EFFECT OF CHEMICAL AMENDMENTS OF LITTER ON THE PERFORMANCE INDEX AND ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF COMMERCIAL BROILER CHICKEN

J.V. PATEL¹*, M.M. TRIVEDI², R.M. RAJPURA³, P.R. PANDYA⁴, R.J. MODI^5
1Department of Livestock Production Management, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Kamdhenu University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
²Department of Livestock Production Management, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Kamdhenu University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
³Department of Animal Science, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
⁴Animal Nutrition Research Station, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Kamdhenu University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
⁵Department of Livestock Production Management, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Kamdhenu University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
* Corresponding Author : drjigarvet@gmail.com

Received : 09-10-2022     Accepted : 28-10-2022     Published : 30-10-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 10       Pages : 11768 - 11770
Int J Agr Sci 14.10 (2022):11768-11770

Keywords : Performance index, Economic parameters, Commercial, Broiler chicken
Academic Editor : Dr Prashant Shrivastava
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Livestock Production Management; Animal Nutrition Research Station, College of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Kamdhenu University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India and Department of Animal Science, B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, 388001, Gujarat, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The experiment was conducted to study the effect of chemical amendments of litter on the performance index and economic parameters of commercial broiler chicken. A total of 144 straight-run day-old commercial broiler chicks were distributed randomly into six treatment groups, each group consist of four replications, each of 6 chicks. The experiment was conducted in two different seasons. Experiment-I was conducted in the winter and experiment-II in the monsoon for six weeks of duration. The treatments included: T1- rice husk litter material (control group); T2- amendment with alum @ 90 g/sq.ft.; T3- with boric acid (H3BO3) @ 24 g/sq.ft.; T4- with sodium bisulphate (NaHSO4) @ 25 g/ sq.ft.; T5- amendment with commercially available probiotic product @ 1 g/ sq.ft; and T6- amendment with commercially available Yucca schidigera liquid solution @ 1.0 ml/ sq.ft. The litter amendment (T2 to T6) was done on the 1st, 15th, and 29th days of the experiment period. The pooled mean production efficiency factor was 295.17 ± 18.41, 345.92 ± 8.48, 333.59 ± 2.89, 326.62 ± 11.72, 299.64 ± 7.37, and 335.35 ± 8.47 in T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T6, respectively. The difference was found significantly (P<0.05) higher in T2 in the winter season followed by T4, T6, T3, T5, and T1 and T6, T3, T4, T5, and T1 in the pooled analysis. However, the difference was found non-significance among different treatment groups in the monsoon season. The Interaction between year (Y×T) and treatment was found non-significant for the mean production efficiency factor. The highest benefit-cost ratio was observed in T2 followed by T3, T6, T4, T1, and T5 in both seasons. Broiler birds reared on rice husk litter material amended with alum @ 90 g/sq.ft had significantly (p<0.05) higher performance index and benefit-cost ratio than the control and other treatment groups

1. Nagaraj M., Wilson C.A.P., Saenmahayak B., Hess J.B. and Bilgili S.F. (2007) Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 16(2), 255-261.
2. Rashid A., Banday. M.T., Adil S., Khan A.A., Saim Qureshi S., Madeeha Untoo M. and Ashraf P. (2017) Journal of World Poultry Research, 7(2), 88-93.
3. Miles D.M., Branton S.L. and Lott B.D. (2004) Poultry Science, 83(10), 1650–1654.
4. Taboosha M.F. (2017) International Journal of Environment, 6(2), 61-69.
5. BIS (2007) Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 1374: 2007) Poultry Feeds-Specification. (Fifth Revision).
6. Cheeke P.R., Placente S. and Oleszek W. (2006) Journal Inflammation, 29, 3-6.
7. Elliott H.A. and Collins N.E. (1982) Trans ASAE., 25 (2), 413-418.
8. Garrido N.M., Skjervhein M., Oppegaard H., & Sorum H. (2004) Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(9), 5208-5213.
9. Gilmour J.T., Koehler M.A., Cabrera M.L., Szajdak L. and Moore P.A. (2004) Journal of Environmental Quality, 33(1), 402-405.
10. Ritz C.W., Fairchild B.D. and Lacy M.P. (2004) Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 13(4), 684-692.
11. Sahoo S.P., Kaur D., Sethi A.P.S., Sharma A., Chandra M. and Chandrahas (2017) Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45(1), 533-537.
12. Singh A., Casey K.D. and King W.D. (2009) Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 18(1), 34-42.
13. Skrbic Z., Pavlovski Z., Lukic M., Petricevic V. and Milic D. (2012) Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 28(4), 807-816.
14. Bjedov S., Zikic D., Peric L., Dukic S. and Milosevic N. (2013) Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 29(4), 625-630.
15. Chakravati R.K., Pramanik P.S., Singh K.D., Singh M.K. and Manoj J. (2019) Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 54(2), 151-154.
16. Oliveira M.C., Goncalves B.N., Padua G.T., Silva V.G., Silva D.V. and Freitas A.M. (2015) The Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 28(4), 331-338.