Printer Friendly

Utilization of some single cell protein sources on ducks rations under heat stress condition in Sinai region.

INTRODUCTION

The increasing in human demands of animal protein could be achieved to overcome the increasing of human population; hence poultry meat must be taken into consideration. Egypt, as one of the developing countries encounters a pronounced deficiency in animal feedshjffs. The feed cost of animal nutrition represents more than 70% of the total production cost[1]. This could interpret on the basis that the most conventional feedstuffs are imported with higher prices. Production and utilization of single cell protein (SCP) is an important attempt to solve these problems [2]. Single cell protein is protein extracted from beneficial species of microbes derived from fermentation of yeast, bacteria, fungi, and algae, typically by using waste materials as substrate. It is characterized by high concentration of nucleotides, inositol and glutamic acid [3]. Single cell protein was reported as a good source of good quality protein for feeding livestock [4]. [5, 6 and 7]found that supplementation SCP in rabbit diets improved significantly growth performance. Also, [8] reported that increasing the levels of SCP up to 8% in the broiler diet, increased weight gain and feed intake.

Biomagic is a product of biotechnology (SCP) single cell protein (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Bacillus subtillus) containing great source of essential amino acids and a rich source of vitamins especially B-complex. It contains exclusively higher essential mineral content (chromium and selenium) which is the main limitation towards its extensive use. Moreover, it contains some important enzyme such as protease, amylase and lipase. Yeast protein (SCP) has beneficial effect on broiler performance such as growth rate, feed efficiency, egg production, and reproduction [3, 9, 10 and 8].

Therefore, the present study aimed to study the utilization of some single cell protein sources on growth performance of Muscovy ducks under heat stress condition in Sinai region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present work was carried out at south Sinai Experimental Research Station (Ras Suder city) which belongs to the Desert Research Center, Egypt, to investigate the utilization of some single cell protein sources on growth performance of Muscovy ducks under heat stress condition in Sinai region. A total of 120 Muscovy ducks at day-old were individually weighed and randomly distributed into four equal experimental groups of 30 ducklings in three replicate (10 in each). The experimental treatments were arranged in a one way by using three levels of single cell protein (SCP)0.5, 1 and 2 g / kg diet in addition the control group(without supplements).SCP (Biomagic) is commercial product, produced by Bio-Lab, El Asher men Ramadan, El Sharkia, Egypt. Each kg of Biomagic contained total amino acids 299.98 gm, total vitamins 10.339 gm / kg of the nutrient, all micro and macro nutrients and it contains some enzymes such as pepsin, amylase, protease, lipase and hemicellulase.

The experimental diets (Table 1) were formulated to be iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous to meet recommendations for Muscovy ducks [11]. Feed and water were offered ad libitum. Chemical analysis of the experimental diets and feaces were assayed using methods of [12]. Live body weight (LBW) and feed intake (FI) were determined. Body weight gain (BWG) and feed conversion ratio (g feed/g gain) were calculated. At the end of the experimental feeding period, digestion trial was conducted using 16 males of ducks (four from each treatment) to determine the digestion coefficients of the experimental diets. Birds were individually housed in metabolic cages. The digestibility trials extended for 9 days; 5 days as a preliminary period followed by 4 days as collection period. The individual live body weight were recorded during the main collection period to determine any loss or gain in the live body weight. During the main period, excreta were collected daily and weighed, dried at 60 C[degrees], bulked, finally ground and stored for chemical analysis. The faecal nitrogen was determined according to [13]. Urinary organic matter was calculated according to [14]. Metabolizable energy was calculated according to the equation of [15].

The digestion coefficients % of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), ether extract (EE) and nitrogen free extract (NFE) of the experimental diets were estimated.

Four birds from each treatment were chosen randomly for slaughter test. Carcass parts were weighed and calculated as a percentage of live body weight.

The economical efficiency was calculated from the input-output analysis based on the differences in feed conversion ratio and feeding cost. The amount of money realized from the sale of ducklings minus the cost of feed consumed for each dietary treatment was estimated.

The data were statistically analysed according to [16] using one -way classification. All data percentages were transformed to their arc-sin values before analysis and differences among treatment means were determined by Duncan's New Multiple Range test [17].

The model used for analysis was: [Y.sub.ijk] = U + [T.sub.i] + [e.sub.ik]

Where: [Y.sub.ik] = Observation, U = The overall mean, [T.sub.i] = SCP levels (i=1, 2, 3and 4), [e.sub.ik] = Random error.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Live body weight (LBW), body weight gain (BWG) are shown in Table (2). The differences among treatments of initial means of body weights at one days of age of all groups were statistically insignificant and ranged between 56.53 and 59.57g.Values of both LBW and BWG means were significantly (P [less than or equal to] 0.05) affected by SCP supplementation during all experimental period (14-70 days) compared with control group. The highest (P [less than or equal to] 0.05) value of LBW was 622.48, 1377.62, 2697.40 and 4197.40 g, respectively, for group fed 1g SCP/ kg diet, during 14, 28, 42, 56 and 70 days; respectively. Also, ducks fed 2g SCP/ kg diet recorded the highest LBW values being 386.67 and 3874.00g during 14 and 70 ; respectively .

Similarly ducks fed diet containing 1g SCP/ kg diet recorded the highest BWG being 263.62,755.14, 1319.76, 1500.00 and 4137.60g during 14-28, 28-42, 42-56, 56-70 and 1-70 days; respectively. Also, ducks fed 2g SCP/ kg diet recorded the highest BWG 327.10, 1270.10 and 3814.50g during 1-14, 42-56 and1-70 days; respectively (Table 2). Significant improvement in live weight gain was observed as the level of SCP was increased up to 2 g / kg diet. The possible reason for this might be due to higher feed intake, digestibility and biological value of protein present in SCP [8]. These results were in agreement with those obtained by [5, 6 and 7] who reported that supplementation SCP in rabbit diets improved significantly body weight and body gain. Also, [18]suggested that body weight gain improved significantly by feeding chickens basal diet with 6% SCP.[19)found that the highest (P [less than or equal to] 0.05) value of final body weight and body weight gain were for group fed 3 g SCP/ kg diet, followed by those fed diet supplemented with 4 and 5 g SCP / kg diet compared to the control.

Feed intake and feed conversion ratio were significantly affected by SCP levels during the interval and the whole experimental periods compared with control group. Moreover, fed diet with 2 g SCP / kg diet recorded the highest (P [less than or equal to] .05) values of total feed intake being 240.46, 388.75, 925.00, 3150.00 and 8840.46 g during the periods 1-14, 14-28, 28-42, 56-70 and 1-70 days; respectively, (Table 3).Ducks fed diet with 1g SCP/ kg diet recorded the best feed conversion 1.41, 0.99, 3.04, 2.08 and 2.05 kg feed /kg gain respectively. Significantly higher feed consumption was recorded by ducks fed diet containing 1g SCP/ kg diet compared to control and lower levels of SCP was possibly due to the fact that SCP is a rich source of vitamins especially B-complex, oligomono saccharides (natural aflatoxin binder) and unidentified nutrients, all of which might have contributed to increase the palatability of diet [20]. Our findings are consistent with [5, 6and7] who reported that supplementation of SCP in rabbit diets increased significantly feed intake and improved feed conversion. [21] reported an increased in feed consumption and improved significantly FCR in diets containing 6% sun dried yeast. [18] suggested that feed consumption increased significantly by feeding chickens basal diet with 6% SCP.[8]reported that increasing the levels of SCP up to 8% in the broiler diet, improved feed efficiency.[22]reported that addition of 3-4% SCP to basal layer diet improved feed efficiency. [19]found that rabbits fed diet with 3 g SCP / kg diet recorded the highest (P [less than or equal to] 0.05) values of total feed intake and feed conversion ratio compared with the control group.

The reason for decreased feed intake in birds fed diet containing 2% SCP might be due to higher level of nucleic acids in SCP [23 and 23], which reduced the true protein content of SCP and slightly lower efficiency of utilization of SCP [24]. Also [25] found a decline in feed intake with increasing levels of brewer's dried yeast. [26] noticed depressed feed intake with increasing the levels of brewer's yeast.

Results in Table (4) showed that digestion coefficient (%) of DM, OM, CP, EE, CF and NFE were significantly (P [less than or equal to] 0.05) affected by SCP levels. The highest (P<0.05) digestion coefficient values of DM, OM, CP, CF, EE and NFE were recorded by ducks fed diet contained 1g SCP/kg diet (65.02, 67.20, 80.69, 33.60, 81.00 and 67.23%, respectively), compared with the control group. Improvement in digestion coefficient of nutrients may be due to the fact that biomagic (SCP) is a rich source of some digestive enzyme (i.e. pepsin, protease, lipase, amylase and hemicellulase) which improved digestion and consequently the weight gain and feed conversion rate [27]. In contrast [27] found that digestible CP and EE were not significantly affected by the SCP additions in growing rabbit diet. [19] reported that the highest (P < 0.05) digestion coefficient values of DM, OM, CP, EE, CF and NFE were recorded by rabbits fed diet contained 3g SCP/kg diet compared with the control group.

Data in Table (5), showed that carcass % and heart % had not significantly affected by SCP levels. Ducks fed diet with 0.5 or 1 g SCP / kg diet recorded the highest significantly liver % (2.00 and 2.20% ;respectively). While ducks fed diet with 1 or 2 g SCP / kg diet recorded the highest significantly gizzard % (2.55 and 2.50%) and abdominal fat% (3.40, and 3.82%).All SCP levels improved significantly edible giblets% compared with the control. These results were in agreement with those obtained by [29] reported non-significant difference in the dressing percentage. Also, [7] reported that dressing percentage, kidney weight and liver weight were not affected by SCP supplementation in rabbit diets. Contraiy to these findings[21]mentioned that dressing percentage was significantly improved for broilers fed diets containing 6% sun dried yeast. [19] found that rabbit fed diet with 3 g SCP / kg diet recorded the highest significantly carcass, liver and abdominal fat weight % compared with the control group.

Results in Table (6)showed that ducks fed diet with 1 SCP / kg diet recorded the best values of economical efficiency and relative economical efficiency (0.71 and 115), followed by those fed diet with 0.5 or 2 g SCP / kg diet (0.65, 0.66and 105, 106;respectively). Similarly findings were also reported by [30] who found 14.6% more profit on feeding yeast in the diet compared to control. Also, [19] reported that rabbit fed diet with 3 SCP / kg diet recorded the best values of economical efficiency and relative economical efficiency (2.21 and 112) compared with the control group (1.98 and 100).

It could be concluded that 1g SCP/kg diets improved significantly growth performance, carcass traits, digestion coefficient of nutrients and economical efficiency of Muscovy ducks under heat stress condition in Sinai region.

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 5 August 2015

Accepted 20 September 2015

Available online 30 September 2015

REFRANCES

[1] Esonu, B.O., U.D. Ogbonna, G.A. Anyanwu, O.O. Emenalom, M.C. Uchegbu, E.B. Etuk and A.B.I. Udedibie, 2006. Evaluation of performance, organ characteristics and economic analysis of broiler finisher fed dried rumen digesta. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 5: 1116-1118.

[2] Shahzad, M.A. and M.R ajoka, 2011. Single cell protein production from Aspergillus terreus and its evaluation in broiler chicks. Int. J. Biosci. Biochem. Bioinform., 1: 137-141.

[3] Silva, V.K., J. Della Torre da Silva, K.A.A. Torres, D. Filho de Faria, F. HirotaHada and V.M. Barbosa de Moraes, 2009. Humoral immune response of broilers fed diets containing yeast extract and prebiotics in the prestarter phase and raised at different temperatures. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 18: 530-540.

[4] Yalcin, S., H. Erol, B.O. Zsoy, I. Onbasilar and S. Yalcin, 2008. Effects of the usage of dried brewing yeast in the diets on the performance, egg traits and blood parameters in quails. Animal., 2: 1780-1785.

[5] Akinfala. E.O., O. Matanmi and A.O. Aderibigbe, 2003. Preliminary studies on the response of weaned rabbits to whole cassava plant meal basal diets in the humid tropics, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 15(4).

[6] Odeyinka, S.M., A.S. Olosunde and O.J. Oyedele, 2007. Utilization of soybean milk residue, cowpea testa and corn starch residue by weaner rabbits. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(9).

[7] Fatufe, A.A., I.O. Matanmi and A.O. Alalade, 2010. Performance and carcass characteristics of growing rabbits fed bacterial protein meal. African, J. of Food Agriculture Nutrat. and Development, 10(4): 2413-2426.

[8] Sharif, M., M.A. Shahzad, S. Rehman, S. Khan, R. Ali, M.L Khan and K. Khan, 2012. Nutritional evaluation of distillery sludge and its effect as a substitute of canola meal on performance of broiler chickens. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 25(3): 401-409.

[9] Pelicia, V.C., J.R. Sartori, K.C. Zavarize, A.C. Pezzato, A.C. Stradiotti, P.C. Araujo, M.A.O. Mituo and L.A. Madeira, 2010. Effect of nucleotides on broiler performance and carcass yield. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Avicola., 12: 31-34.

[10] Haldar, S., T.K. Ghosh, Toshiwati and M.R. Bedford, 2011. Effects of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and yeast protein concentrate on production performance of broiler chickens exposed to heat stress and challenged with Salmonella enteritidis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 168: 61-71.

[11] Mona M. Hassan, 2006. Nutritional studies on Muscovy ducks in Sinai. PhD, Agriculture Science Department of Poultry. Faculty of agriculture, Zagazig University.

[12] A.O.A.C., 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th. Ed., Washington, USA.

[13] Johnson, D.E. and R.L. Remillard, 1983. Nutrient digestibility of brewers single cell protein. J ANIM SCI, 56: 735-739.

[14] Abou-Raya, A.K. and Galal, Gh., 1971. Evaluation of poultry feeds in digestion trials with references to some factors involved. U. A. R., Anim. Prod., 11: 207-221.

[15] Tiuts, H.W. and J.C. Fritz, 1971. The scientific feeding of chickens. The interstate printers. Publishers. Inc, Danville, Illinois, 336, U.S.A

[16] SAS (2003). Statistical Analysis System, User's Guide, Statistics, SAS Institute Carry, North Carolina.

[17] Duncan, D.B., 1955. Multiple ranges and multiple F- test. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.

[18] Schoyen, H.F., H. Hetland, K. Rouvinen-Watt and A. Skrede, 2007. Growth Performance and Ileal and Total Tract Amino Acid Digestibility in Broiler Chickens Fed Diets Containing Bacterial Protein Produced on Natural Gas. Poult. Sci., 86: 87-93.

[19] El-Sheikh S.E.M., 2012. Effect of different levels of single cell protein (SCP) on performance of growing rabbits. Egypt. Poult. Sci., (32) (II): 305-317.

[20] Davis, P., 1976. Single cell protein. 2 nd Ed. Academic press. New, York, USA.

[21] Khan, M.L., 2001. Poultry feeds and nutrition. Kitabistan Publishing Co. 38-Urdu Bazar, Lahore.

[22] Ageev, V., L. Kupina and E. Dolbeneva, 1984. An important protein source for poultry. Ptitsevodstovo. 3: 19-22.

[23] Oliva-Teles, A. and P. Goncalves, 200). Partial replacement of fish meal by brewers yeast Saccaromycescerevisae in diets for sea bass Dicentrarchuslabrax juveniles. Aquaculture., 202: 269-278.

[24] Hewitt, D. and A.I. Labib, 1978. The use of n-parffin growth yeast as the main source of protein in diets for chics. Br. Poult. Sci., 9: 401-410.

[25] Rumsey, G.L., J.E. Kinsella, K.J. Shetty and S.G. Hughes, 1991. Effect of high dietary concentdiets of brewers dried yeast on growth performance and liver uricase in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 33: 177-183.

[26] Zerai, D.B., K.M. Fitzsimmons, R.J. Collier and G.C. Duff., 2008. Evaluation of brewer's waste as partial replacement of fish meal protein in Nile tilapia, oreochromisniloticus, diets. J. World Aquac. Soc., 39: 556-564.

[27] Gippert, T., Virag, Gy. And J. Nagy, 1992. Lacto-Sacc in rabbit nutrition. J. of Appl. Rbbit Res., 15: 1101-1105

[28] Jakobsen, P.E., S.G. Kirsten and S.H. Nielson, 1960. Digestibility trials with poultry. Bertning fraforogs laboratoriet, Udgivet of Stants. Kobenhavn, 32: 56: 1.

[29] Kahraman, R., I. Abas, K. Bostan, A. Tanor, N. Kocabagli and M. Alp, 1997. Effect of organic acids and yeast culture on performance, ileum pH and enterobacteriaceae population of broiler. Pendik Veteriner Mikrobiyoloji Dergisi, 28: 171-180.

[30] Magalhaes, V.J.A., F. Susca, F.S. Lima, A.F. Branco, I. Yoon and J.E.P. Santos, 2008. Effect of feeding yeast culture on performance, health, and immunocompetence of dairy calves. J. Dairy Sci., 91: 1497-1509.

(1) Mona M. Hassan, (1) S.E.M. El-Sheikh, (1) A.A. Salama and (2) M. El-Saeed

(1) Animal and Poultry Nutrition Department, Desert Research Center, P.O. code 11753, Mataria, Cairo, Egypt.

(2) Animal and Poultry Breeding Department, Desert Research Center, P.O. code 11753, Mataria, Cairo, Egypt.

Corresponding Author: El-Sheikh S.E.M., Animal and Poultry Nutrition Department, Desert Research Center, P.O. code 11753, Mataria, Cairo, Egypt.

E-mail: saidelsheikh@yahoo.com
Table 1: Composition and calculated analysis of the experimental diet

Ingredient %                         Starter (7-35)   Finisher (35-70)

Yellow corn                          58.50            69.00
Soybean meal (44%)                   35.50            23.8
Corn gluten meal (60%)               2.00             3.00
Di-calcium phosphate                 2.00             2.00
Limestone                            1.20             1.30
Sodium chloride                      0.30             0.30
Vit. and min. mix **                 0.30             0.30
Dl-methionine                        0.10             0.20
L-lysine                             0.10             0.10
Total                                100              100
Proximate chemical analysis %        21.83            18.34
Crude protein (CP)                   3.80             3.23
Crude fiber (CF)                     2.56             2.89
Ether extract (EE)                   2826             2956
Calculated values :                  0.96             0.93
Metabolizable energy (Kcal/kg) ***   0.52             0.50
Calcium %                            1.21             0.93
Available phosphorus %               0.72             0.63
Lysine %
Methionine +Cysteine %

** Each3 kg Vitamins and minerals contain: Vit. A120000IU, Vit.
[D.sub.3] 22000 IU, Vit.E100 mg, Vit.[K.sub.3] 20mg, Vit. [B.sub.1] 10
mg, Vit. [B.sub.2] 50mg, Vit. [B.sub.6] 15 mg, Vit.[B.sub.12] 100
[micro]g, Pantothenic acide 100mg, Niacin 300mg, Folicacid 10mg,
Biotin 500 [micro]g, iron 300mg, Manganese 600 mg, Choline chloride
500 mg, Iodine 10 mg, Copper 100 mg, Seleneium 1 mg, Zinc 500 mg and
1200 mg Anti-oxidant

*** Calculated according to Mona (11) recommendation of Muscovy ducks
and determined according to the digestion trials of DSM.-Pelleting
process depending upon heat and pressure only without using any
pellets binder

Table 2: Growth performance (Mean [+ or -] SE) of Muscovy ducklings as
affected by SCP level.

Periods    SCP levels g/kg diet
(days)     control                       0.5 g

Live body weight (LBW) (g)

1          56.53 [+ or -] 0.01           58.85 [+ or -] 0.01
14         294.00 [+ or -] 0.58 (C)      324.48 [+ or -] 0.65 (BC)
28         515.00 [+ or -] 8.01 (B)      543.09 [+ or -] 7.11 (B)
42         955.83 [+ or -] 12.01 (C)     1142.83 [+ or -] 23.11 (B)
56         2030.00 [+ or -] 25.00 (C)    2305.20 [+ or -] 24.11 (B)
70         2989.60 [+ or -] 53.01 (C)    3445.70 [+ or -] 55.00 (B)

Weight gain (WG) (g) / bird /period

1.14       242.53 [+ or -] 7.00 (C)      268.89 [+ or -] 7.31 (BC)
14-28      223.43 [+ or -] 5.01 (B)      218.61 [+ or -] 5.41 (B)
28-42      440.83 [+ or -] 14.21 (D)     599.74 [+ or -] 14.71 (C)
42-56      1074.17 [+ or -] 28.01 (B)    1162.39 [+ or -] 23.11 (AB)
56-70      959.57 [+ or -] 23.01 (D)     1140.43 [+ or -] 23.00 (C)
1-70       2939.20 [+ or -] 72.00 (C)    3390.10 [+ or -] 73.51 (B)

Periods    SCP levels g/kg diet
(days)     1 g                            2 g

Live body weight (LBW) (g)

1          59.81 [+ or -] 0.08            59.57 [+ or -] 0.01
14         358.86 [+ or -] 0.34 (AB)      386.67 [+ or -] 0.61 (A)
28         622.48 [+ or -] 8.21 (A)       583.38 [+ or -] 8.00 (AB)
42         1377.62 [+ or -] 13.00 (A)     1265.86 [+ or -] 20.00 (AB)
56         2697.40 [+ or -] 25.01 (A)     2536.00 [+ or -] 25.91 (AB)
70         4197.40 [+ or -] 50.00 (A)     3874.00 [+ or -] 50.11 (A)

Weight gain (WG) (g) / bird /period

1.14       299.05 [+ or -] 6.11 (AB)      327.10 [+ or -] 7.01 (A)
14-28      263.62 [+ or -] 5.00 (A)       196.71 [+ or -] 5.66 (B)
28-42      755.14 [+ or -] 14.01 (A)      682.48 [+ or -] 14.91 (B)
42-56      1319.76 [+ or -] 28.61 (A)     1270.10 [+ or -] 28.00 (A)
56-70      1500.00 [+ or -] 23.81 (A)     1338.10 [+ or -] 23.51 (B)
1-70       4137.60 [+ or -] 70.01 (A)     3814.50 [+ or -] 70.00 (A)

Periods    Sig.
(days)

Live body weight (LBW) (g)

1          NS
14         *
28         *
42         *
56         *
70         *

Weight gain (WG) (g) / bird /period

1.14       *
14-28      *
28-42      *
42-56      *
56-70      *
1-70       *

A, B....Means in the same row in each classification bearing different
letters differ significantly (P [less than or equal to] 0.05). NS =
Not significant * = (P [less than or equal to] 0.05)

Table 3: Feed utilization (Mean [+ or -] SE) of Muscovy ducklings as
affected by SCP level.

Periods    SCP levels g/kg diet
(days)     control                      0.5 g

Feed intake (FI) (g) / bird / day

1-14       206.25 [+ or -] 4.01 (C)     225.25 [+ or -] 4.67 (B)
14-28      327.50 [+ or -] 8.01 (D)     351.25 [+ or -] 8.00 (C)
28-42      500.00 [+ or -] 57.01 (D)    700.00 [+ or -] 55.00 (C)
42-56      4000.00 [+ or -] 30.01       4006.25 [+ or -] 30.51
56-70      3000.00 [+ or -] 24.00 (D)   3013.75 [+ or -] 25.01 (C)
1-70       8033.75 [+ or -] 23.01 (C)   8296.50 [+ or -] 70.09 (B)

Feed conversion ratio (FCR)

1-14       0.85 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)       0.84 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)
14-28      1.48 [+ or -] 0.08 (C)       1.61 [+ or -] 0.08 (B)
28-42      1.13 [+ or -] 0.05 (C)       1.17 [+ or -] 0.04 (B)
42-56      3.72 [+ or -] 0.10 (A)       3.45 [+ or -] 0.09 (B)
56-70      3.13 [+ or -] 0.15 (A)       2.64 [+ or -] 0.11 (B)
1-70       2.73 [+ or -] 0.09 (A)       2.45 [+ or -] 0.05 (B)

Periods    SCP levels g/kg diet
(days)     1 g                          2 g

Feed intake (FI) (g) / bird / day

1-14       228.75 [+ or -] 4.32 (B)     240.46 [+ or -] 4.00 (A)
14-28      372.38 [+ or -] 8.09 (B)     388.75 [+ or -] 8.21 (A)
28-42      750.00 [+ or -] 50.01 (B)    925.00 [+ or -] 51.00 (A)
42-56      4013.75 [+ or -] 30.00       4136.25 [+ or -] 30.60
56-70      3125.00 [+ or -] 24.09 (B)   3150.00 [+ or -] 24.76 (A)
1-70       8489.88 [+ or -] 88.00 (B)   8840.46 [+ or -] 65.01 (A)

Feed conversion ratio (FCR)

1-14       0.77 [+ or -] 0.02 (B)       0.74 [+ or -] 0.01 (C)
14-28      1.41 [+ or -] 0.05 (D)       1.98 [+ or -] 0.03 (A)
28-42      0.99 [+ or -] 0.05 (D)       1.36 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)
42-56      3.04 [+ or -] 0.09 (D)       3.26 [+ or -] 0.09 (C)
56-70      2.08 [+ or -] 0.10 (D)       2.35 [+ or -] 0.12 (C)
1-70       2.05 [+ or -] 0.08 (D)       2.32 [+ or -] 0.05 (C)

A, B....Means in the same row in each classification bearing different
letters differ significantly (P [less than or equal to] 0.05). NS =
Not significant * = (P [less than or equal to] 0.05)

Table 4: Digestibility coefficients of nutrients (Mean [+ or -] SE)
for the experimental diets as affected by SCP level.

Treatments   SCP levels g/kg diet
Parameters   control                   0.5 g

DM           60.23 [+ or -] 0.36 (C)   60.88 [+ or -] 0.06 (C)
OM           64.89 [+ or -] 0.16 (B)   64.00 [+ or -] 0.36 (B)
CP           78.00 [+ or -] 0.22 (B)   78.23 [+ or -] 0.10 (B)
CF           29.81 [+ or -] 0.13 (C)   30.97 [+ or -] 0.30 (B)
EE           80.00 [+ or -] 0.60 (B)   80.20 [+ or -] 0.10 (B)
NFE          66.88 [+ or -] 0.14 (A)   67.00 [+ or -] 0.36 (A)

Treatments   SCP levels g/kg diet
Parameters   1 g                       2 g                        Sig.

DM           65.02 [+ or -] 0.70 (A)   62.92 [+ or -] 0.26 (B)    *
OM           67.20 [+ or -] 0.36 (A)   62.00 [+ or -] 0.36 (C)    *
CP           80.69 [+ or -] 0.90 (A)   77.00 [+ or -] 0.31 (C)    *
CF           33.60 [+ or -] 0.10 (A)   32.00 [+ or -] 0.20 (AB)   *
EE           81.00 [+ or -] 0.33 (A)   79.29 [+ or -] 0.30 (C)    *
NFE          67.23 [+ or -] 0.13 (A)   64.90 [+ or -] 0.76 (B)    *

A, B....Means in the same row in each classification bearing different
letters differ significantly (P [less than or equal to] 0.05).
NS = Not significant * = (P [less than or equal to] 0.05)

Table 5: Carcass characteristics of Muscovy ducklings (Mean [+ or -]
SE) as affected by SCP level.

Treatments           SCP levels g/kg diet
Parameters           control                  0.5 g

Pre-slaughter        3860.00 [+ or -] 7.00    3750.00 [+ or -] 10.00
  weight (g)
Carcass %            70.95 [+ or -] 0.13      71.00 [+ or -] 0.19
Liver %              1.76 [+ or -] 0.10 (c)   2.00 [+ or -] 0.09 (A)
Gizzard %            2.30 [+ or -] 0.10 (C)   2.42 [+ or -] 0.11 (B)
Heart %              0.67 [+ or -] 0.01       0.69 [+ or -] 0.01
Edible giblets * %   4.73 [+ or -] 0.26 (B)   5.11 [+ or -]0.10 (A)
Abdominal fat%       2.93 [+ or -] 0.01 (B)   2.98 [+ or -] 0.01 (B)

Treatments           SCP levels g/kg diet
Parameters           1 g                      2 g

Pre-slaughter        3800.00 [+ or -] 5.00    3810.00 [+ or -] 8.00
  weight (g)
Carcass %            70.87 [+ or -] 0.22      70.09 [+ or -] 0.10
Liver %              2.20 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)   1.96 [+ or -] 0.09 (B)
Gizzard %            2.55 [+ or -] 0.15 (A)   2.50 [+ or -] 0.18 (A)
Heart %              0.68 [+ or -] 0.02       0.69 [+ or -] 0.01
Edible giblets * %   5.43 [+ or -] 0.10 (A)   5.15 [+ or -] 0.20 (A)
Abdominal fat%       3.40 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)   3.82 [+ or -] 0.01 (A)

Treatments
Parameters           Sig.

Pre-slaughter        NS
  weight (g)
Carcass %            NS
Liver %              *
Gizzard %            *
Heart %              NS
Edible giblets * %   *
Abdominal fat%       *

A, B ....Means in the same row in each classification bearing
different letters differ significantly
(P [less than or equal to] 0.05).
NS = Not significant * = (P [less than or equal to] 0.05)

Table 6: Input and output analysis and economical efficiency of
different treatments during the experimental period

Items                                      SCP levels g/kg diet

                                           Control   0.5 g

Feed conversion ratio                      2.73      2.45
Cost of Kg feed (LE)                       2.82      2.85
Feed cost of kg meat (LE)                  7.70      6.98
Market price of one Kg meat (LE.)          20        20
Net return (LE). *                         12.30     13.02
Economic efficiency % (Ee) of feed **      0.62      0.65
Relative economic efficiency of feed ***   100       105

Items                                      SCP levels g/kg diet

                                           1 g     2 g

Feed conversion ratio                      2.05    2.32
Cost of Kg feed (LE)                       2.87    2.92
Feed cost of kg meat (LE)                  5.88    6.77
Market price of one Kg meat (LE.)          20      20
Net return (LE). *                         14.12   13.23
Economic efficiency % (Ee) of feed **      0.71    0.66
Relative economic efficiency of feed ***   115     106

* Net return price of one Kg meat (LE.)- Cost of Kg feed (LE)

** Economic efficiency %= Net return/ price of one Kg meat (LE.)

*** Relative economical efficiency% of the control, assuming that
relative EE of the control = 100.
COPYRIGHT 2015 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hassan, Mona M.; Sheikh, S.E.M. El-; Salama, A.A.; Saeed, M. El-
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2015
Words:4765
Previous Article:Di-basic acid as cationic co-polymer surfactants additives for enhancement the rheological properties of water based mud.
Next Article:Needle insertion on soft tissue using set of dedicated complementarily constraints.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters