Results
and
and
Discussion
Discussion
Chapter-4
33
Weeks
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
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
1049.73
Mean
1023.12
1058.03
1048.67
1052.73
1023.13
1058.08
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
8341.705
1390.284
3.5399**
Weeks
18956855
3791371
9653.565**
Error
30
11782.29
392.7431
Total
41
18976979
34
2500
2000
1500
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
1000
4th week
5th week
6th week
500
0
A
35
Weeks
A
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
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
df
SS
MSS
Treatments
2561.239
426.8732
Weeks
711282.6
142256.5
Error
30
6836.973
227.8991
Total
41
720680.8
Calculated F
NS
1.8730
624.2083**
36
600
500
400
1st week
300
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
200
5th week
6th week
100
0
A
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
Treatment groups
Weeks
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
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
975.12
1011.00
1001.34
1005.06
975.08
1011.00
1001.34
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
Weeks
Error
Total
6
5
30
41
8722.53
18963833
11691.36
18984246
1453.754
3792766.5
389.712
3.73**
9732.22**
37
2500
2000
1500
1st week
2nd week
1000
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
500
0
A
38
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
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
Sources
df
SS
MSS
Treatments
3892.151
648.6919
Weeks
5245289
1049058
Error
30
28614.59
953.8196
Total
41
5277796
Calculated F
0.680
NS
1099.849**
39
1400
1200
1000
800
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
600
4th week
5th week
400
6th week
200
0
A
40
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
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
Sources
df
SS
MSS
Treatments
16165.66
2694.276
Weeks
71948344
14389669
Error
30
35088.72
1169.624
Total
41
71999598
Calculated F
2.30
NS
12302.82**
41
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
1st week
2nd week
2000
3rd week
4th week
5th week
1500
6th week
1000
500
0
A
Table 11. Average weekly feed conversion ratio of broilers with different
combination of litter materials
Weeks
Treatment groups
A
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
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
1.83
1.73
1.73
1.74
1.83
1.73
42
1.78
2.5
Average FCR
1st week
1.5
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0.5
0
A
Table 12. ANOVA for average weekly feed conversion ratio of broilers with
different combination of litter materials
Sources
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
0.080896
0.013483
15.607**
Weeks
6.470586
1.294117
1498.11**
Error
30
0.025915
0.000864
Total
41
6.577396
43
Weeks
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
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
1.54
Mean
1.62
1.52
1.52
1.54
1.62
1.54
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
0.067
0.0112
40.35**
Weeks
1.956
0.3913
1413.07**
Error
30
0.0083
0.00028
Total
41
2.0323
44
2.5
Cumulative FCR
1.5
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
1
4th week
5th week
6th week
0.5
0
A
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.
Treatment groups
A
0
B
0
C
0
D
0
E
0
F
0
G
0
II
3.33
3.33
3.33
III
3.33
3.33
IV
3.33
6.66
6.66
3.33
1.66
VI
3.33
1.66
Mean %
1.11
3.33
0.55
1.94
0.27
45
14
12
Mortality %
10
0
A
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.
46
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
Treatment groups
Weeks
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
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
20.743
21.846
25.790
23.443
22.223
25.821
22.771
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
135.8092
22.63486
51.10**
Weeks
104.1925
20.8385
47.04**
Error
30
13.28742
0.442914
Total
41
253.2891
47
35
30
Average moisture %
25
20
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
15
4th week
5th week
10
6th week
0
A
48
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,
6.259, 6.94, 6.24, 6.33, 6.23 and 6.25, for treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and
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
Weeks
Treatment groups
A
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
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
6.371
6.458
7.014
6.473
6.445
6.461
6.572
49
7.4
7.2
7
Average pH
6.8
6.6
1st week
2nd week
6.4
3rd week
4th week
6.2
5th week
6th week
5.8
5.6
A
Table 19. ANOVA for average weekly pH of litter with different combination
of litter materials
Sources
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
1.6780
0.2796
32.47**
Weeks
1.5657
0.3131
36.36**
Error
30
0.258
0.00861
Total
41
3.5022
50
Weeks
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
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
2.128
Mean
1.989
2.181
2.704
2.344
2.357
2.390
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
1.90841
0.31806
17.640**
Weeks
2.04299
0.40859
22.661**
Error
30
0.54091
0.01803
Total
41
4.49232
51
3.5
Average Nitrogen %
2.5
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
1.5
4th week
5th week
1
6th week
0.5
0
A
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,
52
Weeks
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
30.05
30.29
31.88
30.12
30.11
30.17
30.62
VI
31.46
Mean
31.49
c
28.778
29.146
32.55
c
31.84
a
30.598
31.98
b
29.401
32.23
c
29.125
31.67
a
29.848
29.090
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
Weeks
Error
Total
6
5
30
41
13.525
132.963
6.302
152.7915
2.254
26.592
0.210
10.730**
126.580**
53
35
30
Average temperature 0C
25
20
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
15
4th week
5th week
10
6th week
0
A
54
The weekly mean litter total viable count at 4th week of age were
2.60, 3.43, 4.33, 3.100, 3.20, 3.56 and 3.80 x105 cfu / gm, for treatment groups A,
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
treatment groups A, B, C, D, E, F and G, respectively. The weekly mean litter
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
Treatment Groups
Weeks
A
2.1
2.66
3.5
2.4
2.5
3.06
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
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
2.61
3.29
4.37
3.07
3.20
3.54
3.66
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
10.853
1.8089
118.0**
Weeks
8.116
1.6233
105.89**
Error
30
0.459
0.0153
Total
41
19.429
55
Average TVC
1st week
3
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0
A
Fig.13 Average weekly total viable count (cfu/gm) of litter with different
combination of litter materials
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.
56
Table 26. Average weekly total coliform count (cfu / gm) of litter with
different combination of litter materials
Weeks
Treatment groups
A
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
3.2
3.3
5.3
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.8
VI
3.4
Mean
3.8
c
2.60
5.5
c
2.98
3.9
a
4.1
b
5.07
3.22
3.9
b
3.69
4.0
b
3.34
3.15
df
SS
MSS
Calculated F
Treatments
22.7853
3.7975
160.29**
Weeks
7.6265
1.5253
64.38**
Error
30
0.7107
0.0237
Total
41
31.1227
57
4
1st week
3
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0
A
II
III
IV
VI
Mean
1.8
3.8
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.2
58
1st week
3
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0
A
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
59
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A
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.
60
10
11
Treatment groups
C
D
E
18
18
18
18
18
18
298.32
292.1
300.1
297.81 299.12
992.12 989.87 995.79 997.81 990.31
2705.19
2571 2590.13 2654.33 2711.97
3995.63 3853.61 3886.02 3949.95 4001.4
Pre starter
26.32
26.32
26.32
26.32
Starter
26.44
26.44
26.44
26.44
Finisher
25.59
25.59
25.59
25.59
Cost of feed consumed (per bird Rs.)
Pre starter
7.79
7.84
7.68
7.89
Starter
26.28
26.22
26.14
26.30
Finisher
67.99
69.22
65.79
66.27
Total cost of
feed consumed
102.06
103.28
99.61
100.46
per bird (Rs.)
Other
miscellaneous
7.2
4.9
5.15
6.9
cost* (Rs) {5(e)
+ 6}
a) Average rate
of litter material(
4.00
1 and 2 1 and 1 3 and 1
Rs/kg )
b) Litter utilized
30 and 39 and 48 and
48.00
(kg)
12
30
30
c) Litter cost
144 +
192.00
30 +24 39 + 30
(Rs)
30
d ) Total cost of
192
54
69
174
litter (Rs)
e) cost of litter
3.2
0.9
1.15
2.9
per bird (Rs)
Miscellaneous
cost like
vaccine,
4
4
4
4
medicine, lime,
electric bulb etc.
(Rs)
Total cost of
production
127.26
126.18 122.76 125.36
(1+4+5)
Average
cumulative
weight gain (g)
2010.19
2133.66 2069.96 2083.06
at the end of
sixth week
Return obtained
@ Rs.68 per kg
136.68
145.04 140.69 141.64
live weight
Net profit/ bird
9.42
18.86
17.93
16.28
(Rs)
Net profit/ kg
4.68
8.84
8.66
7.81
(Rs)
61
299.42
994.98
2561
3855.4
26.32
26.44
25.59
26.32
26.44
25.59
26.32
26.44
25.59
7.81
26.33
67.91
7.86
26.17
69.37
7.86
26.28
65.53
102.05
103.4
99.67
5.25
6.8
7.05
12 and
48
24
+144
48 and
39
144+39
75
168
183
1.25
2.8
3.05
125.3
128.2
124.72
136.61
145.04
140.69
11.31
16.84
15.97
5.62
7.89
7.71
62
Initial weight
(g)
48
47
47.33
47.66
48
47.00
47.33
Final weight
(g)
2058.19
Total gain in
weight (g)
2010.19
Average
cumulative
gain in
weight (g)
975.12
1011.00
1001.34
1005.06
Total feed
consumption
(g)
3948.02
3995.63
3853.61
3886.03
Average
FCR
1.96
1.87
Mean
Mortality (%)
1.11
Mean
Moisture (%)
20.743
Mean pH
6.371
Mean
Nitrogen (%)
1.989
Mean
Temperature
o
( c)
28.778
Mean TVC
(cfu/gm)
2.61
Mean TCC
(cfu/gm)
2.60
2.98
Mean CFC
1.8
Net profit
bird (Rs.)
Net profit
per kg (Rs.)
2180.66
2133.66
2117.30
2069.96
21.846
6.458
3.29
29.146
b
2130.73
2058.19
2083.06
2009.87
2.181
2180.67
2133.66
2117.30
2069.97
975.08
1011.00
1001.34
3948.02
3995.32
3853.62
1.86
1.87
1.97
1.88
1.90
3.33
0.55
1.94
0.27
0.
25.790
7.014
2.704
30.598
a
4.37
23.443
6.473
2.344
29.401
c
3.07
22.223
6.445
2.357
29.125
b
3.20
25.821
6.461
2.390
29.848
b
3.54
22.771
6.572
2.128
29.090
b
3.66
5.07
3.22
3.69
3.34
3.15
3.8
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.2
9.42
18.86
17.93
16.28
11.31
16.84
15.97
4.68
8.84
8.66
7.81
5.62
7.89
7.71
63