NAAS Score 2020

                   5.36

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Effect of Herbal Amino Acids in Improving Growth and Performance in Broiler Chicken

M. V. Dhumal D. B. Bhaisare M. G. Nikam Shivi Maini
Vol 7(1), 43-53
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20161130074317

The investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of herbal amino acids in improving performance in broilers. The experiment was carried out on commercial straight run broilers. Total 400 day old Vencobb400 broiler chicks were weighed and distributed randomly into five treatment groups viz, A, B, C, D and E with four replicates of 20 chicks each. For treatment group A rations was prepared as per BIS Indian Standards (2007) and treatment group B (a negative control group) ration was formulated with reduced protein (10%). For treatment groups C & D rations were prepared by supplementing the Methiorep @ 0.10% and 0.15% respectively, in negative control group (Treatment group B). Similarly, for treatment group E, negative control group (Treatment group B) ration was supplemented with Superliv @0.05%. The weight gain, FCR for different treatments groups were non-significant. The feed consumption was significantly higher for various treatment groups compared to control A. The mortality was higher in Treatment group B compared to rest of groups. Best performance was observed for treatment groups E supplemented with Superliv. The profitability was more in Superliv supplemented group followed by Methiorep supplemented group. An increase in profitability might be due to lower feed cost, thereby reduced cost of production and higher body weight. It was concluded that Methiorep @ 0.1% of feed and Superliv @ 0.05 % of feed can be used efficiently for compensating the performance of broiler in term of body weight gain, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, livability, decrease feed cost, thereby reduced production cost and increased net profit to that of control group.


Keywords : Superlive Methiorep Amino Acids Supplementation Broiler Performance Economics

Introduction

The increase in demand for poultry meat has given momentum to use of synthetic compounds in a feed. This high cost of such compounds like synthetic methionine increases the cost of feed. In addition to this, recently the safety of such practices has been questioned and their use is becoming restricted in many parts of the world. Moreover synthetic methionine is listed among the prohibited synthetic substances and its use has been questioned in organic farming practices. Therefore there is a great renewed interest in developing natural alternative supplement to maintain animal performance and wellbeing (Chattopadhyay, 2006).

Nature has provided natural plants with methionine in dipeptide and oligopeptide forms inreadily digestible composition. When nature provided methionine to the plants for sustaining life and growth, it also concomitantly provided the enzymes required for conversion of methionine into L-isomer of active form (SAM) for its optimum utilization. Herbal methionine as a source of active methionine is claimed to be effective in its optimum activity for proper protein accretion. The mechanism of action of Mithiorep herbs is to bio-mimic the methionine pathway for Methionine biosynthesis so that they can reach better growth and performance potential.  Superliv is a Liver formula for better protection and production. It has hepatoprotective, anti-hepatotoxic, hepatoregenrative, anti-oxidant and immunomodulatory properties of ingredient herbs. Methiorep and Super –Liv are herbal premixes available in market. In this perspective a study was conducted to evaluate the effect of herbal methionine Methiorep and Super –Liv (supplied by M/S Ayurvet Limited, Baddi, HP, India) in commercial broiler chicken by reducing crude protein (10%) in the diet.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site

The experiment was carried out at the Broiler unit of Department of poultry Science, College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Parbhani, Maharashtra , Animal and Fishery Science University Nagpur( MS) India .

Management of Experimental Birds

The experiment was carried out on commercial straight run broilers for a period of 42 days (6 weeks) from 19/01/2016 to 1/03/2016 in the Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani. A total of 400 day-old straight run broilers chicks (Vencob400), from Venkateshwara hatchery Pune were used and distributed into 5 treatments ( floor pens), 80 birds per treatment, each treatment was measuring 80 sq.ft area. On arrival, the chicks were weighed and distributed randomly into five treatment groups viz, A, B, C, D and E with four replicates of 20 chicks each. The feed ingredients used in the present experiment were purchased from local market.

Table 1: Experimental Design Used For Housing of Broiler Chicken

Treat-

ment group

Treatment group Details No. of birds/pen/ replication No. of replication Total Birds
A Control basal diet as per BIS(2007)

(Normal level of DLM 0.2%)

20 4 80
B Basal Diet with reduced CP 10 % 20 4 80
C Basal Diet with reduced CP 10% +

+ Methiorep 0.1%

20 4 80
D Basal Diet with reduced CP 10% +

+ Methiorep 0.15%

20 4 80
E Basal Diet with reduced CP 10% +

+ Superliv conc. Premix 0.05%

20 4 80
Total number of birds 400

Ingredients and Formulation of Experimental Rations

For treatment group A rations was prepared as per BIS (2007) and treatment B (a negative control group) ration was formulated with reduced protein (10%). For treatment C & D rations were prepared by supplementing the Methiorep @ 0.10% and 0.15% respectively, in negative control group(Treatment group B). Similarly, for treatment group E, negative control group (Treatment group B) ration was supplemented with Superlive con. Premix @0.05% (Table 1). The feed was prepared at Feed Mixing Plant, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani. The diet composition and nutritional level in feed during prestarter, starter and finisher are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Percent Ingredients Composition and Feed Cost of Pre-Starter, Starter and Finisher Ration of Different Treatment Groups

Control (A) Treatment (B)
Feed Ingredients Rates Pre-Starter Cost

( Rs)

Starter Cost

( Rs)

Finishe Cost

( Rs)

Pre-Starte Cost

( Rs)

Starter Cost

( Rs)

Finish Cost

( Rs)

Maize 16.5 53.2 877.8 54.3 895.95 58.9 971.85 53.2 877.8 61.5 1014.75 65.4 1079.1
Vegetable oil 75 3.0 225 4.7 352.5 5.8 435 3.0 225 4.2 315 5.30 397.5
Soya-bean meal 37.5 41.0 1537.5 38.20 1432.5 32.50 1218.75 41.0 1537.5 31.5 1181.25 26.5 993.75
Dicalcium phosphate 45 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5
Limestone powder 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3
Salt 4 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2
Mineral mixture 70 0.30 21 0.30 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21
Vitamin mixture 550 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5
D L-Methionine 600 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120
Methiorep* 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Super live * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lysine 180 0.17 30.6 0.130 23.4 0.100 18 0.170 30.6 0.130 23.4 0.100 18
Choline chloride 100 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6
Coccidiostat 300 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18
Cost /100kg 2990.1 3023.5 2962.80 2990.1 2853.6 2807.6
Decrease in cost(%) 5.62 5.23
Crude protein (%)(calculated) 23.08 22.07 19.92 23.08 19.71 17.81
Crude protein estimated 22.28 21.83 19.62 20.64 18.41 17.52
Metabolisable energy

(Kcal/kg) (calculated)

3011.16 3065 3171.45 3011.16 31076 3220
E:P ratio 130.46:1 138. 87:1 159.20:1 130.46:1 159.75:1 180.79:1
Treatment (C) Treatment (D) Treatment (E )
Feed Ingredients Rates Pre-Starter Cost

( Rs)

Starter Cost

( Rs)

Finisher Cost

( Rs)

Pre-Starter Cost

( Rs)

Starter Cost

( Rs)

Finisher Cost

( Rs)

Pre-Starter Cost

( Rs)

Starter Cost

( Rs)

Finisher Cost

( Rs)

Maize 16.5 53.2 877.8 61.5 1014.75 65.4 1079.1 53.2 877.8 61.5 1014.75 65.4 1079.1 53.2 877.8 61.5 1014.75 65.4 1079.1
Vegetable oil 75 3.0 225 4.2 315 5.30 397.5 3.0 225 4.2 315 5.30 397.5 3.0 225 4.2 315 5.30 397.5
Soya-bean meal 37.5 41.0 1537.5 31.5 1181.25 26.5 993.75 41.0 1537.5 31.5 1181.25 26.5 993.75 41.0 1537.5 31.5 1181.25 26.5 993.75
Dicalcium phosphate 45 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5 1.5 67.5
Limestone powder 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3 1.0 3
Salt 4 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.2
Mineral mixture 70 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.300 21 0.30 21 0.30 21 0.30 21
Vitamin mixture 550 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5 0.150 82.5
D L-Methionine 600 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120 0.200 120
Methiorep 140 0.100 14 0.100 14 0.100 14 0.150 45 0.150 21 0.150 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
Superliv 0.05% 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 7.9 50 7.9 50 7.9
Lysine 180 0.170 30.6 0.130 23.4 0.100 18 0.170 30.6 0.170 30.6 0.170 30.6 0.170 30.6 0.130 23.4 0.100 18
Choline chloride 100 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.060 6 0.60 6 0.60 6 0.60 6
Coccidiostat 300 0.06 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.060 18 0.60 18 0.60 18 0.60 18
Cost /100kg 3004.1 2867.60 2821.60 3035.1 2881.8 2841.20 2998 2861.50 2815.5
% decrease in the cost 5.15 4.76 4.68 4.10 5.35 4.97
Crude protein (%) (calculated) 23.08 19.63 17.81 23.08 19.63 17.81 23.08 19.63 17.81
Crude protein estimated 22.33 20.87 14.99 22.84 20.72 15.32 20.86 18.02 17.07
Metabolisable energy (Kcal/kg) (calculated) 3011.16 3136 3220 3011.16 3011.16 3011.16 3011.16 3136 3220
E:P ratio 130.46:1 159.75:1 180.79:1 130.46:1 159.75:1 182.99:1 130.46:1 159.75:1 180.79:1

*Methiorep & Superliv conc. were added to feed as per experimental plan shown in treatment details

Characteristics of the product used

  • Name : Methiorep & Superliv conc.
  • Description : Herbal ingredients rich in Methionine in free and conjugated form
  • Producer : AYURVET LIMITED
  • Batch No : To be provided

The pre-starter ration was offered for first eight days, starter ration was offered from 9th day up to end of 21stday of age and finisher ration was offered thereafter up to 42nd day of age. The cost of rearing the chicks for complete experiment was calculated by taking into consideration the cost of chick, cost of total feed consumed by bird, cost of litter, vaccination, medication expenses.

Data Collection and Parameters

The cumulative weight gain, feed consumption, FCR and mortality were recorded replicate wise at weekly interval and from these data the average weekly weight gain per bird, feed consumption FCR and mortality were calculated for various treatment groups. The cost of rearing the chicks for complete experiment was calculated by taking into consideration the cost of chick, cost of total feed consumed by bird, cost of different litters , vaccination, medication expenses. However, gross profit per bird was calculated by subtracting the cost of production per bird from the price fetched per bird after selling it in the local market on live weight basis.

Statistical Analysis

Data, thus collected were subjected to statistical analysis by using F Randomized block Design by Snedecor, and Cochran, (2002). The treatment means were compared by critical differences (CD) and analysis of variance.

Results and Discussion

Cumulative Gain in Weight

An average means for the weekly cumulative weight gain of broiler chickens at different age groups are presented in Table 3. The analysis of variance for the mean weekly cumulative body weight gain at different weeks showed non-significant differences among the treatment groups (Table 4). Non-significant influence of methiorep and Superliv concentrate on cumulative body weight gain is in consistent with the finding reported by Wang et al (2004), Bertram et al (1991), they showed that there was significant influence of herbal amino acids on body weight gain, but in their study normal protein level diet was considered. It indicated that addition of methionine and Superliv conc. in 10% reduced protein diet resulted into compensation of cumulative gain in weight confirming efficacy of methionine and Superliv conc. at par with that of control group.

Cumulative Feed Consumption

An average means for the cumulative feed consumption of broiler chickens at different age groups are presented in Table 3. The analysis of variance for the mean cumulative feed consumption at different week showed significant differences (P< 0.05) among the treatment groups (Table 4). The significantly higher cumulative feed consumption(3660.99g) recorded for treatment group E, followed by treatment group B, C, D compared to group A. Significantly higher feed consumption was observed for Superliv conc. and Methiorep supplemented groups. It concluded that there is no any adverse effect of herbal amino acids on feed consumption, palatability and thereby performance of broiler. These findings are correlated with the findings of Garlich (1985) and Bertrem et al (1991) who reported that feed intake differed significantly due to methionine supplementation. In contrast to the present findings, Chattopadhyay et al (2006) indicated that herbal methionine did not improve the feed intake compared to DL methionine.

Cumulative Feed Conversion Ratio

The mean cumulative feed conversion ratios of broilers for different age groups are presented in Table 3. The analysis of variance showed non significant differences (P<0.05) among the treatment groups (Table 4). The mean weekly feed conversion ratio(1.83 ) up to 6th week for Methiorep and Superliv conc treatment groups are similar to that of control, indicated that herbal amino acid compensated FCR similar to that of control group. Methiorep and Superliv conc. treatment groups are similar to that of control, may be due to more release and balancing of amino acids thereby compensating the performance of birds. The feed conversion ratio of broiler for Methiorep and Superliv conc. supplemented groups are similar to that of control group, might be due to the increase availability of amino acid from herbal amino acid sources. This finding is correlated with the findings of Garlich (1985) and Bertrem et al (1991) who found that feed conversion was better when methionine was supplemented in the diet. A similar result was also reported by Schutte and Pack (1995) and Rostagno and Barbosa (1995). However Wang et al (2004) were not agreed with present findings. It can be concluded that supplementation of methiorep @ 1 gm /kg of feed and Superliv concentrate @ 0.5 gm/kg of feed improved feed conversion ratio of commercial broiler birds which is beneficial to the farmers.

Table 3: Cumulative gain in weight, feed consumption (g) per bird and FCR of broilers at different age groups supplemented with Methiorep®, Superliv conc

Parameter

Age

Cumulative gain in weight Cumulative feed consumption Cumulative FCR
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
A 124.07 320.23 607.30 1069.76 1470.41 2007.597 114.76 462.29 940.61 1728.29 2563.43a 3598.28a 1.13 1.44 1.55 1.61 1.74 1.79a
B 122.21 318.92 613.10 1070.66 1478.88 1954.549 114.87 469.09 948.72 1739.67 2639.23b 3647.49b 1.20 1.47 1.54 1.62 1.78 1.86c
C 124.45 325.53 612.40 1070.16 1455.07 1990.631 123.10 478.41 960.25 1754.76 2632.13b 3646.86b 1.24 1.47 1.57 1.63 1.80 1.83b
D 125.36 329.87 627.87 1079.98 1450.98 1959.862 129.60 486.77 980.40 1782.05 2623.21b 3637.10b 1.28 1.47 1.56 1.65 1.80 1.85c
E 126.01 331.30 622.54 1082.07 1461.32 1992.361 134.73 495.20 994.63 1792.29 2624.07b 3660.99b 1.31 1.49 1.59 1.65 1.79 1.83b

Table 4: Analysis of variance for weekly Cumulative gain in weight of broilers at different age groups supplemented with Methiorep®, Superliv conc

Cumulative gain in weight Cumulative feed consumption Cumulative FCR
Source Df SS MSS ‘F’ value SS MSS ‘F’ value SS MSS ‘F’ value
Treatment 4 337.2087 84.30217 0.600193 8122.347 2030.587 10.64254** 0.016953 0.004238 6.768375*
Weeks 5 12614472 2522894 17961.85** 45271096 9054219 47454.22** 1.208523 0.241705 385.9986**
Error 20 2809.171 140.4585 3815.981 190.799 0.012524 0.000626
Total 29 12617618 2810878 1.237999

Table 5: Mortality percent of broilers at different groups supplemented with Methiorep and Superliv conc.

Treatments

Group

Mortality Percent Carcass yield (%) Breast yield (%) Abdominal fat pad (%) Fat Thickness
Mean S E Mean S E Mean S E Mean S E
A 2.5 74.51 3.85 26.41 b 0.57 0.74 0.43 0.01 0.01
B 6.25 74.75 3.28 22.79a 0.94 0.32 0.19 0.03 0.01
C 3.75 70.90 5.04 25.03 b 1.29 0.85 0.49 0.03 0.02
D 2.5 64.77 0.66 28.26c 2.34 1.24 0.71 0.03 0.02
E 3.75 67.20 0.41 29.76c 0.85 0.83 0.48 0.04 0.02

Table 6: Analysis of variance for Carcass yield (%) and Breast yield (%) of broilers supplemented with Methiorep and Superliv con

Source Df Carcass yield (%) Breast yield (%) Abdominal fat pad (%) fat thickness
MSS ‘F’ value MSS ‘F’ value MSS ‘F’ value MSS ‘F’value
Treatment 4 58.4913 1.89124 1.055031 1.467322 1.055031 1.467322 0.000652 0.791314
Weeks 15 30.92749 0.719018 0.719018 0.000823

Mortality

The mortality percent in the various treatment groups is presented in Table and depicted in histogram. The highest mortality was observed in treatment group B. However there were non significant differences in methionine supplemented groups. Significantly increase in the mortality in treatment group B was due to acites and heat stroke in low protein group. The patho-physiological changes observed under postmortem examination of dead bird did not attribute to the dietary treatments. It indicated that dietary supplementation of herbal methionine had no detrimental effect on survivability. Similar to present study, Chattopadhyay (2003) observed that neither DL methionine nor herbal methionine supplementation had significant effect on broiler mortality.

Carcass Traits

Edible Carcass Yield

An average mean for the edible carcass yield of broilers for different age groups at 42nd day are presented in Table 5. The analysis of variance showed non significant differences among the treatment groups( Table 6). The nonsignificant differences among the treatment groups concluded that edible carcass yield produced by Methorep @ 0.1 % and 0.15% and Super liv concentrate @0.5% are similar to that of control group without affecting the carcass yield.

Breast yield

An average mean for the percentage of breast yield of broilers for different age groups at 42nd day are presented in Table 5 and also depicted in Figure through histogram. The analysis of variance (Table 6) revealed significantly lower breast yield for treatment group B whereas, higher values reported for Methorep and Superliv con supplemented groups. The findings in the present study are in agreement with reports of Chattopadhyay (2003), Kiran et al (2012). From these findings it is concluded that supplementation of methorep and Superliv concentrate increases percentage of breast yield which may be preferred by the Indian consumers.

Abdominal Fat Pad Percentage

The mean values for the abdominal fat pad percent of broilers for different age groups at 42nd day are presented in Table 5. The analysis of variance (Table 6) showed non-significant differences among the various treatment groups. The findings in the present study are in agreement with findings of Helder and Roy (2007) they reported non-significant influence on abdominal fat pad. In contrast, Ojano-Dirain and Waldroup (2002) reported significant influence.

Abdominal Fat Thickness

The mean values for the abdominal fat thickness of broilers for different age groups at 42nd day are presented in Table 5. The analysis of variance (Table 6) showed non-significant differences among the various treatment groups. The non-significant influence was observed among the various treatment groupsfor abdominal fat thickness, however, Huyghebaert et al. (1994), Jeroch and Pack, (1995), Schutte and Pack, (1995) reported decreased fat deposition due to supplementation of Harbal amino acid.

Economics of Broiler Production

During the present study attempts were made to calculate the economics of broiler production from different treatment groups, which is presented in (Table 7). The economics of broiler production of the experiment was worked out considering the purchase rates of chicks, ingredients, expenditure required for purchasing of Methiorep and Superliv concentrate and the prices at which the birds were sold in the market on live weight basis. The cost of day old chicks, feed, medication, vaccination, litter and other overheads were considered while calculating the cost of production. However, the costs of labour were not considered in calculating the cost of production of the broilers as this experiment being a research work. The cost of prestarter, starter and finisher ration for all control and treatment groups are presented in (Table 3).

From economics of broiler production in the present study it is cleared that net profit per bird was significantly higher among Methiorep and Superliv concentrate supplemented groups, showing the highest return (Rs) in Treatment group E (46.35) followed by Treatment group C ( 44.98), Treatment group A (44.36), Treatment group D (42.84) and Treatment group B (40.81). This variation occurred mainly due to variation in feed intake, feed cost, weight gain and mortality. The findings are in agreement with the finding reported by Halder and Roy. They reported that Methiorep supplemented group recorded higher profit than unsupplemented group. Significant increased in the net profit per bird (13.57%) and (10.2%) with supplementation of Superliv concentrate and Methiorep respectively, in a ration with reduced protein level concluded that there was decrease cost of feed, thereby reduced cost of production and ultimately it has increased net profit compared to control group.

Table 7: Economics of Broiler Production Supplemented With Methiorep and Superliv Concentrate

Economics
Sr. No. Particulars A B C D E
1 Cost of day old chick (Rs) 26 26 26 26 26
2 Feed consumption (g)
i) Prestarter 140.88 165.54 155.44 161.68 160.53
ii) Starter 799.72 801.58 805.21 820.13 829.09
ii) Finisher 2657.65 2656.84 2681.02 2635.88 2658.14
Total 3598.25 3624.96 3641.26 3617.08 3647.82
3 Rate of feed (Rs/kg)
i) Prestarter 29.90 29.90 30.04 30.35 29.98
ii) Starter 30.23 28.53 28.67 28.81 28.61
iii) Finisher 29.30 28.07 28.21 28.41 28.15
4 Cost of feed consumed (per bird Rs.)
i) Prestarter 4.18 4.95 4.66 4.90 4.81
ii) Starter 24.17 22.87 23.08 23.62 23.72
iii) Finisher 77.86 74.57 76.63 74.88 74.82
Total cost of feed consumed per bird (Rs.) 106.21 102.39 104.37 103..40 103.15
5 Miscellaneous cost* (Rs) 5 5 5 5 5
6 Total cost of production (1+4+5) 111.21 107.39 109.37 108.40 108.15
7 Average live weight (g) 2047.12 1954.42 2031.13 1999.48 2033.54
8 Return obtained @ Rs. 76 per kg live weight 155.57 148.20 154.35 151.24 154.50
9 Net profit/ bird (Rs) 44.36 40.81 44.98 42.84 46.35
10 Net profit/ kg LW(Rs) 21.74 20.92 22.15 21.52 22.83

*Miscellaneous cost includes cost of medicines, vaccines, litter and other expenses excluding the cost of phytase enzyme

From the present study, it is concluded that Methiorep @ 0.1% and Superliv concentrate @ 0.05 % of feed can be used efficiently for compensating the performance of broiler in term of body weight gain, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, livability, decrease feed cost, thereby reduced production cost and increased net profit to that of control group . However, there was no any positive response for increasing dose level of Methiorep (0.01 to 0.15 gm per kg feed).

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to Dr. S.B. Majee, Associate Dean College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani for providing infrastructure facilities. The authors are also thankful to M/S Ayurvet Limited, Baddi, HP, India for sponsoring the research trial.

References

  1. Bertram H.L., Van Weerden E.J. and Schutte J.B. 1991. Dl methionine and DL methionine hydroxyl analogy compared: there is a difference in biological activity in broiler diets. Misset world Poult. 7:13-15
  2. Chattopadhyay K., Mondal M.K. and Roy 2006. Comparative efficacy of DL methionine and herbal methionine on performance of chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5:1034- 1039.
  3. Chattopadhyay R.R.2003.Possible mechanism of hepatoprotective activity of Azadirachta indica leaf extract: part IInd, J. Ethanopharmacol 89:217-219.
  4. Garlic J.D.1985. Response of broiler DL Methionine hydroxyl analogy- free acid, DL methionine and L methionine. Poult. Sci. 64:1541-1584
  5. Halder G, Roy B.2007. Effect of herbal and synthetic methionine on performance cost benefit ratio, meat and feather quality of broiler chicken. Int J Agri Res, 2(12):987-996.
  6. Huyghebaert G.M., Pack and Groote G.D. 1994. Influence of protein concentration on the response of broiler to supplemental DL methionine. Arch.Geflugelk, 58;23-29.
  7. Jeroch H. and Pack M. 1995. Effects of dietary sulphur aminoacids and crude protein on the performance of finishing broilers. Arch. Anim. Nutr., 48:109-118.
  8. Kiran K, Tiwari S.P., Subhankar N., Saxena M.J., Ravikant K., and Shivi Maini 2012. Studies on comparative efficacy of herbal amino acids (Methiorep) supplement with synthetic DL methionine on broiler growth performance and carcass quality traits, Int. J. Scientific and research publications. 2(8):1-6.
  9. Ojano-Dirai, C.P and P.W. Waldroup, 2002. Evaluation of lysine, methionine and thrionine need of broilers three to six weeks of age under moderate temperature stress. Int. J. Poult. Sci 1:16-21
  10. Schutre J.B and Pack M.1995. Sulphur amino acid requirement of broiler chicks from 14-38 days of age on performance and carcass yield, Poult. Sci. 74:480-487.
  11. Wang Y.Z., Z.R, Xu and Feng J. (2004). The effect of betaing and DL Methionine on growth performance and carcass characteristics in meat ducks. Anim. Feed. Sci. Tec. 116:151-159.
Full Text Read : 1676 Downloads : 244
Previous Next

Open Access Policy

Close