PDFsamTMPbufferSZEZJ1.pdf

Results and Discussion

Results

and

Discussion

33

Chapter-4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present investigation entitled “Studies on performance of

broiler and quality characteristics of bedding material with use of different litter

materials” was carried out to establish suitability of best bedding material with

optimum performance of broilers. The results obtained in the experiment of

various parameters were statistically analyzed and the effect of use of different

combination of litter materials in broilers are presented and discussed in

foregoing para.

4.1 Weekly body weight

The data for average means for the body weight at different weeks

of age are presented in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 1.

The mean initial body weights of day old broiler chicks were 48,

47, 47.33, 47.66, 48, 47.004 and 47.337 g for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F and G

respectively. The mean body weights for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 1st

week of age were 164.09, 167.69, 172.17, 170.48, 164.10, 167.70 and 172.18 g,

respectively. The mean body weights for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 2nd


respectively. The mean body weights for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 3rd


respectively.

The mean body weights for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F and G at

4th week of age were 1137.64, 1136.50, 1147.46, 1157.46, 1137.65, 1136.49 and

1147.47 g, respectively. The mean body weights for treatments A, B, C, D, E, F

and G at 5th week of age were 1587.31, 1639.88, 1614.790, 1623.58, 1587.31,

1639.88 and 1614.79 g, respectively. The mean body weights for treatments A,

B, C, D, E, F and G at 6th week of age were 2058.187, 2180.66, 2117.29,

2130.73, 2058.19, 2180.67 and 2117.30 g, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly body weight between

the treatment groups showed highly significant (P < 0.01) differences (Table 2).

34

Table 1. Average weekly live weights (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

Weeks Treatment groups

A B C D E F G

I 164.09 167.69 172.17 170.49 164.1 167.70 172.18

II 411.07 417.6 432.4 427.88 411.08 417.61 438.71

III 780.44 805.68 807.94 806.22 780.48 805.69 807.95

IV 1137.64 1136.5 1147.46 1157.47 1137.65 1136.5 1147.47

V 1587.31 1639.89 1614.79 1623.59 1587.31 1639.88 1614.79

VI 2058.19 2180.66 2117.30 2130.73 2058.19 2180.67 2117.30

Mean 1023.12c 1058.03

a 1048.67

b 1052.73

b 1023.13

c 1058.08

a 1049.73

b

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

Table 2. ANOVA for weekly live weights of broilers with different combination of litter materials

** Highly significant at P < 0.01

The statistical analysis of data revealed that various treatments

had highly significant (P <0.01) influence on live weight of birds. The significantly

highest body weight was observed for treatment group F followed by B, D, G, C,

E and A. The treatment group F and B differ significantly with A, C, D, E and E.

However, non-significant difference were observed between C and D, A and E.

Highly significant influence of litter material on body weight for treatment group B

and F inferred that the combination of soybean straw with groundnut hulls and

the combination of groundnut hulls with wheat straw, the birds performed better

with remaining litter material combinations. Similarly, highly significant effect of

litter material on live weight of treatment groups C, D and G compared to control

indicate that other combinations like wheat straw with soybean straw ,saw dust

with soybean straw, saw dust with wheat straw are better options compared to

control.

The results of present study were in agreement with the findings of

Asaniyan et al. (2007), El-Deek et al. (2011) who concluded that using mixture of

Sources df SS MSS Calculated F

Treatments 6 8341.705 1390.284 3.5399**

Weeks 5 18956855 3791371 9653.565**

Error 30 11782.29 392.7431

Total 41 18976979

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

A B C D E F G

Bo

dy w

eig

ht

(g)

Fig . 1 Average weekly live weights (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

35

newspaper and shaving woods or barley straw as a bedding materials in broiler

house improved the broiler performance.

In contrast to the present study, Benabdeljelil and Ayachi

(1996),Lien et al. (1998), Senaratna et al. (2007), Navneet et al. (2011), Onu et

al. (2011) Farghly (2012) and Karousa et al. (2012) revealed non-significant

effect of litter type on body weight.

4.2 Weekly weight gain

The data for average means for the weekly weight gain are

presented in Table 3 and depicted in Figure 2.

The mean weekly weight gains at 1st week of age were 116.09,

120.69, 124.84, 122.82, 116.10, 120.70 and 124.85 g for treatment groups A, B,

C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean weekly weight gains at 2nd week of age

were 246.97, 249.90, 260.22, 257.39, 246.99, 249.91 and 260.23 g for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The highest mean weekly weight

gain at 3rd week of age was observed for treatment group F (388.09g) followed by

treatment group B (388.08g), treatment group D (378.34 g), treatment group G

(375.54g), treatment group C (375.54 g), treatment group E (369.38 g) and

treatment group A (367.37), respectively.

The mean weekly weight gain at 4th week of age for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 357.19, 330.82, 339.52, 351.24, 357.21,

330.83 and 339.53 g, respectively . The mean weekly weight gain at 5th week of

age for treatment A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 449.67, 503.39, 467.33, 466.12,

449.67, 503.39 and 467.33g, respectively . The highest mean weekly weight

gains at 6th week of age was observed for treatment group F (540.78g) followed

by treatment group B (540.77 g), treatment group D (507.14 g), treatment group

G (502.51g), treatment group C (502.50 g), treatment group A (470.87) and

treatment group E (470.88), respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly weight gain between the

treatment groups showed non-significant differences (Table 4).

The analysis of variance for overall weekly gain in weight revealed

non-significant differences among various treatment groups. However, treatment

group F recorded highest gain in weights (355.61g) followed by treatment group

B(355.61),D (347.18 g), G (344.99 g), C (344.98 g), E (335.04 g) and A (335.03

g),respectively.

36

Table 3. Average weekly gain in weights (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 116.09 120.69 124.84 122.82 116.1 120.70 124.85

II 246.98 249.91 260.23 257.39 246.99 249.91 260.23

III 369.38 388.08 375.54 378.34 369.38 388.09 375.54

IV 357.2 330.82 339.52 351.25 357.21 330.83 339.53

V 449.67 503.39 467.33 466.12 449.67 503.39 467.33

VI 470.88 540.78 502.51 507.14 470.89 540.78 502.51

Total 2010.2 2133.67 2069.97 2083.06 2010.24 2133.7 2069.99

Mean 335.03 355.61 344.98 347.18 335.04 355.61 344.99


Table 4. ANOVA for weekly gain in weights of broilers with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 2561.239 426.8732 1.8730NS

Weeks 5 711282.6 142256.5 624.2083**

Error 30 6836.973 227.8991

Total 41 720680.8

NS: Non significant. ** Highly significant at P < 0.01

Similar findings were reported by Benabdeljelil and Ayachi (1996), Lien et

al. (1998), Senaratna et al. (2007), Hafeez et al. (2009), Navneet et al. (2011),

Onu et al. (2011) , Farghly (2012) and Karousa et al. (2012) as non-significant

effect of different litter material on weekly weight gains in the broiler.

4.3 Cumulative weight gain

The data for means for the weekly cumulative weight gain of

broiler chickens at different age groups are presented in Table 5 and depicted in

Figure 3.

The mean cumulative weight gains at 1st week of age were

116.09, 120.69, 124.84, 122.82, 116.11, 120.72 and 124.86 g for groups A, B, C,

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e B

od

y w

eig

ht

gain

(g

)

Fig. 2 Average weekly gain in weights (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

37

D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean cumulative weight gain at 2nd week of age

for treatment A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 363.06, 370.60, 385.06, 380.21,

363.06,370.61 and 385.08 g, respectively. The highest cumulative weight gain at

3rd week of age was observed for treatment group G (760.61 g) followed by

treatment group C (760.60 g), treatment group F (758.70 g), treatment group B

(758.68 g), treatment group D (758.55 g), treatment group E (732.48 g) and

treatment group A (732.44 g).

The mean cumulative weight gain at 4th week of age for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1,089.64, 1,089.50, 1,100.13, 1,109.80,

1,089.66, 1,089.50 and 1,100.12g, respectively. The mean cumulative weight

gain for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 5th week of age were

1,539.31, 1,592.88, 1,567.45, 1,575.92, 1,539.32, 1,592.85 and 1,567.40 g,

respectively . The mean cumulative weight gain at 6th week of age for treatment

A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 2010.19, 2133.66, 2069.96, 2083.06, 2009.87,

2133.66 and 2069.97g, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly weight gain between the

treatment groups showed highly significant (P < 0.01) differences (Table 6).

Table 5. Average weekly cumulative weight gain (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 116.09 120.69 124.84 122.82 116.11 120.72 124.86

II 363.07 370.60 385.07 380.21 363.06 370.61 385.08

III 732.44 758.68 760.61 758.55 732.48 758.70 760.61

IV 1089.64 1089.50 1100.13 1109.80 1089.66 1089.50 1100.12

V 1539.31 1592.89 1567.46 1575.92 1539.32 1592.85 1567.40

VI 2010.19 2133.66 2069.9 6 2083.06 2009.87 2133.66 2069.97

Mean 975.12b

1011.00a

1001.34a

1005.06a

975.08b

1011.00a

1001.34a


Table 6. ANOVA for average weekly cumulative weight gain (g) of broilers

with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 8722.53 1453.754 3.73**

Weeks 5 18963833 3792766.5 9732.22**

Error 30 11691.36 389.712

Total 41 18984246

** Highly significant at P < 0.01

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

A B C D E F G

Cu

mu

lati

ve

we

igh

t g

ain

(g

)

Fig. 3 Weekly cumulative weight gain (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

38

The analysis of variance for overall cumulative weight gain (g)

revealed highly significant (P < 0.01) difference among various treatment groups.

However, treatment group F recorded highest cumulative weight gain (1011.00

g), followed by treatment group B (1011.00), D (1005.06 g), G (1001.34 g), C

(1001.34 g), A (975.12) and E (975.08 g).

Similar finding of significant effect of depth of litter material on

weight gain were reported by Asaniyan et al. (2007), El-Deek et al. (2011) on

different litter material and Kalita et al. (2012) with re-use of litter and mix type of

litter material, which is in agreement with the present findings.

4.4 Weekly feed consumption

The data for average means for the weekly feed consumption of

broilers are presented in Table 7 and depicted in Figure 4.

The mean weekly feed consumption at 1st week of age were

159.02, 155.50, 159.15, 160.87, 160.83, 160.85 and 160.87 g for treatment A, B,

C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean weekly feed consumption at 2nd week

of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 373.73, 346.51, 355.55,

367.62, 373.83, 346.52 and 355.56 g, respectively. The mean weekly feed

consumption at 3rd week of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were

539.91, 545.51, 543.16, 544.72, 539.92, 545.55 and 543.16g, respectively.

The mean weekly feed consumption at 4th week of age for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 712.36, 623.08, 649.86, 664.86,

712.37, 623.10 and 649.86g, respectively. The mean weekly feed consumption

for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 5th week of age were 1,035.20,

1,117.20, 1,007.61, 998.46, 1,035.21, 1,117.21 and 1,007.68 g, respectively.The

mean weekly feed consumption at 6th week of age for treatment groups A, B, C,

D, E, F and G were 1,127.77, 1,207.81, 1,138.26, 1,149.48, 1,127.78, 1,207.81

and 1,138.27 g, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly feed consumption

between the treatment groups showed non-significant differences (Table 8).

39

Table 7. Average weekly feed consumption (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 159.03 155.5 159.16 160.87 160.84 160.85 160.87

II 373.73 346.51 355.55 367.62 373.83 346.52 355.56

III 539.91 545.51 543.16 544.72 539.92 545.55 543.16

IV 712.37 623.09 649.86 664.86 712.37 623.1 649.86

V 1035.21 1117.21 1007.62 998.46 1035.21 1117.21 1007.68

VI 1127.78 1207.81 1138.26 1149.49 1127.78 1207.81 1138.27

Total 3948.03 3995.63 3853.61 3886.02 3949.95 4001.04 3855.4

Mean 658.05 665.93 642.26 647.67 658.32 666.84 642.56

Table 8. ANOVA for average weekly feed consumption (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 3892.151 648.6919 0.680NS

Weeks 5 5245289 1049058 1099.849**

Error 30 28614.59 953.8196

Total 41 5277796

NS: Non significant. ** Highly significant at P < 0.01

The statistical analysis of data revealed that the differences

among average weekly feed consumption of the birds from different groups were

statistically non-significant. However, numerically highest feed consumption were

observed for the treatment group F (668.84 g) and B (665.93 g), whereas, lowest

feed consumption were observed for C (642.26g) and G (642.56g) group,

respectively.

Similar findings were found by Asaniyan et al. (2007), they

concluded that feed consumptions was non-significantly affected by litter material

and depth of litter. Hafeez et al. (2009) found non-significant effect on feed

consumption for saw dust, sand and wheat straw as litter material. Navneet et al.

(2011), Onu et al. (2011), Karousa et al. (2012) reported that bedding material in

broiler house had non-significant effect on feed intake and all these findings are

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e f

ee

d c

on

su

mp

tio

n

Fig.4 Average weekly feed comsumption (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

40

in agreement with the non-significant effect of litter material on weekly feed

consumption.

In contrast to the present study, El-Deek et al. (2011) indicated

that broiler grown on shaving woods with barley straw and shaving woods with

newspaper litter had consumed the significantly highest amount of feed. They

also concluded that using the mixture of shaving woods with newspaper and

barley straw as a bedding material in broiler house improves the feed intake.

4.5 Cumulative feed consumption

The data for means for the cumulative feed consumption of the

broiler at different age groups are presented in Table 9 and depicted in Figure 5.

The mean cumulative feed consumption at 1st week of age were

159.02, 155.50, 159.15, 160.87, 159.05, 155.54 and 159.16 g for treatment A, B,

C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean cumulative feed consumption at 2nd

week of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 532.76, 502.01,

514.70, 528.49, 532.800, 502.00 and 514.72 g, respectively. The mean

cumulative feed consumption at 3rd week of age for treatment group A, B, C, D,

E, F and G were 1,072.67, 1,047.52, 1,057.87, 1,073.21, 1,072.69, 1,047.53 and

1,057.88 g, respectively.

The mean cumulative feed consumption for treatment groups A, B,

C, D, E, F and G at 4th week of age were 1,785.03, 1,670.61, 1,707.73, 1,738.08,

1,670.61 and 1,707.70 g, respectively. The mean cumulative feed consumption

at 5th week of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 2,820.24,

2,787.81, 2,715.34, 2,736.54, 2,820.26, 2,787.83 and 2,715.36, g, respectively.

The mean cumulative feed consumption at 6th week of age were 3,948.01,

3,995.63, 3,853.61, 3,886.02, 3,948.02, 3,995.32 and 3,853.62 g for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly cumulative feed

consumption between the treatment groups showed non-significant differences

(Table 10).

41

Table 9. Average weekly cumulative feed consumption (g) of broilers



A B C D E F G

I 159.03 155.5 159.16 160.87 159.05 155.54 159.16

II 532.76 502.01 514.71 528.49 532.8 502.0 514.72

III 1072.67 1047.52 1057.87 1073.22 1072.69 1047.53 1057.88

IV 1785.04 1670.61 1707.73 1738.08 1785.0 1670.61 1707.7

V 2820.24 2787.82 2715.35 2736.54 2820.26 2787.83 2715.36

VI 3948.02 3995.63 3853.61 3886.03 3948.02 3995.32 3853.62

Mean 1719.62 1693.18 1668.07 1687.20 1719.63 1693.13 1668.07

Table 10. ANOVA for average weekly cumulative feed consumption (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 16165.66 2694.276 2.30NS

Weeks 5 71948344 14389669 12302.82**

Error 30 35088.72 1169.624

Total 41 71999598

NS: Non significant. ** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

Non-significant differences among the different groups for

cumulative feed consumption were observed in the present study. These findings

were in agreement with lien et al. (1997), Asaniyan et al. (2007), Senaratna et al.

(2007), Hafeez et al. (2009), Navneet et al. (2011), Farghly (2012), Karousa et al.

(2012). However El-Deek et al. (2011) reported that using mixture of Newspaper

and saw dust or Barley straw as bedding material improved feed intake in

broilers. The non-significant differences observed in the different treatment

groups with different litter combination for the weekly and cumulative feed

consumption observed in the present study may be the indicative of the fact that

broilers being genetically developed birds fulfill their feed demand even with any

type of the litter material used for rearing purpose.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

A B C D E F G

Cu

mu

lati

ve

fe

ed

co

ns

um

pti

on

Fig.5 Weekly cumulative feed consumption (g) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

42

4.6 Weekly Feed Conversion Ratio

The data for average means for the weekly feed conversion ratio

of broilers with use of different litter materials for different age groups are

presented in Table 11 and depicted in Figure 6.

The mean feed conversion ratios at 1st week of age were 1.37,

1.28, 1.27, 1.31, 1.37, 1.29 and 1.28 for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G,

respectively. The mean weekly feed conversion ratio at 2nd week of age for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, were 1.51, 1.38, 1.36, 1.43, 1.50, 1.39

and 1.36, respectively. The mean weekly feed conversion ratio at 3rd week of age

for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1.46, 1.40, 1.44, 1.44, 1.45,

1.41 and 1.45, respectively .

The mean weekly feed conversion ratio for treatment groups A, B,

C, D, E, F and G at 4th week of age were 1.99, 1.88, 1.91, 1.89, 2.00, 1.89 and

1.91, respectively. The mean weekly feed conversion ratio at 5th week of age for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 2.30, 2.21, 2.15, 2.14, 2.30, 2.21

and 2.15, respectively. The mean feed conversion ratios at 6th week of age were

2.39, 2.23, 2.26, 2.26, 2.38, 2.21 and 2.27 for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F

and G, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly feed conversion ratio

between the treatment groups showed non-significant differences (Table 12).

Table 11. Average weekly feed conversion ratio of broilers with different

combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 1.37 1.29 1.28 1.31 1.37 1.29 1.28

II 1.51 1.39 1.37 1.43 1.50 1.39 1.367

III 1.46 1.41 1.45 1.44 1.45 1.41 1.45

IV 1.99 1.88 1.91 1.89 2.00 1.89 1.91

V 2.3 2.22 2.15 2.14 2.30 2.21 2.15

VI 2.39 2.23 2.26 2.27 2.38 2.21 2.27

Mean 1.83a

1.73b

1.73b

1.74b

1.83a

1.73b

1.78a


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e F

CR

Fig.6 Average weekly FCR of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

43

Table 12. ANOVA for average weekly feed conversion ratio of broilers with

different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 0.080896 0.013483 15.607**

Weeks 5 6.470586 1.294117 1498.11**

Error 30 0.025915 0.000864

Total 41 6.577396

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

The statistical analysis of variance for weekly feed conversion ratio

of broilers with different combination of litter materials revealed highly significant

(P < 0.01) effect. The superior feed conversion ratio was found for treatment

group B, C and F compared to rest of the treatment groups. Inferior feed

conversion ratio was found for treatment group A (control).

The findings in the present study are in agreement with Asaniyan

et al. (2007), El-Deek et al. (2011) who reported improved broiler FCR by use of

different litter materials.

In contrast to the present study, Senaratna et al. (2007), Hafeez et

al. (2009) found that feed conversion ratio for sawdust, sand and wheat straw

were found non-significant. Similarly, Navneet et al. (2011), Onu et al. (2011),

Farghly (2012) and Kalita et al. (2012) found that there were no significant

differences among the broilers raised in different types of litter on the feed

conversion ratio. Karousa et al. (2012) concluded that sugarcane bagasse can be

used as a litter material without any apparent effects on FCR.

4.7 Cumulative feed conversion ratio

The data for average means for the cumulative feed conversion

ratio of broilers with use of different litter materials through feed at different age

groups are present in Table 13 and depicted in Figure 7.

The mean cumulative feed conversion ratios at 1st week of age

were 1.370, 1.28, 1.27, 1.31, 1.36, 1.27 and 1.29 for treatment groups A, B, C, D,

E, F and G, respectively. The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio at 2nd week

of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1.46, 1.35, 1.33, 1.39,

1.47, 1.33 and 1.35, respectively. The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio at

3rd week of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1.46, 1.38,

1.39, 1.41, 1.47, 1.39 and 1.400,respectively .

44

The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio for treatment groups

A, B, C, D, E, F and G at 4th week of age were 1.64, 1.53, 1.55, 1.56, 1.65, 1.56

and 1.58, respectively. The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio at 5th week of

age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1.83, 1.75, 1.73, 1.73,

1.840, 1.80 and 1.77, respectively. The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio at

6th week of age for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G were 1.96, 1.87,

1.86, 1.86, 1.97, 1.88 and 1.90, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly cumulative feed

conversion ratio between the treatment groups showed highly significant (P <

0.01) differences (Table.14).

Table 13. Average weekly cumulative feed conversion ratio of broilers with



A B C D E F G

I 1.37 1.29 1.28 1.31 1.36 1.27 1.29

II 1.47 1.35 1.34 1.39 1.47 1.33 1.35

III 1.46 1.38 1.39 1.41 1.47 1.39 1.4

IV 1.64 1.53 1.55 1.57 1.65 1.56 1.58

V 1.83 1.75 1.73 1.74 1.84 1.80 1.77

VI 1.96 1.87 1.86 1.87 1.97 1.88 1.90

Mean 1.62a 1.52

c 1.52

c 1.54

b 1.62

a 1.54

b 1.54

b


Table 14. ANOVA for average weekly cumulative feed conversion ratio of broilers with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 0.067 0.0112 40.35**

Weeks 5 1.956 0.3913 1413.07**

Error 30 0.0083 0.00028

Total 41 2.0323


The statistical analysis of variance for weekly cumulative feed

conversion ratio of broilers with different combination of litter materials revealed

highly significant (P < 0.01) effect. The mean superior cumulative feed

conversion ratio was found for treatment group B, C and F compared to rest of

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

A B C D E F G

Cu

mu

lati

ve

FC

R

Fig.7 Weekly cumulative FCR of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

45

the treatment groups. An Inferior cumulative feed conversion ratio was found for

treatment group A (control).

The findings in the present study were in agreement with Asaniyan

et al. (2007), El-Deek et al. (2011) who reported improved broiler FCR by use of

different litter materials.

In contrast to the present study, Senaratna et al. (2007), Hafeez et

al.(2009) found that cumulative feed conversion ratio for sawdust sand and wheat

straw were found non-significant. Similarly, Navneet et al. (2011), Onu et al.

(2011), Farghly (2012) and Kalita et al. (2012) found that there were no

significant differences among the broilers raised in different types of litter in the

feed conversion ratio. Karousa et al. (2012) concluded that sugarcane bagasse

can be useful as a litter material without any apparent effects on FCR.

4.8 Mortality (%)

The data pertaining to mortality with use of different litter materials

during the entire experimental period from all the treatment groups are presented

in Table 15 and depicted in Figure 8.

Table 15. Average weekly mortality (%) of broilers with different



A B C D E F G

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

II 3.33 0 3.33 3.33 0 0 0

III 0 0 3.33 0 3.33 0 0

IV 3.33 0 6.66 0 6.66 0 0

V 0 0 3.33 0 1.66 0 0

VI 0 0 3.33 0 0 1.66 0

Mean % 1.11 0 3.33 0.55 1.94 0.27 0

The average weekly mortality percent of broilers for treatment

group A were 0,3.33,0,3.33,0 and 0 percent for Ist to VIth weeks of age with an

overall mean mortality percent of 1.11,respectively.The treatment B has exhibited

0 percent mortality from Ist to VIth weeks of age. The average weekly mortality

percent of broilers for treatment group C were 0, 3.33, 3.33, 6.66, 3.33 and 3.33

percent for Ist to VIth weeks of age with an overall mean mortality percent of 3.33,

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

A B C D E F G

Mo

rta

lity

%

Fig.8 Total mortality percent of broilers with different combination of litter materials

46

respectively. The average weekly mortality percent of broilers for treatment group

D were 0, 3.3,0,0,0 and 0 percent for Ist to VIth weeks of age with an overall mean

mortality percent of 0.55, respectively. The average weekly mortality percent of

broilers for treatment group E were 0, 0, 3.33, 6.66, 1.66 and 0 percent for Ist to

VIth weeks of age with an overall mean mortality percent of 1.94, respectively.

The average weekly mortality percent of broilers for treatment group F were 0, 0,

0,0,0 and1.66 percent for Ist to VIth weeks of age with an overall mean mortality

percent of 0.27, respectively The treatment G has exhibited 0 percent mortality

from Ist to VIth weeks of age.

In the present study, the broilers raised on soybean straw with

groundnut hulls (B), saw dust with wheat straw (G), groundnut hulls with saw dust

(F), saw dust with soybean straw (D) combination of litter materials had

significantly lower mortality percentage during 0-6 weeks of age. The highest

mortality percent was recorded for broiler raised on combinations of soybean

straw with wheat straw(C), followed by groundnut hulls with wheat straw (E) and

rice husk (A) .From the mortality point of view, it can be inferred that the

combination of soybean straw with groundnut hulls and sawdust with wheat straw

can serve as best alternative litter materials.

The mortality percent observed in the present study range from 0

to 3.33 percent in different litter combinations which is quite lower and also in

agreement with the various authors reported as Khan et al.(2009) 3.03,Karousa

et al.(2012) 2.77 to 3.33, Mahmood et al. (2013) 2.47 to 4.85 percent

respectively.However, Farghly (2012) reported higher mortality 6.33 to 8.33

percent in local turkey with different litter material combinations.

The present findings and literature on use of the different litter

material and their combination does not play any significant role as per the

availability and cost effectiveness. The different litter material in combination can

be used very successfully without any adverse effect on mortality.

4.9 Litter moisture (%)

The mean for the litter moisture percent with use of different litter

materials are presented in Table16 and depicted in Figure 9.

The mean litter moisture percent at 1st week of age were 17.543,

19.980, 23.59, 21.71, 19.08, 23.30 and 20.88 percent, respectively for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean litter moisture percent at

47

2nd week of age were 18.82, 20.60, 24.04, 22.11, 20.34, 25.23 and 22.36%,

respectively for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean

litter moisture percent at 3rd week of age were 20.64, 21.86, 24.71, 23.06, 21.65,

26.15 and 22.46%, respectively for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G,

respectively.

The mean litter moisture percent at 4th week of age were 21.18,

21.52, 26.88, 23.58, 22.29, 26.56 and 22.56 %, respectively for treatment groups

A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean litter moisture percent at 5th week

of age were 22.95, 23.33, 26.40, 24.41, 24.29, 26.33 and 23.82 %, respectively

for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The mean litter

moisture percent at 6th week of age were 23.31, 23.76, 29.11, 25.77, 25.66,

27.35 and 24.53 %, respectively for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G,

respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly litter moisture levels

showed highly significant influence (P< 0.01) amongst the various treatment

groups (Table.17).

Table 16. Average weekly moisture (%) of litter with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 17.543 19.979 23.590 21.712 19.086 23.302 20.881

II 18.826 20.608 24.047 22.112 20.341 25.232 22.361

III 20.644 21.866 24.710 23.060 21.658 26.151 22.462

IV 21.186 21.526 26.881 23.588 22.297 26.560 22.563

V 22.953 23.335 26.406 24.413 24.298 26.333 23.829

VI 23.311 23.767 29.110 25.778 25.662 27.350 24.532

Mean 20.743c 21.846

c 25.790

a 23.443

b 22.223

b 25.821

a 22.771

b


Table 17. ANOVA for average weekly moisture (%) of litter with different



Treatments 6 135.8092 22.63486 51.10**

Weeks 5 104.1925 20.8385 47.04**

Error 30 13.28742 0.442914

Total 41 253.2891


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e m

ois

ture

%

Fig.9 Average weekly moisture (%) of broilers with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

48

The moisture percentages in different litter materials were highly

significant (P < 0.01) at different litter ages. In first week the highest litter

moisture percent recorded in C group whereas the lowest was recorded in

treatment group A (Rice husk). The different sources and combination of litter

material have different moisture percent. These differences may be due to that

each type of litter generally has unique physical characteristics as reported by

Brake et al. (1992). The findings of the present study clearly indicated that in all

litter combination treatment groups, with advancing age of broiler birds had

gradually and proportionately increase in the litter moisture percent from first

week of age to sixth weeks of age and in each treatment group the highest litter

moisture percent were observed at 6th week of age. This gradual increase in

percent of moisture in all litter materials depends upon increased waste

deposition and respiration in growing birds rather than on the nature of the litter

material as reported by Huff et al. (1984) ,Brake et al. (1992) , Lien et al. (1998),

and Ogan (2000).

The highly significant (P < 0.01) differences among treatment

groups for litter moisture with different combination of litter materials were

reported by earlier authors. This study also indicated that litter materials like

soybean straw, wheat straw, saw dust and groundnut hulls in combination can

successfully be used as a litter material without any adverse effects. It may be

concluded that rice husk is potentially as useful litter material with least moisture

%. However, treatment group B (soybean straw with groundnut hulls) was also

alternate, cheaper litter material without any apparent effects on moisture

percent.

The results in the present study are in accordance with

Benabdeljelil and Ayachi (1996), they indicated that alternate materials rice husk,

sawdust, wood shavings, and Rice hulls solely or in combination can successfully

be used as a poultry litter without any adverse effect on litter moisture.Similiar

reports were also observed by Lien et al. (1998), Senaratna et al. (2007), Hafeez

et al. (2009), El-Deek et al. (2011), Karousa et al. (2012) in broilers and Farghly

(2012) in local turkey birds, respectively.

The litter moisture percent observed in all litter groups has

exhibited the moisture percent varying from 17 to 29 % from 1st week to 6th week

of age. The results obtained for litter moisture percent in 6th week of age for all

treatment groups A to G had shown a range of 20 to 25 % litter moisture which

49

may attributed to the fact that the environmental temperature during the last week

of April may be the reason for lower moisture content of litter. Finally, it may be

concluded that the quality of litter material, droppings deposited and

environmental temperature are directly but inversely proportional to each other.

Under normal conditions, litter moisture at the end of the flock may fluctuate from

25 to 35 % depending on various factors. Maintaining litter moisture between 20

and 25 % may be the main reason of using good quality litter material during the

rearing period of the broilers. From the present finding, it may be concluded that

any combination of litter materials used in the present study was maintained in a

good quality of litter and can be used as an alternate litter material.

4.10 Litter pH

The data for means for litter pH values with use of different litter

materials are presented in Table18 and depicted in Figure 10.

The weekly mean litter pH values at 1st week of age were 6.12,

6.33, 6.84, 6.175, 6.24, 6.23 and 6.18, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and

G, respectively. The weekly mean litter pH values at 2nd week of age were 6.22,


G, respectively. The weekly mean litter pH values at 3rd week of age were 6.31,

6.33, 7.12, 6.42, 6.34, 6.34, 6.44 and 6.58,for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F

and G, respectively.

Table 18. Average weekly pH of litter with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 6.128 6.330 6.847 6.175 6.245 6.231 6.184

II 6.221 6.258 6.949 6.255 6.329 6.238 6.255

III 6.314 6.338 7.122 6.421 6.340 6.448 6.580

IV 6.387 6.378 7.012 6.427 6.418 6.427 6.733

V 6.508 6.584 7.008 6.724 6.514 6.593 6.669

VI 6.672 6.861 7.147 6.841 6.851 6.829 7.014

Mean 6.371b 6.458

b 7.014

a 6.473

b 6.445

b 6.461

b 6.572

b


5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e p

H

Fig.10 Average weekly pH of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

50

Table 19. ANOVA for average weekly pH of litter with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 1.6780 0.2796 32.47**

Weeks 5 1.5657 0.3131 36.36**

Error 30 0.258 0.00861

Total 41 3.5022


The weekly mean litter pH values at 4th week of age were 6.38,


G, respectively. The weekly mean litter pH values at 5th week of age were 6.50,


G, respectively. The weekly mean litter pH values at 6th week of age were 6.67,


G, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly litter pH values showed

highly significant influence (P<0.01) amongst the various treatment groups (Table

19).

The pH values of litter were one of the most important factor that

determined the aqueous phase of ammonia concentration and therefore,

influences ammonia release. The findings of Reece et al. (1985) demonstrated

that ammonia release from litter was negligible at litter pH below 7.0.In the

present study there were no significant differences in pH values among the

various treatment groups except treatment group C where, it was significantly

higher (7.01) and this range was at the level of bird’s comfort demand. To limit

the ammonia production, litter pH should be below 7.0.In the present study pH

parameter was within limit of ideal conditions. It also indicated that lower pH is an

added advantage since the conversion of excretory uric acid into ammonia is

reduced at an acidic pH levels (Moor et al. 1996).

The findings of the present study are in agreement with Meluzzi et

al. (2008), Senaratna et al. (2007), El-Deek et al. (2011) in broilers and Fraghly

(2012) in local turkey birds.

From the study, it can be concluded that using Rice husk and

combination of Saw dust with groundnut hulls as an alternative litter materials for

broiler rearing was highly suitable and recommended.

51

4.11 Litter nitrogen %

The data for average weekly means for litter nitrogen percent with

use of different litter materials are presented in Table 20 and in Figure 11.

The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 1st week of age were

1.46, 1.84, 2.27, 2.06, 2.17, 2.16 and 1.90 %, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E,

F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 2nd week of age

were 1.87, 1.94, 2.27, 2.17, 2.22, 2.21 and 1.89 %, for treatment groups A, B, C,

D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 3rd week

of age were 1.95, 2.22, 2.37, 2.31, 2.34, 2.35 and 2.11 %, for treatment groups

A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

Table 20. Average weekly nitrogen (percent) of litter with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 1.467 1.843 2.274 2.065 2.174 2.179 1.867

II 1.875 1.945 2.271 2.170 2.221 2.214 1.891

III 1.956 2.223 2.378 2.318 2.349 2.358 2.116

IV 2.097 2.259 2.895 2.515 2.509 2.239 2.168

V 2.185 2.365 3.170 2.473 2.427 2.595 2.263

VI 2.349 2.454 3.240 2.523 2.466 2.758 2.463

Mean 1.989c 2.181

c 2.704

a 2.344

b 2.357

b 2.390

b 2.128

c


Table 21. ANOVA for average weekly nitrogen (percent) of litter with



Treatments 6 1.90841 0.31806 17.640**

Weeks 5 2.04299 0.40859 22.661**

Error 30 0.54091 0.01803

Total 41 4.49232


The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 4th week of age were

2.09, 2.25, 2.895, 2.51, 2.51, 2.23 and 2.16 %, for treatment groups A, B, C, D,

E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 5th week of

age were 2.18, 2.36, 3.17, 2.47, 2.42, 2.59 and 2.26 %, for treatment groups A,

B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter nitrogen percent at 6th

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e N

itro

ge

n %

Fig.11 Average weekly nitrogen (%) of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

52

week of age were 2.34, 2.45, 3.24, 2.52, 2.46, 2.75 and 2.46 %, for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly litter nitrogen percent

showed highly significant influence (P<0.01) amongst the various treatment

groups (Table 21).

The treatment group D, E and F differs significantly from treatment

group A, B, C and G. However, differences among treatment group D, E and G

do not differed significantly (P < 0.01) from each other. The treatment group C, B

and G having significantly lower weekly mean nitrogen percent litter as compared

to remaining treatment group but there were non-significant differences amongst

these treatment groups except for treatment group C.

Significantly higher ammonia nitrogen percent of the litter for

treatment group C indicates the litter quality and waste microbial degradation

during the experiment. It also indicated that the trial proceeds ammonia nitrogen

concentration increased resulting in an increase in the pH value.

The results in the present study clearly indicated that ammonia

nitrogen concentration/percent was increased more marked in combination of

soybean straw and wheat straw. This higher content of ammonia nitrogen

concentration may be due to the more ability of ammonia producing bacteria to

use the straw as a substrate for growth due to their greater lignin content

(Dugueza, 1996), because litter moisture levels, ventilation rates and

temperature were standardized across the treatment during experiment. At

beginning of the experimentation litter ammonia nitrogen concentration/ percent

were significantly lower may be due lower level of litter moisture % and bacterial

population. The similar results were also reported by Lien et al. (1998),

Senaratna et al. (2007) and El-Deek et al. (2011).

From the present study, it may be concluded that rice husk litter

material was having higher ability to bind ammonia nitrogen followed by

treatment group B and G.

4.12 Litter temperature

The data for average weekly means for litter temperature degree Celsius

with use of different litter materials are presented in Table 22 and depicted in

Figure 12.

53

The weekly mean litter temperature degree Celsius at 1st week of

age were 25.19, 25.43, 27.99, 26.52, 25.60, 27.05 and 25.51, for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter temperature

degree Celsius at 2nd week of age were 27.49, 28.72, 29.64, 28.67, 27.471,

29.53 and 27.31 , for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The

weekly mean litter temperature degree Celsius at 3rd week of age were 29.00,

29.81, 30.54, 29.72, 29.88, 30.27 and 29.21 , for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E,

F and G, respectively.

Table 22. Average weekly temperature degree celsius of litter with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 25.19 25.43 27.99 26.52 25.60 27.05 25.51

II 27.48 28.72 29.64 28.67 27.47 29.53 27.31

III 29.00 29.81 30.54 29.72 29.87 30.27 29.21

IV 29.49 29.14 30.99 29.54 29.72 29.84 30.22

V 30.05 30.29 31.88 30.12 30.11 30.17 30.62

VI 31.46 31.49 32.55 31.84 31.98 32.23 31.67

Mean 28.778c 29.146

c 30.598

a 29.401

b 29.125

c 29.848

a 29.090

c


Table 23. ANOVA for average weekly temperature degree celsius of litter



Treatments 6 13.525 2.254 10.730**

Weeks 5 132.963 26.592 126.580**

Error 30 6.302 0.210

Total 41 152.7915

** Highly significant at P < 0.01. The weekly mean litter temperature degree Celsius at 4th week of

age were 29.49, 29.14, 30.99, 29.54, 29.72, 29.84 and 30.22, for treatment

groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter temperature

degree Celsius at 5th week of age were 30.05, 30.29, 31.88, 30.11, 30.11, 30.17

and 30.62 , for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly

mean litter temperature degree Celsius at 6th week of age were 31.46, 31.49,

32.55, 31.844, 31.98, 32.23 and 31.67 , for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and

G, respectively.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e t

em

pe

ratu

re 0

C

Fig.12 Average weekly temperature ( 0C ) of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

54

The treatment group A, B, E and G differed significantly from rest

of the treatment groups but did not differ significantly among themselves for

weekly temperature of litter. The treatment group D differed significantly from rest

of treatment gropus.Significantly highest temperature (P < 0.01) was observed for

treatment group C containing wheat straw with soybean straw as a litter material

followed by F(groundnut hulls with saw dust). Significantly lowest temperature

was observed for treatment group A followed by B (soybean straw with groundnut

hulls), E (groundnut hulls with wheat straw) and G(Saw dust with wheat straw),

respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly litter temperature

degree celsius showed highly significant influence (P< 0.01) amongst the various

treatment groups (Table 23).

The results in the present study are in accordance with

Benabdeljelil and Ayachi (1996), Senaratna et al. (2007). Litter surface

temperature were significantly higher for wood shavings, rice hulls compared to

sand alone as reported by Atencio et al. (2010).

Highly significant (P< 0.01) differences were observed in litter

temperature of the various combinations of litter material concluded that the

particle size has contributed to the cooling of their material. The rice husk used

had lower temperature fluctuations compared to those of straw based litters. It

also concluded that wet litter provides a favorable environment for the microbial

proliferation and may be the reason for increase in temperature.

4.13 Litter total viable count

The data for average weekly means for litter total viable count cfu /

gm with use of different litter materials are presented in Table 24 and depicted in

Figure 13.

The weekly mean litter total viable count at 1st week of age were

2.13, 2.66, 3.50, 2.40, 2.50, 3.06 and 3.00 x105 cfu / gm, for treatment groups A,

B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter total viable count at 2nd

week of age were 2.26, 2.96, 3.86, 2.73, 2.90, 3.30 and 3.36 x105 cfu / gm, for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter

total viable count at 3rd week of age were 2.50, 3.23, 4.23, 2.90, 3.13, 3.43 and

3.60 x105 cfu / gm, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

55

The weekly mean litter total viable count at 4th week of age were


B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter total viable count at 5th

week of age were 2.80, 3.66, 4.90, 3.50, 3.60, 3.90 and 4.00 x105 cfu / gm, for


total viable count at 6th week of age were 3.40, 3.90, 5.40, 3.80, 3.90, 4.00 and

4.20 x105 cfu / gm, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively .

The analysis of variance for weekly mean total viable count cfu /

gm showed highly significant influence (P<0.01) amongst the various treatment

groups (Table 25).

Table 24. Average weekly total viable count (cfu / gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials

Weeks Treatment Groups

A B C D E F G I 2.1 2.66 3.5 2.4 2.5 3.06 3 II 2.26 2.96 3.86 2.73 2.9 3.3 3.36 III 2.5 3.23 4.23 2.9 3.13 3.43 3.6 IV 2.6 3.43 4.33 3.1 3.2 3.56 3.8 V 2.8 3.6 4.9 3.5 3.6 3.9 4.0 VI 3.4 3.9 5.4 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.2

Mean 2.61c

3.29b

4.37a

3.07c

3.20b

3.54b

3.66b


Table 25. ANOVA for average weekly total viable count (cfu / gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 10.853 1.8089 118.0**

Weeks 5 8.116 1.6233 105.89**

Error 30 0.459 0.0153

Total 41 19.429

** Highly significant at P < 0.01. The significant (P< 0.01) differences were observed for treatment

group A(rice husk), B(soybean straw with groundnut hulls) from rest of the

treatment groups for mean viable count of litter but there were no significant

differences amongst these two treatment groups. Similarly, significantly (P <

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e T

VC

Fig.13 Average weekly total viable count (cfu/gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

56

0.01) higher value for total viable count of litter was observed for treatment group

C(soybean straw with wheat straw). It was clear that in all different litter groups

with advancing age of litter, total viable count increased progressively and

highest count in all litter groups were recorded at 6th week of litter age.

The results in the present study are in accordance with the

findings of Macklin et al. (2005) and Karousa et al. (2012). Karousa et al. (2012,)

reported that significant difference at different litter ages. The highest mean of

TBC was recorded in wheat straw (4.69 log/g) followed by sugarcane baggasse

(4.57 log/g) while, the lowest one was recorded for wood shavings (3.83 log/g).

The findings in the present study concluded that litter bacterial

population may decrease in response to changing litter ammonia level or

compaction and resulting lower oxygen levels. Though several other factors may

be responsible like litter type, age of bird, moisture content of litter, temperature

of litter, density, feeding regimes and duration of litters. The present study

concluded that treatment group C (soybean straw with wheat straw) had

significantly higher moisture content might have lead to promote the bacterial

growth. This has resulted in decomposing organic material producing ammonia, a

highly irritating toxic gas ultimately resulting in higher mortality in birds (Wathes,

1998; Kristensen and Wathes, 2000). It also concluded that wet litter condition

may slow down microbial and enzymatic activities due to scarcity of oxygen.

4.14 Litter total coliform count

The data for average weekly means for litter total coliform count

cfu / gm with use of different litter materials are presented in Table 26 and

depicted in Figure 14.

The weekly mean litter total coliform count at 1st week of age were


B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter total coliform count at

2nd week of age 2.20, 2.60, 4.90, 2.93, 3.60, 3.10 and 2.767 x105 cfu / gm, for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively

The weekly mean litter total coliform count at 3rd week of age were


B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

57

Table 26. Average weekly total coliform count (cfu / gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials


A B C D E F G

I 2.0 2.3 4.46 2.53 3.03 2.9 2.36

II 2.2 2.6 4.9 2.93 3.6 3.1 2.76

III 2.3 2.96 5.1 3.1 3.73 3.1 2.9

IV 2.5 2.93 5.2 3.2 3.8 3.3 3.1

V 3.2 3.3 5.3 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.8

VI 3.4 3.8 5.5 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.0

Mean 2.60c

2.98c

5.07a

3.22b

3.69b

3.34b

3.15c


Table 27. ANOVA for average weekly total coliform count (cfu / gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials


Treatments 6 22.7853 3.7975 160.29**

Weeks 5 7.6265 1.5253 64.38**

Error 30 0.7107 0.0237

Total 41 31.1227


The weekly mean litter total coliform count at 4th week of age were


B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter total coliform count at

5th week of age were 3.20, 3.33, 5.30, 3.70, 3.90, 3.70 and 3.80 x105 cfu / gm, for


total coliform count at 6th week of age were 3.40, 3.80, 5.50, 3.90, 4.10, 3.90 and

4.00 x105 cfu / gm, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

The analysis of variance for mean weekly total coliform count cfu /

gm showed highly significant influence (P< 0.01) amongst the various treatment

groups (Table 27).

The treatment group A, B and G differed significantly from rest of

the groups. However, the differences amongst these treatment groups were non-

significant. The treatment group C differed significantly from rest of the treatment

groups. There were non-significant differences amongst D, E and F for total

coliform count of litter. Significantly highest mean total coliform count was

observed for treatment group C (soybean straw with wheat straw).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e T

ota

l c

oli

form

co

un

t

Fig.14 Average weekly total coliform count (cfu/gm) of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

58

The present result clearly indicated that significantly higher weekly

total coliform count may be due to quality of litters and their efficiency to absorb

moisture. It may also concluded that the litter materials containing higher

inorganic elements with few nutrients content, utilized by bacteria leading to

lower bacterial count. In addition to this, rice husk may lack binding sites for

bacteria. On other hand, straw like materials are organic containing nutrients that

can be utilized by some bacterial species. Lien et al. (1992) reported that there

was increase in litter population of anaerobic bacteria and decrease in coliforms

during period from 3 to 7 week after placement of broilers. These findings are in

contrast to the findings in the present study. However, Lien et al. (1998) also

reported that no consistent differences in bacterial population were noted

between litter sources.

4.15 Cake formation score

The data for average weekly means for cake formation score with

use of different litter materials are presented in Table 28 and depicted in Figure

15.

The weekly mean litter cake formation score at 1st week of age

were 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2 and 2 for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G,

respectively. The mean litter cake formation score at 2nd week of age 1, 3, 4,3,3,3

and 2 for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly

mean litter cake formation score at 3rd week of age were 1, 4, 5, 4, 4, 3 and 3 for

treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

Table 28. Average weekly cake formation score of litter with different combination of litter materials

Weeks

Treatment groups

A B C D E F G

I 1 2 3 2 2 2 2

II 1 3 4 3 3 3 2

III 1 4 5 4 4 3 3

IV 2 4 5 4 4 4 4

V 3 5 5 5 5 4 4

VI 3 5 5 5 5 4 4

Mean 1.8 3.8 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

A B C D E F G

Ave

rag

e c

ak

e f

orm

ati

on

sc

ore

Fig.15 Average weekly cake formation score of litter with different combination of litter materials

1st week

2nd week

3rd week

4th week

5th week

6th week

59

The weekly mean litter cake formation score at 4th week of age

were 2, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4 and 4, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G,

respectively. The weekly mean litter cake formation score at 5th week of age were

3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4 and 4, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

The weekly mean litter cake formation score at 6th week of age were 3, 5, 5, 5, 5,

4 and 4, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively.

It was observed that the cake formation score was due to high

litter moisture which was a major contributing factor (Mayne et al. 2007). On the

other hand, Grimes et al. (2002) found no difference in the incidence of litter

caking and condition by litter type which was in contrast to the present study.

From the present study, it was clearly indicated that higher moisture leading to

more cake formation and cake was the most concentrated source of pathogen

and ammonia producing material in the house. Hence it was recommended that

effective and timely removal of cake should be essential component of litter

management programme.

4.16 Economics of broiler production

During the present study attempts were made to calculate the

economics of broiler production from different treatment groups, which is

presented in Table 29 and depicted in figure 16. The economics of broiler

production of the experiment was worked out considering the purchase rates of

chicks, ingredients, expenditure required for purchasing of different litter

materials and the prices at which the birds were sold in the market on live weight

basis.

The cost of day old chicks, feed, medication, vaccination, litter and

other overheads were considered while calculating the cost of production.

However, the costs of labour were not considered in calculating the cost of

production of the broilers as this experiment being a postgraduate research work.

The cost of prestarter, starter and finisher ration for all control and treatment

groups are presented in Table 29.

The prices of prestarter, starter and finisher ration were Rs.26.32,

26.44 and 25.59 per kg for all treatment groups having different combination of

feed ingredients. The total cost of feeding observed were Rs. 102.06, 103.28,

99.61, 100.46, 102.05, 103.4 and 99.67 for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and

G, respectively. The total cost of feed for group C was lower than others

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A B C D E F G

Ne

t p

rofi

t p

er

kg

(R

s.)

Fig.16 Economics of broiler production with different combination of litter materials

60

treatment groups. The cost of litter for rearing one bird were Rs.3.2, 0.9, 1.15,

2.9, 1.25, 2.8 and 3.05 for treatment groups A,B,C,D,E,F and G, respectively.

The total sale price fetched from the birds sold on live weight basis

from different treatment groups were Rs.119.44 (F) followed by Rs. 119.44 (B),

Rs.116.64 (D), Rs.115.86 (D), Rs.115.86 (C), Rs.112.56 (A) and Rs.112.50 (E).

The net profit obtained per bird after selling the birds @ Rs. 68/- per kg on live

weight basis was higher Rs 18.86 for treatment group B, followed by Rs 17.93

(C), 16.84 (F), 16.28 (D), 15.97 (G), 11.31 (E) and 9.42 (A). The net profit/kg on

live weight basis observed for different treatment groups were Rs. 8.84 (B),

Rs.8.66 (C), Rs.7.89 (F), Rs. 7.81 (D), Rs.7.71 (G), Rs. 5.62 (E) and Rs.4.68

(A), respectively.

61

Table 29. Economics of broiler production with use different combination of litter materials

Sr.No. Economics Treatment groups

Particulars A B C D E F G

1 Cost of day old chick (Rs)

18 18 18 18 18 18 18

2 Feed consumption (g)

i) Pre starter 296.29 298.32 292.1 300.1 297.81 299.12 299.42

ii) Starter 994.29 992.12 989.87 995.79 997.81 990.31 994.98

ii) Finisher 2657.45 2705.19 2571 2590.13 2654.33 2711.97 2561

Total 3948.03 3995.63 3853.61 3886.02 3949.95 4001.4 3855.4

3 Rate of feed (Rs/kg)

i) Pre starter 26.32 26.32 26.32 26.32 26.32 26.32 26.32

ii) Starter 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44

iii) Finisher 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59 25.59

4 Cost of feed consumed (per bird Rs.)

i) Pre starter 7.79 7.84 7.68 7.89 7.81 7.86 7.86

ii) Starter 26.28 26.22 26.14 26.30 26.33 26.17 26.28

iii) Finisher 67.99 69.22 65.79 66.27 67.91 69.37 65.53

Total cost of feed consumed per bird (Rs.)

102.06 103.28 99.61 100.46 102.05 103.4 99.67

5 Other miscellaneous cost* (Rs) {5(e) + 6}

7.2 4.9 5.15 6.9 5.25 6.8 7.05

a) Average rate of litter material( Rs/kg )

4.00 1 and 2 1 and 1 3 and 1 3 and 1 2 and 3 3 and 1

b) Litter utilized (kg)

48.00 30 and

12 39 and

30 48 and

30 12 and

39 12 and

48 48 and

39

c) Litter cost (Rs)

192.00 30 +24 39 + 30 144 +

30 36 + 39

24 +144

144+39

d ) Total cost of litter (Rs)

192 54 69 174 75 168 183

e) cost of litter per bird (Rs)

3.2 0.9 1.15 2.9 1.25 2.8 3.05

6 Miscellaneous cost like vaccine, medicine, lime, electric bulb etc. (Rs)

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

7 Total cost of production (1+4+5)

127.26 126.18 122.76 125.36 125.3 128.2 124.72

8 Average cumulative weight gain (g) at the end of sixth week

2010.19 2133.66 2069.96 2083.06 2009.87 2133.66 2069.97

9 Return obtained @ Rs.68 per kg live weight

136.68 145.04 140.69 141.64 136.61 145.04 140.69

10 Net profit/ bird (Rs)

9.42 18.86 17.93 16.28 11.31 16.84 15.97

11 Net profit/ kg (Rs)

4.68 8.84 8.66 7.81 5.62 7.89 7.71

62

The economics of broiler production in the present study, it may be

concluded that use of different combination of litter materials significantly (P <

0.01) enhanced the net income per bird. The present findings are in close

agreement with that reported by Hafeez et al. (2009), Khan et al. (2009). The

significant (P < 0.01) influence of different litter materials combination on broiler

production concluded that the combination of different litter materials exhibited

higher net profit per kg live weight compared to that of rice husk (Control Group),

except groundnut hulls and wheat straw. However, the combination of soybean

straw and groundnut hulls was concluded as a safe and economical replacement

as a litter for rice husk.

Hence, it was recommended that use of different combination of

litter materials was more beneficial from the point of view of bird’s performance,

survivability and improved profitability compared to rice husk alone.

4.17 Overall Performance of broilers

The overall performance of broilers for different groups during the

trial was presented in Table 30. It was observed from the table that use of

combination of soybean straw with groundnut hulls, recorded better performance

with respect to live weight, gain in weight, feed consumption, FCR, etc. However,

this treatment group (B) recorded higher feed consumption when compared to

birds from control (A) and rest of the treatment groups. When the rice husk was

replaced by any combination except groundnut hulls and wheat straw (E), it

helped in maximizing the returns from the bird and thereby, increasing the profit

margin. However, the combination of wheat straw and soybean straw (C) was

having highest moisture %, pH, nitrogen %, temperature, total viable count, total

coliform count and cake formation score was not considered suitable

combination, even though higher profit was obtained. Hence, it may be

concluded that 50 % combination on volume by volume basis for soybean straw

with groundnut hulls(B), wheat straw with soybean straw(C), saw dust with

groundnut hulls(F) used in this trial can be used as to replace rice husk (A) for

better performance with respect to performance and economic returns.

63

Table 30. Overall Performance of broilers

Parameters Groups

A B C D E F G Initial weight

(g) 48 47 47.33 47.66 48 47.00 47.33

Final weight (g) 2058.19

c 2180.66a 2117.30

b 2130.73b 2058.19

c 2180.67a 2117.30

b

Total gain in weight (g) 2010.19

b 2133.66a 2069.96

a 2083.06a 2009.87

b 2133.66a 2069.97

a

Average cumulative

gain in weight (g)

975.12b

1011.00a

1001.34a

1005.06a

975.08b

1011.00a

1001.34a

Total feed consumption

(g) 3948.02 3995.63 3853.61 3886.03 3948.02 3995.32 3853.62

Average FCR 1.96

a

1.87c

1.86c

1.87b

1.97a

1.88b

1.90b

Mean Mortality (%) 1.11 0 3.33 0.55 1.94 0.27 0.

Mean Moisture (%) 20.743

c

21.846c

25.790a

23.443b

22.223b

25.821a

22.771b

Mean pH 6.371b

6.458b

7.014a

6.473b

6.445b

6.461b

6.572b

Mean

Nitrogen (%) 1.989c

2.181c

2.704a

2.344b

2.357b

2.390b

2.128c

Mean Temperature

(o

c) 28.778

c

29.146c

30.598a

29.401b

29.125c

29.848a

29.090c

Mean TVC (cfu/gm) 2.61

c

3.29b

4.37a

3.07c

3.20b

3.54b

3.66b

Mean TCC (cfu/gm) 2.60

c

2.98c

5.07a

3.22b

3.69b

3.34b

3.15c

Mean CFC 1.8 3.8 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.2 Net profit bird (Rs.) 9.42 18.86 17.93 16.28 11.31 16.84 15.97

Net profit per kg (Rs.) 4.68 8.84 8.66 7.81 5.62 7.89 7.71

Documents

PDFsamTMPbufferSZEZJ1.pdf