NAAS Score 2020

                   5.36

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Comparative Efficacy of Herbal Combined Amino Acid with Synthetic Amino Acid Supplementation on Egg Quality Parameters of White Leghorn Layers

Manik Vaijnath Dhumal Mahalsakant Gangadhar Nikam Kakasaheb K Khose
Vol 7(7), 35-47
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20170501044505

An experiment was undertaken to evaluate the comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplementation on egg quality parameters. To carry out the experiment, 240 BV300 pullets of 20 weeks age were selected and randomly distributed into five groups using complete randomized design (RBD). Each treatment group comprised of 48 layer birds and was replicated four times with twelve birds. Negative control group (T0) was fed basal diet completely devoid of lysine and biotin and with partial deficiency of methionine and choline, from 20th-41th week of age. Treatment groups fed basal diet deficient in amino acids and supplemented with herbal combined amino acid at different dose. The eggs collected were examined for exterior and interior egg quality. The results of present study revealed that basal diet supplemented with herbal combined amino acid significantly increased egg production, egg weight and egg mass. Feed cost per egg and feed efficiency was at par to that of control. Highest yolk weight was recorded for herbal combined amino acid supplemented group. The supplementation of herbal combined amino acid alternatives of synthetic amino acid succeeded in improving the shell thickness. Hence, it is concluded that diet with herbal combined amino acid formula Av/Cap/18 @ 200g/100kg of feed of feed from 20th to 41th week is most beneficial for improving egg production, egg weight, egg mass and shell thickness.


Keywords : Egg Mass Egg Yolk Shell Thickness Yolk Index

Introduction

The protein provides amino acids for tissue growth and egg production. The dietary protein requirement of layer is influenced by metabolizable energy content and the ingredients used to formulate the diets. Protein is the most expensive nutrient and must be provided from a high quality source with optimum quantity. Supplementation with synthetic amino acid in diets of poultry increases feed conversion efficiency, lowers feed cost per unit of weight gain or production, reduces nitrogen excretion and has other beneficial effects. Appropriate concentration of energy and amino acid in feed are needed in order to increase the productivity of laying hens Chan et al. (2003). Imbalance in amino acid composition in layer diet which is needed for egg protein synthesis will consequently result in lowered egg production along with poor plumage condition, cannibalism and increased mortality (Ambrosen and Peterson, 1997). The synthetic amino acid especially methionine is listed among the prohibited synthetic substances and its use has been questioned in organic farming practices because synthetic methionine is metabolized into highly toxic compounds and thereby, adversely affecting performance of poultry birds (Bender, 1975). Herbal methionine premixes, manufactured in India have recently found their way into animal feed industry. AV/CAP/18 is herbal amino acid premixes that are available in animal feed market. They are phyto-additive containing herbal ingredients that mimic the activity of methionine. Under Indian conditions, herbal methionine (Methiorep®) has been found to replace DL-methionine very effectively when used in broiler rations (Chattopadhyay et al., 2006; Kalbande et al., 2009). Hence, the present study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of herbal combined amino acid (AV/CAP/18 supplied by M/S Ayurvet Limited, Baddi, H.P, India) with synthetic amino acid on egg quality parameters. The herbal product consisting of herbs like Allium sativumMucuna pruriens and many others.

Materials and Methods

Nutrient Composition of Ingredients and the Treatment

Ingredients and Experimental Rations

The experiment was conducted at Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani (Maharashtra), India. Corn grains, DOC Soy, rice polish, groundnut cake, DORB, DCP, Vit-Mix., Min-mix ingredients were used for preparation of layer feed (Table 1). The treatment Group (T0) was negative control with basal diet. This group was fed diet completely devoid of lysine and biotin and with partial deficiency of methionine and choline chloride, from 20th -41th week. Group T1 was the positive treatment group fed basal diet supplemented with DL methionine@2kg/tone of feed, choline chloride@500, biotin@150mg/tonne and Lysine/@1kg/tonne offered. Group T2 is the treatment group fed basal diet deficient in amino acids (T0) and supplemented with AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed. Group T3 was the treatment group fed basal diet deficient in amino acids (T0) and supplemented with DL methionine@1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@2kg/tonne of feed. Group T4 is the treatment group fed basal diet deficient in amino acids (T0) and supplemented with DL methionine@1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@1.5kg/tonne of feed.

Table 1: Feed formulation, feed ingredients, mixing ratio for various treatment groups supplemented with herbal amino acid and synthetic amino acid

No. Feed Ingredients Negative Control( T0) Positive Control(T1) T2 T3 T4
1 Maize 56 56 56 56 56
2 Rice Polish 4 4 4 4 4
3 Soya meal 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5 20.5
4 Ground nut cake 7 7 7 7 7
5 Deoiled rice bran 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
6 Dicalcium Phosphate 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
7 Limestone powder 4 4 4 4 4
8 Shell grit 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
9 L-Lysine 0 0.1 0 0 0
10 DL-Methionine 0.06 0.2 0 0.1 0.1
11 Salt Pure 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
12 Sodium Bicarbonate 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
13 Choline chloride 60% 0.02 0.05 0 0 0
14 Phytase PMX 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
15 Liver Tonic (Zigbar) 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
16 Toxin Binder (UTPP) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
17 Trace mineral Mix. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
18 LAY VIT PMX 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
19 Biotin 0 0.015 0 0 0
20 AV/CAP/18 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.15
21 TOTAL 99.83 100.12 99.95 99.95 100
22 Cost Rs./Kg 15.37 16.1 15.54 15.63 15.7

Management of Experimental Birds

A study was conducted on 240 BV300 commercial layer birds of 18th week age; the birds were reared in California cages and were maintained under ideal conditions. Vaccination was done as per the recommended schedule. The birds were randomly divided into five groups of 48 birds with 3 replicates of 12 birds in each group (Table 2). The birds were having free access to feed and water.The birds were fed layer ration with 17% CP. Total feed intake per group during the experimental period of 20-41 weeks were recorded and feed efficiency was calculated.

Table 2: Experimental design for various treatment groups supplemented with herbal amino acid and synthetic amino acid

Group Treatment Dose(kg/tonne feed) No. of Birds
I Negative Group(T0) : Control diet devoid of lysine & biotin & deficient in DL Methionine & Synthetic choline chloride DL Methionine@ 60g/100 kg of feed & synthetic choline chloride@20g/100kg of feed 48
II Positive Group T1: Basal diet with synthetic Choline, methionine, lysine + biotin Basal choline@50g/100kg of feed + Biotin@15mg/100kg of Diet with synthetic methionine@200g/100kg of feed, synthetic feed + synthetic lysine@100g/100kg of fed from 18th– 40th week 48
III Group T2: Basal diet with AV/CAP/18 Basal diet with AV/CAP/18@ 48
200g/100kg of feed from 18th – 40th week
IV Group T3: Basal diet with AV/CAP/18 & DL Methionine@1kg/tonne of feed Basal diet with AV/CAP/18@100 g/100kg (or 1kg/tonne of feed)& DLM@100g/100kg of feed from 18th – 40th week 48
V Group T4: Basal diet with AV/CAP/18 Basal diet with AV/CAP/18@150 g/100kg (or 1.5 kg/tonne of feed) & DLM@100g/100kg of feed from 18th – 40th week 48

Data Collection and Measurement

Egg Quality Parameters

Egg quality parameters were measured for each replicate. The eggs gathered during time interval of 18th – 40th weeks were used to measure exterior and interior egg quality. The whole egg was weighed (g) on a sensitive weighing balance to determine average egg weight. Egg production, and egg mass was calculated based on average weight.The represented sample eggs were carefully broken out on a white tile (30 × 30 cm) with the blunt edge of a knife to separate egg contents and internal trades like the albumen, yolk, and shell thickness were measured. The albumen of the broken egg was carefully separated from the yolk using a separator and the albumen and yolk weights were recorded with a sensitive weighing balance. The egg shell was dried and weighed. From this data, albumin ratio and yolk ratio were calculated. Mortality was also recorded. Economics of each treatment was calculated on the basis of input cost.

Statistical Analysis

Mean and standard deviations were computed by applying FRBD. Economics of each treatment was calculated by simple mathematical calculations.

Results and Discussion

Egg Production Parameter

Weekly Egg Production

Treatment group T2 fed basal diet deficient in amino acids (T0) and supplemented with AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed revealed (Table3) significantly increased egg production.

Table 3: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplementation on egg Production

Week/ Treatment (T0) Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20 10.745 10.425 10.285 10.565 10.245 10.455b 0.217 0.279
21 11.320 10.815 11.245 11.530 11.465 11.275c
22 11.315 10.925 11.460 11.495 10.995 11.239c
23 11.635 11.030 11.460 11.390 11.245 11.355c
24 11.460 11.355 11.425 11.495 10.815 11.305c
25 11.530 11.245 11.175 11.635 11.315 11.385c
26 10.885 10.635 10.995 10.960 10.425 10.785b
27 11.035 11.210 11.355 11.285 10.205 11.017b
28 10.675 11.245 11.605 11.105 10.175 10.955b
29 10.455 10.995 11.175 11.785 10.495 10.981b
30 10.995 11.210 11.390 11.780 10.245 11.125c
31 11.065 11.315 11.425 11.855 10.605 11.253c
32 11.460 11.425 11.530 11.820 10.675 11.385c
33 11.640 11.355 11.640 11.745 10.715 11.418c
34 11.425 11.995 11.425 11.745 10.710 11.455c
35 11.495 10.495 11.315 11.565 10.855 11.146c
36 11.495 10.675 11.175 10.995 10.710 11.010b
37 11.105 10.245 11.065 11.315 11.205 10.985b
38 10.885 10.115 10.355 10.815 10.675 10.567b
39 10.175 9.390 9.495 9.780 9.535 9.675a
40 10.210 9.960 10.210 9.955 9.780 10.025a
41 11.125 9.815 7.685 10.250 9.685 9.715a
Overall Means 11.095bc 10.810ab 11.223bc 10.942ab 10.587a
CD 5% 0.440
CD 1% 0.580

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

The present reports found to be in agreement with Harms and Russell (1996) who also reported that supplementing methionine in the diet of laying hens increases the egg production. Similar findings were also reported by Manwar et al. (2016). They revealed that hen housed egg production in Methiorep supplemented group birds was significantly high (P<0.05) than the birds in control group birds. However, Igbasan et al. (2012) clearly revealed that layers fed on diets supplemented with HM (Meth-o-Tas®) produced less egg. The present study inferred that increase in egg production in low intake of amino acids with supplementation of herbal amino acids AV/CAP/18@ 200g/100kg of feed compensated egg production compared to treatment group (T1) indicating efficacy of herbal amino acid.

Egg Weight

The treatment group T3 supplemented with DL methionine@1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed significantly increased egg weight (Table 4).

Table 4: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on egg weight (20-22 week)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall means CD 5% CD 1%
20 484.565 475.785 464.285 478.110 469.505 474.451a 8.958 11.762
21 492.675 488.180 530.715 548.535 534.075 518.844b
22 533.395 540.675 551.930 562.785 542.035 546.165c
23 559.675 557.145 571.215 571.570 553.575 562.635d
24 575.000 579.785 579.215 589.070 544.520 573.515e
25 589.820 579.575 565.035 608.465 573.075 583.195e
26 561.925 560.785 565.855 566.325 532.680 557.514d
27 558.105 582.430 576.820 576.715 528.750 564.565d
28 544.965 601.395 606.965 585.825 535.500 574.929e
29 546.430 596.465 585.355 628.995 547.675 580.985e
30 607.535 625.035 635.105 643.640 593.355 620.935f
31 634.535 640.00 631.575 668.645 581.000 631.100f
32 650.075 661.180 640.785 666.250 650.965 653.855g
33 660.035 650.175 647.750 662.325 611.930 646.443g
34 646.355 645.000 633.500 668.335 634.390 645.516g
35 640.075 593.535 622.535 647.605 610.425 622.835f
36 629.035 601.145 607.755 613.675 596.395 609.601f
37 595.785 575.820 614.465 623.000 624.320 606.675e
38 585.095 566.500 567.745 565.250 591.425 575.205e
39 552.785 519.535 512.825 529.075 523.575 527.555b
40 557.180 553.425 558.000 562.925 542.745 554.855d
41 607.935 548.250 572.685 565.065 548.685 568.525d
Overall Means 582.404a 579.179a 583.739a 596.919b 566.845a
CD5% 18.774
CD1% 24.679

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

There is evidence in the literature to demonstrate that fortification of laying hen diets with methionine increases egg weight (Shafer et al., 1998; Narvaez-Solatre et al., 2005; Liu et al.,2005). The increase in egg weight is supported by findings of Zeweil et al. (2011) who reported that egg weight increased with increasing level of amino acid intake by laying hens.

Egg Mass

Significantly (Table 5) increased egg mass was observed for treatment group (T3) supplemented with DL methionine@1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed. The egg mass was at par to that of positive control (T1). It indicated efficacy of the herbal amino acid compared to that of negative control group (T0), with lowest egg mass.

Table 5: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on egg mass

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1) Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20 45.030 45.625 45.135 45.135 46.805 45.545a 0.543 0.712
21 45.690 47.400 47.235 47.520 47.840 46.935b
22 47.165 49.495 48.115 48.920 49.455 48.635c
23 48.065 50.420 50.345 50.155 49.195 49.635c
24 50.185 51.085 50.685 51.215 50.375 50.709d
25 51.165 51.510 50.575 52.285 50.610 51.225d
26 51.375 52.820 51.460 51.785 56.205 52.725e
27 50.525 51.925 50.725 51.115 51.845 51.225d
28 51.030 53.505 52.275 57.785 52.570 53.432e
29 52.205 54.250 52.285 53.355 53.450 53.110e
30 55.255 55.755 55.135 54.620 55.425 55.235f
31 56.095 56.615 55.395 55.545 56.415 56.015f
32 56.690 57.875 55.530 56.360 56.240 56.535f
33 56.675 57.145 55.620 56.365 57.115 56.584f
34 56.535 57.305 55.425 56.865 58.065 56.835f
35 55.655 56.555 54.995 55.955 56.190 55.870f
36 54.465 56.315 54.395 55.935 55.735 55.368f
37 53.580 56.185 55.465 55.065 55.685 55.195f
38 53.720 56.095 54.845 54.520 55.345 54.905f
39 54.340 55.285 55.490 53.705 55.375 54.835f
40 54.505 56.600 55.985 54.905 55.530 55.304f
41 54.675 55.995 55.000 56.220 55.360 55.808f
Overall Mean 52.47a 53.86b 52.88a 53.38b 53.69b
CD 5% 1.135
CD 1% 1.487

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

Significantly highest egg mass were recorded from 31_34th week of age. The increased egg mass is supported by findings of Keshavarz (1992) and Jackson. Liu et al. (2005) who reported that egg mass was found to be having positive correlation with amino acid content in the layer diet. The increase egg mass was mainly contributed from increased egg weight.

Feed Cost per Egg

The treatment group (T2) supplemented with DL methionine @1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed and treatment group T3 recorded significantly lower feed cost per egg(Table 6) compared to positive control group(T1). Similar finding was observed by Manwar et al. (2016). The results were found to be in agreement with Sharma Ranjan (2015), Pillai et al. (2006) who also reported that supplementation of Methionine increases the feed efficiency in poultry birds and thereby reduced cost.

Table 6: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on feed cost per egg (Rs/Egg)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20 1.580 1.705 1.670 1.630 1.685 1.654a 0.028 0.032
21 1.635 1.795 1.655 1.625 1.655 1.675a
22 1.635 1.775 1.625 1.630 1.715 1.676a
23 1.715 1.860 1.705 1.715 1.805 1.760b
24 1.660 1.845 1.705 1.730 1.760 1.745b
25 1.685 1.785 1.715 1.715 1.835 1.745b
26 1.675 1.805 1.755 1.690 1.745 1.735b
27 1.685 1.810 1.725 1.745 1.945 1.785c
28 1.895 1.875 1.750 1.850 2.025 1.875d
29 1.930 1.915 1.825 1.730 2.005 1.881d
30 1.825 1.880 1.790 1.735 2.005 1.847d
31 1.810 1.895 1.810 1.755 1.975 1.850d
32 1.785 1.880 1.795 1.760 1.965 1.835d
33 1.765 1.890 1.775 1.775 1.955 1.831d
34 1.795 1.910 1.810 1.775 1.915 1.841d
35 1.780 2.045 1.825 1.805 1.925 1.875d
36 1.865 2.105 1.940 1.985 2.040 1.985e
37 1.925 2.205 1.955 1.925 1.945 1.995e
38 1.965 2.235 2.105 2.015 2.045 2.075e
39 2.105 2.395 2.380 2.235 2.315 2.285f
40 2.105 2.255 2.165 2.190 2.235 2.185e
41 1.575 1.830 1.710 1.715 1.800 1.725b
Overall Means 1.796a 1.943b 1.823a 1.807a 1.926b
CD 5% 0.028
CD 1% 0.032

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

Feed Efficiency

The treatment group (T2) supplemented with DL methionine@1kg/tonne of feed and AV/CAP/18@ 2kg/tonne of feed and treatment group T3 recorded significantly better feed efficiency compared to positive control (Table 7). This may be due to the sophisticated relationship that has evolved between the GI tract and gut microbiota allows for efficient utilization of dietary nutrients. Similar finding was observed by Manwar et al. (2016). The results were found to be in agreement with Sharma Ranjan (2015), Pillai et al. (2006) who also reported that supplementation of Methionine increases the feed efficiency in poultry birds.

Table7: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on feed efficiency (20-22 week)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20 2.455 2.660 2.605 2.540 2.630 2.578b 0.037 0.059
21 2.335 2.565 2.365 2.365 2.335 2.391a
.22 2.335 2.535 2.325 2.330 2.455 2.396a
23 2.265 2.510 2.325 2.355 2.395 2.375a
24 2.305 2.435 2.330 2.330 2.495 2.375a
25 2.285 2.455 2.385 2.305 2.380 2.362a
26 2.420 2.595 2.425 2.445 2.585 2.495b
27 2.395 2.465 2.345 2.375 2.645 2.446b
28 2.480 2.525 2.245 2.425 2.665 2.468b
29 2.535 2.515 2.395 2.275 2.630 2.465b
30 2.395 2.465 2.345 2.275 2.625 2.422b
31 2.335 2.445 2.335 2.260 2.545 2.383a
32 2.305 2.425 2.315 2.265 2.530 2.367a
33 2.265 2.435 2.285 2.280 2.515 2.355a
34 2.305 2.460 2.330 2.585 2.465 2.365a
35 2.295 2.635 2.355 2.315 2.480 2.415a
36 2.295 2.590 2.385 2.445 2.515 2.445a
37 2.375 2.715 2.415 2.365 2.405 2.455a
38 2.425 2.755 2.585 2.485 2.525 2.554b
39 2.595 2.945 2.935 2.755 2.845 2.816d
40 2.590 2.775 2.615 2.695 2.755 2.686c
41 3.405 3.945 3.695 3.705 3.890 3.729e
Overall Means 2.428a 2.630b 2.467a 2.441a 2.601b
CD 5% 0.083
CD 1% 0.109

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

Egg Quality Parameters

Albumin Weight

There were non-significant differences among the various treatment groups for albumin weight (Table 8). However, numerically higher values were observed for herbal amino acid supplementary group (T2) indicating important role of herbal amino acid, it compensated to that of positive control (T1). The highest values of albumin weight were recorded during 25th and 32th week. The increase in albumen weight may be due to limited availability of amino acid having adverse effects on albumen solids (Shafer, 1998).

Table 8: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on albumin weight (gm)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20th 29.650 29.297 30.380 30.357 29.602 29.857a 1.073 1.415
25th 31.170 30.232 29.417 30.092 30.947 30.373b
32nd 32.185 32.645 30.055 27.907 29.915 30.547b
36th 27.905 28.817 29.220 29.337 28.040 28.665a
42nd 25.837 31.345 31.285 31.180 30.145 29.957a
Overall Means 29.347a 30.467a 30.077a 29.775a 29.729a
CD 5% 1.073
CD 1% 1.415

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

Yolk Weight

Herbal Combined Amino Acid Formula Av/Cap/18 and Synthetic Amino Acid Supplements on yolk weight revealed (Table 9) numerical increased yolk weight for herbal combined amino groups. The highest yolk weightwere recorded in the treatment group T4.

Table 9: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on yolk weight (gm)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20th 13.315 14.540 14.985 15.472 16.455 14.957a 1.170 1.543
25th 14.077 14.867 14.950 15.717 17.697 15.460a
32nd 15.395 16.542 18.150 17.645 19.787 17.505b
36th 20.015 18.855 18.172 18.675 18.095 18.762b
42nd 18.822 24.032 19.545 20.470 20.067 20.587c
Overall Means 16.326a 17.762a 17.162a 17.595a 18.412b
CD 5% 1.170
CD 1% 1.543

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

It clearly indicated supremacy of supplementation of herbal alternatives of amino acid. The present findings are in accordance with Shafer, (1998) who reported that increase in yolk weight may be due to limited availability of amino acid having adverse effects on albumen solids.

Shell Thickness

Significantly higher shell thickness values were recorded in the treatment group T2 (Table 10) indicating numerical increased shell thickness for herbal combined amino acid group. Thus better shell strength and ultimately egg quality was obtained with herbal product supplementation. Similar, results were obtained by Hassan and Ragab (2009) in case of supplementation of Trigonella foenum graecum on productive performance and egg quality of layers.

Table 10: Comparative efficacy of herbal combined amino acid with synthetic amino acid supplements on shell thickness (mm)

Week/

Treatment

(T0)Negative Control) (T1)Positive Control T2 T3 T4 Overall Means CD 5% CD 1%
20th 0.345 0.417 0.425 0.375 0.405 0.397a 0.028 0.032
25th 0.450 0.397 0.392 0.370 0.435 0.405a
32nd 0.415 0.400 0.387 0.387 0.382 0.392a
36th 0.602 0.620 0.640 0.652 0.635 0.625b
42nd 0.560 0.645 0.665 0.665 0.575 0.622b
Overall Means 0.472a 0.497a 0.501b 0.485a 0.482a
CD 5% 0.028
CD 1% 0.032

Note: – means in columns not sharing a common superscript differ significantly

Mortality (%)

The highest mortality was observed for T0 (4.21) followed by T4 (2.5), T1 (1.95), T3 (1.88) and T2 (1.78). The lowest mortality percent was observed in herbal combined amino acid group (Formula Av/Cap/18). This clearly indicate that an adequate dietary all amino acids are necessary for normal immune-competence and protecting the birds from variety of the diseases as reported by Peng Li et al. (2007).The implication is that dietary herbal methionine has no detrimental effect on survivability of chickens. Rajurker et al. (2009) also reported that herbal methionine supplement (Methiorep®) is totally safe and has no adverse effect even when used at the highest limit dose of 5 g/kg body weight of male wistar rats.

Conclusion

The data from trial indicates that basal diet supplemented with herbal combined amino acid formula Av/Cap/18 significantly increased egg production, egg weight, egg mass, yolk weight and shell thickness. Similarly superior feed efficiency and reduced cost of feed per egg was observed. Hence, it is concluded that diet with herbal combined amino acid formula Av/Cap/18 @ 200g/100kg of feed of feed from 20th to 41th week is most beneficial for improving egg production, egg weight, egg mass and shell thickness. AV/CAP/18 formula can be one of the best alternative for synthetic amino acids, could successfully replace the synthetic amino acids for optimum production performance of laying hens.

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly grateful to Associate Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani, for providing necessary facilities and for his help at various stages of the experiment. The authors are also highly grateful to M/S Ayurvet Limited Post Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, for providing Herbal amino acid formula AV/CAP/18 sample and sponsoring the research trial.

References

  1. Ambrosen, T., Peterson, V.E. (1997). The influence of protein levels in diet on cannibalism and plumage quality in layers. Poultry Science. 76: 559-563.
  2. Bender, D.A. (1975). Amino acid metabolism John Wiley and sons Limited 1st Ed. New York. USA, pp: 112-142
  3. Chattopadhyay K, Mondal MK, Roy B (2006). Comparative efficacy of DL-methionine and herbal methionine on performance of broiler chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5: 1034-1039
  4. Chan, C., Sender, J.E. and Dale N.M. (2003). The effect of dietary lysine deficiency on the immuno response to New castle disease vaccination in chickens. Avian Dis. 47: 1346- 1351.
  5. Harms, R.H. and Russell, G.B. (1996). A re-evolution of the methionine requirement of the commercial layer. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 9: 141-151.
  6. Hassan, H.A. and Ragab, M.S. (2009). The productive performance and egg quality of laying hens under the effect of dietary fenugreek seeds and different dietary protein levels. Poult. Dept., Fac. of Agric., Fay. Univ., Fayoum, Egypt.
  7. Igbasan F. A., Adekunle M.; Ibrahim and Bamidele I. Osho.(2012). Comparative efficacy of herbal and synthetic methionine on performance of some haematological and biochemical parameters in domestic laying hens. African Journal of Biotechnology,11(46):10617-10625(http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB)
  8. Kalbande VH, Ravikanth K, Maini S, Rekhe DS (2009). Methionine supplementation options in poultry. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 8: 588-591.
  9. Keshavarz, K. and Jackson, M.E. (1992). Performance of growing pullets and laying hens fed low protein, Amino acid supplemented diets. Poultry Science. 71: 905-918
  10. Liu, Z. Bateman, A., Bryant, M.M., Zinner, B. and Roland, D.A. (2005). Performance comparisons between DL-methionine and DL-methionine hydroxyl analogue in layers on an unequal molar basis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 14: 569-575.
  11. Manwar, S.J.;Rekhate, D.H.; Joshi, M.V.;Waghmare,S.P.; Kuralkar, S.V.; Kotgiri, R. and Ankus R. (2016). Efficacy of supplementation of herbal methionine on the performance of commercial layers. World Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research; 2(2): 38-41.
  12. Narvaez-Solarte W, Rostagno HS, Soares PR, Silva MA, Velasquez LFU (2005). Nutritional requirements in methionine + cystine for white-egg laying hens during the first cycle of production. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 4: 965-968.
  13. Peng Li, Yu-Long, Yin, Defa, Li, Sung, W.K. and Guoyao, Wu. (2007). Amino acid and immune function. British Journal of Nutrition. 98:237-252.
  14. Pillai PB, Fanatico AC, Beers KW, Blair ME, Emmert JL. Homocysteine remethylation in young broilers fed varying levels of methionine, choline and betaine. Poult Sci, 2006; 85: 90-95.
  15. Pourreza, J and Smith, W.K. (1988). Performance of laying hens fed on low sulphur Amino acid diet supplemented with Choline and methionine. British Poultry Science, 29: 605-611.
  16. Rajurker S, Rekhe DS, Maini S, Ravikanth K (2009). Acute toxicity studies of polyhedral formulation (Methiorep premix). Vet. World, 2: 58-59.
  17. Shafer, D.J., Carey, J.B., Prochask, J.F. and Sams, A.R. (1998). Dietary methionine intake effects on egg component yield, Composition, functionality and texture profile analysis. Poultry Science. 77: 1056- 1062.
  18. Sharma A, Ranjan S. Comparative effects of DL Methionine and N-Methionine on growth performance and biochemical parameters of broilers. International Journal of Current Research, 2015; 7(7): 17689-692.
  19. Zeweil, H.S., Abdalah, A.A., Ahmed, M.N. and Ahmed, R.S. (2011). Effect of different levels of protein and methonine on performance of laying hens and environmental pollution. Egypt Poultry Science. 31: 621 – 639.
Full Text Read : 1708 Downloads : 306
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close