Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Atencio

    Uploaded by

    RAHUL
    4 views4 pages
    aten

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    aten

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views4 pages

    Atencio

    Uploaded by

    RAHUL
    aten

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 4
    International Journal of Poultry Science 6 (3): 240-243, 2010 ISSN 1882-8356 © Asian Network for Scientic Information, 2010 Effect of Pine Wood Shavings, Rice Hulls and River Bed Sand on Broiler Productivity When Used as a Litter Sources JUL. Atencio, J.A. Feméndez, A.G. Gemat and J.G. Murillo Escuela Agricola Panamericana / Zamorano, P.O. Bax 93, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, C.A. [Abstract As the pouty Industry has grown and expanded and as alternative uses of wood by-products have expanded, the availablity of wood shavings and sawelust for liter materials has been challenged, Litter type utilized is largely dependent upon local availabilty ofthe material and location of the farm, Unfortunately, the availabilty of pine shavings has steadily decreased due to competition far is use from other industries and use as an energy source. The objective ofthis research was to evaluate conventional Iter sources to sanct 36 a substitute litte. For the experiment Pine Wood Shavings (PWS), Rice Hulls (RH), River Bed Sand (S) ‘and river bed sand top dressed with pine wood shavings (SP) were the four litter source treatments implemented. Chicks were identified and randomly allocated in a randomized complete biock design. Litter temperatures were recorded prior to bird placement. Body weight, cumulative feed consumption, feed conversion (feed: body weight) and litter moisture were determined on a weekly basis through 42 days of age. Mortality was recorded daily, At processing carcass weight, percentage carcass yield without giblets and gizzard yield were determined on a prechilled basis, Litter surface temperatures were significantly (p<0.001) higher for PWS, RH and SP compared to just S alone. Broilers raised on S had significantly (9«0.001) higher body weights and consumed more feed than those raised on PWS or RH throughout the 42 days, No significant dferences were found for feed conversion, mortality or carcass yield. Carcass weight and gizzard yield were significantly (p<0,001) higher for birds raised on S Sand maintained approximately 15% lower moisture level in comparison to PWS and RH and a 5% difference to SP (p<0,001), In conclusion, sand can potentially be used as an alternative iter material for growing brollers Key words: Broiler, litter, sand, moisture, pine shavings. INTRODUCTION 2001) In muttple tests, broilers reared on sand As the poultry industy in the USA has grown and expanded and as alternative uses of wood by/preducts| have expanded, the availabilty of wood shavings and savidust for liter materials has been challenged. The availabilty of pine shavings has steadily decreased due to the competion for the composite board industry, horticulture and its use as an energy source (Carpenter, 1992). There are many factors which must be taken into account for successful liter management These include the type of liter used, the time of the year, depth of the litter, floor space per bird, feeding and watering devices used, kind of floring and ventilation system that can affect Iter (Snyder et el, 1958), Also the type of liter utlized is largely dependent upon local availabilty of the ‘material and location of the farm. Sand as a litter material is not new to poultry production (Gnyder et al, 1958) yet tis receiving renewed interests Hess et al, (1996). Bilgili ef al. (1999a) reported successfully rearing several broller flocks on sand in comparison with pine shavings in a research seting Further studies were conducted in the field under commercial conditions (Bigili ef a, 2000; Hess et al performed as well as those on pine shavings, Footpad quality and male broier body weights were improved when reared on sand in some cases, Moisture and ammonium levels were similer to pine shavings with significantly lower leve's of bacteria in the sand litter when compared with shavings. Darking beetle populations are reduced with sand litter. However, sand does not heat up as well when compared to shavings liter. This requires more attention from the producer to make sure the floor temperature is correct before chicks, are placed. Sand has been considered for use in other fegions and has been found to have mixed results (Malone et a, 20013; Malone et al,, 2001b, Watkins, 2001). While broiler performance was similar or better, iin some cases, than for broilers reared on liter, some 'ssues raised included poorer chick starts on sand as, compared to shavings. Sand used as a litter is not always cost effective for all operations and sand is not compatible with composting, combustion or pelleting (Grimes ef af, 2002). The objective ofthis study was to evaluate the potential of using river bed sand as a liter {or broiler production, Corresponding Author AG. Genat, Escuda Agricola Panamericana | Zamorana, Pastry Research and Teaching Carter PO. Box 198, Tegucgspa, Honduras. CA 240 Int. J. Poult Sei, 9 (3): 240-243, 2010 MATERIALS AND METHODS. One-day-ol6 male Hubbard” x HEY" chicks were received from a commercial hatchery (CADECA Tegueigalea) and placed in an open-sided naturally ventilated broller house using 2 dally photoperiod of 230:1L Each of the 56 experimental pens 1.25 x 3.75 m used contained 56 chicks that were weighed and housed at a density of 12 birds per square meter. Four treatments, Pine Wood Shavings (PWS), Rice Hulls (RH), Sand (5), and sand top dressed with pine wood shavings (SP) were randomly assigned in blocks, Fourteen replicates containing each treatment were allocated to the 58 pens. in a randomized complete block design, The house was. heated by LP gas space heaters and provided with ripple waterers and tube feeders. Commercial mash diets (Table 1) and water were provides ad libtum, Body weight, cumulative feed consumption, feed conversion (feed: body weight) and litter moisture (AOAC, 1960) were determined on a weekly basis through 42 days of age. Mottality was recorded daily. At processing carcass weight, percentage carcass yield without gidlets and gizzard yield were determined on a prechilled basis. Liter temperatures for all pens were recorded three hours prior to bird placement, Statistical analysis: Data were evaluated by ANOVA Using the General Linear Models (LM) procedure of SAS software (SAS Institute, 2007). Percentage data were subjected to arc sine square root of the percentage transformation and treatment means were separated by least significant diference, A probability of p<0.05 was required for statements of significance, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Litter surface temperatures were significantly (90.001) higher for PWS, RH and SP compared to just S alone. As temperatures were measured deeper in the litter differences among the treatments changed Fig. 1) ‘There were no differences in body weight among birds grown on PWS of RH (Table 1), Reed and McCartney (1970) ranked rice hulls immediately behind pine shavings as desirable bedding material. Morgan (1984) reported that broilers reared on rice hulls performed as ‘well as broilers reared on pine shavings. Higher weight gains and improved feed conversion were observed for birds reared on rice hull when compared to those reared fon sawdust, paddy straw and sand, Anisuzzaman and Chowahury (1998). Birds that were grown on S and SP litters had significantly (p<0,001) higher body weights as compared to PWS and RH throughout the entire growing period. Bilgli ef af, (19998) reported similar results when rearing several broiler flocks on sand in comparison with pine shavings finding males to be heavier with no differences in female weights. One of the reasons for the improved weights could be due to the: 241 “Table 1: fat fter sours on brie bodyweight (9) Age(s) PWS RH Ss SP SEM Tea 14s 1G SSE ete gene I ES 358 a ee ce) 28 12680 Taeke STS! STB 35 ress tene> toe! tor42 1410, 2 mere more atom 20.1" 2087 Means ihn rows witout @ cermon superset are siferen (p-0001), PWS = Pine Wood Shavings: RH = Rice Mus; S = River Bed Sand SP = River Bed Sard Top Dressed with Pre ‘Wood Shavings Liter temperature a 0 PWS O RH 8S 8 SP 37 3 Las: 3 2%: 2 21 30: 2 ° 264 508 Depth (em) Fig, 1: Liter temperatures at diferent depths 3 h prior to bid placement. Statistical differences among the different Itters are denoted by *"p0.001 variation in the river bed sand patticle size. The sand sed was of a large coarse particle size similar to grt The consumption of these grit sized sand particles by the bird could have stimulated gizzard activity thus enhancing digestion and Improving body weight of the birds. it was shown that coarse particles may slow the passage rate of digesta through the gizzard (Nir et ai 1894), increasing the exposure time of nutrients to digestive enzymes, which in tutn, may improve energy utiization and nutient digestibility (Carre, 2000; Svihus etal, 2004), thus, impreving bird performance. Bacterial wise, sand is equivalent or slightly superior to pine shavings when used as a poulty litter (Macklin ef af 2005), Aerobic bacterial counts on sand are lower than pine shavings (Bilgli et a/, 1908a) or are the same (Big ef af, 1999). Macklin et a1 (2008), also found ‘that enteric and anaerobic bacteria counts were also generally lower on sand than pine shavings. Sand, being inorganic, contains few nutrients that could be utiized by bacteria and thus, would tend to lead to lower bacterial numbers, In addition, sand may lack binding sites for bacteria, Pine shavings are organic containing Nutrients that could be utlzed by some bacterial species. In addition, litter moisture was lower for S and SP, maintaining a drier litter throughout the entire ‘rowing period (Table 6). Lower moisture content would Int. J. Poult Sei, 9 (3): 240-243, 2010 Table 2: ft ofltter source on brie feed consumption) Table 6: fet of titer source on Iter moisture 4) Age(s) PWS RH s SP SEM Aged) PWS RH SS ‘sew 7 wos a7 —~—CSSCMDCT tC CtaCOat 4 5505198 sei2, ogg 418217010072 Ot 2 feasts 2002" tans ater 2121200 are 8 2 omere mare 2? aoTes 24s BSP BBTT!OTE Bs stove Soave" © a0" | aam7! ass 8S 28! OBE TOS me 2 wzsee sina ogo: nog" 77s 2246245971269" __— O07 Means wlin rove without @ commen superset are deren [p<0001) PWS = pine wood enawnge; RH = ree hulls: S= rier bed sand: SP = ver bed send top dressed wah pine wood shavings “Tele 3 fet of ter souren on bole fed conversion (9) Reo) PWS FH S SP Set 7403098 108151 0035 4 181384384320 mo 1s2 et 1a9 te 2% ©1058 te? 1580 350172168470 48809 igi aye tao 48008 PWS = Pine Wood Snavinge: AH = Rice Huts, S = River Bod Send, SP = River Bed Sand Top Dressed wit Pine Wood Shavings “eb Efect of ite sures on bree modality (5) Age@) PWS RH S ‘sp Set 7030 019030000 0014 4 440-140-060 120 2 © 2002602102300 22 2002280 20-230 ome 352800370380 300g 4004704400008 ‘BWE = Pine Wood Shavings; RH = Rie Huls, S= Raer Bod Send, SP = River Bed Sand Top Dressed wih Pine Wood Shavings Tete Eft of Mer soues on creas weg (9 setae veld PWS fH = Taceerwtig) 18825 1687" Tea 17205 Tose Ceceryielits) 7478 7481400 M42 O00 Gaza yas) ism gm 201" oct Mana win toot wih a commen

    You might also like