PDFsamTMPbufferSZEZJ1 PDF

Results
Results
and
and
Discussion
Discussion
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).
33
Table 1. Average weekly live weights (g) of broilers with different

combination of litter materials
Treatment groups
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
Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

Table 2. ANOVA for weekly live weights of broilers with different
Sources
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
** 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
34
2500
2000
Body weight (g)
1500
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
1000
4th week
5th week
6th week
500
0
A
Fig . 1 Average weekly live weights (g) of broilers with different

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.
35
Table 3. Average weekly gain in weights (g) of broilers with different

Treatment groups
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

Table 4. ANOVA for weekly gain in weights of broilers with different
Sources
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**
NS: Non significant.

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,
36
600
Average Body weight gain (g)
500
400
1st week
300
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
200
5th week
6th week
100
0
A
Fig. 2 Average weekly gain in weights (g) of broilers with different

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
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

Table 6. ANOVA for average weekly cumulative weight gain (g) of broilers
with different combination of litter materials
Sources
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
Cumulative weight gain (g)
2500
2000
1500
1st week
2nd week
1000
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
500
0
A
Fig. 3 Weekly cumulative weight gain (g) of broilers with different

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).
38
Table 7. Average weekly feed consumption (g) of broilers with different

Treatment groups
Weeks
A
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**

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
39
1400
1200
Average feed consumption
1000
800
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
600
4th week
5th week
400
6th week
200
0
A
Fig.4 Average weekly feed comsumption (g) of broilers with different

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).
40
Table 9. Average weekly cumulative feed consumption (g) of broilers

Treatment groups
Weeks
A
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**

** 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.
41
4500
Cumulative feed consumption
4000
3500
3000
2500
1st week
2nd week
2000
3rd week
4th week
5th week
1500
6th week
1000
500
0
A
Fig.5 Weekly cumulative feed consumption (g) of broilers with different

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

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

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 .
43
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
Treatment groups
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

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

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
44
2.5
Cumulative FCR
1.5
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
1
4th week
5th week
6th week
0.5
0
A
Fig.7 Weekly cumulative FCR of broilers with different combination of

litter materials
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
Weeks
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
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,
45
14
12
Mortality %
10
0
A
Fig.8 Total mortality percent of broilers with different combination of

litter materials
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
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

Table 17. ANOVA for average weekly moisture (%) of litter with different
Sources
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
Fig.9 Average weekly moisture (%) of broilers with different

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

materials
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

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 birds 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.
50
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
Treatment groups
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

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

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

of litter materials
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.
52
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
Treatment groups
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

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

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.
53
35
30
Average temperature 0C
25
20
1st week
2nd week
3rd week
15
4th week
5th week
10
6th week
0
A
Fig.12 Average weekly temperature ( 0C ) of litter with different

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.
54
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
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

Table 25. ANOVA for average weekly total viable count (cfu / gm) of litter
Sources
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

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 <
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
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.
56
Table 26. Average weekly total coliform count (cfu / gm) of litter with
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

Table 27. ANOVA for average weekly total coliform count (cfu / gm) of litter
Sources
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

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 nonsignificant. 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).
57
Average Total coliform count
4
1st week
3
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0
A
Fig.14 Average weekly total coliform count (cfu/gm) of litter with

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
Treatment groups
Weeks
II
III
IV
VI
Mean
1.8
3.8
4.5
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.2
58
Average cake formation score
1st week
3
2nd week
3rd week
4th week
5th week
6th week
0
A
Fig.15 Average weekly cake formation score of litter with different

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
59
10
9
Net profit per kg (Rs.)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A
Fig.16 Economics of broiler production with different combination of

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

litter materials
Sr.No. Economics
Particulars
A
1
Cost of day old
18
chick (Rs)
2
Feed consumption (g)
i)
Pre starter
296.29
ii)
Starter
994.29
ii)
Finisher
2657.45
Total
3948.03
3
Rate of feed (Rs/kg)
i)
ii)
iii)
4
i)
ii)
iii)
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
3 and 1 2 and 3 3 and 1

12 and
39
36 + 39
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
2009.87 2133.66 2069.97
136.61
145.04
140.69
11.31
16.84
15.97
5.62
7.89
7.71
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 birds 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.
62
Table 30. Overall Performance of broilers

Groups
Parameters
A
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

PDFsamTMPbufferSZEZJ1 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PDFsamTMPbufferSZEZJ1 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Results

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Weekly body weight

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

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

** Highly significant at P < 0.01

Body weight (g)

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

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

4.2 Weekly weight gain

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

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

NS: Non significant.

4.3 Cumulative weight gain

Average Body weight gain (g)

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

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

** Highly significant at P < 0.01

Cumulative weight gain (g)

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

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

4.4 Weekly feed consumption

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

NS: Non significant.

The statistical analysis of data revealed that the differences

Average feed consumption

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

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

4.5 Cumulative feed consumption

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

NS: Non significant.

Cumulative feed consumption

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

4.6 Weekly Feed Conversion Ratio

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

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

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

4.7 Cumulative feed conversion ratio

The mean cumulative feed conversion ratio for treatment groups

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

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

4.8 Mortality (%)

The average weekly mortality percent of broilers for treatment

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

4.9 Litter moisture (%)

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

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

The moisture percentages in different litter materials were highly

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

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

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

4.11 Litter nitrogen %

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly

** Highly significant at P < 0.01.

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

ventilation rates and

temperature were standardized across the treatment during experiment. At

4.12 Litter temperature

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

Note: Means connected with similar superscript do not differ significantly