AUTHOR(S): Merennungba, R. Zuyie, Nizamuddin, Vijay Kumar Vidyarthi, M. Catherine Rutsa, Rajan Singh
|
TITLE |
ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted with amla powder supplementation under different stocking densities to study the performance of broiler (Cobb-400) chickens. The investigation was conducted with 108 numbers of three-week-old broiler birds using a split plot design. Two stocking densities, one bird per cage (S0) and two birds per cage (S1), with three dietary treatments, 0 (F0), 20 (F1), and 50g (F2) of amla powder per kg of feed, were provided. Stocking density showed a non-significant effect on body weight, weight gain, and feed efficiency and a significant effect on feed intake. On the other hand, amla powder supplementation significantly impacted body weight, weight gain, and feed intake. However, the difference between F0 and F1 for the above parameters was found to be non-significant. Feed efficiency was unaffected by amla supplementation. The interaction of amla powder supplementation with stocking density showed significantly (P<0.05) higher body weight in group S0F1 and the least in S0F2, with significant differences among the treatment means. The interaction effect of stocking on weight gain and feed conversion efficiency was found to be non-significant. In contrast, feed intake was significantly (P<0.05) higher for basal diet group S1F0 and the least in S1F2. The liveability percentage was recorded at 100 percent in all the groups. The best performance index (362.06) was observed in S0F1 and the least in S1F2. Stocking density, amla supplementation, and their interaction had non-significant effects on the dressing percentage, organ weights, RBC, WBC, and haemoglobin values. |
KEYWORDS Broiler, Amla powder, stocking density, Hematological, carcass |
|
Cite this paper Merennungba, R. Zuyie, Nizamuddin, Vijay Kumar Vidhyarthi, M. Catherine Rutsa, Rajan Singh. (2024) Effect of Amla (Emblica Officinalis) Powder on the Performance of Broiler Chicken Under Different Stocking Density. International Journal of Agricultural Science, 9, 26-39 |
|