The Journal of Research ANGRAU
Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 47-50, 2013 UTILIZATION OF POULTRY WASTE AN UN-CONVENTIONAL PROTEIN SOURCE IN SMALL RUMINANT RATIONS J. NARASIMHA, V.CHINNI PREETHAM AND S.T.VIROJI RAO All India Co-ordinated Research Project on poultry breeding, College of Veterinary Science, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Hyderabad-500030 Date of Receipt : 16.08.2012 Date of Acceptance :13.12.2012 ABSTRACT A complete feed containing poultry litter (35%) and other feed ingredients were formulated and processed in to mash. The feed was tested on six each of Nellore rams and indigenous bucks in a digestion- cum-metabolism trial using a completely randomized design to asses the voluntary feed intake and nutrient utilization. The voluntary feed intake of DM and the intake per kg DMI was significantly (P
NARASIMHA et al Table 1. Proximate composition of experimental ration and poultry litter (%DM) Proximate principle Experimental ration (%) Poultry litter (%) Dry matter 91.25 93.45 Organic matter 80.00 63.21 Crude protein 12.18 15.70 Ether extract 1.87 0.87 Crude fibre 30.17 15.08 Total ash 20.00 36.78 Acid insoluble ash 6.19 12.39 Nitrogen free extract 35.78 31.57 Calcium 0.89 4.57 Phosphorous 0.76 3.7 on various factors like dry matter, season, climatic condition and type of feed (Taneja, 1969; Mehrothra and Mullick, 1960). There was no significant difference in digestibility co-efficient of Dry matter, Organic matter, (Table 2). Similar findings were reported by (Mallikarjuna, 1989), in sheep and goats fed rations containing cotton straw, maize cobs for dry matter. A non-significant difference in digestibilities for Crude Protein was observed in sheep and goats. Similar results were reported by (Murthy et al., 1996) when fed poultry litter and poultry droppings in the pelleted ration. The lower digestibility of Crude Protein in the present experiment may be due to incorporation of cotton seed hulls at 40 percent level. The cotton seed hulls contained about 31 percent lint, mostly made of cellulose and about 14.3 percent lignin. It is quite likely that proteins in the cotton seed hulls are located in the structural component of cell. Structural protein (Maynard et al., 1981) which may not be available for the microbes to attack due to high lignin content. Further the fineness of cotton seed hulls during processing might have also contributed to lower digestibility due to faster rate of passage through the digestive tract (Keys and Smith., 1984). There was no significant difference in ether extract and crude fibre digestibility in the two species of sheep and goats (Table 2). The findings are in agreement with those of (Sreedhar et al., 1993). The non-significant difference in Nitrogen free extract digestibility between sheep and goats observed in the present study concur with the results of (Murthy et al., 1996) who also reported nonsignificant difference in Nitrogen free extract digestibility between sheep and goats fed poultry litter/poultry droppings based pelleted ration. All experimental animals were in positive N, Ca, and P balances indicating that the experimental feed supplied these nutrients in required quantities to both species. Sheep retained significantly (P>0.01) higher N, Ca and P than goats (Table 2). This could be attributed to higher Dry matter intake in sheep. The ration met Digestible crude protein (DCP) and Total digestible nutrients (TDN) requirements as recommended by ICAR (1985). The results of this study indicate that complete feed containing poultry litter up to 35 percent level could be utilized for feeding of small ruminants. The complete ration formulated in this study met the nutritive requirement of sheep and goats. Further it was observed that poultry litter could be used up to 35 percent level in complete feeds of small ruminant rations as an un- conventional protein source without any adverse effect. 53
- Page 1 and 2: 1
- Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS PART I : PLANT SCIENCE Eff
- Page 5 and 6: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 1-4, 2013 EFFEC
- Page 7 and 8: EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF NPK
- Page 9 and 10: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 5-13, 2013 NUTR
- Page 11 and 12: NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
- Page 13 and 14: NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
- Page 15 and 16: NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
- Page 17 and 18: NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
- Page 19 and 20: LAKSHMI et al Fig 1. Changes in C/N
- Page 21 and 22: LAKSHMI et al Changes in C/N ratio
- Page 23 and 24: LAKSHMI et al Table 3. Changes in h
- Page 25 and 26: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 20-29, 2013 INF
- Page 27 and 28: PRASAD and PRASADINI of bulk densit
- Page 29 and 30: PRASAD and PRASADINI to as high as
- Page 31 and 32: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 4 . Infl
- Page 33 and 34: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 8. Influ
- Page 35 and 36: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 30-38, 2013 GEN
- Page 37 and 38: VEMANNA et al The range in mean val
- Page 39 and 40: VEMANNA et al grain yield per plant
- Page 41 and 42: VEMANNA et al 41
- Page 43 and 44: VEMANNA et al Singh, S. P and Khan,
- Page 45 and 46: RAMANA et al RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Page 47 and 48: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 42-46, 2013 A S
- Page 49 and 50: RAJANNA et. al. Table 2. Reasons fo
- Page 51: RAJANNA et al the present findings
- Page 55 and 56: NARASIMHA et al Maynard, L., Lossli
- Page 57 and 58: RAMANA et al with small follicles m
- Page 59 and 60: RAMANA et al Characteristics of fol
- Page 61 and 62: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 63 and 64: KIRTHY et al Akhtar et al., 2008; S
- Page 65 and 66: KIRTHY et al El Gharras H. 2009. Po
- Page 67 and 68: SANDYARANI et al Weed parameters li
- Page 69 and 70: SANDYARANI et al Table 2. Influence
- Page 71 and 72: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 73 and 74: KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
- Page 75 and 76: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 77 and 78: DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread a
- Page 79 and 80: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 81 and 82: YAMINI et al Table 3. Estimates of
- Page 83 and 84: YAMINI et al coupled with high per
- Page 85 and 86: LOKESH et al Table 1. Clustering pa
- Page 87 and 88: LOKESH et al Table 4. Mean values o
- Page 89 and 90: ABIRAMI et al Socio-economic Impact
- Page 91 and 92: ABIRAMI et al socio-economic impact
- Page 93 and 94: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 95 and 96: VEMANNA et al Table 1. Discriminant
- Page 97 and 98: VEMANNA et al total biomass, fresh
- Page 99 and 100: RAO et al Table 1. Plant height, nu
- Page 101 and 102: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
J.Res. <strong>ANGRAU</strong> 41(1) 47-50, 2013<br />
UTILIZATION OF POULTRY WASTE AN UN-CONVENTIONAL PROTEIN SOURCE<br />
IN SMALL RUMINANT RATIONS<br />
J. NARASIMHA, V.CHINNI PREETHAM AND S.T.VIROJI RAO<br />
All India Co-ordinated <strong>Research</strong> Project on poultry breeding, College <strong>of</strong> Veterinary Science,<br />
Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Hyderabad-500030<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> Receipt : 16.08.2012 Date <strong>of</strong> Acceptance :13.12.2012<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
A complete feed containing poultry litter (35%) and other feed ingredients were formulated and processed<br />
in to mash. <strong>The</strong> feed was tested on six each <strong>of</strong> Nellore rams and indigenous bucks in a digestion- cum-metabolism<br />
trial using a completely randomized design to asses the voluntary feed intake and nutrient utilization. <strong>The</strong> voluntary<br />
feed intake <strong>of</strong> DM and the intake per kg DMI was significantly (P
Change language