scholarly journals A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications During The Last Decade on Growth Performance In Animal Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatma YARDİBİ ◽  
Mehmet FIRAT
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-110
Author(s):  
Hussein Suleiman Ali ◽  
Abdul Gaffar Miah ◽  
Sabbir Hossain Sabuz ◽  
Mohammad Asaduzzaman ◽  
Ummay Salma

The study was conducted at Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Science, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University (HSTU), Dinajpur, Bangladesh to determine the nutritional composition and economic value of hydroponic wheat sprouted fodder (HWSF) replaced by commercial concentrate feed (CCF) and it’s effect on growth performance of turkey. A total of 75 poults were selected and randomly assigned into five groups (T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5), each group with 3 replications having 15 birds in each. T1 considered as control group and fed only CCF, where T2, T3, T4 and T5 groups fed 95, 90, 85 and 80% CCF along with 5, 10, 15 and 20% HWSF, respectively. The amount of DM, CP and NFE were significantly higher (P<0.01) in hydroponic maize sprouted fodder than hydroponic wheat and sesbania sprouted fodder where Ash, OM, CF, DM and EE were not significant. Live weight of turkey was increased in T1 (2074.86 g), T2 (2130.4 g), T3 (2125.75 g) and T4 (2085.53 g) except T5 (1959.4 g) groups. The live weight gain was almost similar in the turkey of T2 (29.55 g/d), T3 (29.26 g/d), T4 (28.44 g/d) and T1 (27.69 g/d) groups except T5 (23.85 g/d) group. The lowest but best feed efficiency was observed in T2 (2.60) group. Cost benefit analysis showed higher benefit in T2, T3 and T4 than in T1 and T5 group. Therefore, the overall results revealed that dietary supplementation of HWSF up to 15% may improve live weight, feed efficiency of turkey as well as reduce total feed cost. Res. Agric., Livest. Fish.6(1): 101-110, April 2019


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51
Author(s):  
M. Afolayan ◽  
I. I. Dafwang ◽  
J. J. Omage

This study was conducted in the Animal Science Departmental farm to compare the growth performance of broiler chickens reared on three on-form feeds and three commercial feeds. Broilers were fed the six types of feed during the starter phase between 0-5 weeks of age and during the finisher phase between 5-9weeks. Results showed that although one of the commercial feeds outperformed all other feeds in terms of weight gain and feed efficiency; the overall growth performance on on-farm feeds were comparable to those on commercial feeds even where one of the on-farm feeds contained sub-optimal levels of energy Ilowever, feed cost / kg weight gain was significantly lower for on-farm feeds. There were significant differences (P<0.05) between the on furm diets (T1-T3) and the commercial diets (T4 -T6) in term of feed cost per kg gain. The on farm feeds were relatively cheaper than the commercial feeds. It is concluded from this study that the widespread use of on-farm feeds hy poultry farmers can be justified on the basis of cost effectiveness and profitability considerutions. However the risks associated with this practice should be a matter of concern to all poultry farmers, research and extension personnel. It is therefore recommended that feed quality regulatory agencies should as a matter of urgency find ways by which some nieasure of quality control can be applied to on-farm feeds. 


EDIS ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Davis ◽  
Doug R. Sloan ◽  
Gerald Kidder ◽  
R. D. Jacobs

Animal manures have been used as natural crop fertilizers for centuries. Because of poultry manure’s high nitrogen content, it has long been recognized as one of the most desirable manures. Besides fertilizing crops, manures also supply other essential plant nutrients and serve as a soil amendment by adding organic matter, which helps improve the soil’s moisture and nutrient retention. Organic matter persistence will vary with temperature, drainage, rainfall, and other environmental factors. This 2-page fact sheet was written by Michael A. Davis, D.R. Sloan, Gerald Kidder, and R.D. Jacobs, and published by the UF Department of Animal Science, November 2013. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/aa205


Food Chain ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 58-78
Author(s):  
Bazit Bakare ◽  
Olufemi Onifade ◽  
Victoria Ojo ◽  
Kafayat Adebayo ◽  
Anandan Samireddypalle

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document