| Literature DB >> 27047032 |
Parag Acharya1, G P Mohanty2, C R Pradhan2, S K Mishra2, N C Beura2, B Moharana3.
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study was to investigate the dietary advantages of inclusion of unconventional nutrient source, i.e., Azolla in the basal diet of White Pekin broilers.Entities:
Keywords: Azolla; White Pekin broilers; body weight gain; economic efficiency; feed conversion ratio
Year: 2015 PMID: 27047032 PMCID: PMC4774740 DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2015.1293-1299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet World ISSN: 0972-8988
Ingredient and nutrient composition (% DM) of experimental ration.
| Ingredients | G1 | G2 | G3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat | 58 | 55.5 | 52.5 |
| Soybean | 28 | 25 | 23 |
| Rice polish | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 |
| Fish meal | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| 0 | 5 | 10 | |
| Min. Mix. | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Salt | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| DCP | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| DL-Meth | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Lysine | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.055 |
| TM premix | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Vitamin B complex | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Vitamin ADEK | 0.015 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Ch. chloride | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| CP | 23.3 | 23.395 | 23.375 |
| ME | 2764 | 2737.75 | 2685.25 |
| Ca | 1.683 | 1.449 | 1.475 |
| Available P | 0.626 | 0.75975 | 1.01425 |
| Lysine | 1.396 | 1.38225 | 1.35475 |
| Methionine | 0.4346 | 0.44135 | 0.43925 |
DM=Dry matter, CP=Crude protein, ME=Metabolizable energy, DCP=Digestiblecrude protein
Calculated feed cost of different treatment groups.
| Ingredients | Cost/kg (Rs) | Cost of ration (Rs) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| Wheat | 20 | 1160 | 1110 | 1050 |
| Soybean | 42 | 1176 | 1050 | 966 |
| Rice polish | 15 | 75 | 82.5 | 82.5 |
| Fish meal | 35 | 210 | 245 | 245 |
| Min. Mix. | 60 | 120 | 140 | 140 |
| 01 | 00 | 05 | 10 | |
| Salt | 15 | 03 | 03 | 03 |
| Total (Rs/100 kg) | 2744 | 2635.5 | 2496.5 | |
| Feed cost/kg | 27.44 | 26.35 | 24.96 | |
Chemical composition of Azolla (DM basis).
| Nutrients | Percentage | Nutrients | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| DM | 91.07 | Calcium | 1.10 |
| CP | 25.40 | Phosphorus | 0.55 |
| Crude fiber | 14.23 | Zinc (ppm) | 158.6 |
| Ether extract | 2.58 | Copper (ppm) | 7.33 |
| Total ash | 18.76 | Manganese (ppm) | 83.92 |
| NFE | 39.03 | Iron (ppm) | 283.3 |
NFE=Nitrogen-free extract, DM=Dry matter, CP=Crude protein
Average weekly body weights (g) of ducks (mean±SE).
| Week | Treatment | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| 2nd week | 249.00±6.81 | 260.42±6.46 | 245.5±8.59 | 0.33 |
| 3rd week | 545.94±10.77 | 553.00±10.69 | 561.64±9.95 | 0.57 |
| 4th week | 907.35±16.11 | 934.54±13.44 | 954.03±15.44 | 0.09 |
| 5th week | 1199.26a±15.29 | 1240.26ab±16.96 | 1271.67c±15.47 | 0.00 |
| 6th week | 1483.82±23.59 | 1533.94±27.11 | 1560.31±18.17 | 0.07 |
Values bearing different superscripts in a row differ significantly (p≤0.01), SE=Standard error
Weekly average absolute gains (g) of ducks (mean±SE).
| Week | Treatment | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| 3rd week | 297.24±7.09 | 292.58±5.56 | 316.14±5.78 | 0.08 |
| 4th week | 658.09±20.37 | 674.46±15.64 | 708.53±21.74 | 0.25 |
| 5th week | 952.67±17.31 | 981.21±21.56 | 1026.17±29.44 | 0.13 |
| 6th week | 1233.21±33.11 | 1273.43±34.76 | 1314.81±47.95 | 0.39 |
SE=Standard error
Cumulative weekly feed consumptions (g) of ducks (mean±SE).
| Week | Treatment | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| 3rd week | 640.00±16.17 | 635.00±21.79 | 651.00±13.45 | 0.81 |
| 4th week | 1377.00±25.81 | 1356.00±27.47 | 1374.00±32.05 | 0.86 |
| 5th week | 2218.67±12.00 | 2179.00±26.65 | 2190.00±49.96 | 0.70 |
| 6th week | 3145.53±25.98 | 3143.03±76.74 | 3083.52±82.89 | 0.77 |
SE=Standard error
FCR of ducks (mean±SE).
| Week | Treatment | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| 3rd week | 2.15±0.05 | 2.17±0.05 | 2.06±0.01 | 0.21 |
| 4th week | 2.09±0.09 | 2.01±0.04 | 1.94±0.02 | 0.23 |
| 5th week** | 2.33c±0.03 | 2.22b±0.02 | 2.13a±0.01 | 0.00 |
| 6th week** | 2.55b±0.05 | 2.47b±0.01 | 2.35a±0.03 | 0.01 |
Values bearing different superscripts in a row differ significantly (p≤0.05), FCR=Feed conversion ratios, SE=Standard error
Economics of production of ducks.
| Parameters | Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | |
| Total cost of feed consumed/bird (Rs) | 86.31 | 82.73 | 76.87 |
| Average body weight/bird (in g) | 1482 | 1533 | 1560 |
| Receipt/bird (Rs) | 88.92 | 91.48 | 93.6 |
| Profit (Rs) (c-a) | 2.61 | 9.25 | 16.73 |
| Total cost of feed consumed/kg live weight (Rs) | 58.21 | 54.07 | 49.28 |
| Difference of cost of feed from control/kg live weight (Rs) | 0.00 | –4.14 | –8.93 |
| Receipt/kg live weight (Rs) | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Profit/kg live weight (Rs) (g-e) | 1.79 | 5.93 | 10.72 |
| Difference in profit/kg live weight over control (Rs) | 0 | 4.14 | 8.93 |