Evaluation of Absorbezz P in broiler rations as it influences Performance EDITED

EVALUATION OF ABSORBEZZ®P IN BROILER RATIONS: EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE, YIELD, AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS

BY

Adeyemi Adelaja, Bachelors of Science in Agriculture

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

Stephen F. Austin State University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements

For the Degree of

Masters of Science

STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY

August, 2015

EVALUATION OF ABSORBEZZ® P IN BROILER RATIONS: EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE, YIELD, AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS

By

Adeyemi Adelaja, Bachelor of Science

APPROVED:

__________________________________

Joey Bray, Ph.D., Thesis Director

__________________________________

Stacie Appleton, Ph.D., Committee Member

__________________________________

John Mehaffey, Ph.D., Committee Member

__________________________________

Rebecca D. Parr, Ph.D., Committee Member

______________________________

Mary Nelle Brunson, Ed.D.

Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

ABSTRACT

Effects of feeding different concentrations of Absorbezz®P at different

growth stages in production of commercial broiler chickens reared to 49 days

was compared with the broiler industry’s standard basal diet. The performance,

relative and absolute organ weight, Nitrogen content of fecal matter, paw

ulceration, fecal matter and carcass yield were evaluated based on different

application rates of Absorbezz®P. A total of 5,750 birds were placed within a 96,

5’X10’ floor pens in a randomized block design (60 birds per pen) at SFASU

Broiler Research Center. Dietary treatments consisted of treatment 1 which

contained the industry standard basal feed ration, treatment 2- (Absorbezz®P

80%) had 80% of the recommended dosage , 3- (Absorbezz®P 100%) contained

the recommended dose, and 4 – (Absorbezz®P 120%) contained 20% more of

the recommended dose of Absorbezz®P. At the completion of the study, 384

birds were euthanized for yield study. A sub sample of the 384 birds (24 total)

were also used for organ weight measurement

Results showed that Absorbezz®P didn’t have any adverse effect on any

of the parameters measured. However it was concluded that Absorbezz®P can

i

be used as a feed supplements and can also be used in replacing currently used

growth promoting supplements. Absorbezz®P aided in adding weight to the

broilers and increased carcass yield when compared with the broiler industry’s

complete basal diet.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I will like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation and

thanks to God and all those who helped me in making this research project a

success. I will like to thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. J.O Adelaja for their love,

financial and moral support during my educational career, Absorbezz®P LLC. for

helping fund this research, and Dr. Joey Bray for the guidance, support and

encouragement throughout the research process and college career.

Many thanks to the SFASU broiler facility manager; Justin Glascock and

his team, for their help during the research procedures. To my guardians Mr. and

Mrs. Ephraim Oladiran, I say thank you for your love and support throughout my

college career. I will want to show my utmost appreciation to my committee

members for dedicating time and effort during the process. My thanks also to

Javid Mclawrence for his help during the thesis writing. Finally, I will like to say a

big thank you to my loving wife, Nneka Adelaja for her unconditional love and

motivation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................vi

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEMS....................................................................................1

OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................7

Ionic Minerals.................................................................................................................7

Essential Minerals..........................................................................................................8

Mastic Gum..................................................................................................................11

Antibacterial Properties of Chios Mastiha....................................................................12

Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Pistacia lentiscus.............................14

Treatments of patients with dyspepsia.........................................................................15

Fecal Analysis & NH3 Reduction..................................................................................18

Relative and Absolute Organ Weights.........................................................................19

Paw Scoring.................................................................................................................21

METHODS OF STUDY....................................................................................................23

iv

Experimental Animals......................................................................................................23

Experimental Treatments and Groups.........................................................................24

Performance Data........................................................................................................25

Fecal Analysis..............................................................................................................26

Relative and Absolute Organ Weight...........................................................................28

Paw Scoring.................................................................................................................29

Yield Study...................................................................................................................30

Additional Data Collected.............................................................................................30

Statistical Analysis........................................................................................................32

RESULTS AND DISSCUSION........................................................................................33

Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion...............................................................34

Mortality........................................................................................................................42

Fecal Analysis..............................................................................................................44

Absolute and Relative Organ Weight...........................................................................52

Paw Scores..................................................................................................................59

Carcass Yield...............................................................................................................64

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.....................................................................................73

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................79

VITA.................................................................................................................................90

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Treatment groups and and Absorbezz®P concentration rates for this study.

............................................................................................................................ 25

Table 2. Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion, for Treatments 1-4, days 14,

34, 42...................................................................................................................35

Table 3. ANOVA of Average Body Weight, Treatments 1-4 on days 14, 34, and 42. 37

Table 4. ANOVA of Feed Conversion Ratio for Treatments 1-4, at day 14, 34, and 42.

Table 5. Average Body Weight, Feed Conversion, Adjusted Feed Conversion.

Treatments 1-4, at day 48...................................................................................39

Table 6. ANOVA of Average Body Weight, at day 48................................................39

Table 7. ANOVA for Feed Conversion, at day 48......................................................39

Table 8. ANOVA on Day 48- Adjusted Feed Conversion...........................................40

Table 9. Percent Mortality, Days 14, 34, 42, 48, Treatments 1-4...............................43

Table 10. ANOVA of Mortality, Treatments 1-4, d 14, 34, 42, and 48........................44

Table 11. Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, Crude Protein. Treatments 1-4, day 48.46

Table 12. ANOVA of Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Crude Protein. Treatment

1-4, at day 48.......................................................................................................46

Table 13. Fecal Analysis, Treatments 1-4, d 48.........................................................48

Table 14. ANOVA of Macro-minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48......................................49

vi

Table 15. ANOVA of Micro- minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48......................................50

Table 16. Absolute Organ Weight for treatments 1-4, at day 49................................53

Table 17. Relative Organ Weight for treatments 1-4, at day 49.................................54

Table 18. ANOVA on Day 49-Average Live Weight (Pounds)...................................56

Table 19. ANOVA on Day 49- Average Live Weight (Grams)....................................56

Table 20. ANOVA of Average Absolute Weights of Organs for treatments 1-4, at day

49........................................................................................................................ 57

Table 21. ANOVA of Average Relative Weights of Organs, for Treatments 1-4, at day

49........................................................................................................................ 58

Table 22. Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48.................................................64

Table 23. ANOVA of Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48...............................64

Table 24. Yield Data Results for Treatments 1-4, at day 49......................................65

Table 25. ANOVA for Yield Data Results for Treatment 1-4, at day 49......................67

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion for days 14, 34, 42 and 48.....41

Figure 2. Paw Score - 0.................................................................................................................61

Figure 3. Paw Score - 1 & 2.........................................................................................................62

Figure 4. Paw Score - 3.................................................................................................................63

viii

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEMS

The United States (U.S) poultry industry has experienced a vast amount of

growth over the years. The industry has improved from producing a 2.50 pound

(lb) bird in 112 days as of 1925 to 6.12 lb bird in 47 days (National Chicken

Council, 2015). The industry has been able to select genetics to its advantage

thereby increasing the bird’s growth rate and, meat yield, while improving feed

conversion ratio, and resistance to infection and stress. The poultry industry

thrives by maximizing profits; therefore constantly obtaining maximum

performance or yield at the lowest expense possible. However, even with the aid

of the genetic selection, the growth and development of the birds can still be

hindered if the birds are not kept in good environmental conditions and also not

supplied adequate nutritional requirements for their overall growth.

Nutrition is vital to achieve the optimum growth potential allowed by

genetic selection. We as humans require the right balance of nutrients for our

daily functions. The same is true for these birds. Poultry diets however, are

referred to as complete feeds because they supply the correct balance of five

classes of nutrients consisting of proteins, carbohydrates, fats and oils, vitamins,

and minerals in order to achieve optimum growth, maintenance, work and

1

finishing ( Bailey et al., 2012). A deficiency of any of the required nutrients may

impede the growth potential of the birds and may also make the birds susceptible

to disease. Studies done on the nutritional requirements of the birds for optimum

yield suggest, the poultry industry has been exposed to least cost formulations

and development of accurate nutrient requirements (Dibner J.J, 2004).

With increased market demand, the poultry industry has had to increase

growth yield. Therefore, maximizing meat yield in the least amount of time. This

affects the bird’s skeletal formation, reducing bone density. Inadequate amount

of minerals may cause structural breakdown in chickens thereby causing

lameness and eventually leading to the bird having to be culled. To minimize this

problem, minerals have to be supplied in the bird’s diet to meet all metabolic

needs.

Absorbezz®P is a complex mixture of ionic minerals, trace minerals and

mastic gum that when included in the broiler’s diet may aid in the mineralization

of the bones in broilers. Ionic minerals present in Absorbezz®P consist of major

and trace minerals in an electrolytic form which have both positive and negatively

charged signatures. Electrical signature coexists in dynamic equilibrium using

equilibrium fluctuations to help the body move nutrients to the areas where they

are needed the most (Chris, 2015).

2

Mastic gum (Chios Mastiha) which is present in Absorbezz®P gladdens

scents, comforts and cures. Mastiha originates from the Mastiha tree which

belongs to the Anacardiaceous family, gender been Pistacia lentiscus L. Chios

Mastiha grows mainly on the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Although the

exact composition of the Mastiha is not yet known, its unique resin consists of an

excellent variety of therapeutic and aromatic ingredients. From the 1st to the 7th

century P.C, Mastiha was used by medical practitioners and botanist for the

treatment of stomach disorders. Mastiha was proven to have a positive

contribution to the gastric and intestinal system. More specifically Mastiha aided

in soothing the pain of the stomach, as well as, indigestion and stomach

disorders (Association, 2014).

Kocaman et al. (2006) explains that maintaining an optimal environment in

poultry houses is a very important requirement in the poultry industry.

Environmental conditions in the poultry houses include both physical factors

(heat, humidity and air movement) and chemical factors (NH3 and CO2 in the

compound of the air). Kocaman et al. (2006) reported that waste products such

as ammonia (NH3), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), hydrogen sulphide

(H2S) and nitrous oxide (N20) gases as well as dust are produced in commercial

chicken houses. Of all these factors, NH3 is one of the most detrimental

environmental conditions that may impede the bird’s growth. Ammonia is created

in the poultry house as a result of chemical decomposition of uric acid (C5H4N4O3)

3

in the droppings of the birds by certain bacteria in the litter (Aziz Tahseen, 2010).

Ammonia is distinguished by its pungent odor. The amount of ammonia present

in a poultry house is determined by several factors such as temperature,

humidity, animal density and ventilation rate of the facility (Kocaman et al., 2006).

Ammonia has also been observed to be particularly high in houses where the

same litter is been used for successive flocks. Factors such as moisture content,

pH and temperature of the litter play a role in the degradation of uric acid by

bacteria. Other factors such as loose droppings, faulty over filled or low

positioned drinkers could cause wet litter in poultry houses leading to a higher

NH3 concentration (Aziz Tahseen, 2010). In the U.S the accepted amount of NH3

concentration present in a poultry house should not exceed 25ppm and 50ppm

according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) respectively. The

acceptable concentrations were established based on human safety with

limitations to 8 hours of exposure (Aziz Tahseen, 2010). To achieve the specified

(NH3) concentration range, the humidity of the poultry house must range between

50–70 %. According to the University of Georgia cooperative extension service

(2012) high (NH3) concentrations in poultry houses could lead to poor feed

conversions, reduced weight gains, and increased susceptibility to diseases.

However, the inclusion of feed supplements such as Absorbezz®P in

poultry diet has the potential to increase bone mineralization and likewise

4

enhance digestibility. Thus aiding maximum feed absorption and in return

potentially reduces the NH3 concentrations in the broiler houses. This study

evaluated Absorbezz®P concentrations in different broiler rations and

determined its effects on the bird’s performance, yield and ammonia formation

during a period of 49 days.

5

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate different concentrations of

Absorbezz®P at different growth stages in production of commercial broiler

chickens reared to 49 days of age. This research focused on the following;

I. Determined the most effective Absorbezz®P concentration rate to

be included into broiler diet.

II. Effects of different Absorbezz®P concentrations rates on

performance, relative organ weight, absolute organ weights and

NH3.

III. To determine the effects of Absorbezz®P supplementation on the

quality of paws and mineralization of the birds fecal matter.

IV. Effects of Absorbezz®P rates on carcass yield.

6

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Absorbezz®P proprietary blend contains complex ionic minerals,

trace minerals and mastic gum. The analytical composition includes 68% chloride

(Cl), 28% magnesium (Mg), 1% sodium (Na) and <1% potassium (K).

Absorbezz®P is manufactured by Absorbezz®P LLC located in Fort Lauderdale,

Florida. It functions as a livestock and poultry feed enhancement.

Ionic MineralsMinerals are essential for the body’s daily function. There are chemical

and electrical processes that must occur within the body every moment to

maintain life. These processes can only function correctly if the proper balance of

minerals is supplied. For example, iron is needed for the heme formation and

function, sulfur for amino acid formation for tissue maintenance and calcium for

bone formation (Chris, 2015). Minerals also aid in the transport of life-giving

oxygen to the body; aid in assimilation of other nutrients; form building blocks for

amino acids, hormones, and protein. They also act as antioxidants. Antioxidants

aid in the removal of free radicals that may cause damage or death to cells in the

body. The ratios or imbalance of macro-minerals and trace minerals have a

profound effect on human and animal health. The entire body starting from the

7

hair, nails, bones, blood and nerves relies on major and trace minerals for proper

functions. (Chris, 2015) Both humans and poultry birds are monogastrics;

therefore minerals are utilized for similar purposes.

Ions are minerals with a positive or negative charge. At the molecular

level, the mineral either has too many or too few electrons. The unstable ionic

state allows the mineral to bond readily with water making it easy for the body to

absorb. In that state, the mineral has specific positive or negative electrical

signature that causes a dynamic equilibrium to take place. This enables the body

to facilitate the changes required in moving nutrients to areas where they are

needed (Chris, 2015).

At every second daily, the body relies on ionic minerals and trace minerals

to conduct and generate billions of tiny electrical impulses. Without the aid of the

impulse, muscles, heart nor the brain will be able to function properly. Lack of

ionic minerals can also inhibit osmotic pressure and nutrient absorption in the cell

(Chris, 2015) . Absorbezz®P however contains essential ionic and trace minerals

constituting; Chlorine (Cl), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na) and Potassium (K).

Essential Minerals

Sodium (Na), Potassium (K) and Chlorine (Cl) play a major role in the

osmotic regulation of body fluids while maintaining an acid-base balance in the

body. Although the primarily role of electrolytes is to maintain osmotic pressure in

8

the body and ionic balance, the requirement for all three minerals can’t be

considered individually because they have to be balanced for optimal function.

An overall balance of 250 milliequivalents per kilogram (mEq/kg) of Na+K-Cl is

considered optimum for normal physiological functions. Studies have indicated

that an addition of Na without Cl to a diet increases plasma bicarbonate (HCO3-)

and pH, while the addition of Cl without Na resulted in the decrease in plasma

HCO3- and pH. Tibial Dyschondroplasia (TD) a metabolic disorder may occur in

young broiler chickens as a result of electrolyte imbalance. TD is seen to occur

more frequently when the diet contains an excess of Na relative to potassium

and also Cl level been high in the diet. Sodium however, is considered the chief

cation in extracellular fluid which is required by both plants and animals for

normal metabolism. Young birds require approximately 0.15% of Na and Cl their

diet. A deficiency of sodium leads to lowering of osmotic pressure and a change

in acid-base balance in the body. It may also result to retarded growth, soft

bones, corneal keratinization, impaired food utilization and a decrease in plasma

volume (Steven & John, 2001) . The adrenal function may also be impacted due

to sodium deficiency leading to an increase in blood uric acid concentration

which eventually may cause death in the birds.

Potassium (K) is needed within cells. The blood cells contain 25 times as

much K than present in the blood plasma. Muscle and nerve cells are very high

in K containing over 20 times as much as present in the interstitial fluid. The

9

muscle contains 4mg/g while the normal plasma levels of K are 100ug/ml

(microgram/milliliter). Potassium carries out the same functions inside the cell

that Na performs in the plasma and interstitial fluid. Their functions include

maintenance of acid base relationships and proper osmotic balance. Potassium

also activates a number of intracellular enzymes and is required for normal

osmotic balance. There are several recommended requirements for K based on

the stress level of the bird and age. However a recommendation as low as

0.17%-0.20% has been reported for chickens. Birds deficient in K may exhibit

reduced feed intake, poor growth rate, hypokalemia and death (Steven & John,

2001).

A bird’s requirement for Cl has to be balanced with diet of Na and K. As a

general guide, levels of Cl should exceed those of Na by 10-15%. Steven et al .,

(2001) conducted with dietary deficiency of Cl for young chicks. The diet

consisted of 190 mg Cl-/kg. The chicks showed extremely poor growth rate, high

mortality, hemo-concentration, dehydration and a reduced blood chloride.

Additionally the birds had nervous signs which were characteristic of chloride

deficiency. The study reported that an addition of 1200 mg Cl-/kg of basal diet

resulted to optimal growth rate and prevented deficiency symptoms.

Magnesium is also an important cation necessary for the nutrition of both

plants and animals. About one half of the total body magnesium is present in the

bone, constituting 0.5-0.7% of the bone ash in all animals. Magnesium and K are

10

concentrated within the cells of soft tissues. The liver, striated muscle and kidney

contains about 430-540mg/kg (milligram/kilogram). However the blood serum

contains only about 10%. Steven & John, 2001 reported newly hatched chicks

fed a diet deficient of magnesium lived only a few days. They often grow slowly

when fed diets low in magnesium. Deficiency in magnesium results to them

been lethargic, and often pant and gasp.

Mastic Gum

Mastic tree with a scientific name Pistacia Lentiscus var. Chia is

considered an evergreen shrub with 2-3 meters height develops slowly and

matures after 40-50 years. At maturity it stands at about five meters. The tree

has a life span of more than 100 years but only produces mastiha from the fifth or

sixth year of its life and reaches its maximum yield after its fifteenth year. Chios

Mastiha is the resinous excretion of the Mastiha tree. It is excreted in form of

tears from the trunk and large branches through cuts on the surface by sharp

tools (Association, 2014).

Mastiha usually remains under the shrub until it solidifies. It takes about 20

days to solidify depending on the weather conditions. In the summer for example,

the determining factors are; sunlight and the humidity rate of the environment.

The color of the Chios Mastiha is initially ivory-like but with time the shade is lost.

Within 12-18 months the color changes into yellow due to oxidation. After 70

11

years of age, the mastic tree yield regresses significantly, however its average

annual yield by tree ranges from 150-180 grams of mastiha. In some rare cases,

trees yield up to two kilos while others may produce just 10 grams. The male

trees are cultivated the most due to productiveness; however distance and

separation may also affect their yields (Association, 2014).

The exact composition of Chios Mastiha is not yet known. The unique

resin however consists of an excellent variety of therapeutic and aromatic

ingredients. To be specific it consist of the following; a natural polymer, volatile

and aromatic ingredients that constitute the essential oil, Mastiha oil, terpenic

acids, phytosterols, polyphenolic molecules and a large number other unique

ingredients. A combination of more than 80 ingredients can be found in Chios

Mastiha which justifies the multiple uses of it. Mastiha is now used in the food

industry, health and personal care sector worldwide (Association, 2014). In 1997,

Chios Mastiha was characterized as a Product of Protected Designation of Origin

(PDO) by the European Union (EU). Documents show that in the ancient world,

mastic gum was used primarily as a natural chewing gum to clean the teeth and

refreshes the breath.

Antibacterial Properties of Chios Mastiha

To date several studies have been done on the potency of Chios Mastiha.

A study conducted in 1980 reported by Dimas S et al., (2012) reported that Chios

12

Mastiha gum was a potential agent for the treatment of duodenal ulcers in

humans. The test was conducted with a double-blind clinical trial on 38 patients

with symptomatic and endoscopically proven duodenal ulcer to compare the

therapeutic responses with Chios Mastiha (1 gram daily, 20 patients) and

placebo (lactose, 1 gram daily, 18 patients). The doses were given orally for a

period of two weeks. A symptomatic relief was obtained in 16 (80%) patients on

Chios Mastiha gum and in 9 (50%) patients on placebo.

Additionally, endoscopically proven healing occurred in 14 (70%) patients

on Chios Mastic gum and 4 (22%) patients on placebo. The treatment differences

were highly significant and the Chios Mastic gum was well tolerated and did not

produce any side effects. It was concluded that Chios Mastic gum had a healing

effect on ulcers.

Nahida et al. (2012) reported Pistacia lentiscus L. was found to be

effective against bacteria’s such as Sarcinalutea, Staphylococcus aureus and

Escherichia coli and it also has an antimycotic activity. The oil obtained from the

leaves, twigs and mastic gum by steam distillation aids in vitro antimicrobial

activity and antifungal activity against rhizoctania solani. The aqueous and

flavonoid enriched extract and essential oil from leaves demonstrated inhibitory

effect against Salmonella typhi murium and lower inhibitory effect against

Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas seruginosa and Salmonella enteritidis.

The oil from the mastic gum is also effective against Gram positive and Gram

13

negative bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus plantarum,

Pseudomonas flagi and Salmonella enteritisisin broth and in a model food

system (Ansari S.H, 2012).

Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Pistacia lentiscus

Nahida et al. (2012) reported a study which annotated the antioxidant

effect of Pistacia lentiscus. The study was conducted by measuring the ability of

Pistacia lentiscus in suppressing the extent of iron induced lipid peroxidation in

rat liver homogenate. Pistacia lentiscus was found to be effective in suppressing

iron induced lipid peroxidation. It was also non-toxic. Nahida et al. (2012)

reported another study stating the antioxidant activity is due to digallic acid which

has the ability to scavenge the free radical ABTS (+), to inhibit XO which is

involved in the generation of a free radical. It also reduces the inhibition of lipid

peroxidation which is induced by hydrogen peroxide (H202) in the K562 cell line.

The gallic acid constituent and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-Pentagalloyl glucose also showed

antioxidant effect. Similarly galloylquinic acid isolated from leaves of the mastic

tree was found to have antioxidant property.

Dimas et al., (2012) reported a study stating patients with chronic

inflammatory diseases such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis;

systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, and Crohn’s disease (CD) have an

increased risk of atherosclerosis. The study tested if Chios Mastic gum (CMG)

14

would have an effect on the function of activated microphages. The results

proved that both solid and liquid CMG inhibited the production of pro-

inflammatory substances such as nitric oxide (NO) and prostaglandin (PGE2) by

lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-activated mouse macrophage-like RAW264.7 cells. A

western blot and (RT-PCR) analyses showed that CMG inhibited the expression

of inducible NO synthase (iNOS) and COX-2 at both the mRNA and protein level.

The data collected showed that CMG inhibited the production of both NO and

PGE2 by activated macrophages through its cytotoxic action. The study further

explained CMG inhibited protein kinase C, which attenuates the production of

H202 by NADPH oxidases and carrageenan-induced statistical significant edema.

This supported the suggestion that CMG could be used as an anti-inflammatory

and antioxidant agent.

Treatments of patients with dyspepsia

According to Dimas et al. (2012) dyspepsia is a common term used for

heterogeneous group of abdominal symptoms. In functional dyspepsia (FD)

multiple mechanisms such as abdominal gastric emptying, visceral

hypersensitivity, impaired gastric accommodation, and central nervous system

are involved. Although the possibilities of pharmacological therapy for FD are still

limited, herbal remedies are becoming increasingly popular as a treatment

measure for FD. A study was conducted with patient’s fulfilling the criteria for FD

15

diagnosis that were randomly selected to receive either CMG or placebo. The FD

was assessed using the Hong Kong index of dyspepsia. The results showed a

symptom score after treatment to be significantly lower in the CMG group than

that of the placebo group. It showed an improvement of symptoms of 40% in

patients receiving the placebo and 77% in patients receiving CMG. The test

concluded that CMG significantly improves symptoms in patients with FD

compared to those with the placebo.

Ammonia Effects in Poultry Houses

A high concentration of ammonia (NH3) gas leads to irritation of mucous

membranes of the respiratory tract, conjunctivae, and corneas of the eyes which

may lead to blindness. Damage done to the mucous membranes of the

respiratory system increases susceptibility of birds to bacterial respiratory

infection such as Escherichia coli infection. In a previous experiment, it was

shown that chickens kept in an environment with NH3 concentrations of 50ppm

and 75ppm experienced reduction in weight of 17% and 20% respectively at 7

weeks compared with birds with 0 NH3 concentrations (Aziz Tahseen, 2010).

Ritz et al. (2009) concluded that certain dietary ingredient most especially

salt, when fed excessively, cause broilers to consume and excrete large amounts

of water which results in wet litter conditions. Excessive water in litters of broiler

houses makes the birds more susceptible to disesases, while increasing the NH3

16

produced in the houses. Deodorase®, a yucca plant extract, when

supplemented with broiler feed at 100-150g/ton reduced environmental ammonia

levels by 20-30 %. It is also associated with improving growth while reducing

mortality as well (Leeson & Summers, 2008) . Besides nutrition been a factor in

ammonia reduction in broiler houses, several litter amendments have been

adopted in aiding ammonia reduction.

Study conducted by Hale III, (unknown), reported additional reduction in

ammonia emissions by reducing fed crude protein levels (from 18.8% CP to

15.0% CP) such that the excess indigestible proteins are minimized. Lysine was

supplemented to meet the minimum nutritional needs of the hens.The primary

objective of the study was to reduce excess nitrogen in birds feed; which in turn

reduces the amount of nitrogen excreted by the birds. The study concluded that

ammonia emissions could be reduced by almost 77% using the measures stated

above.

Purswell et al. (2013) reported a study affirming the application of litter

treatments, such as sodium bisulphate, aluminium sulphate, sulfuric acid, and

ferric sulphate will reduce NH3 production and volatilization via acidification.

During the study, sodium bisulphate-based litter amendment was applied to the

surface of the litter according to the manufacturer’s recommended rate (0.48

kg/m2; 100lb/1000 ft2). Ammonia volatilization from the litter was evaluated by

measuring equilibrium NH3 concentraion with a photoacoustic infrared gas

17

analyzer and a dynamic flux chamber which were placed on the litter on day -1,

13, 27, 42, and d 57 after the birds were removed from their pens. The result

proved that multiple applications of sodium bisulphate litter amendment at the

manufacturers recommended rate (0.48 kg/m2; 100lb/1000 ft2) on a biweekly

basis, reduced ammonia concentrations; therefore generally improving the birds

footpad quality as well.

Fecal Analysis & NH3 Reduction

Livestock diets are supplemented with minerals to avoid deficiencies

which may lead to a wide array of clinical and pathological disorders. Trace

minerals are essential in broiler diets for metabolic processes taking place

throughout the bird’s body. Trace minerals function as catalyst in enzymes and

hormone systems which as a result influence growth, bone development,

feathering, enzyme structure and function, and appetite. A diet deficient in trace

minerals may result to disrupted metabolic process, and also leading to impaired

production performance, loss of appetite, reproductive disorders and impaired

immune response (Nollet et al. 2007).

A study conducted by Nollet et al.( 2007) determined the effect of

replacing inorganic minerals with organic forms of Manganese (Mn), Zinc (Zn),

Iron (Fe), and Copper (Cu) on productive performance and mineral excretion in

broiler chickens. The control diet (Inorganic minerals) for the study was

18

formulated using 12 ppm Cu as CuSo4 (25%), 37 ppm Zn as ZnSO4 (35%), 70

ppm as MnO (52%), and 45 ppm Fe as FeSO4 (30%) in meeting the normal trace

element requirements of broiler feed standards in the Netherlands. The

experimental diet was supplemented with a lower level of organic minerals (10

ppm of Zn, Mn, and Fe and 2.5 ppm of Cu). On day 26 of the trial, fecal samples

were taken and analyzed to determine the level of mineral excretion. The result

showed a tendency to improve feed conversion ratio (FCR) for the broilers fed

organic minerals. The birds fed organic mineral diet also excreted a much lower

concentrations of minerals for Mn, Zn, Fe, and Cu when compared with the

control diet. This was as a result of the overall higher concentration of minerals

supplied in the control diet (inorganic minerals) as compared with the organic

minerals in the experiment diet. Excretion of fewer mineral nutrients by broilers in

return reduces ammonia production in broiler houses.

Relative and Absolute Organ Weights

Relative organ weight is the calculated absolute organ weights to a

relative percent of the body weight of the birds, while absolute organ weight is

the actual organ weight of the birds. Both absolute and relative organ weights of

broilers are important factors to consider during studies because they help

determine the overall health condition of the birds when introduced to new dietary

supplements.

19

According to Tona et al; (2004), the heart and the liver are both

considered as key supply organs for metabolism. Their proportions to the body

weight at different ages may indicate the metabolic levels at different periods

during growth.

A study conducted by Awad et al. (2005), discussed the effects of

deoxynivalenol (DON) on performance of broilers, organ weights, and intestinal

histology while evaluating the efficacy of a probiotic feed additive (PB,

Eubacterium sp). The dietary treatments utilized for the trial were 1- control, 2-

artificially contaminated diets with 10mg of DON/kg of diet and 3- DON-

contaminated diets plus probiotic feed additive (DON-PB). The result showed

that the absolute or relative weights of the gizzard, duodenum, pancreas, heart,

colon, cecum, and spleen were not affected by the dietary inclusion of DON.

Although, the liver weight was decreased in broilers fed the diet containing DON

when compared with the control, as well as, the DON-PB group, the absolute and

relative weights of jejunum were observed to have increased. This may have

occurred due to majority of nutrient absorption taking place in both the duodenum

and jejunum.

Another study conducted by Awad et al. (2008), observed the effects of

the inclusion of probiotic and symbiotic on growth performance, organ weights

and histomorphology in broiler chickens. The absolute and relative weights of

the organs were measured for the study. The result showed a decrease in

20

absolute liver weight with the symbiotic supplemented group, while the absolute

spleen weight was greater for the probiotic-supplemented group. There was no

effect on the absolute weights of the gizzard, heart, small intestine, colon, cecum

and bursa for all treatment groups. However the absolute pancreas weight

decreased with the symbiotic-supplemented group. The relative liver weight was

greater for the probiotic supplemented group; however, the relative weight of the

spleen was greater for the probiotic fed birds. The relative weights of the

proventriculus, gizzard, heart, colon, cecum, thymus, and bursa were unaffected

by all the treatments. However the relative pancreas weight tended to be lower

for the symbiotic-fed birds. At the completion of the study it was concluded that

both probiotic and symbiotic diets had no adverse effects on broiler chickens and

may also be substituted with antibiotic growth promoters.

The percentage of the organ weight helped distinguish if there is a

significant difference between the diet of the control group and the different

concentration rates of Absorbezz®P impacting the different organ weights.

Paw Scoring

The bird’s legs are considered an important commodity to the Asian

market; therefore broiler producers must ensure these parts of the birds are in

the best condition for consumption. Zhao et al., (2010) reported lesions on the

paws may serve as a pathway for bacterial infections, and may have a negative

21

effect on performance and carcass quality. The lesions may also cause pain to

the birds which may result in a deteriorated health state.

Shepard and B.D, (2010), reported footpad dermatitis (FPD) as a skin

condition in broilers discovered since the 1980’s. Footpad dermatitis also known

as podo-dermatitis and contact dermatitis, are characterized by inflamed and

necrotic lesions. The lesions range from superficial to deep on the inner surface

of the footpads and toes. According to Tabler et al .,(2013), factors associated

with FPD include; drinker design and management, diet composition, house

temperature and humidity levels, litter type, quality, and quantity; and gut health.

However for this study diet composition and gut health were considered as

factors for the paw health. In general, good footpads are important for the overall

health and survivability of the birds. The birds can’t perform without good paws. A

bad paw may inhibit the birds of getting to both the feed and water supply;

therefore, may eventually result to loss of the bird.

Scoring the footpad lesions on the paws helped determine any

differences between the control and treatment groups.

22

METHODS OF STUDY

Experimental Animals

This study began on January 16, 2015 and lasted until March 6th;

2015.The study was conducted using both male and female Cobb X Cobb broiler

chickens supplied by Tyson Foods. Birds were vaccinated for Marek’s Disease,

Newcastle Virus Disease, and Bronchitis Disease at the hatchery before arrival at

Stephen F. Austin State University Poultry Research Center. A total of 5,760

birds were placed within 96, 5’X10’ floor pens in a randomized-block design at

the Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU) Poultry Research Center located

at 13760 Hwy. 259 North Nacogdoches, TX 75965. The birds were randomly

divided among the pens at a stocking density of 0.83 ft2 per bird (60 birds per

pen) and assigned to one of the four treatment groups in a randomized block

design. Birds were reared on new bedding for a period of 49 days. Water and

food were administered ad libitum basis throughout the study to the birds. Water

was provided via Lubing FeatherSoft nipple drinkers while feed was provided via

tube feeders.

23

Experimental Treatments and Groups

This study had a total of 4 different treatments groups (1,440 birds with 24

replications/TX). The treatment groups varied only by inclusion rates of

Absorbezz®P added to the basal ration. The basal ration composed of a corn

and soybean meal blend was balanced to meet all of the nutritional needs of the

bird. The diets were formulated by Tyson Foods, but the Absorbezz®P

concentrations were mixed in at the Stephen F. Austin State University Poultry

Research Facility feed mill. The formulations of the basal diets before

Absorbezz® P was included can be seen in Appendix A. Three different rates of

Absorbezz®P treatment’s (2, 80%) - 20% below recommended dose , (3, 100%)-

recommended dose and (4, 120%)- 20% above the recommended dose were

tested against commercially-formulated, complete broiler diets (Treatment 1,

control) over a course of 49 days. The doses can be seen in the table on the

next page.

24

Table . Treatment groups and and Absorbezz®P concentration rates for this study.

Treatment (TX)

Inclusion rate of Absorbezz®P

Starter Diet (d 1-15)(1.0 lb. feed/bird)

Grower Diet (d 16-33)(3.00 lb. feed/bird)

Finisher Diet (34-49)(9.00 lb. feed/bird)

1 – Control(CON)

No Absorbezz®P

(0.0 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)

No Absorbezz®P

(0.0 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)

No Absorbezz®P

(0.0 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)

2 – Absorbezz®

80%(AB80)

0.00128 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P

(27.65 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)


(46.45 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)


(47.19 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)

3 – Absorbezz®

100%(AB100)


(34.56 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)


(58.06 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)


(58.98 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)

4 – Absorbezz®

120% (AB120)


(41.47 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)


(69.67 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)

0.00307 fl oz/bird Absorbezz®P

(70.78 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)

Al l treatment groups will be fed the same basal ration (corn/soy based) throughout the study with additional inclusion of Absorbezz® P.

Performance Data

The birds in each pen were counted and weighed collectively on days 14,

34, 42 and 48. The particular days represented approximate times for feed

change. At day 1-14 the birds were placed on starter diet while at day 15-34 the

diet was changed to grower diet. At days 35-49, they were placed on finisher

diet. The weights were analyzed to determine the average body weight per

25

treatment group by dividing the total pen weight by total the number of birds. All

feeds were weighed before being placed in the pen and after consumption. This

helped document if there was a difference between the control group and the

treatment groups of Absorbezz®P. All feed given to the birds before and what

was left during weighing were recorded. The data collected were utilized in

calculating the total feed intake, feed conversion ratio (feed consumed÷ body

weight), and adjusted feed conversion ratio. The adjusted feed conversion was

calculated by adjusting the FCR to a 5-lb bird and a 1,500-kcal (ME) diet with 7

weight/point of feed conversion. The adjustment is an industry practice in

standardizing FCR to a uniform weight for comparison purposes. The result

helped distinguish the feed conversion rate (FCR) between the control birds and

the differences of concentration and treatment of Absorbezz®P.

Fecal Analysis

At the completion of the study, fecal contents from 2 birds per pen were

collected totaling 8 samples per treatment. The samples were bagged and

refrigerated until a later date. Fecal sample was later taken out of the refrigerator

and weighed for wet matter yield. The samples were fan dried and passed

through grinder (2mm screen) until they were uniform. Each sample per

treatment were weighed and further dried in the oven at a temperature of 105° C

26

for 24 hours. Oven dried samples were placed in a desiccators to cool to obtain

room temperature and weighed to determine the dry matter yield.

Nitrogen analysis was determined by weighing 0.5 g of each fecal sample

into individual 200 ml Kjeldahl tubes. 2.5 grams of copper sulphate was added to

each sample tube. The copper sulphate was used as a catalyst to speed up the

digestion process. 15ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was added and

mixed. Samples were placed on the digestion block at a temperature of 400°C

and allow cook until a clear solution appeared (approximately 2.5 hours).

Samples were allowed to cool for 10-15 minutes. Samples were then distilled

using the kjeltec distillation unit. 25ml of boric acid indicator was placed in a 250

ml Erlenmeyer flask on a platform. Fecal sample was placed in the distillation

platform and the distillation instrument was engaged. Nitrogen from the fecal

sample was released into the boric acid.

Erlenmeyer flask containing the distilled sample was stirred using a magnetic

stirrer and titrated with a standardized acid until color changed from a bright

green to a slight pinkish color. The amount of acid used for each sample was

then recorded. The percent nitrogen and percent crude protein were calculated

using the formula:

%N ¿

Percent CrudeProtein=% Nitrogen(DryMatter )(6.25)

27

Macro and micro minerals were determined by weighing 0.500 grams of

each dried (105°C) fecal sample into individual Digi -tubes. 5 ml of concentrated

nitric acid (HNO3) were added to each digestion tube to ensure saturation. Using

the tissue profile on the Digi-prep digester, the samples were heated to 100 C

over a period of 60 minutes and then left to cook for 120 minutes before the

samples were removed and allowed to cool for 20 minutes. 4 ml of hydrogen

peroxide were added to each tube. The rack of the samples were placed back

on the Digi-prep machine and cooked at 95° C for about 90 minutes. Once the

samples were cooled, they were removed and diluted with deionized water to a

final volume of 50 ml then capped and vortexed. Analysis was performed using

the Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) at the

SFASU Soil, Plant, and water Laboratory. The samples were analyzed using a

Thermoscientific ICAP 7400 ICP. The data was interpreted using the Qtegra

software 2.4.1800.192. The analysis were performed to determine efficiency of

nutrients utilization by the broiler birds with the aid of Absorbezz®P.

Relative and Absolute Organ Weight

At the completion of the study, a total of 12 birds per treatment group were

randomly-selected and slaughtered. The liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas,

28

proventriculus, ventriculus (gizzard), and heart were excised and weighed

independently. Their relative and absolute weights were calculated as a relative

and absolute in respective of the total body weight. The objective of evaluating

the relative or absolute weight of the broiler birds was to determine if any of the

Absorbezz®P concentrations had any positive or adverse effects on each organ

weight. The absolute organ weight, helped distinguish if there is a significant

difference between the diet of the control group and the different concentration

rates of Absorbezz®P.

Paw Scoring

The paws of 5 randomly-selected birds per pen were scored at the completion of

the study using a 0-3 scale. (0-normal, 1-slight ulceration, 2-moderate ulceration,

3 – severe ulceration). Based on the score placing, we were able to determine if

the difference between the control group and the different concentrations of

Absorbezz®P helped increase or decrease the severity of the foot pad

ulcerations.

29

Yield Study

At the completion of the study, 4 randomly- selected birds per pen (2 males and

2 females identified by sexual characteristics), for a total of 384 birds were

individually weighed, recorded, and wing tagged. A numbered wing tag was

placed in the wing web of each bird for further individual identification throughout

the yield process. Birds from each treatment group remained together and were

placed in individual isolation pens until time for processing. The birds were

provided feed and water until 10 hours prior to processing, when the feed only

will be removed for gut passage time. The birds were stunned and then bled by

using a knife to sever the carotid artery and jugular vein. The birds were then

scalded, defeathered and manually eviscerated, with the head, neck, and feet

removed and discarded (Bray et al ., 2009). The following weights were

recorded: WOG, front-half carcass, hind-half carcass, breast, tenders, wings,

drums, thighs, frame, back, abdominal fat pad and skin. The remaining broilers in

the houses were taken to the processing plant and slaughtered for commercial

distribution. The yield analyses helped determine if Absorbezz®P had any effect

on carcass quality and weight.

Additional Data Collected

Each side of the research facility was equipped with a Rotem ®Platinum

plus Environmental which collected data on a daily basis. The daily readings

30

accessed from the Rotem® Controllers were taken and recorded for temperature,

humidity, water consumption and weekly ammonia. The bird weight and feed

consumptions were measured with a caged scale and recorded on days 14, 34,

42 and 48. Birds lost to mortality were picked up daily and recorded before been

incinerated on site (Data not shown).

31

Statistical Analysis

The experimental design of the study included a randomized block design with

four treatment groups (1,440 birds/TX). The treatments include 0, 80,100 and

120 percent concentration rates of Absorbezz®P. The treatments were replicated

24 times. The data was analyzed using variance (ANOVA) for each concentration

separately with 24 blocks. Duncan multiple range comparison was used to

separate the treatment means. SAS (9.3) software was used to perform all

statistical tests (SAS Institute, Cary NC). Differences were accepted as

significant at p<0.05.

32

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

At the completion of the study, all of the performance parameters and

yield data were collected and evaluated. Treatment 1 contained the industry

standard basal feed ration as shown in appendix A. Treatment 2- (Absorbezz®P

80%) had 80% of the recommended dosage , 3- (Absorbezz®P 100%) contained

the recommended dose, 4 – (Absorbezz®P 120%) contained 20% more of the

recommended dose of Absorbezz®P. The following pages expatiate on the

collection of the results accumulated from this research study.

33

Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion

Feed conversion ratios and average body weight were measured on days

14, 34, 42 and 48. Feed conversion is also known as feed efficiency. A low FCR

when achieved in the broiler industry makes broiler production among the most

efficient means of producing animal protein. Since feed makes up the primary

cost of the broiler production, feed efficiency is very important for profit

maximization. The broiler industry’s goal is to reduce the amount of feed

required to grow birds to a constant weight in a given period of time. For this

experiment, day 14, 34, 42 and 48 were selected because the bird’s diets were

switched on the specified days. At day 14, the birds’ diets were switched from the

starter diet to the grower diet. At day 34, the diet was changed from grower to

finisher I, and at day 42 they were switched from finisher I to finisher II. At day

48, all feed was removed as the birds were prepared for processing. For this

study, the average body weight, feed conversion and adjusted feed conversion

were determined. Treatment means for average body weight and feed

conversion are shown in table 2. Table 3 displays the analysis of variance for the

response variable of the average body weight.

34

Table 1. Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion, for Treatments 1-4, days 14, 34, 42

Day 14 Day 34 Day 42

TX Avg. Body

Weight(lbs.)

Feed Conversion (lbs:lbs)

Avg. Body

Weight(lbs.)


Avg. Body

Weight(lbs.)


1-Control 1.05a 1.28a 4.20a 1.72a 5.84a 1.85a

2-Absorbezz®P 80%

1.05a 1.26a 4.25a 1.71a 5.86a 1.83a

3-Absorbezz®P 100%

1.05a 1.26a 4.26a 1.72a 5.94a 1.85a

4-Absorbezz®P 120%

1.04a 1.28a 4.22a 1.73a 5.86a 1.84a

Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).

Table 2 shows the average body weight and feed conversion ratios for

days 14, 34, and 42. There was no significant difference between treatments 1

(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%), or 4(Absorbezz®P

120%). All treatments were relatively close both in average body weight and feed

conversion ratio.

At day 14, the difference between the highest (TX-1 Control) and lowest

(TX-4 Absorbezz®P 120%) average body weight was very minute (0.01 pounds).

All treatments maintained a low and relatively close feed conversion ratio with a

35

difference between the highest and lowest at 0.02 pounds. At day 34, we

observed a slight difference between the control and the different treatments

rates of Absorbezz®P. All Absorbezz®P treatments showed a slightly higher

average body weight when compared with the control group while maintaining a

relatively close feed conversion ratio. Treatment 3 (Absorbezz® P 100%), had

the highest average body weight with a difference of 0.06 pounds when

compared to the control group while maintaining the same feed conversion ratio.

At day 42, the average body weight was still consistent with day 34. However the

difference between treatment 3 (Absorbezz® P 100%), and the control increased

to 0.1 pounds while maintaining the same feed conversion ratio with the control

group. Treatments), 2 (Absorbezz® P 80%) and 3 (Absorbezz® P 100%) both

had slightly higher average body weight as compared with the control group with

a difference of 0.02 pounds while maintaining a slightly lower feed conversion

ratio with a difference of (0.02 and 0.01 pounds respectively). At day 42, it can be

observed that as the days increased the weight and the feed conversion rate also

increased. This is because the birds consume more feeds as they age; therefore,

also increasing both their body weight and feed conversion rate.

Table 3 and 4 shows the ANOVA for the average body weight and feed

conversion ratio at day 14, 34, and 42. Both ANOVA tables show no statistically

significant interactions between treatments for the respective days.

36

Table 2. ANOVA of Average Body Weight, Treatments 1-4 on days 14, 34, and 42

Source DF Mean SquareD14 D34 D42

Treatment 3 0.0006 (P=0.89)

0.019 (P=0.83)

0.04 (P=0.60)

Blocks 23 0.003 (P=0.37)

0.07 (P=0.38)

0.08 (P=0.27)

Error 68 0.003 0.07 0.06Total 94%CV 5.218 6.058 4.309

**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

Table 3. ANOVA of Feed Conversion Ratio for Treatments 1-4, at day 14, 34, and 42

Source DF Mean SquareD14 D34 D42

Treatment 3 0.0018 (P=0.71)

0.0015 (P=0.48)

0.002 (P=0.16)

Blocks 23 0.003 (P=0.87)

0.003 (P=0.11)

0.0013 (P=0.49)

Error 68 0.00391585 0.0018 0.0013Total 94%CV 4.931 2.468 1.936


37

Table 5 shows the average body weight, feed conversion and adjusted

feed conversion for treatments 1-4 at day 48. There was no significant difference

between treatments 1-4 at day 48. However treatments 2- 4 displayed slightly

higher average body weight as compared to treatment 1 (Control), at day 48.

Treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) was seen to produce a slightly higher average

body weight of 0.08 pounds while maintaining the same feed conversion ratio

when compared to the control. This was contradictory with the trend shown in

previous days as treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), constantly produced the

highest average body weight as compared to all the treatment groups from day

14-48. With the adjusted feed conversion treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 3

(Absorbezz® P 100%) proved to be the most efficient of all treatment group. All

Absorbezz®P treatments showed a slightly lower or the same adjusted feed

conversion ratio when compared with the control group.

38

Table 4. Average Body Weight, Feed Conversion, Adjusted Feed

Conversion. Treatments 1-4, at day 48

Day 48

Treatment Avg. Body Weight (lbs.)

Feed Conversion

(lbs:lbs)

Adj. Feed Conversion

(lbs:lbs)

1- Control 7.03a 1.94a 1.54a

2- Absorbezz®P 80% 7.07a 1.92a 1.52a

3- Absorbezz®P 100% 7.10a 1.94a 1.54a

4- Absorbezz®P 120% 7.11a 1.94a 1.53a


Table 5. ANOVA of Average Body Weight, at day 48

Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Block 23 2.352 0.102 1.41 0.14

TX 3 0.077 0.026 0.35 0.79

Error 68 4.934 0.073 . .

Total 94 7.363 . . .

Table 6. ANOVA for Feed Conversion, at day 48


Block 23 0.0441 0.0019 1.42 0.133TX 3 0.0065 0.0022 1.60 0.198

Error 68 0.0917 0.0013 . .Total 94 0.1423 . . .

39

Table 7. ANOVA on Day 48- Adjusted Feed Conversion


Block 23 0.06 0.003 0.66 0.87

TX 3 0.005 0.002 0.45 0.72

Error 68 0.266 0.0039 . .

Total 94 0.33 . . .

Figure 1 compares the average body weight gain relative to the feed

conversion ratio for days 14, 34, 42 and 48. The bar graph depicts the correlation

of the average body weight and feed conversion ratio. It supports the claim of the

ANOVA table showing no statically difference between treatment 1(Control), 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%), 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%) for

average body weight and feed conversion ratio and adjusted feed conversion

ratio for days 14, 34, 42 and 48.

40

Figure 1. Average Body Weight and Feed Conversion for days 14, 34, 42 and 48.

Avg

. Bod

y W

eigh

t

Feed

Con

vers

ion

Avg

. Bod

y W

eigh

t

Feed

Con

vers

ion

Avg

. Bod

y W

eigh

t

Feed

Con

vers

ion

Avg

. Bod

y W

eigh

t

Feed

Con

vers

ion

Adj

. Fee

d C

onve

rsio

n

Day 14 Day 34 Day 42 Day 48

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 TX #1 - Control

TX #2 - Absorbezz 80%



41

Although, the results were not different when compared to the poultry

industry standards. Low feed conversion ratios are important in reducing

production cost via reducing feed consumption and improving feed efficiency

(Banks, 2014). The result of this trial still correlates with a study by Wang et al.,

(2006) which noted an improvement in BW, FCR, or both for broilers fed

additives such as synthetic amino acids, antibiotics, enzymes and probiotics. The

data collected from this trial proves that supplementing broiler diets with

Absorbezz®P can increase the average body weight while also improving feed

efficiency. Inclusion of Absorbezz ®P at 100% and 120% deemed to be the peak

performances for Absorbezz®P for average body weight while maintaining a low

feed conversion ratio. The ANOVA, table 8, shows no significant difference in

adjusted feed conversion.

Mortality

Mortality was recorded and measured for days 14, 34, 42 and 48 for

treatments 1 (Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4

(Absorbezz®P 120%). The results showed no significant difference in percent

mortality in neither the treatments nor days, as shown in table 9. Treatment

2(Absorbezz®P 80%) had a lower overall mortality rate as compared to the

treatment 1 (Control). However treatment 3 (100%) and 4 (120%) both had a

slightly higher percent mortality when compared to treatment 1 (Control), as

42

demonstrated in table 9. However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Having a small number of birds in each pen may have resulted in each death to

have a large difference in mortality percentage. However most of the mortality

occurred during the first 7 days of the brooding process. The birds were culled

and incinerated on site at the SFASU broiler farm. There was no unusual trend of

mortality observed during the trial with Absorbezz®P supplemented in the

broilers diet (Data not shown).

Table 8. Percent Mortality, Days 14, 34, 42, 48, Treatments 1-4.

Percent Mortality

Treatment Day 14 Day 34 Day 42 Day 48

% Mortality % Mortality % Mortality % Mortality

1-Control 5.07a 6.61 a 7.10 a 7.93 a

2-Absorbezz®P 80%

4.67a 6.26 a 6.40 a 7.24 a

3-Absorbezz®P 100%

5.64 a 6.28 a 7.95 a 8.51 a

4-Absorbezz®P 120%

3.86 a 6.10 a 6.72 a 8.11 a

Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).All pens were populated with 60 birds at placement (block #1 (pens 1, 2, 47, 48) only received 50 birds/pen at placement due to shortage from hatchery).

43

Table 9. ANOVA of Mortality, Treatments 1-4, d 14, 34, 42, and 48

Source DF Mean Square

D14 D34 D42 D48

Treatment 3 13.4 (P=0.03)

1.11 (P=0.98)

10.6 (P=0.66)

6.85 (P=0.81)

Blocks 23 19.4 (P=0.31)

19.4 (P=0.35)

22.1 (P=0.33)

19.9 (P=0.56)

Error 69 10.894 17.406 19.611 21.381Total 95%CV 68.631 66.093 62.886 58.179


Fecal Analysis

At day 48, fecal samples from 2 randomly- selected birds totaling 8

samples per treatment were collected. The fecal samples were analyzed for

percent nitrogen, total nitrogen, crude protein, macro-minerals and micro-

minerals using the Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Spectrometry (ICP-OES)

equipment. Total nitrogen includes the sum of organic nitrogen, nitrate (NO3),

ammonium (NH4), and uric acid (C5H4N4O3). Crude protein determines the

nitrogen content of the feed. The macro-minerals were phosphorus, potassium,

44

calcium, magnesium, sulphur, and sodium. Micro-minerals consist of iron,

manganese, zinc, copper, aluminum, molybdenum, boron and arsenic.

Table 11 depicts the treatment means for the percent nitrogen, total

nitrogen and crude protein for day 48. Macro-minerals and micro-minerals

treatment means at day 48 are shown in table 13. Table’s 14 and 15 show the

ANOVA’s for the macro and micro minerals respectively. ANOVA for percent

nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein can be seen in table 12.

No statistically significant difference was seen for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen

and crude protein at day 48, for treatments 1 (Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3,

(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %). However all Absorbezz®P

treatments had slightly higher percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein

as compared with the control group. For all three parameters measured,

treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120 %) had the highest amount of percent nitrogen,

total nitrogen and crude protein present in the broilers excreta. The differences

between the highest and lowest were (0.6%, 5824 ppm, and 3.6%) respectively

for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein respectively as shown

below.

45

Table 10. Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, Crude Protein. Treatments 1-4, day 48

Source 1-Control

2-Absorbezz®P 80%

3-Absorbezz®P 100%

4-Absorbezz®P 120%

Percent Nitrogen (%)

4.381a 4.508a 4.598a 4.964a

Total Nitrogen (ppm)

43,813a 45,081a 45,984a 49,637a

Crude Protein (%)

27.383a 28.176a 28.740a 31.023a


Table 11. ANOVA of Percent Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Crude Protein. Treatment 1-4, at day 48

Source DF

Mean Square

Percent Nitrogen (%)

Total Nitrogen (ppm)

Crude Protein (%)

Treatment

30.504

(P=0.80)5010

(P=0.80)19.6

(P=0.80)

Error 28 1.511 1512 59.1

Total 31%CV 26.65 26.7 26.7


46

For the macro-minerals, no statistical differences were seen for

phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulphur (S) for treatments 1

(Control), 2 (Absorbezz® P 80%), 3, (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P

120 %). However all the Absorbezz® P treatments for P, Ca, Mg and S had

slightly higher nutrients in their fecal sample as compared to treatment 1

(Control). Although, potassium (K) levels in treatments 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%)

and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %) were significantly higher when compared to

treatment 1 (Control) but were not significantly different from treatment 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%). While sodium (Na) levels were significantly higher in

treatment 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to treatment 1 (Control), Na

levels were not significantly different to treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4

(Absorbezz®P 120 %).

47

Table 12. Fecal Analysis, Treatments 1-4, d 48

Minerals(PPM)

TXT -1Control

TXT-2Absorbezz®P-80%

TXT-3Absorbezz®P -100%


Mac

ro m

iner

als

Phosphorus 10517.09

0a11159.583a 10921.648a 12265.708a

Potassium 24262.94

9b27557.129ab 28948.668a 28519.198a

Calcium 14898.44

7a16159.194a 14919.650a 17335.355a

Magnesium 5171.199a 5975.678a 5184.057a 5861.922a

Sulphur 4137.874a 4424.184a 4622.527a 4700.622a

Sodium 7790.793b 9288.704a 8929.272ab 8169.243ab

Mic

ro m

iner

als

Iron 277.586b 301.214b 640.645a 444.640b

Manganese 308.503a 372.548a 339.847a 356.646a

Zinc 225.121b 253.223ab 252.836ab 296.712a

Copper 36.842b 42.322ab 44.175ab 55.630a

Aluminum 104.877b 97.836b 297.655a 120.769b

Molybdenum 3.322a 3.231a 3.684a 3.630a

Boron 42.044a 44.327a 46.720a 45.591a

Arsenic 0.256a 0.235a 0.254a 0.189a


48

49

Table 13. ANOVA of Macro-minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48

Source DF Mean Square

P K Ca Mg S Na

Treatment3 4481

(P=0.22)3598* (P=0.09) 1087

(P=0.44)1482

(P=0.13)5036

(P=0.35)3762*

(P=0.08)Error 28 2848 1548 1177 7389 4385 1529

Total 31

%CV 15.046 14.402 21.674 15.492 14.810 14.471


50

Table 14. ANOVA of Micro- minerals, Treatments 1-4, d 48.

Source

DF

Mean Square

Fe Mn Zn Cu Al Mo B AsTX 3 2230**

(P=0.002)

6004(P=0.215)

7000*(P=0.06)

500*(P=0.120)

7281**(P=0.012)

0.401(P=0.758)

32.17(P=0.421)

0.008(P=0.749)

Error 28 3542 3791 2567 235.4 1664 1.019 33.21 0.019Total 31% CV 45.24 17.88 19.72 34.29 83.07 29.13 12.90 58.46**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

For the micro-minerals, no statistical differences were observed between

treatments 1 (Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3, (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4

(Absorbezz®P 120 %) for Manganese (Mn), Molybdenum (Mo), Boron (B) and

Arsenic (As). However for Manganese and Boron all Absorbezz®P treatments

were slightly higher when compared to treatment 1 (Control).

Iron and Aluminum both had significant differences when treatment 3,

(Absorbezz®P 100%) is compared to treatments 1 (Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P

80%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %). Treatments 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %) for both

Zinc and Copper had significant differences when compared to treatment 1

(Control), but not significantly higher than treatments 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3,

(Absorbezz®P 100%). Absorbezz®P nutrients contained ionized therefore

enabling easier utilization of the nutrients. Since the control was composed of the

broiler industry’s standardized complete ration, inclusion of more minerals

through Absorbezz®P may have resulted in the birds excreting large amounts of

the minerals when compared with the control group. However we might have

observed a different result if the nutrients of the basal diet were matched with the

nutrients present in Absorbezz®P treatments. Inclusion of just minerals present

in Absorbezz®P may have helped determine an accurate measure on how the

birds will utilize minerals present in Absorbezz®P. Absorbezz®P however, didn’t

have any adverse effect whatsoever on the broilers either through the birds body

daily function nor nutrient utilization. The result obtained from this study

51

correlates with a study conducted by Nollet et al., (2007), which observed a

higher nutrient excretion in birds fed higher levels of inorganic minerals. The

results of the mineral excretion of the study with minerals supplied in higher

amounts at day 26 were as follows (Mn 380mg/kg, Zn 277mg/kg, Fe 707 mg/kg,

Cu 48 mg/kg).

Absolute and Relative Organ WeightAt day 49, 12 randomly-selected birds per treatment group were

euthanized, scalded and picked with the scalding and picker machines. The liver,

kidneys, spleen, pancreas, proventriculus, ventriculus (gizzard), and heart were

excised and weighed independently. Absolute organ weights and the organ

weights relative to the live body weight were determined. Absolute organ weight

which is the actual organ weight was measured in grams as shown in table 16.

The relative organ weight was measured in percent relative to the body weight

depicted in table 17. To calculate relative organ weight, the equation:

Absolute Organ Weight (g)/Live Bird Weight (g))*100= Relative organ weight

52

Table 15. Absolute Organ Weight for treatments 1-4, at day 49

Organ WeightTX -1Control

TX-2Absorbezz®P-80%

TX-3Absorbezz®P -100%


Sample Bird Weight (lbs) 6.828a 6.707a 6.959a 6.988a

Liver (g) 57.737a 56.818a 60.278a 57.621a

Kidney (g) 6.564a 6.354a 6.138a 6.599a

Spleen (g) 2.873b 3.625a 3.045ab 2.933b

Pancreas (g) 4.664a 5.216a 5.105a 5.132a

Proventriculus (g) 10.709a 11.729a 12.015a 13.222a

Gizzard (g) 31.988a 34.638a 37.850a 37.389a

Heart (g) 18.966a 18.361a 15.566a 18.512a


Table 16 displays the treatment means of the absolute organ weights of

the birds. No significant difference were seen between treatments 1 (Control), 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3, (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %) for

liver, kidney, pancreas, proventriculus, gizzard and heart. However treatments

2(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4(Absorbezz®P 120 %) were

slightly higher for the pancreas, proventriculus, gizzard and heart when

compared to the treatment 1(Control). Treatment 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%) had a

significantly heavier spleen (P=0.01) than treatment 1 (Control) as shown in table

22. Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) showed no

significant difference when compared to treatment 1(Control) for the spleen.

53

Although treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120 %) had

slightly heavier spleen weight with the difference of 0.172 and 0.06 grams

respectively when compared to treatment 1(Control).

Table 22 shows ANOVA the absolute organ weights, at day 49, for

treatments1( Control),2( Absorbezz®P 80%),3( Absorbezz®P100%), and

4( Absorbezz®P 120 %). The ANOVA showed no statistically significant

differences between treatments treatments1( Control),2( Absorbezz®P

80%),3( Absorbezz®P100%), and 4( Absorbezz®P 120 %) in absolute organ

weights for the liver, kidneys, pancreas, heart and proventriculus. The spleen

however, showed a probability (P=0.01) of difference between treatment

2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and treatment 1(Control).

Table 16. Relative Organ Weight for treatments 1-4, at day 49

Day 49

Organ WeightTX -1

Control

TX-2Absorbezz®P-

80%

TX-3Absorbezz®P -

100%

TX-4Absorbezz®P-

120%

Sample Bird Weight (lbs)

6.828a 6.707a 6.959a 6.988a

Liver (%) 1.86a 1.87a 1.92a 1.81a

Kidney (%) 0.212a 0.210a 0.196a 0.209a

Spleen (%) 0.094b 0.120a 0.096b 0.092b

Pancreas (%) 0.153a 0.175a 0.163a 0.162a

Proventriculus (%) 0.350a 0.386a 0.423a 0.382a

Gizzard (%) 1.05a 1.15a 1.20a 1.20a

54

Heart (%) 0.606a 0.611a 0.492b 0.584ab

a,b - Means with same letter are not significantly different (P<0.05)

Table 17 shows the absolute organ weights after conversion to a relative

percentage of body weight at day 49 for treatments 1(Control), 2(Absorbezz®P

80%), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%). There was no

statistical significance for treatments 1( Control),2( Absorbezz® P

80%),3( Absorbezz®P 100%),4( Absorbezz® P 120%) for liver, kidney,

pancreas, and proventriculus. However treatments 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%),

3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) for pancreas, proventriculus,

and gizzard were slightly higher when compared to treatment 1 (Control).

Treatment 2 for the spleen was significantly different when compared to

treatment 1(Control). Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P

120%) were not significantly different from treatment 1(Control). Treatment

1(Control) and 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) for the heart were significantly different

from treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) but not significantly from treatment 4

(Absorbezz®P 120%).

55

Table 17. ANOVA on Day 49-Average Live Weight (Pounds)


Treatment 3 0.605 0.202 0.42 0.74

Error 44 21.31 0.484 . .

Total 47 21.92

Table 18. ANOVA on Day 49- Average Live Weight (Grams)


Treatment 3 124527 41509 0.42 0.74

Error 44 4384802 99654 . .

Total 47 4509329

56

57

Table 19. ANOVA of Average Absolute Weights of Organs for treatments 1-4, at day 49

Source DF Mean SquareLiver (g) Kidney(g) Spleen(g) Pancreas(g) Proventriculus(g) Gizzard(g) Heart(g)

TX 3 27(P=0.788)

0.548(P=0.728)

1.43**(P=0.019)

0.737(P=0.649)

12.8(P=0.223)

88.67(P=0.279)

28.65(P=0.171)

Error 44 76.59 1.26 0.390 1.34 8.45 66.97 16.10Total 47% CV 15.06 17.464 20.015 22.973 24.394 23.0752 22.683**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

58

Table 20. ANOVA of Average Relative Weights of Organs, for Treatments 1-4, at day 49

Source DF Mean SquareLiver (%) Kidney (%) Spleen (%) Pancreas (%) Proventriculus (%) Gizzard (%) Heart (%)

Treatment 3 0.023(P=0.704)

0.0007(P=0.659)

0.0020***(P=0.003)

0.0001(P=0.661)

0.011(P=0.368)

0.06(P=0.550)

0.04*(P=0.05)

Error 44 0.05 0.0012 0.0004 0.0018 0.0099 0.08 0.0126Total 47% CV 11.776 17.021 19.395 25.920 25.848 25.273 19.632**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

Table 21 presents the ANOVA for the average relative weights of organs

for treatments 1(Control), 2(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4

(Absorbezz®P 120%). The ANOVA shows no significant difference for the liver,

kidney, pancreas, proventriculus and gizzard. The spleen had a significantly

heavier weight (P=0.003) for treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to

treatment 1(Control), 3(Absorbezz®P 100%), and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%).

The heart weight relative to the body was significantly higher (P=0.05) in

treatment 1(Control) and 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to treatment

3(Absorbezz®P100%). However, they were not higher than treatment

4(Absorbezz®P 120 %). This result was consistent with findings from previous

studies (Tona et al., 2004). The study suggests with age increase, liver activity or

cardiac output may slow down with age increase, therefore reducing metabolic

rate and growth speed. The spleen weight been significantly higher for

treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) may have been as a result of the birds fighting

an infection. The spleen is utilized for storing red and white blood cells, as well

as, destroying bacteria and foreign matter. Therefore, a bacterial infection may

have resulted in the enlargement of the spleen.

Paw Scores

59

Paw scores were measured by observing the inner surface of the footpads

of 5 randomly-selected birds per pen on day 48. The paws were scored using the

0-3 scale. 0 was deemed normal, 1 having slight ulceration, 2 having moderate

ulcerations and 3 having severe ulcerations. Figures 3 -5 depict paw scores 0, 1,

2, and 3. There was no significant difference between treatments 1(Control), 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) as

shown in table 21. However treatments 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%) and 3

(Absorbezz®P 100%) had lower paw scores when compared to treatment 1

(Control) except for treatment 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%), demonstrated in table 22.

The ANOVA, table 23, shows no significant difference, at day 48. However most

Absorbezz®P treatments had a lower average paw scores as compared to

treatment 1(Control). This could mean that the litters in the experiment treatment

pens were less moist than the control treatment. Since moisture presence in litter

is related to foot pad ulcerations. This may prove that Absorbezz®P helped

reduce paw ulcerations in the experiment pens. The images shown in the next 3

pages illustrate how the paw scores were measured.

60

Figure 2. Paw Score - 0

Figure above illustrates a paw score of 0 with no form of footpad ulcerations

61

Figure 3. Paw Score - 1 & 2

Image illustrates footpad score of 1(left) and 2 (right) with slight to moderate footpad ulcerations respectively

62

Figure 4. Paw Score - 3

Image illustrates foot pad score of 3 with severe footpad ulceration

63

Table 21. Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48

Paw Scores for Day 48TX- 1 Control

TX-2 Absorbezz®P 80%



0.942a 0.917a 0.883a 0.950a

Table 22. ANOVA of Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48


Treatment 3 0.065 0.0215 0.33 0.802

Error 92 5.965 0.0648 . .

Total 95 6.0295

Carcass Yield

Table 24 shows the yield result treatment means for this study;

consisting of 4 randomly-selected birds per pen (2 males and 2 females) which

were identified by their sexual characteristics totaling 384 birds, at day 49. The

birds were separated into groups and wing tagged. Average body weight, WOG

(Carcass ‘’ Without Giblets’’), front half carcass, hind half carcass, breast,

tenderloin, wings, drums, thighs, skin, abdominal fat pad, frame and back were

weighed and recorded for analysis. They were processed at Stephen F. Austin

64

State University Poultry Research Center’s processing plant. Table 25 presents

the ANOVA tables for each retail cuts.

Table 23. Yield Data Results for Treatments 1-4, at day 49

Weight of Parts (lbs) Treatments

1 -

Control 2 -

Absorbezz®P 80%

3 - Absorbezz®P

100%

4 -

Absorbezz®P 120%

Average Live Weight

6.901 a 6.922 a 7.000 a 6.939 a

WOG 5.130 a 5.122 a 5.202 a 5.139 a

Carcass – Front Half 2.765 b 2.874 ab 2.965 a 2.900 ab

Carcass – Hind Half 2.746 a 2.750 a 2.829 a 2.759 a

Breast 1.245 b 1.276 ab 1.307 a 1.275 ab

Tenders 0.274 b 0.278 ab 0.292 a 0.279 ab

Wings 0.690 a 0.694 a 0.703 a 0.699 a

Drums 0.649 a 0.651 a 0.662 a 0.674 a

Thighs 0.785 a 0.777 a 0.800 a 0.790 a

Skin 0.138 a 0.132 a 0.141 a 0.134 a

Fat Pad 0.189 a 0.202 a 0.202 a 0.195 a

Frame 0.545 a 0.524 b 0.537 ab 0.524 b

Back 0.563 a 0.551 a 0.579 a 0.559 a

* Average body weight represents 4 selected birds/pen for a total of 96 birds/TXMeans with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).

No significant difference was observed for average live weights of the

birds processed among treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3

(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) as shown in table 24. However

the average body weights follow the same trend as the overall average body

weights per pen on the final weigh day. Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%),

trended to have more live body weight when compared to treatment 1(Control).

65

The same results can be seen with all the yield parameters. This may be as a

result of Absorbezz®P reaching its peak performance at 100% concentration

rate. It also suggests no bias was utilized during the selection process for the

yield birds.

66

67

Table 24. ANOVA for Yield Data Results for Treatment 1-4, at day 49

Source DF Mean SquareLive Weight Front Half Hind Half WOG

Block 23 0.4725(P=0.065)

0.2737(P=0.520)

0.3957(P=0.526)

0.3704**(P=0.019)

Treatment 3 0.1717(P=0.650)

0.6663*(P=0.074)

0.1462(P=0.788)

0.1245(P=0.623)

Error 356 0.3138 0.2858 0.4150 0.2117Total 383% CV 8.071 18.588 23.246 8.936**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

68 Source DF Mean SquareBreast Wings Tenders Skin Frame

Block 23 0.0426(P=0.107)

0.0126(P=0.068)

0.0016(P=0.814)

0.002(P=0.208)

0.0039(P=0.108)

Treatment 3 0.0580(P=0.128)

0.0035(P=0.743)

0.0057*(P=0.051)

0.0017(P=0.453)

0.0066*(P=0.070)

Error 356 0.0304 0.0084 0.0022 0.0019 0.0028Total 383% CV 13.675 13.194 16.660 32.036 9.875**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

69

Source DF Mean SquareDrums Thighs Back Fat Pad

Block 23 0.0126(P=0.111)

0.0236(P=0.004)

0.0160(P=0.045)

0.0062(P=0.505)

Treatment 3 0.0123(P=0.256)

0.0096(0.453)

0.0121(P=0.300)

0.0029(P=0.715)

Error 356 0.0090 0.0117 0.0105 0.0064Total 383% CV 14.434 13.735 18.243 40.649**** Significant at the 0.0001 level of probability*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability.** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability.* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability

No significant difference was observed for without giblets weight (WOG)

for treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and

4(Absorbezz®P 120%). All treatments were relatively close with a difference of

0.08 pounds between treatments 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) highest and 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%) lowest treatment means.

The front half carcass consists of the breast, wings, tenders, skin and

frame. Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) had a statistically significant front half

carcass weight (P=0.07) when compared to treatment 1 (Control), but not

significantly different from treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P

120%). However, treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%)

had slightly heavier front carcass weight when compared to treatment 1(Control).

The result attained from the front half carcass was consistent with the yield for

the breasts, tenderloin and the frame. However, the breast is the most valuable

part of the bird. Treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) was significantly higher

(P=0.1) when compared to treatment 1 (Control) for the breast weight but not

different from treatments 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%).

Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) was significantly different (P=0.05) when

compared to treatment 1 (Control) for the tenderloins but not different from 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%) and 4 (Absorbezz®P 120%). Treatment 1(Control) had a

significantly heavier frame weight (P=0.07) than treatments 2(Absorbezz®P

80%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%), but not significantly different from treatment

70

3(Absorbezz®P 100%). This may be as a result of Absorbezz® P putting on

more muscling in the pectoral region thereby, foregoing nutrients for the birds

bone development. No significant difference was seen for the skin for treatments

1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P

120%). No significant difference was seen for the wings between treatments


120%). Although all Absorbezz®P treatments had slightly heavier wings weight

when compared to treatment 1.

The hind half carcass consists of the drums, thighs, back and the fat pad.

No significant difference was observed for the drums between treatments


120%) . All Absorbezz®P treatments showed slightly heavier drums as

compared to treatment 1(Control). No significant difference was observed for the

thighs between treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P

100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . All Absorbezz®P treatments showed

slightly heavier thighs as compared to treatment 1(Control). No significant

different was seen for the back between treatments 1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P

80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . No significant

difference was observed for the fat pad between treatments 1(Control), 2

(Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) . All

Absorbezz®P treatments showed a slightly denser underlying fat pad when

71

compared to treatment 1(Control). In general all Absorbezz®P treatments

showed no adverse effects on the birds yield, but rather increased carcass yield

which were all slightly heavier when compared with the control group. This could

mean that Absorbezz®P can be supplemented with broiler diet to improve weight

gain; therefore, Absorbezz®P could be used in place currently used growth

promoting supplements.

72

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

For this study, the following parameters were measured during the

production of commercial broilers reared to 49 days; performance, relative and

absolute organ weight, nitrogen content of fecal matter, mortality, paw ulceration

and carcass yield with the broiler’s diets supplemented with Absorbezz®P at

different concentration stages. Diet treatment for this experiment are as follows;


120%).

Average body weights and feed conversions were measured at day 14,

34, 42 and 48. At day 14, no statistical difference was observed for treatments 1-

4 for both average body weight and feed conversion. All treatments had relatively

close average body weight (1.04 lbs – 1.04lbs) and feed conversion ratios

(1.26lbs – 1.28lbs), respectively. At day 34, there was no significant difference

between treatments 1-4, however all Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of

slightly higher average body weight when compared with the control group while

maintaining a relatively close feed conversion ratio. Day 42, the average body

73

weight was consistent with day 34. All Absorbezz®P treatments showed a

trend of slightly higher average body weight. Treatment 3 (Absorbezz®P 100),

however, had the highest average body weight (5.94lbs) but still maintained the

same feed conversion ratio (1.85lbs) with the control (5.84lbs). At day 48, no

significant difference was observed for all treatments, however treatment

4(Absorbezz®P 120%) had the highest average body weight (7.11lbs) while

maintaining the same feed conversion ratio (1.94lbs) with the control group. With

the feed conversion adjusted for day 48, there was no significant difference

observed between all treatments. However, treatment 4(Absorbezz®P 120%)

proved to be the most efficient relative to feed conversion while maintaining the

highest average body weight. The results from this trial suggests that a feeding

regime of supplying broiler diets with 100% of the recommended dosage from

day 0-42 and after 42 days increase Absorbezz® P to 120% concentration rate

may result to a heavier weight for the birds. Inclusion of Absorbezz®P at 100%

and 120% seemed to be the peak performances for Absorbezz®P for average

body weight while ensuring feed efficiency.

Mortality was recorded and measured for day 14, 34, 42 and 48 for

treatments 1-4. No significant difference was observed for percent mortality.

Having a small number of birds (60 birds) in each pen may have made each

death have a large difference in percent mortality, however no unusual trend of

mortality was observed during this trial.

74

Fecal samples were collected and evaluated for percent nitrogen, total

nitrogen, crude protein, macro-minerals and micro-minerals. No statistical

difference was observed for percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein for

treatments 1-4. However all Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of slightly

higher percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein in the broilers excreta.

Increase in percent nitrogen, total nitrogen and crude protein may have been as

a result of adding Absorbezz®P to an already complete broiler diet.

No statistical difference was seen for macro-minerals P, Ca, Mg, S for

treatments 1-4, although all the Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of

slightly higher P, Ca, Mg and when compared to the control group. K levels in

treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) were significantly

higher when compared to the control group but not significantly different from

treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%). Na levels were significantly higher in treatment

2(Absorbezz®P 80%) when compared to the control group but not significantly

different to treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%).

For the micro-minerals, no statistical difference was seen for treatments 1-

4 for Mn, B and As, however, Absorbezz®P treatments showed a trend of higher

Mn and B. Fe and Al both had a significant difference when treatment

3(Absorbezz®P 100%) was compared to the rest of the treatments. Zn and Cu

both had significant differences when compared to the control group, but not

significant when compared to the rest of the treatments.

75

Absorbezz®P having ionized nutrients enabled the birds to better utilize

nutrients when compared to the non-ionized nutrients. Also, since the control

treatment consisted of the broiler industry’s standardized complete ration,

inclusion of more minerals through Absorbezz®P may have resulted to the birds

excreting larger amounts of minerals when compared with the control group. A

different result may have been achieved if Absorbezz®P was used as the only

source of mineral supply to the birds, however it was noted that Absorbezz®P

didn’t have any adverse effect on the broilers either through body functions or

nutrient utilization.

At day 49 of this trial, 12 birds per treatment group were randomly were

euthanized for the purpose of absolute and relative organ measurements. The

liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, proventriculus, ventriculus (gizzard), and heart

were excised and weighed independently. For the absolute organ weight, the

liver, kidney, pancreas, proventriculus, gizzard and heart showed no significant

difference. However, treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) showed a significantly

heavier spleen (P=0.01) compared to the control group. Treatment

3(Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P 120%) showed no significant

difference when compared to the control group. No significant difference was

observed for the liver, kidney, and pancreas for the relative organ weight. The

spleen and heart however, showed a significant difference with a probability of

(0.003) and (0.05) respectively. The spleen weight been significantly higher for

76

treatment 2(Absorbezz®P 80%) may have been as a result of the birds fighting a

bacterial infection. The spleen is primarily utilized for storage of red and white

blood cells. The white blood cells present in the spleen aids in destruction of

bacteria and foreign matter, which may have resulted in the enlargement of the

spleen. The heart been significantly higher in treatment 1(Control) and

2(Absorbezz®P 80%), may have been as a result of stress or a disease. A

smaller heart proves the bird is healthy and efficient, while a larger heart may

indicate the birds were unhealthy and have to work the heart extra hard for blood

circulation.

The paws were evaluated during this trial because paw ulcerations are

directly linked with litter conditions. Better digestion leads to a more efficient

excretion which in turn reduces moisture litter. Having good litter conditions

means no negative effect will be observed on the paws. No significant difference

was observed between all treatments. However, most Absorbezz®P treatments

had lower paw scores when compared with the control group. With the results

stated, incorporating Absorbezz®P as a feed supplement may aid in reduction of

paw ulcerations.

Carcass yield was measured in this study to evaluate how the broilers

respond to Absorbezz®P. No significant difference was observed for the without

giblet weight (WOG). The front half carcass consisting of the breast, wings,

tenders, skin and frame showed a significant front carcass weight (P=0.07) for

77

treatment 3(Absorbezz®P 100%) when compared with the control group. The

result from the front half carcass was consistent with the yield of the breast

(P=0.1), tenderloin (P=0.05) and frame (P=0.07) and were significant as stated

above. The frame of the control group been significant when compared to the

experiment treatments may have been as a result of Absorbezz®P utilitizing

most nutrients on increasing the body weight of the birds rather than supplying

enough nutrients for the birds frame structure. The hind carcass consists of the

drums, thighs, back and fat pad which were all not significantly different. The skin

and the fat pad were also measured with both not been significantly different. In

conclusion all Absorbezz®P treatments showed no adverse effects on the birds

yield, but rather increased the overall carcass yield with all Absorbezz®P

treatments showing a trend of higher carcass yield when compared with the

control group. Absorbezz®P, when supplemented with broiler diet may improve

weight gain; and likewise, could be used in place of currently used growth

promoting supplements. Although, further research on Absorbezz®P may be

required to make the results from this study concrete

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ansari S.H, N. S. (2012). Pistacia Lentiscus: A Review On Phytochemistry And Pharmacological Properties. International Journal Of Pharmacy And Pharmaceutical Sciencies , IV, 16-20.

Association, T. C. (2014). Overview Of The Major Scientific Publications On The Beneficial Properties Of Natural Chios Mastiha . Chio, Greece.

Awad, W., Bohm, J., Razzazi-Fazeli, E., Ghareeb, K., & Zentek, J. (2005, July 19). Effect of Addition of a Probiotic Microorganism to Broiler Diets Contaminated with Deoxynivalenol on Performance and Histological Alterations of Intestinal Villi of Broiler Chickens . Environment, Well-Being, and Behavior , 974-979.

Awad, W., Ghareeb, S., Abdel-Raheem, S., & Bohm, J. (2008). Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Probiotic and Synbiotic on Growth Performance, Organ Weights, and Intestinal Histomorphology of Broiler Chickens. Qena, Egypt: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, South Valley University.

Aziz Tahseen, B. J. (2010, October 25). Harmful Effects Of Ammonia On Birds.

Bailey Chris, C. A. (2013). Poultry Science Manual 6th Edition.

Banks, K. M. (2014). Evaluation of Different Zinc Sources at Varying Inclusion Rates in Commercial Broiler Chickens on Performance, Meat Yield, Gut Tensile Strenght, and Tibia Bone Analysis. Agriculture. Nacogdoches: Stephen F. Austin State University.

Bray, J., Taylor, C., Cherry, T., & Carey, J. (2009). Performance Comparison Between the Use and Nonuse of An Enteric Health Medication Program Across Five Consecutive Commercial Broiler Flocks . Nacogdoches: Department of Agriculture Stephen F. Austin State University.

Chris, M. D. (2015). Retrieved Febuary 19, 2015, from Trace Minerals Research: http://www.traceminerals.com/trace-minerals/why-you-need-ionic-minerals

Dibner J.J, R. J. (2004). The Digestive System: Challenges and Opportunities . 86-93.

Dimas S. Konstantinos, P. P. (2012). Chios Mastic Gum: A Plant-produced Resin Exhibiting Numerous Diverse Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Properties , 777-786.

Hale III, C. E. (unknown). Reduction of Ammonia Emission and Phosphorus Excretion in Laying Hen Manure Through Feed Manipulation. Environmental Quality Control, Rose Acre Farms,Seymour, Indiana . Kocaman, B., Esenbuga, N., Yildiz, A., Lacin, E., &

79

Macit, M. (2006). Effects of Environmental Conditions in Poultry Houses on The Performance of Laying Hens. International Journal of Poultry Science , 5 (1), 26-30.

Leeson, S., & Summers, J. D. (2008). Commercial Poultry Nutrition. Guelph, Ontario: Nottingham University Press.

Michael, C., & Brian, F. (2012). Poultry Housing Tips. The University of Georgia, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciencies. Cooperative Extension.

National Chicken Council. (2015, January 9). Retrieved Febuary 19, 2015, from National Chicken Council.Org: http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/u-s-broiler-performance/

Nollet, L., Van Der Klis, J., Lensing, M., & Spring, P. (2007). The Effect of Replacing Inorganic With Organic Trace Minerals in Broiler Diets on Productive Performance and Mineral Excretion. Sarney: Alltech Biotechnology Centre.

Purswell, J., Davis, J., Kiess, A., & Coufal, C. (2013). Effects of Frequency of Multiple Applicationss of Litter Amendment on Litter Ammonia and Live Performance in a Shared Airspace. Mississippi State: Poultry Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service.

Ritz, W. C., Fairchild, D. B., & Lacy, P. M. (2009). Litter Quality and Broiler Performance. Georgia: The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension.

Shepard, E., & B.D, F. (2010). INVITED REVIEW. Footpad dermatitis in poultry , 2043-2051.

Steven, L., & John, S. D. (2001). Nutrition of the Chicken. In Scotts's Nutrition of the Chicken (pp. 363-380). Guelph: University Books.

Tabler, T., Wells, J., Zhai, W., Yakout M, H., & Liang, Y. (2013). What Causes Footpad Dermatitis in Poultry? Poultry Science. Extension Service of Mississipi State University.

Tona, K., Onagbesan, O., BRUGGEMAN, V., Mertens, K., Jego, Y., & Decuypere, E. (2004). Comparison of Feed Intake, Blood Metabolic Parameters, Body and Organ Weights of Growing Broilers Originating from Dwarf and Stardars Broiler Breeder Lines. International Journal of Poultry Science , 422-426.

Wang, J., Garlich, J., & Shih, J. (2006). Beneficial Effects of Versazyme, a Keratinase Feed Additive, on Body Weight, Feed Conversion, and Breast Yield of Broiler Chickens. Morrisville: BioResource International Inc.

Zhao J, S. R.-A. (2010). Effects of chelated trace minerals on growth performance, breast meat yield, and footpad health in commercial meat broilers , 365-372.

80

APPENDIX A Nutrient Profile

Basal Starter - SFASU

81

Nutrient Name Amount Units

Formulation M.E. POULTRY1355.09

0KCAL/LB

DRY MATTER 86.460 PCT

FormulaBatch size

(lb) MOISTURE 13.540 PCT

Ingredient Name Percent 2000 PROTEIN, CRUDE 22.050 PCT

CORN 56.178 1123.00 FAT, CRUDE 3.380 PCT

SOYBEAN MEAL 46% 29.265 585.00 LINOLEIC ACID 1.390 PCT

PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 8.204 164.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.690 PCT

DRIED DISTILLER GRAINS 3.502 70.00 ASH 5.280 PCT

FAT, ANIMAL 0.750 15.00 CALCIUM 0.911 PCT

LIMESTONE 0.550 11.00 PHOS. TOTAL 0.613 PCT

SALT 95% 0.350 7.00 PHOS., AVAILABLE 0.460 PCT

LYSINE, LIQUID 50 0.310 6.20 SALT 0.503 PCT

PHOSPHORUS, DEFLOUR 0.300 6.00 SODIUM 0.199 PCT

ALIMET 88% 0.215 4.30 POTASSIUM 0.805 PCT

BETAINE 47% 0.100 2.00 CHLORIDE 0.308 PCT

TRACE MINERAL 0.075 1.50 ARGININE 1.480 PCT

COPPER SULFATE 0.050 1.00 LYSINE 1.330 PCT

NICARB 25% 0.050 1.00 METHIONINE 0.613 PCT

L-THREONINE 98.5% 0.050 1.00METHIONINE +

CYSTINE 1.050 PCT

Vitamin Premix 0.025 0.500 TRYPTOPHAN 0.225 PCT

ENZYME PACK 0.025 0.500 THREONINE 0.887 PCT

ISOLEUCINE 0.896 PCT

82

Actual Total Batch: 1999.00 VALINE 1.070 PCT

CYSTINE 0.433 PCT

DARG 1.340 PCT

DLYS 1.180 PCT

DMET 0.586 PCT

DMET+CYS 0.922 PCT

DTRY 0.218 PCT

DTHR 0.767 PCT

DILE 0.803 PCT

DVAL 0.950 PCT

DCYS 0.334 PCT

APPENDIX B

Nutrient Profile

83

Basal Grower - SFASU


Formulation M.E. POULTRY 1399.690KCAL/

LB


FormulaBatch size





PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 7.500 150.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.490 PCT

FAT, ANIMAL 2.050 41.00 ASH 4.960 PCT

LIMESTONE 0.600 12.00 CALCIUM 0.884 PCT

SALT 95% 0.405 8.10 PHOS. TOTAL 0.574 PCT

PHOSPHORUS, DEFLOUR 0.325 6.50

PHOS., AVAILABLE 0.440 PCT


ALIMET 88% 0.185 3.70 SODIUM 1.993 PCT

TRACE MINERAL 0.060 1.20 POTASSIUM 0.731 PCT

MAXIBAN 0.055 1.10 CHLORIDE 0.288 PCT

BETAINE 47% 0.050 1.00 ARGININE 1.320 PCT

COPPER SULFATE 0.050 1.00 LYSINE 1.210 PCT

L-THREONINE 98.5% 0.050 1.00 METHIONINE 0.551 PCT

ENZYME PACK 0.025 0.500METHIONINE +

CYSTINE 0.946 PCT


THREONINE 0.802 PCT

Actual Total Batch: 1999.90 ISOLEUCINE 0.800 PCT

84

VALINE 0.969 PCT

CYSTINE 0.395 PCT

DARG 1.200 PCT

DLYS 1.070 PCT

DMET 0.527 PCT

DMET+CYS 0.837 PCT

DTRY 0.193 PCT

DTHR 0.698 PCT

DILE 0.719 PCT

DVAL 0.859 PCT

DCYS 0.308 PCT

APPENDIX C

Nutrient Profile

85

Basal Finisher 1 - SFASU

Nutrient Name AmountUnit

s

Formulation M.E. POULTRY 1420.350KCAL/LB


FormulaBatch size





DRIED DISTILLER GRAINS 5.001 100.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.540 PCT

PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 3.000 60.00 ASH 4.200 PCT







L-THREONINE 98.5% 0.055 1.10 CHLORIDE 0.267 PCT

COBAN 90g 0.050 1.00 ARGININE 1.030 PCT

TRACE MINERAL 0.040 0.80 LYSINE 0.992 PCT

BETAINE 47% 0.025 0.50 METHIONINE 0.451 PCT

ENZYME PACK 0.025 0.500METHIONINE +

CYSTINE 0.781 PCT


THREONINE 0.679 PCT


86

Actual Total Batch: 1999.80 VALINE 0.802 PCT

CYSTINE 0.331 PCT

DARG 0.943 PCT

DLYS 0.887 PCT

DMET 0.429 PCT

DMET+CYS 0.698 PCT

DTRY 0.156 PCT

DTHR 0.594 PCT

DILE 0.594 PCT

DVAL 0.713 PCT

DCYS 0.268 PCT

APPENDIX D

Nutrient Profile

Basal Finisher 2 - SFASU

87


Formulation M.E. POULTRY1429.53

0KCAL/LB


FormulaBatch size





DRIED DISTILLER GRAINS 5.001 100.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.480 PCT

PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 2.000 40.00 ASH 4.010 PCT







L-THREONINE 98.5% 0.050 1.00 CHLORIDE 0.270 PCT

TRACE MINERAL 0.025 0.50 ARGININE 0.950 PCT

ENZYME PACK 0.025 0.500 LYSINE 0.926 PCT

Vitamin Premix 0.010 0.200 METHIONINE 0.420 PCT

METHIONINE +

CYSTINE 0.731 PCT

Actual Total Batch: 1999.70 TRYPTOPHAN 0.169 PCT

THREONINE 0.634 PCT


88

VALINE 0.751 PCT

CYSTINE 0.312 PCT

DARG 0.876 PCT

DLYS 0.830 PCT

DMET 0.399 PCT

DMET+CYS 0.656 PCT

DTRY 0.146 PCT

DTHR 0.557 PCT

DILE 0.556 PCT

DVAL 0.669 PCT

DCYS 0.256 PCT

VITA

89

The Author, Adeyemi Steve Adelaja, graduated from Trinity International College

at Ogun State, Nigeria in 2008, and was accepted into Stephen F. Austin State

University, January 2012 as a transfer student. He completed his Bachelors of

Science in Agriculture majoring in Poultry Science with a minor in Business

Management. After graduating and receiving his degree in August 2013,

Adeyemi decided to further his education at Stephen F. Austin State University

with a Master of Science in Agriculture. He intends to complete his Master of

Science in Agriculture by August 2015, after which, pursue a career in the Poultry

Production Industry.

Permanent Address: 4475 Wilson Road Apt 10205 Humble, Texas 77396.

This thesis was typed by Adeyemi Steve Adelaja

90

Evaluation of Absorbezz P in broiler rations as it influences Performance EDITED

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of Absorbezz P in broiler rations as it influences Performance EDITED