8 1.546 0.03 100.00 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T6 1.499 0.04 -7.6 14.8 20.3 26.4 25.1 14.6 37.8 25.9 1.537 0.05 100.00 0.00

NSPases T7 1.533 0.03 -48.7 12.1 -9.3 12.8 22.8 13.9 -35.3 14.3 1.498 0.03 100.00 0.00 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 1.573 0.03 -39.8 16.5 -1.5 17.9 52.3 13.7 11.0 27.4 1.584 0.03 100.00 0.00

No supplement T9 1.513 0.04 -24.5 15.9 140.7 132.0 8.4 7.4 119.4 133.7 1.511 0.05 91.67 8.33

Lipase+Lecithin T10 1.536 0.03 -8.9 18.0 -5.7 17.4 5.3 19.7 -9.8 26.2 1.517 0.03 100.00 0.00

NSPases T11 1.536 0.03 -1.4 23.5 -55.3 12.1 41.9 14.8 -14.8 23.6 1.521 0.03 100.00 0.00 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 1.493 0.03 -26.7 15.0 -11.2 16.4 9.6 11.2 -28.3 14.5 1.465 0.03 100.00 0.00

MeanSE 1.532 0.01 -23.8 4.8 8.5 12.0 22.2 3.8 6.5 12.5 1.528 0.01 98.61 0.97

SEM 0.046 23.8 58.1 18.0 61.4 0.046 1.60

CD - - - - - - -

0.918 0.516 0.215 0.032 0.516 0.595 0.547

Effect of SPR

0% 1.543 0.02 -27.3 8.2 4.5 7.0 19.6 5.9 -3.3 9.1 1.539 .01 97.92 2.08

5% 1.535 0.02 -28.6 7.9 4.0 9.4 30.7 6.7 6.1 11.4 1.541 0.02 100.00 0.00

10% 1.520 0.02 -15.4 9.0 17.1 34.3 16.3 7.1 16.6 34.7 1.503 0.02 97.92 2.08

SEM 0.023 11.9 29.1 9.0 30.7 0.023 0.80

CD - - - - - - -

0.600 0.475 0.877 0.249 0.809 0.186 0.613

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 1.532 0.02 -31.4 10.5 62.8 44.3 13.8 5.1 43.5 45.0 1.535 0.02 97.2 2.78

Lipase+Lecithin 1.527 0.02 -13.8 9.4 0.0 11.2 23.5 9.3 9.6 14.3 1.534 0.02 100.00 0.00

NSPases 1.539 0.02 -24.8 10.0 -21.2 8.3 18.6 8.1 -27.6 10.0 1.514 0.02 100.00 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 1.531 0.02 -25.0 9.0 -7.5 9.2 32.9 7.3 0.5 12.2 1.530 0.02 97.22 2.78

SEM 0.027 13.7 33.6 10.4 35.4 0.027 0.93

CD - - - - - - -

P-value1 0.975 0.639 0.065 0.298 0.254 0.847 0.581

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant

Table 4.41: Period wise and cumulative average protein and energy utilization efficiencies of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Efficiency of Protein Utilization Efficiency of Energy Utilization

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 29.03 0.54 abc 26.80 0.38 bc 28.47 0.31 abc 28.10 0.40 abcd 27.96 0.52 abc 25.80 0.36 bc 27.41 0.29 abc 27.06 0.38 abcd

Lipase+Lecithin T2 29.51 0.61 a 28.35 0.28 a 28.33 0.48 abc 28.73 0.31 ab 28.41 0.59 a 27.30 0.27 a 27.28 0.47 abc 27.66 0.30 ab

NSPases T3 28.89 0.16 abc 28.01 0.14 ab 28.32 0.22 abc 28.41 0.16 abc 27.82 0.15 abc 26.97 0.14 ab 27.27 0.22 abc 27.35 0.15 abc 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 29.59 0.31 a 28.44 0.23 a 28.31 0.36 abc 28.78 0.25 ab 28.49 0.30 a 27.38 0.22 a 27.26 0.35 abc 27.71 0.25 ab

No supplement T5 29.69 0.59 a 27.90 0.14 ab 28.87 0.12 abc 28.82 0.31 ab 28.60 0.56 a 26.88 0.13 ab 27.80 0.11 abc 27.76 0.30 ab

Lipase+Lecithin T6 28.29 0.38 abc 27.90 0.26 ab 29.06 0.53 ab 28.42 0.26 abc 27.25 0.36 abc 26.88 0.25 ab 27.99 0.51 ab 27.37 0.25 abc

NSPases T7 28.89 0.33 abc 27.94 0.30 ab 27.30 0.37 cde 28.04 0.29 abcd 27.83 0.32 abc 26.91 0.28 ab 26.29 0.36 cde 27.01 0.28 abcd 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 27.75 0.30 bc 25.71 0.37 c 26.11 0.17 e 26.52 0.34 e 26.73 0.29 bc 24.76 0.36 c 25.15 0.17 e 25.55 0.33 e

No supplement T9 28.26 0.47 abc 28.04 0.26 ab 26.64 0.75 de 27.65 0.37 bcde 27.19 0.45 abc 26.98 0.25 ab 25.64 0.72 de 26.60 0.35 bcde

Lipase+Lecithin T10 27.61 0.54 c 26.36 0.72 c 27.88 0.57 bcd 27.28 0.39 cde 26.57 0.52 bc 25.37 0.69 c 26.82 0.55 bcd 26.25 0.37 cde

NSPases T11 29.41 0.28 ab 28.38 0.14 a 29.62 0.35 a 29.13 0.23 a 28.30 0.27 ab 27.31 0.14 a 28.50 0.33 a 28.03 0.23 a 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 27.77 0.44 bc 26.01 0.20 c 27.73 0.31 bcde 27.17 0.33 de 26.72 0.42 bc 25.03 0.19 c 26.69 0.30 bcde 26.14 0.32 e

MeanSE 28.72 0.16 27.49 0.18 28.05 0.19 28.09 0.11 27.65 0.16 26.46 0.17 27.01 0.18 27.04 0.11

SEM 0.613 0.455 0.589 0.440 0.590 0.438 0.567 0.423

CD 1.716 1.275 1.648 1.231 1.652 1.227 1.587 1.185

P-value1 0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 29.25 0.21 a 27.90 0.23 a 28.36 0.15 28.50 0.25 a 28.17 0.20 a 26.86 0.22 a 27.30 0.15 27.44 0.25 a

5% 28.66 0.28 ab 27.36 0.31 b 27.83 0.39 27.95 0.36 ab 27.60 0.27 ab 26.36 0.30 b 26.81 0.38 26.92 0.34 ab

10% 28.26 0.28 b 27.19 0.35 b 27.97 0.39 27.81 0.36 b 257.190.27 b 26.17 0.34 b 26.91 0.38 26.76 0.35 b

SEM 0.306 0.228 0.294 0.220 0.295 0.219 0.283 0.212

CD 0.600 0.446 - 0.567 0.578 0.430 - 0.546

P-value1 0.012 0.013 0.203 0.005 0.011 0.012 0.205 0.004

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 28.99 0.34 27.58 0.24 a 27.99 0.42 ab 28.19 0.22 a 27.91 0.33 26.55 0.23 a 26.95 0.40 ab 27.14 0.21 a

Lipase+Lecithin 28.47 0.38 27.54 0.38 a 28.42 0.32 a 28.14 0.22 ab 27.41 0.37 26.51 0.37 a 27.37 0.31 a 27.10 0.21 ab

NSPases 29.06 0.16 28.11 0.12 a 28.41 0.37 a 28.53 0.16 a 27.98 0.15 27.06 0.12 a 27.35 0.35 a 27.47 0.15 a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 28.38 0.35 26.72 0.45 b 27.38 0.36 b 27.49 0.25 b 27.31 0.34 25.73 0.44 b 26.36 0.34 b 26.47 0.24 b

SEM 0.354 0.263 0.340 0.254 0.341 0.253 0.327 0.244

CD - 0.678 0.666 0.655 - 0.653 0.641 0.630

P-value1 0.138 <0.001 0.017 0.001 0.138 <0.001 0.017 0.001

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.43: Blood mineral profile of birds as influenced by various treatments and main factors at different intervals during

performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Serum Calcium (mg/dl) Serum Inorganic Phosphorus (mg/dl)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Mean 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Mean

No supplement T1 18.00 0.26 18.87 0.09 18.93 0.52 18.60 0.23 6.73 0.09 7.83 0.15 8.67 0.32 7.74 0.30

Lipase+Lecithin T2 17.67 0.54 19.03 0.29 19.20 0.15 18.63 0.30 6.33 0.29 7.70 0.55 8.63 0.24 7.56 0.39

NSPases T3 18.13 0.28 19.17 0.28 19.20 0.35 18.83 0.23 6.83 0.37 7.70 0.10 8.73 0.12 7.76 0.30 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 17.80 0.75 18.97 0.32 19.17 0.26 18.64 0.33 6.43 0.32 8.10 0.32 8.70 0.21 7.74 0.37

No supplement T5 17.30 0.17 18.93 0.23 19.10 0.12 18.44 0.30 6.70 0.81 8.17 0.07 8.90 0.23 7.92 0.40

Lipase+Lecithin T6 17.47 0.72 18.77 0.55 19.10 0.53 18.44 0.39 6.20 0.21 7.97 0.27 8.73 0.12 7.63 0.39

NSPases T7 17.50 0.51 18.53 0.20 19.03 0.46 18.36 0.31 6.63 0.43 8.10 0.15 8.67 0.23 7.80 0.34 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 17.50 0.62 18.97 0.24 18.83 0.35 18.43 0.32 6.43 0.32 8.23 0.32 8.67 0.12 7.78 0.37

No supplement T9 18.10 0.52 19.20 0.29 19.07 0.45 18.79 0.28 6.30 0.35 8.00 0.26 8.67 0.09 7.66 0.38

Lipase+Lecithin T10 18.10 0.51 18.63 0.66 18.77 0.13 18.50 0.27 7.17 0.20 8.10 0.15 8.63 0.03 7.97 0.23

NSPases T11 18.07 0.46 18.70 0.35 19.20 0.50 18.66 0.28 6.77 0.26 8.47 0.34 8.67 0.23 7.97 0.33 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 18.10 0.35 18.63 0.18 18.73 0.19 18.49 0.16 6.60 0.15 8.30 0.42 8.70 0.12 7.87 0.35

MeanSE 17.81 0.13 18.87 0.09 19.03 0.09 18.57 0.08 6.59 0.10 8.06 0.08 8.70 0.05 7.78 0.10

SEM 0.715 0.485 0.520 0.407 0.512 0.413 0.268 0.492

CD - - - - - - - -

P-value1 0.954 0.945 0.994 0.990 0.841 0.784 0.999 0.999

Effect of SPR

0% 17.90 0.22 19.01 0.12 19.13 10.15 18.68 0.13 6.58 0.14 7.83 0.15 8.68 0.10 7.70 0.16

5% 17.44 0.23 18.80 0.15 19.02 0.17 18.42 0.16 6.49 0.22 8.12 0.10 8.74 0.08 7.78 0.18

10% 18.09 0.20 18.79 0.19 18.94 0.16 18.61 0.12 6.71 0.14 8.22 0.14 8.67 0.06 7.86 0.16

SEM 0.358 0.242 0.260 0.203 0.256 0.206 0.134 0.246

CD - - - - - - - -

P-value1 0.196 0.605 0.780 0.425 0.701 0.178 0.842 0.801

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 17.80 0.22 19.00 0.12 19.03 0.20 18.61 0.15 6.58 0.26 8.00 0.10 8.74 0.12 7.77 0.20

Lipase+Lecithin 17.74 0.31 18.81 0.27 19.02 0.18 18.53 0.18 6.57 0.19 7.92 0.19 8.67 0.08 7.73 0.19

NSPases 17.90 0.24 18.80 0.17 19.14 0.22 18.61 0.16 6.74 0.18 8.09 0.16 8.69 0.10 7.84 0.18

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 17.80 0.31 18.86 0.14 18.91 0.15 18.52 0.16 6.49 0.14 8.21 0.18 8.69 0.08 7.80 0.20

SEM 0.413 0.280 0.300 0.235 0.296 0.238 0.155 0.284

CD - - - - - - - -

P-value1 0.985 0.884 0.894 0.962 0.850 0.658 0.964 0.979

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant

Table 4.42: Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter and retention of calcium and phosphorus of diets as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Metabolizability of Nutrients (%) Retention of Minerals

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Dry Matter Organic Matter Ca, % Ca, g/h/d P, % P, g/h/d

No supplement T1 71.22 2.07 72.38 0.77 a 76.06 1.44 4.37 0.00 58.62 1.16 0.66 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T2 68.30 2.85 71.51 0.56 ac 73.78 1.63 4.14 0.00 58.68 2.38 0.68 0.00

NSPases T3 69.68 0.23 72.09 0.90 ab 75.46 0.64 4.22 0.00 62.16 0.76 0.72 0.00 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 70.73 1.54 71.36 0.02 abcd 75.55 0.84 4.21 0.00 61.73 0.70 0.72 0.00

No supplement T5 69.66 1.84 69.29 1.04 cdef 76.17 1.27 4.31 0.00 60.61 2.52 0.66 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T6 70.04 1.48 69.55 0.59 cdef 76.21 1.44 4.16 0.00 60.32 0.73 0.65 0.00

NSPases T7 70.83 2.77 69.14 0.71 defg 77.11 2.39 4.08 0.00 60.51 2.43 0.64 0.00 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 72.54 2.79 70.07 0.23 bcde 78.06 2.03 4.36 0.00 62.43 2.28 0.68 0.00

No supplement T9 68.19 4.13 68.23 0.47 fg 75.25 2.95 4.33 0.00 58.34 4.85 0.62 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T10 68.27 2.17 68.67 0.67 fg 75.46 1.47 4.38 0.00 59.35 2.44 0.62 0.00

NSPases T11 68.28 1.21 67.97 0.78 g 76.45 0.69 4.20 0.00 60.95 1.46 0.66 0.00 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 71.02 0.90 69.04 0.42 efg 77.22 0.65 4.04 0.00 63.25 1.01 0.67 0.00

SEM 3.16 0.93 2.28 0.13 3.13 0.03

CD - 2.69 - - - -

P-value1 0.938 <0.001 0.902 0.762 0.863 0.066

Effect of SPR

0% 69.98 0.89 71.83 0.31a 75.21 0.58 4.28 0.05 60.30 0.78 0.69 0.01a

5% 70.77 1.03 69.51 0.32b 76.89 0.82 4.28 0.04 60.97 0.94 0.66 0.01ab

10% 68.94 1.11 68.47 0.29b 76.09 0.77 4.20 0.03 60.47 1.34 0.64 0.01b

SEM 1.58 0.46 1.14 0.06 1.56 0.02

CD - 1.20 - - - -

P-value1 0.519 <0.001 0.355 0.397 0.905 0.397

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 69.69 1.50 69.96 0.74 75.83 1.03 4.24 0.04 59.19 1.65 0.65 0.01

Lipase+Lecithin 68.87 1.16 69.91 0.52 75.15 0.84 4.20 0.04 59.45 1.03 0.65 0.01

NSPases 69.60 0.95 69.73 0.73 76.34 0.78 4.29 0.04 61.21 0.88 0.67 0.01

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 71.43 1.00 70.15 0.36 76.94 0.76 4.29 0.07 62.47 0.78 0.69 0.02

SEM 1.82 0.54 1.31 0.07 1.81 0.02

CD - - - - - -

P-value1 0.555 0.888 0.576 0.548 0.249 0.548

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant, a-g Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.44: Period wise and cumulative average net returns of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Mean Net Returns (Rs./bird)

SPR Biotech. Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 12.78 0.19a

b 9.87 0.06c

11.74 0.08a

11.47 0.43ab

Lipase+Lecithin T2 12.49 0.17a

b 10.54 0.08abc

10.45 0.09cd

11.16 0.34ab

NSPases T3 12.51 0.31a

b 10.95 0.02ab

10.92 0.12bc

11.46 0.28ab

0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 12.68 0.44

a

b 11.11 0.07a

10.63 0.10bc

11.48 0.34ab

No supplement T5 13.20 0.26a 11.19 0.02a 11.97 0.12a 12.12 0.30a

Lipase+Lecithin T6 10.65 0.10c 10.33 0.22abc 11.13 0.12b 10.70 0.14ab

NSPases T7 11.96 0.29b

10.24 0.19bc

8.98 0.20e

10.39 0.45ab

c 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 9.83 0.23

d 7.62 0.06

e 7.23 0.10

f 8.23 0.41

c

No supplement T9 11.10 0.04c

10.56 0.18abc

9.13 0.21e

10.26 0.31ab

c

Lipase+Lecithin T10 10.60 0.27c 8.67 0.51d 10.01 0.32d 9.76 0.34bc

NSPases T11 12.24 0.22a

b 10.53 0.10abc

12.25 0.10a

11.67 0.30ab 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 10.26 0.19

c 8.08 0.13

de 9.85 0.04

d 9.39 0.34

bc

MeanSE 11.69 0.19 9.97 0.20 10.36 0.24 10.67 0.14

SEM 0.348 0.266 0.215 0.833

CD 0.975 0.744 0.602 2.332

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 12.62 0.13a 10.62 .15a 10.94 0.16a 11.39 0.29a

5% 11.41 0.40b 9.84 0.41b 9.83 0.56c 10.36 0.50ab

10% 11.05 0.24b 9.46 0.36c 10.31 0.36b 10.27 0.37b

SEM 0.174 0.133 0.107 0.416

CD 0.449 0.343 0.277 1.074

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 12.36 0.33a 10.54 0.20a 10.95 0.46a 11.28 0.25a

Lipase+Lecithin 11.25 0.32b 9.85 0.34b 10.53 0.19b 10.54 0.20ab

NSPases 12.24 0.16a 10.58 0.12a 10.72 0.48a 11.18 0.22a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 10.92 0.47c 8.93 0.55c 9.24 0.52c 9.70 0.33b

SEM 0.201 0.153 0.124 0.481

CD 0.519 0.396 0.320 1.240

P-value1 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.31: Period wise and cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Feed Consumption (g/bird/day)

SPR Biotech. Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 114.7 0.95

117.5 0.46ab

118.3 0.43a

116.4 0.54abc

d

Lipase+Lecithin T2 116.8 1.13 118.7 0.46a 119.0 0.37a 117.9 0.55a

NSPases T3 115.5 1.39 119.1 0.34a 118.4 0.39a 117.3 0.70ab 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 114.4 1.40

118.7 0.44

a 118.2 0.61

a 116.7 0.75

abc

d

No supplement T5 116.1 1.38 118.3 0.47ab 118.1 0.58a 117.3 0.66ab

Lipase+Lecithin T6 115.7 0.71

116.8 0.58abc

117.4 0.45ab

116.4 0.39abc

d

NSPases T7 116.0 1.13 118.7 0.63a 117.8 0.65a 117.3 0.59ab 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 115.0 1.14

117.8 0.41

ab 117.4 0.48

ab 116.4 0.58

abc

d

No supplement T9 114.4 0.88 114.9 0.85c 115.2 0.80abc 114.8 0.50d

Lipase+Lecithin T10 115.6 0.99 116.1 1.32abc 114.7 1.25c 115.6 0.66bcd

NSPases T11 116.3 1.08 117.7 0.36ab 117.3 0.71ab 117.0 0.52abc 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 115.5 0.74

115.1 0.72

c 114.2 0.55

c 115.0 0.42

cd

MeanSE 115.5 0.90 117.4 1.04 117.2 1.28 116.5 0.60

SEM 1.56 0.91 0.92 0.83

CD - 2.35 2.37 2.13

P-value1 0.924 <0.001 <0.001 0.002

Effect of SPR

0% 115.4 1.23 118.5 0.39a 118.5 0.32a 117.1 0.97a

5% 115.7 1.09 117.9 0.48a 117.7 0.37a 116.9 0.85a

10% 115.4 0.92 115.9 0.80b 115.4 0.67b 115.6 0.83b

SEM 0.78 0.46 0.46 0.41

CD - 1.18 1.18 1.06

P-value1 0.897 <0.001 <0.001 0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 115.1 0.63 116.9 0.45b 117.2 0.48 116.2 0.35

Lipase+Lecithin 116.0 0.55 117.2 0.53b 117.0 0.61 116.6 0.33

NSPases 115.9 0.68 118.5 0.28a 117.8 0.34 117.2 0.35

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 115.0 0.64 117.2 0.43b 116.6 0.52 116.1 0.35

SEM 0.90 0.53 0.53 0.48

CD - 1.03 - -

P-value1 0.511 0.015 0.127 0.065

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-d Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.34: Period wise and cumulative average egg weight of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

Dietary Description Mean Egg Weight (g)

SPR %

Biotechnological Tool

Tr.

No. Period-I Period-II Period-III Cumulative

No supplement T1 57.67 0.47 c 57.81 0.43 c 58.73 0.45 48.12 0.26 e

Lipase+Lecithin T2 58.69 0.47 abc 59.67 0.43 ab 59.83 0.39 59.43 0.25 abc

NSPases T3 57.51 0.37 c 58.66 0.37 abc 59.25 0.36 58.54 0.21 cde 0

Lip+Lec+NSPases T4 57.72 0.47 c 58.49 0.46 bc 58.90 0.36 58.41 0.24 de

No supplement T5 58.73 0.33 abc 58.62 0.38 bc 59.35 0.68 58.94 0.30 abcd

Lipase+Lecithin T6 59.15 0.57 ab 59.04 0.59 abc 60.21 0.53 59.52 0.32 ab

NSPases T7 58.61 0.51 abc 59.82 0.47 ab 60.44 0.44 59.68 0.28 a 5

Lip+Lec+NSPases T8 58.77 0.42 abc 58.42 0.41 bc 59.97 0.29 59.12 0.22 abcd

No supplement T9 59.06 0.59 ab 59.60 0.57 ab 59.12 0.52 59.25 0.32 abcd

Lipase+Lecithin T10 57.92 0.52 bc 58.51 0.51 bc 59.32 0.45 58.64 0.29 bcde

NSPases T11 59.38 0.39 a 60.30 0.46 a 59.96 0.37 59.89 0.23 a 10

Lip+Lec+NSPases T12 58.33 0.38 abc 58.17 0.39 bc 58.76 0.35 58.45 0.22 de

MeanSE 58.46 0.13 58.9 0.13 59.49 0.13 59.00 0.08

SEM 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.37

CD 1.28 1.68 - 0.97

P-value1 0.047 0.002 0.066 <0.001

Effect of SPR

0% 57.9 1.10b 58.7 1.05 59.18 1.07b 58.62 1.08b

5% 58.8 1.13a 59.0 1.15 59.99 1.38a 59.32 1.25a

10% 58.7 1.18ab 59.1 1.21 59.29 1.18b 59.05 1.19ab

SEM 0.33 0.65 0.31 0.19

CD 0.64 - 0.61 0.48

P-value1 0.011 0.317 0.019 0.001

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 58.49 0.28 58.68 0.27ab 59.07 0.32 58.77 0.17b

Lipase+Lecithin 58.59 0.30 59.07 0.30ab 59.79 0.27 59.20 0.17ab

NSPases 58.50 0.25 59.59 0.25a 59.88 0.23 59.37 0.14a

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 58.27 0.25 58.36 0.24b 59.21 0.20 58.66 0.13b

SEM 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.22

CD - 0.97 - 0.56

P-value1 0.865 0.008 0.053 0.002

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

a-e Means with different superscripts in a column differ significantly

Table 4.39: Average yolk index values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Yolk Index

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

No supplement T1 29.97 0.56 36.43 0.41 32.325 0.45 33.47 0.45 33.18 0.47

Lipase+Lecithin T2 30.13 0.59 36.41 0.39 33.545 0.51 34.24 0.67 33.80 0.49

NSPases T3 31.34 0.15 35.42 0.64 33.393 0.49 34.99 0.77 33.73 0.37 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 31.50 0.30 34.95 0.39 32.702 0.28 33.61 0.36 33.05 0.26

No supplement T5 29.92 0.56 36.55 0.34 33.770 0.56 34.52 0.55 33.61 0.46

Lipase+Lecithin T6 30.15 0.36 36.28 0.63 34.011 0.20 34.34 0.70 33.72 0.44

5

NSPases T7 30.31 0.32 36.07 0.62 32.683 0.33 32.42 0.57 32.82 0.39

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 31.41 0.29 35.06 0.34 32.698 0.40 32.79 0.83 32.95 0.36

No supplement T9 30.10 0.45 36.34 0.59 32.989 0.32 35.42 0.57 33.76 0.47

Lipase+Lecithin T10 30.01 0.52 34.80 0.43 33.730 0.66 33.62 0.64 32.97 0.41

NSPases T11 31.53 0.27 35.62 0.39 32.974 0.35 33.82 0.62 33.44 0.30 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 31.57 0.42 35.73 0.56 33.694 0.40 33.20 0.52 33.50 0.34

SEM 0.768 0.697 0.608 0.873 0.569

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.066 0.095 0.101 0.033 0.627

Effect of SPR

0% 30.74 0.58 35.80 0.47 32.991 0.43 34.08 0.57 33.44 0.79

5% 30.45 0.56 35.99 0.49 33.290 0.41 33.52 0.68 33.27 0.80

10% 30.80 0.54 35.62 0.49 33.347 0.43 34.01 0.60 33.42 0.74

SEM 0.384 0.348 0.304 0.437 0.285

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.618 0.034 0.455 0.375 0.820

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 30.00 0.33 36.44 0.26 33.028 0.27 34.47 0.33 33.51 0.27

Lipase+Lecithin 30.10 0.33 35.83 0.31 33.762 0.28 34.07 0.38 33.50 0.26

NSPases 31.06 0.20 35.70 0.32 33.017 0.23 33.74 0.41 33.33 0.21

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 31.49 0.35 35.25 0.25 33.031 0.22 33.20 0.34 33.17 0.19

SEM 0.443 0.402 0.351 0.504 0.329

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.001 0.578 0.091 0.085 0.691

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.38: Average yolk colour values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Yolk Colour

SPR Biotechnological Tool Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

%

No supplement T1 7.17 0.17 6.61 0.15 6.364 0.15 6.55 0.14 6.68 0.09

Lipase+Lecithin T2 7.27 0.59 7.19 0.18 6.091 0.16 6.30 0.14 6.73 0.11

NSPases T3 7.36 0.15 7.00 0.30 6.272 0.29 6.45 0.14 6.78 0.13 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 7.50 0.30 6.82 0.18 6.091 0.25 6.37 0.13 6.71 0.12

No supplement T5 7.08 0.56 7.10 0.16 7.182 0.26 6.25 0.12 6.91 0.12

Lipase+Lecithin T6 7.29 0.36 7.10 0.16 7.000 0.00 6.55 0.21 6.99 0.11

NSPases T7 7.5 0.32 7.10 0.09 6.364 0.20 6.45 0.20 6.87 0.11 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 7.50 0.29 7.29 0.18 6.575 0.24 6.36 0.23 6.94 0.12

No supplement T9 7.60 0.45 7.44 0.14 6.482 0.14 6.34 0.13 6.98 0.11

Lipase+Lecithin T10 7.20 0.52 7.45 0.20 6.259 0.18 6.33 0.14 6.82 0.11

NSPases T11 7.17 0.27 7.20 0.23 6.182 0.26 6.64 0.28 6.80 0.13 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 7.63 0.42 6.63 0.19 6.636 0.13 6.09 0.16 6.77 0.11

SEM 0.245 0.263 0.290 0.247 0.160

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.332 0.019 0.003 0.716 0.581

Effect of SPR

0% 7.32 0.15 6.90 0.21 6.204 0.21 6.42 0.13 6.73 0.2

5% 7.34 0.23 7.15 0.14 6.780 0.21 6.40 0.18 6.93 0.2

10% 7.40 0.14 7.18 0.20 6.390 0.18 6.35 0.18 6.84 0.2

SEM 0.123 0.132 0.145 0.123 0.080

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.812 0.182 <0.001 0.838 0.042

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 7.28 0.12 7.05 0.10 6.676 0.13 6.38 0.08 6.86 0.1

Lipase+Lecithin 7.25 0.12 7.25 0.10 6.450 0.10 6.39 0.09 6.85 0.1

NSPases 7.34 0.08 7.10 0.13 6.272 0.14 6.51 0.12 6.82 0.1

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 7.54 0.08 6.91 0.11 6.434 0.13 6.27 0.10 6.81 0.1

SEM 0.142 0.152 0.167 0.143 0.093

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.171 0.076 0.122 0.425 0.948

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.37: Average Haugh unit score values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Haugh Unit Score

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

No supplement T1 55.27 2.18 70.92 1.97 57.884 2.56 53.07 2.04 59.82 1.58

Lipase+Lecithin T2 54.12 0.59 70.63 1.16 58.087 1.75 49.84 1.89 58.73 1.54

NSPases T3 58.15 0.15 69.31 0.81 54.279 1.20 51.08 2.19 58.85 1.35 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 57.53 0.30 70.22 0.63 56.465 2.05 50.54 1.98 59.30 1.46

No supplement T5 51.06 0.56 69.96 1.60 60.203 0.99 48.82 1.72 58.03 1.63

Lipase+Lecithin T6 54.18 0.36 71.81 1.92 55.970 1.18 51.85 2.16 59.00 1.53

NSPases T7 54.92 0.32 70.72 1.05 56.994 1.21 56.14 0.89 60.20 1.33 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 51.42 0.29 69.81 0.56 58.783 1.22 45.72 3.69 57.01 1.81

No supplement T9 52.42 0.29 69.81 0.56 58.783 1.22 45.72 3.69 57.01 1.81

Lipase+Lecithin T10 52.64 0.45 69.52 1.37 58.880 2.30 50.41 1.85 58.40 1.52

NSPases T11 56.29 0.52 67.70 0.64 56.906 2.02 52.22 3.04 58.88 1.43 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 54.24 0.27 69.12 1.32 57.569 1.04 50.63 1.90 58.46 1.38

SEM 2.498 2.144 2.303 3.155 2.127

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.137 0.476 0.527 0.258 0.985

Effect of SPR

0% 56.27 1.76 70.27 1.17 56.200 1.74 51.13 1.91 59.31 2.9

5% 52.89 2.02 70.57 1.30 57.988 1.17 50.63 2.44 58.92 3.0

10% 54.37 1.48 68.15 1.75 57.777 1.52 51.35 2.14 58.68 2.8

SEM 1.249 1.072 1.152 1.577 1.075

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.028 0.672 0.216 0.898 0.839

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 52.99 1.19 70.13 0.94 58.736 1.14 50.77 1.09 58.91 0.9

Lipase+Lecithin 54.86 0.96 70.05 0.81 56.349 0.85 51.30 1.36 59.00 0.9

NSPases 55.77 0.93 69.72 0.62 56.281 0.69 52.62 1.08 59.31 0.8

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 54.43 1.06 68.76 1.08 57.919 0.84 49.46 1.60 58.66 0.9

SEM 1.442 1.238 1.330 1.822 1.242

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.280 0.052 0.154 0.382 0.964

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.36: Average albumen index values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Albumen Index

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

No supplement T1 3.11 0.21 6.31 0.32 4.504 0.29 4.08 0.18 4.56 0.24

Lipase+Lecithin T2 3.02 0.59 6.51 0.35 4.296 0.16 3.77 0.22 4.45 0.24

NSPases T3 3.12 0.15 6.36 0.16 4.159 0.14 3.92 0.23 4.36 0.20 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 3.38 0.30 6.64 0.12 4.448 0.28 3.96 0.20 4.58 0.21

No supplement T5 2.76 0.56 6.40 0.30 4.696 0.13 3.84 0.19 4.39 0.22

Lipase+Lecithin T6 3.10 0.36 7.11 0.31 4.260 0.17 4.13 0.22 4.61 0.25

NSPases T7 3.14 0.32 6.83 0.21 4.613 0.15 4.42 0.11 4.71 0.21 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 3.14 0.29 6.35 0.12 4.598 0.13 3.69 0.28 4.42 0.20

No supplement T9 2.82 0.45 6.32 0.29 4.586 0.20 3.87 0.16 4.36 0.22

Lipase+Lecithin T10 3.16 0.52 6.23 0.14 4.298 0.17 4.11 0.36 4.42 0.20

NSPases T11 2.95 0.27 6.55 0.21 4.602 0.11 3.93 0.22 4.47 0.22 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 3.10 0.42 6.07 0.33 4.357 0.07 4.19 0.27 4.40 0.20

SEM 0.203 0.356 0.251 0.324 0.307

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.225 0.266 0.495 0.660 0.991

Effect of SPR

0% 3.16 0.16 6.46 0.24 4.352 0.21 3.93 0.19 4.49 0.43

5% 3.04 0.14 6.67 0.24 4.541 0.14 4.02 0.21 4.53 0.43

10% 3.01 0.14 6.29 0.24 4.461 0.14 4.03 0.25 4.42 0.4

SEM 0.101 0.178 0.125 0.162 0.153

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.310 0.397 0.320 0.802 0.746

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 2.90 0.10 6.34 0.17 4.595 0.12 3.93 0.10 4.44 0.13

Lipase+Lecithin 3.09 0.08 6.62 0.17 4.285 0.09 4.00 0.16 4.50 0.13

NSPases 3.07 0.07 6.58 0.11 4.458 0.08 4.09 0.12 4.52 0.12

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 3.21 0.08 6.35 0.13 4.468 0.10 3.95 0.15 4.47 0.12

SEM 0.117 0.206 0.145 0.187 0.177

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.069 0.108 0.205 0.832 0.973

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.35: Average shape index values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Egg Shape Index

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

No supplement T1 77.71 1.17 78.33 2.08 75.813 1.08 77.30 1.35 77.30 0.72

Lipase+Lecithin T2 77.37 0.59 80.29 1.67 77.476 0.78 76.88 0.38 77.99 0.51

NSPases T3 84.52 0.15 76.81 1.11 79.202 2.04 76.57 0.96 79.39 2.18 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 76.92 0.30 76.78 1.11 78.243 0.85 78.26 0.96 77.54 0.48

5 No supplement T5 76.31 0.56 79.74 1.52 77.493 0.35 76.71 0.63 77.54 0.46

Lipase+Lecithin T6 76.77 0.36 76.56 0.80 77.255 0.71 76.93 0.77 76.88 0.58

NSPases T7 76.43 0.32 78.36 1.30 76.344 0.69 77.77 1.06 77.21 0.47

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 76.51 0.29 74.07 0.39 75.418 1.00 78.76 0.67 76.20 0.41

No supplement T9 77.02 0.45 77.44 1.57 77.681 0.57 79.87 1.09 77.98 0.51

Lipase+Lecithin T10 74.35 0.52 76.51 0.94 74.667 1.19 75.64 0.93 75.27 0.52

NSPases T11 76.65 0.27 75.44 1.37 82.980 4.94 78.58 1.49 78.37 1.34 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 76.19 0.42 78.28 0.59 76.866 0.58 77.78 0.67 77.26 0.33

SEM 3.446 1.825 2.423 1.360 1.232

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.448 0.056 0.118 0.161 0.155

Effect of SPR

0% 79.13 4.00 78.05 1.49 77.251 0.92 77.25 0.92 78.05 2.31

5% 76.51 0.99 77.18 1.19 77.542 0.78 77.54 0.78 76.95 0.94

10% 76.05 0.78 76.92 1.13 77.969 1.10 77.97 1.10 77.22 1.54

SEM 1.723 0.913 1.212 0.680 0.616

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.160 0.190 0.570 0.570 0.178

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 77.02 0.44 78.50 0.99 77.960 0.64 77.96 0.64 77.61 0.33

Lipase+Lecithin 76.17 0.76 77.79 0.74 76.482 0.42 76.48 0.42 76.71 0.32

NSPases 79.20 2.65 76.87 0.74 77.640 0.68 77.64 0.68 78.32 0.86

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 76.54 0.40 76.38 0.53 78.267 0.44 78.27 0.44 77.00 0.24

SEM 1.989 1.054 1.399 0.785 0.711

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.426 0.432 0.122 0.122 0.110

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

Table 4.40: Average shell thickness values of eggs of birds as affected by different treatments and main factors at different intervals during performance trail of layers

Dietary Description Shell Thickness (mm)

SPR % Biotechnological Tool

Tr. No. 1st Day 28th Day 56th Day 84th Day Cumulative

No supplement T1 0.352 0.01 0.310 0.01 0.321 0.01 0.333 0.01 0.329 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T2 0.371 0.01 0.321 0.01 0.303 0.01 0.335 0.01 0.333 0.01

NSPases T3 0.356 0.01 0.347 0.01 0.322 0.01 0.328 0.01 0.339 0.00 0

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T4 0.364 0.01 0.342 0.01 0.347 0.01 0.329 0.01 0.346 0.01

No supplement T5 0.352 0.01 0.325 0.01 0.327 0.01 0.331 0.01 0.334 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T6 0.352 0.01 0.347 0.01 0.302 0.00 0.335 0.02 0.335 0.01

NSPases T7 0.350 0.00 0.364 0.02 0.320 0.00 0.327 0.01 0.341 0.01 5

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T8 0.356 0.01 0.356 0.01 0.332 0.01 0.325 0.01 0.342 0.00

No supplement T9 0.348 0.01 0.314 0.01 0.331 0.01 0.338 0.01 0.333 0.00

Lipase+Lecithin T10 0.344 0.01 0.366 0.01 0.304 0.01 0.347 0.01 0.341 0.01

NSPases T11 0.362 0.01 0.360 0.01 0.338 0.01 0.339 0.02 0.350 0.01 10

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases T12 0.347 0.01 0.356 0.00 0.341 0.00 0.335 0.01 0.345 0.00

SEM 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.016 0.007

CD - - - - -

P-value1 0.562 <0.001 0.001 0.985 0.146

Effect of SPR

0% 0.361 0.01 0.330 0.01 0.323 0.01 0.331 0.01 0.337 0.01

5% 0.353 0.01 0.348 0.01 0.320 0.01 0.330 0.01 0.338 0.01

10% 0.350 0.01 0.349 0.01 0.328 0.01 0.340 0.01 0.342 0.01

SEM 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.008 0.004

CD - 0.017 - - -

P-value1 0.182 <0.001 0.398 0.397 0.324

Effect of Biotechnological Tool

No supplement 0.351 0.00 0.316 0.00 0.326 0.01 0.334 0.01 0.332 0.003

Lipase+Lecithin 0.356 0.01 0.345 0.01 0.303 0.01 0.339 0.01 0.336 0.003

NSPases 0.356 0.00 0.357 0.01 0.326 0.00 0.332 0.01 0.343 0.003

Lipase+Lecithin+NSPases 0.356 0.01 0.351 0.00 0.340 0.00 0.329 0.01 0.344 0.03

SEM 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.004

CD - 0.019 0.018 - 0.008

P-value1 0.818 0.005 <0.001 0.744 0.011

1An effect with a probability of less than 0.05 is considered significant,

LIST OF PLATE

Plate No.

Title

1. Sugarcane – Standing crop

2. Sugar factory – Source of Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR)

3. Abundant availability of SPR

4. Sun drying of SPR

5. Fractionation of fiber constituents of SPR

6. Exclusive sources of minerals

7. Metabolism trial in broiler birds

8. Collection of excreta-broilers

9. Metabolism trail in layer birds

10. Collection of excreta-layers

11. Experimental broilers birds –Perfroamnce trail

12. Collection of blood for mineral profile

13. Carcass characteristics studies-Broilers’ performance trail

14. Bone mineralization studies-Broilers’ performance trail

15. Experimental layer birds – Performance trail

16. Housing of birds-colony cages

17. Egg characteristic studies-Layers’ performance trail

18. Measuring egg quality-Layers’ performance trail

Plate 1: Sugarcane – Standing crop Plate 2: Sugar factory – Source of Sugarcane Press Residue (SPR)

Plate 3: Abundant availability of SPR Plate 4: Sun drying of SPR

Plate 5: Fractionation of fiber constituents

of SPR Plate 6: Exclusive sources of minerals

Plate 7: Metabolism trail in broiler birds Plate 8: Collection of excreta – broilers

Plate 9: Metabolism trail in layers birds Plate 10: Collection of excreta – layers

Plate 11: Experimental broiler birds – performance trail Plate 12: Collection of blood for

mineral profile

Plate 13: Carcass Characteristics studies – Broilers’ performance trail

Plate 14: Bone mineralisation studies

– Broilers’ performance trail

Plate 15: Experimental layer birds – Perfroamnce trail

Plate 16: Housing of Birds-Colony Cages

Plate 17: Egg Characteristic Studies

– Layers’ perfroamnce trail

Plate 18: Measuring Egg Quality – Layers’ perfroamnce trail

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure No.

Title

1 Chemical composition (on dry matter basis) of sun-dried SPR selected for biological trials

2 Cumulative average body weight gain of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

3 Cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

4 Cumulative average feed conversion ratio of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

5 Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of diets under different treatments during performance trial of broilers

6 Balance of calcium and phosphorus of diets under different treatments during performance trial of broilers

7 Relative organ weights of birds under different treatments at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

8 Blood mineral profile of birds under different treatments during different intervals of 42-day performance trial of broilers

9 Average net returns from birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

10 Cumulative average egg production of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

11 Cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

12 Cumulative average feed efficiency of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

13 Average weight of egg of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

14 Quality characteristic of eggs of experimental birds under different treatments during performance trial of layers

15 Average gross efficiencies of utilization of protein and energy of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

16 Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of diets under

different treatments during performance trial of layers

17 Balance of calcium and phosphorus of birds under different treatments during performance trial of layers

18 Blood mineral profile of birds under different treatments at different intervals of 84-day performance trial of layers

19 Average net returns from birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors at the end of 84-day performance trial of layers

Fig.-1: Chemical composition (on dry matter basis) of sun-dried SPR selected for biological trials Dry matter 92.83 Cell Content 44.2 Organic matter 76.05 Neutral detergent Fiber 55.8 Total ash 23.95 Acid detergent lignin 11.13 Crude protein 11.8 Hemicellulose 26.38 Crude fiber 13.73 Cellulose 18.29 Ether extract 11.95 NFE 38.57 AIA 49.3 Caprylic acid-0.2% 0.24 Calcium 49 Capric acid - 0.2% 0.24 Phosphorous 12.5 Lauric acid - 1.4% 1.67 Magnesium 13.5 Myristic acid - 0.9% 1.08 Copper 0.0585 Palmitic acid - 30.3% 36.21 Zinc 0.0865 Stearic acid - 4.1% 4.9 Iron 4.3 Oleic acid - 17.2% 20.55 Manganese 0.26 Linoleic acid - 38.0% 45.41 Cobalt 0.0064 Linolenic acid - 5.4% 6.45 Others 110.4886

Gizzard Liver Heart Proventriculus Spleen Bursa

T1 2.81 2.22 0.59 0.49 0.24 0.23 T2 2.89 2.54 0.60 0.54 0.20 0.24 T3 2.69 2.34 0.62 0.57 0.19 0.22 T4 3.07 2.30 0.66 0.50 0.28 0.16 T5 2.41 2.34 0.55 0.52 0.18 0.21 T6 2.89 2.52 0.60 0.56 0.19 0.16 T7 2.32 2.54 0.65 0.55 0.16 0.18 T8 2.29 2.31 0.62 0.45 0.27 0.32 T9 2.70 2.55 0.63 0.55 0.23 0.30 T10 2.83 2.54 0.68 0.57 0.18 0.20 T11 2.91 2.45 0.64 0.52 0.22 0.21 T12 2.44 2.79 0.58 0.52 0.27 0.27

Fig.-14: Quality characteristic of eggs of experimental birds under different treatments during performance

trial of layers

T1 77.2968 T1 4.55917 T1 59.822 T1 6.68285 T1 33.1768 T1 0.32931 T2 77.9896 T2 4.45139 T2 58.73 T2 6.72543 T2 33.7991 T2 0.33348 T3 79.3917 T3 4.35937 T3 58.8509 T3 6.78281 T3 33.7302 T3 0.33868 T4 77.5355 T4 4.58208 T4 59.2999 T4 6.71235 T4 33.0497 T4 0.34618 T5 77.5369 T5 4.38706 T5 58.0313 T5 6.90864 T5 33.6055 T5 0.33433 T6 76.8757 T6 4.61441 T6 58.9989 T6 6.99202 T6 33.7248 T6 0.33465 T7 77.2079 T7 4.71352 T7 60.202 T7 6.86888 T7 32.8153 T7 0.34052 T8 76.1975 T8 4.41624 T8 57.0085 T8 6.94216 T8 32.9522 T8 0.34244 T9 77.9817 T9 4.3645 T9 58.4027 T9 6.97768 T9 33.7574 T9 0.33311

T10 75.2719 T10 4.42331

T10 58.8799

T10 6.81774

T10 32.9719

T10 0.34051

T11 78.3747 T11 4.47394

T11 58.4621

T11 6.80494

T11 33.4424

T11 0.35011

T12 77.2553 T12 4.40383

T12 58.3835

T12 6.76752

T12 33.5048

T12 0.34464

Fig.-2: Cumulative average body weight gain of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

T1 2000.37 T2 2081.03 T3 1941.53 T4 2052.53 T5 1893.28 T6 1899.87 T7 1822.29 T8 2080.81 T9 1792.27 T10 1895.60 T11 1737.74 T12 1789.57

SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-3: Cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced

by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of broilers

T1 3568.83 T2 3678.03 T3 3457.87 T4 3597.77 T5 3549.90 T6 3437.67 T7 3386.97 T8 3565.42 T9 3384.23 T10 3476.67 T11 3382.87 T12 3317.60

3575.6

3 NS 3500.9

9

3484.9

9 LUA 3530.7

9

3390.3

4 NDE 3409.2

3

LUA+NDE 3493.6

SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-4:

T1 1.77779 T2 1.77259 T3 1.78126 T4 1.75287 T5 1.88749 T6 1.81314 T7 1.86902 T8 1.77934 T9 1.8943 T10 1.83479 T11 1.97667 T12 1.92503

1.77113 NS 1.83725 LUA 1.9077 NDE

LUA+NDE SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-5: Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of diets under

different treatments during performance trial of broilers

Dry matter Organic matter

T1 71.0901 84.6382 T2 70.7714 84.6425 T3 72.5807 85.3031 T4 71.8836 84.1402 T5 71.9116 83.8029 T6 72.5554 84.3703 T7 74.4377 84.2858 T8 73.6769 83.9418 T9 69.078 84.0956 T10 68.6595 84.2213 T11 68.3272 84.0099 T12 71.3106 84.8422

Fig-6: Balance of calcium and phosphorus of diets under different

treatments during performance trial of broilers

Calcium Phosphorus

T1 0.58474 0.37767 T2 0.59936 0.3288 T3 0.60695 0.3407 T4 0.50323 0.252 T5 0.86758 0.29663 T6 0.76632 0.34429 T7 0.8838 0.35289 T8 0.78854 0.22867 T9 0.71662 0.28226 T10 0.77358 0.38188 T11 0.76582 0.30686 T12 0.68689 0.233

Fig.-8: Blood mineral profile of birds under different treatments during

different intervals of 42-day performance trial of broilers 21st day 42nd day

T1 11.73 13.35 T2 11.55 13.27 T3 13.02 14.63 T4 12.91 14.30 T5 11.95 12.61 T6 13.53 13.60 T7 13.09 14.01 T8 12.14 12.87 T9 12.61 14.01 T10 12.06 13.05 T11 11.51 12.91 T12 12.87 12.65

21st day 42nd day

T1 7.00 6.28 T2 6.04 5.56 T3 5.80 6.52 T4 7.00 7.16 T5 6.52 5.72 T6 6.32 6.80 T7 6.72 6.12 T8 6.52 7.04 T9 6.00 6.88 T10 7.12 7.32 T11 6.04 6.40 T12 6.24 6.92

Fig.-9: Average net returns from birds as influenced by different

treatments and main factors at the end of 42-day performance trial of broilers

T1 11.29 T2 12.14 T3 10.36 T4 10.69 T5 9.02 T6 9.78 T7 8.10 T8 13.51 T9 8.10 T10 9.93 T11 6.13 T12 6.92

11.1227 NS 9.47209 10.1018 LUA 10.6158 7.77004 NDE 8.19734

LUA+NDE 10.3742 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-10: Cumulative average egg production of birds as influenced by

different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

T1 82.6257 T2 83.6574 T3 83.6756 T4 84.5012 T5 83.3829 T6 80.8614 T7 80.1852 T8 76.0284 T9 76.8937 T10 77.1065 T11 81.7609 T12 76.67 83.615 NS 80.9674 80.1145 LUA 80.5418 78.1078 NDE 81.8739 LUA+NDE 79.0665 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-11: Cumulative average feed consumption of birds as influenced by

different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

T1 116.441 T2 117.903 T3 117.327 T4 116.683 T5 117.277 T6 116.448 T7 117.304 T8 116.437 T9 114.772 T10 115.552 T11 116.993 T12 115.049 117.089 NS 116.163 116.866 LUA 116.634 115.592 NDE 117.208 LUA+NDE 116.056 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-12: Cumulative average feed efficiency of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

T1 1.69843 T2 1.69559 T3 1.68769 T4 1.66352 T5 1.69167 T6 1.73101 T7 1.76026 T8 1.84366 T9 1.79351 T10 1.79778 T11 1.71961 T12 1.79981

1.68631 NS 1.72787 1.75665 LUA 1.74146 1.77768 NDE 1.72252 LUA+NDE 1.76899 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-13: Average weight of egg of experimental birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

T1 58.1 T2 59.4 T3 58.5 T4 58.4 T5 58.9 T6 59.5 T7 59.7 T8 59.1 T9 59.2 T10 58.6 T11 59.9 T12 58.4

58.6248 NS 58.7677 59.3166 LUA 59.1971 59.0541 NDE 59.3686 LUA+NDE 58.6606 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes

Fig.-15: Average gross efficiencies of utilisation of protein and

energy of birds as influenced by different treatments and main factors during performance trial of layers

EPU EEU T1 28.0992 27.0559 T2 28.7289 27.6623 T3 28.4068 27.3521 T4 28.7765 27.7081 T5 28.8195 27.7592 T6 28.4185 27.3729 T7 28.0422 27.0105 T8 26.5244 25.5485 T9 27.6455 26.6027 T10 27.2822 26.2531 T11 29.1336 28.0346 T12 27.1684 26.1436

28.502849 27.4446 NS 28.1881 27.1393 27.951146 26.9228 LUA 28.1432 27.0961 27.807413 26.7585 NDE 28.5275 27.4657 LUA+NDE 27.4898 26.4667 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue EPU=Efficiency of Protein NS = No Supplement Utilisation LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents EEU=Efficiency of Energy NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes Utilisation

Fig.-16: Metabolizability of dry matter and organic matter of

diets under different treatments during performance trial of layers

Dry matter Organic matter T1 71.22 72.38 T2 68.30 71.51 T3 69.68 72.09 T4 70.73 71.36 T5 69.66 69.29 T6 70.04 69.55 T7 70.83 69.14 T8 72.54 70.07 T9 68.19 68.23 T10 68.27 68.67 T11 68.28 67.97 T12 71.02 69.04 Fig.-17: Balance of calcium and phosphorus of diets under

different treatments during performance trial of layers

Calcium Phosphorus T1 4.37 0.66 T2 4.14 0.68 T3 4.22 0.72 T4 4.21 0.72 T5 4.31 0.66 T6 4.16 0.65 T7 4.08 0.64 T8 4.36 0.68 T9 4.33 0.62 T10 4.38 0.62 T11 4.20 0.66 T12 4.04 0.67

Fig.-18: Blood mineral profile of birds under different treatments

during different intervals of 84-day performance trial of layers

28th day 54th day 84th day T1 18.00 18.87 18.93 T2 17.67 19.03 19.20 T3 18.13 19.17 19.20 T4 17.80 18.97 19.17 T5 17.30 18.93 19.10 T6 17.47 18.77 19.10 T7 17.50 18.53 19.03 T8 17.50 18.97 18.83 T9 18.10 19.20 19.07 T10 18.10 18.63 18.77 T11 18.07 18.70 19.20 T12 18.10 18.63 18.73 28th day 54th day 84th day T1 6.73 7.83 8.67 T2 6.33 7.70 8.63 T3 6.83 7.70 8.73 T4 6.43 8.10 8.70 T5 6.70 8.17 8.90 T6 6.20 7.97 8.73 T7 6.63 8.10 8.67 T8 6.43 8.23 8.67 T9 6.30 8.00 8.67 T10 7.17 8.10 8.63 T11 6.77 8.47 8.67 T12 6.60 8.30 8.70

Fig.-19: Average net returns from birds as influenced by different

treatments and main factors at the end of 84-day performance trial of layers

T1 11.4665 T2 11.1596 T3 11.4619 T4 11.4751 T5 12.1215 T6 10.7009 T7 10.3926 T8 8.22671 T9 10.2635 T10 9.76117 T11 11.675 T12 9.39448 11.3908 NS 11.2838 10.3604 LUA 10.5406 10.2735 NDE 11.1765

LUA+NDE 9.69875 SPR = Sugarcane Press Residue NS = No Supplement LUA = Lipid Utilising Agents NDE = NSP Degrading Enzymes