APPENDIX-I
DETERMINATION OF GROSS ENERGY BY USING BOMB
CALORIMETER
Principle:
The gross energy is the amount of heat produced from unit feed when it
is completely burnt down to its ultimate oxidation products (CO2 and H2O).
The feed is burnt is a closed container (Bomb calorimeter) and heat produced
from it is measured (AOAC, 1995).
Procedure:
1. Filling the bomb:
a) Press the material (feed or excreta) into a tablet weighing 0.5 – 1.0g.
b) Weigh the material, wrap it in weighted cigarette paper and secure with
20-cm long thread of uniform thickness.
c) Connect a 10-cm platinum wire of stainless steel wire to the two
electrodes of the bomb.
d) Place the tablet in the crucible and tie the thread to platinum wire to
carry the flame to the tablet in the crucible.
e) Add about 10ml of distilled water to the bomb.
f) Put the assembly in the bomb, tighten the cap and fill oxygen into the
bomb through its inlet value up to 25-lbs. Pressure per square inch.
2. Adjustment of water temperature in the pail:
Add 2000 ml of distilled water to the pail and keep it in proper position
in the outer jacket. Keep the temperature of the outer jacket 5-6 0 F higher than
the water taken in the pail.
3. Assembling the calorimeter:
a) Place the bomb in the pail and connect with mains of the switch box.
b) Place the stir, thermometer and lid of the calorimeter in their proper
position.
4. Ignition:
a) Switch on the stirrer and record the initial temperature after about five
minutes.
b) Ignite the bomb by pressing the push button for 3-4 seconds.
c) Record the final temperature after it is constant for 2-3 minutes.
5. Dissembling the calorimeter:
a) Remove the connecting wires, thermometer, stirrer and covering lids. Take
out the bomb and release slowly the gas pressure inside the bomb.
b) Open the bomb, wash all interior surfaces with a jet of distilled water.
c) Collect the washings in 250-ml beaker for estimation of H2SO4 and HNO3
formed form sulphur and nitrogen present in the test sample.
6. Measurement of heat of combination
Calculate heat of combustion from the rise in temperature and water
equivalent (mentioned below). Correct it for the formation of acids.
7. Correction for the acid formation:
a) Boil the washings collected in the beaker.
b) Cool and titrate against N/10 barium hydroxide using phenolphthalein
indicator.
c) Add to it 20ml N/10 sodium carbonate solution and boil.
d) Cool the contents filter and wash with hot distilled water (2-3 washings).
e) Titrate the washings against N/10 HCL using methyl orange indicator.
Calculate the heat liberated by H2SO4 and HNO3 using the following factors:
1ml N/10 Ba (OH)2 = 3.60 cal.
1 ml N/10 Na2 CO3 = 1.43 cal.
8. Determination of water equivalent:
Use benzoic acid (dried over P2O5) which is a standard material having heat
of combustion 6319 cal/g. Compute water equivalent of the calorimeter from the
following equation:
HM + C1 + C2 + C3
W=
T
Where,
W = Water equivalent of calorimeter in calories / 0 F
H = Heat of combustion of standard benzoic acid in cal/g (6319)
M = Weight of benzoic acid in grams
T = Rise in temperature of water of the pail
C1 and C2 = Correction for heat combustion (cal) of H2SO4 and HNO3 respectively.
C3 = Heat of combustion of used wire, paper and thread.
(Heat of combustion of paper, thread and fuse wire may be taken as 3234 cal/g, 3962
cal/g and 1400 cal/g, respectively).
Calculations
Gross heat of combustion (cal/g)
=
T x W – (C1 + C2 + C3)
M
Where,
T = Rise in temperature
W = Water equivalent
M = Weight of substance
APPENDIX - II
ORGANOLEPTIC EVALUATION SCORE CARD
AICRP, Home Science, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
Dated: ______________
Name of the Evaluator : _________________________
Meat sample
: __________________________
Kindly evaluate the given sample on a 5-point scale for each quality
parameters mentioned below.
Directions: Score as per the index and after tasting each variety rinse your
mount between samples.
Reference index for the scores:
a. Colour and :
5= Very desirable; 4 = Desirable; 3 = Moderately desirable;
b.
Flavour
2 = Slightly desirable; 1 = Undesirable
c.
Taste
:
5 = Like very much; 4 = Like moderately; 3 = Like slightly;
2 = Dislike moderately; 1 = Dislike extremely
d.
Juiciness
:
5 = Very much juicy; 4 = Juicy; 3 = Moderately juicy;
2 = Slightly juicy; 1 = Not juicy
e.
Texture
:
5 = Very much tender; 4 = Tender; 3 = Acceptable; 2 =
Tough;
1 = Very tough
f.
Overall
:
5 = Very good; 4 = Good; 3 = Fair; 2 = Poor; 1 = Very poor
Quality
Sample
Colour
Flavour
Taste
Juiciness
Texture
Overall
No.
Quality
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
SIGNATURE :
ADDRESS:
APPENDIX - III
Calculation of starter diet cost based on ingredient percentage used and cost of ingredient
Treatments
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
Maize
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
1
2
3(1x2)
55.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
55.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
55.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
27.5
6.5
55.5
6.5
27.75
6.5
Finger millet
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
4
5
6(4x5)
27.5
4.5
4.5
13.87
4.5
4.5
13.87
4.5
4.5
27.5
4.5
4.5
13.87
4.5
4.5
13.87
4.5
Sorghum
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
7
8
9(7x8)
5
5
27.5
5
13.87
5
5
13.87
5
5
5
27.5
5
13.87
5
5
13.87
5
Soybean meal
% Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
10
11
12(10x11)
29.5 10.5
29
10.5
31.5 10.5
32.5 10.5
29.5 10.5
31
10.5
29.5 10.5
28.5 10.5
31.5 10.5
32
10.5
29.5 10.5
32.5 10.5
Contd….
Appendix-III contd..
Groundnut extraction
Soybean oil
Fish oil
Mineral mixture
Cost
Total cost (Rs.)
% Rs./kg Amount % Rs./kg Amount % Rs./kg Amount % Rs./kg Amount Additives Enzyme
(Rs.)
Treatments
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
13
14
15(13x14) 16
17
18(16x17) 19
20
21(19x20) 22
23
24
25
26
27(3+6+9+12+15+18+21+22+23) 28
T1
9
10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
1047.5
10.5
T2
9.5 10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
1016.6
10.2
T3
7.5 10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
987.3
9.9
T4
6.5 10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
959.5
9.6
T5
9
10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
1021.0
10.2
T6
7.6 10.75
3
42
3
10
124.25
997.3
10.0
T7
9
10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
974.5
9.7
T8
10.5 10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
1011.1
10.1
T9
7.5 10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
991.8
9.9
T10
6.5 10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
964.1
9.6
T11
9
10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
12
1059.5
10.6
T12
6.5 10.75
42
3
3
10
124.25
12
1009.0
10.1
APPENDIX – IV
Calculation of finisher diet cost based on ingredient percentage used and cost of ingredient
Maize
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
Treatments
1
2
3(1x2)
T1
58.75
6.5
T2
29.37
6.5
T3
29.75
6.5
T4
29.37
6.5
T5
58.75
6.5
T6
29.37
6.5
T7
58.75
6.5
T8
29.37
6.5
T9
29.37
6.5
T10
29.37
6.5
T11
58.75
6.5
T12
29.37
6.5
Finger millet
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
4
5
6(4x5)
4.5
29.37
4.5
4.5
14.68
4.5
4.5
14.68
4.5
4.5
29.37
4.5
4.5
14.68
4.5
4.5
14.68
4.5
Sorghum
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
7
8
9(7x8)
5.5
5.5
29.37
5.5
14.68
5.5
5.5
14.68
5.5
5.5
5.5
29.37
5.5
14.68
5.5
5.5
14.68
5.5
Soybean meal
%
Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)
10
11
12(10x11)
24
10.5
24.25 10.5
28.5
10.5
26.25 10.5
24
10.5
28
10.5
24
10.5
24.25 10.5
28.5
10.5
26.25 10.5
24
10.5
27.5
10.5
Contd….
Appendix-IV contd…
Treatment
s
Groundnut extraction
% Rs./k Amoun
g
t (Rs.)
%
13
16
14
T1
T2
10
9.2
5
10.75
10.75
T3
T4
5
6.7
5
10.75
10.75
T5
10
10.75
T6
5
10.75
15(13x14)
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
Soybean oil
Rs./k Amoun
g
t (Rs.)
17
42
20
21(19x20)
Mineral mixture
% Rs./k Amoun
g
t (Rs.)
24
Additive
s
Enzym
e
Total cost (Rs.)
25
26
27(3+6+9+12+15+18+21+22+2
Cos
t
(Rs.
)
28
2
2
23
3
10
124.25
-
1068.6
10.7
3
10
124.25
-
1032.9
10.3
3
10
124.25
-
992.2
9.9
3
10
124.25
-
957.9
9.6
3
10
124.25
-
1044.8
10.4
3
10
124.25
-
1019.9
10.2
3
10
124.25
-
990.9
9.9
3
10
124.25
-
1046.6
10.5
3
10
124.25
-
1003.9
10.0
3
10
124.25
-
973.3
9.7
3
10
124.25
12
1080.6
10.8
3
10
124.25
12
1041.5
10.4
3)
42
42
42
42
42
10
10.75
-
42
9
10.75
-
42
5
6.7
5
10.75
-
42
10.75
-
42
10
6.7
5
10.75
-
42
10.75
-
42
T8
T9
T11
T12
19
Fish oil
Rs./k Amoun
g
t (Rs.)
-
T7
T10
18(16x17)
%
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
4.2
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table No
Title
2.1
Chemical composition of ragi and maize
2.2
The amino acid composition of ragi reported by various workers (g/kg)
2.3
Chemical composition of sorghum and maize
2.4
Amino acid composition of Sorghum (g/100g protein)
2.5
The amino acids availability of sorghum and maize to chicks
2.6
Amino acid composition (% of protein) of sorghum and maize and their digestibility coefficients
2.7
Metabolizable energy and true metabolizable energy (kcal/g) of sorghum (dry matter basis)
2.8
Tannin content of sorghum grain (% dry matter)
2.9
Importance of sorghum feeding in poultry
3.1
Per cent ingredient composition of broiler starter diets used in metabolic and growth trial
3.2
Description of assay diets
3.3
Per cent ingredient composition of broiler finisher diets used in growth trial
4.1
Chemical composition of finger millet, sorghum and maize on dry matter basis.
4.2
Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) different experimental starter diets – Metabolic trial.
4.3
Mean Body weights of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks -Metabolic trial
4.4
Mean cumulative feed intake of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks -Metabolic trial.
4.5
Table No
Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks -Metabolic trial.
Title
4.6
Mean dry matter metabolizability in broilers fed different experimental diets – Metabolic trial.
4.7
Mean ME of different experimental diets fed to broilers – Metabolic trial.
4.8
Mean classical and predicted ME different experimental diets fed to broilers – Metabolic trial.
4.9a
Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of broilers fed different experimental starter diets – Growth trial.
4.9b
Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of different experimental finisher diets fed to broilers – Growth trial.
4.10
Mean body weight of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
4.11
Mean cumulative feed intake of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
4.12
Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
4.13
Mean livability of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial
4.14
Mean dressing percentage of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial
4.15
Mean values of various sensory evaluation of parameters broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
4.16
Mean values of different blood serum lipid profile parameters of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
4.17
Mean net returns of broilers fed different experimental diets.
Table 2.1: Chemical composition of ragi and maize
Variety
DM
CP
EE
CF
TA
NFE
Ca
P
RO862
87.50
10.28
1.53
3.77
2.48
81.94
0.42
0.25
Majjige
86.90
8.89
1.86
3.68
3.22
82.35
0.50
0.33
Hamsa
-
9.10
1.62
4.34
2.46
82.48
0.32
0.26
Mallanna and Rajashekara (1969)
EC(W) 825
-
8.06
1.20
-
3.62
-
0.16
0.87
Mahudeshwaran et al. (1972)
EC(W) 854
-
11.73
1.95
-
2.90
-
1.31
1.10
Annapurna
-
5.78
-
3.57
3.33
-
0.20
0.23
Cauvery
-
6.58
-
3.17
2.49
-
0.62
0.37
Mullubele
-
9.34
-
5.72
3.79
-
0.34
0.33
A-16
92.75
6.79
2.21
-
2.05
-
0.31
0.11
B-11
91.50
08.20
1.86
-
2.40
-
0.28
0.13
Hamsa
85.20
10.09
3.40
3.99
4.34
78.18
-
-
Purna
84.40
09.24
4.15
4.50
4.03
78.08
-
-
Ragi
-
09.00
2.10
6.60
-
-
-
-
CO-10
87.46
09.50
1.50
4.50
2.70
81.80
0.15
0.28
KM-1
87.48
10.60
1.60
4.20
2.50
81.10
0.25
0.20
Indaf-5
89.20
09.93
3.55
4.25
4.73
77.54
0.34
0.25
Theerthaprasad (1994)
Indaf-5
90.30
08.21
2.27
3.64
3.19
82.69
0.32
0.24
Kantharaja et al. (1995)
-
09.38
3.96
2.94
1.93
81.79
-
-
Ragi
91.60
07.10
1.80
3.80
-
-
0.34
0.25
Ragi
89.15
05.65
2.19
3.52
4.92
72.87
-
-
Ragi
-
07.30
1.30
3.60
2.70
72.00
0.34
0.28
Non-specific ragi
Reference
Kurien et al. (1960)
Balakrishna Rao et al. (1973)
Pore and Magar (1979)
Wankhede et al. (1979)
Abate and Gomez (1984)
Ravindran (1991)
Purushothaman and Thirumalai (1995b)
Srilatha Rani, (1995)
FAO (1998)
Gideon Glori Doss (2003)
Ragi
7.070
1.11
4.56
5.47
0.31
0.20
Tyagi et al. (2004)
Ramarao et al (2004)
Ragi
-
08.39
1.32
6.48
-
-
0.61
0.40
Ragi
91.54
08.36
1.16
3.66
6.73
-
-
-
Raju et al (2004)
Table 2.2 : The amino acid composition of ragi reported by various workers (g/ kg) protein.
Arg
His
Ile
Leu
Met
Cys
Lys
Phe
Tyr
Thr
Try
Val
Pro
Ser
Ala
Glu
Gly
Reference
32.6
9.2
40.2
59.4
18.9
-
21.2
27.3
-
21.8
9.7
41.8
-
-
-
-
-
Balasubramanian et al., 1952
-
-
-
35.7
-
23.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chitra and Vallury 1956
23.7
14.4
26.2
61.2
16.9
4.4
26.2
35.0
20.5
29.4
6.2
36.9
63.1
36.2
50.6
117.5
35.6
Tiara, 1963
33.1
16.3
32.4
70.1
22.9
19.2
21.3
38.3
26.6
31.0
10.7
-
-
37.6
-
-
29.5
FAO 1970
51.4
16.2
28.5
57.6
8.3
8.9
16.2
35.9
35.2
23.4
8.2
36.4
42.6
42.1
40.5
138.5
37.0
Indira and Naik 1971
30.0
16.2
30.0
66.2
-
-
18.7
34.4
23.1
27.5
-
48.7
47.5
34.4
50.6
178.7
22.5
Shepherd et al., 1971
26.6
14.8
28.0
62.4
18.3
11.8
16.6
33.0
22.2
26.0
-
40.2
-
35.8
37.0
139.3
24.3
Staturavik and Heide 1974
32.7
17.4
29.7
84.8
18.2
10.7
24.6
39.9
23.1
31.6
-
50.9
38.1
43.7
49.5
191.4
29.3
Virupakasha et al., 1975
-
0.8
3.7
4.6
12.4
2.0
-
3.0
2.8
5.0
-
3.6
7.4
18.9
4.9
8.7
2.2
Padersen
(Maize)
-
4.9
4.2
6.1
11.7
4.5
-
3.1
2.8
6.6
-
5.2
7.2
24.2
8.2
7.6
1.4
Ravindran (1991) Ragi
-
-
-
4.7
8.5
3.0
-
3.2
2.5
4.4
-
3.7
-
-
3.2
-
2.0
Gideon Glori Doss (2003)
and
Eggum
(1983)
Table 2.3: Chemical composition of sorghum.
Per cent proximate composition
Sl. No.
Crude
Ether
Crude
Total Ash
NFE
Calcium
Protein
Extract
Fibre
1
10.10
2.50
1.60
1.60
74.20
2
10.10
6.70
3.60
2.80
77.60
3
11.80
2.97
2.82
4
11.85
3.46
2.58
1.50
71.08
5
10.35
2.26
1.77
1.70
0.04
6
10.91
3.37
1.82
0.02
7
11.48
2.92
2.41
1.21
80.37
8
11.00
2.80
2.00
1.70
0.04
9
10.70
3.10
2.20
2.00
0.03
10
10.40
1.90
1.60
1.60
72.60
0.02
11
8.91
1.42
2.21
2.12
85.34
0.06
12
10.13
2.85
2.48
1.29
83.25
0.05
13
10.42
3.15
3.07
2.96
14
7.07
1.11
4.56
5.47
0.03
Phosphorus
0.27
0.35
0.29
0.33
0.22
0.35
0.27
0.20
Reference
Carpenter and Clegg (1956)
Reddy and Vaidya (1973)
Moir and Connor (1977)
Navin et al. (1980)
Hulan and Proudfoot (1982)
Luies et al. (1982)
Okoh et al. (1982)
Richard (1986)
Ibrahim et al. (1986)
Gopalan et al. (1989)
Kank et al. (1991)
Laxshmi Tulasi et al. (2004)
Raju et al. (2004)
Tyagi et al. (2004)
Table 2.4: Amino acid composition of Sorghum (g/100g protein)
Amino Acids
Arginine
Glycine
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
Cysteine
Alanine
Aspartic Acid
Glutamic Acid
Proline
Serine
Bakshy et al.
(1978)
Hulan and
Proudfoot (1982)
Luies et al.
(1982)
4.00
3.40
2.20
3.60
12.00
2.20
2.20
4.90
3.90
3.10
4.60
2.00
8.20
6.10
19.20
8.00
4.30
4.14
3.35
2.53
3.90
13.10
2.65
2.11
5.00
3.08
2.94
1.27
5.24
0.48
8.81
8.51
2083
8.64
3.27
3.87
3.58
2.33
3.88
13.10
2.33
1.55
4.94
2.90
3.49
1.33
5.04
9.40
6.68
19.48
8.14
4.46
References
Okoh et al.
Hubbel
(1984)
Charles
(1984)
3.89
3.70
3.42
3.30
2.35
2.30
4.06
3.80
13.68
13.30
2.24
2.20
1.50
5.52
5.40
3.99
3.30
3.31
3.10
0.70
5.20
5.00
2.00
9.08
7.10
21.67
9.24
8.00
4.59
4.40
Thakhur et al.
(1984)
CSH-5 CSH-6
4.00
5.48
1.74
2.05
3.41
3.93
11.52
13.92
1.86
2.60
1.14
1.27
5.13
5.46
3.14
3.92
4.89
7.06
-
Mitaru et al.
(1983)
Gopalan et al.
(2004)
2.97
2.46
1.76
3.18
11.26
1.53
4.18
3.47
2.63
4.00
7.55
5.66
17.20
6.78
3.42
2.40
1.60
2.70
8.80
1.50
1.00
3.00
1.80
2.10
0.70
3.40
0.90
-
Table 2.5: The amino acids availability of sorghum and maize to chicks
Aspartic acid
Threonine
Serine
Glutamic acid
Proline
Glycine
Alanine
Valine
Cystine
Methionine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Lysine
Histidine
Arginine
1
Sorghum1
Amino acid% Mean availability%
0.808
84.8
0.343
77.9
0.493
81.6
3.029
87.9
0.793
78.3
0.366
75.8
1.134
85.4
0.516
82.4
0.214
91.1
0.2
88.6
0.408
83.8
1.617
86.4
0.452
85.8
0.539
84.1
0.285
81.9
0.236
77.3
0.39
85.2
Stephenson et al. (1967), 2Degussa (2001).
Amino acid%2
Sorghum
Maize
0.31
0.32
0.44
0.42
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.34
0.31
0.99
1.07
0.24
0.27
0.2
0.26
0.37
0.44
Digestibility coefficients2%
Sorghum
Maize
80
84
86
88
80
88
88
91
88
89
93
93
78
82
86
91
78
90
Table 2.6: Amino acid composition (% of protein) of sorghum and maize and their digestibility coefficients
Sorghum cultivars
Amino acid
Sorghum
Maize
Methionine
0.17
Cystine
Digestibility coefficient (%)
S 35
PSV 16
CSV 15
CSH 16
Sorghum
Maize
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.16
88
91
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.17
0.18
80
88
Lysine
0.24
0.27
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.20
78
82
Threonine
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.29
80
84
Tryptophan
0.10
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.10
85
80
Arginine
0.37
0.44
0.40
0.36
0.33
0.34
78
90
Isoleucine
0.34
0.31
0.40
0.36
0.31
0.35
88
89
Leucine
0.99
1.07
1.31
1.19
0.79
1.16
93
93
Valine
0.44
0.42
0.51
0.47
0.46
0.45
86
88
Histidine
0.20
0.26
-
-
-
-
86
91
Crude protein
(%)
10.5
9.0
10.5
9.52
8.27
9.08
-
-
Kamatar et al. (2003)
Table 2.7: Metabolizable energy and true metabolizable energy (kcal/g)
of sorghum (dry matter basis)
SL.
No.
1
ME
TME
3.4
-
Predicted
ME
3.35
References
2
2.61 – 3.51
-
-
Fuller et al. (1966)
3
2.64
-
-
Reddy and Vaidya (1973)
4
3.10
-
-
Bolton and Blair (1974)
5
3.25
-
-
Scott et al. (1976)
6
3.30
3.43
-
Hubbel Charles (1984)
7
3.60
-
-
Grossu et al. (1981)
8
-
3.99
-
Luies et al. (1982)
9
3.25
-
-
Newton (1982)
10
1.58
-
-
Hulan and Proudfoot (1982)
11
3.07
-
3.04
12
3.12 – 3.46
-
-
Veloso et al. (1985)
13
3.51
-
3.47
Halley et al. (1986)
14
3.20
-
-
Douglas et al. (1988)
15
-
3.88
-
Yamazaki and Kaku (1988)
16
3.26
-
-
Aravinda Bhat (1991)
Carpenter and Clegg (1956)
Basavaraj Reddy (1984)
Table 2.8: Tannin content of sorghum grain (% dry matter)
Sl. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Tannin
0.37
2.66
4.53
0.54
0.48
0.37
0.56
0.33
0.21
0.01
2.20
3.70
0.11-0.92
0.28 – 0.94
0.20
0.15
0.72
1.24
2.23
Variety
RS-610
IS-8260
BR-64
RS-26
NSA - 740
L-538
HP-8
AR-300
P-570
Sudan Egyptian
CSH-1
CSH-5
Reference
Armstrong et al. (1973)
Bakshy et al. (1978)
Navin et al. (1980)
Hulan and Proudfoot (1982)
Luies et al. (1982)
Newton (1982)
Okoh et al. (1982)
Mitrau et al. (1983)
Cao et al. (1985)
Halley et al. (1986)
Ibrahim et al. (1988)
Nagra et al, (1990)
Kank et al. (1991)
122
Table 2.9: Importance of sorghum feeding in poultry
SL. No.
1
Level of inclusion replacing
maize (%)
25 / 50 / 75 / 100
Type of chicks and
duration of experiment
Commercial broilers
0 - 8 weeks
2
25 / 50 / 75
3
50 / 100
4
25 / 50 / 75 / 100
5
33 / 66 / 100
6
50 / 100
Day old cobb broiler
chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Crossbred broiler
chicks
0 - 8 weeks
Hubbard male broiler
chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Crossbred broiler
chicks
0 - 8 weeks
Hubbard broiler chicks
0 - 8 weeks
7
25 / 100
8
25 / 50 / 75 / 100
9
50 / 75 / 100
10
100
Broiler chicks
0 - 8 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 8 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Results
Reference
100% replacement gave non-significant (non-significant)
differences in weight gain and feed efficiency but xanthophyl
deficiency was observed
Weight gain, feed conversion and per cent A grade carcass
were non-significant at 75 per cent replacement
Syed et al. (1975)
CSH-6 cultivar can replace maize up to 50% with nonsignificant difference in body weight, feed intake and feed
efficiency
Non-significant difference at 100% replacement in weight
gain and feed efficiency.
Thakur
et al(1984)
66% replacement showed non-significant results in weight
gain, feed intake and feed efficiency
Mehta et al., (1985)
SPV-346 cultivar can replace maize by 100% with nonsignificant differences in weight gain, feed intake and feed
efficiency.
Weight gain and feed efficiency were non-significant at 100%
replacement
Feed efficiency was unaffected with 75% replacement but
weight gain was non-significant at 50% replacement
CSH-5 cultivar can replace maize up to 100%. Feed
efficiency, bodyweight at 50% were non-significant
Body weight significantly higher in sorghum (69.32%) fed
group compared to maize (50.87%) and ragi (51.88%) fed
group of low energy diets
Thakur et al. (1985)
Hulan and Proudfoot
(1982)
Cao et al. (1985)
Asha Rajini et al. (1986)
Nagra et al. (1990)
Aravinda Bhat (1991)
Raju et al. (2003)
Contd….
123
Table 2.9 contd…
11
Sorghum
12
100
13
75 / 100
14
40 / 60
15
70 / 85 / 100
16
50 / 75 / 100
17
Maize + sorghum
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Vencobb broilers
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks
0 - 6 weeks
Broiler chicks,
0 - 6 weeks
Increased feed conversion ratio as the level of sorghum
increased
Body weight in sorghum fed group to maize fed group.
Enzyme supplementation showed no effect on body weight
Body weight gain, feed intake, feed efficiency, carcass
characteristics and immune response statistically non
significant
Feed intake, weight gain, mortality rate, dressing percentage
were statistically non significant
70 and 85% level reduced the percentage retention of
nutrients significantly
The energy metabolizability (%) was significantly lesser
(P<0.01) on yellow sorghum based diet (50% group) and
lower in red sorghum (tannin contained) based group.
Carcass characteristics and organ weight revealed nonsignificant results
Increased feed conversion ratio at different levels
Kumar et al. (2005)
Raju et al. (2004)
Elangovan et al. (2005)
Thirumalesh et al.
(2005)
Salunkhe et al. (2005)
Sannamani et al. (2005)
Mandal et al. (2006)
124
Table 3.1: Per cent ingredient composition of broiler starter diets used in metabolic trial
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ingredients
Yellow Maize
Soybean meal extraction
T1
55.50
29.50
T2
27.50
29.00
T3
27.50
31.50
T4
27.50
32.50
T5
55.50
29.50
T6
27.50
31.00
T7
55.50
29.50
T8
27.50
28.50
T9
27.50
31.50
T10
27.50
32.00
T11
55.50
29.50
T12
27.50
32.50
Groundnut Extraction
Ragi
Sorghum
Soya Oil
Fish Oil
Mineral premix1
Vitamin – D3 2
Vitamin - AB2D32K 2
9.00
9.50
27.50
7.50
9.00
10.50
27.50
7.50
9.00
27.50
3.00
27.50
6.50
13.87
13.87
6.50
13.87
13.87
3.00
3.00
7.60
13.87
13.87
3.00
9.00
3.00
6.50
13.87
13.87
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.02
0.15
Vitamin- B complex 2
Salt
Methionine
Anacox 3
Furazolidonepure 4
Anazyme 5
ME (kcal/kg)
CP
Ca
P
Lysine
Methionine
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.01
3125
20.47
0.97
0.40
1.01
0.46
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.01
3001
20.36
1.06
0.45
1.02
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.05
0.01
3045
20.30
0.98
0.41
1.05
0.46
0.01
3029
20.16
1.02
0.43
1.02
0.48
0.01
0.05
3125
20.42
0.97
0.40
1.01
0.46
0.01
0.05
3029
20.16
1.02
0.43
1.05
0.48
0.01
3125
20.47
0.97
0.40
1.01
0.46
0.01
3001
20.36
1.06
0.45
1.02
0.50
0.01
3045
20.30
0.98
0.41
1.05
0.46
0.01
3029
20.16
1.02
0.43
1.02
0.48
0.01
0.05
3125
20.47
0.97
0.40
1.01
0.46
0.01
0.05
3020
20.61
1.02
0.43
1.06
0.48
Mineral Premix, contained in addition to calcium and phosphorus, 3 mg of iodine, 2 mg of cobalt, 78 mg of zinc, 13 mg of copper, 130 mg of iron, 2 mg of selenium and
96 mg of manganese.
Vitamin Premix (vitamin-D3, vitamin – AB2D3K, Vitamin-B-complex) provided per kg of diet 8000 IU of Vit.A, 18mg of Vit.E, 1000 IU of Vit.D3, 1 mg of Vit. K, 10 mg of
Vit.B1, 8 mg of Vit.B2, 16 g of B12, 1500 mg of choline chloride, 44 mg of Niacin, 0.25 mg of Biotin, 18 mg of Pantothenic Acid.
Anacox a coccidiostat product from Ranbaxy India Limited, New Delhi was added at 50g per 100kg of feed.
Furazolidone pure was added to the diet at 0.01 kg per 100 kg of the diet.
Anazyme: A proprietary product of M/s Varsha Multitech Pvt. Ltd., West of Chord Road, Bangalore, was added at 50g per 100kg of diet.
125
Table 3.3: Per cent ingredient composition of broiler finisher diets used in growth trial
Ingredients
Yellow Maize
Soybean meal extraction
Groundnut Extraction
Ragi
Sorghum
Soya oil
Fish Oil
Mineral Premix1
Vitamin – D3 2
Vitamin - AB2D3K 2
Vitamin- B complex 2
Salt
Methionine
Anacox 3
Furazolidonepure 4
Anazyme 5
ME (kcal/kg)
CP
Ca
P
Lysine
Methionine
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
T1
58.75
24.00
10.00
T2
29.37
24.25
9.25
29.37
4.25
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3130
19.17
1.23
0.46
1.02
0.48
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3110
19.18
1.26
0.49
1.04
0.49
T3
29.37
28.50
5.00
T5
58.75
24.00
10.00
29.37
4.25
T4
29.37
26.25
6.75
14.68
14.68
4.25
4.25
T6
29.37
28.00
5.00
14.68
14.68
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3099
19.55
1.22
0.47
1.11
0.61
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3075
19.44
1.19
0.51
1.08
0.63
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
0.05
3103
19.75
1.22
0.43
1.04
0.49
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
0.05
3096
19.61
1.18
0.44
1.09
0.48
T7
58.75
24.00
10.00
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3075
19.35
1.15
0.45
1.06
0.47
T8
29.37
24.25
9.00
29.37
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3102
19.83
1.23
0.46
1.04
0.52
T9
29.37
28.50
5.00
T11
58.75
24.00
10.00
29.37
T10
29.37
26.25
6.75
14.68
14.68
T12
29.37
27.50
6.75
14.68
14.68
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3084
19.62
1.18
0.45
1.05
0.53
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
3086
19.35
1.15
0.49
1.03
0.54
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
0.05
3126
19.67
1.26
0.44
1.02
0.51
4.25
3.00
0.02
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.50
0.01
0.05
3096
19.73
1.21
0.45
1.04
0.52
Mineral Premix, contained in addition to calcium and phosphorus, 3 mg of iodine, 2 mg of cobalt, 78 mg of zinc, 13 mg of copper, 130 mg of iron, 2 mg of selenium and
96 mg of manganese.
Vitamin Premix (vitamin-D3, vitamin – AB2D3K, Vitamin-B-complex) provided per kg of diet 8000 IU of Vit.A, 18mg of Vit.E, 1000 IU of Vit.D3, 1 mg of Vit. K,
10 mg of Vit.B1, 8 mg of Vit.B2, 16 g of B12, 1500 mg of choline chloride, 44 mg of Niacin, 0.25 mg of Biotin, 18 mg of Pantothenic Acid.
Anacox a coccidiostat product from Ranbaxy India Limited, New Delhi was added at 50g per 100kg of feed.
Furazolidone pure was added to the diet at 0.01 kg per 100 kg of the diet.
Anazyme: A proprietary product of M/s Varsha Multitech Pvt. Ltd., West of Chord Road, Bangalore, was added at 50g per 100kg of diet.
69
Table 3.2 : Description of assay diets
Treatment
group
Maize
Ragi
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
50
50
50
50
-
50
25
25
50
25
25
Inclusion level (%)
Sorghum Soybean
oil
3
3
50
3
25
3
3
25
3
50
25
25
-
Fish oil Enzyme
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
70
Table 4.1 : Chemical composition of finger millet, sorghum and maize on dry matter
basis.
% Nutrient
Ingredients
DM
CP
CF
EE
TA
NFE
Ca
P
GE
(kcal/kg)
Finger millet 90.23
9.13
3.63
2.28
5.11
70.08
0.70
0.33
4215.00
Sorghum
90.74
9.65
2.78
2.33
4.23
71.75
0.61
0.18
4375.00
Maize
90.10
9.41
1.71
3.33
0.75
74.90
0.35
0.25
4523.00
Soy oil
-
-
-
99.00
-
-
-
-
9500.00
Fish oil
-
-
-
87.00
-
-
-
-
7800.00
71
Table 4.2 : Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) in different experimental starter diets – Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Enzym
e
% Substitution
level of cereal
MZ
RG SG
100
-
% Nutrient
Treatment
T1
DM
91.34
CP
21.32
CF
2.85
EE
5.23
TA
7.65
NFE
62.95
50
50
-
T2
91.53
21.15
2.96
5.27
7.53
63.09
Soya
50
-
50
T3
91.64
21.06
3.10
5.65
7.43
62.76
Oil
50
25
25
T4
91.58
20.85
3.15
5.12
8.23
62.65
100
-
-
T5
90.93
21.23
3.11
5.24
7.34
63.08
50
25
25
T6
91.65
20.98
3.15
5.57
7.85
62.45
100
-
-
T7
91.78
20.93
3.26
5.21
8.20
62.40
50
50
-
T8
90.85
21.10
3.28
5.13
8.56
61.93
50
-
50
T9
91.33
20.86
3.35
5.48
7.86
62.45
50
25
25
T10
91.54
20.84
3.40
5.29
7.56
62.91
100
-
-
T11
91.23
21.14
2.86
5.53
8.23
62.24
50
25
25
T12
91.15
20.96
3.19
5.68
8.31
61.86
Nil
0.05%
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
72
Table 4.3 : Mean Body weights of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks –Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
% Substitution level
Mean Body weight(g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD)
of cereal
Type of Oil
Enzyme
Treatment
I wkNS
II wk
III wk
MZ
RG
SG
d
100
T1
112.45 ± 16.55
250.35 ± 42.27
502.15bc ± 67.33
50
50
T2
127.15 ± 16.92
328.70a ± 39.11
584.90ab ± 52.05
Nil
abcd
50
50
T3
112.40 ± 20.66
286.90 ± 57.12
520.75abc ± 105.00
Soya Oil
ab
50
25
25
T4
123.80 ± 15.43
319.90 ± 34.81
568.95abc ± 63.45
a
100
T5
122.15 ± 22.37
329.25 ± 52.25
602.20a ± 77.78
0.05%
ab
50
25
25
T6
122.00 ± 12.41
315.25 ± 31.26
573.90abc ± 68.31
NS
NS
Oil as main factor pooled
119.90 ± 17.39
305.06 ± 42.80
558.80NS ± 72.32
ab
100
T7
125.95 ± 14.18
313.95 ± 32.89
587.95ab ± 59.18
abc
50
50
T8
119.55 ± 14.32
294.85 ± 39.41
563.55abc ± 84.10
Nil
ab
50
50
T9
119.90 ± 18.79
315.75 ± 40.08
576.15abc ± 65.06
Fish Oil
abc
50
25
25
T10
109.80 ± 12.10
298.80 ± 46.45
538.25abc ± 86.73
bcd
100
T11
118.55 ± 15.88
282.35 ± 36.62
494.60c ± 60.97
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
112.95 ± 17.27
264.60d ± 53.50
510.20bc ± 89.94
NS
NS
Oil as main factor pooled
117.78 ± 15.42
295.05 ± 41.49
545.12NS ± 74.33
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
NS = Non-significant
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Table 4.3a : Analysis of variance on weekly body weight of broilers during metabolic trial
Source
df
Treatment
Replicate
Error
11
1
24
R²
CV (%)
I WK
134.86
0.7763
2.12
0.97
1.22
MS
II WK
2480.65
1.33
3.19
0.99
0.96
III WK
5477.20
0.002
1.98
0.99
0.25
73
Table 4.4 : Mean cumulative feed intake (g) of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks -Metabolic
trial.
Treatment wise:
% Substitution level of
Mean cumulative feed intake (g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD)
cereal
Type of Oil
Enzyme
Treatment
I wk
II wk
III wk
MZ
RG
SG
a
a
100
T1
87.10 ± 6.92
295.70 ± 14.84
647.20c ± 7.63
ab
a
50
50
T2
90.80 ± 3.67
278.30 ± 16.97
644.65c ± 1.20
Nil
de
b
50
50
T3
127.40 ± 10.04
363.95 ± 8.41
562.90b ± 1.83
Soya Oil
c
a
50
25
25
T4
109.15 ± 2.33
308.55 ± 0.35
612.30bc ± 5.09
cde
a
100
T5
120.10 ± 0.28
312.00 ± 6.78
591.05bc ± 2.19
0.05%
e
a
50
25
25
T6
135.35 ± 3.74
297.00 ± 4.24
622.65c ± 19.30
a
a
Oil as main factor pooled
111.65 ± 4.50
309.25 ± 8.60
613.46a ± 6.21
cd
a
100
T7
116.00 ± 5.79
301.90 ± 9.75
525.35a ± 26.37
bc
a
50
50
T8
104.15 ± 1.90
292.90 ± 18.38
539.50a ± 31.81
Nil
50
50
T9
110.15c ± 0.63
305.10 a ± 0.70
540.05a ± 2.47
Fish Oil
cd
a
50
25
25
T10
110.65 ± 7.99
313.85 ± 15.34
558.20a ± 22.62
cde
a
100
T11
120.05 ± 0.07
315.15 ± 8.27
544.50a ± 15.98
0.05%
cd
a
50
25
25
T12
115.15 ± 3.18
295.55 ± 11.66
511.45a ± 9.97
b
b
Oil as main factor pooled
112.69 ± 3.26
305.25 ± 10.68
536.51b ± 6.42
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Table 4.4a : Analysis of variance on weekly feed intake of broilers – Metabolic trial
Source
df
Treatment
Replicate
Error
11
1
24
R²
CV (%)
I WK
378.69
75.26
0.0006
1.00
1.92
MS
II WK
871.56
367.38
104.53
0.89
1.59
III WK
18272.32
110.08
267.04
0.99
1.54
74
Table 4.5 : Mean Feed Conversion Ratio of broilers fed with different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Soya Oil
Fish Oil
% Substitution
level of cereal
Enzyme
MZ RG
SG
100
50
50
Nil
50
50
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
100
50
50
Nil
50
50
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
Mean Feed Conversion Ratio at the end of:
Treatment
I wk
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
f
0.77 ± 0.01
0.71g ± 0.01
1.13a ± 0.01
0.88e ± 0.04
0.98cd ± 0.04
1.11a ± 0.02
0.91a ± 0.02
0.92de ± 0.01
0.87e ± 0.05
0.92de ± 0.01
1.00bc ± 0.02
1.01b ± 0.02
1.02b ± 0.03
0.96b ±0.05
II wk
b
1.18 ± 0.02
0.85g ± 0.02
1.27a ± 0.02
0.96ef ± 0.02
0.95f ± 0.01
0.94f ± 0.01
1.03a ± 0.02
0.96ef ± 0.01
0.99e ± 0.02
0.97ef ± 0.01
1.05d ± 0.02
1.12c ± 0.00
1.11c ± 0.02
1.03a ± 0.02
III wk
1.29a ± 0.02
1.10b ± 0.02
1.08b ± 0.01
1.08b ± 0.02
0.98cde ± 0.02
1.08b ± 0.01
1.10a ± 0.02
0.92f ± 0.02
0.96def ± 0.01
0.94ef ± 0.03
1.01cd ± 0.02
1.10b ± 0.03
1.00c ± 0.02
0.99b ± 0.03
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Table 4.5a : Analysis of variance on feed conversion ratio of broilers during metabolic trial
Source
df
Treatment
Replicate
Error
11
1
24
R²
CV (%)
I WK
2.01
2.02
0.0084
0.99
1.52
MS
II WK
1.03
1.92
0.0046
0.97
1.12
III WK
1.09
0.08
0.0073
0.98
0.72
75
Table 4.6 : Mean dry matter metabolizability in broilers fed different experimental diets – Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Enzyme
Nil
Soya Oil
0.05%
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
% Substitution level of cereal
MZ
RG
SG
100
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
100
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
100
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
100
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
Treatment
Mean dry matter metabolizability
(%)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
65.56 ± 5.31
62.07 ± 1.00
64.00 ± 1.79
62.80 ± 0.80
62.34 ± 8.59
68.91 ± 1.67
64.28 ± 3.19
74.13 ± 5.50
73.33 ± 5.92
73.33 ± 5.92
64.90 ± 6.00
69.66 ± 6.00
61.71 ± 3.90
69.51 ± 5.54
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Table 4.6a : Analysis of variance on dry matter metabolizability of broilers
Source
df
MS
Treatment
11
89.15
Replicate
1
1.76
Error
24
1.30
R²
0.97
CV (%)
1.70
76
Table 4.7 : Mean ME of different experimental diets fed to broilers – Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of Oil
% Substitution level of cereal
Enzyme
Nil
Soya Oil
0.05%
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
MZ
RG
100
50
50
50
50
25
100
50
25
Oil as main factor pooled
100
50
50
50
50
25
100
50
25
Oil as main factor pooled
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
NS – Non-significant
Table 4.7a : Analysis of variance for ME
Source
Treatment
Replicate
Interaction
Error
R²
CV (%)
df
11
1
11
24
MS
191334.90
99190.08
159453.27
152905.08
0.52
13.00
Treatment
SG
50
25
25
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
50
25
25
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
Mean MENS (Mean ± SD)
(kcal/kg)
3128 ± 15.92
3043 ± 24.66
3047 ± 35.86
3054 ± 32.60
3153 ± 18.14
3016 ± 13.40
3074a ± 23.43
3136 ± 23.57
3038 ± 42.60
3016 ± 71.82
3024 ± 19.51
3127 ± 37.43
3015 ± 71.82
3060b ± 44.46
77
Table 4.8 : Mean classical and predicted ME different experimental diets fed to broilers – Metabolic trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of Oil
Enzyme
% Substitution level of cereal
SG
Treatment
Classical ME
(kcal/kg)
Predicted ME
(kcal/kg)
MZ
RG
100
T1
3050 a ± 2.22
3051 ab ± 3.00
50
50
T2
3061 a ± 0.55
3062 ab ± 1.66
Nil
a
50
50
T3
3068 ± 1.43
3070 c ± 4.84
Soya Oil
ab
50
25
25
T4
3075 ± 1.12
3078 c ± 8.64
b
100
T5
3091 ± 0.21
3081 c ± 5.69
0.05%
b
50
25
25
T6
3084 ± 1.01
3085 c ± 1.26
a
Oil as main factor pooled
3072 ± 1.09
3071a ± 4.18
b
100
T7
3088 ± 0.40
3089 c ± 4.00
b
50
50
T8
3091 ± 0.44
3093 c ± 5.48
Nil
b
50
50
T9
3098 ± 0.80
3098 c ± 0.63
Fish Oil
c
50
25
25
T10
3105 ± 2.29
3125 a ± 6.95
c
100
T11
3123 ± 2.48
3123 a ± 4.00
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
3132 c ± 0.83
3135 a ± 0.84
b
Oil as main factor pooled
3106 ± 1.21
3111b ± 3.65
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Table 4.8a : Analysis of variance on classical and predicted ME
Source of variance
Classical ME
df
MS
Treatment
11
6444.08
Replication
1
887.25
Error
24
15.78
2
R
0.98
CV (%)
0.12
Predicted ME
MS
1015.78
55.04
70.66
0.81
0.27
78
Table 4.9a : Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of broilers fed different experimental starter diets – Growth
trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Enzym
e
% Substitution level of
cereal
MZ
RG
SG
100
-
Treatment
DM
CP
CF
EE
TA
NFE
T1
91.34
21.32
2.85
2.23
7.65
65.95
50
50
-
T2
91.53
21.15
2.96
2.27
7.53
66.09
Soya
50
-
50
T3
91.64
21.06
3.10
1.65
7.43
66.76
Oil
50
25
25
T4
91.58
20.85
3.15
1.12
8.23
66.65
100
-
-
T5
90.93
21.23
3.11
2.24
7.34
66.08
50
25
25
T6
91.65
20.98
3.15
1.57
7.85
66.45
100
-
-
T7
91.78
20.93
3.26
1.21
8.20
66.40
50
50
-
T8
90.85
21.10
3.28
2.13
8.56
64.93
50
-
50
T9
91.33
20.86
3.35
1.48
7.86
66.45
50
25
25
T10
91.54
20.84
3.40
1.29
7.56
66.91
100
-
-
T11
91.23
21.14
2.86
2.53
8.23
65.24
50
25
25
T12
91.15
20.96
3.19
1.68
8.31
65.86
Nil
0.05%
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
79
Table 9b : Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of different experimental finisher diets fed to broilers – Growth
trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of Enzym
Oil
e
% Substitution level of
cereal
MZ
RG
SG
100
-
Treatment
% Nutrients
T1
DM
91.28
CP
19.53
CF
2.94
EE
6.73
TA
8.02
NFE
62.78
50
50
-
T2
91.57
19.36
2.98
6.65
8.01
63.00
Soya
50
-
50
T3
91.45
19.23
3.25
6.48
8.35
62.69
Oil
50
25
25
T4
91.18
19.15
3.36
6.56
9.75
61.18
100
-
-
T5
91.60
20.05
3.08
6.73
7.91
62.23
50
25
25
T6
91.83
20.13
3.05
6.56
7.50
61.76
100
-
-
T7
91.89
20.23
3.16
6.73
7.31
62.57
50
50
-
T8
91.78
19.83
3.18
6.65
8.42
61.92
50
-
50
T9
91.94
19.76
3.25
6.48
8.59
61.92
50
25
25
T10
90.89
19.86
3.30
6.56
8.94
61.34
100
-
-
T11
91.77
19.18
2.76
6.73
7.92
63.41
50
25
25
T12
91.81
19.65
2.89
6.57
7.49
63.40
Nil
0.05%
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
80
Table 4.10 : Mean body weight of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Soya
Oil
Fish Oil
Enzyme
% Substitution level
of cereal
MZ
RG
SG
100
-
Mean Body weight(g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD)
Treatment
T1
I WK
120.73b ± 16.54
133.03a ± 17.10
137.18a ± 17.08
137.53a ± 16.66
139.03a ± 16.61
134.43a ± 16.23
133.66NS ± 16.70
135.28a ± 14.00
132.78a ± 12.38
135.38a ± 14.94
136.00a ± 10.54
139.33a ± 11.70
136.40a ± 13.30
135.87NS ± 12.81
II WK
255.68b ± 38.33
326.65a ± 45.02
339.73a ± 43.31
326.40a ± 44.35
345.15a ± 41.38
343.30a ± 47.65
322.82NS ± 43.34
344.30a ± 36.63
333.15a ± 41.27
333.48a ± 44.27
329.60a ± 31.73
330.80a ± 34.67
331.05a ± 39.65
333.73NS ± 38.04
III WK
501.58b ± 69.63
600.18a ± 69.98
597.73a ± 84.54
574.75a ± 84.21
613.50a ± 73.69
612.23a ± 94.47
583.33NS ± 79.42
599.88a ± 71.77
588.98a ± 88.62
584.43a ± 71.37
571.60a ± 60.38
569.13a ± 68.09
568.55a ± 71.69
580.43NS ± 71.99
50
50
T2
50
50
T3
50
25
25
T4
100
T5
0.05%
50
25
25
T6
Oil as main factor pooled
100
T7
50
50
T8
Nil
50
50
T9
50
25
25
T10
100
T11
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
Oil as main factor pooled
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Nil
IV WK
946.43c ± 109.65
984.05bc ± 86.23
1068.98a ± 101.35
984.65bc ± 76.48
1035.13ab ± 119.28
1026.98ab ± 126.45
1007.70NS ± 103.24
1045.45ab ± 94.42
1009.00abc ± 133.06
1001.93abc ± 87.65
986.05bc ± 88.53
978.45bc ± 112.87
1003.55abc ± 75.47
1007.07NS ± 98.67
V WK
1404.80cd ± 114.62
1456.78abcd ± 126.50
1545.78a ± 119.54
1402.20cd ± 119.38
1479.40abc ± 123.29
1460.20abcd ± 146.45
1458.19NS ± 124.96
1511.25ab ± 130.67
1449.25bcd ± 152.64
1419.80bcd ± 116.92
1378.20d ± 115.07
1398.43cd ± 119.00
1404.55cd ± 139.49
1426.91NS ± 128.97
Table 4.10a : Analysis of variance on body weight of broilers
MS
Source
df
Treatment
11
Replicate
1
Error
24
R²
CV (%)
I WK
950.62
307.20
220.22
0.14
11.01
II WK
22698.08
6.30
1666.01
0.27
12.43
III WK
35755.77
2679.07
6088.82
0.14
13.41
IV WK
45402.29
153.00
1310339.64
0.13
10.10
V WK
103252.58
16626.30
15843.13
0.17
8.73
VI WK
78963.36
36960.30
35935.84
0.07
10.39
VI WK
1736.28b ± 149.03
1774.78ab ± 170.70
1819.58ab ± 187.07
1780.68ab ± 166.46
1893.98a ± 191.27
1848.13ab ± 208.73
1808.90NS ± 178.88
1855.65ab ± 183.78
1840.53ab ± 200.39
1829.03ab ± 183.56
1871.55ab ± 229.47
1801.33ab ± 200.44
1836.08ab ± 189.64
1839.03NS ± 197.88
81
Table 4.11 : Mean cumulative feed intake of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Soya
Oil
Fish Oil
Enzyme
% Substitution level
of cereal
MZ
RG
SG
100
-
Mean cumulative feed intake (g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD)
Treatment
T1
I WK
117.30bcd ± 2.31
119.28abc ± 3.44
123.65abc ± 1.27
126.35a ± 4.16
124.5ab ± 2.25
121.13abc ± 2.57
122.03a ± 2.67
115.98cde ± 4.76
104.15f ± 1.56
110.15def ± 0.52
108.38ef ± 3.95
120.05abc ± 2.06
115.15cde ± 2.60
112.31b ± 2.24
II WK
414.50de ± 6.58
449.00ab ± 8.08
439.00abc ± 3.46
426.50bcd ± 5.20
448.50ab ± 7.58
451.50a ± 5.20
438.17a ± 3.85
418.50cde ± 12.70
397.00e ± 16.17
419.50de ± 6.00
422.50cd ± 5.20
433.00abcd ± 2.31
415.50de ± 6.35
417.67b ± 7.12
III WK
824.50e ± 3.58
886.50abc ± 8.66
885.00abc ± 6.93
885.00abc ± 8.08
909.50ab ± 1.73
913.50a ± 5.77
884.00a ± 5.29
830.50e ± 15.59
849.00de ± 30.02
855.00cde ± 1.73
878.50bcd ± 4.04
877.50bcd ± 7.51
827.25e ± 3.20
852.96b ± 10.35
50
50
T2
50
50
T3
50
25
25
T4
100
T5
0.05%
50
25
25
T6
Oil as main factor pooled
100
T7
50
50
T8
Nil
50
50
T9
50
25
25
T10
100
T11
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
Oil as main factor pooled
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Nil
Table 4.11a : Analysis of variance on weekly feed intake of broilers
df
MS
Source
I WK
II WK
III WK
IV WK
Treatment 11
187.37
1148.18
3760.57
122.33
Replicate 1
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
Error
24
89.61
78.42
181.90
216.42
R²
0.88
0.87
0.90
0.98
CV (%)
2.95
0.07
1.55
0.94
IV WK
1442.50h ± 4.73
1637.50bc ± 16.74
1530.00fg ± 10.40
1526.00fg ± 9.00
1647.00b ± 13.86
1692.50a ± 5.20
1575.25a ± 7.99
1434.50h ± 14.43
1607.50cd ± 25.98
1559.50ef ± 9.81
1638.00bc ± 3.46
1593.00de ± 4.62
1520.00g ± 10.39
1558.75b ± 11.38
V WK
59165.66
0.00
160.21
0.99
0.51
V WK
2354.00f ± 10.36
2595.00c ± 15.01
2431.00d ± 11.55
2417.00ef ± 1.15
2598.50bc ± 14.43
2653.00a ± 1.15
2508.08a ± 8.94
2305.50g ± 13.28
2483.00d ± 16.17
2399.50ef ± 9.81
2582.00b ± 2.31
2449.50d ± 2.89
2283.50h ± 7.51
2417.17b ± 8.66
VI WK
109837.85
0.00
383.21
0.99
0.58
VI WK
3286.00f ± 13.86
3527.50c ± 16.74
3373.50d ± 12.12
3309.00ef ± 9.24
3564.00bc ± 25.40
3672.00a ± 13.86
3455.33a ± 15.20
3199.50g ± 16.74
3367.00d ± 18.48
3307.00ef ± 9.24
3613.00b ± 27.71
3356.50de ± 2.89
3142.50h ± 6.36
3330.92b ± 13.57
82
Table 4.12 : Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
Treatment wise:
% Substitution
level of cereal
MZ
RG SG
100
50
50
Nil
Soya
50
50
Oil
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
100
50
50
Nil
Fish
50
50
Oil
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Type
of Oil
Enzyme
Mean feed conversion ratio at the end of: (Mean ± SD)
Treatment
I WK
II WK
III WK
IV WK
V WK
VI WK
0.97a ± 0.02
1.62a ± 0.01
1.64a ± 0.01
1.52de ± 0.02
1.68e ± 0.02
1.89c ± 0.01
0.90a ± 0.02
1.37b ± 0.02
1.48cd ± 0.02
1.66a ± 0.02
1.78c ± 0.02
1.99a ± 0.02
a
cde
cd
f
g
0.90 ± 0.02
1.29 ± 0.02
1.48 ± 0.02
1.43 ± 0.03
1.57 ± 0.02
1.85ef ± 0.01
b
cd
b
cd
d
0.92 ± 0.02
1.31 ± 0.01
1.54 ± 0.01
1.55 ± 0.01
1.72 ± 0.01
1.86de ± 0.02
a
cd
cd
b
c
0.90 ± 0.04
1.30 ± 0.02
1.48 ± 0.02
1.59 ± 0.01
1.76 ± 0.01
1.88cd ± 0.01
a
c
c
a
b
0.90 ± 0.04
1.32 ± 0.02
1.49 ± 0.02
1.65 ± 0.02
1.82 ± 0.01
1.99a ± 0.02
a
a
a
a
a
0.92 ± 0.03
1.37 ± 0.02
1.52 ± 0.02
1.57 ± 0.02
1.72 ± 0.02
1.91a ± 0.02
c
f
e
g
h
T7
0.86 ± 0.01
1.22 ± 0.02
1.38 ± 0.02
1.37 ± 0.02
1.53 ± 0.01
1.72h ± 0.01
e
f
d
b
de
T8
0.78 ± 0.01
1.19 ± 0.01
1.44 ± 0.02
1.59 ± 0.02
1.71 ± 0.01
1.83fg ± 0.01
cd
e
cd
bc
de
T9
0.81 ± 0.01
1.26 ± 0.02
1.46 ± 0.02
1.56 ± 0.02
1.69 ± 0.01
1.81g ± 0.01
de
de
b
a
a
T10
0.80 ± 0.01
1.28 ± 0.02
1.54 ± 0.03
1.66 ± 0.02
1.87 ± 0.01
1.93b ± 0.02
c
cd
b
a
c
T11
0.86 ± 0.01
1.31 ± 0.02
1.54 ± 0.03
1.63 ± 0.01
1.75 ± 0.02
1.86de ± 0.01
cd
e
cd
e
f
T12
0.84 ± 0.01
1.26 ± 0.02
1.46 ± 0.02
1.51 ± 0.01
1.63 ± 0.02
1.71h ± 0.01
0.83b ± 0.01
1.25b ± 0.01
1.47b ± 0.02
1.55b ± 0.02
1.69b ± 0.01
1.81b ± 0.01
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
Table 4.12a : Analysis of variance on feed conversion ratio of broilers.
df
Source
Treatment
11
Replicate
1
Error
24
R²
CV (%)
MS
I WK
0.01
0.01
0.0058
0.96
1.78
II WK
0.05
0.01
0.0043
0.99
1.02
III WK
0.02
0.01
0.0069
0.97
1.13
IV WK
0.03
0.01
0.0051
0.99
0.93
V WK
0.04
0.01
0.0036
0.99
0.71
VI WK
0.03
0.1
0.0032
0.99
0.62
83
Table 4.13 : Mean livability of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial
Treatment wise:
Type of Oil
Enzyme
Nil
Soya Oil
0.05%
% Substitution level of cereal
Treatment
Livability (%)
(Mean ± SD)
MZ
100
RG
-
SG
-
T1
92.5a ± 0.00
50
50
-
T2
95b ± 1.06
50
-
50
T3
95b ± 0.70
50
25
25
T4
100c ± 0.00
100
-
-
T5
95b ± 0.70
50
25
25
T6
100c ± 0.00
96.25a ± 0.41
Oil as main factor pooled
Nil
Fish Oil
0.05%
100
-
-
T7
97.5bc ± 1.41
50
50
-
T8
100c ± 0.00
50
-
50
T9
100c ± 0.00
50
25
25
T10
97.5bc ± 1.41
100
-
-
T11
100c ± 0.00
50
25
25
T12
100c ± 0.00
Oil as main factor pooled
99.16b ± 0.47
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
84
Table 4.14 : Mean dressing percentage of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Soya
Oil
Fish Oil
% Substitution level
of cereal
Enzyme
MZ
RG
Dressing (% ) (Mean ± SD)
Treatment
SG
CarcassNS
GizzardNS
LiverNS
HeartNS
100
T1
64.23 ± 8.38
1.81 ± 0.44
2.54 ± 0.51
0.43 ± 0.06
50
50
T2
66.17 ± 2.22
1.65 ± 0.11
2.10 ± 0.25
0.47 ± 0.08
Nil
50
50
T3
65.34 ± 0.56
1.78 ± 0.58
2.60 ± 0.45
0.53 ± 0.26
50
25
25
T4
64.64 ± 3.17
1.66 ± 0.37
2.64 ± 0.60
0.52 ± 0.08
100
T5
65.33 ± 2.01
1.71 ± 0.21
2.36 ± 0.36
0.46 ± 0.06
0.05%
50
25
25
T6
67.23 ± 1.40
1.63 ± 0.19
1.95 ± 0.07
0.51 ± 0.06
Oil as main factor pooled
65.49b ± 2.96
1.71a ± 0.32
2.37a ± 0.37
0.49 a± 0.10
100
T7
67.86 ± 4.88
1.66 ± 0.22
2.60 ± 0.16
0.47 ± 0.05
50
50
T8
65.90 ± 2.01
1.55 ± 0.16
2.40 ± 0.16
0.48 ± 0.08
Nil
50
50
T9
66.23 ± 0.73
1.60 ± 0.17
2.50 ± 0.17
0.60 ± 0.09
50
25
25
T10
66.93 ± 1.25
1.39 ± 0.16
2.37 ± 0.15
0.50 ± 0.05
100
T11
67.31 ± 1.74
1.55 ± 0.14
2.13 ± 0.22
0.52 ± 0.09
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
66.82 ± 1.97
1.60 ± 0.19
2.48 ± 0.34
0.49 ± 0.01
Oil as main factor pooled
66.84a ± 2.10
1.56b ± 0.17
2.41a ± 0.20
0.51 a± 0.06
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
NS – Non-significant
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
FatNS
ThymusNS
BursaNS
SpleenNS
1.14 ± 0.44
1.89 ± 0.39
1.58 ± 0.15
1.67 ± 0.24
1.55 ± 0.77
1.70 ± 0.70
1.76 a± 0.45
1.48 ± 0.70
1.49 ± 0.23
1.49 ± 0.83
1.49 ± 0.46
1.41 ± 0.42
1.31 ± 0.66
1.45b ± 0.55
0.33 ± 0.10
0.33 ± 0.05
0.27 ± 0.08
0.31 ± 0.08
0.26 ± 0.03
0.24 ± 0.11
0.29a ± 0.08
0.42 ± 0.12
0.22 ± 0.11
0.38 ± 0.08
0.22 ± 0.04
0.19 ± 0.05
0.19 ± 0.07
0.27b ± 0.08
0.15 ± 0.09
0.20 ± 0.05
0.16 ± 0.07
0.19 ± 0.09
0.13 ± 0.05
0.19 ± 0.04
0.15b ± 0.07
0.18 ± 0.06
0.19 ± 0.06
0.21 ± 0.09
0.22 ± 0.04
0.19 ± 0.05
0.19 ± 0.07
0.20a ± 0.20
0.16 ± 0.04
0.12 ± 0.03
0.14 ± 0.07
0.17 ± 0.06
0.15 ± 0.05
0.14 ± 0.04
0.15a ± 0.05
0.17 ± 0.08
0.14 ± 0.05
0.13 ± 0.03
0.14 ± 0.02
0.14 ± 0.03
0.13 ± 0.02
0.14a ± 0.04
Table 4.14a : Analysis of variance on dressing percentage
Source
df
Treatment
11
Replicate
1
Error
24
R²
CV (%)
Carcass
5.0822369
0.2324
10.73
0.13
4.95
Gizzard
0.04968693
0.00013
0.079
0.16
17.20
Liver
0.19922652
0.02017
0.1068
0.36
13.69
MS
Heart
Fat
0.00784697
0.20312936
0.000022
0.1213
0.0098
0.30
0.20
0.17
19.99
34.11
Thymus
0.01580511
0.000021
0.0077
0.39
27.76
Bursa
0.00286061
0.000032
0.0046
0.16
36.90
Spleen
0.00107784
0.000023
0.0023
0.13
33.08
85
Table 4.15 : Mean values of various sensory evaluation of parameters broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.
Treatment wise:
% Substitution
Sensory evaluation score1 (Mean ± SD)
level
of
cereal
Enzyme
Treatment
JuicinessNS
Texture NS
Taste NS
FlavorNS
Overall acceptanceNS
MZ RG
SG
100
T1
3.19 ± 0.33
3.29 ± 0.14
3.48 ± 0.03
3.23 ± 0.54
3.33 ± 0.12
50
50
T2
3.30 ± 0.39
3.49 ± 0.33
3.55 ± 0.17
3.33 ± 0.22
3.43 ± 0.17
Nil
50
50
T3
3.24 ± 0.35
3.48 ± 0.30
3.43 ± 0.33
3.38 ± 0.31
3.40 ± 0.27
Soya Oil
50
25
25
T4
3.49 ± 0.30
3.66 ± 0.32
3.58 ± 0.20
3.60 ± 0.32
3.59 ± 0.11
100
T5
3.31 ± 0.24
3.50 ± 0.31
3.43 ± 0.20
3.43 ± 0.36
3.45 ± 0.09
0.05%
50
25
25
T6
3.35 ± 0.32
3.53 ± 0.43
3.35 ± 0.14
3.60 ± 0.37
3.48 ± 0.13
Oil as main factor pooled
3.31b ± 0.32
3.49a ± 0.31
3.47a ± 0.18
3.43a ± 0.35
3.45a ± 0.15
100
T7
3.48 ± 0.39
3.68 ± 0.29
3.28 ± 0.40
3.23 ± 0.21
3.44 ± 0.22
50
50
T8
3.69 ± 0.26
3.63 ± 0.33
3.30 ± 0.26
3.65 ± 0.28
3.60 ± 0.15
Nil
50
50
T9
3.74 ± 0.27
3.60 ± 0.49
3.45 ± 0.21
3.55 ± 0.23
3.59 ± 0.19
Fish Oil
50
25
25
T10
3.43 ± 0.25
3.35 ± 0.26
3.43 ± 0.31
3.53 ± 0.26
3.45 ± 0.13
100
T11
3.43 ± 0.31
3.40 ± 0.24
3.30 ± 0.37
3.35 ± 0.37
3.39 ± 0.25
0.05%
50
25
25
T12
3.43 ± 0.13
3.60 ± 0.29
3.30 ± 0.29
3.36 ± 0.21
3.44 ± 0.16
Oil as main factor pooled
3.53a ± 0.27
3.54a ± 0.32
3.34b ± 0.31
3.45a ± 0.26
3.49a ± 0.18
1
Representing the scores on a specific scale
NS – Non-significant
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Type of
Oil
Table 4.15a : Analysis of variance on sensory evaluation
Source
Treatment
Replicate
Error
R²
CV (%)
df
11
1
24
Texture
Flavor
MS
Taste
Juiciness
Overall acceptance
0.21
0.00
0.09
0.33
8.94
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.25
8.14
0.12
0.38
0.10
0.24
9.21
0.17
0.00
0.10
0.31
9.25
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.30
5.08
86
Table 4.16 : Mean values of different blood serum lipid profile parameters of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth
trial.
Treatment wise:
% Substitution
Blood serum lipid profile ( mg/dl) (Mean ± SD)
level of cereal
Enzyme
Treatment
MZ RG
SG
Triglycerides
Cholesterol
HDL
LDL
VLDL
a
ab
abc
cd
100
T1
42.75 ± 8.14
117.85 ± 0.75
69.40 ± 0.92
22.80 ± 1.62
9.35 a ± 2.02
a
a
c
cd
50
50
T2
33.90 ± 3.23
125.10 ± 0.46
57.70 ± 9.24
21.40 ± 0.23
6.95ab ± 0.40
Nil
a
ab
abc
d
50
50
T3
29.45 ± 2.94
113.90 ± 6.12
68.45 ± 1.56
19.75 ± 1.56
6.20ab ± 0.58
Soya Oil
a
b
bc
d
50
25
25
T4
23.70 ± 2.19
109.20 ± 4.04
59.50 ± 2.77
21.00 ± 0.00
4.90b ± 0.23
a
ab
abc
d
100
T5
29.90 ± 9.93
119.70 ± 2.77
65.10 ± 2.69
21.60 ± 2.54
5.90b ± 1.85
0.05%
a
ab
abc
d
50
25
25
T6
24.55 ± 8.60
112.0 ± 13.16
65.10 ± 2.69
20.30 ± 0.57
4.85b ± 0.17
b
a
b
b
Oil as main factor pooled
30.71 ± 5.84
116.29 ± 4.55
64.20 ± 3.31
21.14 ± 1.09
6.36 b ± 0.88
a
c
a
a
100
T7
38.05 ± 1.67
89.40 ± 1.15
84.05 ± 8.37
32.10 ± 1.04
7.75ab ± 0.29
a
c
ab
a
50
50
T8
37.90 ± 8.31
84.80 ± 3.23
81.45 ± 8.49
33.50 ± 4.10
7.70ab ± 1.50
Nil
50
50
T9
30.85a ± 4.79
88.60c ± 6.00
74.40abc ± 13.97
27.55abc ± 1.91
6.30ab ± 1.04
Fish Oil
a
c
abc
bcd
50
25
25
T10
35.90 ± 7.51
85.10 ± 2.31
74.05 ± 3.41
24.85 ± 0.52
7.10ab ± 1.27
a
c
abc
ab
100
T11
36.80 ± 5.43
88.10 ± 2.89
81.00 ± 7.74
29.30 ± 2.54
7.40ab ± 1.15
0.05%
a
c
abc
ab
50
25
25
T12
26.90 ± 2.19
93.35 ± 3.29
75.40 ± 10.05
29.90 ± 2.54
5.40b ± 0.35
a
b
a
a
Oil as main factor pooled
34.40 ± 4.98
88.23 ± 3.15
78.39 ± 8.67
29.53 ± 2.11
6.96 a ± 0.93
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
Type of
Oil
Table 4.16a : Analysis of variance on blood serum lipid profile of broilers.
Source
df
Cholesterol
937.66
MS
HDL
278.06
LDL
95.60
VLDL
6.99
Treatment
11
Triglycerides
141.01
Replication
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Error
24
56.04
38.48
84.50
5.82
1.82
0.54
22.99
0.92
6.07
0.60
12.80
0.88
9.53
0.64
20.29
R²
CV (%)
87
Table 4.17 : Mean net returns of broilers fed different experimental diets.
Treatment wise:
Type of
Oil
Soya Oil
Fish Oil
% Substitution level of
cereal
Enzyme
MZ
RG
SG
100
50
50
Nil
50
50
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
100
50
50
Nil
50
50
50
25
25
100
0.05%
50
25
25
Oil as main factor pooled
Treatment
Net returns (Rs.)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
15.48d ± 0.01
14.35a ± 0.04
16.38g ± 0.01
15.32c ± 0.01
16.10g ± 0.01
14.56b ± 0.01
15.37b ± 0.01
18.10i ± 0.01
18.47j ± 0.01
18.51k ± 0.01
16.81h ± 0.01
15.75e ± 0.01
19.36l ± 0.01
17.83a ± 0.02
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
T12
MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum
Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.
88