Evaluation the Addition of Different Kefir Milk Concentrations to Drinking Water on Some Productive and Carcass Traits Of Broiler | ||
iraqi poultry sciences journal | ||
Article 1, Volume 8, Issue 1, December 2014, Pages 63-78 | ||
Authors | ||
Ali N. Zaki; Ayad S. Ahmed | ||
Abstract | ||
This study was undertaken at the Poultry Farm pertaining to the Department of Animal Resource, College of Agriculture at the University of Baghdad during the period from 10.1.2014 to 20.2.2014 (42 days) to investigate the adding effect of different Kefir milk concentrations to drinking water on some productive and carcass traits of broiler. Four hundred and fifty-one day unsexed Ross 308 chicks were used in this study with initial body weight of 37 g each. The chicks were randomly distributed into 5 equal groups of 90 chicks each, with 3 replicates per group (30 chicks / replicate).The Kefir milk was added to drinking water (10 ml / l water) throughout the experimental period according to the following experimental groups: T1 was considered as a control group without any addition, whereas T2-T5 including addition of Kefir granules with quantities of 5, 10, 15 and 20 g per liter milk respectively. The results were addition of Kefir milk to drinking water within whole treated groups were superior in average final body weight and total weight gain and highly significant decreasing in total feed intake was noticed in Kefir milk-treated groups compared with control one and an obvious improvement in total feed conversion ratio was observed in treated groups in comparison with control group and highly significant lower total mortality rates were noted in T3 and T5 groups as compared with the other group and the T2, T3 and T5 groups exhibited greater productive index in comparison with T4 and T1 groups and the differences in dressing percentage and the relative weights of internal viscera (liver, heart and gizzard) as well as thigh cuts lacked significance. On the other hand, T2 and T5 were superior in relative weight of breast cuts as compared with T1 group. | ||
Statistics Article View: 95 PDF Download: 68 |