EVALUATION OF ABSORBEZZ®P IN BROILER RATIONS: EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE, YIELD, AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS BY Adeyemi Adelaja, Bachelors of Science in Agriculture Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Stephen F. Austin State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements For the Degree of Masters of Science STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2015
148
Embed
Evaluation of Absorbezz P in broiler rations as it influences Performance EDITED
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EVALUATION OF ABSORBEZZ®P IN BROILER RATIONS: EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE, YIELD, AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
BY
Adeyemi Adelaja, Bachelors of Science in Agriculture
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Stephen F. Austin State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Masters of Science
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY
August, 2015
EVALUATION OF ABSORBEZZ® P IN BROILER RATIONS: EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE, YIELD, AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
By
Adeyemi Adelaja, Bachelor of Science
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Joey Bray, Ph.D., Thesis Director
__________________________________
Stacie Appleton, Ph.D., Committee Member
__________________________________
John Mehaffey, Ph.D., Committee Member
__________________________________
Rebecca D. Parr, Ph.D., Committee Member
______________________________
Mary Nelle Brunson, Ed.D.
Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
ABSTRACT
Effects of feeding different concentrations of Absorbezz®P at different
growth stages in production of commercial broiler chickens reared to 49 days
was compared with the broiler industry’s standard basal diet. The performance,
relative and absolute organ weight, Nitrogen content of fecal matter, paw
ulceration, fecal matter and carcass yield were evaluated based on different
application rates of Absorbezz®P. A total of 5,750 birds were placed within a 96,
5’X10’ floor pens in a randomized block design (60 birds per pen) at SFASU
Broiler Research Center. Dietary treatments consisted of treatment 1 which
contained the industry standard basal feed ration, treatment 2- (Absorbezz®P
80%) had 80% of the recommended dosage , 3- (Absorbezz®P 100%) contained
the recommended dose, and 4 – (Absorbezz®P 120%) contained 20% more of
the recommended dose of Absorbezz®P. At the completion of the study, 384
birds were euthanized for yield study. A sub sample of the 384 birds (24 total)
were also used for organ weight measurement
Results showed that Absorbezz®P didn’t have any adverse effect on any
of the parameters measured. However it was concluded that Absorbezz®P can
i
be used as a feed supplements and can also be used in replacing currently used
growth promoting supplements. Absorbezz®P aided in adding weight to the
broilers and increased carcass yield when compared with the broiler industry’s
complete basal diet.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I will like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation and
thanks to God and all those who helped me in making this research project a
success. I will like to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. J.O Adelaja for their love,
financial and moral support during my educational career, Absorbezz®P LLC. for
helping fund this research, and Dr. Joey Bray for the guidance, support and
encouragement throughout the research process and college career.
Many thanks to the SFASU broiler facility manager; Justin Glascock and
his team, for their help during the research procedures. To my guardians Mr. and
Mrs. Ephraim Oladiran, I say thank you for your love and support throughout my
college career. I will want to show my utmost appreciation to my committee
members for dedicating time and effort during the process. My thanks also to
Javid Mclawrence for his help during the thesis writing. Finally, I will like to say a
big thank you to my loving wife, Nneka Adelaja for her unconditional love and
**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
Table 3. ANOVA of Feed Conversion Ratio for Treatments 1-4, at day 14, 34, and 42
**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
37
Table 5 shows the average body weight, feed conversion and adjusted
feed conversion for treatments 1-4 at day 48. There was no significant difference
between treatments 1-4 at day 48. However treatments 2- 4 displayed slightly
higher average body weight as compared to treatment 1 (Control), at day 48.
Treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) was seen to produce a slightly higher average
body weight of 0.08 pounds while maintaining the same feed conversion ratio
when compared to the control. This was contradictory with the trend shown in
previous days as treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), constantly produced the
highest average body weight as compared to all the treatment groups from day
14-48. With the adjusted feed conversion treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 3
(Absorbezz® P 100%) proved to be the most efficient of all treatment group. All
Absorbezz®P treatments showed a slightly lower or the same adjusted feed
conversion ratio when compared with the control group.
38
Table 4. Average Body Weight, Feed Conversion, Adjusted Feed
Conversion. Treatments 1-4, at day 48
Day 48
Treatment Avg. Body Weight (lbs.)
Feed Conversion
(lbs:lbs)
Adj. Feed Conversion
(lbs:lbs)
1- Control 7.03a 1.94a 1.54a
2- Absorbezz®P 80% 7.07a 1.92a 1.52a
3- Absorbezz®P 100% 7.10a 1.94a 1.54a
4- Absorbezz®P 120% 7.11a 1.94a 1.53a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).All pens were populated with 60 birds at placement (block #1 (pens 1, 2, 47, 48) only received 50 birds/pen at placement due to shortage from hatchery).
43
Table 9. ANOVA of Mortality, Treatments 1-4, d 14, 34, 42, and 48
**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
Fecal Analysis
At day 48, fecal samples from 2 randomly- selected birds totaling 8
samples per treatment were collected. The fecal samples were analyzed for
percent nitrogen, total nitrogen, crude protein, macro-minerals and micro-
minerals using the Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Spectrometry (ICP-OES)
equipment. Total nitrogen includes the sum of organic nitrogen, nitrate (NO3),
ammonium (NH4), and uric acid (C5H4N4O3). Crude protein determines the
nitrogen content of the feed. The macro-minerals were phosphorus, potassium,
44
calcium, magnesium, sulphur, and sodium. Micro-minerals consist of iron,
manganese, zinc, copper, aluminum, molybdenum, boron and arsenic.
Table 11 depicts the treatment means for the percent nitrogen, total
nitrogen and crude protein for day 48. Macro-minerals and micro-minerals
treatment means at day 48 are shown in table 13. Table’s 14 and 15 show the
ANOVA’s for the macro and micro minerals respectively. ANOVA for percent
nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein can be seen in table 12.
No statistically significant difference was seen for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen
and crude protein at day 48, for treatments 1 (Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3,
(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %). However all Absorbezz®P
treatments had slightly higher percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein
as compared with the control group. For all three parameters measured,
treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120 %) had the highest amount of percent nitrogen,
total nitrogen and crude protein present in the broilers excreta. The differences
between the highest and lowest were (0.6%, 5824 ppm, and 3.6%) respectively
for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein respectively as shown
below.
45
Table 10. Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, Crude Protein. Treatments 1-4, day 48
Source 1-Control
2-Absorbezz®P 80%
3-Absorbezz®P 100%
4-Absorbezz®P 120%
Percent Nitrogen (%)
4.381a 4.508a 4.598a 4.964a
Total Nitrogen (ppm)
43,813a 45,081a 45,984a 49,637a
Crude Protein (%)
27.383a 28.176a 28.740a 31.023a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
Table 11. ANOVA of Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Crude Protein. Treatment 1-4, at day 48
Source DF
Mean Square
Percent Nitrogen (%)
Total Nitrogen (ppm)
Crude Protein (%)
Treatment
30.504
(P=0.80)5010
(P=0.80)19.6
(P=0.80)
Error 28 1.511 1512 59.1
Total 31%CV 26.65 26.7 26.7
**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
46
For the macro-minerals, no statistical differences were seen for
phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulphur (S) for treatments 1
(Control), 2 (Absorbezz® P 80%), 3, (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P
120 %). However all the Absorbezz® P treatments for P, Ca, Mg and S had
slightly higher nutrients in their fecal sample as compared to treatment 1
(Control). Although, potassium (K) levels in treatments 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%)
and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %) were significantly higher when compared to
treatment 1 (Control) but were not significantly different from treatment 2
(Absorbezz®P 80%). While sodium (Na) levels were significantly higher in
treatment 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to treatment 1 (Control), Na
levels were not significantly different to treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4
(Absorbezz®P 120 %).
47
Table 12. Fecal Analysis, Treatments 1-4, d 48
Minerals(PPM)
TXT -1Control
TXT-2Absorbezz®P-80%
TXT-3Absorbezz®P -100%
TXT-4Absorbezz®P-120%
Mac
ro m
iner
als
Phosphorus 10517.09
0a11159.583a 10921.648a 12265.708a
Potassium 24262.94
9b27557.129ab 28948.668a 28519.198a
Calcium 14898.44
7a16159.194a 14919.650a 17335.355a
Magnesium 5171.199a 5975.678a 5184.057a 5861.922a
Sulphur 4137.874a 4424.184a 4622.527a 4700.622a
Sodium 7790.793b 9288.704a 8929.272ab 8169.243ab
Mic
ro m
iner
als
Iron 277.586b 301.214b 640.645a 444.640b
Manganese 308.503a 372.548a 339.847a 356.646a
Zinc 225.121b 253.223ab 252.836ab 296.712a
Copper 36.842b 42.322ab 44.175ab 55.630a
Aluminum 104.877b 97.836b 297.655a 120.769b
Molybdenum 3.322a 3.231a 3.684a 3.630a
Boron 42.044a 44.327a 46.720a 45.591a
Arsenic 0.256a 0.235a 0.254a 0.189a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
48
49
Table 13. ANOVA of Macro-minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48
Source DF Mean Square
P K Ca Mg S Na
Treatment3 4481
(P=0.22)3598* (P=0.09) 1087
(P=0.44)1482
(P=0.13)5036
(P=0.35)3762*
(P=0.08)Error 28 2848 1548 1177 7389 4385 1529
Total 31
%CV 15.046 14.402 21.674 15.492 14.810 14.471
**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
50
Table 14. ANOVA of Micro- minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48.
Source
DF
Mean Square
Fe Mn Zn Cu Al Mo B AsTX 3 2230**
(P=0.002)
6004(P=0.215)
7000*(P=0.06)
500*(P=0.120)
7281**(P=0.012)
0.401(P=0.758)
32.17(P=0.421)
0.008(P=0.749)
Error 28 3542 3791 2567 235.4 1664 1.019 33.21 0.019Total 31% CV 45.24 17.88 19.72 34.29 83.07 29.13 12.90 58.46**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
For the micro-minerals, no statistical differences were observed between
Error 44 76.59 1.26 0.390 1.34 8.45 66.97 16.10Total 47% CV 15.06 17.464 20.015 22.973 24.394 23.0752 22.683**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
58
Table 20. ANOVA of Average Relative Weights of Organs, for Treatments 1-4, at day 49
Error 44 0.05 0.0012 0.0004 0.0018 0.0099 0.08 0.0126Total 47% CV 11.776 17.021 19.395 25.920 25.848 25.273 19.632**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
Table 21 presents the ANOVA for the average relative weights of organs
for treatments 1(Control), 2(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4
(Absorbezz®P 120%). The ANOVA shows no significant difference for the liver,
kidney, pancreas, proventriculus and gizzard. The spleen had a significantly
heavier weight (P=0.003) for treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to
treatment 1(Control), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%).
The heart weight relative to the body was significantly higher (P=0.05) in
treatment 1(Control) and 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to treatment
3(Absorbezz®P100%). However, they were not higher than treatment
4(Absorbezz®P 120 %). This result was consistent with findings from previous
studies (Tona et al., 2004). The study suggests with age increase, liver activity or
cardiac output may slow down with age increase, therefore reducing metabolic
rate and growth speed. The spleen weight been significantly higher for
treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) may have been as a result of the birds fighting
an infection. The spleen is utilized for storing red and white blood cells, as well
as, destroying bacteria and foreign matter. Therefore, a bacterial infection may
have resulted in the enlargement of the spleen.
Paw Scores
59
Paw scores were measured by observing the inner surface of the footpads
of 5 randomly-selected birds per pen on day 48. The paws were scored using the
0-3 scale. 0 was deemed normal, 1 having slight ulceration, 2 having moderate
ulcerations and 3 having severe ulcerations. Figures 3 -5 depict paw scores 0, 1,
2, and 3. There was no significant difference between treatments 1(Control), 2
(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) as
shown in table 21. However treatments 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%) and 3
(Absorbezz®P 100%) had lower paw scores when compared to treatment 1
(Control) except for treatment 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%), demonstrated in table 22.
The ANOVA, table 23, shows no significant difference, at day 48. However most
Absorbezz®P treatments had a lower average paw scores as compared to
treatment 1(Control). This could mean that the litters in the experiment treatment
pens were less moist than the control treatment. Since moisture presence in litter
is related to foot pad ulcerations. This may prove that Absorbezz®P helped
reduce paw ulcerations in the experiment pens. The images shown in the next 3
pages illustrate how the paw scores were measured.
60
Figure 2. Paw Score - 0
Figure above illustrates a paw score of 0 with no form of footpad ulcerations
61
Figure 3. Paw Score - 1 & 2
Image illustrates footpad score of 1(left) and 2 (right) with slight to moderate footpad ulcerations respectively
62
Figure 4. Paw Score - 3
Image illustrates foot pad score of 3 with severe footpad ulceration
63
Table 21. Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48
Paw Scores for Day 48TX- 1 Control
TX-2 Absorbezz®P 80%
TX-3 Absorbezz®P 100%
TX-4 Absorbezz®P 120%
0.942a 0.917a 0.883a 0.950a
Table 22. ANOVA of Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
Treatment 3 0.065 0.0215 0.33 0.802
Error 92 5.965 0.0648 . .
Total 95 6.0295
Carcass Yield
Table 24 shows the yield result treatment means for this study;
consisting of 4 randomly-selected birds per pen (2 males and 2 females) which
were identified by their sexual characteristics totaling 384 birds, at day 49. The
birds were separated into groups and wing tagged. Average body weight, WOG
(Carcass ‘’ Without Giblets’’), front half carcass, hind half carcass, breast,
tenderloin, wings, drums, thighs, skin, abdominal fat pad, frame and back were
weighed and recorded for analysis. They were processed at Stephen F. Austin
64
State University Poultry Research Center’s processing plant. Table 25 presents
the ANOVA tables for each retail cuts.
Table 23. Yield Data Results for Treatments 1-4, at day 49
Weight of Parts (lbs) Treatments
1 -
Control 2 -
Absorbezz®P 80%
3 - Absorbezz®P
100%
4 -
Absorbezz®P 120%
Average Live Weight
6.901 a 6.922 a 7.000 a 6.939 a
WOG 5.130 a 5.122 a 5.202 a 5.139 a
Carcass – Front Half 2.765 b 2.874 ab 2.965 a 2.900 ab
Carcass – Hind Half 2.746 a 2.750 a 2.829 a 2.759 a
Breast 1.245 b 1.276 ab 1.307 a 1.275 ab
Tenders 0.274 b 0.278 ab 0.292 a 0.279 ab
Wings 0.690 a 0.694 a 0.703 a 0.699 a
Drums 0.649 a 0.651 a 0.662 a 0.674 a
Thighs 0.785 a 0.777 a 0.800 a 0.790 a
Skin 0.138 a 0.132 a 0.141 a 0.134 a
Fat Pad 0.189 a 0.202 a 0.202 a 0.195 a
Frame 0.545 a 0.524 b 0.537 ab 0.524 b
Back 0.563 a 0.551 a 0.579 a 0.559 a
* Average body weight represents 4 selected birds/pen for a total of 96 birds/TXMeans with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
No significant difference was observed for average live weights of the
birds processed among treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3
(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) as shown in table 24. However
the average body weights follow the same trend as the overall average body
weights per pen on the final weigh day. Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%),
trended to have more live body weight when compared to treatment 1(Control).
65
The same results can be seen with all the yield parameters. This may be as a
result of Absorbezz®P reaching its peak performance at 100% concentration
rate. It also suggests no bias was utilized during the selection process for the
yield birds.
66
67
Table 24. ANOVA for Yield Data Results for Treatment 1-4, at day 49
Source DF Mean SquareLive Weight Front Half Hind Half WOG
Block 23 0.4725(P=0.065)
0.2737(P=0.520)
0.3957(P=0.526)
0.3704**(P=0.019)
Treatment 3 0.1717(P=0.650)
0.6663*(P=0.074)
0.1462(P=0.788)
0.1245(P=0.623)
Error 356 0.3138 0.2858 0.4150 0.2117Total 383% CV 8.071 18.588 23.246 8.936**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
68 Source DF Mean SquareBreast Wings Tenders Skin Frame
Block 23 0.0426(P=0.107)
0.0126(P=0.068)
0.0016(P=0.814)
0.002(P=0.208)
0.0039(P=0.108)
Treatment 3 0.0580(P=0.128)
0.0035(P=0.743)
0.0057*(P=0.051)
0.0017(P=0.453)
0.0066*(P=0.070)
Error 356 0.0304 0.0084 0.0022 0.0019 0.0028Total 383% CV 13.675 13.194 16.660 32.036 9.875**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
69
Source DF Mean SquareDrums Thighs Back Fat Pad
Block 23 0.0126(P=0.111)
0.0236(P=0.004)
0.0160(P=0.045)
0.0062(P=0.505)
Treatment 3 0.0123(P=0.256)
0.0096(0.453)
0.0121(P=0.300)
0.0029(P=0.715)
Error 356 0.0090 0.0117 0.0105 0.0064Total 383% CV 14.434 13.735 18.243 40.649**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
No significant difference was observed for without giblets weight (WOG)
for treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and
4(Absorbezz®P 120%). All treatments were relatively close with a difference of
0.08 pounds between treatments 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) highest and 2
(Absorbezz®P 80%) lowest treatment means.
The front half carcass consists of the breast, wings, tenders, skin and
frame. Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) had a statistically significant front half
carcass weight (P=0.07) when compared to treatment 1 (Control), but not
significantly different from treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
120%). However, treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%)
had slightly heavier front carcass weight when compared to treatment 1(Control).
The result attained from the front half carcass was consistent with the yield for
the breasts, tenderloin and the frame. However, the breast is the most valuable
part of the bird. Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) was significantly higher
(P=0.1) when compared to treatment 1 (Control) for the breast weight but not
different from treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%).
Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) was significantly different (P=0.05) when
compared to treatment 1 (Control) for the tenderloins but not different from 2
(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%). Treatment 1(Control) had a
significantly heavier frame weight (P=0.07) than treatments 2(Absorbezz®P
80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%), but not significantly different from treatment
70
3(Absorbezz®P 100%). This may be as a result of Absorbezz® P putting on
more muscling in the pectoral region thereby, foregoing nutrients for the birds
bone development. No significant difference was seen for the skin for treatments
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
120%). No significant difference was seen for the wings between treatments
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
120%). Although all Absorbezz®P treatments had slightly heavier wings weight
when compared to treatment 1.
The hind half carcass consists of the drums, thighs, back and the fat pad.
No significant difference was observed for the drums between treatments
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
120%) . All Absorbezz®P treatments showed slightly heavier drums as
compared to treatment 1(Control). No significant difference was observed for the
thighs between treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P
100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . All Absorbezz®P treatments showed
slightly heavier thighs as compared to treatment 1(Control). No significant
different was seen for the back between treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P
80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . No significant
difference was observed for the fat pad between treatments 1(Control), 2
(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . All
Absorbezz®P treatments showed a slightly denser underlying fat pad when
71
compared to treatment 1(Control). In general all Absorbezz®P treatments
showed no adverse effects on the birds yield, but rather increased carcass yield
which were all slightly heavier when compared with the control group. This could
mean that Absorbezz®P can be supplemented with broiler diet to improve weight
gain; therefore, Absorbezz®P could be used in place currently used growth
promoting supplements.
72
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
For this study, the following parameters were measured during the
production of commercial broilers reared to 49 days; performance, relative and
absolute organ weight, nitrogen content of fecal matter, mortality, paw ulceration
and carcass yield with the broiler’s diets supplemented with Absorbezz®P at
different concentration stages. Diet treatment for this experiment are as follows;
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
120%).
Average body weights and feed conversions were measured at day 14,
34, 42 and 48. At day 14, no statistical difference was observed for treatments 1-
4 for both average body weight and feed conversion. All treatments had relatively
close average body weight (1.04 lbs – 1.04lbs) and feed conversion ratios
(1.26lbs – 1.28lbs), respectively. At day 34, there was no significant difference
between treatments 1-4, however all Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of
slightly higher average body weight when compared with the control group while
maintaining a relatively close feed conversion ratio. Day 42, the average body
73
weight was consistent with day 34. All Absorbezz®P treatments showed a
trend of slightly higher average body weight. Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100),
however, had the highest average body weight (5.94lbs) but still maintained the
same feed conversion ratio (1.85lbs) with the control (5.84lbs). At day 48, no
significant difference was observed for all treatments, however treatment
4(Absorbezz®P 120%) had the highest average body weight (7.11lbs) while
maintaining the same feed conversion ratio (1.94lbs) with the control group. With
the feed conversion adjusted for day 48, there was no significant difference
observed between all treatments. However, treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120%)
proved to be the most efficient relative to feed conversion while maintaining the
highest average body weight. The results from this trial suggests that a feeding
regime of supplying broiler diets with 100% of the recommended dosage from
day 0-42 and after 42 days increase Absorbezz® P to 120% concentration rate
may result to a heavier weight for the birds. Inclusion of Absorbezz®P at 100%
and 120% seemed to be the peak performances for Absorbezz®P for average
body weight while ensuring feed efficiency.
Mortality was recorded and measured for day 14, 34, 42 and 48 for
treatments 1-4. No significant difference was observed for percent mortality.
Having a small number of birds (60 birds) in each pen may have made each
death have a large difference in percent mortality, however no unusual trend of
mortality was observed during this trial.
74
Fecal samples were collected and evaluated for percent nitrogen, total
nitrogen, crude protein, macro-minerals and micro-minerals. No statistical
difference was observed for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein for
treatments 1-4. However all Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of slightly
higher percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein in the broilers excreta.
Increase in percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein may have been as
a result of adding Absorbezz®P to an already complete broiler diet.
No statistical difference was seen for macro-minerals P, Ca, Mg, S for
treatments 1-4, although all the Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of
slightly higher P, Ca, Mg and when compared to the control group. K levels in
treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) were significantly
higher when compared to the control group but not significantly different from
treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%). Na levels were significantly higher in treatment
2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to the control group but not significantly
different to treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%).
For the micro-minerals, no statistical difference was seen for treatments 1-
4 for Mn, B and As, however, Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of higher
Mn and B. Fe and Al both had a significant difference when treatment
3(Absorbezz®P 100%) was compared to the rest of the treatments. Zn and Cu
both had significant differences when compared to the control group, but not
significant when compared to the rest of the treatments.
75
Absorbezz®P having ionized nutrients enabled the birds to better utilize
nutrients when compared to the non-ionized nutrients. Also, since the control
treatment consisted of the broiler industry’s standardized complete ration,
inclusion of more minerals through Absorbezz®P may have resulted to the birds
excreting larger amounts of minerals when compared with the control group. A
different result may have been achieved if Absorbezz®P was used as the only
source of mineral supply to the birds, however it was noted that Absorbezz®P
didn’t have any adverse effect on the broilers either through body functions or
nutrient utilization.
At day 49 of this trial, 12 birds per treatment group were randomly were
euthanized for the purpose of absolute and relative organ measurements. The
liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, proventriculus, ventriculus (gizzard), and heart
were excised and weighed independently. For the absolute organ weight, the
liver, kidney, pancreas, proventriculus, gizzard and heart showed no significant
difference. However, treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) showed a significantly
heavier spleen (P=0.01) compared to the control group. Treatment
3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) showed no significant
difference when compared to the control group. No significant difference was
observed for the liver, kidney, and pancreas for the relative organ weight. The
spleen and heart however, showed a significant difference with a probability of
(0.003) and (0.05) respectively. The spleen weight been significantly higher for
76
treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) may have been as a result of the birds fighting a
bacterial infection. The spleen is primarily utilized for storage of red and white
blood cells. The white blood cells present in the spleen aids in destruction of
bacteria and foreign matter, which may have resulted in the enlargement of the
spleen. The heart been significantly higher in treatment 1(Control) and
2(Absorbezz®P 80%), may have been as a result of stress or a disease. A
smaller heart proves the bird is healthy and efficient, while a larger heart may
indicate the birds were unhealthy and have to work the heart extra hard for blood
circulation.
The paws were evaluated during this trial because paw ulcerations are
directly linked with litter conditions. Better digestion leads to a more efficient
excretion which in turn reduces moisture litter. Having good litter conditions
means no negative effect will be observed on the paws. No significant difference
was observed between all treatments. However, most Absorbezz®P treatments
had lower paw scores when compared with the control group. With the results
stated, incorporating Absorbezz®P as a feed supplement may aid in reduction of
paw ulcerations.
Carcass yield was measured in this study to evaluate how the broilers
respond to Absorbezz®P. No significant difference was observed for the without
giblet weight (WOG). The front half carcass consisting of the breast, wings,
tenders, skin and frame showed a significant front carcass weight (P=0.07) for
77
treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) when compared with the control group. The
result from the front half carcass was consistent with the yield of the breast
(P=0.1), tenderloin (P=0.05) and frame (P=0.07) and were significant as stated
above. The frame of the control group been significant when compared to the
experiment treatments may have been as a result of Absorbezz®P utilitizing
most nutrients on increasing the body weight of the birds rather than supplying
enough nutrients for the birds frame structure. The hind carcass consists of the
drums, thighs, back and fat pad which were all not significantly different. The skin
and the fat pad were also measured with both not been significantly different. In
conclusion all Absorbezz®P treatments showed no adverse effects on the birds
yield, but rather increased the overall carcass yield with all Absorbezz®P
treatments showing a trend of higher carcass yield when compared with the
control group. Absorbezz®P, when supplemented with broiler diet may improve
weight gain; and likewise, could be used in place of currently used growth
promoting supplements. Although, further research on Absorbezz®P may be
required to make the results from this study concrete
78
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari S.H, N. S. (2012). Pistacia Lentiscus: A Review On Phytochemistry And Pharmacological Properties. International Journal Of Pharmacy And Pharmaceutical Sciencies , IV, 16-20.
Association, T. C. (2014). Overview Of The Major Scientific Publications On The Beneficial Properties Of Natural Chios Mastiha . Chio, Greece.
Awad, W., Bohm, J., Razzazi-Fazeli, E., Ghareeb, K., & Zentek, J. (2005, July 19). Effect of Addition of a Probiotic Microorganism to Broiler Diets Contaminated with Deoxynivalenol on Performance and Histological Alterations of Intestinal Villi of Broiler Chickens . Environment, Well-Being, and Behavior , 974-979.
Awad, W., Ghareeb, S., Abdel-Raheem, S., & Bohm, J. (2008). Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Probiotic and Synbiotic on Growth Performance, Organ Weights, and Intestinal Histomorphology of Broiler Chickens. Qena, Egypt: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University.
Aziz Tahseen, B. J. (2010, October 25). Harmful Effects Of Ammonia On Birds.
Bailey Chris, C. A. (2013). Poultry Science Manual 6th Edition.
Banks, K. M. (2014). Evaluation of Different Zinc Sources at Varying Inclusion Rates in Commercial Broiler Chickens on Performance, Meat Yield, Gut Tensile Strenght, and Tibia Bone Analysis. Agriculture. Nacogdoches: Stephen F. Austin State University.
Bray, J., Taylor, C., Cherry, T., & Carey, J. (2009). Performance Comparison Between the Use and Nonuse of An Enteric Health Medication Program Across Five Consecutive Commercial Broiler Flocks . Nacogdoches: Department of Agriculture Stephen F. Austin State University.
Chris, M. D. (2015). Retrieved Febuary 19, 2015, from Trace Minerals Research: http://www.traceminerals.com/trace-minerals/why-you-need-ionic-minerals
Dibner J.J, R. J. (2004). The Digestive System: Challenges and Opportunities . 86-93.
Dimas S. Konstantinos, P. P. (2012). Chios Mastic Gum: A Plant-produced Resin Exhibiting Numerous Diverse Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Properties , 777-786.
Hale III, C. E. (unknown). Reduction of Ammonia Emission and Phosphorus Excretion in Laying Hen Manure Through Feed Manipulation. Environmental Quality Control, Rose Acre Farms,Seymour, Indiana . Kocaman, B., Esenbuga, N., Yildiz, A., Lacin, E., &
79
Macit, M. (2006). Effects of Environmental Conditions in Poultry Houses on The Performance of Laying Hens. International Journal of Poultry Science , 5 (1), 26-30.
Leeson, S., & Summers, J. D. (2008). Commercial Poultry Nutrition. Guelph, Ontario: Nottingham University Press.
Michael, C., & Brian, F. (2012). Poultry Housing Tips. The University of Georgia, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciencies. Cooperative Extension.
National Chicken Council. (2015, January 9). Retrieved Febuary 19, 2015, from National Chicken Council.Org: http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/u-s-broiler-performance/
Nollet, L., Van Der Klis, J., Lensing, M., & Spring, P. (2007). The Effect of Replacing Inorganic With Organic Trace Minerals in Broiler Diets on Productive Performance and Mineral Excretion. Sarney: Alltech Biotechnology Centre.
Purswell, J., Davis, J., Kiess, A., & Coufal, C. (2013). Effects of Frequency of Multiple Applicationss of Litter Amendment on Litter Ammonia and Live Performance in a Shared Airspace. Mississippi State: Poultry Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service.
Ritz, W. C., Fairchild, D. B., & Lacy, P. M. (2009). Litter Quality and Broiler Performance. Georgia: The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension.
Shepard, E., & B.D, F. (2010). INVITED REVIEW. Footpad dermatitis in poultry , 2043-2051.
Steven, L., & John, S. D. (2001). Nutrition of the Chicken. In Scotts's Nutrition of the Chicken (pp. 363-380). Guelph: University Books.
Tabler, T., Wells, J., Zhai, W., Yakout M, H., & Liang, Y. (2013). What Causes Footpad Dermatitis in Poultry? Poultry Science. Extension Service of Mississipi State University.
Tona, K., Onagbesan, O., BRUGGEMAN, V., Mertens, K., Jego, Y., & Decuypere, E. (2004). Comparison of Feed Intake, Blood Metabolic Parameters, Body and Organ Weights of Growing Broilers Originating from Dwarf and Stardars Broiler Breeder Lines. International Journal of Poultry Science , 422-426.
Wang, J., Garlich, J., & Shih, J. (2006). Beneficial Effects of Versazyme, a Keratinase Feed Additive, on Body Weight, Feed Conversion, and Breast Yield of Broiler Chickens. Morrisville: BioResource International Inc.
Zhao J, S. R.-A. (2010). Effects of chelated trace minerals on growth performance, breast meat yield, and footpad health in commercial meat broilers , 365-372.
80
APPENDIX A Nutrient Profile
Basal Starter - SFASU
81
Nutrient Name Amount Units
Formulation M.E. POULTRY1355.09
0KCAL/LB
DRY MATTER 86.460 PCT
FormulaBatch size
(lb) MOISTURE 13.540 PCT
Ingredient Name Percent 2000 PROTEIN, CRUDE 22.050 PCT