Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 8 Number 12 (2019) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.812.018 Studies on Supplementation of Feed Additives on Carcass Characteristics and Slaughter Losses of Babcock Cockerels Deepak Thakur1*, V. N. Khune2, Alakh Ram Gour1, Arvind K. Nandanwar3 and Y. P. Chandra4 1 Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Balod, Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, 2 Department of Livestock Production and Management, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Chhattisgarh, India 3 Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Mahasamund, Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India 4 Department of Livestock Development, Raigarh, Government of Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Cockerel, Protexin, Ambiplex, Metazyme, Meat, Percentage, Weight, Supplementation Article Info Accepted: 04 November 2019 Available Online: 10 December 2019 The study was conducted on Babcock strain in the poultry unit of College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Chhattisgarh to study the effect of supplementation of three commercially feed additives viz., Ambiplex, Protexin and Metazyme on carcass characteristics and slaughter losses of Babcock cockerels poultry birds. The Day old cockerel chicks were divided into four groups including control group up to 10 weeks. Each group had three replicates of 15 birds in each replicate The analysis of variance revealed that there was no significant effect in carcass characteristics viz., live weight (847.67 to 905.67 g), dressed weight (75.26 to 76.49%), eviscerated weight (70.12 to 71.70%) and giblet weight (4.75 to 5.14%) in all treatment groups. However, the mean values for bled weight percentage in T4 (97.04±0.15) group was significantly (P<0.05) higher than T2 (95.92±0.11) group. However above groups were statistically similar to T1 and T3 groups (96.36±0.12 and 96.44±0.38 respectively). In slaughter losses, the mean values of Feather loss (7.04 to 7.41), Evisceration loss (14.23 to 16.11) and Total loss (25.04 to 26.39) percentages among the treatment groups differed non-significantly. However, the mean blood loss percentage in T4 group (2.96±0.15) was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that of T2 (4.08±0.11) group. They were statistically similar to T1 (Control) and T3 groups (3.64±0.12 and 3.56±0.38 respectively). 118 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 Introduction Cockerel farming is an indispensable component of poultry development with the rapidly increasing trends of commercial cockerel farming both urban and rural areas in India. In some parts of India, consumers prefer cockerel for its light weight and tender meat (Mohan et al., 1990). Cockerels birds can be sold as the alternate of desi poultry birds at higher rate than that of broiler birds because of the consumer’s prefer for its meat, characterized by leanness and good flavour. Cockerel rearing is increasing due to low cost of chicks price, higher market price than broilers, less morbidity and mortality, minimum management cost, minimum initial investment, higher market demand, low fat and cholesterol compared to broilers meat, less disease susceptible compared to other poultry, high organoleptic preference, family labour utilization and easier management. Cockerels are hardier than the broiler birds and flavour, taste, tenderness and juiciness are similar to the indigenous poultry birds. Cockerel meat contains 56% water and 320 calories / 100g of meat energy (Singh, 1990). Major research regarding effect of supplementation of feed additives viz., amino acids, vitamins, probiotics and multienzymes is less to broiler and layer birds. Studies regarding improving nutritive value of cockerel meat by supplementation of different feed additives would give accuracy to feeding management of this cockerel farming. There were lots of studies on feed additive supplementation in broiler diet (Das et al., 2007). However information on the supplementation of feed additives in cockerel diets and their effect on carcass characteristics and slaughter loss percentage are scanty in Babcock cockerels. Hence present study was carried out to determine the effect of supplementation of feed additives i.e. Ambiplex (contain Nutritional value per 5 ml Vitamin B2- 2.5 mg, Vitamin B6- 1.0 mg, Vitamin B1- 7.0 mg, Vitamin B12- 12.5 mcg, Biotin- 25.0 mcg, Niacin- 75.0 mg, Choline Chloride- 10.0 mg, Calcium Pantothenate- 2.5 mg, Lysine- 20.0 mg, Methionine- 10.0 mg), Protexin (contain Each 1g of Protexin contain Lactobacillus acidophilus 2.06 × 108 cfu/g, Lactobacillus plantarum 1.26 × 108 cfu/g,, Lactobacillus casei 2.06 × 108 cfu/g, Lactobacillus bulgaricus 2.06×108cfu/g, Streptococcus faecium 5.40 × 108 cfu/g, Steptococcus thermophilus 4.10 × 108 cfu/g, Bifidobacterium bifidum 2.00 × 108 cfu/g, Yeasts– Torulopsis species 5.32 × 107 cfu/g and Aspergillus oryzae 5.32 × 107 cfu/g, Total viable count 2 × 109 cfu/g and Metazyme BP (contain Cellulase, Protease, Hemicellulase, Xylanase, Pectinase, Phytase, B Glucanase, Amylase, B mannanase, Lipase with additional phytase activity of 200 FYT/g) on carcass characteristics and slaughter loss percentage of Babcock cockerel. Materials and Methods Day old BV 300 strain of 180 number Babcock cockerel chicks were distributed into four groups, including three replicates with 15 chicks each. The chicks of all groups were reared in separate pens on litter make up of rice husk and offered basal feed i.e. cockerel starter and finisher ration for 0-5 and 6-10 weeks. The cockerel starter feed (0-5 weeks) contained 3.4, 18.9, 5.2, 30.9, 4, 12.2 and 9.2%, while the cockerel finisher ration (6-10 weeks) contained 2.1, 19.5, 6.2, 32.2, 4.1,12.4 and 9.4% of fat, protein, fibre, starch, sugar, moisture and ash, respectively. Standard management practices similar to layer chicks were followed in experimental poultry unit during brooding and finisher period. The experimental birds were vaccinated against New Castle Disease at 7th and 21st day and Infectious Bursal Disease at 14th day of age. Beak trimming was performed at 25th day of age. One group was maintained as Control (T1) and three groups were supplemented with different commercial feed additives i.e., Ambiplex (T2) @ 5-6 ml/100 birds for chicks 119 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 & 8-10 ml/100 birds for grower, Protexin (T3) @ 1g/lit of water and Metazyme BP (T4) @ 250g/ton of feed respectively. Body weights of the birds were taken using electronic balance at day old stage then at weekly intervals up to 10 weeks of age. The birds were allowed to fast for 16 hours (Overnight). From traits measured above the following parameters were computed as derived traits However, drinking water was provided ad libitum during fasting. Single bird of each replication was randomly selected for slaughter and dressed slaughtering procedure described by (Kotula et al., 1960) at the end of 10th weeks to study the carcass characteristics parameters i.e. live weight of birds, bled weight percentage, dressed weight percentage, eviscerated weight percentage, giblet weight percentage and Slaughter losses i.e. blood loss percentage, feather loss percentage and evisceration loss percentage.. The data were analyzed using one way ANOVA and for test of significance Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was performed as per the method described by (Snedecor and Cochran, 1994). % Giblet weight Giblet wt. = x 100 Live wt. All the above cuts were weighed separately with sensitive electronic balance, and percent yields were computed in relation to eviscerated weight. All the measurements on the carcass as well as in the live birds were taken to the nearest of 0.5g accuracy. Live weight– The birds were weighed on electronic balance at weekly interval to calculate live weight gain. Bled weight: It is the weight of carcass after bleeding. % Eviscerated weight Eviscerated wt. = x 100 Live wt. % Total meat yield (Dressing %) Eviscerated wt. + giblet wt. = x 100 Live wt. % Blood Loss Live wt. - bled wt. = x 100 Live wt % Feather loss Bled wt. - Dressed wt. = x 100 Live wt. % Eviscerated loss Dressed wt. - (Eviscerated wt. + Giblet wt.) = x 100 Dressed wt. % Total processing loss = % Blood Loss + % Feather loss + % Eviscerated loss Results and Discussion Dressed weight: It is the weight of carcass after defeathering. Eviscerated weight: It is the weight of carcass after evisceration. Giblet weight: It is the weight of liver, heart and gizzard together. The means and standard error for carcass characteristics after slaughter of chicken at the end of 10th weeks in different treatment groups is presented in (Table 1 and Figure 1). In present investigation mean value of live weight of birds taken randomly for study of 120 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 carcass characteristics for T1, T2, T3 and T4 was 905.67±24.88, 847.67±26.39, 849.00±39.88 and 856.00±9.00g, respectively. The mean values of bled weight percentage in T4 was 97.04±0.15 respectively, which were significantly (P<0.05) higher than T2 i.e. 95.92±0.11 respectively. Further which was statistically similar to T1 and T3 groups (96.36±0.12 and 96.44±0.38 respectively). The mean values for dressed weight percentage in T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 76.49±1.28, 76.24±0.20, 75.80±0.88 and 75.26±0.68 respectively, which were statistically non-significant from each other. The mean values for eviscerated weight percentage in T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 71.70±1.36, 71.48±0.36, 70.98±0.87 and 70.12±0.58g respectively, which differed nonsignificantly from each other. The mean values for giblet weight percentage in T1, T2, T3 and T4 were 4.80±0.35, 4.75±0.33, 4.82±0.21 and 5.14±0.27g respectively, which differed non-significantly from each other. Overall except the bled weight percentage significant differences were not found in other carcass characteristics of cockerels of the different treatment groups, indicating no influence of feed additives on these characteristics of cockerels. Similar findings were reported by many research workers (Trishna et al., 2011; Toghyani et al., 2011; Songsak 2008; Mohamed et al., 2008; Ramesh et al., 2011; Rambabu et al., 2011, Zakaria et al.,2010 and Ahmed and Abbas, 2011). losses of cockerels fed with different feed additives at the end of the trial in different treatment groups are presented in (Table 2 and Figure 2). In present investigation mean value of blood loss percentage in T4 group (2.96±0.15) was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that of T2 (4.08±0.11). However, they were statistically similar to T1 (Control) and T3 groups (3.64±0.12 and 3.56±0.38 respectively). The mean values of feather loss percentage in T1, T2, T3 and T4 groups were 7.07±0.24, 7.04±0.36, 7.41±0.74 and 7.32±0.39 respectively, which differed nonsignificantly from each other. The mean values of evisceration loss percentage in T1, T2, T3 and T4 groups were 14.32±1.70, 14.23±0.31, 14.85±0.21 and 16.11±1.00 respectively, which were statistically nonsignificant and T4 groups were 25.04±1.42, 25.34±0.24, 25.82±1.03 and 26.39±0.74 respectively, which differed non-significantly from each other. Present findings are in agreement with the findings of Trishna et al., (2011), Toghyani et al., (2011), Songsak (2008), Rambabu et al., (2011), Singh et al., (2010), Zakaria et al., (2010), Muthukumarasamy et al., (2004) and Onu et al., (2010). The feed additive supplementation had non-significant effect on carcass characteristics live weight, bled weight, dressed weight, eviscerated weight, giblet weight), slaughter losses (feather loss, blood loss, evisceration loss and total loss). In present investigation, no mortality among the experimental bird of any group was observed. The means and standard errors for slaughter Table.1 Mean (±SE) carcass characteristics in cockerels under different treatment groups Traits Live Weight (g) Bled Weight % Dressed Weight % Eviscerated Weight % Giblet Weight % Age in weeks 10 10 10 10 10 T1(control) 905.67±24.88 96.36±0.12ab 76.49±1.28 71.70±1.36 4.80±0.35 T2 847.67±26.39 95.92±0.11b 76.24±0.20 71.48±0.36 4.75±0.33 Means bearing different superscripts in a row differed significantly (P<0.05) 121 T3 849.00±39.88 96.44±0.38ab 75.80±0.88 70.98±0.87 4.82±0.21 T4 856.00±9.00 97.04±0.15a 75.26±0.68 70.12±0.58 5.14±0.27 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 Table.2 Mean (±SE) of slaughter losses in cockerels under different treatment groups Traits Blood loss % Feather loss % Evisceration loss % Total % loss Age in weeks 10 10 10 10 T1(control) 3.64±0.12ab 7.07±0.24 14.32±1.70 25.04±1.42 T2 4.08±0.11a 7.04±0.36 14.23±0.31 25.34±0.24 T3 3.56±0.38ab 7.41±0.74 14.85±0.21 25.82±1.03 T4 2.96±0.15b 7.32±0.39 6.11±1.00 26.39±0.74 Means bearing different superscripts in a row differed significantly (P<0.05) Fig.1 Mean of carcass traits (Percentage) of cockerels under different treatment groups Fig.2 Mean slaughter losses (Percentage) of cockerels under different treatment groups 122 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 118-123 Acknowledgement We are thankful to College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg, 491001, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Chhattisgarh, India References Ahmed, E.M. and Abbas, T.E. 2011. Effect of dietary levels of methionine on broiler performance and carcass characteristics. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 10(2): 147-151. Das, H.K., Medhi, A.K. and Bandyopadhay 2007. Indian Vet. J. 85, 1287-89. Kotula, A.W., Thomson, J.E. and Kinner, J.A. 1960. Poult. Sci. 39, 226-227. Mohamed, M.A., Hassan, H.M.A. and ElBarkouky, E.M.A. 2008. Effect of mannan oligosaccharide on performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chicks. J. Agriculture and Social Science. 4(1): 13-17. Mohan, B., Selvam, S. P., Balkrishnan, D. and Shanmugam, T.R. 1990. Poult. Advisor. 23(9), 27-31. Muthukumarasamy, B., Sahu, B.K., Swain, R.K. and Samantaray, D.P. 2004. Studies on the effect of biocholine supplementation in commercial broilers. Indian J. Poult. Sci. 39(3): 246-251. Onu, P. N., Ayo-Enwerm, M.C. and Ahaotu, E.O. 2010. Evaluation of carcass characteristics and cost effectiveness of broiler chicks fed synthetic lysine and methionine supplemented soybean based diets. Int. J. Sci. and nature. 1(1): 22-26. Rambabu, D., Ravinder, R.V., Qudratullah, S., Reddy, M.R. and Reddy, K.K. 2011. Effect of exogenous enzyme supplementation on certain growth and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Indian J. poult. Sci. 46(2): 189-194. Ramesh, J. and Chandrasekran, D. 2011. Effect of exogenous enzyme supplementation on performance of cockerels. Tamil. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 7(1): 29-34. Singh, J., Verma, C.P. and Sharma, R.K. 2010. Effect of period of supplementation of multi-enzyme of carcass yield and serum minerals in broilers during hot humid weather. Haryana Vet. 49: 59-61. Singh, R.A. 1990. Poultry Production, Third Edition, Kalyani Publishers, India. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W.G. 1994. Statistical methods 8th edn., The Iowa State University Press, Iowa, U.S.A. Songsak, C. 2008. Effect of dietary inclusion of cassava yeast as probiotic source on growth performance, small intestine (Ileum), morphology and carcass characteristic in broilers. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 7(3): 246-250. Toghyani, M., Toghyani, M. and Aiitabeidian, S. 2011. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic as antibiotic growth promoter substitutions on productive and carcass traits of broiler chicks. Int. conference on food engineering and biotechnology. 9: 82-86. Trishna, K. B., Pal Vilas, Dutta Sanjeeb and Sharma, D. R. 2011. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 28(1), 64-67. Zakaria, H.A.H., Jalal, M.A.R. and Abu, I.M.A. 2010. The influence of supplemental multi-enzyme feed additive on the performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality traits of broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 9(2): 126-133. How to cite this article: Deepak Thakur, V. N. Khune, Alakh Ram Gour, Arvind K. Nandanwar and Chandra, Y. P. 2019. Studies on Supplementation of Feed Additives on Carcass Characteristics and Slaughter Losses of Babcock Cockerels. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 8(12): 118-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.812.018 123