| Literature DB >> 28423888 |
N S B M Atapattu1, L G E Lakmal1, P W A Perera1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High NH3 emissions from poultry houses are reported to have negative impacts on health, welfare and safety of birds and humans, and on the environment. Objective of the present study was to determine the effects of two litter amendments on the NH3 levels in broiler closed houses under hot-humid conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Amendment; Ammonia; Broiler; Litter
Year: 2017 PMID: 28423888 PMCID: PMC5582337 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.16.0873
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Figure 1Air NH3 levels of boiler closed houses treated with three litter amendments, over the production period.
The air NH3 levels of broiler closed house as affected by the height and the time of measurement and the litter amendments
| Items | Closed house air NH3 level±SE |
|---|---|
| Height | |
| 30 | 43.7±1.3a |
| 90 | 38.6±1.3b |
| 150 | 35.0±1.3b |
| p value | 0.001 |
| Time | |
| 0600 | 46.3±1.0a |
| 1200 | 39.4±1.3b |
| 1800 | 23.6±1.5c |
| p value | 0.001 |
| Litter amendment | |
| Control | 40.7±1.2a |
| Rydall | 35.3±1.3b |
| Mizuho | 41.4±1.3a |
| p value | 0.01 |
SE, standard error.
Means within a column bearing same superscripts are not statistically different at 5% probability level.
Figure 2NH3 level at 30 cm height in broiler closed houses treated with either no (control), Rydall, or Mizuho as litter amendments, over the production period.
Figure 3NH3 level at 150 cm height in broiler closed houses treated with either no (control), Rydall or Mizuho as litter amendments, over the production period.
Effects of two litter amendments on growth performance of broiler chicken form day 1–41
| Growth performance parameter | Liter amendment | SEM | Probability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Control | Rydall | Mizuho | |||
| Live weight on day (g) | |||||
| 1 | 50.6 | 51.3 | 53 | 1.8 | NS |
| 7 | 154.6 | 161.6 | 156.6 | 9.4 | NS |
| 14 | 456 | 474.3 | 466.3 | 14.4 | NS |
| 21 | 956.3 | 919.6 | 925.6 | 48.7 | NS |
| 28 | 1,407.3 | 1,389.3 | 1,410.6 | 42.4 | NS |
| 35 | 1,850.6 | 1,842.6 | 1,780.6 | 61.5 | NS |
| 41 | 2,157.3 | 2,255.3 | 2,209.6 | 54.6 | NS |
| Total weight gain (g) | 2,106.6 | 2,204 | 2,156.6 | 53.1 | NS |
| Total feed intake (g) | 3,568.3 | 3,499.9 | 3,535.2 | 124.8 | NS |
| Feed conversion ratio | 1.69 | 1.58 | 1.64 | 0.04 | NS |
| Total water intake (L) | 6.20 | 6.12 | 6.29 | 0.37 | NS |
| Mortality % | 2.0 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 0.9 | NS |
| Amendment cost (Rs)/bird | 0 | 0.48 | 0.97 | - | - |
SEM, standard error of the mean.
NS, p>0.05.
Effects of litter amendments on litter N contents (mean±SE)
| Day | Control | Rydall | Mizuho | Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 2.7±0.25 | 2.4±0.33 | 3.0±0.11 | NS |
| 24 | 2.2±0.21b | 3.4±0.3a | 2.6±0.11ab | |
| 40 | 3.1±0.08 | 3.0±0.08 | 3.1±0.14 | NS |
SE, standard error.
NS, p>0.05;
, p<0.05.