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
ix
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)
0.00179 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(46.45 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)
0.00205 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(47.19 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)
3 – Absorbezz®
100%(AB100)
0.00160 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(34.56 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)
0.00224 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(58.06 fl oz.: 4,320 lb./feed)
0.00256 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(58.98 fl oz.: 12,960 lb./feed)
4 – Absorbezz®
120% (AB120)
0.00192 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(41.47 fl oz.: 1,440 lb./feed)
0.00269 fl oz./bird Absorbezz®P
(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.)
Feed Conversion (lbs:lbs)
Avg. Body
Weight(lbs.)
Feed Conversion (lbs: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
**** 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
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
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
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
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
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
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
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%
TX #3 - Absorbezz 100%
TX #4 - Absorbezz 120%
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
**** 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
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
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
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
**** 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
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%
TXT-4Absorbezz®P-120%
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
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
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
**** 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
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%
TXT-4Absorbezz®P-120%
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
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05).
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)
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
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)
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
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%
TX-3 Absorbezz®P 100%
TX-4 Absorbezz®P 120%
0.942a 0.917a 0.883a 0.950a
Table 22. ANOVA of Paw Scores for Treatments 1-4, at day 48
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr>F
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
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
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
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
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;
1(Control), 2 (Absorbezz®P 80%), 3 (Absorbezz®P 100%) and 4(Absorbezz®P
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
Nutrient Name Amount Units
Formulation M.E. POULTRY 1399.690KCAL/
LB
DRY MATTER 86.370 PCT
FormulaBatch size
(lb) MOISTURE 13.630 PCT
Ingredient Name Percent 2000 PROTEIN, CRUDE 19.930 PCT
CORN 63.053 1261.00 FAT, CRUDE 4.500 PCT
SOYBEAN MEAL 46% 25.251 505.00 LINOLEIC ACID 1.790 PCT
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
LYSINE, LIQUID 50 0.320 6.40 SALT 0.466 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
Vitamin Premix 0.020 0.400 TRYPTOPHAN 0.224 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
DRY MATTER 85.890 PCT
FormulaBatch size
(lb) MOISTURE 14.110 PCT
Ingredient Name Percent 2000 PROTEIN, CRUDE 16.550 PCT
CORN 69.457 1389.00 FAT, CRUDE 4.250 PCT
SOYBEAN MEAL 46% 18.702 374.00 LINOLEIC ACID 1.980 PCT
DRIED DISTILLER GRAINS 5.001 100.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.540 PCT
PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 3.000 60.00 ASH 4.200 PCT
FAT, ANIMAL 1.700 34.00 CALCIUM 0.695 PCT
LIMESTONE 0.750 15.00 PHOS. TOTAL 0.458 PCT
SALT 95% 0.375 7.50 PHOS., AVAILABLE 0.349 PCT
LYSINE, LIQUID 50 0.350 7.00 SALT 0.424 PCT
PHOSPHORUS, DEFLOUR 0.300 6.00 SODIUM 0.180 PCT
ALIMET 88% 0.160 3.20 POTASSIUM 0.644 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
Vitamin Premix 0.010 0.200 TRYPTOPHAN 0.181 PCT
THREONINE 0.679 PCT
ISOLEUCINE 0.657 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
Nutrient Name Amount Units
Formulation M.E. POULTRY1429.53
0KCAL/LB
DRY MATTER 85.770 PCT
FormulaBatch size
(lb) MOISTURE 14.230 PCT
Ingredient Name Percent 2000 PROTEIN, CRUDE 15.510 PCT
CORN 72.211 1444.00 FAT, CRUDE 4.140 PCT
SOYBEAN MEAL 46% 17.103 342.00 LINOLEIC ACID 2.000 PCT
DRIED DISTILLER GRAINS 5.001 100.00 FIBER, CRUDE 2.480 PCT
PINE BLUFF BLEND (PROTEIN) 2.000 40.00 ASH 4.010 PCT
FAT, ANIMAL 1.600 32.00 CALCIUM 0.660 PCT
LIMESTONE 0.800 16.00 PHOS. TOTAL 0.427 PCT
SALT 95% 0.385 7.70 PHOS., AVAILABLE 0.326 PCT
LYSINE, LIQUID 50 0.340 6.80 SALT 0.424 PCT
PHOSPHORUS, DEFLOUR 0.300 6.00 SODIUM 0.179 PCT
ALIMET 88% 0.150 3.00 POTASSIUM 0.614 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
ISOLEUCINE 0.614 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
Top Related