determination of gross energy by using...

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 5-60 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

T x W – (C1 + C2 + C3) Gross heat of combustion (cal/g) = 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. b.

Colour and Flavour

: 5= Very desirable; 4 = Desirable; 3 = Moderately desirable; 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

Quality : 5 = Very good; 4 = Good; 3 = Fair; 2 = Poor; 1 = Very poor

Sample No.

Colour Flavour Taste Juiciness Texture Overall 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

Maize Finger millet Sorghum Soybean meal % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)

Treatments 1 2 3(1x2) 4 5 6(4x5) 7 8 9(7x8) 10 11 12(10x11) T1 55.5 6.5 - - - 5 29.5 10.5 T2 27.5 6.5 27.5 4.5 - 5 29 10.5 T3 27.5 6.5 - 4.5 27.5 5 31.5 10.5 T4 27.5 6.5 13.87 4.5 13.87 5 32.5 10.5 T5 55.5 6.5 - 4.5 - 5 29.5 10.5 T6 27.5 6.5 13.87 4.5 13.87 5 31 10.5 T7 55.5 6.5 - 4.5 - 5 29.5 10.5 T8 27.5 6.5 27.5 4.5 - 5 28.5 10.5 T9 27.5 6.5 - 4.5 27.5 5 31.5 10.5 T10 27.5 6.5 13.87 4.5 13.87 5 32 10.5 T11 55.5 6.5 - 4.5 - 5 29.5 10.5 T12 27.75 6.5 13.87 4.5 13.87 5 32.5 10.5

Contd….

Appendix-III contd..

Groundnut extraction Soybean oil Fish oil Mineral mixture % Rs./kg Amount

(Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount



(Rs.) Additives Enzyme Total cost (Rs.) Cost

(Rs.) Treatments

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 Finger millet Sorghum Soybean meal % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.) % Rs./kg Amount (Rs.)

Treatments 1 2 3(1x2) 4 5 6(4x5) 7 8 9(7x8) 10 11 12(10x11) T1 58.75 6.5 - 4.5 - 5.5 24 10.5 T2 29.37 6.5 29.37 4.5 - 5.5 24.25 10.5 T3 29.75 6.5 - 4.5 29.37 5.5 28.5 10.5 T4 29.37 6.5 14.68 4.5 14.68 5.5 26.25 10.5 T5 58.75 6.5 - 4.5 - 5.5 24 10.5 T6 29.37 6.5 14.68 4.5 14.68 5.5 28 10.5 T7 58.75 6.5 - 4.5 - 5.5 24 10.5 T8 29.37 6.5 29.37 4.5 - 5.5 24.25 10.5 T9 29.37 6.5 - 4.5 29.37 5.5 28.5 10.5 T10 29.37 6.5 14.68 4.5 14.68 5.5 26.25 10.5 T11 58.75 6.5 - 4.5 - 5.5 24 10.5 T12 29.37 6.5 14.68 4.5 14.68 5.5 27.5 10.5

Contd….

Appendix-IV contd…

Groundnut extraction Soybean oil Fish oil Mineral mixture % Rs./k

g Amount (Rs.)

% Rs./kg

Amount (Rs.)

% Rs./kg

Amount (Rs.)

% Rs./kg

Amount (Rs.)

Additives

Enzyme Total cost (Rs.)

Cost

(Rs.)

Treatments

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+2

3)

28

T1 10 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 1068.6 10.7

T2 9.25 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 1032.9 10.3

T3 5 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 992.2 9.9

T4 6.75 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 957.9 9.6

T5 10 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 1044.8 10.4

T6 5 10.75

4.25 42

- 3 10 124.25 - 1019.9 10.2

T7 10 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 - 990.9 9.9

T8 9 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 - 1046.6 10.5

T9 5 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 - 1003.9 10.0

T10 6.75 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 - 973.3 9.7

T11 10 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 12 1080.6 10.8

T12 6.75 10.75 - 42

4.25

3 10 124.25 12 1041.5 10.4

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 Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers fed different experimental diets at various cumulative weeks -Metabolic trial. Table No 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 Reference

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

Kurien et al. (1960)

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

EC(W) 854 - 11.73 1.95 - 2.90 - 1.31 1.10

Mahudeshwaran et al. (1972)

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

Balakrishna Rao et al. (1973)

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

Pore and Magar (1979)

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 - -

Wankhede et al. (1979)

Ragi - 09.00 2.10 6.60 - - - - Abate and Gomez (1984)

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

Ravindran (1991)

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)

Non-specific ragi - 09.38 3.96 2.94 1.93 81.79 - - Purushothaman and Thirumalai (1995b)

Ragi 91.60 07.10 1.80 3.80 - - 0.34 0.25 Srilatha Rani, (1995)

Ragi 89.15 05.65 2.19 3.52 4.92 72.87 - - FAO (1998)

Ragi - 07.30 1.30 3.60 2.70 72.00 0.34 0.28 Gideon Glori Doss (2003)

Ragi 7.070 1.11 4.56 5.47 0.31 0.20 Tyagi et al. (2004)

Ragi - 08.39 1.32 6.48 - - 0.61 0.40 Ramarao et al (2004)

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 and Eggum (1983) (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)

Table 2.3: Chemical composition of sorghum. Per cent proximate composition

Sl. No. Crude Protein

Ether Extract

Crude Fibre

Total Ash NFE Calcium Phosphorus Reference

1 10.10 2.50 1.60 1.60 74.20 - - Carpenter and Clegg (1956) 2 10.10 6.70 3.60 2.80 77.60 - - Reddy and Vaidya (1973) 3 11.80 2.97 2.82 - - - - Moir and Connor (1977) 4 11.85 3.46 2.58 1.50 71.08 - - Navin et al. (1980) 5 10.35 2.26 1.77 1.70 - 0.04 0.27 Hulan and Proudfoot (1982) 6 10.91 3.37 - 1.82 - 0.02 0.35 Luies et al. (1982) 7 11.48 2.92 2.41 1.21 80.37 - - Okoh et al. (1982) 8 11.00 2.80 2.00 1.70 - 0.04 0.29 Richard (1986) 9 10.70 3.10 2.20 2.00 - 0.03 0.33 Ibrahim et al. (1986) 10 10.40 1.90 1.60 1.60 72.60 0.02 0.22 Gopalan et al. (1989) 11 8.91 1.42 2.21 2.12 85.34 0.06 0.35 Kank et al. (1991) 12 10.13 2.85 2.48 1.29 83.25 0.05 0.27 Laxshmi Tulasi et al. (2004) 13 10.42 3.15 3.07 2.96 - - - Raju et al. (2004) 14 7.07 1.11 4.56 5.47 - 0.03 0.20 Tyagi et al. (2004)

Table 2.4: Amino acid composition of Sorghum (g/100g protein)

References Amino Acids Bakshy et al.

(1978) Hulan and

Proudfoot (1982) Luies et al.

(1982) Okoh et al.

(1984) Hubbel Charles (1984)

Thakhur et al. (1984)

CSH-5 CSH-6

Mitaru et al. (1983)

Gopalan et al. (2004)

Arginine 4.00 4.14 3.87 3.89 3.70 4.00 5.48 2.97 2.40 Glycine 3.40 3.35 3.58 3.42 3.30 - - 2.46 - Histidine 2.20 2.53 2.33 2.35 2.30 1.74 2.05 1.76 1.60 Isoleucine 3.60 3.90 3.88 4.06 3.80 3.41 3.93 3.18 2.70 Leucine 12.00 13.10 13.10 13.68 13.30 11.52 13.92 11.26 8.80 Lysine 2.20 2.65 2.33 2.24 2.20 1.86 2.60 1.53 1.50 Methionine 2.20 2.11 1.55 - 1.50 1.14 1.27 - 1.00 Phenylalanine 4.90 5.00 4.94 5.52 5.40 5.13 5.46 4.18 3.00 Tyrosine 3.90 3.08 2.90 3.99 3.30 - - 3.47 1.80 Threonine 3.10 2.94 3.49 3.31 3.10 3.14 3.92 2.63 2.10 Tryptophan - 1.27 1.33 - 0.70 - - 0.70 Valine 4.60 5.24 5.04 5.20 5.00 4.89 7.06 4.00 3.40 Cysteine 2.00 0.48 - - 2.00 - - - 0.90 Alanine 8.20 8.81 9.40 9.08 - - - 7.55 - Aspartic Acid 6.10 8.51 6.68 7.10 - - - 5.66 - Glutamic Acid 19.20 2083 19.48 21.67 - - - 17.20 - Proline 8.00 8.64 8.14 9.24 8.00 - - 6.78 - Serine 4.30 3.27 4.46 4.59 4.40 - - 3.42 -

Table 2.5: The amino acids availability of sorghum and maize to chicks

Sorghum1 Amino acid%2 Digestibility coefficients2% Amino acid% Mean availability% Sorghum Maize Sorghum Maize Aspartic acid 0.808 84.8 - - - - Threonine 0.343 77.9 0.31 0.32 80 84 Serine 0.493 81.6 - - - - Glutamic acid 3.029 87.9 - - - - Proline 0.793 78.3 - - - - Glycine 0.366 75.8 - - - - Alanine 1.134 85.4 - - - - Valine 0.516 82.4 0.44 0.42 86 88 Cystine 0.214 91.1 0.16 0.19 80 88 Methionine 0.2 88.6 0.17 0.18 88 91 Isoleucine 0.408 83.8 0.34 0.31 88 89 Leucine 1.617 86.4 0.99 1.07 93 93 Tyrosine 0.452 85.8 - - - - Phenylalanine 0.539 84.1 - - - - Lysine 0.285 81.9 0.24 0.27 78 82 Histidine 0.236 77.3 0.2 0.26 86 91 Arginine 0.39 85.2 0.37 0.44 78 90

1Stephenson et al. (1967), 2Degussa (2001).

Table 2.6: Amino acid composition (% of protein) of sorghum and maize and their digestibility coefficients

Sorghum cultivars Digestibility coefficient (%) Amino acid Sorghum Maize

S 35 PSV 16 CSV 15 CSH 16 Sorghum Maize Methionine 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.16 88 91

Cystine 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.

ME TME Predicted ME

References

1 3.4 - 3.35 Carpenter and Clegg (1956)

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 Basavaraj Reddy (1984)

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)

Table 2.8: Tannin content of sorghum grain (% dry matter)

Sl. No. Tannin Variety Reference 1 0.37

2.66 RS-610 IS-8260

Armstrong et al. (1973)

2 4.53 0.54

BR-64 RS-26

Bakshy et al. (1978)

3 0.48 NSA - 740 Navin et al. (1980) 4 0.37 - Hulan and Proudfoot (1982) 5 0.56 - Luies et al. (1982) 6 0.33 - Newton (1982) 7 0.21

0.01 L-538 HP-8

Okoh et al. (1982)

8 2.20 3.70

AR-300 P-570

Mitrau et al. (1983)

9 0.11-0.92 - Cao et al. (1985) 10 0.28 – 0.94 - Halley et al. (1986) 11 0.20

0.15 Sudan Egyptian Ibrahim et al. (1988)

12 0.72 - Nagra et al, (1990) 13 1.24

2.23 CSH-1 CSH-5

Kank et al. (1991)

122

Table 2.9: Importance of sorghum feeding in poultry SL. No. Level of inclusion replacing

maize (%) Type of chicks and

duration of experiment Results Reference

1 25 / 50 / 75 / 100 Commercial broilers 0 - 8 weeks

100% replacement gave non-significant (non-significant) differences in weight gain and feed efficiency but xanthophyl deficiency was observed

Syed et al. (1975)

2 25 / 50 / 75 Day old cobb broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

Weight gain, feed conversion and per cent A grade carcass were non-significant at 75 per cent replacement

Hulan and Proudfoot (1982)

3 50 / 100 Crossbred broiler chicks 0 - 8 weeks

CSH-6 cultivar can replace maize up to 50% with non-significant difference in body weight, feed intake and feed efficiency

Thakur et al(1984)

4 25 / 50 / 75 / 100 Hubbard male broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

Non-significant difference at 100% replacement in weight gain and feed efficiency.

Cao et al. (1985)

5 33 / 66 / 100 Crossbred broiler chicks 0 - 8 weeks

66% replacement showed non-significant results in weight gain, feed intake and feed efficiency

Mehta et al., (1985)

6 50 / 100 Hubbard broiler chicks 0 - 8 weeks

SPV-346 cultivar can replace maize by 100% with non-significant differences in weight gain, feed intake and feed efficiency.

Thakur et al. (1985)

7 25 / 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 8 weeks

Weight gain and feed efficiency were non-significant at 100% replacement

Asha Rajini et al. (1986)

8 25 / 50 / 75 / 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 8 weeks

Feed efficiency was unaffected with 75% replacement but weight gain was non-significant at 50% replacement

Nagra et al. (1990)

9 50 / 75 / 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

CSH-5 cultivar can replace maize up to 100%. Feed efficiency, bodyweight at 50% were non-significant

Aravinda Bhat (1991)

10 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

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

Raju et al. (2003)

Contd….

123

Table 2.9 contd…

11 Sorghum Broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

Increased feed conversion ratio as the level of sorghum increased

Kumar et al. (2005)

12 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

Body weight in sorghum fed group to maize fed group. Enzyme supplementation showed no effect on body weight

Raju et al. (2004)


Body weight gain, feed intake, feed efficiency, carcass characteristics and immune response statistically non significant

Elangovan et al. (2005)


Feed intake, weight gain, mortality rate, dressing percentage were statistically non significant

Thirumalesh et al. (2005)

15 70 / 85 / 100 Vencobb broilers 0 - 6 weeks

70 and 85% level reduced the percentage retention of nutrients significantly

Salunkhe et al. (2005)

16 50 / 75 / 100 Broiler chicks 0 - 6 weeks

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 non-significant results

Sannamani et al. (2005)

17 Maize + sorghum Broiler chicks, 0 - 6 weeks

Increased feed conversion ratio at different levels Mandal et al. (2006)

124

Table 3.1: Per cent ingredient composition of broiler starter diets used in metabolic trial

Ingredients T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 Yellow Maize 55.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 55.50 27.50 55.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 55.50 27.50 Soybean meal extraction 29.50 29.00 31.50 32.50 29.50 31.00 29.50 28.50 31.50 32.00 29.50 32.50

Groundnut Extraction 9.00 9.50 7.50 6.50 9.00 7.60 9.00 10.50 7.50 6.50 9.00 6.50 Ragi 27.50 13.87 13.87 27.50 13.87 13.87 Sorghum 27.50 13.87 13.87 27.50 13.87 13.87 Soya Oil 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Fish Oil 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Mineral premix1 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Vitamin – D3 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Vitamin - AB2D32K 2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Vitamin- B complex 2 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Methionine 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Anacox 3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Furazolidonepure 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Anazyme 5 - - - - 0.05 0.05 - - - - 0.05 0.05 ME (kcal/kg) 3125 3001 3045 3029 3125 3029 3125 3001 3045 3029 3125 3020 CP 20.47 20.36 20.30 20.16 20.42 20.16 20.47 20.36 20.30 20.16 20.47 20.61 Ca 0.97 1.06 0.98 1.02 0.97 1.02 0.97 1.06 0.98 1.02 0.97 1.02 P 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.43 Lysine 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.01 1.05 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.01 1.06 Methionine 0.46 0.50 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.50 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.48

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Anacox a coccidiostat product from Ranbaxy India Limited, New Delhi was added at 50g per 100kg of feed. 4. Furazolidone pure was added to the diet at 0.01 kg per 100 kg of the diet. 5. 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 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 Yellow Maize 58.75 29.37 29.37 29.37 58.75 29.37 58.75 29.37 29.37 29.37 58.75 29.37 Soybean meal extraction 24.00 24.25 28.50 26.25 24.00 28.00 24.00 24.25 28.50 26.25 24.00 27.50 Groundnut Extraction 10.00 9.25 5.00 6.75 10.00 5.00 10.00 9.00 5.00 6.75 10.00 6.75 Ragi 29.37 14.68 14.68 29.37 14.68 14.68 Sorghum 29.37 14.68 14.68 29.37 14.68 14.68 Soya oil 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 Fish Oil 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 Mineral Premix1 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Vitamin – D3 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Vitamin - AB2D3K 2 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Vitamin- B complex 2 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Salt 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Methionine 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Anacox 3 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Furazolidonepure 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Anazyme 5 - - - - 0.05 0.05 - - - - 0.05 0.05 ME (kcal/kg) 3130 3110 3099 3075 3103 3096 3075 3102 3084 3086 3126 3096 CP 19.17 19.18 19.55 19.44 19.75 19.61 19.35 19.83 19.62 19.35 19.67 19.73 Ca 1.23 1.26 1.22 1.19 1.22 1.18 1.15 1.23 1.18 1.15 1.26 1.21 P 0.46 0.49 0.47 0.51 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.45 Lysine 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.08 1.04 1.09 1.06 1.04 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.04 Methionine 0.48 0.49 0.61 0.63 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.51 0.52

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Anacox a coccidiostat product from Ranbaxy India Limited, New Delhi was added at 50g per 100kg of feed. 4. Furazolidone pure was added to the diet at 0.01 kg per 100 kg of the diet. 5. 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

Inclusion level (%) Treatment group Maize Ragi Sorghum Soybean

oil Fish oil Enzyme

T1 50 - - 3 - - T2 - 50 - 3 - - T3 - - 50 3 - - T4 - 25 25 3 - - T5 50 - - 3 - 0.05 T6 - 25 25 3 - 0.05 T7 50 - - - 3 - T8 - 50 - - 3 - T9 - - 50 - 3 - T10 - 25 25 - 3 - T11 50 - - - 3 0.05 T12 - 25 25 - 3 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: % Substitution level of cereal % Nutrient Type of

Oil Enzym

e MZ RG SG

Treatment

DM CP CF EE TA NFE 100 - - T1 91.34 21.32 2.85 5.23 7.65 62.95

50 50 - T2 91.53 21.15 2.96 5.27 7.53 63.09

50 - 50 T3 91.64 21.06 3.10 5.65 7.43 62.76 Nil

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

Soya

Oil

0.05% 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 Nil

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

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 91.15 20.96 3.19 5.68 8.31 61.86

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

of cereal Mean Body weight(g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

I wkNS II wk III wk

100 - - T1 112.45 ± 16.55 250.35d ± 42.27 502.15bc ± 67.33 50 50 - T2 127.15 ± 16.92 328.70a ± 39.11 584.90ab ± 52.05 50 - 50 T3 112.40 ± 20.66 286.90abcd ± 57.12 520.75abc ± 105.00 Nil

50 25 25 T4 123.80 ± 15.43 319.90ab ± 34.81 568.95abc ± 63.45 100 - - T5 122.15 ± 22.37 329.25a ± 52.25 602.20a ± 77.78

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 122.00 ± 12.41 315.25ab ± 31.26 573.90abc ± 68.31 Oil as main factor pooled 119.90NS ± 17.39 305.06NS ± 42.80 558.80NS ± 72.32

100 - - T7 125.95 ± 14.18 313.95ab ± 32.89 587.95ab ± 59.18 50 50 - T8 119.55 ± 14.32 294.85abc ± 39.41 563.55abc ± 84.10 50 - 50 T9 119.90 ± 18.79 315.75ab ± 40.08 576.15abc ± 65.06 Nil

50 25 25 T10 109.80 ± 12.10 298.80abc ± 46.45 538.25abc ± 86.73 100 - - T11 118.55 ± 15.88 282.35bcd ± 36.62 494.60c ± 60.97

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 112.95 ± 17.27 264.60d ± 53.50 510.20bc ± 89.94 Oil as main factor pooled 117.78NS ± 15.42 295.05NS ± 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

MS Source df I WK II WK III WK

Treatment 11 134.86 2480.65 5477.20 Replicate 1 0.7763 1.33 0.002 Error 24 2.12 3.19 1.98

R² 0.97 0.99 0.99 CV (%) 1.22 0.96 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

cereal Mean cumulative feed intake (g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

I wk II wk III wk

100 - - T1 87.10a ± 6.92 295.70a ± 14.84 647.20c ± 7.63 50 50 - T2 90.80ab ± 3.67 278.30a ± 16.97 644.65c ± 1.20 50 - 50 T3 127.40de ± 10.04 363.95b ± 8.41 562.90b ± 1.83 Nil

50 25 25 T4 109.15c ± 2.33 308.55a ± 0.35 612.30bc ± 5.09 100 - - T5 120.10cde ± 0.28 312.00a ± 6.78 591.05bc ± 2.19

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 135.35e ± 3.74 297.00a ± 4.24 622.65c ± 19.30 Oil as main factor pooled 111.65a ± 4.50 309.25a ± 8.60 613.46a ± 6.21

100 - - T7 116.00cd ± 5.79 301.90 a ± 9.75 525.35a ± 26.37 50 50 - T8 104.15bc ± 1.90 292.90 a ± 18.38 539.50a ± 31.81 50 - 50 T9 110.15c ± 0.63 305.10 a ± 0.70 540.05a ± 2.47 Nil

50 25 25 T10 110.65cd ± 7.99 313.85 a ± 15.34 558.20a ± 22.62 100 - - T11 120.05cde ± 0.07 315.15 a ± 8.27 544.50a ± 15.98

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 115.15cd ± 3.18 295.55 a ± 11.66 511.45a ± 9.97 Oil as main factor pooled 112.69b ± 3.26 305.25b ± 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

MS Source df I WK II WK III WK

Treatment 11 378.69 871.56 18272.32 Replicate 1 75.26 367.38 110.08 Error 24 0.0006 104.53 267.04

R² 1.00 0.89 0.99 CV (%) 1.92 1.59 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: % Substitution level of cereal Mean Feed Conversion Ratio at the end of: Type of

Oil Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment I wk II wk III wk

100 - - T1 0.77f ± 0.01 1.18b ± 0.02 1.29a ± 0.02 50 50 - T2 0.71g ± 0.01 0.85g ± 0.02 1.10b ± 0.02 50 - 50 T3 1.13a ± 0.01 1.27a ± 0.02 1.08b ± 0.01 Nil

50 25 25 T4 0.88e ± 0.04 0.96ef ± 0.02 1.08b ± 0.02 100 - - T5 0.98cd ± 0.04 0.95f ± 0.01 0.98cde ± 0.02

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 1.11a ± 0.02 0.94f ± 0.01 1.08b ± 0.01 Oil as main factor pooled 0.91a ± 0.02 1.03a ± 0.02 1.10a ± 0.02

100 - - T7 0.92de ± 0.01 0.96ef ± 0.01 0.92f ± 0.02 50 50 - T8 0.87e ± 0.05 0.99e ± 0.02 0.96def ± 0.01 50 - 50 T9 0.92de ± 0.01 0.97ef ± 0.01 0.94ef ± 0.03 Nil

50 25 25 T10 1.00bc ± 0.02 1.05d ± 0.02 1.01cd ± 0.02 100 - - T11 1.01b ± 0.02 1.12c ± 0.00 1.10b ± 0.03

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 1.02b ± 0.03 1.11c ± 0.02 1.00c ± 0.02 Oil as main factor pooled 0.96b ±0.05 1.03a ± 0.02 0.99b ± 0.03


Table 4.5a : Analysis of variance on feed conversion ratio of broilers during metabolic trial MS Source df

I WK II WK III WK Treatment 11 2.01 1.03 1.09 Replicate 1 2.02 1.92 0.08 Error 24 0.0084 0.0046 0.0073

R² 0.99 0.97 0.98 CV (%) 1.52 1.12 0.72

75

Table 4.6 : Mean dry matter metabolizability in broilers fed different experimental diets – Metabolic trial.

Treatment wise: % Substitution level of cereal Type of

Oil Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment Mean dry matter metabolizability (%)

100 - - T1 65.56 ± 5.31 50 50 - T2 62.07 ± 1.00 50 - 50 T3 64.00 ± 1.79 Nil

50 25 25 T4 62.80 ± 0.80 100 - - T5 62.34 ± 8.59

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 68.91 ± 1.67 Oil as main factor pooled 64.28 ± 3.19

100 - - T7 74.13 ± 5.50 50 50 - T8 73.33 ± 5.92 50 - 50 T9 73.33 ± 5.92 Nil

50 25 25 T10 64.90 ± 6.00 100 - - T11 69.66 ± 6.00

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 61.71 ± 3.90 Oil as main factor pooled 69.51 ± 5.54


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: % Substitution level of cereal

Type of Oil Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment Mean MENS (Mean ± SD) (kcal/kg)

100 - - T1 3128 ± 15.92 50 50 - T2 3043 ± 24.66 50 - 50 T3 3047 ± 35.86 Nil

50 25 25 T4 3054 ± 32.60 100 - - T5 3153 ± 18.14

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 3016 ± 13.40 Oil as main factor pooled 3074a ± 23.43

100 - - T7 3136 ± 23.57 50 50 - T8 3038 ± 42.60 50 - 50 T9 3016 ± 71.82 Nil

50 25 25 T10 3024 ± 19.51 100 - - T11 3127 ± 37.43

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 3015 ± 71.82 Oil as main factor pooled 3060b ± 44.46

MZ-Maize, RG-Ragi, SG-Sorghum NS – Non-significant

Table 4.7a : Analysis of variance for ME

Source df MS Treatment 11 191334.90 Replicate 1 99190.08 Interaction 11 159453.27 Error 24 152905.08 R² 0.52 CV (%) 13.00

77

Table 4.8 : Mean classical and predicted ME different experimental diets fed to broilers – Metabolic trial.



Treatment Classical ME (kcal/kg)

Predicted ME (kcal/kg)

100 - - T1 3050 a ± 2.22 3051 ab ± 3.00 50 50 - T2 3061 a ± 0.55 3062 ab ± 1.66 50 - 50 T3 3068 a ± 1.43 3070 c ± 4.84 Nil

50 25 25 T4 3075 ab ± 1.12 3078 c ± 8.64 100 - - T5 3091 b ± 0.21 3081 c ± 5.69

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 3084 b ± 1.01 3085 c ± 1.26 Oil as main factor pooled 3072a ± 1.09 3071a ± 4.18

100 - - T7 3088 b ± 0.40 3089 c ± 4.00 50 50 - T8 3091 b ± 0.44 3093 c ± 5.48 50 - 50 T9 3098 b ± 0.80 3098 c ± 0.63 Nil

50 25 25 T10 3105 c ± 2.29 3125 a ± 6.95 100 - - T11 3123 c ± 2.48 3123 a ± 4.00

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 3132 c ± 0.83 3135 a ± 0.84 Oil as main factor pooled 3106b ± 1.21 3111b ± 3.65


Table 4.8a : Analysis of variance on classical and predicted ME

Classical ME Predicted ME Source of variance df MS MS

Treatment 11 6444.08 1015.78

Replication 1 887.25 55.04 Error 24 15.78 70.66 R2 0.98 0.81 CV (%) 0.12 0.27

78

Table 4.9a : Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of broilers fed different experimental starter diets – Growth

trial.


cereal Type of Oil

Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment DM CP CF EE TA NFE

100 - - 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

50 - 50 T3 91.64 21.06 3.10 1.65 7.43 66.76 Nil

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

Soya

Oil

0.05% 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 Nil

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

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 91.15 20.96 3.19 1.68 8.31 65.86


79

Table 9b : Mean Per cent proximate composition (as % of dm) of different experimental finisher diets fed to broilers – Growth

trial.

Treatment wise:

% Substitution level of cereal % Nutrients Type of

Oil Enzym

e MZ RG SG

Treatment

DM CP CF EE TA NFE 100 - - T1 91.28 19.53 2.94 6.73 8.02 62.78

50 50 - T2 91.57 19.36 2.98 6.65 8.01 63.00

50 - 50 T3 91.45 19.23 3.25 6.48 8.35 62.69 Nil

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

Soya

Oil

0.05% 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 Nil

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

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 91.81 19.65 2.89 6.57 7.49 63.40


80

Table 4.10 : Mean body weight of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.


of cereal Mean Body weight(g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK 100 - - T1 120.73b ± 16.54 255.68b ± 38.33 501.58b ± 69.63 946.43c ± 109.65 1404.80cd ± 114.62 1736.28b ± 149.03 50 50 - T2 133.03a ± 17.10 326.65a ± 45.02 600.18a ± 69.98 984.05bc ± 86.23 1456.78abcd ± 126.50 1774.78ab ± 170.70 50 - 50 T3 137.18a ± 17.08 339.73a ± 43.31 597.73a ± 84.54 1068.98a ± 101.35 1545.78a ± 119.54 1819.58ab ± 187.07

Nil

50 25 25 T4 137.53a ± 16.66 326.40a ± 44.35 574.75a ± 84.21 984.65bc ± 76.48 1402.20cd ± 119.38 1780.68ab ± 166.46 100 - - T5 139.03a ± 16.61 345.15a ± 41.38 613.50a ± 73.69 1035.13ab ± 119.28 1479.40abc ± 123.29 1893.98a ± 191.27

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 134.43a ± 16.23 343.30a ± 47.65 612.23a ± 94.47 1026.98ab ± 126.45 1460.20abcd ± 146.45 1848.13ab ± 208.73 Oil as main factor pooled 133.66NS ± 16.70 322.82NS ± 43.34 583.33NS ± 79.42 1007.70NS ± 103.24 1458.19NS ± 124.96 1808.90NS ± 178.88

100 - - T7 135.28a ± 14.00 344.30a ± 36.63 599.88a ± 71.77 1045.45ab ± 94.42 1511.25ab ± 130.67 1855.65ab ± 183.78 50 50 - T8 132.78a ± 12.38 333.15a ± 41.27 588.98a ± 88.62 1009.00abc ± 133.06 1449.25bcd ± 152.64 1840.53ab ± 200.39 50 - 50 T9 135.38a ± 14.94 333.48a ± 44.27 584.43a ± 71.37 1001.93abc ± 87.65 1419.80bcd ± 116.92 1829.03ab ± 183.56 Nil

50 25 25 T10 136.00a ± 10.54 329.60a ± 31.73 571.60a ± 60.38 986.05bc ± 88.53 1378.20d ± 115.07 1871.55ab ± 229.47 100 - - T11 139.33a ± 11.70 330.80a ± 34.67 569.13a ± 68.09 978.45bc ± 112.87 1398.43cd ± 119.00 1801.33ab ± 200.44

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 136.40a ± 13.30 331.05a ± 39.65 568.55a ± 71.69 1003.55abc ± 75.47 1404.55cd ± 139.49 1836.08ab ± 189.64 Oil as main factor pooled 135.87NS ± 12.81 333.73NS ± 38.04 580.43NS ± 71.99 1007.07NS ± 98.67 1426.91NS ± 128.97 1839.03NS ± 197.88


Table 4.10a : Analysis of variance on body weight of broilers MS

Source

df I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK Treatment 11 950.62 22698.08 35755.77 45402.29 103252.58 78963.36 Replicate 1 307.20 6.30 2679.07 153.00 16626.30 36960.30 Error 24 220.22 1666.01 6088.82 1310339.64 15843.13 35935.84

R² 0.14 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.07 CV (%) 11.01 12.43 13.41 10.10 8.73 10.39

81

Table 4.11 : Mean cumulative feed intake of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.


of cereal Mean cumulative feed intake (g) at the end of: (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK 100 - - T1 117.30bcd ± 2.31 414.50de ± 6.58 824.50e ± 3.58 1442.50h ± 4.73 2354.00f ± 10.36 3286.00f ± 13.86 50 50 - T2 119.28abc ± 3.44 449.00ab ± 8.08 886.50abc ± 8.66 1637.50bc ± 16.74 2595.00c ± 15.01 3527.50c ± 16.74 50 - 50 T3 123.65abc ± 1.27 439.00abc ± 3.46 885.00abc ± 6.93 1530.00fg ± 10.40 2431.00d ± 11.55 3373.50d ± 12.12

Nil

50 25 25 T4 126.35a ± 4.16 426.50bcd ± 5.20 885.00abc ± 8.08 1526.00fg ± 9.00 2417.00ef ± 1.15 3309.00ef ± 9.24 100 - - T5 124.5ab ± 2.25 448.50ab ± 7.58 909.50ab ± 1.73 1647.00b ± 13.86 2598.50bc ± 14.43 3564.00bc ± 25.40

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 121.13abc ± 2.57 451.50a ± 5.20 913.50a ± 5.77 1692.50a ± 5.20 2653.00a ± 1.15 3672.00a ± 13.86 Oil as main factor pooled 122.03a ± 2.67 438.17a ± 3.85 884.00a ± 5.29 1575.25a ± 7.99 2508.08a ± 8.94 3455.33a ± 15.20

100 - - T7 115.98cde ± 4.76 418.50cde ± 12.70 830.50e ± 15.59 1434.50h ± 14.43 2305.50g ± 13.28 3199.50g ± 16.74 50 50 - T8 104.15f ± 1.56 397.00e ± 16.17 849.00de ± 30.02 1607.50cd ± 25.98 2483.00d ± 16.17 3367.00d ± 18.48 50 - 50 T9 110.15def ± 0.52 419.50de ± 6.00 855.00cde ± 1.73 1559.50ef ± 9.81 2399.50ef ± 9.81 3307.00ef ± 9.24 Nil

50 25 25 T10 108.38ef ± 3.95 422.50cd ± 5.20 878.50bcd ± 4.04 1638.00bc ± 3.46 2582.00b ± 2.31 3613.00b ± 27.71 100 - - T11 120.05abc ± 2.06 433.00abcd ± 2.31 877.50bcd ± 7.51 1593.00de ± 4.62 2449.50d ± 2.89 3356.50de ± 2.89

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 115.15cde ± 2.60 415.50de ± 6.35 827.25e ± 3.20 1520.00g ± 10.39 2283.50h ± 7.51 3142.50h ± 6.36 Oil as main factor pooled 112.31b ± 2.24 417.67b ± 7.12 852.96b ± 10.35 1558.75b ± 11.38 2417.17b ± 8.66 3330.92b ± 13.57


Table 4.11a : Analysis of variance on weekly feed intake of broilers

MS Source

df I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK

Treatment 11 187.37 1148.18 3760.57 122.33 59165.66 109837.85 Replicate 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Error 24 89.61 78.42 181.90 216.42 160.21 383.21 R² 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.98 0.99 0.99

CV (%) 2.95 0.07 1.55 0.94 0.51 0.58

82

Table 4.12 : Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.


Mean feed conversion ratio at the end of: (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK 100 - - T1 0.97a ± 0.02 1.62a ± 0.01 1.64a ± 0.01 1.52de ± 0.02 1.68e ± 0.02 1.89c ± 0.01 50 50 - T2 0.90a ± 0.02 1.37b ± 0.02 1.48cd ± 0.02 1.66a ± 0.02 1.78c ± 0.02 1.99a ± 0.02 50 - 50 T3 0.90a ± 0.02 1.29cde ± 0.02 1.48cd ± 0.02 1.43f ± 0.03 1.57g ± 0.02 1.85ef ± 0.01

Nil

50 25 25 T4 0.92b ± 0.02 1.31cd ± 0.01 1.54b ± 0.01 1.55cd ± 0.01 1.72d ± 0.01 1.86de ± 0.02 100 - - T5 0.90a ± 0.04 1.30cd ± 0.02 1.48cd ± 0.02 1.59b ± 0.01 1.76c ± 0.01 1.88cd ± 0.01

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 0.90a ± 0.04 1.32c ± 0.02 1.49c ± 0.02 1.65a ± 0.02 1.82b ± 0.01 1.99a ± 0.02 Oil as main factor pooled 0.92a ± 0.03 1.37a ± 0.02 1.52a ± 0.02 1.57a ± 0.02 1.72a ± 0.02 1.91a ± 0.02

100 - - T7 0.86c ± 0.01 1.22f ± 0.02 1.38e ± 0.02 1.37g ± 0.02 1.53h ± 0.01 1.72h ± 0.01 50 50 - T8 0.78e ± 0.01 1.19f ± 0.01 1.44d ± 0.02 1.59b ± 0.02 1.71de ± 0.01 1.83fg ± 0.01 50 - 50 T9 0.81cd ± 0.01 1.26e ± 0.02 1.46cd ± 0.02 1.56bc ± 0.02 1.69de ± 0.01 1.81g ± 0.01 Nil

50 25 25 T10 0.80de ± 0.01 1.28de ± 0.02 1.54b ± 0.03 1.66a ± 0.02 1.87a ± 0.01 1.93b ± 0.02 100 - - T11 0.86c ± 0.01 1.31cd ± 0.02 1.54b ± 0.03 1.63a ± 0.01 1.75c ± 0.02 1.86de ± 0.01

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 0.84cd ± 0.01 1.26e ± 0.02 1.46cd ± 0.02 1.51e ± 0.01 1.63f ± 0.02 1.71h ± 0.01 Oil as main factor pooled 0.83b ± 0.01 1.25b ± 0.01 1.47b ± 0.02 1.55b ± 0.02 1.69b ± 0.01 1.81b ± 0.01


Table 4.12a : Analysis of variance on feed conversion ratio of broilers.

MS Source

df I WK II WK III WK IV WK V WK VI WK

Treatment 11 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 Replicate 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1

Error 24 0.0058 0.0043 0.0069 0.0051 0.0036 0.0032 R² 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99

CV (%) 1.78 1.02 1.13 0.93 0.71 0.62

83

Table 4.13 : Mean livability of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial



Treatment Livability (%) (Mean ± SD)

100 - - T1 92.5a ± 0.00

50 50 - T2 95b ± 1.06

50 - 50 T3 95b ± 0.70 Nil

50 25 25 T4 100c ± 0.00

100 - - T5 95b ± 0.70

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 100c ± 0.00

Oil as main factor pooled 96.25a ± 0.41

100 - - T7 97.5bc ± 1.41

50 50 - T8 100c ± 0.00

50 - 50 T9 100c ± 0.00 Nil

50 25 25 T10 97.5bc ± 1.41

100 - - T11 100c ± 0.00

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 100c ± 0.00

Oil as main factor pooled 99.16b ± 0.47


84

Table 4.14 : Mean dressing percentage of broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial


of cereal Dressing (% ) (Mean ± SD) Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment

CarcassNS GizzardNS LiverNS HeartNS FatNS ThymusNS BursaNS SpleenNS 100 - - T1 64.23 ± 8.38 1.81 ± 0.44 2.54 ± 0.51 0.43 ± 0.06 1.14 ± 0.44 0.33 ± 0.10 0.15 ± 0.09 0.16 ± 0.04

50 50 - T2 66.17 ± 2.22 1.65 ± 0.11 2.10 ± 0.25 0.47 ± 0.08 1.89 ± 0.39 0.33 ± 0.05 0.20 ± 0.05 0.12 ± 0.03

50 - 50 T3 65.34 ± 0.56 1.78 ± 0.58 2.60 ± 0.45 0.53 ± 0.26 1.58 ± 0.15 0.27 ± 0.08 0.16 ± 0.07 0.14 ± 0.07 Nil

50 25 25 T4 64.64 ± 3.17 1.66 ± 0.37 2.64 ± 0.60 0.52 ± 0.08 1.67 ± 0.24 0.31 ± 0.08 0.19 ± 0.09 0.17 ± 0.06

100 - - T5 65.33 ± 2.01 1.71 ± 0.21 2.36 ± 0.36 0.46 ± 0.06 1.55 ± 0.77 0.26 ± 0.03 0.13 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.05

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 67.23 ± 1.40 1.63 ± 0.19 1.95 ± 0.07 0.51 ± 0.06 1.70 ± 0.70 0.24 ± 0.11 0.19 ± 0.04 0.14 ± 0.04

Oil as main factor pooled 65.49b ± 2.96 1.71a ± 0.32 2.37a ± 0.37 0.49 a± 0.10 1.76 a± 0.45 0.29a ± 0.08 0.15b ± 0.07 0.15a ± 0.05 100 - - T7 67.86 ± 4.88 1.66 ± 0.22 2.60 ± 0.16 0.47 ± 0.05 1.48 ± 0.70 0.42 ± 0.12 0.18 ± 0.06 0.17 ± 0.08

50 50 - T8 65.90 ± 2.01 1.55 ± 0.16 2.40 ± 0.16 0.48 ± 0.08 1.49 ± 0.23 0.22 ± 0.11 0.19 ± 0.06 0.14 ± 0.05

50 - 50 T9 66.23 ± 0.73 1.60 ± 0.17 2.50 ± 0.17 0.60 ± 0.09 1.49 ± 0.83 0.38 ± 0.08 0.21 ± 0.09 0.13 ± 0.03 Nil

50 25 25 T10 66.93 ± 1.25 1.39 ± 0.16 2.37 ± 0.15 0.50 ± 0.05 1.49 ± 0.46 0.22 ± 0.04 0.22 ± 0.04 0.14 ± 0.02

100 - - T11 67.31 ± 1.74 1.55 ± 0.14 2.13 ± 0.22 0.52 ± 0.09 1.41 ± 0.42 0.19 ± 0.05 0.19 ± 0.05 0.14 ± 0.03

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 66.82 ± 1.97 1.60 ± 0.19 2.48 ± 0.34 0.49 ± 0.01 1.31 ± 0.66 0.19 ± 0.07 0.19 ± 0.07 0.13 ± 0.02

Oil as main factor pooled 66.84a ± 2.10 1.56b ± 0.17 2.41a ± 0.20 0.51 a± 0.06 1.45b ± 0.55 0.27b ± 0.08 0.20a ± 0.20 0.14a ± 0.04 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 4.14a : Analysis of variance on dressing percentage

MS Source df Carcass Gizzard Liver Heart Fat Thymus Bursa Spleen Treatment 11 5.0822369 0.04968693 0.19922652 0.00784697 0.20312936 0.01580511 0.00286061 0.00107784 Replicate 1 0.2324 0.00013 0.02017 0.000022 0.1213 0.000021 0.000032 0.000023

Error 24 10.73 0.079 0.1068 0.0098 0.30 0.0077 0.0046 0.0023 R² 0.13 0.16 0.36 0.20 0.17 0.39 0.16 0.13

CV (%) 4.95 17.20 13.69 19.99 34.11 27.76 36.90 33.08

85

Table 4.15 : Mean values of various sensory evaluation of parameters broilers fed different experimental diets – Growth trial.

Treatment wise: % Substitution level of cereal Sensory evaluation score1 (Mean ± SD) Type of

Oil Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment Texture NS Taste NS FlavorNS JuicinessNS Overall acceptanceNS

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 50 - 50 T3 3.24 ± 0.35 3.48 ± 0.30 3.43 ± 0.33 3.38 ± 0.31 3.40 ± 0.27 Nil

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

Soya Oil

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 50 - 50 T9 3.74 ± 0.27 3.60 ± 0.49 3.45 ± 0.21 3.55 ± 0.23 3.59 ± 0.19 Nil

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

Fish Oil

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.

Table 4.15a : Analysis of variance on sensory evaluation

MS Source df Texture Flavor Taste Juiciness Overall acceptance

Treatment 11 0.21 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.05 Replicate 1 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.03 Error 24 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.03 R² 0.33 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.30 CV (%) 8.94 8.14 9.21 9.25 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 level of cereal Blood serum lipid profile ( mg/dl) (Mean ± SD) Type of

Oil Enzyme MZ RG SG

Treatment Triglycerides Cholesterol HDL LDL VLDL

100 - - T1 42.75a ± 8.14 117.85ab ± 0.75 69.40abc ± 0.92 22.80cd ± 1.62 9.35 a ± 2.02 50 50 - T2 33.90a ± 3.23 125.10a ± 0.46 57.70c ± 9.24 21.40cd ± 0.23 6.95ab ± 0.40 50 - 50 T3 29.45a ± 2.94 113.90ab ± 6.12 68.45abc ± 1.56 19.75d ± 1.56 6.20ab ± 0.58 Nil

50 25 25 T4 23.70a ± 2.19 109.20b ± 4.04 59.50bc ± 2.77 21.00d ± 0.00 4.90b ± 0.23 100 - - T5 29.90a ± 9.93 119.70ab ± 2.77 65.10abc ± 2.69 21.60d ± 2.54 5.90b ± 1.85

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 24.55a ± 8.60 112.0ab ± 13.16 65.10abc ± 2.69 20.30d ± 0.57 4.85b ± 0.17 Oil as main factor pooled 30.71b ± 5.84 116.29 a ± 4.55 64.20 b ± 3.31 21.14b ± 1.09 6.36 b ± 0.88

100 - - T7 38.05a ± 1.67 89.40c ± 1.15 84.05a ± 8.37 32.10a ± 1.04 7.75ab ± 0.29 50 50 - T8 37.90a ± 8.31 84.80c ± 3.23 81.45ab ± 8.49 33.50a ± 4.10 7.70ab ± 1.50 50 - 50 T9 30.85a ± 4.79 88.60c ± 6.00 74.40abc ± 13.97 27.55abc ± 1.91 6.30ab ± 1.04 Nil

50 25 25 T10 35.90a ± 7.51 85.10c ± 2.31 74.05abc ± 3.41 24.85bcd ± 0.52 7.10ab ± 1.27 100 - - T11 36.80a ± 5.43 88.10c ± 2.89 81.00abc ± 7.74 29.30ab ± 2.54 7.40ab ± 1.15

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 26.90a ± 2.19 93.35c ± 3.29 75.40abc ± 10.05 29.90ab ± 2.54 5.40b ± 0.35 Oil as main factor pooled 34.40a ± 4.98 88.23 b ± 3.15 78.39a ± 8.67 29.53a ± 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. Table 4.16a : Analysis of variance on blood serum lipid profile of broilers.

MS Source df Triglycerides Cholesterol HDL LDL VLDL

Treatment 11 141.01 937.66 278.06 95.60 6.99 Replication 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Error 24 56.04 38.48 84.50 5.82 1.82

R² 0.54 0.92 0.60 0.88 0.64 CV (%) 22.99 6.07 12.80 9.53 20.29

87

Table 4.17 : Mean net returns of broilers fed different experimental diets.


cereal Type of Oil Enzyme

MZ RG SG Treatment Net returns (Rs.)

100 - - T1 15.48d ± 0.01 50 50 - T2 14.35a ± 0.04 50 - 50 T3 16.38g ± 0.01 Nil

50 25 25 T4 15.32c ± 0.01 100 - - T5 16.10g ± 0.01

Soya Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T6 14.56b ± 0.01 Oil as main factor pooled 15.37b ± 0.01

100 - - T7 18.10i ± 0.01 50 50 - T8 18.47j ± 0.01 50 - 50 T9 18.51k ± 0.01 Nil

50 25 25 T10 16.81h ± 0.01 100 - - T11 15.75e ± 0.01

Fish Oil

0.05% 50 25 25 T12 19.36l ± 0.01 Oil as main factor pooled 17.83a ± 0.02


Note: Means within a column bearing different superscripts are statistically (* = P≤0.05 or ** = P≤0.01) different.

determination of gross energy by using...

Documents